BACKERS OF SSM BAN FIND TEPID RESPONSE IN PEWS: From the New York Times

...Most of the groups supporting the proposed federal constitutional amendment concede that it appears all but dead in Congress for this election year. ...

In a last effort to publicize their cause before the impending wave of same-sex marriages, conservative Christian groups are organizing an emergency telecast to churches around the country, bringing African-American clergy members to Washington to lobby the Congressional Black Caucus, and sending members of a group for people who say they are formerly gay to make the rounds of Capitol Hill as well.

Still, the opponents of gay marriage say they are puzzling over why such a volatile cultural issue is not spurring more rank-and-file conservative Christians to rise up in support of the amendment. They are especially frustrated, they say, because opinion polls show that a large majority of voters oppose gay marriage.

"Our side is basically asleep right now," Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage, which helped draft the proposed amendment, said in an interview last week.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said: "I don't see any traction. The calls aren't coming in and I am not sure why."

Some conservatives warn that the Christian leaders rallying behind the amendment may now face a loss of credibility. Their influence with evangelical believers is a subject of keen interest in Washington, in part because the Bush campaign has made ensuring their turnout at the polls a top priority. ...

The amendment's backers say that they always knew approval by Congress would be difficult, but that they had expected to get far enough that every candidate in the country would have to take a position on it in the fall. But although the amendment is bogged down, some opponents of same-sex marriage say they see evidence of support for their cause at the state level. ...

"I think people are in shock," Senator Cornyn said. "I think people are still having a hard time believing this is real. One of the most common responses I hear is, 'This is just in Massachusetts, why does it concern us in other states?' "

Like most of the amendment's supporters, Senator Cornyn is betting that the spread of Massachusetts marriage licenses will drive the issue home. "When people understand that there are same-sex couples that will get married under Massachusetts law and then move to other states and demand that those marriages are recognized by the laws of other states, that is when people will understand this," he said.

But Mr. Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force suggested that watching gay weddings in Massachusetts would make people more accepting, not less.

"The minute you pose the question to somebody, 'How will this hurt you?,' they never have an answer," he said. "As this discussion has gone on and people have seen these images of regular people thrilled to be married, it has dispelled the myth and a lot of the fear around same-sex marriage."

Not that the opponents of gay marriage are giving up on the amendment. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the amendment's supporters wanted votes in Congress so they could work to replace anyone who voted against it.

For months, Dr. Land has told President Bush's political adviser Karl Rove and members of Congress that no issue has upset ordinary evangelical Christians as much as the threat of gay marriage. Last week he stood by that view, but he acknowledged that parishioners around the country might not have voiced their opinions to elected officials as loudly as he had expected.

more
posted by Eve at 7:44 PM | link 0 comments

KERRY AGAIN OPPOSES SSM: From the Washington Post

With his home state set to begin marrying same-sex couples on Monday, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) reiterated his opposition to the idea yesterday, even as he met with gay and lesbian groups to shore up their support.

The presumptive Democratic nominee has long opposed gay marriage, favoring instead state-sanctioned civil unions that extend legal protections to gay couples.

Yet Kerry has taken several positions on the issue: He voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union only of a man and woman, saying it amounted to gay-bashing. Kerry has opposed President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage but said in February that he favors such a ban in Massachusetts.

"If the Massachusetts legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," he told the Boston Globe.

Kerry's careful line is likely to come under increasing scrutiny as Massachusetts becomes the first state to sanction gay marriages, under a ruling by the state's Supreme Judicial Court. Massachusetts's capital, Boston, is also the site of the 2004 Democratic National Convention in late July.

Kerry's apparent discomfort with the issue showed at a news conference yesterday at his campaign headquarters in Washington. Asked by a reporter what he would say "on a personal level" to same-sex couples married in his state, Kerry said: "It's not my job to start parceling advice on something personal like that. I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and in extending our rights under the Constitution in a nondiscriminatory manner." ...

Gay and lesbian groups, however, said they enthusiastically support Kerry after meeting with him yesterday.

more
posted by Eve at 7:34 PM | link 0 comments

MASS. COUPLE STRUGGLING WITH ISSUES OF FAMILY AND RELIGION: From the Washington Post

...They are daughters of devout Catholics and said they have been ostracized by many in their families. Their parents will not attend their wedding, and VanBuskirk's mother offered to take her siblings on a vacation to Ireland so they are out of the country on their wedding day. ...

The legal and political obstacles to the day were overcome by gay activists and their supporters. But for many same-sex couples, family and religious challenges remain.

Many mainstream churches will not conduct same-sex weddings. The Catholic Church, which is also a cultural and political force in Massachusetts, has been among the strongest opponents of the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that ruled prohibition of gay marriage unconstitutional. ...

"I love my daughter, and I always will," Diana's father, Anthony Cutaia, said in a telephone interview from Boca Raton, Fla., where he lives. "But to me, there is no marriage. That's what it comes down to. Whatever exercise they go through is fine, but it's not a marriage." ...

Cutaia first proposed to VanBuskirk two years ago. They anticipated having a commitment ceremony and sought out the pre-Cana classes required of all Catholic couples planning to marry. But finding a priest willing to work with a gay couple was hard. ...

They joined a gay Catholic community called Dignity Boston, where up to 150 members worship each Sunday in an Evangelist church in Beacon Hill.

They pray together almost every night, though these days with Cutaia working normal hours and VanBuskirk on the 4 p.m.-to-midnight shift, they sometimes have to do so over the phone. "One of our favorite things to do is attend Mass together," Cutaia said. "We knew from the start that faith would have to play a major role in our relationship."

more
posted by Eve at 7:24 PM | link 0 comments

BLACK CLERGY GATHERING TO FIGHT GAY MATRIMONY: From the San Francisco Chronicle

Conservative evangelical groups -- including the Christian men's movement, Promise Keepers -- are mobilizing African American church leaders for a renewed campaign against same-sex marriage.

Some of the nation's best-known black clergymen will come together in Washington, D.C., on Monday to denounce homosexual unions -- the same day judges in Massachusetts begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. The Supreme Court refused Friday to intervene and block clerks from issuing these marriage licenses.

The gathering on Capitol Hill will be followed next weekend with a large rally in Texas called "Not on My Watch." ...

In San Francisco, a coalition of seven African American pastors called San Francisco Tabernacle Clergy have prepared their own joint statement condemning same-sex marriage and comparisons to the civil rights movement. ...

Bishop Donald Green, the pastor of San Francisco Christian Center and chairman of the coalition, said they are not part of the new national campaign organized by the Traditional Values Coalition.

But they make similar arguments based on their understanding of the Bible and experience in black churches.

"As African American pastors, teachers, counselors and leaders, we see and live with the horrors of a declining society," they state. "Same-sex marriage would serve to advance the decline of marriage and ... family values in the African American community."

Joining Green in that statement were the pastors of Bethel AME Church, Missionary Temple CME Church, First AME Zion Church, Jones Memorial United Methodist Church, True Hope Church of God in Christ and Providence Baptist Church.

Of course, not all African American church leaders in San Francisco agree.

The Rev. Cecil Williams, the longtime leader of Glide Memorial United Methodist Church, said Christian right leaders mobilizing black clergy are "attempting to divert attention from the real issue."

"They need to open up to other perspectives," Williams said. "I've said this (the gay rights movement) is a part of the civil rights movement. The issue is to bring out freedom in people's lives."

On this issue, however, Williams appears outnumbered by black clergy opposed to same-sex marriage. ...

By actively backing the May 22 "Not on My Watch" rally in Arlington, Texas, Fortman gives same-sex marriage opponents the resources of Promise Keepers -- which has brought an estimated 5 million men to stadium-sized rallies over the past 13 years.

Meanwhile, another powerful conservative evangelical lobby, the Traditional Values Coalition, has lined up some nationally known African American church leaders for the Monday start of "a state-by-state grassroots effort to pass legislation protecting marriage."

Bishop Paul Morton, the presiding bishop of the fast-growing Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship; evangelist and former NFL star Darrell Green; and California television evangelist Frederick K.C. Price are among those black Christian luminaries who will call on the Congressional Black Caucus to oppose civil unions for homosexual couples.

more
posted by Eve at 7:15 PM | link 0 comments

LET MASS. BE A TEST CASE FOR GAY UNIONS: Andrew Sullivan

...Please calm down. Will heterosexuals now stop marrying because gay people can? Will the birthrate plummet? Will the sky fall? Of course not. But, even so, we can find out. The beauty of federalism, after all, is that we can test an idea in one state before we try it in any others. In two years' time, the voters of Massachusetts will also be able to take stock and vote to reverse the change, if they so wish.

Some members of the religious right claim that the change in Massachusetts will make civil marriage for homosexual couples mandated across the country. But there is absolutely no truth to that claim. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution does not apply to marriage licenses. Like licenses to practice law or medicine, they are not easily transferable across state lines--and have historically been barred if another state says they violate its public policy. That's how we came to have interracial marriage banned in many states while legal in others for decades. So far, 38 states have passed laws insisting that they will not recognize such civil marriages in Massachusetts. Then there's the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which underlines this fact. By denying gay couples any federal benefits, while writing into federal law that Massachusetts' marriages need not be recognized elsewhere, DOMA has shut the door to any nationalization of civil marriage. So why on Earth do we need to go to the drastic step of passing an amendment to the Constitution?

The answer is that there is no need at all. ...

Moreover, the national view of homosexuality has changed drastically in the last decade or so, and we are now in a period of great flux and debate on the matter. Polls show that the younger generation supports equal marriage rights for gays by a heavy majority. By passing a constitutional amendment now, we will essentially be freezing our current unsettled opinion forever and robbing our children of a choice they have a right to make. It's always worth reiterating, as conservatives often have: The Constitution should be amended only in drastic circumstances and only for properly constitutional matters. The issue of gay marriage belongs in the realm of politics and law, not the Constitution.

Besides, the Constitution should be a text that unites us rather than divides us. Everyone knows this issue deeply divides people, sparks deep emotions and feelings on all sides. Settling such a matter by rewriting the document that our founders gave us is an insult to them and to all Americans. Amending it to write discrimination into the document that guarantees equality and freedom is equivalent to writing graffiti on a sacred monument. So let's leave Massachusetts alone. And let the political, civil and judicial process take its long, arduous but essential role in deciding this, state by state, in due course and due time. Right now, we have far more pressing matters to deal with.

more
posted by Eve at 9:14 PM | link 0 comments

AGAINST MUSGRAVE AMENDMENT: Mike Farris

...I completely agree with the conservatives in Congress and in pro-family organizations that we must amend the Constitution if we want to save our culture. Proposals for nonconstitutional solutions simply will not work.

As much as I want to stop same-sex marriage, I actually believe we would be in worse shape if the currently proposed Musgrave Federal Marriage Amendment were ratified.

The Musgrave FMA bans same-sex marriage but allows state legislatures to create civil unions if they choose to do so. To understand this, we need to understand the legal definition of civil unions.

Only Vermont and California have created these relationships. Same-sex couples must get a license from the state to enter the relationship. The couples become "legal spouses" for all legal purposes. Civil unions are not merely about pension rights or insurance. Civil-union couples have 100 percent of the legal rights of marriage.

The Musgrave FMA would be like a constitutional ban on abortion that still allows the states to sanction "termination of pregnancy." We need to protect the substance of marriage, not merely the word marriage. ...

There is a place for political pragmatism. But, if we are going to be pragmatic, we need to see what the American public wants, not merely what is popular on Capitol Hill.

What does the public think about civil unions and the Musgrave approach?

The key to accurate polling is a proper definition of civil unions. A Washington Post poll defines civil unions as giving same-sex couples "the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance, and pension coverage." Asked this way, 51 percent of the public supports civil unions.

However, a Feb. 5, 2004, news story in the Post had a more accurate definition. Civil unions grant "all the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage," the Post said, citing Vermont law.

An independent professional poll asked if voters favored civil unions with this definition: "A civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under Vermont law as are granted to spouses in a marriage." This is far closer to the Washington Post news story than the Post's own poll. And it is legally accurate.

Asked this way, the public splits 32 percent to 59 percent against civil unions. ...

Voters apply the same common sense to the Musgrave FMA. When voters are asked if they would favor a constitutional amendment that would "ban same-sex marriages, and would prevent judges from granting same-sex couples the same rights that married couples have, but it would still allow state legislatures to establish civil unions if they want to," the public strongly rejects this approach. Voters split 37 percent to 56 percent against Musgrave. Born-again Christians reject Musgrave 31 percent to 62 percent. Republican voters split 44 percent to 51 percent against Musgrave. Blacks are 31 percent to 58 percent against Musgrave. Voters who support the idea of amending the Constitution to save marriage are 38 percent to 54 percent against Musgrave. There is not a single demographic group in the nation that gives Musgrave majority approval. ...

But let's assume that a miracle happens and Musgrave is ratified. What happens then?

States will face incredible pressure to enact civil unions. Same-sex couples will be made spouses in more and more states. They will have 100 percent of the legal rights of marriage. The grassroots that worked so hard to save marriage will ask, "Why did we do all of this work? We didn't save marriage."

more
posted by Eve at 8:52 PM | link 0 comments

US SUPREME COURT WON'T BLOCK MASS. SSM: From the Associated Press

The Supreme Court refused Friday to block the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriages from taking place next week.

The justices declined without comment to intervene and block clerks from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in Massachusetts. That state's highest court had ruled in November that the state Constitution allows gay couples to marry, and declared that the process would begin on Monday.

The Supreme Court's decision, in an emergency appeal filed Friday by gay marriage opponents, does not address the merits of the claim that the state Supreme Judicial Court overstepped its bounds with the landmark decision.

A stay had been sought by a coalition of state lawmakers and conservative activists. ...

Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, had told justices in a filing that they were not asking the Supreme Court "to take any position on the highly politicized and personally charged issue of same-sex marriage."

Instead, Staver wrote, they wanted the court to consider whether the Massachusetts judges wrongly redefined marriage. That task should be handled by elected legislators, he said.

more
posted by Eve at 8:51 PM | link 0 comments

FINAL DAYS: David Frum

Barring some unforeseen late-breaking development, the state of Massachusetts will commence issuing same-sex marriage licenses on Monday. About 15 minutes after that, the national debate over same-sex marriage will shift from lively to brawling. ...

In recent months, the battered old principle of federalism has benefited from a similar influx of unlooked-for acclaim.

People who had little use for federalism when the issue was abortion have suddenly discovered a huge new respect for state sovereignty now that state sovereignty can be invoked to protect Massachusetts' revised version of marriage.

I've argued in this space that marriage long ago ceased to be a local institution--that the modern American economy and modern American government cannot cope with the possibility that two people can be married on one stretch of I-95 and unmarried an hour down the road.

Now we're going to put the issue to the test. And we're going to test something else too: the good faith of the proponents of same-sex marriage in a single state. A little while ago, I wrote out a list of examples of the difficulties that would be caused by this new insitution of now-you-see-it-now-you-don't matrimony. You can find the complete list here. My friend Eugene Volokh of UCLA law school recently posted an impressively thorough reply to my challenges. His answer, basically, was that from the point of view of the other 49 states and the federal government, these Massachusetts marriages would be completely nugatory and could be ignored at will. Well, we'll see about that. My own prediction is that the forces pressing for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts will not long remain content with Volokh's answers, theoretically credible though they might be. So long as the battle over the Federal Marriage Amendment rages, they'll swear devotion to the doctrines of local self-determination. But those vows will quickly become inoperative. After all, if they really cared so deeply for local self-determination, they would have tried to persuade the Massachusetts legislature to rewrite the law, rather than persuading one of the country's most insulated judiciaries to do the job instead.

In the midst of this swirling debate comes a truly remarkable book, Jonathan Rauch's "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America." ...

Jonathan appreciates too that marriage will be harmed if the government tries to redefine marriage in ways that shock the conscience of its people. If "legal marriage" deviates from "real marriage"--if for example the US Supreme Court were to announce tomorrow that same-sex couples can "marry" in exactly the same way that men and women can--the court would not change Americans' minds; it would only discredit the institution of marriage.

This recognition has made Jonathan one of the few sincere advocates of a federalist approach to the same-sex marriage issue. Most of those who now profess to accept Eugene Volokh's tough restrictions on the validity of Massachusetts' same-sex marriages are quietly preparing to reverse themselves on Tuesday and to begin agitating for full nation-wide judicial recognition. Jonathan is an exception. ...

...But Jonathan’s own vision of marriage explains why his arguments ultimately fail. Jonathan suggests that many liberal Americans already accept same-sex marriage. They treat same-sex couples as "married": and when the government refuses to follow, the government discredits the institution of marriage in the eyes of this sector of heterosexual society and makes cohabitation a more attractive option for them. That's why (he says) same-sex marriage would be "good for America." But it's also true that there is a much larger population of Americans who show no signs of ever accepting the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. What Massachusetts is proposing to do will marginalize them and banish their deepest principles and convictions to the outskirts of American life. If we want to have a national consensus about and in favor of marriage--as Jonathan rightly wants--we have to recognize that the only way we can have it is on the terms that exist today, before the mischievous rulings of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Council begin their destructive work.

more
posted by Eve at 8:44 PM | link 0 comments

AMERICA AND EUROPE: Andrew Sullivan replies to Maggie Gallagher

Maggie Gallagher's latest argument about same-sex marriage is not much more than a splutter. But it does have an error. As part of her attempt to portray equal marriage rights for gays as some kind of path toward an un-American Gomorrah, she says the following: "Europe, which gave us the idea of same-sex marriage, is a dying society, with birthrates 50 percent below replacement." But the first movement for marriage equality was in America in the 1970s. And the first major breakthrough was in America, in Hawaii. And the intellectual arguments in favor were forged in America, not in Europe. And that is how it should be. It is the American constitution that guarantees not some pragmatic device to help gay couples, but the bedrock principle of civil equality and civil rights. This is a quintessentially American reform, which is why it is so appropriate that Massachusetts, the home of the Pilgrims, should be the pioneer. And so fitting that the day for the breakthrough will be the fiftieth anniversary of Brown vs Board of Education.

link
posted by Eve at 8:42 PM | link 0 comments

GAY LEADERS AREN'T RUSHING TO MARRY: From the Washington Blade

..."I'm obviously paid to be a professional homosexual, but this is a very personal decision," said Foreman, now the executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. "I'm not old-fashioned when it comes to many things; I am when it comes to marriage. I believe our relationship will never be seen as equal to others unless we are married."

To Foreman, his own marriage demonstrates a commitment to his partner, and, he says, to the vision of Stonewall, "which was to create new ways for people to have family."

But for many of the other leaders of large gay and lesbian advocacy groups directly involved in the push for same-sex matrimony, the logic behind the reproductive rights movement in the 1970s applies. They might not ever personally need or want a civil marriage, but they have dedicated their professional lives to ensuring that right for every American.

That appears to be the case for the two most prominent gay rights leaders pushing marriage equality.

Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques, a former Massachusetts state senator who introduced marriage legislation before resigning that post, won't return to her native state to wed partner Jennifer Chrisler. Despite her new role as the gay movement's chief lobbyist, the pragmatism Jacques acquired as an attorney has apparently led her to rule out immediate matrimony.

Jacques, who regularly mentions her family, including twins Timmy and Tommy, when advocating for marriage equality, declined to explain why marriage wasn’t the right personal step for her family at this time.

"Jenn and I feel honored and privileged to be able to have this conversation, but we will remain married in our hearts, not legally," said Jacques, who has retained her Massachusetts residency.

Evan Wolfson, of the Freedom to Marry Coalition, one of the prime forces behind the marriage movement as the lead counsel in the landmark Hawaii marriage suit, says his role is "to mind the rest of the store." He has also decided to wait on marrying his boyfriend.

Observers of the marriage movement--which acquired legs in the early '90s at a biannual gathering of national gay rights litigators called the Roundtable, but took off with lightning speed after the 2001 filing of Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health--can divide the vested organizations into two categories: the lawyers and the lobbyists.

On the whole, and not atypically, the executives of legal advocacy groups will not sign marriage licenses next Monday, while their activist counterparts have expressed desire, if not intention, to officially tie the knot.

"I feel like it would be odd to get married and then be in court, arguing and championing the validity of my own marriage license. I want more detachment, even though I couldn't be more immersed and invested in the outcome," said Kate Kendall, the executive director of the San-Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Kendall did not marry her partner of 11 years in February and will not on Monday. "Whether actual or perceptual, there was a line on the ground that I didn't feel like stepping across--most judges and plaintiffs want the legal advocate to have a degree of removal from the issue." ...

Along the same lines, both Anthony Romero, the gay executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Kevin Cathcart, the head of the Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund have asserted that they will not wed in Massachusetts, despite long-term relationships. Neither will Matt Coles, the director the ACLU’s Lesbian & Gay Rights project. ...

While the lawyers involved in the same-sex marriage movement largely wait for, as Kendall said, "a day when there is not one legal cloud over the validity of marriage," the political activists will actively participate in the privilege for which they fought on the streets.

more
posted by Eve at 8:34 PM | link 0 comments

MASS. WEDDINGS A LEGAL PANDORA'S BOX: From the Washington Blade

When Massachusetts gay couples start tying the knot legally next week, many experts predict both proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage will file a variety of lawsuits seeking to expand or restrict their newfound marriage rights.

At greatest dispute will be federal benefits for gay couples and a constitutional challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a case that many experts agree is all but inevitable.

"I would anticipate that federal DOMA would be challenged by Massachusetts same-gender couples," said Mark D. Mason, treasurer of the Massachusetts Bar Association who also wrote two amicus briefs for Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health, the case that led to the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts.

"Likewise I anticipate that Massachusetts residents who move to any of the 12 jurisdictions which do not have DOMAs will challenge the legality of their marriage there as well."

Andrew Koppelman, professor of law and political science at Northeastern University and author of the "Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law," said that the courts are likely to get involved in the federal DOMA.

DOMA, Koppelman said, has two main provisions: it stipulates that one state does not have to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, and it denies federal benefits to gay couples.

Koppelman said a court is likely to uphold the first part of DOMA since it is already a part of federal law but the latter, denying benefits to same-sex couples, is unconstitutional because it "singles out gays for disadvantage."

Koppelman said that two U.S. Supreme Court cases, 1995's Romer vs. Evans, which struck down Colorado's anti-gay ballot measure banning local governments in Colorado from passing gay civil rights laws, and last year's Lawrence vs. Texas decision that abolished U.S. sodomy laws, buttress his claims.

But he expressed concerns that a fusillade of litigation could "backfire" and further inspire opponents to press ahead with a Federal Marriage Amendment that would ban gay marriage outright. Koppelman, who supports same-sex marriage, cautions potential litigants "not to file those lawsuits" because "you will lose and you will generate bad precedent." ...

But Cukier envisions a variety of legal scenarios after May 17, notably the portability of a marriage license issued to Massachusetts gay couple. Cukier said that if such a couple vacations in one of the states that expressly prohibits same-sex marriage and one spouse is seriously injured, the other spouse may be denied access to that partner in an intensive care unit.

Stemming from such a scenario, Cukier said another likely challenge would be a "loss of consortium" claim if one spouse has a personal injury in a state that prohibits gay marriage and the other spouse wants to file a wrongful death action. Legally speaking, that state is not required to recognize that marriage and gay couples would be barred from filing a loss of consortium claim, Cukier said.

One of the main reasons that federal DOMA is likely to be challenged is because Massachusetts gay couples will not be eligible for federal benefits.

Evelyn Haralampu, a Boston tax lawyer, said that "there is a lot of gray area" when it comes to same-sex couples receiving federal benefits. While a gay couple cannot file a joint federal tax form, Massachusetts taxes are based on federal taxable income. Haralampu said that before a couple can file state taxes, they must first know what their federal returns are.

"Do you use your actual federal taxable income based on an individual or single filing?" Haralampu asks. "Frankly, our legislature has not addressed that issue yet."

more
posted by Eve at 8:28 PM | link 0 comments

DEMOCRATS DISAVOW CLAIM THEY MAY "CAVE" ON FMA: From the Washington Blade

A charge by the director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force that Senate Democrats were backing away from their commitment to oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage drew sharp criticism this week from gay Democratic leaders. ...

The flap surfaced when NGLTF executive director Matt Foreman stated in a guest editorial in the Washington Blade on May 7 that a pledge last year by Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) that Senate Democrats would vote to kill the Federal Marriage Amendment may no longer be in effect if the wording of the anti-gay amendment changes to clearly preserve civil unions.

"We've since discovered that the Daschle pledge was a classic display of Washington legalese," Foreman wrote in his editorial. "You see, it apparently applied only to 'the' Federal Marriage Amendment as written last year. If the amendment is reworded so it still outlaws same-sex marriage anywhere in the country but leaves the door open to state-based domestic partnerships or civil unions, all bets are off," he wrote.

Foreman said he based his assertion on conversations that Task Force officials and supporters in the field have had in recent weeks with key Democratic senators and Senate staff members.

Rep. Frank and veteran gay Democratic strategist Jeff Trammell, who was named last month as a campaign adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, called Foreman's assertions inaccurate and unfair. The two insist that Senate Democrats are steadfastly opposed to a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and would help defeat such an amendment in a Senate vote that could come as early as this summer. ...

Trammell said he spoke in person with Daschle last week.

"He's as solid as a rock," in his opposition to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Trammell said. ...

Jacques said HRC has learned that backers of the FMA, including Hatch, were considering introducing wide variations in wording of an FMA in an effort to lure opponents into backing it. ...

Foreman said he became greatly concerned when he asked several Senate Democrats to issue a public statement saying they would vote against any and all versions of an FMA that may emerge on the Senate floor this year.

"We were not able to get such a statement," he said, leading him to believe Senate Democrats were wavering on the issue.

But Trammell, who has worked as a campaign consultant to Senate Democrats in the past, said few senators are willing to issue a blanket statement for or against any legislation. ...

Trammell and Jacques said Daschle has told them flatly that he will vote against any form of an FMA and will work hard to persuade his Democratic colleagues to defeat all forms of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

"Daschle is from a state where 53 percent of the voters are Republican and only 37 percent are registered Democrats," Trammell said. "Daschle is with us thick or thin," Trammell said, even though Republicans have vowed to work for his defeat on the gay marriage issue. Daschle faces a tight re-election of his own this November.

more
posted by Eve at 5:07 PM | link 0 comments

GAY MARRIAGE LAWSUIT LED TO BREAKTHROUGH: From the Associated Press

In the spring of 2001, when seven gay couples made a radical demand for the right to marry in Massachusetts, their court case barely registered on the state's political or media radar screen. When a lower court turned them down, the public gave a collective told-you-so.

"Nobody thought it was news," said Julie Goodridge, one of the seven couples who sued after being turned away at city hall when they sought marriage licenses. "Nobody thought even remotely it was going to happen."

But on Monday--three years after the court battle began, and six months after the state's highest court issued its landmark ruling granting gays the right to marry--it is going to happen. ...

Massachusetts was thrust into the center of the nationwide debate on gay marriage when the state Supreme Judicial Court issued its narrow 4-3 ruling in November said that gays have a right under the state constitution to marry.

Emboldened in part by the court's strong endorsement of marriage equality, authorities in San Francisco, upstate New York, and Portland, Ore., began issuing marriage licenses as acts of civil disobedience.

Talk arose of a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage, which President Bush ultimately endorsed.

In a matter of months, civil unions, once considered radical, had become insufficient. ...

After more than 30 hours of debate over several months, the Legislature narrowly approved a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriages but legalize Vermont-style civil unions. But the earliest the measure could be put before the voters is November 2006.

This drawn-out process for amending the constitution was one of many reasons gay-rights lawyers focused on Massachusetts in 2001 as the next battleground after Vermont. ...

"In most of these decisions, the court has delivered a consistent message, and that is that the definition of the family is changing and the idea of the nuclear family is no longer the rock-solid norm," said David Yas, an attorney and editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. "The court has seemed to go out of its way to recognize that nontraditional families deserve the same recognition as traditional families."

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

THINGS TO DO IN D.C.

May 17, 2004

ORGANIZATION: Alliance for Marriage holds a discussion on gay marriage.

TIME: 12 noon

LOCATION: S-207, U.S. Capitol

CONTACT: Lynne Johnson, 703-934-1212
posted by Eve at 5:04 PM | link 0 comments

SAN JOSE SUED OVER SSM BENEFITS: From the San Jose Mercury News

A conservative legal group filed suit Thursday against San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales and the city in an attempt to block extension of city-paid health and welfare benefits to same-sex partners of city employees.

The suit asks the Santa Clara County Superior Court to declare that San Jose has no legal authority to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued elsewhere.

It was filed on behalf of the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund and Values Advocacy Council by the Alliance Defense Fund based in Scottsdale, Ariz. The group describes itself as a "legal alliance of more than 700 attorneys defending religious liberty."

On March 9, the San Jose City Council voted 8-1 to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere to expand city worker benefits already given to heterosexual married couples. Previously, city employees had to pay for same-sex partners' benefits under domestic partnership laws. ...

The vote triggered an uproar among members of evangelical churches and has spurred a movement to recall Gonzales.

Although San Jose has no power to issue marriage licenses, the vote was part of a groundswell of support that began when San Francisco started issuing thousands of same-sex marriage licenses in February. The California Supreme Court temporarily halted issuing same-sex marriage licenses, with oral arguments scheduled for May 25.

Even though the high court will make the ultimate decision, Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the alliance, said the San Jose issue "needs to be litigated. To allow it to sit there and do nothing would allow the mayor to say, 'I don't have to follow state law.'" ...

But City Attorney Rick Doyle, who had not seen the lawsuit, said Thursday that he "never issued any kind of opinion on the legality" of the same-sex marriage licenses. "As for providing benefits, the City Council as an employer was within its rights," he said.

more
posted by Eve at 5:01 PM | link 0 comments

IN MASS. WEDDING WAVE, THE TRUTH MAY BE VEILED: From the NY Daily News

For Shelley Curnow and Deborah Gar Reichman to make their big wedding legal, they may have to tell a little white lie.

"Getting married is a chance to hold up our relationship, to join a larger community," said Curnow, 34, a database administrator. "And we want the marriage license that goes with it."

The Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn, couple, like dozens of gay and lesbian couples in New York, plans to head to Massachusetts on Monday, when that state becomes the first in the nation to allow gay marriages.

A federal court in Boston turned down a last-ditch effort by conservative groups yesterday to scuttle the nuptials.

To get a license, Reichman and Curnow will likely have to fib about where they live--possibly giving the address of the resort where they are getting married May 22.

"We had already planned a traditional Jewish wedding. At the time, we thought it was only going to be consecrated by a rabbi," said Reichman, 30, a freelance museum curator.

"Now, suddenly, we have a chance to have a license on our wedding day," she said. ...

"Out-of-state couples can write down a friend's address, or the inn where they are staying," said Provincetown tourism director Patricia Fitzpatrick, whose town board voted to grant licenses regardless of where a couple lives. "It's a question of basic human rights."

But whether a Massachusetts marriage license will hold up in New York is an open question. ...

Both their families are thrilled, and older relatives suddenly have familiar words like "fiancée" and "engaged" to use.

"My brother would date a woman for two weeks and family friends would ask when he was getting married," Reichman said. "But we weren't asked those questions about our future, until now."

more
posted by Eve at 4:48 PM | link 0 comments

GAYS ELSEWHERE EYE MARRIAGE MASSACHUSETTS STYLE: From the New York Times

Trey Watts and Darin Moore have never been to Massachusetts. They live in Oklahoma City, where Mr. Watts sells used cars and Mr. Moore is a beauty consultant at a salon.

But they plan to marry in Massachusetts this month, one of a first wave of gay couples expecting to do so when same-sex marriages become legal in the state next week.

The Oklahomans' plans fly in the face of an edict by Massachusetts' governor, Mitt Romney, who says out-of-state same-sex couples cannot wed here. But Mr. Watts and Mr. Moore are coming anyway, heading to Provincetown, on Cape Cod, one of three Massachusetts communities that have said they will defy the governor and marry out-of-state couples. ...

With Massachusetts about to become, on Monday, the first state to legalize same-sex marriages, the treatment of out-of-state couples has become one of the most controversial aspects of this highly controversial issue. And against that shifting and tension-fraught background, thousands of out-of-state couples eager to marry here are trying to decide what to do.

Governor Romney has threatened legal action against clerks who issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples with no intention of moving to Massachusetts; such action could lead to fines of up to $500 or a prison sentence of up to a year. He has also said the state will "refuse to recognize those marriages and inform the parties that the marriage is null and void."

Gay-marriage advocates say they will go to court to challenge the governor's directive, which is based on his interpretation of a 1913 law that says the state will not marry couples if they do not intend to move here and if their marriage would be "void" in their home state. The governor, saying that "Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," has interpreted the law to mean that since no other state performs gay marriages, only Massachusetts same-sex couples are eligible to marry here.

more
posted by Eve at 4:43 PM | link 0 comments

JUDGE DENIES BID TO STOP GAY MARRIAGES: From the Associated Press

[Unsurprising.]

A federal judge Thursday rejected a last-minute bid by conservative groups to block the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriages from taking place in Massachusetts next week.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro said Massachusetts' high court acted within its authority in interpreting the Massachusetts Constitution.

The plaintiffs immediately announced they would take their case to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Tauro heard arguments Wednesday on a petition spearheaded by the Florida-based Liberty Counsel and joined by the Catholic Action League, 11 state lawmakers and conservative legal groups in Boston, Michigan and Mississippi.

Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Liberty Counsel, had argued that the state's high court overstepped its bounds when it ruled in November that gay marriage should be legal in Massachusetts. He pleaded with the federal judge to "prevent this constitutional train wreck."

A state attorney arguing on behalf of the Supreme Judicial Court said that the court based its ruling on the Massachusetts Constitution and that the case did not belong in federal court.

The Massachusetts court ruled that city and town clerks could begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples beginning on Monday.

link

The ruling is here (PDF)
posted by Eve at 1:28 PM | link 0 comments

SSM CONSTITUTIONAL BANS FAIL IN LA., MOVE FORWARD IN N.C.: From 365Gay.com

A proposed amendment to the Louisiana constitution to ban same-sex marriage failed by one vote Wednesday afternoon. The amendment also would have prevented the state from recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships.

But the issue is not dead. The amendment's sponsor, Sen. John Hainkel of New Orleans, can try to round up one more vote for the measure and ask for another vote while the House considers its own version.

Louisiana law already bans same-sex marriages but supporters of an amendment say the current law is not enough. Citing the court decision in Massachusetts that will allow same-sex couples to marry next week, backers of the amendment say only by putting a gay marriage ban in the constitution can they be assured that same-sex marriage will never come to the state.

The House version of the proposed amendment has cleared committee and has yet to go to the floor for a vote. During hearings, Chris Daigle, director of governmental affairs for Equality Louisiana, told the committee that backers have failed to show how the ban would strengthen families or trim the state's divorce rate.

Daigle called the bill election-year posturing pointing out that the measure's sponsor, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Metairie), is a candidate for the U.S. Congress.

"It's wrong and it sets a dangerous precedent," Daigle said of the bill. "Who will be the next group targeted for discrimination?"

Meanwhile, in North Carolina, a bill has been introduced in the Senate to amend that's state's constitution.

Supporters of gay marriage Wednesday said the proposed constitutional amendment amounts to "codifying into law" biblical interpretation.

Among the speakers at a Capitol Hill news conference were several church leaders who support same-sex marriage. ...

But the sponsor of the measure, Sen. James Forrester (R-Gaston) says the amendment is necessary to prevent judges from overturning North Carolina's Defense of Marriage Act.

more
posted by Eve at 1:13 PM | link 0 comments

TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE WILL ALWAYS PREVAIL: Maggie Gallagher

...Take a look at the new unisex marriage licenses that Gov. Romney has decided (without any authorization by the state legislature) to create. Gone is the language of bride and groom, husband and wife, replaced by the new, deeply moving announcement that "Party A" is going to join with "Party B" in something the court insists we call marriage. Gone as well is the whole set of deeply ingrained ideas associated with marriage as the union of opposite sexes: Marriage is more than couple-love; it is the means by which the human race bridges the gender divide, creates mothers and fathers for children, and makes the next generation happen.

Advocates of same-sex marriage try to make it sound as bourgeois as possible, but gay marriage is really the triumph of the most radical ideas of the sexual revolution: that gender doesn't matter, children are secondary, expressing your authentic sexual self is more important than, well, practically anything else.

For African-Americans, the misuse of the moral capital of the civil rights movement to endorse this new sexual agenda is particularly trying. The Goodridge court decision and its advocates would have us believe that gay marriage, like Brown v. Board of Education, represents moral progress -- the courts stepping in to re-engineer society along better, higher, more just lines. Black America knows better than anyone else the high price children pay for the sexual agendas of adults.

The tragedy of the civil rights movement is that just as it achieved the beginning of the end of racial segregation, white educated elites became swept up in the glamour of the sexual revolution. The sexual and family disorganization that followed hit black children particularly hard. The Massachusetts court would have us believe that SSM is the culmination of our American ideals of tolerance, equality and justice. Another way of reading the last 40 years is that once again, white, educated elites are using their power to enforce the moral norms and sexual tastes of affluent white people with graduate degrees.

But the victory is likely to be extremely short-lived. Same-sex marriage is not the future. The set of ideas that lead a culture, a religion, a court to endorse same-sex marriage are simply not sustainable over the long haul. Europe, which gave us the idea of same-sex marriage, is a dying society, with birthrates 50 percent below replacement. Every mainstream Protestant sect that has endorsed sexual liberation (including homosexuality) is also dwindling away. ...

The reason is really quite simple: Cultures, communities, religions, sects and societies that lose the marriage idea die out. They are replaced by cultures, communities, sects and societies that prioritize, celebrate and embrace the idea of bringing men and women together to make the future happen. That's what marriage means.

more
posted by Eve at 3:37 PM | link 0 comments

ABOLITION OF MARRIAGE: Eve to David Blankenhorn

Recently David Blankenhorn, of the Institute for American Values and the Family Scholars weblog, has been wrestling with the possibility that "disestablishment"--leaving the definition of marriage to the private sector, and offering only "civil union" contracts--is the best of a lot of really lousy options in the battle over same-sex marriage. He writes, "All of the five possible legal solutions to the issue of same-sex couples -- redefinition of marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, federal marriage amendment, and what I am calling disestablishment -- strike me as seriously flawed and likely to be harmful to children. I'm just wondering whether disestablishment might be, in the long run, the least harmful."

Later, he adds, "...[T]he proliferation of domestic partnership and civil union schemes is likely to blur the legal differences between marriage and cohabitation to a much greater degree than we currently expect. One advantage to disestablishment is that, instead of this emerging legal mush in which meaningful distinctions would largely evaporate, there would be a clear division between what the law does -- i.e., establish civil unions, which may be where the law is headed anyway, whether people on either side of the SSM debate want it or not -- and what the civil society says marriage is."

I've been really surprised that no one seems to have discussed the colossal problems "disestablishment" would pose for many of the other projects of the marriage movement in general, and David in particular. A few of the many examples that leap to mind: marital preferences in adoption law; the Healthy Marriage Initiative; public-school curricula that offer marriage education rather than "relationships" education. All of these projects require that the government take some stand as to what is or is not a marriage.

I understand that David is trying to find some way out of the rather hellacious cultural moment we find ourselves in. But I really do not see how disestablishment would make any of his larger cultural projects easier, or even less-awfully-hard.

Your thoughts?
posted by Eve at 3:12 PM | link 0 comments

ABOLITION OF MARRIAGE: Jonathan Rauch

[Here's an excerpt from Rauch's new book on gay marriage. I think it speaks pretty directly to our current question: Should we "get government out of marriage" and have "civil unions" for all?--Eve]

If you are married, a question: How do you know?

Seriously. Suppose someone showed up on your doorstep and demanded that you prove you are married. How would you do it? You might say your spouse is the only person you ever sleep with, but what if the two of you no longer have sex, or what if one of you has fooled around? You could say you live together, but so do many people who are not married. You could point to your children, if you have any, but nowadays many unmarried couples have children. You could proclaim your love for your spouse--if you still love your spouse--but that would not prove anything, either. You could ask your friends and neighbors to vouch for you, but how do they know? You could point to the ring on your finger, or go find some wedding pictures, but--well, you get the point. Imagine what a time-consuming nuisance it would be to assemble a dossier to prove that you and your spouse have made a special, lifelong commitment. Much easier to do something else: have the inquirer check the records at the courthouse, which will indicate right away that you are married.

If marriage is to be a special promise which brings special status, people need to know who has made the promise and who deserves the status. We need a standard way to know who is married and who isn't. Civil marriage provides that standard. In America, with no established church, only civil marriage can provide it.

When you get a marriage license, you do more than pick up a piece of paper. You cross the line into a new relationship not only with your partner but with the state and, through the state, society. There is, of course, that big basket of legal prerogatives which, all of a sudden, you qualify for. Moreover, you have entered a legal relationship which is complicated and difficult to get out of--at least if your spouse is disinclined to make it easy. Moreover, if you and your spouse come into conflict over money or children (among other things), you both give the courts jurisdiction over your personal affairs. That piece of paper from the government turns out not to be just a piece of paper after all. Rather, it signifies that the state now views you in an entirely different way.

This is the demarcating function of civil marriage. Nowadays few weddings are alike (just recall some of the matrimonial readings you may have heard--or, maybe better yet, don't). No two marriages are alike, either. And here is the beauty part: Thanks to secular marriage, they do not have to be alike. We can all have our own religions and ceremonies and marriages; we can get married on roller skates while chanting karmic mantras; but by seeking and recognizing state authority for our vows, we signal to each other and to the world that we really are married. The license is more than a handy one-stop way to draw up a complicated contract, although it certainly is that. It is also a universally recognized sign which says: "These people have made the ultimate commitment, so treat them accordingly."
posted by Eve at 2:44 PM | link 0 comments

LEGAL CHALLENGES EXPECTED TO ACCELERATE: From the Boston Globe

Within weeks if not days of the first same-sex weddings Monday in Massachusetts, the battle over gay marriage is expected to accelerate across the country as gay and lesbian couples file lawsuits seeking to topple barriers to such marriages in their states.

Legal scholars predict that couples who get marriage licenses will soon bring suits seeking legal recognition of their marriages in other states or benefits under federal law that married heterosexuals are eligible for in Massachusetts.

Ultimately, the challenges may target the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which reserves marriage to heterosexual couples, or some 40 state laws modeled on that statute.

"If the licenses start being issued on Monday, I would be surprised if some lawsuit somewhere has not been filed by Friday," said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University School of Law and author of "The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law."

Some lesbians and gays planning weddings are said to be considering potential legal actions already. Some legal specialists say such claims are part of a long-term strategy to make gay marriage legal throughout the United States. But others say the potential litigation simply reflects the reality that, despite legal marriages in Massachusetts, gay couples will still be deprived of certain rights that heterosexuals enjoy.

Joyce Kauffman, head of the family law section of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, said a federal employee in Massachusetts, whom she would not name, told her she plans to marry her partner, file for joint employee health benefits, and sue the government if it refuses to provide them. Refusal appears likely given that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibits federal benefits to same-sex couples. ...

Those challenges will probably be waged in local courts over matters such as: a couple moves to another state and is prohibited from filing a joint income tax return; newly married partners are in a car crash outside of Massachusetts, one is seriously injured, and the other is denied hospital visiting privileges; one partner seeks spousal immunity to avoid having to testify against the other at a criminal trial.

Although the scholars were divided over how such challenges will fare, they generally agreed that only a handful of states, at most, will follow Massachusetts' cue and legalize same-sex marriage in the next few years, either through litigation or legislation. Those states will probably be ones with liberal traditions and large gay and lesbian communities, such as Oregon or California, the legal scholars said.

Koppelman said out-of-state couples who obtain Massachusetts marriage licenses then sue for benefits in their own states are likely to fail. ...

Other legal scholars say the matter isn't so clear-cut.

Charles Baron, a professor of constitutional law at Boston College Law School, said state courts could find that a defense of marriage law or the 1913 Massachusetts statute discriminates against gays and lesbians and therefore violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the law.

more
posted by Eve at 2:32 PM | link 0 comments

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION PROPOSES RESOLUTION OPPOSING FMA

MEMBER RESOLUTION: ASA Statement Against the Proposed Constitutional Amendment Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage

WHEREAS the American Sociological Association (ASA) comprises sociologists and kindred professionals who study, among other things, sex and gender, sexualities, families, children, religion, culture, and systems of inequality and their effects, and

WHEREAS the ASA is dedicated to advancing sociology as a scientific discipline and profession serving the public good, and

WHEREAS a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman intentionally discriminates against lesbians and gay men as well as their children and other dependents by denying access to the protections, benefits, and responsibilities extended automatically to married couples, and

WHEREAS we believe that the official justification for the proposed constitutional amendment is based on prejudice rather than empirical research, and

WHEREAS sociological research has repeatedly shown that systems of inequality are detrimental to the public good,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the American Sociological Association strongly opposes the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

more
posted by Eve at 2:26 PM | link 0 comments

GAY MARRIAGE BEYOND MASSACHUSETTS: From 365Gay.com

Next week same-sex marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts, but two other states may not be far behind.

Lawsuits identical to the case that won marriage in Massachusetts are expected to reach high courts in New Jersey and Washington State by the end of 2004.

"We're living in historic times that will be looked back on by generations to follow. This isn't just one historic moment in Massachusetts next week -- it's the start of what will be a long period of progress and breakthroughs, with gay couples in other states also winning the right to marry and finally being treated equally under the law," said Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal.

"Lesbian and gay couples need the protections marriage provides, and they need them where they live and pay their taxes. We are closer than ever to making that a reality in several states."

Lambda Legal has been pursuing a state-by-state strategy to win marriage for same-sex couples for the past decade Cathcart said.

Currently, Lambda and other groups are suing for marriage on behalf of lesbian and gay couples in New Jersey, New York, Washington State and California, the ACLU and Equality California.

All of those cases are in state courts, arguing that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates their rights under state constitutions. And all of those cases are heating up this month, Cathcart said.

In New Jersey, Lambda Legal filed appeal papers last week and the case should move quickly to a final ruling. (story) In Washington State, Lambda Legal and Northwest Women's Law Center filed motions for a prompt ruling last week, and attorneys for the state and King County have agreed to move the case quickly. (story)

In New York, attorneys for the city are set to respond to Lambda Legal's lawsuit on Monday, just as couples begin marrying in Massachusetts. And in California, hearings are scheduled for later this month and early next month in nearly a half-dozen marriage-related lawsuits that Lambda Legal and the other groups either filed or intervened in on behalf of same-sex couples.

more
posted by Eve at 2:23 PM | link 0 comments

FEDERAL SSM BAN CHALLENGED IN MIAMI: From the Associated Press

Two sign-language interpreters, the entertainer "Fluffy," two women with medical backgrounds and a gay couple together for 12 years gathered on the courthouse steps Wednesday to be the first to challenge an 8-year-old federal law banning gay marriage.

Tired of waiting for approval from the government or gay rights groups, the four gay and lesbian couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which became model legislation for 38 states.

The law defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allows states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states. ...

The lawsuit adds a new strategy to the legal campaign against bans on same-sex marriage. For the last decade, gay advocacy groups have been pursuing a state-by-state strategy to win marriage for same-sex couples in state courts only, intentionally avoiding a direct challenge to the federal law.

When the planned lawsuit was announced Monday, the gay rights group Lambda Legal expressed misgivings about both its timing and location.

more

also here
posted by Eve at 2:19 PM | link 0 comments

THE TIES THAT DIVIDE: Transcript of a Pew Forum debate between Gerard Bradley and Andrew Sullivan

Excerpts:

AS: People tend to think that homosexuals are born under a Guthrie bush somewhere near Castro Street in San Francisco. They pop up out of the womb already in a leather harness on the back of a motorbike, or pop out of the womb with an absolutely unerring sense of what drapes will go with which wallpaper. But the reality, of course, is that gay people are born everywhere. It's a remarkable fact of this minority that it is absolutely endemic to the society and, in fact, endemic to every society that has ever existed. Gay people come from and live in and grow up in heterosexual families. Unlike any other minority, they are absolutely integrated into the broader society from the minute that they are born.

The notion that these people should leave their homes at a certain point to go out into the broader world and then find that their parents have actually changed the locks and thrown away the keys, and when they want to come back into their own families as fully-fledged members of those families, as married couples, they're denied entrance back in. To tear families apart in this way, to tell one sibling among many that they cannot have the same ritual, the same process of integration into their own family, is a terribly destructive element in the stability and maturity and love that every family, I believe, should uphold.

It's also, alongside many other traditionally conservative arguments, an argument for integration, not for Balkanization. I'm one of those people who don't believe that human beings should be cordoned off into certain categories by their identity, whether it be black or female or Latino or Jewish or gay or any of the other appellations that we have managed to bring to this complicated debate about identity. I think, in general, that so far as we possibly can, we should treat people as individuals, regardless of their attributes, regardless of their identities, and that our entire political system traditionally has insisted upon treating people as individuals before we treat them as gay people. ...

The point is also that this is not some tiny fringe of exceptions. If you look at married households in the United States, you will find a majority of married households, a small majority, are households without children. Also, a quarter of same-sex couples already have children. It seems to me that the procreation argument falls apart legally as soon as you recognize it is not a criterion for civil marriage upheld for heterosexuals. It fails socially and culturally because in our culture at this time, procreation is not understood to be an essential part of what it is to be married.

GB: ...But I believe that none of these rules for conversation in the public square, none of these norms about theological argument, have any traction on the debate about same-sex marriage. It seems to me again that in the course of the public argument over same-sex marriage, defenders of traditional marriage are not relying upon what might be called strictly religious sources or entirely religious reasons, just to illustrate a little bit more, or explain by way of illustration. ...

Now, at the root of the movement to legally recognize same-sex marriage is not religion but rather culture. More specifically, the argument that I take most seriously is the argument posed by Andrew Sullivan in his remarks today. It's an argument that anybody defending traditional marriage has to reckon with. It's an argument from culture and it's an argument from law, but the argument goes something like this: given what marriage has already become in our law, what it already is in our law, and how it is lived, how marriage is lived, inhabited, carried out, by a very large number of married couples in our society, it is unfair to exclude same-sex partners from that legal status.

This argument builds not upon religion or even upon some peculiarly gay ideology, but rather begins with what you might call the straight world's rebellion against marriage. That's a rebellion that began probably in the mid-1960s and continues to the present day. People look at the way many married couples act and seem to think about their marriages, and people look at what many homosexual partners can do and may think about their relationships. You see that many married men and women think of their relationships mainly as an emotional, financial and sexual partnership involving the mutual conferral of important individual benefits. Proponents of same-sex marriage say that homosexuals and lesbians are quite capable and have demonstrated their capability of entering into such relationships. Such proponents of same-sex marriage conclude that opposition to same-sex marriage is an arbitrary exclusion of persons from the straight marriage club.

read the whole thing
posted by Eve at 4:34 PM | link 0 comments

BLAME CANADA: Interstate vs. international recognition of SSM, from Gabriel Rosenberg

...Banning same-sex marriage throughout the United States, however, will not avoid Frum's questions. That is because same-sex marriage is already legal elsewhere, for example, Canada. So just replace Massachusetts with Ontario in Frum's questions and we will still be faced with the consequences that follow from not recognizing valid marriages. ...

...And actually, at least for the time being, we are more likely to have deal with these scenarios arising from Canada. That is because the general rule of law is that a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere. There are exceptions to this rule, and many states as well as the federal government have carved out an exception for same-sex marriages. The rule does not depend, though, on whether that location was another state or another country. It does matter, though, whether the marriage was valid where celebrated.

more
posted by Eve at 4:29 PM | link 0 comments

NOW, AT THE LATEST MINUTE OF THE HOUR: Last-minute MA news from the Associated Press

In an 11th hour bid to stop legal gay marriages from beginning next week, conservative groups asked a federal judge on Wednesday for an injunction barring marriage licenses from being issued to same-sex couples on May 17.

As Monday's deadline approached, officials in Worcester and Somerville said they would follow Provincetown's lead and defy Gov. Mitt Romney by issuing licenses to out-of-state couples. The Republican governor has threatened legal action against clerks who allow nonresident couples to marry.

Arguing in U.S. District Court, Boston, Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, said the state's highest court overstepped its bounds when it ruled in November that gay marriage should be legal in Massachusetts.

"It's an unusual time that we live in, and we're asking this court to intervene to prevent this constitutional train wreck," Staver told U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks, arguing on behalf of the Supreme Judicial Court, said the court made its ruling based on an interpretation of the state constitution, and the case shouldn't be in federal court. ...

Tauro didn't immediately rule on the request, saying he would issue a decision Thursday afternoon or Friday morning. Both sides said they would appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if they lost. ...

Conservative groups may be trying to make a point in the case, but "there's very small chance it will be anything other than a symbolic point," said David Yas, an attorney and editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

more
posted by Eve at 4:25 PM | link 0 comments

MASS. GOVERNOR VS. CAPE TOWN: From the Boston Globe

Governor Mitt Romney's top spokesman yesterday equated Provincetown's plans to marry out-of-state gay couples with marrying children, as rhetoric heated up over Romney's threat to take legal action if the town issues marriage licenses to gays who don't plan to live in Massachusetts.

"What next, is Provincetown going to start marrying 10-year-olds in violation of the law?" Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in an e-mail response to a reporter's questions about Romney's legal strategy yesterday. "Are they going to refuse to enforce the drug laws? Will they ignore the gun laws, too?"

"The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has an interest in making sure the laws are enforced evenly, not selectively," he added. "And everyone, especially spouses and their children, has an interest in making sure marriage in Massachusetts is worth more than the paper it's printed on."

The governor's threat is the latest in a series of statements from him and his staff on his interpreta tion of a 1913 law that he says bars out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. Last week, his top lawyer had told city and town clerks they could rely on applicants' sworn oaths, without requiring documentation of residency, as assurance that the couples comply with state law.

Romney faces increasing resistance statewide from city and town clerks, who are refusing to follow the governor's demands that they deny marriage licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples after gay unions become legal next week. On Monday, the Provincetown board of selectmen voted to instruct the town clerk to grant marriage licenses to gay couples who live outside of Massachusetts and have no intention of moving here. The clerk should ask for a sworn affidavit that the couple know of no impediment to their marriage in their home state.

After the selectmen's vote, the governor suggested that clerks could face serious legal consequences if they did not follow the law. "I expect local officials to follow this law regardless of their personal views," Romney said in a statement. "If they choose to break the law, we will take appropriate enforcement action, refuse to recognize those marriages, and inform the parties that the marriage is null and void."

Despite the governor's threat of legal action, town clerks in Worcester and several other cities yesterday joined with selectmen in Provincetown in saying they would resist his demands. ...

Meanwhile yesterday, another legal battle over gay marriage was derailed when former Boston mayor and Vatican ambassador Raymond L. Flynn's appeal to reverse the SJC's decision legalizing the unions was dismissed.

The case, which was to be heard today in Suffolk Superior Court, was deemed too similar to a previous appeal brought by 13 state lawmakers earlier this month, Flynn said last night. Justices dismissed that case.

more
posted by Eve at 4:02 PM | link 0 comments

MINNESOTA SSM OPPONENTS WAGE QUIET VIGIL: From the Saint Paul Pioneer Press

[How do you wage a vigil? Never mind... -Eve]

They line the stairway leading to the chambers of the Minnesota Senate, trying to move minds with simple signs and cheerful greetings.

They are undeterred by the fact that as the session winds down, legislators are so busy trying to figure out how to make deals they aren't paying much attention. The citizen lobbyists who have filled the Capitol with lively rallies and arguments since February have dwindled to this determined few. ...

Hagberg is part of a low-key, last-ditch effort to convince senators that they should amend the state's constitution to permanently ban same-sex marriage. Unlike earlier noisy rallies on the topic, these volunteers bear witness with a smile and a slogan.

Bob Roach, a lobbyist and consultant from Plymouth who is mobilizing the sign-carriers, said regular volunteers are supplemented by busloads from churches. Their focus is the Senate because the Republican-controlled House passed the bill, which would put the amendment before voters in November. ...

Hagberg carries cards with biblical phrases on them. "The most important thing we can do here is pray," she said. "I've been trying to concentrate on that." Over at the State Office Building, Ed Kuznia of New Hope was taking vacation from his job as a warehouse clerk to stand in front of a committee room with a sign reading, "Let the people vote to define marriage." ...

"I have strong religious convictions," said Kuznia, who said he heard about the issue on a Christian radio station. "To me, I feel called by God to do this." But he said there also are practical reasons to preserve traditional marriage as the centerpiece of society, and he also is motivated by those concerns.

He said he believes gay sex is immoral, but agreed that there are many failings with heterosexual marriage as well. Several of the sign-carriers, in fact, agreed that marriage has been hurt by out-of-wedlock births and an epidemic of divorce.Jan Sotebeer of Eden Prairie was standing with her husband, Gary, near the Senate chamber, trying to greet and persuade senators. She is a YMCA aerobics instructor who never came to the Capitol before she heard about this issue. She's been a regular here this session. ...

On Monday and Tuesday, groups of the sign-carriers from Willmar and the Crystal-New Hope area met with the two top Senate leaders -- Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, and Assistant Majority Leader Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope. ...

Johnson, a Lutheran minister and National Guard chaplain, said he discussed the scriptural basis for the sign-carriers' beliefs. "I talked about the different interpretations there are today in regard to holy words, that no one has a corner on the market," he said. "There are different ideas, versions and interpretations."

more
posted by Eve at 3:57 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION: Vikram Amar

Legal analysis that gets into some of the nitty-gritty weirdness of California's "statutory initiative" process. Amar argues that an attempt to change CA statutes in order to permit same-sex marriage may itself violate the California constitution, for reasons having to do with these wiggy initiatives. Click here for the full story.
posted by Eve at 1:36 AM | link 0 comments

TENN. DOMA PASSES HOUSE: From the Associated Press

The House of Representatives voted 86-5 Thursday for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriages in Tennessee.

The amendment by Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, was approved with no discussion.

The change would insert into the Tennessee Constitution the definition of marriage that already exists in state law. That law says marriage is a union between one man and one woman and that any other type of arrangement that may be recognized in another state or nation as a marriage would not be recognized in Tennessee. ...

He said that even though he hesitated to bring the amendment, he felt his hand was forced by the state Supreme Court.

"Our Supreme Court has not hesitated to legislate from the bench," he said. "Therefore this is needed to uphold the will of the people and the Legislature."

The amendment still has a ways to go because the Constitution spells out a complex process for passing amendments.

The resolution still must be read three times in the Senate before the Legislature adjourns, which is expected within two weeks.

It then has to be read three times in each house during the next two-year General Assembly, which begins in January. On the third reading it must be approved by a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

If that happens, it would go before the voters for adoption or rejection in the 2006 general election. To pass, it must be approved by the number of voters equal to a majority of ballots cast in the gubernatorial election that year.

more
posted by Eve at 1:33 AM | link 0 comments

WILL NEW JERSEY BE NEXT GAY MARRIAGE STATE?: From 365Gay.com

A suit challenging a New Jersey law that prevents same-sex marriage will be heard by the state Court of Appeals.

The appeal brief was filed today by Lambda Legal on behalf of seven lesbian and gay couples seeking full marriage.

The suit began in 2002 and is based solely on the New Jersey Constitution. "New Jersey's Constitution requires the state to treat everyone equally, and gay couples aren't treated equally as long as they can't marry," said David Buckel, director of Lambda Legal's Marriage Project and lead attorney in this case.

The appeal follows a lower-court decision late last year in favor of the state, just as the lower court ruled in Massachusetts before that state's high court ruled that same-sex couples must receive marriage licenses starting May 17.

"With Massachusetts couples about to get married, all eyes will turn to New Jersey for a big breakthrough in this historic time," said Buckel.

The seven couples in the case are hoping for a speedy ruling so that the case can move to the state Supreme Court which will make the final decision.

"More and more these last few weeks, people have been asking us if we are going to Massachusetts to get married. We hope to be able to say our vows right here in New Jersey by this time next year," said Karen Nicholson-McFadden, one of the seven couples in the suit.

The seven plaintiff couples in the case have been together between 11 and 32 years. Five of the seven couples have children. All of them want and need the legal security that comes with marriage but has been denied to them.

Earlier this year New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey signed a domestic partner bill that will go into effect July1. (story)

Under the new law, same-sex couples will be granted the right to collect the public pensions of deceased partners, guaranteed hospital visitation during illnesses, and qualify to receive health benefits in a partner's name.

But it will still deny many of the rights enjoyed by married couples.

It will not make gay couples eligible for any of the federal benefits of marriage, nor would it give partners the same property rights as married spouses or many child custody rights and obligations heterosexual couples have. It also will not force businesses to offer health coverage to same-sex partners of employees but would require insurance companies to make it available.

Lambda Legal is also involved in marriage equality lawsuits in New York, California and Washington State.

link

The Lambda Legal brief is here (PDF)
posted by Eve at 1:32 AM | link 0 comments

CIVIL UNION DISSOLUTION CASE IN IOWA: From 365Gay.com

The Iowa Supreme Court is being urged to throw out an appeal to a "divorce" granted a lesbian couple who had a civil union in Vermont.

Following their civil union Kimberly Jean Brown and Jennifer Sue Perez returned to their homes state of Iowa but their relationship broke down and they sought to have a judge grant them a divorce.

The petition for divorce was approved by District Judge Jeffrey A. Neary without a hearing. Both parties had a stipulated agreement, and Neary signed the dissolution decree before realizing the relationship he was ending involved two women.

Judge Neary said he believed that under the legal concept of full faith and credit, he would be able to grant the divorce of a union that is legal in another state. The divorce also could be granted by applying equity and partnership laws that govern the business world, he said.

But a group of conservative lawmakers disagreed. The six filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court arguing that since Iowa has a so-called Defense of Marriage law a court cannot dissolve something which does not exist.

more
posted by Eve at 1:28 AM | link 0 comments

HOW OREGON ELOPED: From Time magazine

You'll see gays kissing each other all week. Producers from the big networks will be in Massachusetts to broadcast what are billed as the first legal gay marriages in the U.S. But the stories won't be totally accurate: gay couples have already legally wed in the U.S., here in Oregon. In a little noticed decision last month, overshadowed by the news from Massachusetts (not to mention Iraq), Oregon Circuit Court Judge Frank Bearden ruled for the first time in U.S. history that a state must "accept and register" marriages of same-sex couples. In March and April, Multnomah County issued marriage licenses to 3,022 gay couples, some of whom sued after the state then refused to recognize those marriages. Bearden's ruling in their favor means that until a higher court says otherwise, those 6,044 lesbians and gays are as married as any heterosexuals who have tied the knot. ...

But the victory may come at a cost. Oregonians are so angry at the commissioners that they could lose their jobs: the daily Oregonian has already endorsed the foes of two who face re-election May 18, and the other two are battling recall efforts. In the meantime, gays are celebrating. While it took Massachusetts activists three long years to win their marriage case in court, gay marriage was achieved in Oregon after just a few weeks of behind-the-scenes scheming. ...

It was in this context that Thorpe and B.R.O.'s informal group of legal advisers began pondering how to approach the marriage issue. What about a ballot measure? Too expensive; too risky. Legislation? Impossible with a Senate split 15 to 15. So why not do what they did in Massachusetts: sue the state and let the case work its way up? "We felt that was too time consuming [and] might bring on a backlash without us having actually gained something," says Thorpe. "We knew that anything that happened would end up in court at some point." With that outcome in mind, Thorpe says, the question became, "How do you position yourself in a way that's both general and personal? [The answer] would be to actually marry couples. It would be to use couples to illustrate what this would mean ... We realized there was great advantage in having people get married. Then we wouldn't be talking about a theoretical set of rights. We'd be talking about rights that people already had, and our opponents would be"--Thorpe pauses, savoring the thought--"in a position where they had to argue why they should take those away." ...

Secrecy was crucial for two reasons: first, enemies would surely sue to stop same-sex marriage licensing before it occurred, and the point was to have the licenses in hand once the court battle began. Second, two of the four commissioners face re-election this year, and at that time, they were unopposed. Thorpe was also concerned about Attorney General Hardy Myers, another Democratic ally, facing re-election. The image of gays exchanging vows would probably draw opponents into these races--but potential spoilers would have to enter by March 9, the filing deadline. Keep the marriage plan secret until March 10, and the politicians would be protected.

Quietly, Thorpe and her county allies--commissioners Rojo de Steffey, Serena Cruz, Lisa Naito and chair Diane Linn, along with a trusted staff member from each office--began discussing marriage. Whenever the commissioners came to meetings on the issue, they were careful to show up alone or in pairs to avoid triggering a state public-meetings law that applies when a quorum of elected officials (in this case, three of five) gather to discuss government affairs. To be sure, the commissioners may routinely follow the same practice, but the deliberate dodging of the public-meetings law on such a politically explosive decision--one that was ultimately made without a single public hearing--would later spark bitter complaints. ...

At least one same-sex couple showed up at the county building anyway, and they ended up in the office of county attorney Sowle. Even though Sowle had decided that Multnomah must grant same-sex marriage licenses, she did not provide one. Instead, she obfuscated. "I said, 'You know, I'm working on this opinion, and if I could prevail on you to wait a couple of days, I would appreciate it a lot. It would be a very good thing,'" she says.

Sowle laughs nervously. I ask whether she felt uncomfortable with that reply.

"You bet I did," she says. "I felt very uncomfortable ... I had had conversations with individual board members--the ones that were in on it--to say, 'If a couple comes, what do you expect me to do? I can try to talk them out of it, but what if I can't?'"

"You knew the commissioners were delaying for a political reason, right?" I ask.

"I knew that," she says. "Of course I knew that."

Sowle's justification for her secrecy is that she had not yet finished the final version of the opinion, which needed to be just right. Also, she says that as an attorney, she had to keep her discussions with her clients--the county and its commissioners--private.

But she also failed to divulge the truth to another one of her clients, the fifth county commissioner. Lonnie Roberts, a pro-life former truck driver, represents the conservative eastern Multnomah exurbs. A big man with large-frame glasses and a wide plane of a face, Roberts told me he would have gone to the media if he had been told of the marriage plan in advance. He dislikes the idea of gay marriage, but the way the county enacted it bothers him even more: "I would not have stood for the clandestine approach."

In the end, however, the clandestine approach failed. Sowle had her uncomfortable meeting with the lesbian couple the last week of February, and by March 1, rumors of the impending marriages had somehow leaked to reporters. ...

On March 2, commission chair Linn was in Washington on a college-scouting trip with her son. A county official called Linn on her cell phone to tell her that Sowle's final opinion had been issued. Linn gave the go order. Back in Portland, commissioner Roberts--who had successfully been kept in the dark since January--heard about the impending marriages on his pickup truck's radio. ...

...Linn issued an apology last Thursday for the lack of "public involvement in decision making, including ongoing, open communication"--though she did say, as she often does, that it was her "obligation under the Oregon constitution to support marriage equality."

more
posted by Eve at 12:18 PM | link 0 comments

THINGS TO DO IN DC: CATO INSTITUTE FORUM

May 17, 2004

ORGANIZATION: Cato Institute holds a forum on "May 17th: The Day Gay Marriage Began?"

TIME: 12 noon

LOCATION: Cato Institute, F.A. Hayek Auditorium, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.

CONTACT: 202-789-5200; http://www.cato.org

PARTICIPANTS: Jonathan Rauch, author, "Gay Marriage: Why It is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America"; Michael Greve, American Enterprise Institute and Genevieve Wood, Family Research Council
posted by Eve at 12:04 PM | link 0 comments

MASS. TOWN SET TO DEFY GOVERNOR: From the New York Times

One week before same-sex marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts, the Cape Cod town of Provincetown voted Monday to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples even if they have no intention of moving to Massachusetts. The move contradicts a directive by Gov. Mitt Romney, who has said that no same-sex couples residing out of state would be allowed to marry here. ...

Couples applying for marriage licenses in Massachusetts are required to fill out a form asking where they reside and where they intend to reside, and to sign it under penalty of perjury. Town and city clerks have been instructed by the governor's office to issue licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples if they intend to move to the state, but not those who plan to return to their home states.

But the board of selectmen in Provincetown, a town with a large gay population, voted unanimously to issue the licenses even if the applicants declare on the form that they do not intend to live in Massachusetts. The new policy reads: "The town clerk may issue marriage licenses to any persons--whether residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, non-commonwealth residents that intend to reside in Massachusetts, or non-commonwealth residents that do not intend to reside in Massachusetts." The couples must sign the form, attesting that they have been truthful on their application and that they know of no "legal impediment" to their marriage. ...

Governor Romney, a Republican, said in a statement Monday that state law prohibited out- of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. He said: "I expect local officials to follow this law regardless of their personal views. If they choose to break the law, we will take appropriate enforcement action, refuse to recognize those marriages and inform the parties that the marriage is null and void."

Shawn Feddeman, a spokeswoman for the governor, said that such marriages would not be recorded by the state's Department of Public Health. It was not clear Monday how the state would go about scrutinizing the marriage application forms, what sort of action would be taken against defiant clerks or whether enforcement would be handled by district attorneys or the attorney general.

Also Monday, the Liberty Counsel, a conservative group based in Longwood, Fla., filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Boston to stop the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses on May 17.

The group argues that the state's highest court violated the federal Constitution in its November ruling that gay couples had the right to marry under the state's Constitution. The suit argues that only the governor and the legislature may change marriage law, according to the separation of powers clause in the Massachusetts Constitution.

more
posted by Eve at 11:59 AM | link 0 comments

GROUPS CHALLENGE GAY MARRIAGE IN MASS.: From the Associated Press

Conservative groups filed a motion in federal court Monday seeking to block the legalization of gay marriage next week, arguing that the state's highest court violated the U.S. Constitution with its landmark November ruling.

After unsuccessful attempts to overturn the case in state court, this marks the first time the Massachusetts gay marriage case has been brought into federal court.

The motion argues that the court usurped the constitutional powers of the Legislature and the governor when it changed the state's marriage laws. This, in turn, violated the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees a uniform separation of power in all of the states, the motion argues.

Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based nonprofit organization, and several other conservative groups filed the case on behalf of Robert Largess of Boston, vice president of the Catholic Action League.

A similar motion in state court, filed by 13 state lawmakers, was rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court last week.

Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, issued a statement Monday saying "the federal courts are obligated to step in to ensure that Massachusetts is following the basic principle of separation of powers that is vital to our very system of law and government."

Legal expert Shari Levitan, an attorney with Holland & Knight of Boston, called the latest motion a "Hail Mary pass."

"When the laws that are made violate the state Constitution, it is the court's purview to say yes or no," Levitan said. "I think the significance of this is not the case itself but that it highlights such strong emotions. People are willing to go to the mat with any argument to push their claim."

link
posted by Eve at 9:49 PM | link 0 comments

HERE, HAVE A WEBCAST!

We are pleased to announce that an online Web cast of Same-Sex Marriage: A Civil Debate, sponsored by The Gill Foundation and Focus on the Family, is now available. A complimentary DVD or videotape copy may also be requested.
The same-sex marriage debate was held on February 24 in Colorado Springs, Colorado with more than 400 people in attendance. It was the first debate of its kind between the Gill Foundation and Focus on the Family--two of the most prominent organizations in the country working on the issue of gay marriage.

Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry, spoke in favor of same-sex marriages, and Glenn T. Stanton, Director for Social Research & Cultural Affairs for Focus on the Family, spoke on the opposing side. Both offer many insightful anecdotes, different opinions, and views, as well as historical references and statistics, in support of their respective arguments on the issue.

The 82-minute debate includes opening statements, a cross-talk section in which each speaker posed questions to one another, audience questions, and closing statements. With the guidance of Richard Celeste, President of Colorado College, as the moderator, the setting allowed for civil discussion about one of the most important social issues today.

here
posted by Eve at 3:40 PM | link 0 comments

MANY STATES ACTING TO BAR RECOGNITION OF MASS. SSM: From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

At the stroke of midnight next Monday, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will become the first state in the nation to begin processing marriage licenses to gay couples, an event so historic that even though it has not yet taken place, it already has sent shock waves across the country and spawned a frenzy of legislation. ...

Since the Massachusetts court's first ruling, two-thirds of the nation's state legislatures have introduced legislation that would either bar the recognition of same-sex marriages in their states or encourage a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, a proposal that is now before Congress and supported by President Bush. ...

The legislation has met mixed success. While 23 states have introduced proposals to amend their constitutions to ban same-sex unions, 12 have failed, Goodman said. Five of the successful ones will be voted on in November, and two -- in Wisconsin and Massachusetts -- must be approved by their legislatures a second time before going to voters for approval. ...

The question nevertheless remains whether Americans will become more or less accepting of gay marriages once they become routine in Massachusetts.

more
posted by Eve at 3:20 PM | link 0 comments

THE POLITICS OF SSM IN OREGON: From Newsweek

Most Oregon voters have never heard of Rives Kistler. Unless they are legal junkies, they know little about the impressive resume of the justice who sits on the Oregon Supreme Court, who clerked for the late U.S. Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell and has been endorsed in next Tuesday's Oregon primary by nearly every major newspaper in the state. And unless they've received mail from the Christian Coalition of Oregon, they are unlikely to know another tidbit: Rives Kistler is "the only open homosexual Supreme Court judge in the nation." That message, distributed recently in 75,000 Christian Coalition voter guides, is also being broadcast on Christian radio stations, much to the anguish of Kistler, 54, who has never concealed his sexual orientation, but has zealously--and until now, successfully--guarded his privacy. "I didn't want to be known as the gay judge." Kistler told NEWSWEEK. "I would hope to be known as the good judge."

That Justice Kistler should be even faintly worried about his prospects is a reflection of this year's new political reality: gay marriage is shaking up everything. As a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman only languishes in Congress--despite support from President George W. Bush--and Massachusetts prepares next week to start recognizing same-sex unions by court order, marriage battles are raging in volatile swing states like Oregon. Considering that Bush lost Oregon to Al Gore by fewer than 7,000 votes in 2000, opposition to gay marriage could mobilize enough conservative voters to put Oregon in Bush's column come November. ...

Recent polls show that 55 percent of Oregonians oppose same-sex marriage. And many are in a rage over a closed-door decision in March by commissioners in Multnomah County, which includes Portland, to issue marriage licenses to some 3,000 same-sex couples (last month, a judge ordered them to stop until the Legislature reviews state marriage laws). Last week county Chairwoman Diane Linn apologized for failing to consult with the public first before issuing licenses. But that didn't stem the backlash. In addition to targeting Kistler, the Portland-based Christian Coalition has launched a recall campaign against Linn and her colleagues. There is no denying the potency of same-sex marriage as a get-out-the-vote tool for social conservatives. "People are three times more passionate on this issue than they were even about abortion," says Tim Nashif, spokesman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, which is trying to place a constitutional amendment effectively banning same-sex marriage on the Oregon ballot this November. Liberal groups don't quibble with his assessment. According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, voters opposed to gay marriage are four times more likely to vote according to a candidate's position on the issue than those who are in favor or neutral.

more
posted by Eve at 3:15 PM | link 0 comments

PROFILE OF MARY BONAUTO: From the New York Times Magazine

...As historic as the Vermont decision was, Bonauto will forever be remembered for her more important victory last November, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in response to a lawsuit she filed on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses, handed down a landmark decision, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, ending the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage in the state. The ramifications of Goodridge have been felt throughout the country: public officials in San Francisco; Portland, Ore.; New York State; and New Jersey were inspired to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples (all such licensing has since been halted), and a political backlash took form, culminating in President George W. Bush's call in late February for a federal constitutional amendment to ''protect marriage,'' as he put it, from ''activist judges and local officials.'' ...

But the marriage question was still very much on her mind. GLAD was inundated with requests from gays and lesbians for help with legal difficulties -- child custody and adoption, health-benefits coverage, inheritance and Social Security survivor benefits -- that would not have existed if same-sex couples enjoyed the legal protections and benefits of marriage. Some of those requests, Bonauto says, are ''seared into my soul'' because they came from ''people who are calling me sobbing from a pay phone because their partner of 24 years has just died and the so-called family is in the house cleaning it out.'' But prudence prevailed. ''I would have loved to have been married myself and would have loved to have filed a marriage case,'' she says, but ''you have to apply your strategic sensibility to it.'' ...

Five months later, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down the ruling for which Bonauto had been waiting: an unparalleled 4-3 decision ending the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. The moral influence of the Lawrence decision on the Massachusetts court was made explicit at the very beginning of the Goodridge majority opinion, in which Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall cited Lawrence three times in her first three paragraphs. As Matt Coles, head of the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, observes, Goodridge ''answered that question that Lawrence begged.'' And while ''Goodridge is the earthquake,'' Coles says, ''Goodridge is the earthquake because of Lawrence.'' ...

But rather than dwell on state-by-state prognoses, Bonauto and other gay and lesbian litigators privately focus upon delaying any federal court consideration of same-sex marriage issues for a good many years. ...

One immediate challenge Bonauto faces is an attempt by Governor Romney to order local officials to enforce a long-ignored 1913 statute that proscribes the issuance of marriage licenses to out-of-state couples whose marriage would be ''void'' in their home state. Romney wants town clerks to begin demanding proof of residency from marriage applicants, but individual clerks will face the choice of how to apply the state instructions, couple by couple.

That's exactly the context Evan Wolfson wants. After May 17, he predicts, ''for a period of time there will be a patchwork in which couples have this mix of experiences, and in which nongay people, primarily, sitting on the other side of those desks at the bank, at the clerk's office, at the school registrar's, are going to have to now look at a real family and say, 'Am I going to be the one to say they're not married?'''

more
posted by Eve at 12:31 AM | link 0 comments

USING THE COURTS TO WAGE A WAR ON GAY MARRIAGE: From the New York Times

The map that hangs above Liberty Counsel's weekly planning meeting measures the small firm's national reach, with color-coded tabs marking the status of 33 active cases in 13 states.

Their agenda: stop same-sex marriage by using the courts.

From an unmarked beige tin warehouse near a railway line at an address they insist on keeping secret, Liberty Counsel has employed a range of legal tactics to fight same-sex marriage across the country. ...

Supporters of same-sex marriage say Liberty Counsel and other conservative organizations have had a strong impact on their efforts.

"We used to be up against the government when fighting for gay rights, but more and more often we find ourselves also battling against Liberty Counsel and similar organizations," said Jon W. Davidson, a Los Angeles-based senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a legal organization fighting for gay rights. "It is clear in the case of same-sex marriage that the religious right has started using legal tactics normally associated with liberal and progressive groups like the A.C.L.U. or N.A.A.C.P."

Other groups are fighting same-sex marriage, including the Alliance Defense Fund in Arizona and the American Center for Law and Justice in Virginia. But it is Liberty Counsel that has been at the forefront of the legal battles. Mr. Staver's firm obtained the restraining order that stopped the mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The weekly meeting map shows that same-sex marriage remains a prime focus for Liberty Counsel. Yellow tags mark four states where officials have recognized or conducted same-sex marriages, matched by four blue tags that signify the firm's lawsuits against those officials.

Red tags on 13 states with lawsuits seeking recognition of same-sex marriage are matched by seven green tags noting the firm's attempts to intervene.

An orange tag marks the brief Liberty Counsel filed with the Supreme Court of California, and a lone gold dot marks a victory for their cause: the striking down of a same-sex marriage lawsuit by the Superior Court of West Virginia.

"Until we started the tracking map, it took forever just to figure out where we had court cases," said Rena M. Lindevaldsen, the firm's lead lawyer on this issue. "It has been an exhausting few months since the marriages began in February." ...

On the strength of donations, Mr. Staver said, his firm plans to expand activities in the coming months. The number of lawyers will double to 10 this summer, and Mr. Staver says he will oversee the opening of a law school intended to train a new generation of like-minded lawyers. ...

All cases are handled pro bono, with the law firm's finances mainly coming from donations and court-awarded fees in successful lawsuits.

Registered as a nonprofit group, Liberty Counsel had revenue of $1,374,658 in 2002, a big increase from $163,341 in 1997, according to tax records provided by GuideStar, a philanthropic research group.

more
posted by Eve at 12:25 AM | link 0 comments