MORE ON KING & KING: From the Wilmington Star-News

For 7-year-old Jake Widener, it's OK for young children to read King & King, a book that ends with a gay marriage.

"It was a good book because there are some people out there in the world that are gay," he said. "It's good to respect people and their opinions. It's OK to be gay."

Jake, a second-grader at the Cape Fear Center for Inquiry, was one of several children and parents who participated in a discussion Wednesday about the controversial book. The Star-News invited parents and children to review the book to provide a broader perspective to readers.

The controversy exploded a few weeks ago after a couple complained when their 7-year-old daughter brought home the book from Freeman Elementary School. A school committee voted 8-3 last week to put the book under lock and key so only adults, including parents and teachers, can check it out. ...

Ms. Batson said the only part she didn't necessarily agree with was when the queen states that she had been married twice by the time she was her son's age. Her comments seemed to trivialize marriage, she said.

But she said a lot of families, including her own, must deal with divorce.

Logan Graffius, 10, said he didn't see anything abnormal about the book.

He said it seemed like the kind of book children would want to read. ...

In general, the parents and children said the school committee made the right decision given the circumstances, but they also noted that they wouldn't have a problem with keeping the book in the school library.

"It's an acceptable compromise," Ms. Graffius said. "But there's nothing radical about the book."

more
posted by Eve at 2:54 PM | link 0 comments

DEMS UNITED AGAINST BEING DIVIDED BY GAY MARRIAGE: From the Washington Blade

[Points for Kerry snippiness (I've bolded). Points off for bad grammar in that "Part picnic, part gala" sentence.--Eve]

It was billed as the most successful fund-raising event ever staged by the Democrats, with a reported take of $11 million.

Indeed, the Democrats' "unity dinner," staged last Thursday at the National Building Museum, was a sight to behold, bringing together not just disparate elements of the Democratic Party, but of grand-scale events, as well: a little bit circus, a tad awards show and, of course, a little bit rock 'n' roll. Part picnic, part gala, guests paid $1,000 each to chaw on barbecue served on plasticware in the museum's elegant atrium, surrounded by columns of all three orders of classical architecture. ...

"We are so unified," said emcee Ann Richards, the former Texas governor, "that before their wives got wind of it, Joe Lieberman and Al Sharpton were on their way to San Francisco for a marriage license." ...

Neither Gore nor Carter nor Clinton mentioned gay marriage, the proposed constitutional amendment to ban it endorsed by President Bush--or any gay-specific issues, for that matter.

John Kerry, who had the misfortune of following Clinton's sermon, gave the topic an oblique reference. "George Bush, who has promised to be a uniter, has become the great divider," Kerry intoned. "He has proposed to amend the [U.S.] Constitution for political purposes. He has no right to misuse the most precious document in our history in an effort to divide this nation and distract us from his failures."

The senator failed to note his own support for amending the Massachusetts constitution, a document with an apparent preciousness deficit, to prohibit gay marriage, recently rendered into law by the commonwealth's Supreme Court. It’s a surprising turn for a senator who, deeming the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act an act of gay-bashing, stood courageously among a handful who refused to sign it.

more
posted by Eve at 2:49 PM | link 0 comments

SCHOOL RESTRICTS BOOK ABOUT GAY PRINCES: From the Associated Press

A children's book about a prince whose true love turns out to be another prince will be available only to adults in an elementary school's library, a committee has decided. The book, called King & King, will be locked up at Freeman Elementary School in response to complaints by some parents, a school committee ruled last week in an 8-3 vote. The parents who initially complained after their first-grader brought home the book say the decision satisfies them. Michael and Tonya Hartsell said they never wanted the book banned. "It might be appropriate in certain situations," Michael Hartsell said. "But a child of this age shouldn't have a choice." In the book, a queen tells her single son, Prince Bertie, that she had already been married twice at his age. The prince dismisses a line of eligible princesses before finally falling for Prince Lee. The final page of the book shows the two princes kissing with a red heart covering their lips.

link (scroll down)
posted by Eve at 2:45 PM | link 0 comments

WV SUPREME COURT WON'T HEAR SSM CASE: From the Charleston Gazette

The state Supreme Court voted 3-2 Thursday not to hear a petition that asked the court to allow same-sex marriages in West Virginia.

Chief Justice Spike Maynard and Justices Warren McGraw and Joseph Albright voted against hearing the case. Justices Robin Davis and Larry Starcher voted to hear the petition.

The petition, brought by four gay and lesbian couples, argued that a decision by Kanawha County Clerk Alma King to deny them marriage licenses was a violation of their right to equal protection under the state constitution.


Kanawha County Prosecutor Mike Clifford, who is King's attorney in the case, said a 2000 state law that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman was the final word on the debate in West Virginia.

West Virginia is one of 38 states that specifically limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that it will lead to the disintegration of marriage as an institution. They also have said that homosexual marriage could open the door to other unconventional unions.

Same-sex marriage has stormed to the forefront of the nation’s political debate. President Bush has called for a constitutional amendment banning it, which his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry, opposes.

The original plaintiffs in the West Virginia case, Patricia Bailey and Sheila Chambers, said same-sex marriage is necessary so they can have rights, including hospital visitation rights and the right to be on their partner's health-care plan.

Their lawyer, Roger Forman, was not available for comment Thursday.

Jeremy Davis of Boone County, who joined the petition in mid-March with his partner, Jamie Bailey, said they would fight on even if the court denied the petition.

"This is only the beginning," Davis said. "Them turning it down is not the end. It’s just a matter of time."

link
posted by Eve at 2:28 PM | link 0 comments

PARENTING AND SSM: Ben Bateman replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

(Sorry that this is long, but it's hard to know what is obvious and what is not.)

In a previous post, I argued for a distinction between two meanings of the word "parent." On the one hand, it can refer to the two people who genetically produce a child, and on the other it can refer to those people who help raise a child, especially those who legally take on that responsibility. The dictionary lists both definitions.

Mr. Rosenberg used the word without distinction in two statements: "Parents ought to be married," and, "Gays are parents." I responded that "parents" in the first sentence uses the genetic definition, while in the second it uses the upbringing definition. Mr. Rosenberg's response shows how difficult basic communication can be in the SSM debate.

Two quick preliminary points: First, I don't see how it's relevant to the truth of a statement that some would disagree with it or be offended by it. Second, the point of my post was not the "correct" definition of the word "parent" in some transcendental sense. Mr. Rosenberg is of course free to use the word however he likes, as long as he is clear about it. Instead, my objection was simply that the two premises in his syllogism used the word in different senses.

Mr. Rosenberg says that he doesn't understand my premises. So rather than responding point by point to his post, it would be more productive to try to clarify those premises.

Mr. Rosenberg clearly thinks very highly of those who are willing to raise children with whom they have no genetic relationship. I share his sentiments, especially in the very common and tragic situation of a young woman who believes that the father of her child will marry her, or who marries unwisely and is later forced to divorce to protect herself and her children. Mr. Rosenberg is also interested in egg or sperm donor situations where the non-genetic parent encouraged the production of the child out of wedlock. That is a rarer and very different situation that requires a separate discussion.

When we start with children whose genetic parents cannot or will not both raise them for whatever reason, the natural response of every moral person is to want those children to get the best upbringings possible. The people who adopt those children are generally very kind people who are doing something morally wonderful. They are to be praised and admired.

So I agree with Mr. Rosenberg on the importance and goodness of adoption. But I also see another part of the picture that he seems to miss: Who produced those children? The vast majority need adoption because some man or some woman produced them without intending to raise them. Heterosexual irresponsibility creates the problem; adoption tries to fix the damage it causes. As much as I feel for those children currently in need of adoption to enjoy a two-parent home, I feel even more for the many more children yet unborn who will also need it in the future. While we're helping today's children who can't have two-parent homes, can't we also take steps to reduce the number of children who will have the same problem tomorrow?

It is possible for human beings to restrain their impulses and choose not to have sex until they are prepared to raise any children they produce. In fact, most people have done that for most of recorded history. In most places and most times in the past few thousand years, most people have felt a moral responsibility control their own reproductive urges. Women have been encouraged to have sex with only one man, and not to have sex with that man until he has committed himself, legally and morally, to recognize her children as his and support them.

That was the definition of sexual responsibility. It was called marriage.

I ask Mr. Rosenberg to consider a larger picture than the relationship between a child and adoptive parent: Let's discourage people from producing children who need to be adopted! Let's encourage sexual responsibility by urging people to marry before they have sex, and to stay married once they've produced children.

When I wrote that a same-sex couple can "play the role of parents," your response spun that into "Parents who adopt are 'role playing,'" which another blogger further spun into a distinction between "real" parents and "role-playing" parents. This turned my point completely upside down, because it focused on the children and their adoptive parents rather than the people who produced the children and thereby created the need for the adoption in the first place. The genetic parents are the ones whose irresponsibility created the problem that some very generous and caring person was willing to help solve. Adoptive non-genetic parents are "playing the role of parents" in the sense that they are voluntarily taking on a burden that should properly fall on the genetic parents. That isn't an insult of non-genetic parents; it's bemoaning the fact that so many children need non-genetic parents.

Mr. Rosenberg focuses on marriage as a way to make child raising easier for whoever has volunteered to raise a child. In my view, the main point of marriage is to affect the behavior of heterosexuals before they produce children. It's to encourage them to first commit to each other sexually, financially, and emotionally, and then have children, so increase the chance that those children will grow up in stable homes, and so that the effort and expense of raising them falls on those who decided to make them. The legal benefits of marriage that make childrearing easier are primarily enticements to sexual responsibility, not rewards for taking on the job of raising a child.

Irresponsible heterosexuals will always make more children than the number of available adoptive or foster parents. The only solution--the proven historical solution--is to encourage heterosexuals to restrain their urges by waiting until marriage to have sex. Most Americans once did that, and I believe that they can do it again.
posted by Eve at 9:46 PM | link 0 comments

PARENTING AND SSM: Mary Catelli replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

Gabriel Rosenberg says, "I'm afraid I and almost all of society will--rightfully so--continue to use the word 'parents' to refer to those with a legal and/or moral responsibility to raise and care for a child."

Except that he is not using the word "parent" to denote someone with responsibilities toward a child. He means, by it, a genetic or adoptive parent or someone who is having sexual intercourse with a genetic or adoptive parent. Your roommate might help raise your child without being your lover. So might your neighbor or -- especially -- your nanny. Should all of these people get married? Why are these people not "parents" in his parlance?
posted by Eve at 9:41 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGE AND MONOGAMY: Mark Barton replies to Lynn Gazis-Sax

Lynn Gazis-Sax: I'd say that, under those circumstances, sticking by your religious beliefs in premarital chastity is a rational choice.

Mark B.: Yes and no. If you're a person of conservative religious views whose goal is to have a marriage that endures no matter what, then it's certainly rational to pick a like-minded religious conservative, because you then have considerable extra assurance that he/she won't walk out no matter how miserable you both may end up. On the other hand, I don't view making a primary goal out of mere endurance of a marriage as particularly rational. I'd like to see marriages last only as long as they're meeting the emotional needs of the people in them (including any kids). (Deciding when that's occurred is tricky because multiple people are involved, but that doesn't make knee-jerk absolutism rational.) And if marriages are going to fail, I'd like to see them fail early, in particular, if at all possible before any kids come along to raise the stakes. And given that different couples are working to different goals, it would not be particularly rational of religious conservatives to congratulate themselves too much based on the experiences of other couples.

Lynn Gazis-Sax: On the contrary, the evidence I see around me is that, hard and "unrealistic" though it may be to expect to stay sexually faithful to one person, it seems to be even more unrealistic to expect to tolerate your spouse sleeping with another person.

Mark B.: Gay men are not immune to jealousy. It's hard either way, and the best solution depends on the personalities of the people involved, as well as any age or power imbalances. The take-home message is not that open relationships are a must, but that negotiation is a must.

Lynn Gazis-Sax: If sexual fidelity isn't something expected of marriage, but rather a mere private arrangement--something as optional as avoiding premarital sex is now--then I no longer benefit from the general expectation that my husband and I are no longer open to sexual propositions.

Mark B.: Why is that a significant benefit? If propositioned, you just politely say that you're in a monogamous relationship. Only a cad would press the issue further.

Lynn Gazis-Sax: Many women--including ones who are firmly pro-choice as to what should be legally permitted to other women--are unwilling to consider an abortion for themselves, in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.

Mark B.: As I said, that's entirely their prerogative. And if that's their position then they are morally committed to something rather closer to the traditional model.

Lynn Gazis-Sax: And, remember, this whole argument comes up in the context of whether straight married couples can benefit from allowing some sex outside of their marriage. So, if a husband's mistress' birth control fails, what is the wife to expect? That she'll get an abortion to suit the wife's convenience? That she'll forgo her right to support from the father of her child because she doesn't want to trouble his wife? It's just wildly unrealistic to advocate marital "arrangements" without considering the fact that pregnancies will result.

Mark B.: Quite so. The whole point is to think about some of these possibilities up front and make "arrangements" rather than be caught by surprise when someone yields to temptation and cheats anyway as often happens. On the one hand, it's not as if the present system is working all that well. DNA studies have consistently shown that a significant minority of kids (10-20%) are fathered by someone other than the man listed on the birth certificate. And on the other hand, the experience of gay men is not irrelevant because they have faced an analogous problem with STDs. Safe sex practices are reliable (although not foolproof) when conscientiously applied but tedious and easy to get sloppy about. On paper, strict monogamy is a perfect solution. In practice it often fails due to cheating, and the failures are typically disproportionately
destructive because they're unprepared for.
posted by Eve at 9:39 PM | link 0 comments

CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT: Mark Barton replies to Matt Taylor

Matt Taylor: If the statute had read "we hereby relegate same-sex couples to the dishonorable, inferior status of civil union" or for that matter "the archaic, withering institution of marriage is left to opposite-sex couples" or some such, the court might have grounds to strike it down. But neutrally-worded use of the two terms is not in itself a violation of equality.

Mark B.: Matt should have stuck to insisting that there had to be tangible differences. To concede that an explicit statement of prejudice would be unconstitutional is to concede the whole argument. It's standard to take the intent of the legislature into account in determining what disputed passages mean. The majority found, as if it weren't obvious, that the intent of the legislature was to award a less prestigious name. And as they remind us, the Massachusetts constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals." Unless there's a compelling state interest, such a slap at the dignity of a group of people is unacceptable, even if they might be magnanimous enough for themselves to overlook it.
posted by Eve at 9:36 PM | link 0 comments

MONEY MONEY MONEY: SSM AND SOCIAL SECURITY: Noam Schreiber

...The idea of a run on Social Security survivor benefits being an unforeseen consequence of gay marriage struck me as so absurd I decided to do a little checking around. Now that I've done so, it strikes me as even more absurd. First, about 1.2 million people identified themselves as part of a gay or lesbian couple in the latest census. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is approximately the number of gays and lesbians who would get married if gay marriage suddenly became legal and available across the country. (I think that's pretty high, since being part of a couple doesn't necessarily mean you want to get married. But, on the other hand, I imagine that the number of gay couples has increased since the census data were collected almost four years ago.)

Anyway, a quick check of the Social Security Administration web site reveals that the number of people who receive survivor benefits in a typical month is about 7 million. As there are about 120 million married people in the country, let's assume that a country of 120 million married people produces about 7 million kids and widows/widowers who receive survivor benefits--or, put differently, that the number of people who receive survivor benefits is about 6 percent of the number of married people. (I realize this isn't a perfect assumption: The number of married people that produced those 7 million survivors was probably somewhat different from 120 million. But I think these numbers provide a reasonable estimate.) Assuming the same relationship applies to the gay population, then 1.2 million married gay people should produce about 70,000 people who will claim survivor benefits. Which means that, for the foreseeable future, we're probably not talking about more than 100,000 additional people earning survivor benefits, out of a total of 7 million currently earning survivor benefits, if gay marriage is legalized. That's an increase of less than 1.5 percent--in dollar terms, less than $1 billion out of the $60 billion or so we pay out in survivor benefits each year. This, of course, is peanuts compared with an annual federal budget of $2.4 trillion and annual Social Security disbursements of nearly $500 billion. ...

But wait, there's more. As Brookings Social Security experts Henry Aaron and Peter Orszag point out, the way survivor benefits work is that survivors get either their own Social Security benefits or the their own benefits plus the difference between their benefits and the benefits their deceased spouse would have received--whichever number turns out to be higher. Which means that, in a couple with two income-earners in which both partners earn about the same amount of money, the survivor benefits are worth almost nothing. (This doesn't take kids into account, whose survivor benefits are calculated differently.) And it turns out that gay couples are much more likely than the average heterosexual couple to have a.) two income-earners, and b.) two income-earners who make roughly the same amount. That means that, in many cases, the survivor benefit for gay people would be zero or close to zero--bringing our earlier estimate down substantially.

more
posted by Eve at 5:27 PM | link 0 comments

MONEY MONEY MONEY: DC LOOKS AT COST OF SSM BENEFITS: From the Washington Times

Businesses should expect some changes in their benefits plans if the District recognizes same-sex "marriage" from other areas in the country, several analysts say.

But how much more it would cost to businesses to add domestic partners as "spouses" on health and life insurance coverage is still not known.

D.C. Council member Jim Graham, Ward 1 Democrat, last month introduced a resolution for the Council to work with Mayor Anthony A. Williams to recognize "marriage" from jurisdictions such as Massachusetts, which plans to start issuing "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples in May. ...

According to a 2000 study by global management-consulting company Hewitt Associates, about 22 percent of companies nationwide offer domestic-partner benefits.

At more than half of the companies in the study, fewer than 1 percent of eligible employees used the coverage.

Those plans made up less than 1 percent of total benefits costs because of the smaller enrollment and types of benefits used.

Medical and dental coverage were the most frequently extended benefits for domestic partners, the study said.

Gene Fairbrother, a small-business consultant in Dallas, argued the shift of tax burden to employers would be significant.

"Anytime you add on any additional benefits cost to the employer, you have an increase in the cost of doing business that eventually is passed down to the consumer," Mr. Fairbrother said.

But for companies bringing in new employees, the cost between having an employee with a wife or a homosexual partner would not change if spousal benefits were extended to the partner, said Ken McDonnell, a research analyst with the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a D.C. nonprofit research group.

In the end, companies can opt out of offering any benefits, avoiding the issue altogether, Mr. Fairbrother said.

more
posted by Eve at 5:25 PM | link 0 comments

GA WILL VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN FALL: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Conservatives celebrated and subdued gay rights supporters vowed to continue fighting Wednesday night after the Georgia Legislature gave final approval to a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The proposal, one of the most divisive issues to confront Georgia lawmakers in years, now moves to the state's voters, who must approve it in a Nov. 2 referendum before it can become part of the state constitution. After two hours of intense debate, the Democratic-controlled state House of Representatives narrowly endorsed the referendum, which passed the Republican-run Senate early in the legislative session. ...

The same proposal failed by just three votes in its first House appearance in late February, a decision that buoyed the hopes of gay rights supporters and sent conservatives scrambling. But four members of the 39-member House Legislative Black Caucus who did not vote Feb. 26 supported the ban Wednesday, ensuring its passage.

more
posted by Eve at 4:49 PM | link 0 comments

ACLU SUES WASH. STATE OVER SSM: Press release

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington today filed a lawsuit against the state officials challenging the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The lawsuit was filed in Thurston County Superior Court on behalf of 11 couples from across the state who wish to marry in Washington or to have their marriage recognized under Washington law. Plaintiffs include a police officer, a firefighter, a banker, a nurse, a retired judge, a college professor, a business executive, and others. They reside from Seattle to Spokane and from Friday Harbor to Hoquiam.

"Same-sex couples who have formed families are being discriminated against solely because of their gender," said Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington. "Two adults who wish to enter into a life-long commitment to each other should be eligible for the legal rights of marriage, regardless of their same gender. It is a matter of basic fairness and equality."

"Washington has long acknowledged that gay and lesbian couples are suitable to be parents. We must no longer deny them the ability to marry," Taylor added.

The lawsuit seeks a court ruling that the state laws regarding marriage shall apply without regard to gender, thus providing gay and lesbian couples the same legal rights and benefits of marriage now available to opposite-sex couples. The lawsuit also asks the court to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully formed in other jurisdictions.

more
posted by Eve at 4:47 PM | link 0 comments

NM SUPREME COURT DENIES PERMANENT SSM INJUNCTION: From 365Gay.com

The New Mexico Supreme Court late Monday denied a request from the Attorney General for a permanent injunction blocking the Sandoval County clerk from issuing any more same sex marriage licenses.

But clerk Victoria Dunlap won't be able to issue more licenses today as she had planned. After rejecting the bid for a Writ of Mandamus the five justices ruled
that a temporary restraining order would remain in effect until a full hearing on the issue can be held in District Court. That temporary order was to have expired today, and Dunlap said she intended to begin issuing more licenses to same-sex couples as soon as it did.

Dunlap began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples February, saying the state constitution barred discrimination against gays and lesbians and she feared a lawsuit if she refused to grant licenses to gay couples. New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid put a halt to the licenses later that day, sending in the sheriff to shut down Dunlap's office. When Dunlap announced two weeks ago that she would resume issuing the licenses Madrid went to court and got the temporary restraining order.

In an unusual twist, the judge who issued the order last week removed himself from the case citing a conflict of interest but did not explain what that was. A new judge will be appointed to hear the case. It is expected the case ultimately will wind up in the state Supreme Court.

link
posted by Eve at 4:44 PM | link 0 comments

REVOKE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S TAX-EXEMPT STATUS: Ellen MacNamara

Having rejected Governor Mitt Romney's request that he launch a desperate, last-ditch bid to thwart the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court's gay marriage ruling, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly ought to turn his legal attention to revoking the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church.

Spare Catholic Charities, the parochial schools, and the social service providers who truly embody the religious mission of the church, but pull the ticket on the corporate entity that would turn Holy Cross Cathedral into a precinct hall and the Sunday liturgy into a political rally.

If the four Massachusetts bishops want to fashion themselves ward bosses, let them pay to play, like any other taxpayer.

Earlier this month, Boston Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley wrote in The Pilot, the house organ of the Boston Archdiocese, that the divisive gay marriage debate "demands unity in our opposition but charity in the way the debate is conducted." How does he square that with the scare tactics directed at parishioners from the pulpit and the threats directed at lawmakers?

"Doubtless many Catholics who are homosexual or have friends and relatives who are homosexual find the present climate of debate on same-sex marriages very distressing," O'Malley wrote. "We need to assure them that we disagree with the way the debate is being framed to exploit people's emotions." How does O'Malley square that with the decision of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the church's well-financed lobbying arm, to distribute a videotape to parishes that, among other poisonous claims, contends that the poor and the elderly will suffer if same-sex couples are not denied their constitutional right to marry?

more
posted by Eve at 6:37 PM | link 0 comments

NON-PROCREATIVE COUPLES AND SSM: Elizabeth Marquardt

When confronted by the argument that marriage, at its core, has something to do with the attempt to secure for children their biological mothers and fathers, supporters of SSM will often compare SSM to other kinds of marriage that, for various reasons, cannot or do not produce children, or are formed by bringing existing children into a union. Specifically, they mention stepfamilies, infertile or childless-by-choice couples, and couples who marry when their reproductive years are over. They ask: If these straight couples are allowed to marry then why should SS couples not also be allowed to do so?

My response to each example:...

more
posted by Eve at 6:27 PM | link 0 comments

PROFILE OF GOODRIDGE DEFENDANTS: From the Associated Press

...The Goodridges--career women, mothers of 8-year-old Annie and self-described "middle-aged, tired soccer moms"--see their plans to marry in May as nothing more than a personal choice by two people in love. ...

The Goodridges were Julie Wendich and Hillary Smith when they met in 1985 at a Harvard lecture. As their relationship progressed and they contemplated buying a home and having a child together, legal obstacles materialized.

They drew up living wills, took as their surname the maiden name of Hillary’s grandmother, and penned legal documents spelling out their relationship.

After Julie gave birth to Annie, Hillary was barred from seeing them in the hospital because she was legally attached to neither. She wheedled her way to their bedsides, at one point saying she was Julie's sister, at another resorting to tearful pleas.

"At the time, it certainly didn't occur to me that 'Gosh, if I was married, this wouldn't have happened,'" Hillary said.

Then, one day when Annie was 5, the little girl heard the Beatles song "All You Need is Love" and began listing people she knew who loved one another.

Julie and Hillary were not among them.

"What about Ma and Mommy?" Hillary asked.

"You two don't love each other," Annie said, adding: "If you loved each other, you'd be married."

more
posted by Eve at 6:24 PM | link 0 comments

GUIDE TO POLYGAMY ISSUES FOR JOURNALISTS: From ReligionLink, the Religion Newswriters Association website

Polygamy has emerged as an issue in the ferocious marriage debates. Could sanctioning gay marriage lead to legalizing polygamy? It depends on whom you ask. Though polygamy is illegal in all 50 states, it's thought to be practiced as matter of religion by thousands of people in the United States--particularly in the West--and is rarely prosecuted. Polygamy is back in the public consciousness for the first time in years because of wrangling over the legal definition of marriage and several high-profile criminal cases.

So far, there has been no serious challenge to anti-polygamy laws, but, as scholar Sarah Barringer Gordon puts it, culturally there is a significant disturbance in the waters. For one thing, marriage is no longer the main way people organize their lives. Living together without marriage--now extremely common--once used to be illegal, too. For another, the legal arguments from the late nineteenth-century court cases that denied a free exercise right to preach and practice polygamy have been rendered obsolete by the Supreme Court's subsequent First Amendment case law, according to John Witte, director of Center for Interdisciplinary Study of Religion at Emory University. The court would have to rely on other arguments to reach the same result.

In some regions of the country, many people take the attitude that religiously motivated polygamy should just be left alone as a matter between consenting adults. When polygamists are prosecuted, it's usually for what some label "polygabuse"--charges related to crimes such as incest, underage marriage or welfare fraud. But many, including women who have left polygamy, say polygamous relationships are inherently patriarchal and tend to mistreat women. The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints outlawed polygamy in 1890, but some unofficial offshoots of the church continue to practice it.

Will polygamous communities press for legitimacy? While a number are openly hoping that they will gain standing through legalization of same-sex marriage, they are counterbalanced by those who insist on defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Why it matters
Both advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes cite the religious aspects of marriage to support their case. Advocates of polygamy also cite religious beliefs as a reason for the practice to be allowed. If religious beliefs are a factor in same-sex marriage, should they be a factor in deciding the legality of polygamy, too?

more
posted by Eve at 6:19 PM | link 0 comments

HEY, MAN, YOU'RE JUST A BIGOT: AIN'T NO THANG.

Justin Katz replies to Barry Deutsch on denotation, connotation, and bigotry. I note that Katz's post is PG-13 rated.
posted by Eve at 6:14 PM | link 0 comments

GAY MARRIAGE AND THE ELECTION: WINNING DEAL FOR GOP? From the Weekly Standard

BILL CAIN is a classic New Deal Democrat. Eighty years old, Cain grew up and lives in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, an old steel town about 30 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. He graduated from Greensburg High, was drafted into the Marines during World War II, and supported his wife and six kids on the wages of a factory worker.

One recent afternoon, Cain was running errands on Euclid Avenue in a working-class section of town. Dressed in blue jeans and a tan jacket, he was holding in his left hand a broom and in his right hand a plastic lawn chair. In a deep voice reminiscent of actor Bob Mitchum, he said, "I've been a Democrat all my life." After voting twice for Clinton, in 2000, he went for George W. Bush. A frequent mass-goer at the Blessed Sacrament Cathedral downtown, Cain supports the president's conservative stand on social issues such as abortion.

Indeed, Cain said his vote will be cast not on the economy or the war in Iraq. Rather, it'll be based on gay marriage. "I'm not bigoted, but the whole damn thing is that the good Lord didn't mean marriage to be for this sort of thing. He wanted marriage to be between one man and one woman, so they could procreate."

Judging by the media's recent coverage of homosexual marriage, you would never guess that many swing voters feel the same. ...

Actually, opposition to gay marriage is a far less narrow phenomenon than supposed. The Republican position is, in fact, at least a 60-40 issue, one that unites their base and attracts swing voters like Bill Cain.

The drive for homosexual marriage in this country has never been popular. Since the campaign kicked off in a 1993 case in Hawaii, a few courts have expressed sympathy, but voters never have. Indeed, in every state where voters have been asked to amend their state constitution to ban gay marriage, they have done so by a stunning margin. ...

Four years later, little has changed. In late February the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a study measuring voter intensity on the issue. The headline said it all: "Gay Marriage A Voting Issue, But Mostly for Opponents." A full 34 percent said they would not vote for a candidate who backed same-sex marriage. In contrast, only 6 percent said they would not support an opponent of gay nuptials.

Of course, passing a constitutional amendment affirming the traditional definition of marriage is another story. Not even the amendment's biggest supporters predict passage any time soon.

more
posted by Eve at 6:12 PM | link 0 comments

FOR SOME, A SANITIZED MOVEMENT: From the Washington Post

...The gay rights activists and theorists and feminists who critique the campaign from the left are the voices less often heard in the battle over gay marriage. These critics are not opposed to gay marriage -- none would deny the emotional tug of marriage for tens of thousands of gay couples. But they are mortified at the fate of a revolution pasteurized. They wonder what happened to championing sexual freedom and universal health care, and upending patriarchy? ...

"I thought to myself: 'This is right. This should be their right to express their love as they like,' " Wagner said from his apartment, which he shares with his partner of 12 years. "But marriage is the way that government exerts social control. I'm uncomfortable supporting it. I'm interested in changing society, not assimilation."

Against such arguments, however, falls the weight of political reality.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, and President Bush voiced support for a proposed constitutional amendment barring such marriages, the battle lines joined. As rank-and-file gay couples descended by the thousands on city halls in San Francisco; New Paltz, N.Y.; and Portland, Ore., to take their marriage vows and toss bouquets into the air, the leaders could trot into the chapel after them -- or get out of their way.

"There is the shock of finding ourselves arguing for something that the gay revolution was an attack on," said the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Tony Kushner, whose play "Homebody/Kabul" is being performed in the District. "But enfranchisement of citizens is an enormous part of what we struggled for when we took to the streets 35 years ago."

Richard Goldstein, an executive editor of the Village Voice, has a partner of 24 years. Like many of his out-of-the-closet-and-into-the-streets 1960s contemporaries, he harbors no deep desire to get hitched. But he insists that this should be his decision, not the government's. ...

Solomon, like many gay rights activists, argues for redefining all marriages -- homosexual, heterosexual -- as civil unions. This would provide the legal protections that come with marriage, from health care to taxes to adoption, without the emotional and cultural freight. "The queer marriage movement needs a divestment campaign," Solomon wrote in the Village Voice. "The only way we will win is if the state's authority to pronounce is stripped from the ministers, rabbis, imams and priests."

But other ACT UP veterans argue for seizing the day. Jay Blotcher, who once served as the group's spokesman, drove from his Upstate New York home to New Paltz to marry his partner. He says gay rights activists should stop worrying and take credit for forcing the cultural opening that led to gay marriage.

"We'll breathe new life into marriage -- God knows it needs rejuvenation," he said. "We're here for the queer makeover."

more
posted by Eve at 6:07 PM | link 0 comments

MASS. ATTY. GENERAL REFUSES TO SEEK STAY OF SSM: From USA Today

Gov. Mitt Romney's efforts to delay gay marriage in Massachusetts were rebuffed Tuesday by the state attorney general, who said there was no legal justification in seeking a stay from the state's highest court.

The stand by Attorney General Tom Reilly means Massachusetts is one step closer to becoming the first state in the nation to recognize gay marriage.

"We have had our day in court. It's time to move on," Reilly said at an afternoon news conference.

The duel between Romney, a Republican, and Reilly, a possible Democratic candidate for governor in 2006, came one day after the state Legislature passed a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but permit civil unions of same-sex couples.

The state's highest court ruled in November, and reaffirmed in February, that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The court ordered the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples starting May 17.

Romney, an opponent of gay marriage, wants the court to postpone that order until voters can decide on the amendment in 2006. ...

There are also concerns about the status of married gay couples if the constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages is approved by voters in 2006. Most legal analysts believe the gay marriages that occur during those 2 years would be protected.

"It would likely be unconstitutional to retroactively take away the rights of marriage," said Sanford Katz, a family law expert at Boston College. "I can't see the state doing anything to invalidate those marriages."

more
posted by Eve at 5:48 PM | link 0 comments

MASS. ATTY. GENERAL SAYS STATE LAW LIMITS SSM: From the New York Times

Same-sex couples living in states where laws ban gay marriage will not be able to marry in Massachusetts, the state's attorney general said Tuesday.

Although a court has ordered that gay and lesbian couples can begin marrying in Massachusetts on May 17, Attorney General Thomas Reilly said an obscure 1913 state law prevents the state from issuing marriage licenses to couples who are not eligible to be married in their home states.

"I think there's at least 38 states which do not recognize same-sex marriage," Reilly said, referring to the 38 states with laws defining marriage as a heterosexual institution.

He said Massachusetts should give a list of those states to town clerks so that they can refuse marriage licenses to people residing there.

Reilly's interpretation of the law could thwart the plans of couples around the country who had been planning to get married in Massachusetts once such unions became legal.

Mary Bonauto, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the group that won the Massachusetts case legalizing gay marriage, said that she believed that residents from some of the 38 states might be eligible because only those states whose laws declared same-sex marriages void would directly contradict the Massachusetts statute.

more
posted by Eve at 5:37 PM | link 0 comments

BOB BARR SPEAKS AGAINST FMA: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Bob Barr told a congressional committee Tuesday that he's a "proud conservative," but an equally staunch opponent of efforts to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee's constitutions subcommittee as it held the first of five planned hearings on the issue, the former Republican congressman from Georgia championed the Defense of Marriage Act he authored and helped pass in 1996.

He said the constitutional change endorsed by President Bush --- restricting the definition of marriage to the lawful union of a man and a woman --- "goes far beyond" the 8-year-old act. That law, signed by then-President Bill Clinton, says the federal government recognizes a marriage only if it is between a man and a woman, but leaves the states free to decide whether they will issue licenses for same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships, and whether they will recognize those allowed in other states.

The amendment, on the other hand, "seeks to define marriage for all the states of the union," complained Barr. "But part of federalism means that states have the right to make bad decisions --- even on the issue of who can get married in the state. I don't think it's the function of Congress to monkey around with state court jurisdiction."

Supporters of a constitutional amendment have said they fear the Defense of Marriage Act could be overturned, resulting in a requirement that states accord marriage benefits to same-sex couples wed anywhere in the country. Barr, however, insisted that the probability that the Supreme Court would uphold the act, if it ever considers it, is "in the high 80s or 90 percent area."

more
posted by Eve at 5:35 PM | link 0 comments

STUDIES, STUDIES, STUDIES: Greg Popcak replies to David Benkof and Arturo Fernandez

[Greg Popcak blogs here.]

I am writing regarding the discussion between Benkof and Fernandez about studies showing "harm to children."

The problem, as I see it, is how to define this notion of "harm." The fact is, studies consistently show there are about a million and one ways to raise a grow-up-get-a-job-participate-in-society kind of kid. Arguments about how this parenting style or that family structure will or will not "harm" children tend to try to suggest that a child, raised in a certain manner or in a certain family structure, will not be able to function as well in society. But, except in the most dramatic instances (such as cases of physical abuse and neglect) this just isn't the case. But hear me out...

What IS true is that children who are raised with certain parenting styles or family structures will exhibit dramatically different worldviews and value-systems (which is how conservatives tend to define "health." ) That's the argument I make in my book, Parenting with Grace, and it is a view supported by recent ethnopediatric studies such as that done by Bornstein, et al., (1998) in Developmental Psychology, 36(4), and by Bornstein and Cote (2001) in the International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(6). Despite the fact that children of many nations are raised in dramatically different ways, they are all "healthy" (defined as social functionality) but they do exhibit dramatic differences in self-concept, their idea of societal obligations and their understanding of how the individual interacts with society. As Alice Miller in her own work on Germany during WWII and Meredith Small in Our Babies Ourselves, 1998 observe, different cultures encourage certain parenting styles and family structures in order to increase the likelihood that children will exhibit the worldview and values that particular culture values.

My point is that I doubt that social science will ever be able to show that one family structure or parenting style is convincingly, clearly, and objectively "healthier" than another if "health" is defined as functionality--as it tends to be (at least by liberals).

Ultimately, while this debate can be argued from the social science perspective, I do not believe that this debate can be won on the social science front since the real question is not functionality, but weltanschauung. I would argue that the only way social science could make some inroads is to stop talking about "health" and instead draw from ethnopediatric data to ask, "What are the worldviews fostered by tradtional vs non-traditional family structures/parenting styles (inculding cohabiting heterosexual families) and what are the worldviews and values we, as a society want to encourage?"

Social science CAN help illuminate this debate, but the final call will have to be made in religion, philosophy, and politics, where people will take the social science data and vote on a societal "corporate mission statement" --if you will.
posted by Eve at 7:11 PM | link 0 comments

MORE BIGOTRY: Barry Deutsch

One area of miscommunication in the marriage equality debate is about words like "bigot" and "homophobe." Marriage equality opponents, quite understandably, don't like being called bigots and homophobes. They might genuinely have nothing against lesbians and gays; some of them have good friends who are lesbian or gay, and some of them are lesbian or gay themselves.

The problem here, I think, stems from two different definitions of "bigotry." Marriage equality opponents think "bigot," in this context, means "someone who hates lesbians and gays."

Speaking for myself, that's only one possible meaning of "bigot" or "homophobe." Another meaning, which is how I tend to use those words in the context of the marriage equality debate, is "someone who favors an unequal legal status for lesbians and gays." And by that latter definition, it makes perfect sense to describe those who oppose marriage equality as homophobes and bigots.

This is no different from how I view any other issue involving bigotry. To reuse an example, consider someone in the 1960s who favored laws and rules excluding Jews from fancy country clubs. That person may have had many close Jewish friends; perhaps they only favored the exclusions because they valued the club's longstanding traditions. But regardless of this person's personal love for Jews, they nonetheless favored one law for gentiles and a different law for Jews, and that made them an anti-Semite.

Put another way, our opponents think that being a homophobe is only about what's in their heart. I think that being a homophobe can be about what's in one's heart, but it can also be about what's in one's policies.

Of course, it may make marriage equality opponents--some of whom I quite like and respect--uncomfortable or unhappy to be described thus. I'm sorry about that; but truth doesn't cease being true just because it makes some people uncomfortable. If the stigma bothers them that much, they can avoid it by changing their minds and favoring equality between gays and straights.

link
posted by Eve at 7:03 PM | link 0 comments

BIGOTED, SCHMIGOTED: David Benkof replies to Arturo Fernandez

Arturo Fernandez writes: "It is shocking and blatantly bigoted if you wouldn't change your stance if 100 studies showed that there was no harm in children being raised by same-sex couples."

The dictionary defines bigoted as "Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion practice, or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of others."

As an Orthodox Jew, I guess I could be accused of being obstinately (although not blindly) attached to the values, beliefs, and rituals of my faith. And remember, this is a hypothetical that assumes 100 studies show no differences... but yes, in that case I'd still oppose same-sex baby-making (and marriage) because my worldview is not rooted in empirical science. Maybe yours is, and that's OK.

But what you're saying to me, when it comes right down to it, is that people with strong religious convictions should ignore the teachings of their faiths if today's scientists and scholars contradict them.

That attitude effectively disenfranchises huge swaths of the American public. Do you really mean to go there?
posted by Eve at 7:01 PM | link 0 comments

SHOULD WE LEAVE IT TO THE STATES? Barry Deutsch

[Barry Deutsch is a cartoonist and wedding coordinator in Portland, Oregon. He blogs on "Alas, a Blog," which focuses on gender and feminist issues.]

As a matter of short-term strategy, it might be for the best if marriage equality is left to states to decide for a while. After a few years of same-sex marriage in places like Oregon and Massachusetts fails to cause the sky to fall (or straight marriages to break up, or a surge in single-mother families, etc etc), the case for marriage equality will be that much stronger.

I also have faith in the reflexive fairness of most Americans. Give the marriage equality movement several years of showing that marriage equality is about real human families loving each other, and many Americans now in the anti-equality majority will overcome their fears. The idea of equal treatment under the law has a basic appeal to fairness which I think will win out over the horror stories of the fearmongers.

However, as a matter of principle, the 14th amendment should protect all Americans, not just heterosexual Americans. Same-sex couples therefore should have equal marriage rights in every one of the fifty states. In the long run, if the states won't recognize equality on their own, I hope the Supreme Court forces them to.

link
posted by Eve at 6:02 PM | link 0 comments

CIVIL RITES: Andrew Sullivan replies to Shelby Steele

[Man, I'm slicing this like a Cuisinart. It's much longer in the original.]

...The only reason for marriage rights for homosexual citizens is the same reason for marriage rights for heterosexual citizens: that human beings are emotional and sexual beings; that they long for love and intimacy; and that marriage is the best institution to harness and channel such longings while providing a structure to include as many as possible in the civilizing and humanizing aspects of family life. There is absolutely nothing in the love that one lesbian has for another woman that is anything less in dignity or humanity than the love that a man has for a woman. If such marriage rights remove stigma, all to the good. But Steele is making too sophisticated a case. Perhaps if he imagined for a second that the government could restrict his own right to marry the person he loved, he would see why this bar is so inhuman and unequal. It stings before it even begins to stigmatize. It bars love before it bars identity. ...

There is a great deal bound up in this paragraph. So let me start with its conclusion. Steele supports civil unions that include "the legal prerogatives" of civil marriage. So in fact, he affirms the substantive case for equality in marriage rights. His objection--his only objection--is to the inclusion of such couples within the unifying institution of civil marriage. And in order to buttress this argument, he talks the talk of cultural separatism. When it comes to blacks, Steele was a pioneer for integration. When it comes to gays, he is an advocate of balkanization and separateness. He wants gays to develop their own alien culture, keep apart from straight society, nurture their differences. And then he criticizes integrationist gays for "mimicry." Does he see the irony here? A man who has bravely fought against the notion that being black should consign anyone to a path they do not choose for themselves wants to keep gays in a separate but equal category. Does he recall being told that because he believes in civil equality and transcending victimhood that he is not black enough? Yet, he is not so subtly describing gay people who wish to be a full and equal part of society as being not gay enough.

In fact, in many ways, gays are more easily integrated into the society of the other than many blacks are. The reason is that almost all gays in every generation are born into and grow up in heterosexual families. Most blacks grow up in black families. Most blacks spend their most formative years in black culture; almost all gays grow up in straight culture.

more
posted by Eve at 5:50 PM | link 0 comments

IS SSM THE NEXT CIVIL-RIGHTS BATTLE?

Roundup of links on both sides here.
posted by Eve at 5:34 PM | link 0 comments

MD HOUSE PASSES "LIFE PARTNERS BILL: From the Washington Post

The Maryland House of Delegates gave final approval yesterday to a bill that would permit same-sex couples to register as "life partners" with the state health department, a designation that would grant them the same rights as married people to make medical decisions for each other.

The measure, which advocates called a first step on the road to civil unions for homosexuals, passed on a surprisingly strong, bipartisan vote of 103 to 30 after it was expanded to include any unmarried couple, regardless of sexual orientation. Those likely to benefit include elderly couples who choose not to remarry because it could jeopardize pension and other benefits from a deceased spouse.

Gay rights activists said they were astonished by the level of support for the bill at a time when most states are focusing on how to prohibit same-sex unions in the wake of court decisions favoring gay rights.

Nearly two dozen Republicans voted for the measure, including the author of a failed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Some socially conservative Democrats also voted for the bill, including a Baptist minister from Baltimore who at first had tried to kill it.

As the vote appeared on the computerized boards that hang above the House chamber, Del. Donald B. Elliott (R-Carroll) rose to explain that he thought "long and hard" before deciding to support the measure. Elliott said he concluded that the right to care for and bury a loved one is far more important than the possibility that the measure could advance the cause of gay marriage. ...

As registered life partners, couples would be entitled to 11 distinct rights, such as visiting each other in hospitals and nursing homes, making major medical decisions in the absence of written instructions, consenting to an autopsy and arranging for a funeral.

The measure would not permit Maryland officials to "recognize, condone or prohibit" same-sex marriage or civil unions entered into in another state.

more
posted by Eve at 3:51 PM | link 0 comments

BLACK VOTERS AND SSM: Peter Beinart

Consider this political puzzle. According to polls, African Americans are more hostile to gay marriage-- indeed, to gays in general--than whites. A December 2003 New York Times survey found that 75 percent of blacks oppose same-sex marriage, compared with 59 percent of whites. Fifty-eight percent of blacks think sexual orientation "can be changed," according to a November Pew Research Center study, versus 39 percent of whites. And, according to Pew, 60 percent of blacks hold an unfavorable view of gay men, compared with only 50 percent of whites.

Yet, when Mississippi tried to pass an anti-gay-marriage amendment last month, the 17 state representatives who voted no were all African Americans. When Georgia tried to do the same thing, all ten black state senators opposed it. In the Georgia House of Representatives, 30 black legislators voted no and one voted yes (the tally among whites was 116 yes, eleven no). That's despite a Zogby poll showing that black Georgians oppose gay marriage more strongly than do whites.

For many conservatives, the riddle's answer is obvious: Black politicians are out of touch. But, if black politicians were really so dismissive of the views of their constituents, they'd no longer be in office. For decades now, conservatives have touted polls showing that African Americans hold conservative views on gay rights, abortion, the death penalty, and school vouchers. And yet I can't think of a single election in which any of those issues has hurt a liberal black politician among black voters. To suggest that black politicians don't represent their constituents because blacks tell pollsters they dislike gay marriage is like saying Republicans don't represent their constituents because many GOP voters say they prefer education spending to cutting taxes. If politicians keep behaving a certain way, and getting elected, it's a good bet they are getting signals from their constituents that the polls aren't picking up.

One thing the polls don't pick up is black suspicion of the Republican Party. When pollsters ask blacks about gay marriage, they're asking in a relative vacuum. But, when the issue is raised in a state legislature or in a political campaign, its partisan implications are glaringly obvious. And the very fact that the GOP is leading the anti-gay-marriage movement delegitimizes the issue for black politicians and black voters. As State Representative Tyrone Brooks, head of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, explained to The New York Times, "This is not about your personal beliefs. It's about a political ballgame the Republicans kicked off." The Reverend Walter Fauntroy, a black former delegate to Congress from the District of Columbia, actually supports a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment. Yet, when he went on National Public Radio this February to debate the issue, he prefaced his comments by announcing, "I'm annoyed to have to discuss this issue in an election year, because it's yet another sideshow being used by radical right-wing fiscal and social conservatives to divert attention from the critical issues."

if you subscribe, you can read the rest here
posted by Eve at 3:44 PM | link 0 comments

DOES HISTORY MATTER? Matt Taylor replies to R.K. Becker

In response to my observation that we know little about the effects of SSM on society, R.K. Becker writes: "Would Matt take a similar approach to proposed untested radical changes affecting the environment? Or the ecology? Or the weather? Or the economy? ... It seems to be tacitly assumed by SSM proponents (and sometimes even its opponents) that the burden of proof should be on those who argue against it to prove that it is harmful."

Pardon me, but I never suggested the approach to which R.K. refers. R.K. is correct that society is a complex system, and changes to it should be made cautiously. This is one reason I only support SSM when it is enacted by elected legislators, or by referendum. Wherever a majority of voters approve of SSM, the associated cultural changes have, to a large extent, already happened; government is then following cultural change, as it should, rather than driving it. In the short term, a policy of civil union or domestic partnership may be more sensible, since it addresses the tangible needs of same-sex couples without changing fundamental cultural concepts.
posted by Eve at 1:52 AM | link 0 comments

DOES HISTORY MATTER? Mark Miller replies to R.K. Becker

The argument here is that the possible effects of even testing something as 'radical' as the legitimization of same-sex relationships may be so devastating to the culture that we should not even take a chance on it.

The problem with this argument is 1) the analogies given are not comparable to same-sex marriage and 2) if this logic were applied equally, one could argue that any social change could be denied on the same grounds.

Regarding 1) - I think the subtle difference is that changes in the environment, ecology or weather may cause the direct death of innocent people. I am willing to admit there is a legitimate debate on how same-sex marriage will affect the culture--either positively or negatively--but if you believe that same-sex marriage may have the same effect as injecting a possible poison in the air then there is no use even furthering the debate.

With regard to the other analogies you mentioned, such as the economy: I think we can safely say that there has been a number of different 'tests' with regard to the economy involving tax increases, tax cuts, cuts in spending and increases in spending over the years. If you are referring to more global definitions such as socialism versus capitalism, there are also examples of countries that have tried that also. Again, I fail to see the analogy of the effect of same-sex marriage to the effect of a political system.

2) Based on your analogy, how do you justify other 'social changes' that have occurred such as the elimination of slavery, women's suffrage, desegregation and the elimination of the interracial marriage ban? Based on your logic, the possible adverse result of ANY social change is too risky to even try. Does this 'too risky to test' argument also apply to other social issues such as criminalizing abortion or elimination of welfare ?

Finally, regarding your comment on the burden of proof, the burden of proof is clearly on the side of the same-sex marriage foes. Those who are advocating same-sex marriage have the 'equal protection' argument. To say that the advocates must prove that there is no harm is a ploy because there is no way to prove 'no harm' of any social change unless it is implemented.

I am not saying that culture is not complex. It is very complex. The point is that it may be complex (and flexible) enough to include the legitimization of same-sex relationships and not have the fatal results you are projecting.
posted by Eve at 1:44 AM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGE AND PARENTING: Lucia Liljegren

[Lucia Liljegren is a "stay-at-home knitter" in Lisle, Illinois.]

Let us say we buy the idea that that all parents ought to be married. That does not imply that all married people ought to have children, nor does it imply that marriage is defined by children or even "about" children.

It seems to me that the law has LONG recognized that marriage is not "about" child bearing. We can, one would think, get some idea what it is "about" by examining grounds for dissolution of marriage. After all, that gives us an idea of the elements legislators consider essential to a real marriage.

Despite the many, many possible grounds for divorce dreamt up by the various 50 states, infertility, or unwillingness or a partner to have children is NOT grounds for divorce in even one state.

Legislators always recognized that, fundamentally, marriage is about something... else!
posted by Eve at 1:38 AM | link 0 comments

STUDIES, STUDIES, STUDIES: Arturo Fernandez replies to David Benkof

[Arturo Fernandez lives in Los Angeles, California.]

David Benkof writes: "However, my stance wouldn't change even if 100 studies
showed no differences in children of every family structure--because my beliefs are informed by a traditional Jewish worldview and its attitudes toward families and childrearing. But I want to ask you--would your stance change if 100 studies showed harmful effects in children raised without both a mother and a father?"

My response is: I can only speak for myself, but of course my stance would
change if 100 studies showed that children were being harmed when raised by
same-sex couples. Much less than 100 would do it. However, it is shocking and blatantly bigoted if you wouldn't change your stance if 100 studies showed that there was no harm in children being raised by same-sex couples. It's also very interesting how you switch "difference" for "harm", and "every family structure" for "same-sex" parenting.
posted by Eve at 1:36 AM | link 0 comments

GENES MATTER: Gabriel Rosenberg replies to Ben Bateman

At MarriageDebate.com, Ben Bateman has accused me of creating some confusion by my use of the word "parent." I'll let him explain the problem....

"Gabriel Rosenberg gives a syllogism that SSM proponents probably find compelling: 'Parents ought to be married. Gays are parents. Therefore, gays ought to be married.' The problem with this logic is that it uses the word 'parents' in two very different senses."

If that's a problem, it was one Kurtz created, not me. If he only meant that "genetic parents" should be married, he should have stated that. Without any sort of modifier why wouldn't somebody assume that "parents" include couples who adopt or who used sperm or egg donors to conceive? More importantly, why shouldn't these parents be married as well? Is Kurtz--or anyone else--really going to argue that it doesn't matter if parents are married unless they both share some genes with the children. One of the main benefits Kurtz and others have argued marriage provides is keeping the couple together. They point out that a cohabiting couple is far more likely to break up. Are we to believe that this family break-up is detrimental for children if and only if those children were the genetic offspring of the parents? Marriage can also provide the security needed for a parent to make some career sacrifices in order to spend more time caring for the child. Does anyone believe children don't benefit from this extra time unless those parents are "genetic"? From all that marriage does to help with childrearing, I find it unbelievable to think Kurtz meant anything other than parents ought to be married. ...

Parents who adopt are "role playing"? They're just helping to raise another couple's children? I know some parents who would strongly disagree. I would think every parent--gay or straight--of an adopted child would be offended by these statements. Furthermore, I thought the whole "threat" of same-sex marriage is that it will treat as "equal under the law" something which Mr. Bateman believes is inherently "unequal." By the same logic doesn't it follow that one who believes that parents by adoption are "unequal," should similarly decry any law which makes such people "legally equivalent"? ...

Although I am quite skeptical of the importance of genetic connection in determining how a parent will raise a child, that's not my reply. My reply is, even if somehow you convinced me this was the case, so what? The question here is whether marriage will benefit children being raised by "nongenetic" parents. More precisely the question is "should parents be married or should only genetic parents be married?" We're not debating some question of custody here, trying to figure out who should be raising the child. We know who is raising the child. We're trying to see if it makes any sense to prevent those parents from being married.

more
posted by Eve at 5:43 PM | link 0 comments

MAGGIE GALLAGHER ON HATCH AND FMA

For three years the Alliance for Marriage has been working to create a consensus around the need for a federal marriage amendment. When President Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment on marriage, the "Musgrave/Allard" language crafted by the Alliance for Marriage was the only language on the table.

The main thrust of this Federal Marriage Amendment is to create a common national definition of marriage, and to leave the question of civil unions or other partnership benefits to state legislatures:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Now, as social conservatives have gone through a painful process of creating consensus around this FMA, a new language and a new idea (attributed to Senator Hatch) has been thrust into the political mix:

"Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman."

National Review endorsed the Hatch language as an acceptable alternative, and Ramesh Ponnuru vigorously defends it from my critique in the last week's Weekly Standard, on the grounds it "recognizes that the action to be concerned about blocking is the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage (or civil unions)."

Is he right? Does the Hatch amendment solve the problem?

That depends in part on what the problem is. In my view, the ongoing damage that is being done to marriage cannot be captured solely by the idea of "judicial activism." ...

In the middle of a broad cultural attack on the very idea of marriage as a key social institution, reducing our rallying cry from "save marriage" to "leave it to the states" suggests that in a profound way we agree with these critics: Marriage is not a key social institution, it is one of many "social policies" best left to individuals or to the states to work out.

The problem, both legally and politically, with the Hatch language is that is changes the topic from marriage to federalism. ...

Legally, the Hatch amendment's effects are complex and unclear. Politically, its effect is all too clear: By splitting the opposition to same-sex marriage into camps, the Hatch proposal is the opposite of mature leadership. It is a monkey wrench thrown into a serious, difficult, but absolutely critical effort to restore not only the proper balance of the courts, but a common, shared understanding of what marriage is, and how much it matters to this generation and to generations to come.

Which may be why Sen. Hatch made it clear last week that he endorses the original FMA.

more
posted by Eve at 5:36 PM | link 0 comments

REP. MARILYN MUSGRAVE DEFENDS FMA: From Roll Call

[You have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing, so I'm excerpting more than usual.]

...In fact, to date, not one single state has legislatively enacted gay marriage. There is no public outcry to redefine marriage.

However, we see four Supreme Court justices in Massachusetts forcing a redefinition on their body politic and forcing the rest of the nation to take notice. Since the action of this court, local officials in various states (even states with DOMAs) are blatantly ignoring the rule of law and being disrespectful of the legislative process.

Even in the three states where the legislatures have enacted statutes giving formal recognition to same-sex unions, there was no push to redefine the institution of marriage. Indeed, the entire purpose of these statutes is to avoid such a redefinition.

In Hawaii and Alaska, the people of those respective states rose up and, by a vote of more than 60 percent, amended their state constitutions to protect marriage. In fact, in every state in which the definition of marriage has been put to a direct vote of the people, anywhere from 60 percent to 70 percent voted to preserve traditional marriage.

But activist courts are ignoring the rule of law and their duty to uphold the separation of powers doctrine. They are making a mockery of tradition and longstanding social practice.

As a former state legislator, I respect state lawmaking. States generally deserve more, not less, power to make law. However, in this case, without effective Congressional action, we will be leaving local lawmakers with no options to preserve what every state clearly wants as their law. State and federal activist judges will not stop until a national marriage definition is legislated from the bench. ...

First, the bill solidifies marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This is a position supported by the American people by 2-to-1.

Furthermore, under the Federal Marriage Amendment, voters and their elected state officials will continue to have (as they always have) the power to determine for themselves whether, and to what extent, relationships between same-sex couples should be formally recognized in statute. The Federal Marriage Amendment expressly allows the designation of the "legal incidences" of marriage to state lawmakers. Inheritance, hospital visitation and other similar issues are best determined at the local level.

Lastly, my proposed amendment protects states that choose not to recognize these arrangements from being forced to do so by the courts.

more, if you subscribe
posted by Eve at 5:29 PM | link 0 comments

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY) VS. FMA: From Roll Call

[You have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing, so I'm excerpting more than usual.]

...During the past two centuries, the founding principle that "all men are created equal" has been expanded to include women, as well as religious, racial and ethnic minorities. Each of these advances has been challenged as a threat to fundamental social institutions. Each time, those fears proved unfounded. The inclusion of each successive group has enhanced the greatness of our nation.

While the work to expand the promise of full civil rights to all is far from complete, lesbians and gays remain consigned to the legal fringes of our society. The federal government and many states still refuse to extend to lesbians and gays the most basic rights: the right to live free from discrimination in housing and employment, or the inclusion of crimes against lesbians and gays in hate crimes laws. Legislation, court rulings and state constitutional amendments explicitly targeting lesbian and gay rights are still commonplace.

The constitutional right to marry, long recognized and protected for every other class of consenting adults, is still denied to lesbians and gays. With that denial go thousands of rights at the federal, state and local level, such as keeping a law-abiding spouse in the country, visiting a loved one in the hospital, providing basic medical care for a partner, looking after a child, or inheriting property without disastrous tax consequences. Many life-partners of Sept. 11, 2001, victims were denied compensation provided to partners of other victims simply because they were not legally allowed to marry. ...

Finally, marriage is different. People marry for many reasons beyond the practical economic and legal benefits. People marry because they want to enter into a life-long committed relationship with another person; it is an end unto itself. It is a bizarre and cruel irony that self-appointed "defenders of marriage" now demand that our Constitution permanently bar a significant segment of society from the benefits, responsibilities and joys of marriage.

Restrictions on the right to marry are also a threat to religious liberty. Allowing a couple to enter into a civil marriage or a marriage officiated by a clergyman of a faith that sanctifies such marriages poses no threat to those denominations whose beliefs would bar same-sex marriages. The Constitution would not permit, nor would anyone attempt to require, any religious community to recognize a marriage in violation of its religious beliefs. Denying the right to marry, however, does abridge religious freedom by giving the force of law to one particular religious view of marriage. The recent criminal charges brought against two ministers for performing same-sex marriages are a troubling consequence of current law.

Moreover, whatever one's views of the appropriateness of same-sex marriage, states' rights concerns cannot justify a constitutional amendment. Many opponents of same-sex marriage who do not support a constitutional amendment contend that the Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996, and the "public policy" exception, long recognized by the Supreme Court, to the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, guarantee the legal authority of any state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from another state. Until and unless the Supreme Court declares DOMA unconstitutional, and the "public policy" exception inapplicable or unconstitutional, demands for a constitutional amendment are, at the least, premature.

Most of the proposed constitutional amendments go further than limiting the applicability of state-sanctioned marriages outside those states. Some strip state courts of the power to interpret their own states' constitutions, whether or not the citizens of that state agree, or block states from offering civil unions, or domestic partner benefits, instead of marriages--again, regardless of whether the people of those states agree. Rather than protecting states' rights, these proposals obliterate those rights.

more, if you subscribe
posted by Eve at 5:27 PM | link 0 comments

NM COUNTY CLERK HEADING TO COURT: From 365Gay.com

(Albuquerque, New Mexico)--Sandoval County clerk Victoria Dunlap is not backing down in her quest to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Dunlap is going to court to get a judge to lift the restraining order that prevents her from issuing the licenses.

New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid got the injunction after Dunlap said last Tuesday she would again begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Shortly before her office was scheduled to open she was forced to tell about 30 couples who had lined up that she was unable to grant the licenses. The feisty clerk made headlines last month when she first began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples saying that she feared a lawsuit if she refused to grant licenses to gay couples. Dunlap cited the New Mexico constitution as the basis for her decision.

After about 100 couples received marriage licenses, Dunlap's office was shut down when Madrid ordered the county Sheriff to intercede. Dunlap has hired Albuquerque lawyer Paul Livingston and named Madrid and the Sandoval County Commission in a suit to have the restraining order lifted.

Livingston said the restraining order was illegally issued and will not hold up. "You can't just go to the judge and say 'restrain her,'" Livingston said. "You have to give notice to the defendant and have a hearing or have a good reason why you didn't. Victoria was never contacted."

The restraining order that was issued by state District Court judge Kenneth Brown said the legality of same-sex marriages should be determined on a statewide basis. "Sandoval County is not an island unto itself to determine the laws in the state of New Mexico," the order states.

Livingston said he will argue that Dunlap had a constitutional obligation to allow people to get a marriage license. "It's very clear--New Mexico has no law prohibiting same-sex marriage," Livingston said. "When you are a clerk and your job is to issue marriage licenses, you shouldn't be called names and have to be defensive about doing your job."

link
posted by Eve at 5:20 PM | link 0 comments

GROUP: OUST GAY-WED JUSTICES: From the Boston Herald (and why does the headline make it sound like the justices have had a gay wedding? Sigh.)

An anti-gay-marriage crusader said he expects a legislative bill will be filed this week to remove the four Supreme Judicial Court justices who supported homosexual unions, while pro-gay activists took to the streets to drum up support yesterday.

Brian Camenker of the Article 8 Alliance--a group of several hundred activists named for the Massachusetts Constitution provision that holds "the people have a right . . . to cause their public officer to return to private life''--says a legislative recall makes more sense than constitutional amendments that have been tying the State House in knots.

It's the intended remedy when justices do not properly interpret the law,'' said Camenker. "We cannot credibly call ourselves a democracy when our most basic laws can be undone by four unelected, appointed officials.''

A sharply divided Legislature will reconvene its Constitutional Convention to try again to address proposed amendments banning gay marriage and instituting civil unions in response to the SJC's November ruling that would allow gay marriage by May 17. Lawmakers, who continue their Constitutional Convention tomorrow, have given preliminary approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and, at the same time, legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

Camenker said the amendment proposals have created "chaos,'' and noted that an up-or-down vote on removing the judges could resolve the issue before May 17, while an amendment would take at least two years. Camenker said he has the quiet backing of several unidentified legislators he expects will come forward this week and file the bill on his behalf. The Legislature would then need to approve the legislation and the governor sign it before the justices could be removed. Specifically, Article 98 of the Massachusetts Constitution says that judges shall "hold their offices during good behavior'' but can be removed by the governor with consent of the governor's council "upon address of both houses of the legislature.''

more
posted by Eve at 5:18 PM | link 0 comments

SSM DENIED IN ALBANY: From the Associated Press

City officials declined marriage licenses to two same-sex couples Monday, setting up another potential challenge to New York's gay marriage laws.

Unitarian Universalist Rev. Samuel Trumbore came to city hall with two dozen supporters and one of the same-sex couples he wed Saturday in his Albany church. Trumbore produced two marriage "contracts" and asked the city clerk for licenses.

The clerk refused, citing legal opinions from the city and state. New York health officials have told municipal clerks issuing licenses to same-sex couples is illegal.

At least two civil lawsuits have been filed this month contending gay marriages are legal under New York's constitution. There was no decision Monday on whether the Albany couples also would sue.

"Now that we know that the licenses will not be issued today, we'll all have to talk about what the next steps are," said lawyer Mark Mishler.

The ceremonies also could expose Trumbore to the same criminal charges filed against two Unitarian ministers and New Paltz Mayor Jason West for performing same-sex ceremonies in that Hudson Valley college community.

They have pleaded innocent to charges of solemnizing marriages without a license, a misdemeanor that could lead to a fine or up to a year in jail.

Albany County District Attorney Paul Clyne did not respond to a request for comment on possible charges against Trumbore.

Same-sex marriages have been performed weekly in New Paltz by a series of ministers for the past month. However, prosecutors there are not contemplating additional charges until the current "test cases" are litigated, Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams said Monday.

link
posted by Eve at 5:15 PM | link 0 comments

BOTH SIDES IN SSM DEBATE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS HIGH GROUND: From the Associated Press

Wearing clerical robes, clutching rosary beads and quoting chapter and verse from the Bible, protesters on both sides of the gay marriage debate said Monday that God was on their side.

As Massachusetts lawmakers delved back into the contentious issue, opponents of same-sex marriage tried to claim the religious high ground as they have in the past, waving signs that said "no to gay marriage, yes to Jesus," and "straight and narrow is the way to heaven, homosexuality is evil."

But supporters of gay marriage refused to cede religion to their opponents, toting signs that read "stop using the Bible as an excuse to hate," and "people of faith support equal marriage for all."

Irving Cummings, pastor of the Old Cambridge Baptist Church in Cambridge, said his church has been celebrating the relationships of same-sex couples for two decades. He said nothing in the Bible specifically condemns homosexuality, and questioned why many religious organizations are focused on gay marriage at the exclusion of other issues.

"There are possibly five passages in the scripture that talk about something that we might call homosexuality," said Cummings, 52. "There are over 900 that talk about poverty and the relationship of wealth to poverty. Why aren't all these people out here protesting what's going on in terms of budget cuts to the poor?" ...

Gay marriage opponents said they found support for their position in their religious beliefs.

Mary Anne Letourneau, a 49-year-old homemaker from New Bedford, prayed with a small group of friends under a sign that said "Jesus, Mary and Joseph, we pray you keep the family holy" on the sidewalk outside the Statehouse.

Letourneau said she saw no clash between church and state in her opposition to the state recognizing gay marriage.

"We have a constitution based on the natural law, both the Massachusetts and the U.S. Constitution," she said. "Natural law consists of the law of nature and nature's God. We know what God's plan is."

more
posted by Eve at 5:05 PM | link 0 comments

MASS. LAWMAKERS AGREE ON GAY MARRIAGE BAN: From the Associated Press

The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.

The vote came at the opening of the third round of a constitutional convention on the contentious issue, as competing cries of "Jesus Christ" and "Equal Rights" shook the Statehouse outside the legislative chamber.

Lawmakers had voted earlier this month in favor of a similar amendment. The revised version adopted Monday would ask voters to simultaneously ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions--rather than taking those steps separately. It clarifies that civil unions would not grant federal benefits to gay couples.

By adopting the new language, lawmakers blocked consideration of several other amendments--including ones that would have weakened the civil union provision and one that would have split the question in two, allowing voters to weigh in separately on gay marriage and civil unions.

The Legislature must still take two more votes before the amendment is considered approved. If that happens, it will go to the 2005-2006 Legislature for further consideration before going to the voters in the fall of 2006.

Under a state high court ruling issued in November, the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage will take place in Massachusetts on May 17. The constitutional amendment would have no effect on this deadline, but Gov. Mitt Romney has said he might seek a way to delay the marriages if a constitutional amendment were adopted this year.

more
posted by Eve at 4:59 PM | link 0 comments

BROOKINGS INSTITUTE FORUM: Can gay marriage strengthen the American family?

[I'll almost certainly be there. --Eve]

Thursday, April 01, 2004
10:00am - 11:30am
Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Many critics of gay marriage believe that if government sanctions marriage between two people of the same sex, it would threaten the traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman. But some advocates of the idea believe gay marriage would strengthen, rather than weaken, the institution.

A new book by Brookings writer-in-residence and National Journal columnist Jonathan Rauch, titled Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America (Henry Holt and Co., 2004), argues that gay marriage presents an opportunity for policymakers to shore up marriage's embattled status as the living arrangement of choice for couples in serious relationships. Rauch says the gay marriage ban damages marriage by guaranteeing the proliferation of substitutes and alternatives.

Brookings will convene an expert panel of policy analysts with a range of opinions to assess the issue of gay marriage and take questions from the audience.

Presentation:
Jonathan Rauch
Writer in Residence, The Brookings Institution; Columnist, National Journal

Moderated by:
Isabel V. Sawhill
Vice President and Director, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution

Discussants:
David Blankenhorn
Founder and President, Institute for American Values

Sarah Brown
Director, National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy

William Galston
Saul I. Stern Professor, School of Public Affairs, and Director, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, University of Maryland

link
posted by Eve at 4:55 PM | link 0 comments

CATHOLIC MASS DISTURBED AFTER ANTI-SSM VIDEO SHOWN: From the Associated Press

A gay Catholic man interrupted Mass at a Canton church to protest an eight-minute anti-gay marriage video shown during the Sunday morning service.

The man ''chose to disrupt'' the service at the conclusion of the video supplied to the parish by the Massachusetts Catholic Conference which defends traditional marriage, said the Rev. Michael Doyle of St. John the Evangelist church.

The video ''showed the need to preserve marriage as a union between one man and one woman,'' Doyle said, one day before the Legislature renews debate on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

''I just found it to be such a scurrilous, scandalous piece of misinformation,'' Chuck Colbert, the man who protested, told The Associated Press. ''For me to sit there and take it is out of the question.''

Doyle said he called police to ''maintain order,'' but Colbert was not arrested or detained.

Colbert is a freelance writer who regularly contributes stories published in the National Catholic Reporter, an independent weekly paper that has endorsed same-sex marriage.

He said the video, available on the Web site www.preservemarriage.org, was played just after Doyle's homily. Colbert said he stood up, introduced himself as a gay Catholic, and protested what he heard and saw.

''I said 'I mean you no harm, I have to bear true witness,''' said Colbert, who was shouted down by several parishioners.

The Archdiocese of Boston has been politically active in the gay marriage debate. Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley has spoken at anti-gay marriage rallies, and the church has urged Catholics to write to their state legislators.

more
posted by Eve at 4:28 PM | link 0 comments

MASS. RESUMING DEBATE ON SSM: From the Associated Press

Witnesses to Massachusetts' marathon gay marriage debate have heard the anger of a black senator who grew up in the segregated South. They have heard the fear of a gay lawmaker who felt helpless to protect his sick child. And they have heard the pain of a House member whose vote against gay marriage tore his family apart.

"Sometimes you have to do what you believe, regardless of the consequences," said Democratic Rep. David Flynn, a grandfather who said he became estranged from a family member because of his vote. ...

Lawmakers resume the constitutional convention on Monday and are expected to decide whether to give final approval to an amendment that would ban gay marriage but allow gay couples to enter into civil unions. If it is approved, the Legislature would have to adopt an identical measure in the 2005-06 session, then put it before voters on the November 2006 ballot.

more
posted by Eve at 11:29 PM | link 0 comments

IS GAY MARRIAGE BAN CONSTITUTIONAL? From the Los Angeles Times

...Now, with the issue of same-sex marriage headed for California's courts, gay rights advocates are counting on the state's history of rulings on their side.

The state Supreme Court is expected to decide this summer whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom exceeded his authority when he began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Many legal analysts expect Newsom to lose that fight.

But the more explosive legal question is whether the state law that limits marriage to "a man and a woman" violates anti-discrimination provisions in the state Constitution. That issue is scheduled to return to a state trial court Thursday, and eventually to reach the California Supreme Court.

In recent years, the state's high court has sided with gay advocates in cases involving insurance for people with HIV, adoptions by gay couples and police stings aimed at gay men looking for sexual partners.

"A long line of precedent shows that it is clear that California's equal protection clause is more extensive" than the protections provided nationally by the U.S. Constitution, said Brad Sears, director of the Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA Law School.

But the state Supreme Court also ruled six years ago that the Boy Scouts of America could legally exclude gays. Six of the seven justices who supported that ruling, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, remain on the court. ...

One of the rulings on which advocates of gay marriage plan to rely heavily is a 1948 decision that overturned the state's ban on interracial marriage. That case, Perez vs. Sharp, came nearly 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court rejected similar laws nationwide. ...

If the court agrees that current marriage laws discriminate on the basis of gender, the state will have to present compelling reasons to justify the discrimination--a very high hurdle. The court in the past has ruled that the state Constitution limits gender discrimination as strictly as racial discrimination.

If the court dismisses the gender challenge, the case will rest on how the court looks at discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There is no question that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

more
posted by Eve at 11:28 PM | link 0 comments

SHOULD WE LEAVE IT TO THE STATES? Ben Bateman

A state-by-state approach to SSM would be impossible without serious federal involvement. It would generate an overnight avalanche of mind-boggling legal questions. Here's an example:

Suppose Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, and Texas doesn't. Steve and Ted get married in Massachusetts. Then Ted moves to Texas and marries Sue. Texas law doesn’t recognize the Mass. marriage, so it considers Ted to be unmarried. If Ted moves back to Mass., will the state: 1) recognize the Texas marriage, 2) ignore the Texas marriage, or 3) arrest Ted for bigamy?

Suppose that Ted runs back to Texas and Steve divorces him in Mass., winning a favorable property settlement and child custody. Steve then goes to Texas court to enforce the order of the Mass. divorce court. Will the Texas court be required to enforce that order, even though it's based on a marriage that Texas supposedly doesn't have to recognize? What rights does Sue have in either court?

Perhaps these problems were part of the reason that Utah had to outlaw polygamy to become a state. Even then the states were too tightly bound together by the full faith and credit clause to maintain wildly disparate definitions of so basic a legal concept as marriage. An attempt at a state-by-state approach to SSM would quickly become a race to the bottom, with every state being forced to accept the marriage definition of the most liberal states. Anything else would simply be unworkable.
posted by Eve at 6:02 AM | link 0 comments

SHOULD WE LEAVE IT TO THE STATES? Matt Taylor

We should not have a national definition of marriage imposed by judicial interpretation, nor by constitutional amendment. Marriage law should be left to the states, or better yet to local city/county governments. Like many aspects of family law, its effects are complex and personal, and the best solution to legal questions in this area depends greatly on the individuals involved and the social context of their community.

America does not have, nor should it try to have, a shared marriage culture, as Maggie Gallagher suggests. Cultural pluralism, the ability of groups with different values and beliefs to live in peace, is one of this country's greatest strengths, and we should make an extra effort to maintain it. Sadly, many of those who appeal to pluralism in support of SSM are not practicing it toward SSM opponents, or people of faith in general, to which Maggie alludes:

"If favoring the traditional understanding of marriage is analogous to favoring racism, churches, faith-based organizations, and schools that continue to teach that marriage is exclusively the union of a man and a woman will eventually face penalties in the public square."

This should not be allowed to happen. Cultural pluralism today demands letting states and communities that support SSM have it, but in the near future it will mean showing tolerance and respect toward communties, faiths and individuals that reject SSM. The Constitution places a high value on freedom of speech and religion, as well as equality; SSM advocates need to take ALL of those values to heart when promoting social policy.
posted by Eve at 6:01 AM | link 0 comments

GENES MATTER: Ben Bateman replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

Gabriel Rosenberg gives a syllogism that SSM proponents probably find compelling: "Parents ought to be married. Gays are parents. Therefore, gays ought to be married." The problem with this logic is that it uses the word 'parents' in two very different senses.

When we say that parents ought to be married, we mean by 'parents' those two people who contributed a sperm and egg that came together to form a child. Procreation carries heavy moral consequences, and we hope that those who create children will accept the responsibility to raise and care for them. Those who marry are more likely than others to do a good job of raising the children they create.

The second premise in Rosenberg's argument uses the word 'parents' in an entirely different way. A same-sex couple cannot be parents in the genetic sense. They can play the role of parents by helping raise another couple’s children, and one member of the gay couple might be one of the child’s parents. Those in the gay couple could adopt another couple's child and acquire the legal equivalent of parenthood. But they aren't 'parents' in the sense of "parents ought to be married" because there is no danger of those two people producing children irresponsibly.

Mr. Rosenberg would likely reply that genetics shouldn't matter any more. If someone is willing to commit himself to raising a child, then that person should be considered the child's parent regardless of any question of genetics. That’s a nice moral ideal, but it doesn't square with actual human nature. In the real world, the vast majority of people are deeply interested in whether the child they're raising is genetically theirs. All things being equal, a child is better off raised by both his genetic parents. (And let's skip the silliness of demanding that all, and only, anti-SSM statements must be backed by mountains of social science. If you don’t believe that genetics matter, re-read the story of Cinderella, or ask a redheaded stepchild.)

Mr. Rosenberg has made it clear that he doesn't believe that marriage is intrinsically connected to procreation. But if he wants to persuade those who don't already agree with him, he should show that he understands their premises. There is a difference--increasingly in modern times--between those who produce children and those who raise them. Mr. Rosenberg is welcome to argue that the difference isn't important, or shouldn't be important, or whatever. But using the same word to describe both groups only generates confusion.
posted by Eve at 5:58 AM | link 0 comments

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND SSM: Mark Miller replies to Maggie Gallagher

The religious liberty argument as applied to SSM cuts both ways.

I agree that the condemnation of Catholics, or any group, based on their attempt to influence or persuade people against same-sex marriage is unfortunate and wrong. It is certainly reasonable that people who oppose homosexuality on biblical or 'moral' grounds are out there doing what they can to support a cause they believe in. Conversely, the condemnation of any group, religious or not, that is trying to influence or persuade people towards acceptance of same-sex marriage is equally unfortunate.

But it is hypocrisy (in addition to unpersuasive) to use the argument that those who support SSM are infringing on the 'religious liberty' of those who oppose it on religious grounds. If that were the case, then Michael Newdow could actually have a legitimate position on the Pledge of Allegiance. The truth is that he does not because the separation of church and state does (or should) not mean the protection of individuals from exposure to 'faith-based' principles any more than it means the protection of individuals from activities that may offend their respective faith.
posted by Eve at 5:54 AM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGES FOR CHURCH ONLY: Lance Kaczorowski responds to Daniel J.H. Greenwood

[Lance Kaczorowski is a mechanical engineer in Fort Wayne, Indiana.]

The state has the authority to perform civil marriages, so religions cannot claim sole proprietorship to "marriage." In the past, this has not been a problem, but now it is.

A long time ago, when our government itself acknowledged that it rested upon
a foundation of Christian moral principles, the morals of Christianity were adequately mirrored in civil laws. There are now too few Americans willing
to demand that moral laws be mirrored in our civil laws.

Thus we have a state that feels compelled to become so religiously neutral that the only stance left is secularism. Without a moral rudder, our state "ship" is driven in whatever direction the popular wind of ethics is blowing at the moment. As long as the state maintains authority to "marry," you can expect the state to wrest the definition of marriage to its own political ends.

Perhaps one compromise to consider is to push for a full separation of religious unions and state unions. "Marriage" and "divorce" would be acknowledged and performed only by clergy, and "civil union" and "dissolution of union" would be acknowledged and performed only by the state. The state simply would no longer have anything to do with marriage at all. Marriage would regain the sanctity it is losing, a sanctity that has almost no meaning outside of a religious context.

A significant obstacle to such a compromise is that it requires the state to
surrender its authority to marry, and states do not easily abdicate power of
any kind.

Such an approach also only has the power to save the institution of marriage itself. Since there is an alternative available (civil unions), then the sociological consequences continue unabated, consequences associated with cohabitation, childbearing out of wedlock, and children without both a mother and a father in the home.

I agree fully that it is in any child's best interest to be raised in a loving family with both a mother (female) and a father (male) present. However, we have been traveling down a road away from this idealization for at least 30 years. Gay marriage may be seen as the latest teetering domino, but several significant dominoes fell before it, and those other dominoes have laid a logical, if not moral, foundation for gay marriage's eventual acceptance.

Perhaps if the unmolested institution of marriage itself can be preserved, then society may eventually tire of the consequences of the vain alternatives and clearly see marriage as the best choice.
posted by Eve at 5:53 AM | link 0 comments

DOES HISTORY MATTER?: R.K. Becker replies to Matt Taylor

[R.K. Becker is a free-lance writer and social critic residing in Wisconsin.]

Matt argues that the historical absence of SSM only shows that it has never been tried, and that this says nothing about whether it has been beneficial
or detrimental to societies. But this explanation is ultimately unsatisfying.

If there are indeed no known historical examples of cultures with SSM (in the form now being proposed), there are two possible reasons for this absence:

1. SSM has been tried at some time, perhaps even numerous times, throughout
human history, but it has failed to take root, or it has been quickly abandoned, without leaving evidence in the historical record. If this is the case, the question of why it has failed is certainly of relevance.

2. SSM has really never been tried, anywhere, anytime, at least not seriously.

If the latter is the case, however, it is puzzling why this would be, because the idea is certainly an 'easy' one for a culture to come up with, especially considering that there have been so many cultures that have tolerated homosexuality to a large degree. Just how likely is it, really, that an idea that any child could come up with would never have been attempted anywhere
in history?

But let us assume, for argument's sake, that the second reason is the correct one, and that it really has never been tried. In this case, Matt argues, this can not be used as an argument against trying it now.

Yes, it can. At least as an argument against trying it without testing it first, a process that I believe could not be considered conclusive for at least a full generation, that is, about 30 years.

Would Matt take a similar approach to proposed untested radical changes affecting the environment? Or the ecology? Or the weather? Or the economy?
Would he advocate introducing massive amounts of an untested new chemical
into the air or water, even though the chemical had never been used before,
merely because there was no evidence yet that proved that it was harmful? I
doubt it.

The environment, the ecology, the weather, and the economy are all, of course, very complex systems, and if we have learned anything about such complex systems, it is that the slightest changes to them can have unexpected and sometimes devastating effects which, for all our sophistication and knowledge, we still cannot always accurately predict. So the question is: is culture also a complex system like the others just mentioned? I would maintain that it definitely is.

This leads to a very basic question that I think is central to the SSM debate, the question of burden of proof. It seems to be tacitly assumed by SSM proponents (and sometimes even its opponents) that the burden of proof should be on those who argue against it to prove that it is harmful. This belief is a predictable result of the fallacious "Columbus Argument," as the late David Stove called it, so ingraining itself into our thinking. (Essentially, the Columbus Argument is the dismissal of any skepticism of a radical idea with something like "well, they all laughed at Columbus, Newton, Galileo, etc., too....", ignoring that those people and their ideas are the exception, not the rule). The burden of proof should be on the proponents of SSM to show that it is not harmful, and this can only be achieved by a long test process. I believe that we cannot really
know the effect of SSM until about 2030, when it will have been in effect in the
Netherlands for a generation. I have theories about what may go wrong, but
until then I cannot prove them any more that SSM proponents can disprove them and show that it is harmless.

But culture is too complex to take a chance and make a step in the dark like this without knowing where we're going. Unless, again, you don't believe culture is complex at all.
posted by Eve at 5:43 AM | link 0 comments

BRITAIN: SSM IN ALL BUT NAME: From the Guardian

The first laws giving gay people the right to 'marry' are to be unveiled this week in one of the most significant changes to Britain's social make-up since the passing of equal opportunities legislation in the 1960s.

Attempting to show it still has a radical edge, the Government will say that all couples who sign up to a committed relationship should have the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation. ...

Under the Civil Partnerships Bill to be published on Wednesday, same-sex couples will be able to sign a register held by the register office in a procedure similar to a marriage. Although the Government will insist it is not officially a 'marriage' but rather a contract between two people, the fact that couples will have to announce their intentions beforehand in a similar way to the reading of the banns before a wedding reveals its true effect.

Couples will have rights to pensions similar to married couples, will not have to pay inheritance tax on property passed between them when one dies and will have access to hospital records similar to that allowed for a spouse. ...

The Government has decided not to demand that gay couples should go through an official ceremony as heterosexual couples do but will leave it to the discretion of local authorities. It is likely that most councils will allow ceremonies to take place.

Couples who then want to split will have to go through a dissolution in the courts, similar to a divorce. If there are children, maintenace payments will have to agreed.

more

David Blankenhorn: "Speaking of ridiculous postures, even though I used to think that civil unions were a good compromise solution, it does seem pretty ridiculous to reproduce marriage law for SS couples virtually in toto, then withhold the name 'marriage.'"
posted by Eve at 5:34 AM | link 0 comments

FMA MAY BE HELPING BUSH: From the Washington Blade

[Or it may not. What a noncommittal story. --Eve]

A nationwide poll released this week shows that voters believe President Bush is "doing better" than Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on the issue of gay marriage by a margin of 41 percent to 37 percent.

Some political pundits say the finding suggests that President Bush’s decision last month to endorse a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage could be helping him--or at least not hurting him--in the November election.

The poll was conducted March 16-22 among 1,865 registered voters by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Twenty-two percent of the respondents, when asked which candidate was better on the gay marriage issue, either didn't answer or said they did not know. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percent.

Gay activists and some political pundits have alleged that the president endorsed the controversial Federal Marriage Amendment to motivate evangelical Christians and other socially conservative voters to turn out in greater numbers than they did in the 2000 election.

Gay Republican activists, led by the Log Cabin Republicans, joined other gay leaders in denouncing Bush for supporting the anti-gay constitutional amendment, saying Bush would lose most, if not all, of the roughly 1 million gay votes he received in the 2000 election. But some GOP analysts have predicted the president would most likely guarantee for himself at last three million more votes, if not a greater number, from conservative religious voters by backing the amendment. ...

The Quinnipiac poll released this week also shows that most voters don’t consider gay marriage to be a high priority issue for them. When asked to name the issue they view as the "most important" in deciding whom to vote for, only 4 percent named gay marriage. ...

Bill Schneider, senior political analyst for CNN and a recognized expert on voter polling data, said most polls show voters oppose same-sex marriage by a two-to-one margin. He said the same polls show the public split nearly down the middle on the issue of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. ...

Another Quinnipiac poll scheduled to be released March 25 shows that 41percent of a sample of voters polled in the past week support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage while 51 percent oppose such an amendment, according to Mickey Carroll, the Quinnipiac firm's director of polling. Carroll said the poll shows 8 percent of respondents had no answer or said they did not know when asked their view on a constitutional amendment.

more
posted by Eve at 5:31 AM | link 0 comments

SSM AND JOURNALISTIC ETHICS: Terry Mattingly

[Can a reporter who got a San Francisco lesbian marriage license cover the issue for her paper? This is only very tangentially related to same-sex marriage, but Mattingly makes the best case I've seen so far for a position for which I really lack sympathy (no, she can't), so I figured I'd pass it on. Not sure I'm convinced; generally quite skeptical of journalists' attempts to pretend we're free of stakes and spin.--Eve]

...For reporters on the religion beat, many of these questions will sound very familiar. McBride notes that gay and lesbian journalists do have a unique connection to a story that pivots on legal questions that are still being sorted out in courts. However all kinds of people have strong feelings about this issue.

"The journalist who gives money to a church where the minister preaches for or against marriage for gays and lesbians has a stake. The reporter whose sister or daughter is a lesbian has a stake.

"Rather than searching for analogies, journalists must find the threshold where individuals are disqualified from reporting, editing, or influencing a particular story. One threshold should be when fairness cannot be achieved. Another threshold involves public perception. When a journalist enters into the public debate, he gives the public cause to doubt his ability to report the news fairly." ...

These are hard lines to define and McBride's essay probes many of the crucial questions. But it's easy to find the bottom line: Never cover your own story.

more
posted by Eve at 5:27 AM | link 0 comments

MAYOR WITH A MISSION: New York Times Magazine profiles New Paltz mayor

Jason West, the mayor of the little Hudson Valley village of New Paltz who married 25 gay couples last month before receiving a court injunction to stop, has been thinking about gay marriage for a long time. In fact, immediately after taking office last summer, the two things the 27-year-old asked his new village attorney to check on were, first, the state and local beaver trapping laws, since a dog had recently been caught and killed in a beaver trap on the old Bienstock property -- a huge New Paltz scandal that was soon labeled Beavergate; and second, whether a mayor could perform gay marriages. ...

It may seem that the gay-marriage issue popped up out of nowhere in New Paltz, and that it is becoming more complicated with every news cycle. The Ulster County district attorney, Donald A. Williams, who originally charged West for marrying without licenses, most recently brought the same charges against two Unitarian ministers for marrying couples in New Paltz after West decided to stop doing so until the injunction against him is lifted. But if you stop the mayor on the street and ask him if he ever thought about gay marriage before he performed New York State's first gay weddings, he gives you a look that is part incredulous, part perturbed; asking Jason West if he has thought about gay marriage is like asking him if he has thought about renewable energy sources or the evils of global capitalism. ''This is what gets me,'' he said. ''I've always been for gay marriage. I mean, it's just the right thing to do.'' ...

Five days later, West marched into Village Municipal Court -- to be arraigned on charges of solemnizing marriages without licenses. James Fallarino, co-executive chairman of the Queer Student Union, who showed up at the weddings with gay and straight students, said: ''We've always known that Jason West supported us. We just didn't know how he was going to show that support.''

West grew up in Latham, N.Y., a suburban town just north of Albany. His earliest memories include the blast furnace he saw when his mother took him to pick up his father at the steel mill where he worked. The stories his parents tell include his boycott of McDonald's as a child (he opposed the plastic foam containers that held Big Macs) and the time as a teenager when he felt that Christmas was too commercial and asked that he receive no gifts. The parents of the man who speaks so poetically about the institution of marriage -- ''Marriage is the act of making public what is already written in two people's hearts,'' he said as he was arraigned -- are divorced. They separated when West was young, and he and his sister grew up shuttling between two homes. When West talks about marriage, it's very personal. As his sister puts it, ''It just makes it really true when he says that marriage is something that is just between two people and not about anyone else.''

more
posted by Eve at 5:21 AM | link 0 comments