MORE ON ADOPTION: Gabriel Rosenberg replies to Mary Catelli

Mary Catelli has a response and a follow-up to my ongoing discussion concerning marriage and parenting for same-sex couples. I can briefly, and hopefully fairly, summarize her points and questions as follows:

1. Do I believe that homosexual marriages should occur only in states where same-sex adoptions are legal? Likewise if they became illegal in a state, does that destroy the case for marriage?
2. If roommates can adopt should they be permitted to marry?
3. Adoption has been more variable through history then marriage. Why sholdn't adoption change to conform to our current marriage laws, as opposed to vice-versa? Why should adoption law be treated with such reverence and marriage law with such contempt?
4. My only objection to three or more people jointly raising a child and therefore marrying is that the law doesn't permit, but some judge could change the law.
5. Could (should?) a judge decide not to grant a same-sex couple joint adoption because of the concern for greater conflict and confusion?

My responses...

2. Even if they can't adopt, I think roommates should be permitted to marry. They already are permitted if the rooommates are opposite-sex and I don't believe we should forbid it solely because of the gender of the roommates. Whether roommates should marry depends on the circumstance. One should only enter marriage with the intention and the expectation that it will be permanent. So if roommates decide to marry they need to understand that they can't be dating other people, or expect to end the marriage when it no longer suits them. That being said I don't think they should jointly adopt unless they undertake this permanent commitment with all it entails.

3. While I agree that adoption has changed significantly through time and place, I believe marriage has as well (See E.J. Graff's wonderful book, What is Marriage For?) Personally, I don't see allowing same-sex marriage as a radical change to marriage law. I believe the radical change has already occurred in making marriage egalitarian. That is, the changes that have made the rights and responsibilities of a spouse independent of the gender of the spouse are, I believe, unprecedented. ... Once that change has been made the elimination of gender-based entry requirements follows naturally. ...

That being said, one who wishes to end adoptions by same-sex couples, and who believes such a goal could be achieved, probably would want to oppose same-sex marriage. I do concede that marriage will probably make it even less likely that we will change the adoption laws in this manner. I believe that such a reversion in our laws so that we no longer allow same-sex couples to adopt would be a terrible idea. I think it would be disastrous for children, even worse than denying them the protections of marriage. It would deny them the protection of a legal parent. ... In short I believe changing marriage will provide greater protection to children, while reverting the adoption laws would provide less protection to children.

more
posted by Eve at 5:10 PM | link 0 comments

ARE WE ASLEEP?: Chuck Colson

...The fact is that we are going to have legalized gay "marriage" in the United States . It's inevitable, I believe, unless Christians and others speak up strongly.

I was on Capitol Hill a few days ago and met a group of senior congressional staff. They cornered me to tell me that they are greatly alarmed over the lack of public support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. No senator was reporting any unusual number of calls or e-mails.

One conservative Midwest senator who is considered a sure vote said he isn't sure he wanted to get involved in this issue because he hasn't heard from his constituents. He's not alone. This is tragic. Where are the Christians? Are we asleep? ...

The political realities in Washington are very clear: This is the best opportunity we'll ever have to get this amendment. The senators announced a vote for June. And Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the House Majority Leader, tells me the vote will come in the House this summer.

All of the House members, I'll remind you, are up to face the voters in November, and so are one-third of the senators. And in an election year a vote against the Marriage Amendment could hurt politically. But if we fail this year, and it goes over to next year, the vote will cause no pain.

more, inc. "how to take action"-y stuff
posted by Eve at 4:50 PM | link 0 comments

SIX SAME-SEX COUPLES CHALLENGE FLORIDA SSM BAN: From the Associated Press

Six same-sex couples denied marriage licenses sued Thursday in an attempt to overturn state laws banning gay marriage, joining the national fray on the divisive social issue in a politically pivotal state.

The state Circuit Court suit was filed in Key West, a gay enclave far from Tallahassee and the Republican-dominated statehouse. Gov. Jeb Bush, brother of President Bush, supports a 1997 state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and bans the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

A similar lawsuit was filed in Fort Lauderdale in February, and court challenges are under way in six other states.

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

MASS. GOV. SEEKS TO STOP GAY MARRIAGES: From the Associated Press

[Sorry for delays today--tax madness. --Eve]

Gov. Mitt Romney said Thursday he will seek emergency legislation aimed at forestalling gay marriages, which are scheduled to become legal in Massachusetts on May 17.

The legislation would allow Romney to appoint a special counsel who would ask the state's highest court to delay its ruling on gay marriage. The governor said it would allow him "to protect the integrity of the constitutional process."

"Fundamentally, I believe this is a decision which is so important it should be made by the people," Romney said. "I would like the right to be able to represent the people and my own office before the courts in Massachusetts."

Acknowledging that victory is not assured, Romney said he would also be scheduling informational meetings for local clerks on how to handle gay marriages if the Legislature does not approve his request or if the high court rejects it.

Democratic Attorney General Thomas Reilly last month rejected the Republican governor's request to seek a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court until November 2006, when voters may have a chance to weigh in on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and legalizing civil unions.

The man Romney hopes to tap as special counsel is retired state Supreme Judicial Court Justice Joseph R. Nolan, who has called the court's November ruling legalizing gay marriage an "abomination." ...

Any legislation to stop gay marriage would likely face an uphill battle in the state Senate, where 22 of the 40 members last month voted against the constitutional amendment. It passed anyway because there were enough votes among House members.

Even Senate President Robert Travaglini, who supported that amendment, has said there is little appetite in the chamber to block gay marriages May 17.

more
posted by Eve at 4:16 PM | link 0 comments

SSM MAGAZINE LAUNCHES
posted by Eve at 2:08 PM | link 0 comments

CA SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON VALIDITY OF S.F. MARRIAGES: From the Los Angeles Times

The California Supreme Court is considering whether to nullify more than 4,000 marriage licenses that San Francisco granted to gay couples earlier this year.

In an order issued Wednesday, the state high court asked lawyers for the city, the state and anti-gay marriage groups to present written arguments on whether the court should declare the marriages valid or void if it rules that San Francisco exceeded its authority in marrying same-sex couples.

The court is expected to decide within the next few months whether San Francisco flouted state law when it began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples Feb. 12. The city stopped granting the licenses March 11 in response to a court order.

Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the gender-neutral licenses because he said the state Constitution's equal protection clause supercedes state laws that define marriage as heterosexual.

Legal analysts said Wednesday's order indicates that the court is likely to rule against San Francisco.

"If they were upholding the marriages, this question wouldn't arise, so it suggests that they are not going to uphold them," said UC Berkeley emeritus law professor Stephen Barnett. ...

Therese M. Stewart, chief deputy city attorney, said San Francisco did not address the question of validity because the city does not want the court to rule on that issue until the constitutionality of the state's marriage laws is resolved.

That constitutional question is now being heard in San Francisco Superior Court and will probably not reach the state high court until next year. The state Supreme Court declined to rule directly on the marriage laws until lower courts reviewed them.

more
posted by Eve at 2:06 PM | link 0 comments

NEW QUESTION: SHOULD MOST GAYS AND LESBIANS MARRY?

On this site and elsewhere, there's been a lot of talk about whether marriage is already a norm in the gay community; whether instituting same-sex marriage will make it a norm; and whether that would even be a good thing. David Brooks wrote in the New York Times, "We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity." Jonathan Rauch and others have made similar arguments.

What's your view? Click below to join the debate!
posted by Eve at 5:06 PM | link 0 comments

WHAT IS CULTURAL COLLAPSE?: Mark Miller replies to R.K. Becker

What I think 'cultural collapse' entails -- my first thought came up with absolute lawlessness. For example, if all criminals were set free and all laws were no longer enforced. Of course I have doubts about the cultural collapse of even that chaos since I believe that through faith, human nature (as a whole) is guided towards good.

So what I am really saying is that yes, the phrase 'cultural collapse' (which R.K. coined, not me) is essentially a red-herring used in the context of this debate.

In response to "But is he saying that if I do give him examples of some serious possible negative effects of SSM, he will then consider the idea of waiting to see what happens in countries that have already adopted it before advocating it be adopted everywhere?": It depends on whether the examples of those negative effects make sense.

I am not saying there will be no negative effects on the culture. The questions is, as it is with most socially related issues, whether the equal or civil rights issues involved trump the potential negative effects. R.K. may argue that there is no 'rights' issue just as there are those who would argue that there will be no negative effects.

There are other examples of these types of issues across cultures ranging from China's one-child limit rule to laws against polygamy and marriage between siblings in this country. The government of China obviously feels the negative effects of unlimited population growth outweighs reproductive freedom.

R.K. misunderstood the analogy between what Gabriel Rosenberg said about allowing sibling marriage and SSM. Prof. Rosenberg said allowing sibling marriage would weaken or damage sibling relationships--in other words, allowing marriage between siblings would affect other sibling relationships. Using the analogy correctly, SSM would then weaken or damage the relationships between homosexuals who chose not to marry. Does that make any sense?

In response to "The inherent problem with Mark's approach to the whole issue of change and burden-of-proof is that it assumes we know so much more than we do": The same can be said of R.K.'s approach in that the same 'change and burden-of-proof' argument can be applied to any change. Should we not make ANY changes until we know the exact effect of these on the culture or does this 'wait-and-see' only apply arbitrarily to SSM ?

In response to "The problem, as I see it, is that it does more than just that. It doesn't just extend marriage, it androgynizes it. This does indeed change the rules, though not as much for those currently married as for those growing up in the future": I agree. SSM does change the definition of marriage and that will affect those growing up in the future. The question is whether this change is justified by equality under the law and whether possible negative effects outweigh the benefits to the change.
posted by Eve at 4:50 PM | link 0 comments

CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT: Mark Barton replies to Matt Taylor

Matt Taylor: In Mark's opinion, civil union is intended as a slap at gays, and he may be right, but this is a hunch, not a demonstrable fact.

Mark B: But I just did demonstrate it: a very large fraction of the legislators who ultimately voted for the civil unions proposal that finally passed had previously voted for more punitive proposals that would have withheld any recognition for gay and lesbian relationships. Unless the remaining moderates were particularly fervent in their neutrality, the intent of the hard-liners dominates. And I dispute that even the moderates were neutral--see below.

Matt Taylor: There exist good faith arguments for civil union that don't rely on anti-gay bias, therefore animus is not the only reasonable explanation for the proposal.

Mark B.: But it won't do for the arguments simply not to rely on anti-gay bias. The conclusions can't have anti-gay bias either. Take my favorite example of Elizabeth Marquardt, who I suggest is about as moderate as anti-SSM advocates come. I accept that she comes to the table with no a priori anti-gay bias. Nonetheless, in an attempt to do something for children, she wants to make opposite-sex marriage a "norm." She hastens to say that she doesn't want to stigmatize gay people, but there's just no getting around the fact that she wants to herd people towards marriage by making it the most prestigious thing around, and she wants gay unions to have a different name so that they can't compete in this respect. To the extent that Elizabeth recruits some legislators to put government endorsement on her scheme, their contribution to the intent will be to value opposite-sex unions more highly than same-sex unions. That's prima facie unconstitutional. If Elizabeth wants to argue that it should be allowed as an exception because it furthers some compelling government interest, that's entirely legitimate, but her arguments should have to go through the same process of strict judicial scrutiny as in the initial trial. Mere good faith on her part or doesn't cut it. So unless Matt can point to an example of someone who's even more gay-neutral than Elizabeth, and argue that they are representative of the moderates in the Massachusetts legislature, I suggest that settles it. The intent was discriminatory and no new arguments demonstrating a rational basis (much
less a compelling state interest) were offered. Therefore, legally, the MSJC should not have ruled other than it did.
posted by Eve at 4:47 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND PARENTING: Lucia Liljegren replies to Mary Catelli

Mary Catelli discusses my statement 1: "Parents who take on the legal responsibility to care and raise children ought to be married."

As far as I could tell, you found no fallacy in my statement 2. If you agree with 1 and 2, I believe 3 must follow.

So, my only real question is: Do you disagree with my statement 1? That is: Do you think parents who take on the legal responsibility to care for children ought not to be married?

Unless you think parents who raise children are not advised to marry, then the conclusion of my syllogism must be true. Some gays ought to marry.

It would appear that you are trying to come up with a third syllogism. You seem to wish to begin with: Statement 1. "People who conceive children ought to be married."

I do not necessarily agree with this in all cases. For example, I think surrogate parenting is acceptable in some circumstances. In those cases the people who conceive are often not married. However, some people will certainly agree with your statement 1.

It would be interesting to see where it takes you and them. Could you provide a statement 2 and conclusion 3?
posted by Eve at 4:44 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND PARENTING: Lucia Liljegren replies to Ben Bateman

Ben Bateman has suggested some revisions to my syllogism:

1 Parents who take on the legal responsibility to care and raise children ought to be married.
2 Some gays have taken on the legal responsibility to care for and raise children.
3 Therefore, some gays ought to be married.

He thinks statement 1 restricts marriage to people with children. However, I do not believe my first statement restricts marriage to those who are raising children. It simply states that marriage is advisable for those who take on the legal responsibility to raise children. I see nothing in that sentence to suggest others might be ill-advised to marry.

We should allow and even encourage people who do not have children to marry. I have found great happiness in my childless marriage of almost 20 years. I would not dream of legally banning similar marriages.

I see that you believe the first statement is ambiguous. It was for that reason I clarified my use of the term "ought" which means "it is advisable" when I posted. When something is advisable, it not necessarily "required," it is simply something beneficial, which they ought to do.

You wish to introduce the law into the syllogism. I think complicating the first statement by adding legal principles adds nothing. I'll admit the syllogism highlights a puzzling legal situation: Because the law bars marriage between gays, a class of people who ought to marry are legally barred from doing so.

I would also like to comment on this, which is a separate issue: "Marriage is properly about procreation--the making of babies."

I am have been legally married for 20 years. I have no children due to absolute infertility.

The civil law in no way bars my marriage. It does not consider my marriage "lesser"; my marriage doesn't go by a different name. The divorce laws do not permit my husband to divorce me on the ground of infertility and would not permit him to divorce me if I simply refused to have children. We each obtain every legal benefit available to those who have children.

The idea that civil marriage is only about procreation is a myth.
posted by Eve at 4:39 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND PARENTING: Mary Catelli replies to Gabriel Rosenberg (postscript)

I realized something about Mr. Rosenberg's arguments last night and e-mailed about it. Now that he has made it explicit, I am expanding on my points.

The relevant explication is: "The primary issue raised by seemingly everyone was that 'parent' could be interpreted so broad so as to include grandparents, nannies, whole communities, etc. I have taken what is basically Lucia's advice and modified parent with the word 'legal.' That eliminates nannies, roommates, lovers, and groups of three or more. It eliminates stepparents unless the stepparent adopts, in the process terminating any other biological parent's legal status. While I am aware of grandparent adoptions, they generally also terminate the biological parent's legal status."

"...The distinction between caregiver and legal parent matters in law; the distinction between biological or adoptive parent does not. It is, after all, distinctions in law that we are discussing here."

"Despite the preamble finding that 'the best interests of a child are promoted when a child has as many persons loving and caring for the child as possible,' the law as I read it does not allow for more than two legal parents."

"For now let us simply note that groups are not and cannot be legal parents."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My points:

This basic argument is: Homosexual adoptions are now allowed by law. These other arrangements are not. Therefore, we must cut and chop our marriage law to fit our adoption law.

Why not chop our adoption law to fit our marriage laws? Repeal the statutes allowing same-sex parent adoptions, and void the judge-granted adoptions, and impeach the judges who grant them, and we're all set, as far as this argument goes. And why not? Why should adoption law be treated with such reverence and marriage law with such contempt? Adoption has been, throughout history, far more variable than marriage; many, perhaps most cultures, do not even permit it. Mr. Rosenberg's premise "Gay people are parents" is not based on the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not. If same-sex parent adoptions should be treated with respect, because that is what the law permits (currently, and here), so should marriage for heterosexuals only, because that is what is the law permits.

Mr. Rosenberg cites that a child is best cared for by as many people as possible, but his only argument against it is that the law doesn't permit it. May I remind him that judges have granted same-sex adoptions without explicit provision in law for them? One sympathetic judge could void his entire case. A judge might objects on grounds for "the potential for greater conflict and confusion in custody and decision making" but then, the judge could object on the same grounds to a same-sex parent adoption, or even a stepparent adoption. A simple inspection of newspapers would prove him right. Would he then be entitled not to grant them then?
posted by Eve at 4:30 PM | link 0 comments

ADOPTIVE PARENTS: Mary Catelli replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

On consideration on Mr. Rosenberg's views, I have finally realized something that is causing part of the confusion. Beneath all the statements about adoptive parents, Mr. Rosenberg is taking our current state of the adoption law -- heterosexual couples may adopt; in some states, the law allows homosexuals to adopt; in other states, judges have decreed that homosexual couples may adopt -- and treating it as the law of Medes and Persians that altereth not. Our marriage laws must therefore be cut to fit this adoption law.

In fact, adoption has been far more variable than marriage has, throughout history. Many, many, many cultures had no such practice. In ancient Rome, adoption was generally to adopt an adult, to perpetuate the family; a man who picked up an abandoned child could raise it as a slave instead of a child, and usually did. In Japan, adoption was (and I believe still is) not only chiefly the adoption of adults, but the adoption of one's son-in-law when one has no son. And there are states where the granting of same-sex parent adoptions is illegal. Does Mr. Rosenberg believe that homosexual marriages should occur only in states where the adoptions are legal? And that if a state passed a law against such adoptions, or impeached judges who granted them and voided the adoptions, homosexual marriages should not be permitted anymore?

By the same token, if someone persuaded a sympathetic judge to allow their roommate -- or even two roommates -- to adopt their child, should roommates therefore be permitted to marry?
posted by Eve at 4:28 PM | link 0 comments

THINGS TO DO IN D.C.: Pew Forum

The Ties That Divide: A Conversation with Andrew Sullivan and Gerard Bradley on Gay Marriage

On Wednesday, April 28, the Forum will host a discussion titled "The Ties That Divide: A Conversation on Gay Marriage with Andrew Sullivan and Gerard Bradley." The event will take place at 10 a.m. at the J.W. Marriott Hotel (1331 Penn. Ave., NW, Washington, DC). More information will be available online later this week. To RSVP for this event, call Kirsten Hunter at 202/955-5075.
posted by Eve at 4:25 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND PARENTING: Elizabeth Marquardt replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

Gabriel Rosenberg writes: "Anyone who is going to argue about 'defending families' needs to at the very least demonstrate that they have taken these families into consideration. The standard response I have seen is that the welfare of these children, who they claim are already in a less than ideal
situation, is not sufficient reason to harm all of those other children who would
be affected by this change in marriage. But when asked how those other
children will be affected all I hear is that same-sex marriage will change
marriage so that it is not about children. This makes no sense to me. We can't
allow people to marry even though it could help their children, because
people might somehow get the idea that marriage doesn't help children."

My response: I don't use language like "defending families," but I am one of
those Gabriel Rosenberg refers to who says that whatever possible benefit might accrue to children of same-sex couples if SSM is legalized is not worth the risk it poses for undermining the norm of marriage and thereby harming the vast majority of children who are born of heteros. SSM will not "change marriage so that it is not about children," as Rosenberg summarizes the argument of people like me. What it will do is change marriage so that it is no longer, at its core, about uniting the man and the woman who made the baby to one another, for the sake of the baby. With SSM our language of marriage has to become gender neutral. We can't say that children need mothers and fathers, only "parents." Once we do that, the idea that when a man and a woman have a baby it's a good idea for them to attempt to get married and stay married will be greatly weakened. That weakened norm of marriage, resulting from legalized SSM, will lead to more children of heteros growing up without their married mother and father, and suffering the consequences.
posted by Eve at 4:22 PM | link 0 comments

PATERNITY: Gabriel Rosenberg

Elizabeth Marquardt raises an interesting question concerning the presumption of paternity and same-sex marriage. She writes:

"Until very recently, in heterosexual marriages all children born were assumed to be fathered by the husband. Maggie Gallagher has written that this legal assumption functioned to protect the child, and she notes that there are judges who have now bypassed that assumption and awarded paternity to the boyfriend who fathered the child. The weakening of the husband's presumed paternity puts children at risk."

I encourage anyone who can further my knowledge in this area to do so. Here is my understanding of the presumption of paternity which could certainly be wrong. Family law varies from state to state, but the common law worked something like this. A child born into a marriage was assumed to be legally the child of the husband unless the husband (or wife) rebutted this presumption and then usually only if they rebutted the assumption within a certain limited time frame. One way the husband or wife could rebut the presumption was by introducing evidence that the husband was incapable of impregnating the wife at the relevant time. The main thing was that nobody other than the husband or wife could challenge this presumption. ... Elizabeth continues:

"So what would be the case with SSM? If a lesbian woman married to another lesbian woman shows up pregnant one day, will her lesbian partner be presumed to be the child's other legal parent? In this case, as Gabriel Rosenberg states, will 'marriage make this legal responsibility automatic and immediate for children born into the marriage'? Or will the biological obvious-ness of another partner in the mix further weaken the legal power of marriage to 'legitimate' children, for children born of married gays and lesbians, but also for children born of married heteros?"

I think the case would be the same as OSM in the case of a sterile or impotent husband. That is either spouse could (rather easily) challenge the presumption of paternity. If neither did so within a certain time frame (I think it's generally around 60 days), the same-sex partner would be the legal parent and bear full responsibility for the child. I don't see why SSM would cause the law to change as the law already deals with the case of sterile husbands. This shows yet another example of how SSM can be an excellent protection for children. Without marriage if the couple raises the child for a year and then splits up, either partner might try to deny the nonbiological partner as a legal parent thus, as Elizabeth notes, putting the child at risk.

more
posted by Eve at 4:20 PM | link 0 comments

LEAVE IT TO THE STATES?: Gabriel Rosenberg

My short answer is "no", but let me explain. Before answering what I think the situation should be, it is helpful to look at what the situation is. Currently family law is a matter left to a great extent to the states. States have the power to decide who may marry, the legal process required to do so, and what the legal consequences of that marriage are within the state. In all these matters states differ from each other. The state is limited in its actions, though, to the requirement of its own constitution as well as the constitution of the United States. What those constitutions require is often a matter of great debate, but the ultimate judge is the state's highest court for matters pertaining to its own constitution, and the Supreme Court of the US for matters in the US Constitution. In either case the constitution can be amended by a process laid out therein. So, for example, the US has ruled that a state may not forbid interracial marriages, or forbid inmates from marrying (except under compelling reasons). I am not aware of any argument claiming that the US Constitution currently forbids same-sex marriage, although there are arguments that it requires it either as matter of a fundamental right to marry, or as a matter of equal protection. ...

...I do not believe the Supreme Court has explicitly addressed the issue of marriage recognition, but states have repeatedly refused to recognize marriages from sister states. ...The real grey area arises from a couple who legally resided and wed in a state where a marriage was legal, and subsequently moved to another state that had a strong policy against such marriages. This issue did come up a number of times with regards to interracial marriages with results varying from state to state. ...

That being said, there are some questions that arise about whether things should be different. For example, while marriage is currently generally left to the states, maybe this isn't such a good idea. Maybe we should have one national marriage policy to avoid the confusion that arises from 50 different policies. The same sort of argument can be made with regards to many issues besides marriage, and I generally agree. ...I think Congress should have the power to set a national policy in matters whenever it feels it is justified. That being said, this is not what the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) does. Instead of giving Congress a broad power to set national policy, it not only limits this to the area of marriage, nor even only to the issue of same-sex marriage, but rather it sets the policy in one direction and codifies that policy in the constitution. It does not give Congress the power to set national policy, but sets it for Congress. And even then we would still have the problems of certain marriages being legal in one state and illegal in another state.

more
posted by Eve at 4:16 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIED WITH CHILDREN: Shelby Steele replies to Andrew Sullivan

I thank Andrew Sullivan for his considered response in TNR Online to my recent Wall Street Journal article on gay marriage. ...

Sullivan then compares the old arguments against interracial marriage to my argument against gay marriage. And this points to an important theme of my argument: Racial difference is an innocuous human difference that in no way redefines the heterosexual nature of marriage or effects its procreative function. Interracial marriage has no effect on the institution of marriage. But when marriage is redefined to include homosexuality, it ends the heterosexual definition of marriage and moves marriage farther away from its grounding in procreation. It effectively makes marriage an institution more purely devoted to romantic love and adult fulfillment than to the heavier and more selfless responsibilities surrounding procreation. Of course, adult love and the responsibilities surrounding procreation are not mutually exclusive, but the gravity of marriage as an institution comes from its demand that love be negotiated through these larger responsibilities.

To be sure, there are childless heterosexual couples and homosexual couples with children. But to define an institution as important to society as marriage by exceptions to the norms of both sexual orientations--rather than by the norms themselves--makes little sense. It could be argued that marriage is quite literally an outgrowth of heterosexuality itself, an institution that follows from nature's requirement that men and women sexually merge to perpetuate the human species.

Sullivan argues that marriage encourages "stability, fidelity, and family among homosexuals." I don't know. It is certainly doing less and less of this among heterosexuals. But, in any case, the stabilizing features of marriage have evolved over the millennia to protect children and procreation from the vicissitudes of adult love. How many 50's style marriages found stability only for "the sake of the children"? How many 70's, 80's, and 90's marriages ended because children and procreation became secondary to adult fulfillment? The point is that marriage offers the features Sullivan wants for homosexuals only when it is very narrowly--often repressively--grounded in heterosexuality, procreation, and the socialization of children. When it is defined, as Sullivan says he would have it be, around "the unifying experience of love," it becomes nearly as fickle as love itself--a nasty fight, a single betrayal away from dissolution. Marriage brings "stability" to love by humbling it, by making it often less important than the responsibilities to family and community.

When love and fulfillment are of first importance, marriage weakens as an institution, as the high divorce rates of recent decades illustrate. Homosexual unions are, by nature's grace, naturally less burdened by the very responsibilities that heterosexuals have been running from in marriage for decades now. The truth is that heterosexuals have been moving marriage toward the more exclusively adult-focused relationships that gays have always had--relationships that turn more narrowly on love, attraction, and fulfillment. Cohabitation is now virtually a norm among young heterosexuals, and adult happiness is more the test of marriages today than family stability. So the conundrum for the gay marriage movement is that marriage has already declined from its more selfless and stable era into something very much like what gays already have.

So what, then, is the big deal? Why not gay marriages if society has already moved to a place where romantic unions--of all kinds--are now first of all about adult love? One answer is that marriage, despite its decline, will always be the basis of the single most important institution in the human condition--the family. This is the institution that socializes human beings, prepares them (or fails to) for all other human activities. Just because marriage has now declined is no reason to push it even further toward the self-preoccupations of adult love and away from its family focus.

more
posted by Eve at 4:12 PM | link 0 comments

HOMOSEXUALITY AND FREE SPEECH IN CANADA: John Leo

"Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country," Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said a few years ago. An example of what he means is Bill C-250, a repressive, anti-free-speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada. It would add "sexual orientation" to the Canadian hate propaganda law, thus making public criticism of homosexuality a crime. It is sometimes called the "Bible as Hate Literature" bill, or simply "the chill bill." It could ban publicly expressed opposition to gay marriage or any other political goal of gay groups. The bill has a loophole for religious opposition to homosexuality, but few scholars think it will offer protection, given the strength of the gay lobby and the trend toward censorship in Canada. Law Prof. David Bernstein, in his new book "You Can't Say That!" wrote that "it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex." Or traditional Jewish or Muslim opposition, too.

Since Canada has no First Amendment, anti-bias laws generally trump free speech and freedom of religion. A recent flurry of cases has mostly gone against free expression. ...

...In Sweden, sermons are explicitly covered by an anti-hate-speech law passed to protect homosexuals. The Swedish chancellor of justice said any reference to the Bible's stating that homosexuality is sinful might be a criminal offense, and a Pentecostal minister is already facing charges. In Britain, police investigated Anglican Bishop Peter Forster of Chester after he told a local paper: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option." Police sent a copy of his remarks to prosecutors, but the case was dropped. In Ireland last August, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned that clergy who circulated a Vatican statement opposing gay marriages could face prosecution under incitement-to-hatred legislation.

more
posted by Eve at 4:07 PM | link 0 comments

AN ELASTIC INSTITUTION?: John Borneman and Lorie Kain Hart

...In the 1860s New York lawyer and anthropologist Louis Henry Morgan attempted a systematic cross-cultural study of the institution of marriage. Morgan's data were imperfect, but he was able to demonstrate that the record of human societies showed a startling diversity of socially approved forms of marriage. All societies had some form of regularized partnership, but no single standard human form could be identified. Generally, even within a society, there was a certain elasticity of marriage forms.

The most famous of these unions were the ones most foreign to Western Victorian society: marriage between a woman and several men; marriage between a man and several women; forms of "visiting" marriage, whereby a man might visit his wife but not live with her. As anthropologists assembled more reliable data, they found it difficult to produce a definition of human marriage that would hold true for all its socially legitimate forms. ...

Claude Levi-Strauss, the father of French structural anthropology, argued that it is only the "division of labor between the sexes that makes marriage indispensable." It follows that if men and women are granted equal access to jobs of similar worth -- as is often the case today -- the meaning of marriage will change.

The cult of romantic love in a companionate marriage is a recent innovation in the history of marriage. While romantic passion has existed in all societies, only in a few has this unstable emotion been elaborated and intensified culturally and considered the basis for the social institution of marriage. Indeed, marriage has traditionally been more concerned with -- and successful in -- regulating property relations and determining lineage or inheritance rights than with confining passion and sexual behavior. ...

Our society no longer approves of treating women as incompetent minors and the wards of their husbands within the structure of a patriarchal union. We do not approve, generally, of plural marriages -- the basis of our disapproval being that they abrogate the rights of women and especially of young girls. We no longer generally feel that the sole function of women in society is to produce children and serve men as domestic labor. In other words, when we censure certain types of marriage, the basis on which we do so is our defense of individual human rights. This is our ethical standard. ...

What, then, about restriction of the legal bond of marriage to a man and a woman? Does marriage have to be heterosexual? The human record tells us otherwise. While the model of marriage is arguably heterosexual, the practice of marriage is not. In a broad spectrum of societies in Africa, for example, when a woman's husband dies, she may take on his legal role in the family, and acquire a legal "wife" to help manage the domestic establishment. This role of wife is above all social, and not contingent on her sexual relations. These societies, which practice heterosexuality, take this woman-woman marriage as commonsensical; they recognize that above all marriage functions socially to extend and stabilize the network of care.

more

David Blankenhorn replies here. I'll note, too, that the only kind of "same-sex marriage" these anthropologists can adduce looks a lot more like the "marrying your nanny or your mom so you can raise your kids together" model that Mary Catelli and others have discussed on this site than like what SSM supporters in this country favor.
posted by Eve at 4:03 PM | link 0 comments

MORE ON PHILA. BENEFITS: From Law.com

A lawyer for the city of Philadelphia told the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Tuesday that the purpose of the city's domestic partnership ordinances was not to create the equivalence of marriage for same-sex couples but to protect them from discrimination and provide benefits to registered "life partners" of city employees.

"There is no conflict between what the ordinance does and what the domestic code of Pennsylvania does," the attorney, Barbara W. Mather, told the justices.

The benefits and protections bestowed by the ordinances at issue are not provided uniquely to married people, "so we're not about equating life partnership to marriage," explained Mather, a partner at Pepper Hamilton. ...

The ordinances at issue were enacted in 1998 while Edward G. Rendell was mayor. They extend the equivalent of spousal benefits to the partners of lesbian and gay city employees who have registered as life partners with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations. To register, couples present documentation that they've lived together for at least six months and agree to be responsible for each other's "common welfare."

The city also said life partners would be exempt from the city tax on real estate transfers, and specifically protected "life partners" from discrimination by adding such a category under the provision of the Fair Practices Ordinance that protects individuals from discrimination based on "marital status." ...

Under Pennsylvania's domestic code, married people are entrusted with a slew of benefits and obligations -- alimony, joint tax returns, family tax exemptions -- that are not affected by the Philadelphia ordinances, Mather said. ...

Abrams, arguing for Devlin, emphasized how Philadelphia's ordinance differs from municipal ordinances in Denver, Chicago and other cities because life partnership status under the Philadelphia ordinance is not connected to a city employee's job.

more
posted by Eve at 3:50 PM | link 0 comments

LAWYER ARGUES THAT PHILA. BENEFITS REDEFINE MARRIAGE: From the Philadelphia Inquirer

Philadelphia's benefits for same-sex partners represent an illegal city effort to redefine marriage, a lawyer seeking to overturn the law told the Pennsylvania Supreme Court yesterday.

Dennis Abrams said City Council's landmark 1998 gay-rights laws overstepped Philadelphia's legal authority in creating life-partnership status. He called that status analogous to marriage.

"The City of Philadelphia, I submit, doesn't have the right to do that," Abrams said. He argued that only the state has the right to define marriage.

But attorney Barbara Mather, who represented Philadelphia, said the benefits were separate from marriage, and provided far fewer rights and responsibilities. ...

Yesterday's arguments represented the latest round in a decade-long battle over Philadelphia's gay-rights law. In addition to providing government employee health benefits to same-sex partners, the legislation exempts registered life partners from paying the land-transfer tax on property sales between members of a couple.

After waiting in City Council for five years, the provisions became law in 1998, only to be challenged by a group led by evangelical activist William Devlin. Upheld by Common Pleas Court in 2000, the legislation was struck down by Commonwealth Court in 2002.

The state Supreme Court agreed late last fall to hear the city's appeal. ...

In an interview yesterday, Devlin noted with irony that he was doing what conservatives accused liberals of doing in last year's cases: using the courts to undo democratically decided laws.

"I'm taking a page out of the playbook" of the gay-rights activists, he said.

more
posted by Eve at 3:46 PM | link 0 comments

KY LAWMAKERS SEND SSM AMENDMENT TO VOTERS: From the Associated Press

Kentucky lawmakers have approved a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, sending the issue to voters.

The state Senate, in a 33-5 vote Tuesday, passed the measure, which defines marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. The proposal also would deny legal recognition of civil unions. The measure will be on the November ballot.

The House passed the measure Monday night.

Democratic Sen. Ernesto Scorsone, Kentucky's only openly gay legislator, said lawmakers had bowed to a "mob mentality." Large crowds mobilized by the Family Foundation, a Lexington-based conservative group, had converged on the Capitol to push for the amendment.

Kentucky already has a law that prohibits same-sex marriages, but supporters maintained it was necessary to cement the prohibition against gay marriage.

link
posted by Eve at 3:43 PM | link 0 comments

POLLAGE: MANY EVANGELICALS OPPOSE FMA: From the Baltimore Sun

As President Bush reaches out to his conservative Christian base by supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a poll released yesterday shows that more than half of the nation's white evangelicals oppose such a measure.

According to the survey, 52 percent would prefer to rely on state laws to prevent gays from marrying rather than altering the U.S. Constitution. In addition, only 48 percent of white evangelicals said a candidate's support for gay marriage would disqualify him from receiving their votes. ...

"Their concerns are multidimensional," said Anna Greenberg, vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc. in Washington, which conducted the poll for Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, a PBS television show, and U.S. News & World Report. "Evangelicals are just not that different than the rest of America."

The survey of 1,610 respondents was done between March 16 and April 4. It has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The survey will be highlighted in a four-part series, "America's Evangelicals," whose weekly segments will be broadcast on PBS stations beginning this weekend. ...

The survey defined evangelicals roughly as whites over 18 who described themselves as "born-again," fundamentalist, evangelical, charismatic or pentacostal. The definition did not include Roman Catholics, Orthodox or Mormons.

Under the survey's definition, pollsters estimate that 23 percent of U.S. adults--or about 50 million people--are evangelical.

more
posted by Eve at 3:42 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND PARENTING: Gabriel Rosenberg replies to various and sundry

[It's a series of posts; I'll give you brief snippets from each, but it's probably best to just visit his website and read the whole series.]

Part One: ...The primary issue raised by seemingly everyone was that "parent" could be interpreted so broad so as to include grandparents, nannies, whole communities, etc. I have taken what is basically Lucia's advice and modified parent with the word "legal". That eliminates nannies, roommates, lovers, and groups of three or more. It eliminates stepparents unless the stepparent adopts, in the process terminating any other biological parent's legal status. While I am aware of grandparent adoptions, they generally also terminate the biological parent's legal status. I am not aware of any case in which a parent and grandparent are simultaneously legal parents to a child, but I do address that issue. Finally, I did not understand Ms. Catelli's point about me presupposing irresponsible heterosexual behavior. While I do not encourage irresponsible behavior--and one can debate the ethics of sperm donation--the fact is some children do get put up for adoption for whatever reason. I do not forsee this changing any time in the near future.

Part Two: Legal Parents Ought to be Married ...

...The distinction between caregiver and legal parent matters in law; the distinction between biological or adoptive parent does not. It is, after all, distinctions in law that we are discussing here. In any case, this is how I am using the term throughout. ...

Why should legal parents be married? I have spoken before and will again on how the marriage of the parent benefits the child. For the sake of time, I will just give a "quick" outline here--in order of importance--but I would be happy to explore any of these areas further. ...

Part Three: Gays are legal parents ...

Despite the preamble finding that "the best interests of a child are promoted when a child has as many persons loving and caring for the child as possible," the law as I read it does not allow for more than two legal parents. To my knowledge no child in the United States has more than two legal parents. A judge in Canada was recently asked to grant such a petition, but he denied it. One of the concerns he cited was the potential for greater conflict and confusion in custody and decision making. Similarly, group marriage would lead to the sort of confusion and conflict marriage helps to reduce. For more on the harms of polygamy see here. This is getting a bit off topic, though. For now let us simply note that groups are not and cannot be legal parents.

The law as I read it would seem to allow two people who are related to each by kinship other than marriage to also become legal parents. ...An example that has been given is a mother and grandparent raising a child together. In such a case I do not think the grandparent should adopt the child, although the law should recognize that grandparents (and other relatives) do sometimes share the responsibility of raising a child. There are some key differences here that I think are relevant. First of all, the child is already related to the second caregiver. Adoption is not necessary to establish a kinship relation, and could in fact interfere with the other kinship relations. (Again see here for more on this). Secondly I think the parent should be allowed to marry (or remarry) without having to go through divorce proceedings with the grandparent. And should the mother marry and move out, I believe (unless there is a good reason otherwise) she should maintain custody of the child. That is, the court should not view both of them as legally equivalent parents. That being said, suppose a child was adopted by two closely related unmarried individuals, should they be able to marry? No. This would be an exception, and I have given reasons why it should be an exception. In particular I think there are specific ways in which the relation of the parents should (and do) operate under laws different than marriage. If someone wished to make a similar excpetion for same-sex couples, they should explain why. Which laws of marriage should not apply to them, and why? ...

Conclusion: Gays Ought To Be Married ...

Does this mean I believe marriage is about child rearing? No. I believe marriage is about establishing a legal kinship relation between two unrelated individuals. I believe that if a couple is going to start a family, it would be advisable to do it within marriage (if possible) because of the great value of marriage to childrearing. And I believe there is no justification for denying children of same-sex couples these protections. It also probably goes without saying that I don't think marriage is about procreation either, at least in the sense that I don't see procreation as a necessary component of marriage. I think couples who do not or cannot conceive are just as married as couples that do conceive. While we're at it, I don't view marriage as a governmental reward for child producing or child rearing. In fact, I don't view it as a reward for anything. Rather the law recognizes kinship relations and the incumbent rights and responsibilities they entail. ...

...Anyone who is going to argue about "defending families" needs to at the very least demonstrate that they have taken these families into consideration. The standard response I have seen is that the welfare of these children, who they claim are already in a less than ideal situation, is not sufficient reason to harm all of those other children who would be effected by this change in marriage. But when asked how those other children will be effected all I hear is that same-sex marriage will change marriage so that it is not about children. This makes no sense to me. We can't allow people to marry even though it could help their children, because people might somehow get the idea that marriage doesn't help children.
posted by Eve at 1:57 PM | link 0 comments

"PARENTS": Elizabeth Marquardt

...Reading Mary Catelli's paragraph in her very interesting post led me to wonder if we're taking a too narrow, literalist view of homosexual relationships and sexuality when we're talking about how children are brought into the union. I suppose it's true that in most homosexual couples children are acquired through adoption or use of radical reproductive technologies (or are brought into the union as the product of a previous union). But if some straight people stray from their marriages and sleep with gays or lesbians (which happens), I guess it's not unheard of for some gays or lesbians to stray from their unions and sleep with straight people. If a lesbian woman who is married or "unionised" with her lesbian partner has an affair with a man and gets pregnant, well, a child has been born into the lesbian union.

Until very recently, in heterosexual marriages all children born were assumed to be fathered by the husband. Maggie Gallagher has written that this legal assumption functioned to protect the child, and she notes that there are judges who have now bypassed that assumption and awarded paternity to the boyfriend who fathered the child. The weakening of the husband's presumed paternity puts children at risk.

So what would be the case with SSM? If a lesbian woman married to another lesbian woman shows up pregnant one day, will her lesbian partner be presumed to be the child's other legal parent" In this case, as Gabriel Rosenberg states, will "marriage make this legal responsibility automatic and immediate for children born into the marriage"? Or will the biological obvious-ness of another partner in the mix further weaken the legal power of marriage to "legitimate" children, for children born of married gays and lesbians, but also for children born of married heteros?

more
posted by Eve at 1:44 PM | link 0 comments

WHAT IS CULTURAL COLLAPSE? Lynn Gazis-Sax replies to R.K. Becker

...So, to me, saying SSM will lead to cultural collapse brings up images either of abandoned cities or of three-year-olds being shoved out the door by their mothers. These words have just got to mean something different to R.K. Becker, but I'm not sure what.

more
posted by Eve at 1:42 PM | link 0 comments

MAN BEHIND THE AMENDMENT: Matt Daniels profile from USA Today

Matt Daniels, 40, is a man in the middle of a growing maelstrom, a newly minted mover and shaker.

Most Americans have never heard of him, but his influence is helping drive one of the country's hottest issues. Daniels is the force behind the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages nationwide. ...

Daniels' views on family, he says, are based in large part on personal experience. He insists he wants to protect what he did not have himself: a dad who stuck around to raise him in a traditional family.

"My growing up was miserable," he says. His father was "a gifted and irresponsible aspiring writer" who deserted his mother when Daniels was a toddler. He was raised in New York's Spanish Harlem, which had become crime-ridden. He was mugged both at knifepoint and gunpoint.

His mother worked until she got off at a wrong bus stop in the early 1970s and was attacked. She ended up depressed and disabled, on welfare. "Things would have been different if my father had been around," he says.

While his friends ended up on drugs or in jail, Daniels says his mom functioned as his "moral compass." She emphasized education. "I knew I could use it to get out of my circumstances. I outworked everyone to succeed." He had, he says, "a survival-driven work ethic," which helped him graduate from Dartmouth College in 1985.

In 1996 Daniels became director of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a non-profit organization concentrating on family issues. Also in 1996, he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. In 2003 he earned a doctorate in politics from Brandeis University.

Over time, he decided that the wrong people, judges, were making social policy and predicted that courts would someday permit gay marriages. Lawsuits filed in different states reflected "values out of touch with the beliefs of most Americans regarding marriage."

His vehicle for change is the Alliance for Marriage, which he began building in 1999 with a wide-ranging, multi-faith board of advisers. "Marriage is not the private property of the Christian community," he says. Advisers include sympathetic Catholics, Jews and Muslims, as well as black and Latino church leaders who see traditional marriage "as a transcendent social institution." he says. Walter Fauntroy, a longtime Washington, D.C., civil rights activist, and former baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn are among those on board. ...

Repeatedly, Daniels returns to his childhood to explain his commitment to traditional marriage as the cradle for raising children. His bitter experiences made him commitment-shy for years. "I had no role model" for being a husband and a dad, he says. It was "an act of faith" for him to marry in 1995.

more
posted by Eve at 1:04 PM | link 0 comments

PLIGHT OF GAY BINATIONAL COUPLES: From the Washington Post

Leslie Bulbuk and Marta Donayre fell hard for each other, the way people do when they meet "the One." Within months, they knew that if they could, they would get married, file joint income taxes, name the other as next of kin.

But the couple had a problem beyond being lesbians in a country where same-gender marriages are not legal. Donayre, a public relations executive, was here from Brazil on a work visa. Then she was laid off -- jeopardizing her status in this country.

Had Bulbuk and Donayre been a heterosexual couple facing the same dilemma, they could have easily resolved it: The federal government allows a permanent U.S. resident in a committed heterosexual relationship with someone from another country to marry that person and sponsor his or her residency. In 2002, the latest year for which figures are available, nearly 300,000 immigrants who entered the United States were foreign brides or grooms.

But unlike immigration authorities in 16 other countries -- including, most recently, Brazil -- the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services does not grant gay couples the same immigration benefits available to heterosexuals. ...

In February 2000, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which would grant gay couples the same right as heterosexual couples to sponsor the residency of their permanent partners. The impetus for the bill, which has 120 co-sponsors and is seeking more, was "simply the need to right a cruel law that keeps loving, committed partners apart," Nadler said in a recent interview.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a companion bill last year. But neither bill, which conservative foes view as a step toward legalizing gay marriage, has been granted a vote.

more
posted by Eve at 12:59 PM | link 0 comments

FULL POLL DATA ON BIG LA TIMES STUDY OF ATTITUDES TOWARD SSM AND VARIOUS GAY RIGHTS ISSUES here (PDF).
posted by Eve at 12:38 PM | link 0 comments

GAY-MARRIAGE LICENSE RULES SOUGHT: From the Boston Globe

Provincetown officials plan to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples from out of state next month, despite the state attorney general's view that Massachusetts law forbids same-sex couples from most other states from marrying here.

Same-sex couples from around the United States have contacted Provincetown to plan weddings once gay marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts on May 17, but Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly has said state law prohibits them from marrying here if their home state forbids gay marriage, as is the case in at least 38 states.

Provincetown's Board of Selectmen recently voted to permit marriages for out-of-state residents who complete a form stating that their marriage doesn't break any laws. Yesterday, the town manager, Keith Bergman, said town officials would not investigate to verify the home states or backgrounds listed for gay couples on marriage license applications.

more
posted by Eve at 12:37 PM | link 0 comments

WEEKS AHEAD CRUCIAL FOR FOES, SUPPORTERS OF SSM: From the Boston Globe

Long before Election Day 2006 -- the date when voters could cast ballots on a constitutional amendment that would decide the future of gay marriage in Massachusetts -- another date looms that may be far more crucial: May 17, when the state is expected to permit gays and lesbians to marry.

Supporters and opponents of gay marriage agree that if licenses are issued next month as expected, the amendment that lawmakers recently passed to ban gay marriage and establish civil unions in 2006 will probably lose steam. So now is make-or-break time for opponents of same-sex marriage, who are pressing Governor Mitt Romney to block the licenses any way he can, even if that means tying the matter up in court. ...

From May 17 forward, the gay-marriage battlefronts will multiply and could extend for at least 2 1/2 years. The issue will be fought in this November's legislative races, as activists from both sides carry through on their threats to target lawmakers who have defied their will on gay marriage. It will be fought on the airwaves and in the newspapers, as advocates spend millions of dollars on advertisements. It will be fought on Beacon Hill, as the amendment comes up for reconsideration and some opponents seek a gay-marriage ban without a civil unions provision. And it will be fought in scores of courtrooms across the country, as couples married in Massachusetts test the limits of their new rights.

But first comes May 17, the date set by the Supreme Judicial Court when it legalized gay marriage some five months ago. ...

For Romney, the options for holding off the May 17 change might include issuing an executive order that would tie the matter up in court, for example, or changing state rules to make the licenses virtually impossible to get. But Romney's spokesman sounds resigned to the issuance of licenses on May 17. ...

Those who support gay marriage say its occurrence will change so little in other people's lives that support for an amendment will fall away. Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University, agrees.

"The argument for a constitutional amendment is that if same-sex marriages are recognized, something terrible will happen," said Koppelman. "When we get to 2006, one of the most evident facts will be that the sky has not, in fact, fallen. It's hard to imagine the case for the amendment becoming stronger between now and then."

more
posted by Eve at 12:35 PM | link 0 comments