|
 |
 |
 Saturday, May 22, 2004
GOING DUTCH?: Stanley Kurtz
ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO, two prominent demographers hailed the Dutch family as a model for Europe. Somehow the Dutch had managed to combine liberal family law and a robust welfare state with a surprisingly traditional attitude toward marriage. Even as a new pattern of highly unstable parental cohabitation was sweeping out of Scandinavia and across northern Europe, the Dutch were unswayed. To be sure, premarital cohabitation was widespread, but when Dutch couples decided to have children, they got married. At least they used to. Today, marriage is in trouble in the Netherlands. In the mid-1990s, out-of-wedlock births, already rising, began a steeper increase, nearly doubling to 31 percent of births in 2003. These were the very years when the debate over the legal recognition of gay relationships came to the fore in the Netherlands, culminating in the legalization of full same-sex marriage in 2000. The conjunction is no coincidence. A careful look at the decade-long campaign for same-sex marriage in the Netherlands shows that one of its principal themes was the effort to dislodge the conviction that parenthood and marriage are intrinsically linked. Even as proponents of gay marriage argued vigorously--and ultimately successfully--that marriage should be just one of many relationship options, fewer Dutch parents were choosing marriage over cohabitation. No longer a marked exception on the European scene, the Dutch are now traveling down the Scandinavian path. Call it the end of the Dutch paradox, the distinctive combination of liberal social policies and traditional behavior. On euthanasia, prostitution, drug use, and now gay marriage, Dutch law is the cutting edge of Western liberalism. Yet among Dutch people, drug use and sexual license are far from rampant. Many have asked whether this balance of tolerance and tradition, with its deep roots in Dutch culture and history, is sustainable over the long term. At least for marriage, the answer appears to be no. ... Van der Staaij pointed out a critical problem in the government's proposal for same-sex marriage. Would the law recognize the usual ties of descent between children and married couples? Would, say, the female spouse of a mother who conceived a child automatically become the parent of the biologically unrelated child? If so, the implication was, might such a child have three simultaneous legal parents? And if so, would this not set off a cascade of legal pressures to repudiate the two-parent standard (a process that is playing itself out right now in Sweden)? The government opted to avoid the issue by denying automatic parental rights to same-sex spouses. But, as Van der Staaij noted, that decision opened up a dangerous gap between the traditionally conjoined notions of marriage and parenthood. The dilemma itself stood as stark proof that in a matter heretofore central to marriage, homosexual and heterosexual couples are indeed differently situated. ... To appreciate gay marriage's role in encouraging the recent upsurge of Dutch parental cohabitation, we need only take seriously what participants in the Dutch debate said. Spend a decade telling people that marriage is not about parenthood and they just might begin to believe you. Make relationship equality a rallying cry, and people might decide that all forms of relationship are equal--especially young people, of family-forming age, most of whom have left religion behind. Dutch conservatives made a valiant stand for procreation and parenting as of the essence of marriage, and they were soundly beaten. Having duly considered and rejected the essential tie between marriage and parenthood, the Dutch started to abandon their inertial traditionalism and began to experiment with parental cohabitation in record numbers. Again and again, voices from across the political spectrum argued that gay marriage signifies the demotion or abolition of marriage as the socially preferred setting for parenthood. It should come as no surprise when Dutch parents act accordingly. more
FOR GAY COUPLES, DIVORCE IS SOUGHT-AFTER PERK OF MARRIAGE: From the Associated Press
One of the messiest breakups family law lawyer Cheryl Sena has witnessed had all the hallmarks of a bitter, "who-gets-what" divorce -- charges of infidelity, competing restraining orders and drawn-out conflict over a multimillion dollar home. What made the case especially difficult, even as ugly splits go, was that the feuding partners were men. As an unmarried couple, community property laws didn't apply to them -- so every last bit of jewelry was up for grabs. ... The ability to recieve alimony, guaranteed parental rights and an assumed stake in the financial fruits of the relationship are just a few of the divorce benefits long denied same-sex couples. "The single most important thing you get with marriage is divorce, a predictable process by which property is divided, debt is apportioned and arrangements are made for custody and visitation of children," said Jo Ann Citron, a Boston lawyer who is researching a book on same-sex breakups called "The Gay Divorcee." ... Especially when children are involved, judges in liberal-leaning states like Massachusetts, California and Washington have been increasingly willing to apply the principles of their respective divorce laws, if not the laws themselves, to same-sex breakups that wind up in court as contract or property disputes. But courts in more conservative states like Texas and Virginia have been loath to do anything that would confer marital-like standing on same-sex unions, even when both parties have had lawyers draw up detailed contracts. ... Vermont, which since 2000 has granted spousal rights to gay couples with civil unions, is the only state other than Massachusetts where gays and lesbians are now treated the same as married couples for the purposes of divorce. In California, a law scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1 would give the state's 25,000 couples registered as domestic partners access to family court proceedings when their relationships end. ... San Francisco residents Julian Chang, 42, and Wade Estey, 38, avoided such acrimony when they split up last year after more than 14 years together. Both lawyers with equal earnings, the men had drawn up elaborate agreements or filed papers governing everything from home ownership and hospital visitation rights to frequent flier miles and funeral arrangements. They handled their dissolution proceedings themselves, splitting everything down the middle. With so many separate contracts to undo, they still haven't reached the end of it. "We put everything in our lives together piece by piece, and now the worst part of it is we have to undo everything piece by piece," Chang said. Both agree that had marriage been an option, their "divorce" would have been easier -- and they might not have broken up at all. "There is something different about being married than in an unmarried relationship -- it would make me more committed to working things out," Estey said. more
NEWYLWED GAYS' SUIT COULD MAKE LAW HISTORY: From the Boston Herald
The arrival of legal gay marriage in Massachusetts cleared the way for a milestone medical negligence lawsuit filed yesterday in Worcester Superior Court. Michelle Charron and Cynthia Kalish, who married Thursday and have a 6-year-old daughter, sued Worcester's Fallon Clinic and two of its doctors, claiming they misdiagnosed Charron's now-incurable breast cancer. The legalization of gay marriage allows Kalish to sue for loss of companionship, grounds not allowed to gay couples before Monday's historic change. Charron's cancer has spread to her liver and sternum, bringing "substantial risk of premature death," according to the lawsuit. "It was hard (in Thursday's wedding ceremony) when they got to the 'in sickness and in health, for as long as you both shall live,'" said Kalish, 39, who works in human resources. The couple met 18 years ago while working at battered womens' shelters. They have lived together for 12 years. "Cynthia and I aren't going to grow old together," Charron said. "I think a lot about Hannah (their daughter) and the things in her life I may miss . . . her first date, the prom, her Bat Mitzvah." ... "The (companionship) claim brought by a spouse is not new, but the fact that this is a claim brought by a same-sex spouse is what makes this unique," said Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA. "This shows one of the major benefits for same-sex couples to say, 'I am married.'" more
GAYS VOW TO PRESS MARRIAGE FIGHT NATIONWIDE: Reuters
Gay rights advocates vowed on Tuesday to press for full marriage rights for same-sex couples across the nation even as conservatives campaigned to undo the legal gay unions that just began in Massachusetts. ... Kevin Cathcart, executive director of gay rights group Lambda Legal, called the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts "an incredible breakthrough" but noted the state is only one of 50 in the nation. "No one should have to go to another state or another country in order to get their marriage recognized," he said. "So we can't and we won't stop until we have equality in marriage nationwide." Cathcart noted that courts in California, New Jersey, New York and Washington are considering lawsuits seeking same-sex marriage rights, and he predicted more state supreme court rulings similar to the landmark one by Massachusetts' highest court that ordered the state to begin marrying gay couples. The Massachusetts ruling that allowed gay marriage said anything less would make gays second-class citizens. "I don't think Massachusetts is going to be out there on its own for terribly long," he said. Legal challenges are also expected to arise from same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts and try to have their unions recognized in other states. more
DISESTABLISH MARRIAGE?: Joel Bruhn replies to Eve
I read your reply to Ryan's and my postings. You have soundly answered Ryan's arguments, but you haven't addressed mine. I never advocated disestablishing marriage--I said that we should entirely separate civil marriage from religious marriage. All but one of your points (the exception is the second one) are irrelevant to my argument. Your second point--that society benefits from codifying heterosexual marriage--well, I agree with you, but good luck making that argument in a secular forum. Try something just for me: go find someone with a rainbow bumber sticker on their car, and explain your point to them. Let me know how they respond. I'm not being facetious, but acknowledging a practical reality. Gays in this country mostly do NOT agree with us here, and being citizens, taxpayers, and voters, are fully entitled to lobby accordingly. And they've been far more effective in persuading the public on this issue than have the conservatives who oppose them. Others have correctly noted that it is mostly judges, and not voters, who have been giving gay-marriage advocates their latest victories, but I see that point as basically irrelevant here. Gay marriage has seen popular support rising steadily for many years now, and this trend isn't going to reverse. We're already past the point where a federal marriage amendment could find sufficient support to be passed, and momentum is on their side, so we'd better make a contingency plan. Which is why I advocate separating civil marriage from religious marriage. What are your thoughts? [Eve replies: First, I do think the rest of my post is relevant, at least in terms of laying out the stakes of our disagreement. But really I just think this is an over-dark reading of the political situation. Now is not the time to come up with "throw the supplies overboard, we're sinking!" contingency plans; now is the time to make better public arguments. I suppose I am more sanguine about the future than Joel because a) until quite recently (about a year or so ago) I hadn't heard strong, cogent, secular arguments against same-sex marriage--I think opponents of SSM were largely caught unawares, have been scrambling to understand the issue, and are doing much, much better now than we were a year ago, so slowly our message is getting out; b) I do spend a lot of time talking to rainbow-bumper-sticker-people, and I've seen minds change; and c) the political situation here is really volatile, with people being pressured to take sides, and coming down in ways that are still quite unexpected. So... I don't think focusing on a "contingency plan" is really a good idea right now.]
DISESTABLISH MARRIAGE? Jim Downard
[Jim Downard teaches American history and studies Robert Nozick.] C.S. Lewis (in Mere Christianity, I think) advocated two kinds of marriage: one solemnized by the state that could be ended at any time for any reason and acknowledged as such and a church marriage that could not be broken under any circumstances or conditions. He was addressing the question of divorce which, before his death in 1963, was nowhere near the problem it has since become with the advent of dissolution laws. The demand that churches accept same-sex unions arises from the desire to normalize what has hitherto been regarded as abnormal: same-sex relations. It is not simply a civil rights issue, a matter of granting the same special financial and legal privileges to homosexuals that states have always accorded to heterosexuals. Even if "society" were to endorse Lewis's suggestion from long ago, militant homosexuals and leftists who desire to break down any traditional canons of morality would still be knocking at the door of the church, hoping to revolutionize it. No revolutionary can let any part of a given society remain unrevolutionized. The inner logic of revolution cannot abide it. Traditionalists may have lost this struggle in the cultural and legal spheres of American life. A counter-revolution would demand a counter-cultural revolution which "tolerance" and "diversity" will never permit. Everyone except for a handful of traditionalists are afraid of being labeled "bigots," which is another legacy of the 60's.
DISESTABLISH MARRIAGE?: Lucia Liljegren
Recently, Eve Tushnet at MD.com asked people to comment on the Abolition of marriage; many people have. Reading the responses, I was struck by something posted by Ryan Janus. It was this: "It doesn't matter to me if people believe I'm married--I know I am." Evidently, Ryan believes that as long as he, his wife and God know they are married, that's enough. I have been married for 20 years. It does matter to me whether people believe my husband and I are married. It mattered whether the bank believed us when we applied for a mortgage. It mattered whether our employers believed us when they paid to move spouses across country. It mattered when my husband requested personal leave to stay with me while I was hospitalized. What people believed about my marriage would matter if: * either of us were in an life threatening accident and we wanted the hospital to inform our next of kin. * the IRS disputed our marital status during an audit. * we wished to leave our assets tax free to each other when we died. * either of us decided to violate our marriage vows and run off with someone else. I could probably make this list nearly endless just including reasons why it matters whether people recognize my legal marriage. Some religions also take the point of view that it matters if people know you are share a sacramental bond. The Catholic Church has long thought it mattered whether other people know you are married; secret marriages are not permitted. So, what do you think? Does it matter? link, including some very interesting comments from readers
SSM, NONTRADITIONAL MARRIAGES, AND POLYGAMY: Mark Miller replies to R.K. Becker
Just to clarify, R.K. believes that the effort to legalize polygamy will be unsuccessful in the next 5 years due to the fact that the people who make these decisions want to prevent those who opposed SSM from saying "I told you so." But once SSM opponents are relegated to political irrelevance, since the logic behind the support of SSM is the same as for polygamy, polygamy will eventually become legal. This does not hold for the reason that there are significant differences between the arguments (both legal and moral) for SSM and the arguments for polygamy. In R.K.'s first example, he says that one of the pro-SSM rguments is based on the fact that denying gays to marry denies them the opportunity to marry the person they love in the same way straights can marry the person they love. I agree. He goes on to suggest that this same logic can then be applied to bisexuals who have attractions to both sexes and therefore, allowing them to marry who they are attracted to leads to polygamy. The problem with this for me is that my argument for SSM is to allow people to marry ONE person whom they love. While I'm sure there are some who support unlimited marriage laws with no rules or lines drawn, I am not among them. There should be lines drawn with regard to marriage but I am not sure why that line should drawn based on gender. I am sure why that line should drawn at involving two people. The reasoning behind each is different. Therefore, my argument for SSM is not simply about "allowing everyone to be happy in life." I do believe there are other considerations. Obviously, I see a moral distinction between homosexual behavior and having multiple partners, where apparently R.K. does not. In R.K.'s second example, he says that one of the pro-SSM arguments is based on the fact that denying gays to marry denies them the opportunity to marry the person they are sleeping with and, in many cases, raising children with. Again, I agree. He goes on to suggest that this same logic can be applied to same-sex couples who wish to add the other "biological" parent to the family so that the child can have both the legal mother and father, which is one of traditionalist positions. I am not arguing that the laws of marriage should be based solely on the child having both a mother and father. There are already laws in place for which both the biological mother and father have legal responsibilities to their offspring. Those responsibilities are not affected by the laws of "marriage." In this example, I would argue that a choice has to be made by the parties involved which two partners should be legally married. In response to an argument made as to why not allow all three people to enjoy the benefits of marriage and raising the child, I would say that marriage is between two people. And that I believe that aspect of what we call marriage is central to the institution as opposed to it being opposite-sex.
NATIONAL JOURNAL: SSM--"THE EXPERTS"
Quick guide for journalists and others seeking expert opinion on same-sex marriage. Includes phone numbers, brief background, representative quotes, and comments from allies, opponents, and "we disagree but this person is really good" types. Experts are: Maggie Gallagher, Robert George, Mary Ann Glendon, Andrew Koppelman, Stanley Kurtz, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Gavin Newsom, Donna Payne, Tony Perkins, Andrew Sullivan, and Evan Wolfson. The whole thing is here.
MORE SLOPING: Tom Sylvester replies to Eugene Volokh
Law professor Eugene Volokh makes the the point I tried to make earlier, but he does so much more clearly: "The gay rights movement has succeeded, both legally and in many situations politically, because of a confluence of reasons. Homosexuals are only about 2-3% of the population; but they also have many more nonhomosexual friends, family members, and colleagues. They have the natural political sympathy of much of the liberal movement, that tends to take a broadly egalitarian and sexually libertarian view. "Homosexuals are generally not very socially insular, at least by choice; while there are some mostly homosexual organizations and social circles, homosexuals tend to work, play, and socialize with heterosexuals. This means that, once there's enough tolerance for homosexuality that homosexuals are willing to identify themselves, many people -- even many conservatives -- find that quite a few of the people they like are homosexual. And this has been especially so in elite circles that have a disproportional impact on law, policy, culture, and even public opinion." He goes on to write that possible supporters of polygamy--Mormons and Muslims--are far more insular and don't have support on the left. While that's true, he overlooks "polyamorists" who appear to be hippie lefty types, as well as support for polyamory among Unitarians and radical left-wing legal scholars such as Judith Stacey, Martha Ertman, and Martha Fineman. link
MORE SLOPING: Eugene Volokh on SSM and polygamy
I've mentioned below (and in many past posts) that legalizing or constitutionalizing same-sex marriages might indeed eventually lead to the same for polygamous marriages -- the slippery slope argument is plausible, though of course far from certain. I suspect, though, that this won't in fact happen. The gay rights movement has succeeded, both legally and in many situations politically, because of a confluence of reasons. Homosexuals are only about 2-3% of the population; but they also have many more nonhomosexual friends, family members, and colleagues. They have the natural political sympathy of much of the liberal movement, that tends to take a broadly egalitarian and sexually libertarian view. Homosexuals are generally not very socially insular, at least by choice; while there are some mostly homosexual organizations and social circles, homosexuals tend to work, play, and socialize with heterosexuals. This means that, once there's enough tolerance for homosexuality that homosexuals are willing to identify themselves, many people -- even many conservatives -- find that quite a few of the people they like are homosexual. And this has been especially so in elite circles that have a disproportional impact on law, policy, culture, and even public opinion. The chief sources of polygamy in America, as I understand it, are likely to be Muslim immigrants and some Mormon sects. (These wouldn't be the only sources, but I suspect they'd be the main ones.) These are relatively socially insular. Few people outside the group are likely to have close friends who are polygamists. What's more, these groups don't have a natural political home in the Left, because they tend to be highly socially conservative in many ways (setting aside polygamy itself, of course), and because they tend to be devoutly religious. I'm not saying that many people on the Left will deliberately refuse to endorse polygamy because they don't like the politics and religions of polygamists. But I doubt that many of the Left would be eager to go to bat politically for people with whom they have so little in common. And people on the Right aren't likely to back these groups, either, simply because most people on the Right are morally averse to polygamy. Finally, it doesn't seem likely that polygamy will attract many ordinary people who are better integrated socially, and who do have natural allies on the Left or the Right. I suspect that few American women, for instance, would be that inclined to enter into polygynous (one man, many women) marriages. I suspect that even fewer American men would be inclined to enter into polyandrous (one woman, many men) marriages. I suspect that many American men who might want multiple sexual partners wouldn't be that inclined to actually marry, and in some measure have to support, multiple wives. (Men of course might marry women who are at the same income level as they are, but I suspect that those are the very women who would least want to enter into polygynous relationships.) ... Now all this might change. I suspect that in 1965, many people doubted that the homosexual rights movement would ever get off the ground. Perhaps I'm missing some other political force that would be able to successfully push -- both in court and in legislatures -- for allowing polygamous marriages. (For instance, perhaps there'll be some massive influx of immigration of religious Muslims who are polygamous or at least culturally open to polygamy, though if the influx is huge enough, then that might lead to a legalization of polygamy whether or not same-sex marriages are legalized.) But it still seems to me that, as a practical matter, even if same-sex marriage is legalized, we're unlikely to in fact slip down to allowing polygamy. link
SLIPPERY SLOP?: Eugene Volokh replies to Dahlia Lithwick
When we've had forty years of slipping, it becomes harder to condemn the slippery slope argument as patently unsound. Dahlia Lithwick does make some apt criticisms of some "today, gay marriage, tomorrow . . ." arguments; and, as blog readers know, I tentatively support same-sex marriage and suspect that it probably will not lead even to a recognition of polygamous marriages (though I don't have the confidence in this that Dahlia does). But some of her arguments strike me as not entirely persuasive. ... So the Court has been willing to depart from the very core of Griswold's argument (the limitation to marriage) and from the express assurances by the concurrence that the decision in no way affects homosexuality. Why should we have any confidence that the Court--or lower courts or other influential bodies--will feel limited by Griswold's supposed stress on the inherent "binar[iness]" of "intimacy," something that is much less expressly dwelt on by the Griswold opinions? (To the extent the opinions suggest anything about the binariness of intimacy, that comes from their focus on the married couple--a focus that the Court has long abandoned, see Eisenstadt.) The changes in sexual attitudes -- and in the law surrounding sex -- over the last 40 years are one long slippery slope. Some may think it's a slope to a good result, others to a bad result. But we have seen growing legalization and social normalization of contraception, premarital sex, abortion, and homosexuality, and a growing constitutionalization of such changes, so that communities where a majority still opposes those changes are nonetheless required to accept them. The legalization or constitutionalization of same-sex marriages would be yet another step. It's conceivable, of course, that there is simply a temporal relationship here and not a causal one -- perhaps the first changes didn't help cause the subsequent ones, in which case we should worry less about the legalization or constitutionalization of same-sex marriage helping cause other things. It's also conceivable (perhaps even likely) that there are powerful political reasons why things will stop short of legalizing polygamous marriages. But given this past history, the slippery slope arguments related to same-sex marriage aren't that easy to dismiss. And they're especially hard to dismiss by an appeal to the supposed inherent limits of Griswold, limits away from which we have already dramatically slipped. more
SLIPPERY SLOP: Dahlia Lithwick
Anyone else bored to tears with the "slippery slope" arguments against gay marriage? Since few opponents of homosexual unions are brave enough to admit that gay weddings just freak them out, they hide behind the claim that it's an inexorable slide from legalizing gay marriage to having sex with penguins outside JC Penney's. The problem is it's virtually impossible to debate against a slippery slope. Before you know it you fall down, break your crown, and Rick Santorum comes tumbling after. ... The real problem is that there are really only three arguments against gay marriage: One is rooted in entirely God's preferences--which have little bearing on Equal Protection or Due Process doctrine, as far as I can tell. The second cites inconclusive research on its negative effects on children. The backup is the slippery slope jeremiad, which seems to pass for a legal argument, at least on cable TV. But fear of the slippery slope alone is not a sufficient justification for doing the wrong thing in any individual case. In a superb dialogue on gay marriage in Slate, Andrew Sullivan, responding to David Frum, makes this point eloquently: "The precise challenge for morally serious people is to make rational distinctions between what is arbitrary and what is essential in important social institutions. ... If you want to argue that a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two women is equivalent to incest or child abuse, then please argue it. It would make for fascinating reading. But spare us this bizarre point that no new line can be drawn in access to marriage--or else everything is up for grabs and, before we know where we are, men will be marrying their dogs." Now, slippery slopes are not to be sneezed at. Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA law school has done some extremely serious thinking on the subject and, while he does not himself oppose gay marriage, he cautions that one ignores slippery slope effects at one's peril. But he also reminds us that slippery slopes are only metaphors. They are not intrinsic principles of law. Each step in the slope must be analyzed, critiqued, and evaluated on its merits. And that is happening only at the very margins of the gay marriage debate. ...Asking proponents of gay marriage to prove that these marriages won't be bad for kids or families is asking that they prove a negative. The law cannot know the long-term future social effects of legalizing gay marriage (Stanley Kurtz, who has quite fixed views on gay men and their philandering ways, notwithstanding). We can only determine whether it is fundamentally unfair to bar one whole class of citizens from a privilege constitutionally afforded the rest of us. ... Bracket all the hysterical and irrelevant stops along the slippery slope (some of which are there only to trivialize homosexuality) and we are left to try to draw principled lines between gay marriage, in which no one is harmed, and adult incest, adultery, bigamy, or polyamory. This is where the debate should begin. Not at child molesting. My colleague Will Saletan has argued that there is in fact no principled reason for legally prohibiting sex between cousins and I am, I think, persuaded that he is correct. But one can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous and polyamorous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state. None of these arguments can be made against gay marriage. And as my colleague Ann Hulbert has shown, the data about the effects of gay marriage on child rearing are too ambiguous to support any legal assertions about harm to children. ...But beyond just the policy differences between the two, there is also a legal bulwark between Justice Kennedy's reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas (and the Massachusetts decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which borrowed heavily from the reasoning of Lawrence) and the invasion of the polygamists: The right to sexual privacy Kennedy finds in the line of cases starting with Griswold v. Connecticut, the Connecticut birth-control case from 1965, is an intimate right, between two consenting partners. The court calls these "the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy." The desire of a group of seven people to marry simply does not intuitively fit into that binary sphere of intimacy. more
DIVORCE ANALOGIES: Gabriel Rosenberg replies to Eve replying to Gabriel...
[The first post in this sequence is here.] Eve Tushnet responds with an additional difference and a dispute. Her difference is that divorce is not viewed as an ideal, whereas same-sex marriage is. I agree with this difference, but I see SSM as upholding marriage itself as an ideal. For it is allowing marriage over the alternative of cohabitation. I don't see it changing whom the ideal spouse is. For most Jewish mothers the ideal will still be a doctor. She disputes the claim that divorce is a bigger change in definition, since many societies have had rules for divorce whereas viewing one's spouse without regards to gender is a late twentieth century innovation. I agree that the latter is more novel, but marriage has been progressing in that direction since the early nineteenth century. Which is a bigger change in definition depends on what specific change we are referring to. In general I'd say the exit requirements of marriage are more fundamental to its definition than the entrance requirements. As for the specifics I do see certain changes in divorce laws as greater alterations than the change from egalitarian marriage to allowing same-sex marriage. In regards to Jewish divorce, I would note that even that was rather a novel concept from my understanding. I don't believe other cultures at that time allowed a woman to remarry after divorce. (A man could of course remarry, but then a man could remarry even without a divorce). But much of this dispute I think comes down to what changes are "definitional" and what is a variation within that definition, a topic about which I hope to write soon. link
MARRIAGE IN SCANDINAVIA: Stanley Kurtz replies to M.V. Lee Badgett
...Badgett's claim that marriage in Scandinavia is pretty healthy right now is not credible. Whether on the left or right, demographers acknowledge that marriage in Scandinavia is on the way out. Badgett gives the same tired statistics that supposedly prove that Scandinavian marriage is going through a renaissance, completely ignoring my detailed critique of those figures. Badgett also overlooks a key element of my argument--that the practice of marrying after the first child is falling by the wayside and couples are increasingly not marrying after even second and third children. This is the core change that has taken place since gay marriage. The rate of out-of-wedlock births may have increased more rapidly prior to gay marriage, but those were first births, when the custom was still to marry sometime after the arrival of the first child. That was the "easy" part of the growth in the out-of-wedlock birthrate. What's happened since gay marriage is that couples are increasingly waiting till after two and three children have been born before marrying--or not marrying at all. That is a much deeper and more disturbing change. Comparing that to the earlier rise in what were essentially first child out-of-wedlock birthrates is comparing apples and oranges. There's more to be said here, but the main point is that the Netherlands example proves what Badgett denies--that when you bring gay marriage into a country where there had not previously been a high rate of parental cohabitation, the rate of out-of-wedlock births does in fact shoot up quite sharply. I'll have much more on the Netherlands soon. more
MARRIAGE IN SCANDINAVIA: Gabriel Rosenberg replies to M.V. Lee Badgett and Stanley Kurtz
...[Badgett's] analysis looks more closely at the demographic evidence, which is certainly important, but I think some of her most important points lie elsewhere, towards the end of the article. First of all there are some key differences between the United States and Scandinavia. As she writes: "And all the conservative hand-wringing seems especially unnecessary when you consider the various incentives that encourage American heterosexual couples to marry. By marrying, U.S. couples obtain health-insurance coverage, pensions, and Social Security survivor benefits. Plus, in the United States we are required by law to be financially responsible for our spouses in bad times, since we don't have Scandinavian-style welfare programs to fall back on." Whereas allowing same-sex couples to marry does not change any of these incentives, not allowing same-sex marriage has been causing a change. For example, because same-sex couples are excluded from marriage many private employers have started offering health coverage and pension benefits to unmarried partners. The number of such companies has been rising dramatically every year. These programs are generally also available to opposite sex couples as well (often because of legal concerns about discriminating against such couples). Without same-sex marriage these programs will continue to proliferate and the situation will become more like Scandinavia in this regard. ... ...In the political arena not allowing same-sex marriage must lead to a second debate over what should be done to protect same-sex couples and their children. If we are not going to have SSM, then what are we going to do? Domestic partnerships? If so, what should they look like? How should they be treated in another state? What should guide the courts in dealing with them? Should they be open to opposite-sex couples? I don't believe that a Constitutional Amendment is going to put gays back in the closet. One way or another this issue must be faced. more
MARRIAGE IN SCANDINAVIA: M.V. Lee Badgett replies to Stanley Kurtz
...Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals. Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called "registered partnership." (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) Since 2001, the Netherlands and Belgium have opened marriage to same-sex couples. Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged. Of course, the good news about marriage rates is bad news for Kurtz's sky-is-falling argument. So, Kurtz instead focuses on the increasing tendency in Europe for couples to have children out of wedlock. Gay marriage, he argues, is a wedge that is prying marriage and parenthood apart. The main evidence Kurtz points to is the increase in cohabitation rates among unmarried heterosexual couples and the increase in births to unmarried mothers. Roughly half of all children in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are now born to unmarried parents. In Denmark, the number of cohabiting couples with children rose by 25 percent in the 1990s. From these statistics Kurtz concludes that "...married parenthood has become a minority phenomenon," and--surprise--he blames gay marriage. But Kurtz's interpretation of the statistics is incorrect. Parenthood within marriage is still the norm--most cohabitating couples marry after they start having children. In Sweden, for instance, 70 percent of cohabiters wed after their first child is born. Indeed, in Scandinavia the majority of families with children are headed by married parents. In Denmark and Norway, roughly four out of five couples with children were married in 2003. In the Netherlands, a bit south of Scandinavia, 90 percent of heterosexual couples with kids are married. Kurtz is also mistaken in maintaining that gay unions are to blame for changes in heterosexual marriage patterns. In truth, the shift occurred in the opposite direction: Changes in heterosexual marriage made the recognition of gay couples more likely. In my own recent study conducted in the Netherlands, I found that the nine countries with partnership laws had higher rates of unmarried cohabitation than other European and North American countries before passage of the partner-registration laws. In other words, high cohabitation rates came first, gay partnership laws followed. A subtler version of Kurtz's argument states that the advent of registered partnership caused an increase in cohabitation rates and children born outside of marriage (nonmarital births). If that were true, then we would expect to see two patterns: Cohabitation rates and the nonmarital birth rate would rise more quickly within a country after it passed partner registration laws; and the rise in the nonmarital birth rate would be greater in countries that had such laws than in countries that do not recognize same-sex partnerships. Kurtz's argument fails both tests. From 1970 to 1980, the Danish nonmarital birth rate tripled, from 11 percent to 33 percent. Over the next 10 years, it rose again to 46 percent and then stopped rising in 1990s after the passage of the 1989 partnership law. Norway's big surge occurred in the 1980's, with an increase from 16 percent to 39 percent. In the decade after Norway recognized same-sex couples (in 1993), the nonmarital birth rate first rose slightly, then, after a couple of years, leveled off at 50 percent. Cohabitation rates tell a similar story. In Denmark, from 1980 to 1989, the number of unmarried, cohabiting couples with children rose by 70 percent, but the same figure rose by only 28 percent from 1989 to 2000—the decade after Denmark introduced its partner-registration laws—and then stopped rising. From 2000 to 2004, the number has increased by a barely perceptible 0.3 percent. The fact that rates of cohabitation and nonmarital births either slowed down or completely stopped rising after the passage of partnership laws shows that the laws had no effect on heterosexual behavior. Furthermore, the change in nonmarital births was exactly the same in countries with partnership laws as it was in countries without. The eight countries that recognized registered partners at some point in the decade from 1989 to 2000 saw an increase in the average nonmarital birth rate from 36 percent in 1991 to 44 percent in 2000, an eight percentage point increase. Among the EU countries that didn't recognize partners (plus Switzerland), the average rate of nonmarital births rose from 15 percent to 23 percent—also an eight-point increase. No matter how you slice the demographic data, rates of nonmarital births and cohabitation do not increase as a result of the passage of laws that give same-sex partners the right to registered partnership. To put it simply: Giving gay couples rights does not inexplicably cause heterosexuals to flee marriage, as Kurtz would have us believe. Looking at the long-term statistical trends, it seems clear that the changes in heterosexuals' marriage and parenting decisions would have occurred anyway, even in the absence of gay marriage. And all the conservative hand-wringing seems especially unnecessary when you consider the various incentives that encourage American heterosexual couples to marry. By marrying, U.S. couples obtain health-insurance coverage, pensions, and Social Security survivor benefits. Plus, in the United States we are required by law to be financially responsible for our spouses in bad times, since we don't have Scandinavian-style welfare programs to fall back on. more
SSM AND FEDERALISM: Stanley Kurtz
Defiance of the law is rapidly becoming the leitmotif of the gay-marriage movement. It's not that gay-marriage supporters are generally less law-abiding than others. The root of the problem is that proponents of gay marriage see their cause as parallel to the civil-rights movement of the early 1960s. That analogy is badly flawed. But if you buy it, then it's perfectly alright to disobey the law in order to nationalize gay marriage. This is why it's foolish to put faith in laws that supposedly prevent gay marriage in Massachusetts from spilling over into other states. When it comes to same-sex marriage, it barely matters how the law is written. Again and again, gay-marriage advocates have shown themselves eager to disobey any law that would prevent the spread of gay marriage from state to state. If you believe this process can be ended by anything short of a federal constitutional amendment, you are dreaming. It took only a single day of legal gay marriage to reveal the worthlessness of assurances about this experiment's confinement to Massachusetts. Let's review the curious history of Chapter 207: Section 11, the provision of Massachusetts law that supposedly prevents the marriage of out-of-state residents whose marriages would not be legal in their home state. When the Goodridge decision was handed down last November, Justice Greaney, who was in the majority, issued a concurring opinion containing the following claim: "The argument, made by some in the case, that legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts will be used by persons in other States as a tool to obtain recognition of a marriage in their State that is otherwise unlawful, is precluded by the provision of G.L. c. 207, 11, 12, and 13." That law states that if your marriage would not be valid in your home state (but would be valid in Massachusetts), you can't get married in Massachusetts without actually moving to Massachusetts. Justice Greaney is clearly assuming that this law is valid, and that it should and will be enforced by state officials. That was in November of 2003. Three months later, journalist and gay-marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan touted the same law cited by Justice Greaney as proof that "federalism works." According to Sullivan, true conservatives--those who believe in states' rights--can see that there is no need for a Federal Marriage Amendment. The residency law will prevent same-sex marriages contracted in Massachusetts from being exported to other states. ... A few weeks later, a group of Massachusetts state legislators announced an effort to repeal the residency law. That, at least, was an attempt to work through democratic and legal channels. But one of the reasons given by Representative Robert Spellane for repealing the residency requirement is telling. Spellane claimed that the law ought to go because it is discriminatory--and because it violates the Goodridge decision. So in just four months time, the residency requirement had morphed from something actually relied on in Goodridge to an outrageous piece of discrimination supposedly voided by Goodridge. Next came the plans for civil disobedience. Why wait for liberal legislators to repeal the residency law when you can simply defy it? Town clerks in Provincetown, Worcester, and several other Massachusetts cities announced that they would issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Then district attorneys in several localities said they would not prosecute clerks who violated the law. Norfolk County District Attorney William R. Keating said that because the original law was enacted in part to enforce prohibitions on interracial marriage, it was now effectively void. Keating made this claim, despite the fact that the original law was not about interracial marriage alone, and despite the fact that Goodridge itself actually relied upon the validity of the residency law. And on the very first day that gay marriage was legal in Massachusetts, the residency law was in fact violated. In at least four communities, marriage licenses were issued to couples even if they said they had no intention of moving to Massachusetts. The mayor of Sommerville explicitly welcomed out-of-state couples. More than a third of applications in Provincetown were from out-of-state couples. Some made it clear on their applications that they had no intention of moving to Massachusetts. Others admitted later to the New York Times that they'd lied about their intentions. ... Attorney General Spitzer's position is devious and contradictory. Spitzer acknowledges that same-sex marriages cannot be legally performed in New York. So under the Massachusetts residency law, the marriage of a same-sex couple from New York must be illegal in Massachusetts as well. But Spitzer suggested that Romney should marry same-sex couples from New York in Massachusetts (so that Spitzer can then recognize their marriages in New York). In effect, Spitzer is using Massachusetts marriages to make an end-run around his own state's laws. So with the connivance of New York State's own attorney general, same-sex marriage is in fact being "used as a tool" to obtain recognition of a marriage that would "otherwise be unlawful." (For more on Spitzer's strategy, see my "Courts vs. the People.") In other words, the very thing that Justice Greaney assured us would not happen is in fact happening. more
KANSAS CITY STAR POINT/COUNTERPOINT ON DOMA
PRO--Sarah Steelman: Marriage is mankind's most enduring covenant. To protect this institution, I sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act to allow citizens to amend our state constitution to define marriage as a union only between one man and one woman. The concept seems simple, but that's not so in government. Missouri and other states define marriage as a union of one man and one woman in statutes. Yet courts are striking down these statutory definitions in states that lack a constitutional definition approved by the people themselves. Based solely on California's failure to define marriage in its state constitution, a San Francisco judge refused to uphold that state's prohibition on same-sex marriage. In another state that lacks a constitutional definition of marriage, Massachusetts judges are now required to perform same-sex marriages. The Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down that state's statutory gay marriage ban based on a civil-rights argument -- a precedent immediately denounced by recognized civil rights groups. more ANTI--Star editorial: Democrats and Republicans in Missouri are squabbling over the timing of a statewide vote on banning gay marriages. That alone shows why the state legislature was wrong to place the constitutional amendment on the ballot. Missouri law already states that marriage is between a man and a woman. The language of the proposed amendment is very similar to the wording of the existing statute. A public vote on gay marriage will serve only to divide citizens when unity is needed to tackle common problems. The controversy over the election date illustrates the effectiveness of gay marriage as a wedge issue. Democratic Gov. Bob Holden ordered the question to be on the Aug. 3 ballot. Republicans, including Secretary of State Matt Blunt, want the referendum in November, at the same time Missouri voters elect a governor and president. Blunt, the state's chief election official, has refused to follow the governor's order. The GOP strategy is transparent: Whipping up fears about gay marriage would mean a bigger conservative turnout, which would benefit George Bush's presidential campaign and Republican ambitions to elect Blunt governor. ... In addition, Missouri has more pressing problems that the legislature should spend its time on -- issues such as education, health care, Medicaid, prescription help for seniors and improving the state's highways. Those issues affect larger numbers of Missourians. The state constitution should protect the rights of citizens, not expressly deny rights to any minority group. Unlike a statute, which can be changed to reflect shifts in public thinking, an amendment would be inflexible. The legislature was wrong to put it to a referendum. Voters should protect the constitution by turning down an unnecessary alteration -- whenever the election is. more
WILL "I DO"S END THE SSM DEBATE?: From the Christian Science Monitor
...For gays and lesbians across Massachusetts, this dawning of official state recognition of their relationships has produced a week of sheer euphoria. Amid the streamers and confetti, the flowers and well-wishers, it is almost possible to overlook the fact that the status of gay marriage in the state will not be fully settled until voters cast ballots in 2006. It also remains to be seen whether the Massachusetts law will have the domino effect gay-rights advocates hope it will, or whether it will harden resistance of opponents and stir a major backlash. If US history is any guide, either scenario is possible. History shows that big legal milestones in social movements--from voting rights to interracial marriage to school desegregation to women's rights--often engender resistance, sometimes violent resistance, when they are first enacted. But over time, they do tend to shift the status quo in favor of the minority group, and so, many social historians predict that gay marriage is here to stay. Legalization of same-sex marriage is a defining moment, and regarded as such by the gay community. But legal experts and activists are thinking beyond the present euphoria to possible ramifications. Looking back at social movements such as feminism and civil rights, whose progress has been more like the tortoise than the hare, Cheryl Jacques, president of Human Rights Coalition, a gay rights advocacy group, emphasizes the need for time and patience. "Fifty years after Brown [v. Board of Education], we are still grappling with equal treatment in its true meaning for African-Americans," she says. "Racism didn't go away just because the laws changed, and homophobia won't go away just because the laws change. But it's an important place to start." Steven Mintz, a professor of history at the University of Houston, cites the legalization of interracial marriage in 1967 as another example of how once-controversial social issues can gain public acceptance. "To most of my students, it is just inconceivable that there was ever a time when interracial marriages were forbidden," Professor Mintz says. "My suspicion is that in 25 years, gay marriage will be viewed as one of those fundamental turning points in much the same way." ... Stephanie Coontz, a historian at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., views same-sex marriage as part of a dramatic redefinition of marriage over the past 30 years that affects both heterosexuals and homosexuals. She calls this shift, which has taken place over the past 30 years, "only one symptom of a new openness of society to a whole set of untraditional ways of living your life and organizing your obligations to others." more
FRANCE FEUDS OVER GAY VOWS: From the New York Times
...After all, the French were the inventors of the Civil Solidarity Pact, a creative legal mechanism introduced in 1999 that gives all adult couples -- regardless of gender or sexual orientation -- many of the same fiscal and social rights as those who are formally wedded. But that was before Noel Mamere, the leader of France's tiny leftist Green Party and a member of Parliament, announced last month that he would defy tradition (and some would say the law) by officiating at the country's first gay wedding ceremony. Like many French politicians, Mr. Mamère holds multiple offices. So he is using his perch as mayor of an obscure southwest town named Begles to conduct his social experiment, joining two thirty-something men, a supermarket clerk and a health-care worker, in marriage on June 5. "France is a hypocritical country," said Mr. Mamère in explaining his decision. "Marriage here is traditionally considered a Judeo-Christian value, a very strong symbol organized around heterosexuality. For many, the validity of marriage is procreation. It's an extremely archaic vision in my opinion, an idea encased in glass. The Americans are much more advanced in the fight against discrimination despite their puritanical and their slightly Protestant bent." Mr. Mamere argues that nothing in the Napoleonic Code, the vast compilation of civil laws that has governed since 1804, specifies that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. He has also threatened to take any challenge of his action to the European Court of Human Rights, a European Union court based in Strasbourg. His crusade has enraged the center-right French government, riven the Socialist Party and touched off a fierce intellectual battle in newspaper opinion columns and television talk shows over the rights of homosexuals in France. ... Justice Minister Dominique Perben has served notice that Mr. Mamere's gay marriage will be null and void in the eyes of the French state. "To argue that sexual difference between spouses is not written into the civil code is to lie," Mr. Perben told the right-leaning daily Le Figaro. ... Today, for the majority of the French, even homosexual marriage is no big deal. According to a poll released this week by the Ipsos polling agency, 57 percent of all Frenchmen and 75 percent of those under 35 believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry. That compares with only 24 percent in the United States, other polls show. Still, France is more conservative than much of the rest of Europe, far behind Denmark (82 percent) and the Netherlands (80 percent), for example, as well as Luxembourg, Sweden, Spain, Belgium. Norway, Switzerland and Germany. The Civil Solidarity Pact initative gives couples housing rights, health and welfare benefits, the right to file a joint tax return and to inheritance. But proponents of gay marriage insist that it is marriage-lite, an unsatisfying compromise that does not go far enough. It does not allow couples to adopt children, for example. Couples have to wait three years before they can file joint tax returns. It is sometimes difficult for a non-French partner in a civil pact to receive a residence permit or French citizenship, especially for foreigners from places like North Africa. Lynne Petrovic, a 38-year-old American therapist, and Ségolène Rubin, a 36-year-old Frenchwoman, were joined by a civil solidary pact at the French consulate in San Francisco in 2001 and married on Valentine's Day at San Francisco's city hall. But they want to be married under French law largely so that they can share custody over Ms. Rubin's biological son. "It's not gay marriage in the end that worries the French," says Ms. Rubin. "It's homosexuals raising kids." But, she adds: "We're not militants. We're talking about a little family unit. It's our reality." more
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA WEB PAGE DEDICATED TO SAN FRANCISCO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES...
...here. View briefs in the case here.
OPPOSING BILLS IN MAINE: From the Portland Press Herald, Thursday
Same-sex marriage could emerge as a key post-election issue in Maine next year. State lawmakers apparently will take up competing bills supporting and opposing same-sex marriage when they return to the State House in January. One day after a Republican lawmaker announced a push to strengthen the state's existing ban on such marriages, a Democratic legislator said Wednesday that he will ask the Legislature to lift the ban. Sen. Ethan Strimling, D-Portland, said he has put legislative staffers on notice that he will introduce legislation, if he is re-elected, to repeal the prohibition so Maine can recognize same-sex marriages that are performed elsewhere. Strimling announced his plans a day after Rep. Brian Duprey, R-Hampden, said that if he wins another term he will propose a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages in Maine. The existing ban is in state law, rather than the Constitution. The ban has been on the books since 1997. Both lawmakers, who face opposition in their re-election bids, say they decided to act now because city and town clerks in Massachusetts began licensing same-sex marriages this week under a ruling by that state's Supreme Judicial Court. Strimling's Republican opponent, Robert Fisk Jr. of Portland, has taken no position on the issue. Duprey's Democratic opponent, Mary Poulin of Hampden, says other issues are higher priorities in Maine. ... Strimling said his goal is to lift the ban so same-sex couples from Maine who marry elsewhere, as well as married same-sex couples who move to Maine, will be treated as legally married here. He said he would support making it legal for same-sex couples to marry in Maine, but his legislation will not go that far because he's not certain if that issue should be addressed by the Legislature or the courts. The reaction to Strimling's move was not entirely predictable. That's because supporters of gay rights are not united behind him. Some, such as Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, say the state should first pass a civil-rights law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and allow events in Massachusetts and elsewhere to unfold before tackling the repeal of this state's ban on same-sex marriages. ... Umphrey said Baldacci will introduce a gay-rights bill in the 2005 legislative session, resurrecting a contentious issue. The Legislature backed a gay-rights bill in 1998 and again in 2000, but voters rejected it both times and the issue has not resurfaced since. ... Supporters of Duprey's marriage ban say the fact that Strimling is trying to lift the statutory ban shows that action is needed to make that ban tougher by placing it in the Constitution, which is harder to change than is a state law. The Legislature can repeal any state law, but the Legislature and the voters must agree on any changes in the Constitution. Duprey "is not operating under some kind of false concern," said Marc Mutty of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, because Strimling has made it clear that an effort will be made next year to have Maine recognize same-sex marriages that are performed elsewhere. more
MASS. SENATE VOTES TO REPEAL LAW ON OUT-OF-STATE MARRIAGES: From the Washington Times on Thursday
The Massachusetts state Senate yesterday voted overwhelmingly to repeal the 1913 law that Gov. Mitt Romney says forbids out-of-state homosexual couples from "marrying" in Massachusetts. The repeal was approved 28-3 as part of the Senate version of the state budget. To take effect, however, the repeal must pass the more conservative House and then both chambers would have to override the veto that Mr. Romney has promised. ... As lawyers scoured Massachusetts' marriage laws in light of Goodridge, questions soon arose about a 1913 residency law, which says: "No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void." Mr. Romney and Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly both say the law forbids out-of-state homosexuals from getting a marriage license in Massachusetts because no other state recognizes same-sex "marriage." Mr. Romney also has said that licenses issued to out-of-state homosexual couples will be annulled and that legal action might be taken against officials who issued them. more Friday, May 21, 2004
BLACK GAY ACTIVISTS RALLY FOR SSM: From the Chicago Tribune
At 12 years old, Desiree Jones isn't afraid to stand up for her family. The 6th-grader and her five younger siblings held up a banner reading "Our Moms R People Too! Gay Marriage Now!" on Thursday at a black gay rights activists rally in support of same-sex marriages held outside the Cook County building, 118 N. Clark St. Desiree said she doesn't understand why some people want to keep her mothers, who have been together four years, from getting married. "It makes me sad that they can't get married like they want to," Desiree said. "I just want people to know it's our life, and we should be able to live the way we wa | ||||||||||
