GEICO CHANGES STANCE ON SSM: From the Washington Blade

After complaints from a gay legal group, insurance provider GEICO Direct said this week it would reverse a decision made earlier this month to deny a married gay couple in New York the same joint coverage offered to married straight couples.

GEICO, the Government Employees Insurance Company recognizable by its green gecko mascot, will extend spousal automobile coverage to the husband of Thomas Hronrich, according to Christine Tasher, a spokesperson for GEICO. ...

Lambda Legal set a deadline of June 28 for GEICO to change Hronrich's policy, as well as direct employees to offer matrimonial policies to same-sex couples in New York with marriage licenses from Canada or Massachusetts.

GEICO's policy includes gay couples, according to a statement issued by the company on Wednesday.

"If the individuals are legally married and their resident state recognizes that marriage as valid, then GEICO's policy is to treat the couple as married," the statement said.

Earlier this month, GEICO treated two gay couples differently. The company denied spousal rates and coverage to Hronrich and his husband, who asked to remain anonymous.

But another same-sex couple married in Canada and residing in New York, Martin and Andrew Farach-Colton, received policies and benefits similar to those granted to straight, married couples.

more
posted by Eve at 7:02 PM | link 0 comments

AUSTRALIAN BAN ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND OVERSEAS ADOPTION CLEARS LOWER HOUSE: From The Age

The federal government's controversial plans to ban gay couples from marrying and adopting children from overseas were passed by parliament's lower house.

After a heated debate, the government used its numbers to defeat a series of amendments proposed by Labor and get the legislation passed.

The legislation will now be debated in the Senate.

Labor had strongly opposed the ban on gay couples adopting children from overseas in the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004.

But it did back the bill's measures to changes the Marriage Act to confirm that marriage represents a union between a man and woman.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the bill would help protect the institution of marriage and Labor was wrong not to support the ban on gay couples adopting children from overseas.

"This is not a question of suitability of people to adopt," he told parliament.

"This is a question of judging amongst those who are suitable when you have a limited pool who ought to be given priority."

Mr Ruddock also insisted that the bill was not designed to discriminate against gay couples.

"This is merely affirming what people understand to be the law," he said.

"We are of the view that people can have their relationships, it's just that they can't have their relationships ascribed the characteristic of marriage when marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."

more
posted by Eve at 7:02 PM | link 0 comments

NEW PALTZ DEPUTY MAYOR CONTINUES GAY MARRIAGES: From the Associated Press

The deputy mayor and a trustee of this Hudson Valley village presided over the marriages of four same-sex couples, emboldened by the dismissal of criminal charges against the mayor for performing gay and lesbian weddings.

Deputy Mayor Rebecca Rotzler and Trustee Julia Walsh officiated at the ceremonies Thursday night, a week after Mayor Jason West was cleared of 19 misdemeanor counts of solemnizing marriages without a license.

The judge who dismissed the charges said prosecutors failed to prove the law was constitutional. West had faced the possibility of fines or up to a year in jail.

Walsh said she plans to preside over more marriages this weekend because the ruling encouraged her.

"We will not stop until all Americans have equal protection under the law," she said.

Rotzler, who has Alaskan ancestry, said her biracial parents married when it was considered illegal for them to do so.

"I have never had anything but full support for the couples who have come here knowing they will find elected officials who stand by their constitutional rights," she said.

link
posted by Eve at 6:58 PM | link 0 comments

AMA BACKS ADOPTIONS BY SAME-SEX COUPLES: From United Press International

The American Medical Association's House of Delegates has endorsed policy that supports adoption of children by a same-sex partner or an opposite-sex partner who functions as a second parent in a non-married family structure.

By an overwhelming vote of 316 to 130, the delegates reversed a key committee recommendation and approved a resolution offered from the Medical Student Section of the AMA at the organization's annual meeting.

That resolution suggested "having two fully sanctioned and legally defined parents promotes a safe and nurturing environment for children." Part of that safety net for children includes medical coverage, but in same-sex families or in non-traditional couples, only one of the partners may carry coverage that includes the child.

"Currently there are 1 million children in the United States who are at risk of losing their health coverage due to lack of legal protections offered children in traditional families," said Adam Levine, a student from San Francisco. Levine said 11 states already permit such adoptions and he urged the AMA to support similar legislation in the remaining 39 states. ...

The resolution formally demands "That our American Medical Association support legislation and other efforts to allow adoption of a child by the same-sex partner or opposite sex non-married partner who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child." ...

"All the scientific evidence points to no differences among children raised in heterosexual or homosexual families," said Dr. David Fassler of Burlington, Vt., the delegate from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. "These findings underscore the need for the AMA to take actions based on science ahead of personal beliefs or politics."

more
posted by Eve at 6:05 PM | link 0 comments

SENATE TO VOTE ON FMA IN MID-JULY: From the Washington Times

Senate Republican leaders have scheduled the Senate vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman for the week of July 12, just two weeks before Democrats convene in Boston for their presidential nominating convention. ...

Several proposals have been introduced, but Mr. Frist is backing the version sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard, Colorado Republican, which says that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

The amendment then goes on to say that states are not required to recognize a same-sex "marriage" approved by another state.

A similar version is being sponsored in the House by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado Republican, though House leaders have not scheduled a vote. President Bush has not backed a specific amendment, but has said he supports the thrust of the Allard-Musgrave proposal. ...

Yesterday, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to pass a resolution backing a federal marriage amendment. The resolution said that "the union of one man and one woman is the only form of marriage prescribed in the Bible as God's perfect design." ...

Aides said the bill will go directly to the Senate floor, bypassing the full Judiciary Committee, where both supporters and opponents said it might not have passed. Right now, it isn't expected to have the votes to pass the Senate either. ...

A CBS News poll released at the end of May found that 60 percent of those surveyed supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, including 78 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Democrats.

But the same poll found voters overwhelmingly did not want the issue to be part of this year's campaign, with just 9 percent saying it should be a "major part," 20 percent saying a "minor part," and 70 percent saying no role at all.

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

MONTANA PETITION DRIVE UNDERWAY: From the Washington Times

The first of six petition drives to block same-sex "marriage" with state constitutional amendments ends this week in Montana.

If at least 41,020 valid signatures are turned in tomorrow, Montana voters will have a chance to decide in November whether to define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" in their state's constitution.

The amendment, if passed, will prohibit courts from finding a "right to marry" for homosexuals, as has happened in Massachusetts. ...

Similar petition drives are under way in Arkansas, Oregon, Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio. The number of signatures needed varies by state because of different laws regarding how a measure gets on a ballot. ...

Homosexual rights groups said petition drives in Michigan, Oregon and Ohio are most likely to fail. ...

Of the six petition drives, Arkansas' appears to be in the best position.

More than 108,000 signatures have been collected, and the goal is 160,000 signatures--"double what we need," said Chris Stewart, executive director of the Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee in Little Rock. ...

Many homosexual rights activists, including Mr. Kosofsky, said the petition drives are blatant political acts designed to attract voters in swing states to re-elect President Bush.

The Bush administration is "orchestrating" the drives to "distract all Democrats from every single issue that Republicans are on the defensive on, even Iraq," Mr. Kosofsky said. "Certain things don't belong on a ballot--my right to a job, my right to a family. Fundamental human rights do not belong on a ballot." ...

Montanans for Families and Fairness, an umbrella group for opponents of the amendment, recently filed a complaint against a church in East Helena, Mont., for not registering as an "incidental political committee" when it hosted a TV broadcast in support of the amendment. The state is investigating the complaint.

Marriage-amendment battles are assured in at least seven other states: Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah have marriage amendments on their November ballots, while Missourians will go to polls on the issue Aug. 3. Louisiana has an amendment on its Sept. 18 ballot.

more
posted by Eve at 11:56 PM | link 0 comments

"THE LIBERAL CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE": Josh Jasper replies to Susan Shell

Same-sex couples with children exist. This is undeniable. Susan Shell's "liberal case against gay marriage" is mislabeled. It isn't a
liberal standpoint to claim that, simply because few same-sex couples have children, all of them fail to meet the test for marriage. It's a conservative standpoint. Although Shell never comes out and says it, the claim is that same-sex couples are not as good, or damaging to children raised by same-sex parents. By "parents," I mean a couple who
acts as caretaker and who nurtures a child and helps him/her grow.
It's a shame this weblog fails to talk about the actuality of gay parents by talking about real cases. Most of what I've seen here fails to spotlight what life is like as a child of same-sex parents. Shell herself proposes a "marriage lite" civil union to somehow make life for same-sex parents into something that considers a child being raised in that environment.

Shell states, "Least of all can gays be guaranteed all of the experiences that stem from the facts of human sexual reproduction and its accompanying penumbra of pleasures and cares." I hate to break it to Shell, but lesbians can bear children, and gay men can father them. Same-sex sexual encounters can't produce children, but members of same-sex couples can. And do. It just requires a deliberate act of will, and someone to somehow provide the opposite sex's role, be it a womb or a sperm. What Shell is arguing is that a couple that cannot physiologically produce a child isn't worthy of the rights of a couple that can when it comes to raising that child, and that same-sex couples who choose not to have children are less morally deserving of the rights of marriage because of a biological function. Again, that's not a liberal argument. That's a conservative argument.

The question still remains over what to do for legal recognition
between same-sex couples who choose to raise children. The conservative view I've seen is that, because homosexuality is a moral wrong, rights should be denied to the couple, and are only granted to the biological parent because of the established tradition of passing those rights on. In several notable cases, conservative judges have decided that homosexuality makes one unfit as a parent. But what to do when same-sex couples decide to raise a child? Remove the child from custody? Some conservatives would argue that that's the best thing, even though there's been no conclusive proof that children of same-sex parents suffer any trauma. If the conclusion is that same-sex couples have the right to raise children, providing the same legal structure for them to do so as heterosexual couples have is the only real moral decision. To do otherwise is to deny those children an equal setting.

Shell's final words are the last bit of evidence that this isn't a liberal viewpoint: "To insist otherwise is not only psychologically and culturally implausible; it imposes a sectarian moral view on fellow citizens who disagree and who may hold moral beliefs that are diametrically opposed to it." A word is not an imposition. Legal recognition is not an imposition. Homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered people have long experienced actual imposition. Anti-gay discrimination is legal, especially in matters of parenthood. Homosexuals are forced to give up custody, or in the case of same-sex parents, make difficult financial decisions. Without marriage, same-sex parents might lose custody if a partner dies, or leaves (can't have divorce without marriage). The imposition people with differing beliefs about same-sex couples marrying and raising children would experience is simply accepting that they exist as legal equals.
posted by Eve at 5:23 PM | link 0 comments

THE NEW ADVOCATES FOR MARRIAGE: Maggie Gallagher

This Father's Day, some 24 million American children will sleep in fatherless homes. So this Sunday, if you were lucky enough to know the love of a father, thank him. Oh, and if your kids wake up Sunday morning in the home of a loving father, thank your husband. The marriage crisis that is producing fatherless homes is becoming so intense that anyone who cares about children or communities can't ignore it. Hear, for example, the extraordinary remarks by Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., at a recent Brookings Institution conference on marriage and the black church. Calling attention to the low rates of marriage among African Americans, Norton warned:

"My friends, we are seeing a sea change in African-American life. It cannot continue or we will not continue as a viable people. I just want to put it as starkly as I can. We've got to get the attention of our community and our country. It is impossible to overestimate what has happened to our community in only a single generation or two and what might then happen in my son's generation if it continues at this pace."

She said it. I didn't. When the marriage idea becomes weak enough, the very idea of perpetuating ourselves as a people is called into question.

The problem, according to Norton, is a catastrophic lack of marriageable men. Men with jobs. Faithful men. Family men. The problem is, how do we produce such men?

Policy analysts will and should weigh proposals about how to boost the earning power of poor husbands and fathers. But in his new book, "Soft Patriarchs, New Men" (University of Chicago Press), Brad Wilcox, a rising star in the sociology of religion, lays out a different part of the answer. Religion makes men better husbands and fathers.

He finds that "churchgoing family men -- especially conservative Protestant family men -- are more progressive than their peers: They spend more time with their children; they are more likely to hug and praise their children; their wives report higher levels of satisfaction with the appreciation, affection and understanding they receive from their husbands, and they spend more time socializing with their wives." They also have the lowest rates of domestic violence toward their wives than any other group.

Why? One reason is that, in its fight with modernity, conservative Protestantism has invested the roles of husband and father with unusual moral and religious importance: Men are supposed to model for their children the love of God, for their wives, the love of Jesus Christ. Men who recognize a critical "masculine" role in family life are probably freer to enter into stereotypically "feminine" realms, such as emotionally expressive family life. If you want to turn men into good family men, you have to tell them that men matter to women and children.

As Arlie Hochschild pointed out in "The Second Shift": "When couples struggle, it is seldom over who does what. Far more often, it is over the giving and receiving of gratitude." The struggle for marriage in the contemporary context is the struggle to cultivate gratitude between men and women.

Wilcox's data suggest the black church may have a unique role to play in creating and transmitting a marriage culture to the next generation, and that part of this task is sustaining an image of manliness that supports rather than undercuts women's desires and children's needs.

"There is no marriage movement yet," Eleanor Holmes Norton said, speaking of the black church. "But we've got to make a movement.... Somebody has to speak up for marriage. ... We must do it in the name of the black family, but we must do it, first and foremost, for our own children." For all our children.

link
posted by Eve at 5:11 PM | link 0 comments

AMERICA'S NEW FAMILY VALUES: From the San Francisco Chronicle

Brian, a bright and personable third-grader, brought home from school a form that frustrated him: his family tree, complete with empty spaces for mother, father and four spaces for grandparents. Brian's parents are a lesbian couple, his father is an unknown sperm donor. Brian's mothers worked to persuade their son that nothing was wrong with his family -- instead, something was wrong with the school form.

As same-sex parents are getting married, families such as Brian's are transforming our family trees -- and the nation's landscape. Challenging our convictions about gender, sexuality and parenthood, they are providing us all with a new set of family values -- based not around traditional "Father Knows Best" precepts but an adaptable and sturdy code of parenting that transcends gender.

As a research psychologist and a heterosexual, long-married mother, I set out to study a new breed of mothers: lesbian couples raising sons. Could boys prosper through the power of mothers alone? How would these boys develop a moral compass, a positive sense of themselves as male and confident independence without the presence of a father who knows best?

My study, published in the journal Gender & Psychoanalysis in 2002, found that the sons of lesbian couples are thriving. Boys raised in two-mother families are vibrant, courageous individuals, effectively constructing their sense of self amid ordinary family love and extraordinary social change. These boys are articulate and thoughtful and deeply aware of their own emotional lives -- including the pain that comes from discrimination against their families. They exhibit all the usual traits of manliness, including athletic interests and skills. Significantly, they also demonstrate the openness and ease with feelings usually attributed to women.

Traditional family values have been based on the role of the father as breadwinner and model of outward-based adulthood, and the mother as nurturer and cultivator of the more domestic values of intimacy. Even as more mothers work outside the home and fathers become involved with parenting's daily duties, traditional ideas still permeate our families. The values propounded by same-sex parents explode these notions, while maintaining the core canons that foster family bonds.

...Soon the verbs "to mother" as well as "to father" may well be replaced by the verb "to parent."

As the sons of lesbians tell us, boys have an innate ability to become men, a capacity that good parenting by males or females can nurture. They do not need a single male role model in-house to teach them how to hit a ball or become men. Nor do girls need a female on the premises to show them how to be women. ...

The new family values are not just for families such as Brian's. The rest of us can learn much from how same-sex parents succeed in raising their children. Fathers may discover fresh ways in which they can parent their sons effectively and generously. Single mothers, men gaining custody or choosing to father singly or in couples, and opposite-sex married parents, especially those who work from dawn to dusk -- all can take heart that the revised values of parenting result in children full of moral assurance, ambition, confidence and heart.

more
posted by Eve at 5:08 PM | link 0 comments

FRENCH MAYOR SUSPENDED FOR SSM: From 365Gay.com

[There's a really good piece on French attitudes toward SSM here. --Eve]

The mayor of a small village near Bordeaux was suspended from office Tuesday for one month after performing a wedding ceremony for a gay couple.

Noel Mamere, the mayor of Begles and a leading member of the Green Party in the French Parliament, was informed this morning that he was not permitted inside the town hall for 30 days, could make no legal decisions involving the town, or in any way participate in the political life of Begles.

The decision to suspend Mamere was made by Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin and was based on a law allowing the suspension of mayors who "gravely misunderstand their duties".

Mayors in France conduct civil marriages, the only ones with legal standing. However, they do so under the authority of the state prosecutor.

"The mayor of Begles was, therefore, required to respect the instructions addressed to him by the prosecutor" -- to call the marriage off, de Villepin said in a statement.

"When he exercises the functions of officer of the civil state, the mayor acts in the name of the state and not of the town," the statement said.

In addition, Mamere faces a fine of up to nearly $2,000 and could still be removed from office permanently. The French government is continuing to investigate his role in solemnizing the marriage. During the ceremony he wore the blue, white and red sash of the French Republic.

Bertrand Charpentier and Stephane Chapin were married by Mamere June 5 in the town hall as television cameras recorded the event.

Prosecutor Bertrand de Loze has since moved ahead to get the marriage annulled.

Charpentier and Chapin have vowed that if their marriage is voided they will go to the European Court of Human Rights.

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

SSM AND UPCOMING MASS. ELECTIONS: From the Boston Globe

Before John Thomas set out to greet voters this spring, he educated himself on the issues he figured were most relevant to them, such as school construction and prescription drug coverage for seniors.

That wasn't what people wanted to talk about.

"The only question that voters wondered where I stood on was the issue of gay marriage," said Thomas, a Democratic candidate for state representative in a district that includes Lincoln, Sudbury, and Wayland. "I was quite flabbergasted."

It's gay marriage, stupid.

If area races are any indication, the issue of gay marriage promises to figure heavily in state legislative contests in the coming months.

With every seat in the Legislature up for grabs and with Governor Mitt Romney recruiting dozens of GOP challengers, expect to see a lot a lot of debate over marriage and perhaps many newly motivated voters by Election Day.

Same-sex marriage, which became legal in Massachusetts on May 17, is already fueling campaign fireworks. Many agree that it won't be the number one issue for most residents. But both sides are already rolling out voter education drives, registering like-minded people, and publicizing where incumbents and their challengers stand.

Although it was the Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage, the key test for incumbent lawmakers came in March, when they voted to place a constitutional amendment on the 2006 ballot that would overturn gay marriage and establish civil unions.

The stakes are high in this year's elections, because next year's session of the Legislature must approve the same amendment before it can go on the ballot in 2006.

Consider the race for the 13th Middlesex House district. Thomas and another Democrat, Stas Gayshan, will vie in a September primary to compete in November against state Representative Susan Pope, a Republican.

Thomas and Gayshan both support gay marriage and oppose the proposed amendment to ban it; Pope, who voted for the amendment, supports civil unions, but believes that the term marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman.

Gayshan said that voters want to know where he stands on other issues, but they first ask if he backs same-sex marriage. "It's become a litmus test," he said. ...

Pope said that although she hopes people won't judge her on a single issue, she believes that the vast majority of her constituents want to have a say on gay marriage in 2006. Her office, she said, heard from more than 2,000 people on the subject, about 87 percent of whom said they wanted a chance to vote. ...

Opponents of same-sex marriage and civil unions are hoping to see a repeat of the political purging that took place after Vermont adopted civil unions in 2000. Even though Governor Howard Dean, a supporter of civil unions, was reelected, many legislators on the same side were voted out of office for their stance, said Anthony Gierzynski, a political science professor at the University of Vermont.

"There was quite the backlash that occurred after civil unions were passed," he said. "It was the number one issue."

The political tide turned forcefully enough to wrest the House of Representatives from Democrats, transforming the party's 10-seat margin in the lower chamber into a 20-seat deficit, Gierzynski said.

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

LA DOMA TO VOTERS IN SEPTEMBER: From the Associated Press

The House sent voters a proposed ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions today for a second time.

The issue considered today -- the date of the vote -- turned on whether sticking to a November second referendum -- the hope of the measure's House sponsor, Representative Steve Scalise -- was politically motivated, as it would unduly aid conservative candidates running in the general election.

In the Senate, the date was changed to the September 18th primary to avoid the political taint, and today, the House agreed to the change 85-to-15, with no debate.

The measure is a proposed amendment to the state constitution and must be approved by the voters.

link
posted by Eve at 4:34 PM | link 0 comments

TWO LAWSUITS CHALLENGE MASS. OUT-OF-STATE MARRIAGE LAW: From the Boston Globe

Two legal challenges to a 1913 Massachusetts law barring out-of-state couples from gay marriage will be launched this week by a dozen cities and towns and by several couples from outside the Commonwealth, according to an attorney involved in the suits.

Gay and lesbian couples from other states will challenge the law in Suffolk Superior Court tomorrow, the lawyer said. They will be represented by lawyers from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who brought the Goodridge suit that led the Supreme Judicial Court to legalize marriage for same-sex couples in Massachusetts.

GLAD lawyers will argue that the justices in the Goodridge case already decided gays and lesbians could not be denied the right to marry in Massachusetts, that the 1913 law has not been enforced by the state in the recent past, and that it is being put into service now only to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. They will argue that discrimination is prohibited by both the Massachusetts and US constitutions.

In a parallel suit, clerks from 12 cities and towns, including some that issued licenses to out-of-state couples, will ask the court to allow them to grant licenses to residents of other states. Last month, Attorney General Thomas Reilly ordered a handful of municipal clerks who had been issuing licenses to out-of-state couples to stop doing so because of the 1913 law. Four clerks who had been issuing licenses to out-of-state couples complied with Reilly's order, though some vowed to fight to have the law overturned.

At the heart of both lawsuits is a section of Massachusetts law that bans the Commonwealth from issuing licenses to out-of-state couples if their marriage would be illegal in their home state. The law states: "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."

Romney and Reilly have argued that, because gay marriage is not permitted in any other state, marriages contracted in Massachusetts by residents of the 49 other states are null and void. Romney's lawyers have said clerks can issue licenses if out-of-state couples say they intend to live in Massachusetts.

Lawyers for the municipalities, from the firm of Palmer & Dodge, will argue that the 1913 law is being used to discriminate against some gay and lesbian couples, and that city and town clerks are being forced into applying a discriminatory policy on behalf of the state. ...

"Certainly, if the state has not enforced a law in the past, but is only beginning to enforce it now, that should arouse suspicion on behalf of the courts," said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University School of Law. "If you have a general law on the books and only enforce it against a disfavored group, it has been well settled for over 100 years that that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendement . . . But they'd have to show that."

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

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON ON MARRIAGE AND BLACK FAMILIES: Excerpts

"We are seeing a sea change in African-American life. It cannot continue or we will not continue as a viable people. I just want to put it as starkly as I can. We've got to get the attention of our community and our country. It is impossible to overestimate what has happened to our community in only a single generation or two or what might then happen in my son's generation if it continues at this pace." (p. 7)

"There is already a catastrophic disparity between the number of marriageable young, black men, and by that I only mean men with enough sense of their future, men without a felony conviction, men whose lifestyle is not rooted in the underground economy or the ghetto culture, between those men and the number of marriageable young, black women; that is, women who have jobs or who know they're going to get a job, who are trying to get a job, who are trying to get an education. That is the catastrophic disparity. These disparities are worse than wartime disparities." (p. 7)

"Somebody has to speak up for marriage. Somebody has to speak up for family. Somebody has to talk some turkey about it, but they need somebody to back them up because preaching about it can make people cynical if they see nothing in the society that makes them marriageable. Yet, somebody needs to bring the moral and practical clarity up front about marriage, about what it's meant to family life, about what it's meant to the progress of African Americans from slavery until today. It must be done in the name of marriage. We must do it in the name of the black family, but we must do it, first and foremost, for our own children." (p. 12-13)

The whole thing, in PDF form, is here.
posted by Eve at 8:39 PM | link 0 comments

MASSACHUSETTS CATHOLIC CONFERENCE URGES CATHOLICS TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST PRO-SSM LEGISLATORS: From the Boston Globe

[Plus more tax-exemption-revocation threats. --Eve]

As legislative elections loom, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference is sending letters to all 710 parishes in the state urging Catholics to "share their profound disappointment" with lawmakers who did not vote to ban gay marriage earlier this year.

The mailings, issued by the lobbyist for the state's Catholic bishops, also prodded Catholics to offer their "highest praise" for lawmakers who opposed gay marriage during this spring's Constitutional Convention, saying they acted "so courageously in favor of traditional marriage."

While the letters made no reference to Election Day, they are arriving just five months before all 200 seats in the House and Senate are up for grabs on Nov. 2. The mailings did not endorse particular lawmakers or compare incumbent legislators to their opponents, but they follow earlier attempts by the bishops and the conference to influence the Legislature on gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Legislature voted by a slim margin in March to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2006 that would ban gay marriage, but establish civil unions for gay couples. Gays and lesbians began marrying legally in Massachusetts May 17, the result of a November ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court.

The recent church mailings assessed lawmakers based on the votes they cast during the Constitutional Convention in February and March and urged priests to "share this information with your parishioners through your parish bulletin and other means." ...

"I think the Massachusetts Catholic Conference is itching to get its tax exemption revoked," said Robert Boston, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonpartisan, Washington-based advocacy group that is critical of involvement by religious organizations in electoral politics. "It would be difficult to look at this as anything other than a command of who to vote for and who to vote against, and the IRS code is very clear that churches and other religious bodies may not engage in that type of activity."

Daniel Avila, associate director for policy and research at the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, disagreed, saying the timing of the mailing had nothing to do with the elections. Rather, he said, it was merely sent on the heels of the debate. ...

In a document posted on the web, the church singles out for praise two Democratic senators, Robert S. Creedon Jr. of Brockton and Richard T. Moore of Uxbridge, and 15 representatives "who took an active role in the debates and/or behind the scenes to garner the greatest protection possible" for heterosexual marriage. The 15 House members were from the Democratic and Republican parties and included Representative Philip Travis of Rehoboth, who championed a constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage and Vermont-style civil unions.

In addition, the document lists 45 legislators who "voted in agreement with the MCC's position 100 percent."

The document describes 76 legislators as "core supporters of same-sex marriage opposed to letting the people vote" on a constitutional amendment proposal.

more
posted by Eve at 8:35 PM | link 0 comments

VOTES AND RUMORS OF VOTES: Matt Drudge/Roll Call

The Senate Republican leadership is aiming for a mid-July vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, forcing Democrats to take a stand on the controversial topic just before the party heads to Boston for its presidential nominating convention.

Mark Preston at ROLL CALL reports: Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (Pa.) said the GOP leaders are not yet prepared to make an official announcement on a specific date, but confirmed that they are scouting for a July vote.

"We are sort of running the traps on this right now, and sort of seeing what kind of response we are getting," Santorum said following Tuesday's Republican policy lunch. "We are talking about it. I think there are a couple of meetings to be had yet before any official announcement is made."


Developing...
posted by Eve at 8:33 PM | link 0 comments

LAMBDA LEGAL VS. GEICO INSURANCE: Press release

Lambda Legal today urged Geico Insurance Company of New York to comply with state law and respect valid marriages of all same-sex couples in determining car insurance rates and coverages. Over the past few months, Geico has recognized the marriages of some same-sex couples and denied recognition to others.

Two New York couples, who are working with Lambda Legal and pay for Geico auto insurance coverage, have been treated unequally by the insurance giant. Both of the couples were married in Canada. Martin Farach-Colton and his spouse recently received written confirmation from the statewide underwriter that their marriage would be respected by Geico and the two men could share Farach-Colton's policy just like any married heterosexual couple. But Geico refused to recognize the marriage of Thomas Hroncich and his spouse, which could require the couple to pay hundreds of dollars more annually in premiums to receive the same level of insurance coverage.

"New York law says that marriages validly performed elsewhere must be respected here. Geico is breaking the law by denying Mr. Hroncich and his spouse benefits that the insurer provides to its other married policyholders. Geico must stop its practice of randomly recognizing some married gay or lesbian couples, but not all of its married gay or lesbian policyholders," said Alphonso David, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney.

more
posted by Eve at 8:31 PM | link 0 comments

THE EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: THE WELFARE STATE KILLED DANISH MARRIAGE: Per Henrik Hansen

...Below are some statistical facts about the Danish family, a country with an advanced welfare state and advanced decline in family life. It is a useful study as an archetype of many developed countries.

Fewer people are getting married and when they do marry it is later in life. 88 percent of 30-year old women were married in 1970. In 2002 the number was 47 percent.

The average age of first marriage has risen for women from 22.8 years old in 1970 to 30.3 years old in 2002. For men it has risen from 25.1 years in 1970 to 32.8 years in 2002.

More and more people live together without getting married, but more than a third of all adults are not married and do not live in any other kind of relationship. They live alone.

More of the marriages end in divorce. In 1975, 18 percent of all the marriages from 1950 had ended in divorce. In 2000, 37 percent of all the marriages from 1975 had ended in divorce.

Women are getting older before they become mothers. The average age of women giving birth in 2002 was 29.9 years, which had increased from 26.7 years in 1970. The average age of first time mothers was 23.7 years in 1970, in 1996 it was 27.7 years.

Fewer women get to be mothers. The childlessness for 40 year old women has increased from 9 percent in 1985, to 13.3 percent in 2002.
The fertility rate has fallen from 2.6 children in 1965 to 1.7 children in 2002.

More children experience breaking families. In 1981 a little less than one in every five children did not live with both his parents. Today this number has increased to one in every four children that do not live with both his parents. ...

More families with children receive welfare payments. In 1980, the families with children that received welfare benefits were 33 percent, today it is 38 percent (not counting child benefits of appx. USD 500 every three months per child, which all families receive, both rich and poor).

94 percent of the families of 17 year olds (you are a child until you are 18 years old) have today received welfare payments at one point in time. Only 6 percent of the families had never received any welfare payments during the life of the child.

On average the families with children only save 4.1 percent of their disposable income. Families without any children save in average 14.4 percent of their disposable income. More than three times as much. ...

The changes probably have multiple causes but it would be an incomplete picture not to mention the ways that the welfare state directly and indirectly influences the family.

We can cite several channels through which the welfare state affects the family.

The welfare programs and benefits imply that the family's role as a financial support unit has significantly decreased. A single parent will be provided well for by the government. Likewise people will be provided for by the government if they are sick, handicapped, on maternity, getting old, unemployed etc. These are all circumstances where the family previously played an important role.

The high level of taxes in Denmark, which already have been discussed in a previous article: Denmark: Potemkin Village, have made it very difficult to provide for a family with only one household income. Very few people in Denmark can afford to have a house and one or two cars on only one household income. That means that both parents today normally have to work full time and even then there is still very little money left for most people when the fixed expenses are paid for. This is substantiated by the low average saving rate in families with children, and by the very high percentage of families with children where both parents work full time today. The tight economic situation put a lot of stress on the family. The family is also being stressed timewise with both parents working full-time jobs.

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

THE EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: Matt Taylor replies to everybody!

A couple of points regarding the discussion of marriage trends in
various countries:

1) No meaningful conclusion, either pro-SSM or anti-SSM, can be drawn
from the average divorce rate, population growth rate etc. of whole
countries, since there aren't enough countries to constitute a
statistically significant sample, and the data are hopelessly
contaminated by other variables.

2) Could it be that Scandinavia, Italy, Japan, etc. have declining
populations not because of gay marriage or "sexual liberation", but
because of their relative affluence? Again there are too few countries
to draw rock-solid conclusions, but countries' population growth does
seem to decrease as their per capita GDP increases. Even the US would
have negative population growth if not for immigration.
posted by Eve at 12:56 AM | link 0 comments

VIRGINIA'S NEW JIM CROW: Jonathan Rauch

...If I seem to be splitting hairs, that is because Virginia -- where my partner and I make our home -- is not splitting hairs. It has instead taken a baseball bat to civic equality, thanks to the so-called Marriage Affirmation Act.

The act -- really an amendment to an earlier law -- was passed in April, over Gov. Mark R. Warner's objections, and it takes effect July 1. It says, "A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia."

When gay marriage came up, Virginia was among the first states to preemptively ban it, in 1997. Moreover, Virginia is the only state to forbid even private companies, unless self-insured, from extending health insurance benefits to unmarried couples. That provision affects cohabiting straights but works a far greater hardship on gay couples, who cannot marry.

Those steps, however, impinge on the power of third parties (corporations and the government) to recognize gay couples. In the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there. "Sorry," the hospital might have to say to her frantic partner, "your contract means nothing here. Now leave before we call security."

Some of the law's sponsors have denied intending such a draconian result, and courts may interpret the text's vague and peculiar language more narrowly. Nonetheless, the law as written is a threat to all Virginians and indeed to all Americans, gay and straight alike. ...

It is by entering into contracts that we bind ourselves to each other. Without the right of contract, participation in economic and social life is impossible; thus is that right enshrined in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. Slaves could not enter into contracts because they were the property of others rather than themselves; nor could children, who were wards of their parents. To be barred from contract, the founders understood, is to lose ownership of oneself.

To abridge the right of contract for same-sex partners, then, is to deny not just gay coupledom, in the law's eyes, but gay personhood. It disenfranchises gay people as individuals. It makes us nonpersons, subcitizens. By stripping us of our bonds to each other, it strips us even of ownership of ourselves. ...

Obstructing gay couples' private contracts is no less vindictive and abusive, and it deserves the same nationwide opprobrium -- especially among conservatives who distinguish between denying marriage to gay couples and denying civil rights to gay individuals. If Virginia's attack on basic legal equality does not offend and embarrass conservatives, what anti-gay measure possibly could? And if this law is not snuffed out, what might be next?

more
posted by Eve at 12:36 AM | link 0 comments

THE LIBERAL CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE: Susan Shell

[A fascinating piece. There are big flaws (some points I just plain disagree with; focus on "what marriage is" to the exclusion of "how SSM would change our marriage culture"; focus solely on generation without reference to mothers, fathers, or gender) but the piece is well worth reading in full. --Eve]

...Liberalism proceeds by taking its fundamental bearings from certain basic human experiences about which sectarians can reasonably be expected to agree--for example, the general human aversion to violent death and the claims to which that aversion naturally gives rise. Thus the first step in defining a liberal approach to marriage is to find a way of understanding marriage that is similarly true to the human situation and at the same time relatively impartial with respect to present-day sectarian conflicts.

A suitable account of marriage might begin as follows: Most human societies have honored the notion that special responsibility for children lies with the biological parents. This has also been the view of almost all influential thinkers on the subject--including "liberal" ones. No known society treats the question of who may properly call a child his or her own as simply "up for grabs" or as a matter to be decided entirely politically as one might distribute land or wealth. ...

...Beyond its other functions--limiting female fertility, transmitting property, or providing companionship, for example--marriage is a way of honoring this central fact, which limits one's ability to regard practices of marriage as either wholly dependent on belief in a particular divine revelation or as wholly "socially constructed."

But marriage is not merely a matter of biology. That children can be "illegitimate" suggests that the biological facts of parenthood are not enough for social purposes. Disputes over fatherhood, for example, or variations in parental attachment to their children, make it reasonable for societies to supplement and sometimes override the natural bonds established by and through the processes of human generation. Marriage is, before all else, the practice by which human societies mark, modify, and occasionally mask these bonds. Like death, and the funereal rites that universally accompany it in one form or another, human generation has a significance that is more than arbitrary, if less than obvious. Marriage is the primary way societies interpret that significance, and it is doubtful whether any other custom could substitute for it adequately.

Whatever else it may accomplish, marriage acknowledges and secures the relation between a child and a particular set of parents. Whether monogamous or polygamous, permanent or temporary, marriage never fails to address this relation--at least potentially. It establishes a legal or quasi-legal relation of parenthood that draws on, even as it enhances and modifies, the primary human experience of generation and the claims and responsibilities to which it naturally gives rise. A husband is, until otherwise proven, the acknowledged father of his wife's offspring, with recognized rights and duties that may vary from society to society but always exist in some form. And a wife is a woman who can expect a certain specified sort of help from her husband in the raising of her offspring. All other functions of marriage borrow from or build upon this one. Even marriage among those past child-rearing age or otherwise infertile draws on notions of partnership and mutual aid that has its primary roots in the experience of shared biological parenthood. ...

Many proponents of gay marriage generally seek a combination of legal, economic, and medical privileges ordinarily associated with marriage, as well as recognition of a certain civil dignity that current arrangements are thought to deny gays. Some advocates also specifically seek an easier road when it comes to adopting children. Few if any supporters of gay marriage, however, demand as a matter of central concern that each gay partner be automatically recognized as the parent of any child generated by the other. More simply, proponents of gay marriage do not seek the "essence" of marriage, as described above, in its most general and basic sense.

For example, Jonathan Rauch, in his recent book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, defines marriage as essentially a legally enforced, long-term relation of mutual aid and support between two sexual partners. Marriage, he says, "is putting one person ahead of all others." According to Rauch, "if marriage means anything at all," it is knowing "that there is someone out there for whom you are always first in line." We can here leave aside how odd this definition will sound to any married couple with young children, partners whose first responsibility is not obviously spousal. The more crucial point to note is Rauch's telling claim that marriage is primarily directed toward relieving adult anxiety--an "elemental fear," as he calls it, that should catastrophe strike, "no one will be there for me" (original emphasis). This belief may well express Rauch's personal needs and longings, but it has little to do with parenthood. Rauch views marriage as a response to the fears of adults that they might one day be abandoned, rather than to the fears of parents for their children, let alone the fears of children that they might actually be abandoned here and now. Not every proponent of gay marriage makes the same arguments as Rauch. Still, few centrally insist upon the automatic parental rights and duties intrinsic to marriage as it is almost universally experienced.

Keeping the goals that advocates emphasize in mind, one can reach a principled and liberal public policy toward gay marriage. Most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement could be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage. Many sorts of individuals, and not just gay couples, might be allowed to form "civil partnerships" dedicated to securing mutual support and other social advantages. If two unmarried, elderly sisters wished to form such a partnership, or two or more friends (regardless of sexual intimacy) wanted to provide mutually for one another "in sickness and in health," society might furnish them a variety of ways of doing so--from enhanced civil contracts to expanded "defined benefit" insurance plans, to new ways of dealing with inheritance. ... Such partnerships would differ from marriage in that only marriage automatically entails joint parental responsibility for any children generated by the woman, until and unless the paternity of another man is positively established.

As for the having and raising of children--this, too, can be provided for and supported short of marriage. If two siblings need not "marry" in order to adopt a child together, neither need two friends, whether or not they are sexually intimate. Civil unions might be formed in ways that especially address the needs of such children. ...

...The requirement that homosexual attachments be publicly recognized as no different from, and equally necessary to society as, heterosexual attachments is a fundamentally illiberal demand. Gays cannot be guaranteed all of the experiences open to heterosexuals any more than tall people can be guaranteed all of the experiences open to short people. Least of all can gays be guaranteed all of the experiences that stem from the facts of human sexual reproduction and its accompanying penumbra of pleasures and cares. To insist otherwise is not only psychologically and culturally implausible; it imposes a sectarian moral view on fellow citizens who disagree and who may hold moral beliefs that are diametrically opposed to it.

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

WWHAYEKD?: Jonathan Rauch

There are only two objections to same-sex marriage that are intellectually honest and internally consistent. One is the simple anti-gay position: "It is the law's job to stigmatize and disadvantage homosexuals, and the marriage ban is a means to that end." The other is the argument from tradition -- which turns out, on inspection, not to be so simple. ...

It was on this point that [Friedrich] Hayek was particularly outspoken: Intellectuals and visionaries who seek to deconstruct and rationally rebuild social traditions will produce not a better order but chaos. In his 1952 book The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies in the Abuse of Reason, Hayek made a statement that demands to be quoted in full and read at least twice:

"It may indeed prove to be far the most difficult and not the least important task for human reason rationally to comprehend its own limitations. It is essential for the growth of reason that as individuals we should bow to forces and obey principles which we cannot hope fully to understand, yet on which the advance and even the preservation of civilization depends. Historically this has been achieved by the influence of the various religious creeds and by traditions and superstitions which made man submit to those forces by an appeal to his emotions rather than to his reason. The most dangerous stage in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the powers of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them. This may well prove a hurdle which man will repeatedly reach, only to be thrown back into barbarism." ...

Here the advocates of same-sex marriage face peril coming from two directions. On the one side, the Hayekian argument warns of unintended and perhaps grave social consequences if, thinking we're smarter than our customs, we decide to rearrange the core elements of marriage. The current rules for marriage may not be the best ones, and they may even be unfair. But they are all we have, and you cannot re-engineer the formula without causing unforeseen results, possibly including the implosion of the institution itself. On the other side, political realism warns that we could do serious damage to the legitimacy of marital law if we rewrote it with disregard for what a large share of Americans recognize as marriage.

If some state passed a law allowing you to marry a Volkswagen, the result would be to make a joke of the law. Certainly legal gay marriage would not seem so silly, but people who found it offensive or illegitimate might just ignore it or, in effect, boycott it. Civil and social marriage would fall out of step. That might not be the end of the world -- the vast majority of marriages would be just as they were before -- but it could not do marriage or the law any good either. In such an environment, same-sex marriage would offer little beyond legal arrangements that could be provided just as well through civil unions, and it would come at a price in diminished respect for the law.

Call those, then, the problem of unintended consequences and the problem of legitimacy. They are the toughest problems same-sex marriage has to contend with. But they are not intractable. ...

Obviously, neither Hayek nor any reputable follower of his would defend every cultural practice simply on the grounds that it must exist for a reason. Hayekians would point out that slavery violated a fundamental tenet of justice and was intolerably cruel. In calling for slavery’s abolition, they would do what they must do to be human: They would establish a moral standpoint from which to judge social rules and reforms. They thus would acknowledge that sometimes society must make changes in the name of fairness or decency, even if there are bound to be hidden costs. ...

Some people will argue that permitting same-sex marriage would be a more fundamental change than any of the earlier ones. Perhaps so; but equally possible is that we forget today just how unnatural and destabilizing and contrary to the meaning of marriage it once seemed, for example, to put the wife on a par, legally, with the husband. Anyway, even if it is true that gay marriage constitutes a more radical definitional change than earlier innovations, in an important respect it stands out as one of the narrowest of reforms. All the earlier alterations directly affected many or all married couples, whereas same-sex marriage would directly pertain to only a small minority. It isn’t certain that allowing same-sex couples to marry would have any noticeable effect on heterosexual marriage at all.

True, you never know what might happen when you tinker with tradition. A catastrophe cannot be ruled out. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that predictions of disaster if open homosexuals are integrated into traditionally straight institutions have a perfect track record: They are always wrong. ...

...In a shifting current, holding your course can be just as dangerous as oversteering. Conservatives, in their panic to stop same-sex marriage, jeopardize marriage's universality and ultimately its legitimacy. They are taking risks, and big ones, and unnecessary ones. The liberal tradition and the Declaration of Independence are not currents you want to set marriage against.

more
posted by Eve at 12:19 AM | link 0 comments

LOVERS WITHOUT BORDERS: Ben Smith

One of the reasons we're supposed to care less about gay marriage than about black civil rights is that the stakes are so much lower today. Then it was about what might be called basic freedoms to live and work. Now it's about secondary rights such as inheritance and health care, things that can be addressed by contract law. As Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said in a February presidential debate, at the center of the gay marriage debate is "terminology."

Tell that to David Kloss. In the summer of 2001, the 54-year-old oil exploration manager made a terrible mistake: He fell in love with a Canadian. Soon, he faced a choice shared by thousands of American citizens: Leave the man he loved, or leave the country.

The source of the dilemma is federal immigration law, which is based on the seemingly innocuous principle of "family reunification." Kloss' partner, Remi Collette, 35, moved to San Francisco to join him. But Collette was officially a tourist. He couldn’t work legally, and he couldn’t stay indefinitely. If Kloss and Collette had been a straight couple, they would have counted as a "family." Getting papers and eventually citizenship would have been a routine, bureaucratic process. As gays, they faced a stark choice: break the law with illegal work or a sham heterosexual marriage, or join the diaspora of self-described "love exiles." ...

A group that represents cross-border gay and lesbian couples, Immigration Equality, estimates that there are more than 25,000 such couples in the United States. Many break the law. They place advertisements like this one in The Washington Blade, a gay paper: "Marriage-Minded GWM/GAM couple (1 American, 1 foreign), seeks lesbian couple (1 American, 1 foreign) for marriages of mutual interests."

That's a risky move, however, one that carries penalties of imprisonment and deportation. So in 2002 Kloss sold his beloved house in the center of San Francisco, with its view of the Marin headlands, and moved with Collette to Toronto. Last year they were married under Canadian law, which allows gays to bring in partners.

Kloss was lucky to have even that choice. If the partner doesn't hail from one of the countries with such a policy (which also include the United Kingdom, Israel, and several European states), gay couples find themselves perpetual tourists, insecure and unemployable.

more
posted by Eve at 12:16 AM | link 0 comments

PARENTAL OBLIGATIONS: Maggie replies to Mark Barton

Mark writes: "If it's really true that children need both a mother and a father, then then that imposes an obvious moral imperative on biological parents...."

OK, Mark: Does it impose a moral imperative on anyone else? Does it impose a moral imperative on a biological parent who happens to be gay or lesbian, for example?

How will we explain to single men, who didn't choose to have children--who in fact are given no choice in the matter--why they have obligations to their children?

Why does biology give rise to serious moral imperatives for them, but not for gay parents?

The oddity is that Mark assumes that once we have gay marriage, people will interpret the statement "Children need mothers and fathers" to apply only to straight people. Separate and unequal moral imperatives.

Adults who get offended at the expression of these important truths (Mark's "offensive moral slaps") are the problem. Placating them is not the solution.

I've been told for years that you can't say "children need moms and dads" because it will offend and hurt the large proportion of children raised outside of intact married families. I find the children are most grateful for the acknowledgement of their special difficulties. It's the adults who get offended.
posted by Eve at 10:55 PM | link 0 comments

THE EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: THE CASE OF FINLAND: Maggie Gallagher

As I mentioned before, one reason I have not responded in detail to the Badgett/Kurtz debate is that is requires a more detailed knowledge of Euro family stats than I have easy access to.

Stanley Kurtz has taken a look at developments in Finland. Here is what he says:

Finland is not "exactly the same" as the other Scandinavian countries. Rates of what Stanley calls "parental cohabitation" (i.e. men and women living together, having children and not marrying) increased in the 90s. Out of wedlock births jumped from 25 perrcent (very low by Scandinavian standards) in 1990 up to 40 percent in 2001.

But Finland came to this point much later than the rest of Scandinavia; Norway, which took to parental cohabitation after Sweden and Denmark, was already at 39 percent out-of-wedlock births in 1990 and is now just over 50 percent--ten percent higher than Finland.

"So it certainly seems possible that Finland's relative conservatism, including its longer resistance to registered partnerships, is related to its having seen parental cohabitation spread later, and at lower levels, than Sweden, Denmark, and Norway," says Stanley.

Note what Stanley is saying here: Not that SSM came in and single-handedly destroyed a strong marriage culture. But that the trends towards out-of-wedlock births (and parents who cohabit rather than marry) and social pressure to treat same-sex couples as married tend to be mutually reinforcing.

If you see marriage as having a strong relationship to making children and giving them mothers and fathers, you don't do either of these things. As you reject the first, the second becomes plausible and reinforces the idea that public norms no longer take the idea that you need to marry in order to have children very seriously.

Only after decoupling marriage and childbearing, did the Finns seriously consider what Stanley calls "de facto gay marriage." (Myself, I believe it is possible to distinguish between civil unions and marriage, but doing so requires a culture committed to that proposition.)

Stanley also argues, "It's also hard to imagine that Finland's geographic and cultural proximity to Sweden, Denmark, and Norway has not been a key force in prompting increased parental cohabitation." He suggests that, "Finland tried to resist the trend of its neighbors toward parental cohabitation and toward same-sex registered partnerships. It eventually failed on both counts."

If, once again, the mechanism by which SSM helps weaken marriage is cultural changes in the meaning of marriage--in particular, decoupling the idea of marriage from the idea of children, such that saying "children need moms and dads and marriage is how you get them for people" constitutes an "offensive slap" at childless couples--this is not implausible.

Law is an educator, the definer of what social norms are public and shared.Isn't this the most powerful reason why same-sex marriage advocates want SSM? They believe it will affirm a new social norm of equality between gay couples and other couples. That it will also make important changes in how marriage in general is viewed should therefore be equally plausible.

Whether these changes in marriage are good or bad is the single most important question. It cannot be dismissed so easily.
posted by Eve at 10:50 PM | link 0 comments

THE EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: JAPAN, ITALY, AND GAY MARRIAGE: Maggie Gallagher replies to Josh Jasper

The Italian pattern is vastly different from either the Anglo or the Scandinavian one. Any family scholar will tell you that.

Most children are born in wedlock and most marriages still last. But yes, both divorce and out-of-wedlock births are rising there. You can say the same thing about Portugal and Spain, although OWB are at a higher level (closer to 20 percent, not 10 percent).

Japan actually has a similar pattern: relatively low divorce rates, low out of wedlock birth rates, and rapid depopulation.

If you want me to say that marriage is in trouble in countries that don't have gay marriage, I'm happy to do so. But it's not a retraction. I've been saying it for years.

If you understand the argument to be, "Gay marriage is the ONLY reason marriage is in trouble," I have no problem agreeing with you that that is a pretty stupid idea.
posted by Eve at 10:47 PM | link 0 comments

THE EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: JAPAN, ITALY, AND GAY MARRIAGE: Josh Jasper

Japan seems to have no push towards gay marriage, yet divorce rates there are on the rise.

But wait, there's more! Divorce IS on the rise in Italy.

So much for that argument. I await Maggie's retraction. Well, I would if she actually addressed Jari's comments instead of turning to some sort of distraction about the panic over birth rates, which have nothing to do with the issue, insofar as the birth rate of unmarried mothers isn't even mentioned.
posted by Eve at 10:42 PM | link 0 comments

WITH SSM, FRANCE TURNS CONSERVATIVE: From the New York Times

ON June 5, Stephane Chapin and his longtime boyfriend, Bertrand Charpentier, emerged from the city hall of Begles, in southwestern France, with tears in their eyes and wedding bands on their fingers. They were the first gays to live out this scene in France.

The televised ceremony, complete with demonstrators pro- and anti-, had a familiar look to Americans who since last winter have watched similar ones in San Francisco and New Paltz, N.Y. Like the mayors of those American cities, the mayor of Begles, Noel Mamere, who was also the Green Party's candidate for president in 2002, had held the wedding in violation of the law. Like his American counterparts, Mr. Mamere was accused of having staged a publicity stunt. Newspapers revealed that the couple didn't even live in Bègles, and had sold their story for 5,000 euros to the weekly magazine VSD.

But the spectacle quickly ceased to follow the American script, for it appeared that Mr. Mamere could be in real trouble. Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin, a member of President Jacques Chirac's conservative party, announced he would pursue sanctions against the mayor. Dominique Perben, the justice minister, declared the marriage null and void, and Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said it "would be weak not to act" in the face of such "illegal comportment."

Gay marriage may be sweeping the Western world, but in France it has brought out a conservative impulse that will surprise those used to thinking of France as a progressive counterweight to a reactionary America. While there are exceptions to this script--unlike President Bush, who promised to back a constitutional amendment to oppose gay marriage, Mr. Chirac has remained silent on the issue--France has had difficulty digesting gay marriage.

This is partly because of France's republican tradition, which is absolutist on the question of equality before the law and insists that every citizen of France be treated exactly the same. ...It is unthinkable that Mr. Mamère should confer rights in Begles that cannot be conferred in Paris (where the openly gay mayor, Bertrand Delanoe, has shown no zeal for same-sex marriage). ...

Mr. Fassin said the gay marriage debate in France has been marked by a "conservatism of the left" that uses the left's rhetoric to traditionalist ends. The 1999 Civil Solidarity Pact, for example, resembles Vermont's civil-union law, permitting shared health benefits and simplifying inheritances. But rights of adoption--a bureaucratic ordeal in France, even for heterosexuals--were not granted to gays.

That has left France in a very different position from the United States. In retrospect, Americans effectively committed themselves to gay marriage when all states except Florida permitted gay adoption. Once children enter the equation, the state must protect them as best they can, and allowing their guardians to marry takes on a logic previously absent.

France still has its options open. Even with 43 percent of children born out of wedlock, according to the demographic agency Ined, the link remains strong between marriage and a traditional idea of childbearing. Surrogate mothers, for instance, are almost unheard of in France. Medically assisted procreation is not a cultural norm. Nor is late-term abortion: In 2000, feminists won an arduous legislative struggle to raise the cutoff point for abortions from 10 to 12 weeks. (In the United States, by contrast, only the ban on what critics call partial-birth abortion, which is now blocked, restricts a woman's right to an abortion at any time in her pregnancy.) Sexual harassment is another area where the French believe American laws go too far. ...

One of the strangest outcomes of gay marriage in Begles is the way opinion in the Socialist Party--the natural home of change when it comes to sex issues--has split along gender lines. ...It is Socialist women--the regional leader Segolene Royal, former Justice Minister Elisabeth Guigou, and former Labor Minister Martine Aubry--who led the opposition.

They may have been following the "differentialism" (an important strain of French feminism) associated with the philosopher Sylviane Agacinski, who happens to be Mr. Jospin's wife. Ms. Agacinski has argued that the human condition cannot be understood in any universal way without reference to both sexes. This argument has been a mighty tool for left-wing reforms. It provided the intellectual underpinnings for mandating sexual parity in French legislative elections. Today, it provides the intellectual underpinnings for arguing that a marriage that lacks either a man or a woman is no marriage at all.

more
posted by Eve at 10:36 PM | link 0 comments

HOW TO HANDLE MY LESBIAN GRANDDAUGHTER'S REQUEST THAT I ATTEND COMMITMENT CEREMONY?: Advice from Rabbi Marc Gellman and Msgr. Thomas Hartman ("The God Squad")

...It's past time that we wrote about gay marriage. You must know, first of all, that this is an agonizing judgment for both of us to make. Tom's brother Jerry was gay and died of AIDS in 1995. Many of our closest friends are gay and Marc's PhD adviser and many of his most revered teachers are also gay.

Like your love for your granddaughter, we too have been put in the position of choosing between love and the teachings of our faith. This is a tough choice, but life and the changes in our culture have placed tough choices before us. We must have two important virtues in order to make these choices about what's right and what's wrong in the way we choose to live.

First of all, we must have courage to say what we think is right.

Your granddaughter had courage, just like Tom's brother, in confronting a pious Catholic family with a life choice that violates the clear and unambiguous teachings of the church. But her announcement is not the only act of courage called for in this ongoing discussion. Your courage is also needed to tell her, with equal love, that you cannot accept the choices she has made.

The second virtue we must all have if this deep spiritual and moral thinking about gay marriage is not to descend into bitter vituperation is humility. You must find a way to say no to your granddaughter's decision to have a commitment ceremony without saying no to your love for her.

Your granddaughter's decision to live with a woman is personal and intimate and does not require or seek your approval or comment or judgment. However, her decision to hold a commitment ceremony does require you to express your approval of this decision by attending--or your disapproval by staying away. She should understand that just as she has a right to make her own, personal life decisions, so do you. She should also understand that your nonattendance at the ceremony does not mean a severing of your ties to her or the death of your love for her.

If we can't differentiate between the decisions the people we love make in their lives and the people themselves, then we'll never be able to criticize or cajole, demur or decline what they decide without somehow putting our love for them at risk. That would be emotional blackmail, which is unfair and arrogant.

The key to preserving your relationship with your granddaughter is a humility that softens your courageous affirmation of the ethics of your faith.

Homosexuality and lesbianism are close calls for us. They're examples of love between two consenting adults who often, if not always, are genetically predetermined to have these urges.

On the other hand, same-sex unions undermine the traditional notions of the family that have been accepted by virtually every culture in every age, even cultures that have had no exposure to the negative teachings about homosexuality found in all three Abrahamic faiths. It is not just an arbitrary decision that the best way to raise children is in a family with both male and female role models.

It is, to say this with extreme humility but sufficient courage to make the point, the truth. It's not just that heterosexual marriages are the norm in the Bible and therefore they are right. It's that they are right and therefore they are the norm in the Bible. This doesn't mean that the Bible cannot be wrong.

Perhaps the gay community is correct in asserting that the clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible is just the result of an ancient prejudice that we should be rid of in our enlightened age. We don't think so. The univocal judgment of human cultures around the world and over time, the disturbing levels of promiscuity, particularly in the homosexual community, and the need of children to have role models of their own sex, all lead us to affirm what our faith also teaches.

The Gay Story is compelling and must be heard with open ears. The brutal anti-gay violence that occurs periodically must be condemned.

Civil unions that grant simple legal equity to gay couples must be considered. But as to the spiritual sanctification of gay marriage, we must demur, and we must hope that the gay community can understand that although their holiness as persons made in the image of God is secure, the choices they've made in their lives are a fair field for criticism.

Moreover, just as those who choose to live in same-sex unions must not be the objects of calumny, so too, those who reject these unions must not have to bear the unjust slander of being called "homophobes." The two groups have a deep and humble but fundamental disagreement about how love ought to pour itself into marriage and how children can best be raised up into a world of promise and healing.

more
posted by Eve at 2:17 AM | link 0 comments

GAY MARRIAGE CASE VS. MAYOR DROPPED: From the Associated Press

A judge yesterday dismissed criminal charges against a small-town mayor for marrying gay couples, saying the state did not show it has a legitimate interest in banning same-sex weddings.

New Paltz Town Court Justice Jonathan Katz also ruled that prosecutors did not prove that the law New Paltz Mayor Jason West was charged with violating was constitutional.

West had faced the possibility of fines or as long as a year in jail for presiding at the weddings of more than two dozen same-sex couples Feb. 27. The weddings drew the Hudson Valley village of New Paltz into the growing national debate over gay marriage.

West remains barred from marrying same-sex couples under an order issued earlier this week by another judge. But he and his lawyer, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, called Katz's ruling a major victory for gay rights.

Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams said he disagreed with Katz's ruling and would appeal. West, 27, faced 19 misdemeanor counts of solemnizing marriages for couples without a license.

link
posted by Eve at 2:13 AM | link 0 comments