MARRIAGE AND STRIPPING: Ramesh Ponnuru

In recent weeks, House Republicans have gotten behind a "two-vote strategy" on same-sex marriage. They want to vote on a bill before voting on a constitutional amendment. "Which bill?" has been the main subject of debate. Some Republicans want to vote on a bill that would block same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. Others are seeking a vote on Indiana congressman John Hostettler's bill to remove the federal courts' jurisdiction over the Defense of Marriage Act. Majority leader Tom DeLay is said to fall in the latter camp. But the Family Research Council, one of the strongest social-conservative organizations, is opposed to DeLay's apparent strategy. ...

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, has two objections to the Texan's two-step. The first sounds like an objection to any two-vote strategy. "We're not in favor of having two measures moving because we feel like it will give some people a way to take cover," he tells me. "They can vote for one and say that they've done what they can do to protect marriage--and not do what needs to be done, an amendment."

Second, Perkins says that the Hostettler court-stripping bill would accomplish very little. It would block the federal courts from striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. But it would not block state courts from imposing same-sex marriage, as in Massachusetts. Nor would it block federal courts from imposing same-sex marriage: Any federal court could find that current state marriage laws amount to unconstitutional discrimination without touching the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Nor would the Hostettler bill stop federal or state courts from unbundling the elements of marriage and providing them to same-sex couples one benefit at a time. ...

There's another strategic problem with the Hostettler strategy. Let's assume that Perkins, DeLay, and Schlafly are right and that the political branches should assert their power to regulate the federal courts' jurisdiction. (I certainly believe that they are right about this specific point.) The propriety of this kind of court-stripping is nonetheless very controversial. Building the respectability of the idea is a long-term project. It would make sense to start with an issue where the public is very strongly on conservatives' side: Todd Akin's bill to strip the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. In the case of the Hostettler bill, on the other hand, both the controversy over marriage and the controversy over court-stripping would combine to sink the bill. Many conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage but are conventional in their view of the relationship between the courts and the legislature would vote against it. Conservatives whose main concern is to amend the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage would not have furthered their goal. Neither would those conservatives whose main concern is reining in the courts.

more
posted by Eve at 11:02 PM | link 0 comments

IN DEFENSE OF THE FAMILY: Maggie Gallagher

Mitt Romney is a brave man.

While the GOP glitterocracy attended the first gay wedding of one of their own, Gov. Romney was in Washington, D.C., making the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician. ...

Then he asked the question we should all be asking: "Given the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. . . Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our Constitution? Has America been wrong about marriage for 200 plus years? Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? Are the philosophies and teachings of all the world's major religions simply wrong? Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred? I believe that is the case."

Then Mitt Romney put his finger on where the error comes from: the limited perspectives of lawyers and judges. "They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights."

But, he went on, marriage is not solely for adults. "Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother."

The advocates tell us the skies have not fallen in Massachusetts; nothing has changed, they assure us. Romney points out that small things have already begun to change, foretelling the bigger, sadder changes to come. First, the marriage licenses change so they no longer read husband and wife but "Party A" and "Party B." The Department of Health insists that birth certificates also change. The line for mother and father becomes "Parent A" and "Parent B."

So far the governor has resisted, but ultimately the same court that could see no reason why marriage involves a husband and wife other than "animus" will decide whether or not we still think the language of mothers and fathers is appropriate. ...

The transformation of mother and father into "Parent A" and "Parent B" is the model of the paradigm shift now underway in Massachusetts. The distinctive features of the union of male and female are going to have to be removed from our notions of marriage and family. The experience of same-sex couples will become the new norm for family life, because the "unisex" idea that gender has no public significance is the only model that can be construed as "inclusive" of both opposite-sex and same-sex unions. The result is not neutrality but the active promotion of a new unisex ideal, in which the distinctive features of opposite-sex relations will be submerged, marginalized, cast to one side, and redefined as discrimination in order to protect the new court-ordered public moral standard of the equality of same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Here's Gov. Romney's estimate of the future: "[C]hanging the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same-sex practice."

The gap between civil and religious marriage will widen to a chasm, just at the time the state more than ever needs the help of faith communities in strengthening marriage. "Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder. We need more from these institutions, not less, and particularly so to support and strengthen those in greatest need."

The change has begun: The needs and desires of a tiny fraction of adults in alternative families are becoming the basis of a new moral norm. Anyone who departs from it risks thundering denunciation from self-righteous elites who are no longer satisfied with tolerance and civility--living with our deepest differences--but wish to impose their vision of morality on the majority.

more
posted by Eve at 10:58 PM | link 0 comments

FOR SOCIETY, MARRIAGE IS MORE THAN A "LIFESTYLE": Jennifer Marshall

...Remember the flap over Vice President Dan Quayle's criticism of TV's Murphy Brown? Unwed births had reached a new high in the early '90s, and Quayle lamented the nonchalant way the show's producers treated single motherhood. Social science has since vindicated his argument: Decisions about sex, marriage and childbearing aren't merely personal. They have profound social consequences, especially for children. ...

Social science indicates the intact family -- defined as a man and a woman who marry and raise their children together -- best ensures the welfare of children and society. Adolescents in intact families are healthier, less likely to be depressed, less likely to repeat a grade and have fewer developmental problems. By contrast, children in other family forms, as a group, are likelier to experience poverty, abuse, behavioral and emotional problems and lower academic achievement.

A free society requires a critical mass of individuals living in stable households independent of the state. The most secure household, available research shows, is the intact family. No other family form has been able to provide the same level of social security. In all other common arrangements, the risk of negative individual outcomes and family disintegration is much greater, increasing the risk of dependence on state services. This explains government's interest in marriage, and why marriage has always had a special legal status, as the foundation of the intact family.

A serious policy debate about reinforcing and restoring marriage emerged in the '90s on the basis of social-science data. Policies such as welfare reform were grounded in such data. We have seen some of the fruit of those efforts in declining rates of teen sex and childbearing.

The debate over same-sex marriage hasn't been adequately framed in social-welfare terms. The interest of children and general social stability are largely neglected. Back is the discredited Murphy Brown rationale: Personal fulfillment and individual rights trump all other considerations.

Overhauling marriage is not anchored in sound research. We know little about long-term effects of homosexual relationships on partners -- even less on children raised in such households. This lack of data should give us pause before reconfiguring the basic institution of society. Advocates of same-sex marriage want us to institutionalize a social experiment, i.e., same-sex coupling and parenting, by elevating it in law to the status of the oldest of institutions: marriage. To do so would be a mistake.

Americans have become more tolerant of other types of experimentation -- extramarital sex, cohabitation, single parenting -- but don't equate them with marriage. None of these experiments has been regarded in law as the equivalent of the intact family. Yet this is precisely what we're being asked to do with same-sex marriage.

more
posted by Eve at 10:53 PM | link 0 comments

LAWSUIT TO INVALIDATE NY TOWN'S SSM: From the Associated Press

A judge was asked Thursday to invalidate roughly 180 gay marriages performed in New Paltz this year and bar any village official from performing more same-sex unions.

The lawsuit from the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel is the broadest legal challenge yet to same-sex weddings that have been performed in New Paltz since Village Mayor Jason West first officiated over marriages on Feb. 27.

The group has successfully argued for an injunction keeping West from performing more weddings, inspiring other officials and ministers to take his place. Last weekend, village board member Julia Walsh joined a group of ministers in marrying 19 same-sex couples. Another board member, Rebecca Rotzler, married gay couples a week ago.

Besides West and the village, the Liberty Counsel suit asks the judge to bar Walsh, Rotzler and their fellow board member, Michael Zierler, from performing gay weddings. The suit also asks Supreme Court Judge Michael Kavanagh to declare invalid the appointment of Rotzler and Walsh as marriage officers.

In Thursday's filing, the Liberty Counsel again argued that performing the marriage knowing the couples did not have marriage licenses violated New York law.

Earlier this month, Kavanagh permanently barred West from marrying gay couples. ...

Kavanagh on Thursday signed a temporary restraining order blocking more weddings and set a July 19 court date.

Rotzler said she would honor the restraining order and not marry any more gay couples but would continue to press to make same-sex marriage legal in New York. She likens the struggle to that of biracial couples like her parents who fought for the right to marry. ...

About two dozens ministers have taken turns and performed gay weddings in the Hudson Valley college community since West was sidelined by legal troubles. The weddings are now held at bed and breakfast in the village on alternating Saturdays.

Lindevaldsen said the group does not have the ability to seek injunctions against clergy.

There have been several lawsuits filed this year on behalf of gay couples claiming they have the right to marry under New York's constitution.

In addition, West and the first two ministers to take his place were charged with misdemeanor counts of marrying couples who lacked licenses. The charges against West were dismissed. A hearing on the ministers' case is scheduled for Friday in New Paltz Town Court.

more
posted by Eve at 10:51 PM | link 0 comments

AMICUS BRIEFS FILED IN WA SSM CASE: Lambda Legal press release

Six state legislators and a wide variety of religious organizations, civil rights groups and bar associations filed friend-of-the-court briefs today in support of marriage for same-sex couples in Washington State.

Lambda Legal and the Northwest Women's Law Center filed a lawsuit in state court in March seeking the right to marry for same-sex couples. The briefs filed today urge the court to rule in favor of treating all couples equally. ...

Arguing that the state law excluding same-sex couples from marriage should be struck down, six state legislators -- including one Republican -- filed a brief saying that the "heterosexuals only" rule violates the protections guaranteed by the Washington State Constitution. State Representatives Fred Jarrett (R), Jim Moeller (D), Ed Murray (D) and Sandra Romero (D), as well as State Senators Debbie Regala (D) and Pat Thibaudeau (D) all signed onto the friend-of-the-court brief.

"Building families, expanding civil rights, and limiting the government's reach into our private affairs are among my core beliefs as a Republican. All families should be encouraged and supported, and I cannot think of a better way to support all families than to allow loving, committed couples the right to marry, and that includes same-sex couples," Representative Jarrett said.

Multifaith Works, with numerous other religious organizations, argued in its brief that the state should not adopt one definition of marriage and that religious freedom is not affected by recognizing the importance of civil marriage for same-sex couples. The brief says, "promoting 'moral and religious' grounds as the basis for the legislature's adoption of [the state's Defense of Marriage Act] is not a legitimate government purpose--let alone a compelling state interest."

Another brief filed today was signed by a coalition of civil rights groups and bar associations, including Loren Miller Bar Association, a largely African-American legal group. The brief argues that preventing same-sex couples from marrying is fundamentally wrong and violates the Washington State Constitution. The brief says, "Our nation has a troubled history of imposing restrictions on the most private and most important choice of who one will marry. Ultimately, the judiciary has righted such wrongs..."

more
posted by Eve at 10:48 PM | link 0 comments

GOP EYES TAKING MARRIAGE FROM COURTS: From the Washington Times

House Republicans yesterday emphasized their eagerness to reassert congressional authority over the judicial branch, holding a hearing on stripping federal courts of their jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to same-sex "marriage."

Republicans and conservative activists have contemplated restricting the jurisdiction of "out-of-control" courts on other issues, such as the Pledge of Allegiance and public acknowledgment of God.

But some think same-sex "marriage" presents the strongest combination so far of interest and opportunity.

"The marriage issue gives us a great political window of opportunity into what Congress can do to limit the courts," said Rep. John Hostettler, Indiana Republican.

Mr. Hostettler has crafted a bill that would strip the federal courts and the Supreme Court of their ability to hear cases pertaining to the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which said states don't have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states. ...

Opponents say court-stripping would deny a particular group of people--in this case, homosexuals--the ability to have their grievances heard at the federal level.

"It's very dangerous, and it should not be done," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat and House Judiciary Committee member.

Mr. Nadler said a particular decision could be overturned either by passing a law or a constitutional amendment. Court-stripping is "depriving citizens of their right to go to court," he said.

The federal DOMA also defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal law. Mr. Hostettler's bill would strip jurisdiction over this from federal appeals courts and the Supreme Court, but would leave federal district courts alone.

The Senate is set to vote the week of July 12 on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but the House is moving more cautiously. House leaders are considering holding votes on other types of legislation related to marriage--such as the court-stripping bill--before bringing an amendment to the House floor.

Some House Republicans see a court-stripping bill as a better first step. ...

During a House Judiciary constitution subcommittee hearing yesterday, most of the legal scholars agreed the Constitution grants Congress the right to strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.

"Congress possesses broad constitutional authority to control the jurisdiction of both the lower federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court," said Martin H. Redish, a law professor from Northwestern University School of Law.

But Michael J. Gerhardt, a law professor from William and Mary Law School, said Congress cannot strip jurisdiction if it violates people's right to equal protection or infringes on separation of powers. He said Congress repeatedly has resisted the temptation to strip court jurisdiction. ...

Mr. Redish also advised against court-stripping because "we'd be left with 50 state-court interpretations of a federal law."

But bill supporters noted that Congress has stripped courts before, including in 2002, when it passed legislation pushed by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, that prohibited federal courts from hearing lawsuits challenging brush clearing in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

more
posted by Eve at 10:45 PM | link 0 comments

GAY COUPLES FACE ADOPTION HURDLES: From the Houston Chronicle

...[A] month before, Parker wasn't sure she would be allowed to adopt the girls, who had been in and out of foster care for years. On the day the adoptions were to be finalized, Parker said, the juvenile judge refused to allow anyone in his court to preside over them. Children's Protective Services had already approved placing the girls with the lesbian couple.

"(The judge) didn't think gays should adopt and that I ought to find another judge," Parker said. She did.

Whether other openly gay Harris County residents have gone through a similar experience is difficult to gauge because adoption records are sealed. But while Texas law neither prohibits nor protects homosexual adoption--leaving the matter to local courts--gay rights activists say juvenile judges here have interpreted the law conservatively, giving the perception they discriminate against gays and lesbians.

"Gays and lesbians have to jump through more hoops than heterosexuals, despite no proven scientific study that says (they) have any negative consequence on children," said Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.

Opponents of gay adoption say homosexuals are incorrectly portraying the legitimate concerns of judges as discrimination.

"We exercise judgments in being concerned about giving adoptive children to single (heterosexual) parents for the same reason we do for gays," said S. Michael Craven with the Dallas-based National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families. ...

Schumacher and Miller, 44, an engineer who manages space-walking operations for a NASA contractor, have lived together for 16 years. Their openness may have worked against them, said Connie Moore, a Houston family lawyer.

She encourages her gay and lesbian clients to not disclose their orientation in Harris County Juvenile Court or adopt in cities like San Antonio and Austin. When Schumacher and Hubbard take their turn to adopt, in a process known as second-parent adoption, each plans to go outside of Harris County.

Gays and lesbians who adopt local foster children, however, must work through Harris County's juvenile court.

Victor Flatt, a University of Houston family law professor, said Miller's account of his experience in Ellis' court shows some possible violations of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. The code states, in part, that: "A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion . . . sexual orientation." ...

Flatt and other experts also say such treatment of gay adoptive parents walks a fine line between judicial discretion and discrimination yet to be tested in Texas' appeals courts or settled in the Legislature.

"They're sort of indirectly doing what they can't do directly," said Flatt.

Texas lawmakers have tried to ban homosexuals and same-sex couples from adopting or serving as foster parents. In recent Texas legislative sessions, the proposals never left committee. Florida is the only state that bans gay adoption; Mississippi and Utah prevent same-sex couples from adopting children but allow single gays or lesbians to adopt.

Richard Carlson, a South Texas College of Law professor, said gay adoption is so complicated because homosexuality is an issue "so laden with personal values."

"We discriminate all the time in deciding what makes a good parent," he said. "Can there be a rational basis for discrimination on the extent of sexual orientation? That's something not even the Supreme Court is ready to tackle."

Carlson also said local judges have not actually denied gay adoptions, because "such a denial would set up an opportunity for an appeal and ultimately a ruling." And in the past, appeals courts and other state supreme courts have tended to side with homosexual parents.

"You have to look at the U.S. and Texas Constitutions," Carlson said. "Regardless of the case law or statutes. You must grant equal protection under the law."

more
posted by Eve at 10:33 PM | link 0 comments

CA STATE ASSEMBLY VOTES TO OPPOSE FMA: From the Associated Press

California's state Assembly voted yesterday to oppose a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is backed by President Bush, that would ban gay marriage.

Through a 42-27 vote, the Assembly also said it also opposed other federal moves to restrict rights of same-gender couples.

The vote comes in the wake of thousands of gay weddings in several states in recent months, including California, and followed fierce debates yesterday between Democrats and Republicans over the institution of marriage and the role of the U.S. Constitution. ...

The resolution goes now to the Senate, where it must pass by the end of August to become the Legislature's official position. It does not need the signature of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said during a March 1 appearance on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno," that he had "no use" for the proposed amendment.

Bush endorsed it in February, saying a constitutional change would prevent activist judges from allowing same-sex weddings. To become law, the amendment requires two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress and ratification from 38 states.

Some Assembly Republicans called the resolution an attack on California's March 2000 ballot initiative, Proposition 22, in which a two-thirds majority of voters defined marriage as between a man and woman. ...

In a related move, the Assembly passed 41-31 a companion resolution supporting congressional proposals to let gay and lesbian residents sponsor their partners for U.S. citizenship.

more
posted by Eve at 10:30 PM | link 0 comments

WOMAN WHO LOST CHRISTIAN SCIENCE TEACHING JOB AFTER LESBIAN MARRIAGE CONSIDERS LAWSUIT: From the Boston Herald

The spiritual teacher stripped of her Christian Science affiliation after refusing to repent for marrying her lesbian partner of 10 years is now considering suing.

"I have three names of attorneys that were recommended and I just feel like that maybe I should call one of them," Kathleen Clementson, 62, said from her Florida home yesterday.

Clementson married Suzanne Nightingale, 49, in a private morning ceremony May 20 on a beach in Brewster, three days after state law granted gay and lesbian couples the right to apply for licenses.

When a wire service picture of their vows circulated through the country, Clementson was soon reprimanded by the church board who ordered her to repent. When she refused, she was stripped of her teaching credentials and her membership.

The First Church of Christ Scientist in Boston declined comment yesterday. Church officials have told Clementson that her students have been deemed to have had no primary instruction.

Both Clementson and Nightingale said they believe the church should update its laws and support the gay community.

"They're governed by a little thin book of rules and the rules haven't been changed," said Nightingale. "One of those rules is that people should be legally married. There was opportunity to legally marry. We went to Massachusetts to be legally married. We are now legally married. So what rule did we break?"

more
posted by Eve at 10:27 PM | link 0 comments

COMPANIES RESIST GAY BENEFITS: From the Boston Herald

Most of corporate America hasn't embraced the idea of extending health benefits to same-sex spouses in the wake of Massachusetts' historic legalization of gay marriages, a survey released yesterday shows.

About 40 percent of human resources officials at 216 companies nationwide said they would reject any request by employees if they requested health benefits for same-sex spouses, said a survey by consulting firm Aon Corp.

Another 28 percent said they don't know what they would do if asked.

But a third said their companies would extend health benefits to same-sex spouses. ...

Peter Marathas, an employee-benefits lawyer with Boston's Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC, said Massachusetts-based corporations that deny health benefits to same-sex spouses would run afoul of state anti-discrimination laws.

But it's more complex for out-of-state corporations with operations in Massachusetts, he said.

Vickie Henry, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Bar Association, said she believes out-of-state firms would legally have to provide health benefits to same-sex spouses, based on state laws.

But she agreed that the day may come when a firm refuses to do so, triggering a legal confrontation. "It's waiting to be tested," she said.

more
posted by Eve at 10:24 PM | link 0 comments

GOP SEEKS TO BUILD SUPPORT FOR SSM BAN: From the San Francisco Chronicle

House Republican leaders who fear they don't have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage -- are considering a test vote in July to gauge support for the measure.

Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas said this week he did not want to bring up the proposed amendment unless it can pass, and he doesn't think the Senate should do so, either. That was a jab at Senate GOP leaders who have scheduled debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment for the week of July 12, even though the measure's most ardent supporters think it will fall far short of the required two-thirds majority there and may not even get the 60 votes needed to overcome a likely filibuster.

"I personally think that the Senate really should vote on this when they have the votes to pass it," DeLay said. "That's what we are trying to do. We are looking at other alternatives, other kinds of votes that we might have on this to generate debate and generate support out in the nation." DeLay said Republicans have not yet decided what the test measure will be, but that it would provide "some sort of vote in July in anticipation of growing the vote so that we can actually pass a constitutional amendment."

He added that if the Senate votes on the amendment and it fails, "it is incumbent on the House to pass an amendment to put pressure back on the Senate to have a vote again."

A contender for the House test vote is a bill that would use an obscure clause in the Constitution to strip federal courts of any jurisdiction over the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which permits states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in other states and denies to lesbian and gay couples any federal benefits tied to marriage. The measure has also struggled for support.

Some social conservatives have argued that Indiana Rep. John Hostettler's proposal, the Marriage Protection Act, provides an alternative for the many Republicans who oppose same-sex marriage but do not want to amend the Constitution and deprive states of their long-standing authority over marriage laws.

The act invokes the Constitution's "exceptions clause" in Article 3, which states that the lower federal courts have jurisdiction over federal laws "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." The clause is seldom invoked, but it was used by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., in 2002 to prohibit federal courts from hearing environmental challenges to timber clearing in South Dakota's Black Hills. ...

But Martin Redish, a Northwestern University law professor, testified that while the Constitution does give Congress such authority, using it is dangerous. "This is a very powerful authority," carrying potentially "very negative consequences," Redish warned.

Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said GOP leaders might also attach a same-sex marriage ban to the spending bill for the District of Columbia, a measure often used as a testing ground for social issues because its scope is limited to the city of Washington.

more
posted by Eve at 10:16 PM | link 0 comments

A LIBERAL CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE?: Matt Taylor replies to Susan Shell

Susan Shell's argument against gay marriage is interesting and well-considered, but it doesn't strike me as "liberal." Take this passage:

"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. ..."

To start an argument from existing social traditions and the thoughts of past thinkers is fundamentally conservative. I would expect a liberal argument to begin "how should we define marriage" rather than "how has marriage already been defined".

That said, I think Ms. Shell is correct that both pro-SSM and anti-SSM activists have taken illiberal positions. To insist that same-sex unions be labeled "marriages" imposes a particular cultural view on the population at large, just as a ban on all legal recognition for same-sex couples imposes an opposite view. I agree with Susan Shell that, at present, civil union or domestic partnership is the policy most consistent with liberal principles, since it accommodates the widest range of views on marriage and same-sex relationships.
posted by Eve at 12:35 PM | link 0 comments

GAY MARRIAGE IN US SUPREME COURT'S FUTURE?: SCOTUSblog

No one following the gay marriage issue in the courts of a number of states doubts that the issue will one day go to the Supreme Court, in some form--unless, of course, Congress and the States take the unlikely step of wiping out the idea altogether by constitutional amendment. But a curious thing seems to be developing: the first issue the Justices may have to face might not be whether same-sex couples have a right to get married, but rather whether they have a right to stay married.

In the flurry of lawsuits filed this year in state courts, most seeking to get other states to imitate Massachusetts in allowing gay marriage, one legal tactic leaps out: they are based primarily if not exclusively on state constitutions, not the federal Constitution. For example, the City of San Francisco's lawsuit in state Superior Court (San Francisco v. California, docket CPF-04 504038) challenging a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples relies on a state constitutional clause that says "A person may not be denied equal protection of the laws." That, of course, is the tactic that worked last year in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health).

That appears to be the result of a very specific strategy among gay rights advocates: do not press the issue of a federal constitutional right to marry, because that may be premature and perhaps unnecessary; instead, seek to establish a right to marry under state law, and give the country a chance to see over a period of years that American society will not crumble if gay marriages occur. This is a strategy of intentional gradualism, somewhat akin to what the civil rights and women's rights movements used successfully.

Behind the strategy, in part, is the realization that the Supreme Court as presently constituted very likely would not find a basis in the Constitution to recognize gay marriage as a right. In the Court's most sweeping decision yet on gay rights, the ruling last year in Lawrence v. Texas recognizing a due process "liberty" right to engage in sexual intimacy with a homosexual partner, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the Court that the case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." The Court studiously avoided basing its decision on federal equal protection grounds (although Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would have done so, she said in an opinion for herself).

But, recently, federal constitutional issues of a different sort have begun to make their way into the cases in state courts, raising the prospect that appeals would come within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Those issues have been arising out of the simple fact that, in California and Massachusetts, same-sex couples have already obtained marriage licenses, and were married. In response to efforts to undo those already accomplished marriages, federal arguments are being deployed.

The California Supreme Court is now moving toward a decision, due by late August, on the legal status of more than 4,000 marriages performed in that state after the city of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses. ...

The city of San Francisco has argued, in its brief before that court, that couples who already have married have a due process right under the Fifth Amendment not to have their marriages nullified, at least without giving them notice and a hearing. Relying in part on the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia, striking down a state ban on interracial marriage, the city contends: "Marriage status, and its license and certification, constitute property rights that trigger due process protection...At a minimum, due process requires that the State afford notice and an opportunity to be heard to same-gender couples whose rights will be affected by a determination as to the validity of their marriages and marriage licenses."

Last week, another federal constitutional question made its way into the state court cases. In the case of Cote-Whitacre, et al., v. Department of Public Health, in Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts, a group of already-married same-sex couples challenged the efforts of the state's governor to wipe out all marriages in Massachusetts of out-of-state couples who don't plan to live there. The governor has the reluctant support of the state attorney general. The governor is relying on a 1913 law that, according to the governor's legal staff, bars marriage in Massachusetts for those who could not marry in their home state; the governor says none of the other 49 states would allow such marriages. ...

The Massachusetts case, of course, is just beginning, so the California Supreme Court case for now appears to have a better chance of producing sooner an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

more
posted by Eve at 12:30 PM | link 0 comments

ROMNEY'S MARRIAGE VOWS: Boston Globe editorial

...Governor Romney's prepared remarks were heartfelt but repeated the old arguments opponents have raised ever since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that homosexual couples have the same rights to civil marriage as others. It was all there: the supposed ill effects on children; the dangers of judicial overreach; the undermining of civilization's defining pillar.

Yet more than a month since the first gay marriages, and after thousands of same-sex couples have committed their lives to one another, Romney couldn't point to any concrete damage to the Commonwealth or its institutions, and he was honest enough to tell the committee that "same-sex marriage doesn't hurt my marriage, or yours."

Romney does worry about harm to children, however, which is puzzling since Massachusetts has allowed unmarried same-sex couples to adopt and raise children for over a decade. Would he want to tear these children from loving homes?

Yesterday, Romney tried to say that the constitutional gay-marriage ban under consideration in Washington is not more restrictive than the Massachusetts amendment the Legislature narrowly advanced in March. But the Massachusetts amendment would explicitly establish civil unions, while the federal amendment says no state constitution can be construed as conferring marriage rights "or the legal incidents thereof" upon any union other than a heterosexual one. ...

Romney argued against bigotry yesterday but fretted over a society "indifferent about having fathers and mothers." Only when society indeed becomes indifferent to the everyday reality of gay couples living among us will Romney's call for "tolerance and understanding" be realized.

more
posted by Eve at 12:27 PM | link 0 comments

FLORIDA WOMAN WHO MARRIED LESBIAN PARTNER BARRED FROM TEACHING IN CHURCH: From the Associated Press

A 62-year-old Cape Coral woman who married her lesbian partner in Massachusetts was banned from teaching in the Church of Christ, Scientist, after she refused to "repent" for her actions.

Kathleen Clementson returned her teaching credentials and left the church. Her former students are now considered by the Christian Science board of directors to have had no primary instruction.

Clementson married Suzanne Nightingale, 49, also of Cape Coral, on a public beach on May 20, before Massachusetts started banning out-of-state same-sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses. The women have since bought a townhouse in that state, and said they plan to move there.

An Associated Press photo taken at the service was sent to newspapers around the world, and many people recognized Clementson's name in connection with the church, she said.

The church sent Clementson a letter in early June saying she had abused her role as a teacher, but did not define the abuse. The letter directed her to cut ties with former students, and said she could teach again only if she repented and served a three-year probation.

"They were not specific," Clementson said. "I don't feel I have anything to repent for more than anyone else."

Representatives from the Boston-based church did not return phone calls Wednesday. A local governing board member said the Christian Science Church of Cape Coral will abide by the Mother Church's decision.

Clementson's former students who are now church-approved practitioners can no longer advertise their services in the Christian Science Journal, or take annual refresher courses.

more
posted by Eve at 12:22 PM | link 0 comments

DOOR-TO-DOOR FOR SSM: From the Washington Post

...[The Human Rights Campaign], the nation's largest organization advocating the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender(GLBT) people, announced what its president, Cheryl Jacques, called a "massive and unprecedented effort to elect fair-minded leaders in November."

"This year's election is the most important in our members' history," Jacques said at a morning news conference in HRC's office here.

The issue of same-sex marriage, in particular President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, Jacques said, has motivated the HRC to commit a record $10 million on election-related activity. That includes $1.3 million in political action committee funds for candidates the HRC endorses, untold millions more on a soft-money campaign "to educate our community about what is at stake in this election" and a knock-on-the-door campaign with volunteers and staff dispatched to four battleground states: Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Wisconsin.

Like other political groups, the HRC is using sophisticated computer databases to identify prospective voters. Its target includes not only GLBT voters but also their friends and relatives who oppose the proposed constitutional amendment against same-gender marriage.

"The president is playing with fire," Jacques said, "and he's going to get burned."

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

FRENCH GAY-MARRIAGE FLAP: From Newsweek

[Is this a news piece? There's a pretty thick larding of opinionation. C'est la culture guerre, I suppose. --Eve]

...The first gay marriage in French history, earlier this month, has highlighted a cultural chasm, revealing that touchstone religious and social issues can still flare up in strikingly secular France. Since announcing that he would oversee the wedding, [Begles mayor] Mamere has been condemned by angry churchgoers, been sent a package of feces and received so many death threats that the Interior Ministry assigned him a bodyguard. Serge Dassault, owner of the conservative French daily Le Figaro, penned an op-ed piece accusing people like Mamere of trying to "destroy the basis of our society" and the concept of family. The Justice Ministry launched efforts to nullify the marriage, and last week Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin signed a disciplinary measure suspending Mamere from his mayoral duties for one month.

While even some socialist leaders have come out against gay marriage, they see the government's sanctioning of Mamere as extreme. The respected center-left daily Le Monde, which has expressed reservations about gay marriage, last week called the suspension a "government blunder" and mocked Villepin for using such measures against a man who has not taken bribes, pilfered state money or been linked to financial scandals--as have a number of top government officials. And by progressive European standards, Mamere is hardly pushing the envelope.

Belgium and the Netherlands already celebrate gay marriages. Sweden and Spain are expected to do so by the end of the year. A Gallup poll of the 15 European Union nations last year found 57 percent support, with virtually identical numbers in France. The bottom line is that it's France's government which is out of step with society, not gays who wish to marry, says Mamere, who received 5 percent of France's presidential vote as the Green Party candidate in 2002. ...

...The year before civil unions became law, in 1999, just 49 percent of French people were supportive. Two years later, with French civilization still on its feet, 70 percent backed them. Today even conservative French leaders who once lambasted the unions have discovered their merits, though chiefly as a bulwark against gay marriage. ...

If Mamere wins, other mayors may follow his leap into civil disobedience. If he loses, he promises to bypass France's conservative leaders and take the gay-marriage issue to the European Court of Human Rights. The goal would be a decision by 2007, the year France elects a successor to its aging President Chirac. The socialists, aware of overwhelming support for gay marriage among young people, are likely to choose an advocate. Either way, by a change of government or a ruling from the European court, Mamere awaits the day when all French people can marry freely--and when they have a government more in tune with the times.

more
posted by Eve at 12:13 PM | link 0 comments

HATCH DROPS PLANS FOR OWN AMENDMENT, SUPPORTS FMA: From the Salt Lake Tribune

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah has dropped plans to write his own constitutional amendment to allow state legislatures to decide if they will legally honor gay marriages performed in another state, throwing his full support behind a version drafted by Republican colleagues that forbids states from recognizing any same-sex marriage.

Democrats seized on the difference between the two approaches during a hearing of Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, saying a blanket federal prohibition on gay marriage tramples states' rights. But the hearing's star witness, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, cited Utah's territorial battle with the federal government over polygamy as an example of when federal intervention in state marriage policy is warranted and necessary.

"There was a long time ago a state that considered the practice of polygamy [legal] and as I recall the federal government correctly stepped in and said, 'That is not something the state should decide,' " Romney told the committee. "We have a federal view on marriage; this should not be left to an individual state."

Later in the hearing, responding to Democratic skepticism that marriage faces an imminent threat demanding prompt constitutional countermeasures, Romney again drew a parallel with polygamy, saying if Massachusetts suddenly legalized plural marriage, he suspected Congress would recognize the need for an immediate constitutional amendment.

The Republican governor who shepherded Utah's 2002 Olympics said due to his state's supreme court ruling that legalized gay marriage beginning last month, Massachusetts is "exporting" legally wed same-sex couples around the nation. When gay couples who wed in Massachusetts move elsewhere, "the definition of marriage will be applied in the state [where they live] as it is in Massachusetts," he said. ...

Hatch didn't specify why he shelved a plan he announced in March to write an amendment that did not include a definition of marriage as "a union of a man and woman" into the Constitution, as the Allard bill does. He had said it would be easier to win Senate passage of a resolution that did not include the definition but gave states the right to buck the "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution and refuse to recognize marriages that may be deemed legal in other states. Allard opposed Hatch's approach, saying it could actually allow states to legalize polygamy, and Republican leadership has been working to present the image of GOP members united behind Allard's Federal Marriage Amendment.

"It's coming down to this one amendment and I'm willing to -- I'm co-sponsor of this amendment and I will vote for it," Hatch said.

more
posted by Eve at 10:37 AM | link 0 comments

NEW QUESTION: IS THERE A "LIBERAL CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE"?

Susan Shell has a flawed but fascinating piece in the current Public Interest arguing that it is the push for same-sex marriage, rather than the opposition to it, that is illiberal.

Shell argues, "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."

She adds, "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."

Agree? Disagree? As always, click the email link below to join the debate!
posted by Eve at 12:30 AM | link 0 comments

THE MARRYING KIND: Bronwen McShea

[Bronwen is an intern at the Institute on Marriage and Public Policy, a.k.a. Our Sponsors.]

Here's an interesting study from Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe at the National Marriage Project, saying that most young American men are "the marrying kind." 56.3 percent of young heterosexual men in the 25-34 age group report they are not only married but happy to be so. A whopping 94 percent of them "say that they are happier being married than being single. ...Seventy-three percent say that their sex life is better since getting married, and 68 percent say that marriage has helped them become more financially stable."

Troubling, though, are some of the numbers regarding men's ideas about the meaning of marriage. A majority of married men don't "regard marriage as closely connected to 'building a family'," and they don't even view children "as an important reason for marriage." Also, most marry "according to a set of personal calculations rather than to a set of social expectations." Does this point to a culturally encouraged self-centeredness or lack of social-mindedness about marriage? Such attitudes are of little help to, say, the marriage crisis among young African Americans and the low numbers of high school kids who consider marriage as a road to happiness, things which are also indicated by the study. See what you think.
posted by Eve at 12:21 AM | link 0 comments

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF SSM: Congressional Budget Office

...In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO's usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government.

The number of same-sex couples who would marry if they had the opportunity is unknown, but the 2000 census offers some insights. The census does not ask about sexual orientation, but it allows people living with a nonrelative to identify themselves as "partners" instead of "housemates/roommates." Almost 600,000 households (or 1.2 million people) identified themselves as same-sex partners in 2000, roughly half in male couples and half in female couples. They represented about 0.6 percent of the total adult population and almost 1 percent of people between the ages of 30 and 50.(2) By several common measures of stability--age, home ownership, and length of residence--those 600,000 same-sex couples resemble married couples more than they resemble other cohabiting households, so it seems reasonable to assume that many of them would marry if given the chance.(3) Some would not, of course; but other same-sex couples who did not live together, or who labeled themselves "roommates" rather than "partners" in the census, might choose to marry. The census also contained limited data about the income, earnings, and assets of those 600,000 couples--clues that CBO used to gauge budgetary impacts.

For the purposes of this analysis, CBO assumed that about 0.6 percent of adults would enter into same-sex marriages if they had the opportunity. (That proportion is equivalent to nearly 600,000 couples in 2000, with adjustment for subsequent population growth of about 1 percent a year.) CBO's estimates reflect significant uncertainty because predicting how many same-sex couples would marry is difficult and because data on their incomes, assets, and participation in federal benefit programs are sparse. ...

On balance, legalization of same-sex marriages would have only a small impact on federal tax revenues, CBO estimates. Revenues would be slightly higher: by less than $400 million a year from 2005 through 2010 and by $500 million to $700 million annually from 2011 through 2014. Those amounts represent less than 0.1 percent of total federal revenues.

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

2014: WILL THE ARGUMENTS HAVE CHANGED?: Eve replies to Jonathan Rauch and about fifty other people

One of the key arguments for a federalist (state-by-state) implementation of same-sex marriage is that the states can serve as experimental labs. Let Massachusetts institute SSM, the argument runs, and then let's wait. We'll see (the pro-SSM side predicts) that everything goes just fine, and in a few years we can start taking these lessons into other states and instituting SSM there.

The less-serious version of this argument is, "The sky didn't fall!" Massachusetts has had SSM for over a month now, and lookit! The divorce rate hasn't skyrocketed, children are not abandoned on streetcorners, cats and dogs are not living together.

The standard response to this claim is to point out that cultural changes in the meaning of marriage--including deeply damaging cultural changes--probably take a little longer than a month to take effect in measurable ways. Opponents of SSM have not argued that SSM is magic that will instantly transform preexisting marriages into dark, sparkling Folger's crystals. We've argued that when you tell people that children don't need mothers and fathers, and that marriage is preeminently about the couple with children as optional extras at best, people do in fact start to believe you. That's not a light-switch, on-or-off event; it's a process of corrosion.

But you know, that's not even what I want to talk about right now. I want to ask whether we think that time will actually resolve the SSM argument; and, if so, how much time is needed. Here are some reasons I think ten years (to pick a fairly arbitrary date that is nonetheless much longer than most supporters of SSM would give it) won't be enough:

1) Would we ever accept this reasoning for redefinitions of marriage that we believe are absolutely wrong or inappropriate? Would federalism-as-experiment SSM supporters agree that New Hampshire should try out polygamy to see how that goes, or that Minnesota should try out brother-sister marriages? Or would we say, No, thanks, philosophy does just fine here, we don't need social-science data?

2) Everyone involved in the SSM debate who is heartily sick of hearing that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, please raise your hands. Expect to hear it repeated another couple thousand times in any discussion of federalist SSM "experiments," if in fact such experiments are undertaken.

3) Relatedly: You can't escape philosophy anyway. Look at the debate over those European countries that have instituted SSM or something like it. Everyone offers a host of social changes that took place within roughly the same period (secularization... SSM... the growth of the welfare state... women entering the workforce... whatever) and must then argue why their particular explanations are best. Those arguments rest on underlying theories of marriage, law's effect on society, and human nature. Why not just lay out the theories, then, and skip the social-statistics number-juggling?

Basically, time and federalism are not "get out of philosophy free" cards. We have to figure this out now.
posted by Eve at 10:43 PM | link 0 comments

HOW IT WON'T HAPPEN: Eve replies to Jonathan Rauch

(Third in a random and disorganized series of posts commenting on Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.)

In the post below, I talked about places where I think SSM will cause major rifts between the legal and the cultural understandings of marriage--in other words, the law will recognize, honor, and promote unions that a majority of Americans strongly reject. Rauch offers federalism and legislature-based strategies (rather than judiciary-based ones) as the solutions here: By requiring that SSM be instituted by legislative vote in one state at a time, rather than imposed by judges or imposed on the nation as a whole, he hopes to ensure that SSM is only legalized in the places where it is closest to the majority's understanding of marriage.

Rauch thinks a rift between legal and cultural understandings of marriage would have serious negative consequences: "In a community which looked on same-sex marriage with bafflement or outright hostility, a gay couple's marriage license would help solve some of their legal problems but would leave the social supports missing. Both the couple and the community would be shortchanged." Later, he writes, "Nationwide imposition of same-sex marriage by a federal court might discredit both gay marriage and the courts, as well as starting a long-lasting culture war like the one over abortion--only, perhaps, bigger." So federalism and legislature-over-judiciary are not solely procedural preferences for him: They're really important to securing the substantive value of same-sex marriage.

The thing is, SSM is just not going to happen that way. I have no idea how Rauch thinks his slow, majoritarian approach is going to prevail when legislatures have always rejected SSM whenever they've been allowed to vote on it, when instituting SSM has already become the province of the judicial and executive branches, and when SSM is presented in civil-rights language that calls for court intervention against the will of the majority.

Rauch is not going to get SSM the way he wants it. If he gets it at all, he will get a damaged, politicized version, rejected by most of the people around him. Given his strong (and well-argued) belief that social support, embedding the couple in a community that reinforces their marriage, is one of the key ways marriage strengthens couples, this is a pretty big problem for him. SSM in this respect is not like abortion, and Goodridge is not like Roe. Someone who supports abortion rights can say, "Well, yes, Roe caused a backlash, and there are lots of people who think abortion is abhorrent, but at least you can still get one." But with (civil) marriage, social support is a big part of how you "get one."

I'd be interested to know how important Rauch ultimately thinks social support is--is it worth it to actively fight against judicial or national imposition of SSM, or is it worth it to gamble on Goodridge-like decisions, figuring that after a period of instability eventually society will come 'round and most Americans will give up their opposition to SSM?

For other MD.com readers who agree with Rauch's procedural points (get SSM state-by-state and legislatively rather than nationally or judicially), how important do you all think the procedual approach is? Would you give up Massachusetts court-ordered SSM now in order to get legislative marriage later, or is the bird in the hand worth two in the bush?
posted by Eve at 9:24 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGE PROMOTION: Eve replies to Jonathan Rauch

(Second in a somewhat random, disorganized series of comments on Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.)

In chapter five, Rauch tells people who are concerned with civil rights, but who believe homosexual activity is wrong, that same-sex marriage does not constitute governmental promotion of homosexuality: "I am only reminding you that the question is not whether same-sex marriages should be approved of but whether they should be legal. The government may disapprove of many things, but it should ban them only if they harm other people, harm society, or violate somebody's rights; not simply as a gesture of contempt." (A long section immediately prior was dedicated to arguing that when government and society give special honor and legal status to plain old husband-wife marriage, that is necessarily a sign of contempt for homosexual relationships. I disagree with that--not everything is either singled out for honor or singled out for disdain, cf. friendship, sibling relationships, godparenthood, &c--but that's not what I want to talk about right now.)

On a somewhat similar note, Alisa Solomon, in a Nation piece expressing her caveats about the gay-marriage movement, says, "The marriage demonstrators make no demands, for example, that school curriculums include queer material or that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender teachers be protected from job discrimination."

I think the claim that same-sex marriage does not constitute government promotion of homosexual activity and homosexual relationships is conceptually wrong: Marriage is an honor. People get honored for doing good stuff, stuff they ought to do. The honor people get for marrying and the strong cultural affirmation of marriage are two major ways societies subtly push people into taking on the responsibilities of marriage. (I would bet a lot of money that more people get married to obtain this social honor than to get Social Security benefits.)

But even if we grant for the sake of argument that SSM does not necessarily, inherently entail governmental praise for homosexual relationships, both Rauch's and Solomon's claims are still unlikely to prove true in the contemporary political climate.

Public schools teach courses on "relationships" and on marriage. Schools in states with SSM will have to reshape their curricula to either a) say all relationship types are equal or b) SSM is equal to marriage. (Most parents believe neither of these things.) There's simply no chance that we will "compromise" such that SSM is permitted but is treated by the public-school system as a lesser kind of marriage. It's doubtful, for the same reasons, that public school curricula will be able to teach that children need mothers and fathers (rather than gender-neutral "parents").

The Healthy Marriage Initiative encompasses all kinds of marriage-strengthening and marriage-promoting programs that have been instituted at the state and local levels. These programs, too, will not be able to promote a "two-tier" understanding of marriage, in which SSM is permitted but not given the special honor and promotion conferred on marriage.

Efforts to institute and strengthen marital preferences in adoption laws (rules that say married couples should move to the head of the line for adoptions) will also not be able to distinguish between married couples who can provide adopted children with a mother and a father, and same-sex couples who cannot.

So SSM will promote homosexual relationships and give them the honor we have until now reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. Will the majority of the country, which disagrees with this view of homosexuality, accept that? Or will it become (even more) suspicious of all marriage-promotion programs, unwilling to support or participate in programs that push a worldview it believes is immoral and false?
posted by Eve at 9:23 PM | link 0 comments

SUNRISE, SUNSET: Eve Tushnet replies to Jonathan Rauch

(This is the first in a short, disorganized, and impressionistic series of comments on Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. I should say at the outset that Rauch's book is very much worth your time; it presents some of the best arguments for SSM that I've seen. I'll be starting with the places where I take issue with Rauch's stance, but I'll end the series--today or tomorrow--with what I thought was his strongest argument. OK, let's go.)

Gay Marriage begins and ends with references to the very sweet duet, "Do You Love Me?", from "Fiddler on the Roof." Tevye, the main character, persists in asking his wife, "Do you love me?", even though she finds the question bizarre: "I'm your wife." But he keeps asking: "Do you love me?"

And finally she replies: Do I love him?
For twenty-five years I've lived with him,
Fought with him, starved with him,
For twenty-five years, my bed is his.
If that's not love, what is?

The song nicely captures Rauch's view (and mine) that love, in the context of marriage, is not some wash of emotions and hormones, in the face of which we are powerless. Married love is an action. It's a stance of care and partnership, in which each spouse works for the good of both the other spouse and the family as a whole. Rauch writes about this active, willed love very well; he's mentioned that several heterosexual couples have told him that his book helped them to better understand their own marriages, and I'm not surprised. (Although there are big problems with his conception of the nature of the marriage partnership, of which more presently.) "Fiddler on the Roof" also has a recurring theme of change, of a traditional culture shifting away from arranged marriages.

So FOTR would seem to be a perfect exemplar of Rauch's view of marriage.

Except that I randomly happened to see a medley of FOTR songs recently, and (in between indulging my sentimental side) I couldn't help but notice the primary way in which the FOTR worldview is radically different from the Rauch view.

Because Tevye's isn't the only marriage in FOTR. Tevye's daughter Tzeitl also marries (in fact, she's the one who doesn't get an arranged marriage). And the song at Tzeitl and Motel's wedding, "Sunrise, Sunset," gains its emotional intensity from the aspect of marriage that Rauch downplays and often simply ignores: the way marriage links the generations, not only past and present, but future as well. Marriage, in "Sunrise," is inextricably linked to childbearing and childrearing, because marriage is about a future beyond the lives of the people gathered around the chuppa that day. Marriage is about a sense of continuity despite time and change, and a sense that the couple getting married is part of something much bigger than themselves--something bigger, even, than their love for one another. Something bigger even than those "twenty-five years."

"Sunrise" is really powerful. I mean, I don't like to think of myself as a sentimental person, but when the cast sang "Sunrise" at this medley performance I found myself thinking, C'mon, get a grip, if you tear up your mascara is going to run. The emotions at play here are deep-rooted and strong, and they form part of the core of our cultural understanding of marriage.

I expect that this emotional intensity is one of the main driving forces behind the movement for same-sex marriage: We know marriage is a huge thing, bigger than ourselves. We want to form our identities by embedding ourselves in a community and tradition, rather than being left to our own unsatisfying devices; we want commonality with our own parents; we want the reconciliation with time and mortality that marriage brings. But those deep emotions make sense only in a child-centered, rather than couple-centered, understanding of marriage.
posted by Eve at 10:34 AM | link 0 comments

RACING DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: Knute Berger

...What I have trouble with is the idea that marriage--particularly marriage as described by conservatives and traditionalists--is somehow a pure, untrammeled, sacred institution that should remain forever unchanged. The fact is, it's a fluid, complicated concept that is highly charged, yet rarely examined by most of us.

And that's one of the great things about the gay marriage debate. Just as gays and lesbians have played an important role in dragging America's sex life into the daylight, the same thing is now happening to matri­mony. The gay marriage question forces everyone to dig for the underlying, but largely unspoken, assumptions of what marriage is and who it's for (right answer: mothers-in-law). Is it a "holy bond"? Is it private or public? Is it society's way of protecting children? Is it a business arrangement that is simply another chapter in Trump: The Art of the Comeback?

Some advocates of gay marriage deny that allowing same-sex unions will result in any fundamental changes to the institution of marriage. Conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan, for one, argues that allowing gays to marry will convert many into card-carrying members of the mainstream family values club. He's debated the point with numerous other conservatives in many forums, notably David Frum in Slate and Stanley Kurtz, a Hoover Institution fellow and contributing editor to National Review Online.

While I heartily agree with Sullivan that gays should be allowed to marry, I think he’s wrong that there's no "slippery slope" here (or as conservatives would have it, a "slippery cliff"). Gay marriage will alter our view of traditional marriage. In fact, it already has: It's inviting everyone to look at the realities of marriage in a modern world of no-fault divorce, adoption, abortion, birth control, artificial insemination, equal rights, surrogate parenting, domestic partnerships, and cloning.

Critics like Kurtz believe gay marriage will deliver a deathblow to the institution. Perhaps so, but it's more of a mercy killing than a homicide. Modern science alone has already shredded many of our older assumptions about the institution by expanding the options for shaping families. (Two mommies? Soon Heather could be her own mommy!) And as Trump's rather mainstream marital history suggests, Americans are straining to find more room within the straitjacket of traditional marriage.

Among the big bugaboos conservatives conjure in response to the prospect of gay marriage is what might come next, polygamy? (They also worry about bestiality and incest, but since neither have anything to do exclusively with marriage, they belong at the bottom of some other slope.) Polygamy is a great issue to raise because it is a legitimate question: Why can't marriage be a partnership of more than two partners? Serial monogamy--Trump-style--is essentially polygamy drawn out over time and practiced, for all intents and purposes, under the guise of "extended" families that include all the parents, partners, and offspring. It takes a village, indeed.

Opponents of polygamy point to cults and renegade Mormons for examples of the misery it produces--child brides, abuse, incest. But these woes aren't the offspring of polygamy alone; they are all too common within plain, old-fashioned, vanilla, heterosexual Christian marriage, too. It mostly proves that if you outlaw polygamy, only outlaws will have polygamy. In fact, the majority of the world's cultures have practiced it, and many still do, happily and sanely. Imagine if Americans had the right to practice it within an open, accepted legal framework. If it made raising a family more affordable, made life richer and family ties stronger, if it gave people more variety, would it really be a threat to society?

Whatever the real or imagined results of polygamy, if nothing else it helps us expand the sense of possibility for a one-size-fits-all institution. According to a story last month in The Washington Post, a first-time groom in Senegal, where nearly half of all marriages are multiple, registers his marital intentions, "opting for monogamy, limited polygamy with two wives, or full polygamy." To some extent, this kind of cafeteria approach to marriage is already practiced here in the U.S., where in some states, you can choose "covenant" marriages that make getting a divorce more difficult than the average marriage.

In our increasingly diverse, pluralistic society, gay marriage is simply one more option to add to a menu that could be far larger--and richer--than what we have now. If that’s the slippery slope, break out the skis.

more
posted by Eve at 10:31 AM | link 0 comments

I DO--I THINK: Steve Wiecking

...I think of that kid every time gays and lesbians in this country take another history-making step forward into legislative acceptance. That kid, who never had a single positive conversation about the validity of becoming a man loving another man, would never have believed that one day the front page of The New York Times would read: "Hundreds of Same Sex Couples Wed in Massachusetts." My dreams were tied up in who I was told I could never become, so much so that there's no telling how different my life would be if I'd grown up in a world that held up gay marriage as an ideal. I don't know how great an ideal it is, but I think the only people who should be concerned about it are gay.

No one can tell me I shouldn't be allowed to marry. Now that I'm an adult capable of forging my own reality, I can't even believe it's an issue. I feel as removed yet somehow as integral a part of it as I did about gays in the military--won't be enlisting any time soon, but will bite your head off for suggesting I can't join the ranks. Listening to the endless media debate is like overhearing strangers discuss whether or not I'll be given permission to take in Shrek 2 over the weekend: I may never want to experience the big, cheesy thing, but I'll be damned if anyone is going to keep me out as long as I'm willing to pay the price of admission. Gay unions are fleeting? The divorce rate will skyrocket? So? Gays and lesbians have every human right to be as messy, ill-advised, unprepared, offensive, and just generally stupid as everybody else--and reap the same legal benefits for said stupid behavior. Children are adversely affected by having parents of the same gender? Our general sexual permissiveness will produce wanton libertines? What's your point, counselor? Homosexuals have the freedom to vex, derange, and otherwise permanently damage our children just as surely as our parents did. ...

...I like the families we've constructed whose bonds are just as strong without the benefit of blood or bureaucracy; they already feel official to me. What's so great about the way the rest of the world lives that we should need its approval?

I'm too much a child of the movies to not want to fall in love, and a world that recognizes gay love as a goal would be an im­measurably healthier place for us all to be. The self-hatred that makes boys and girls of so many gay men and women would, I think, start to recede into the past; gay kids could grow up making the same dumb romantic mistakes that straight people take for granted as part of adolescence. But it's OK with me that some of our desires are different, that they'll always be different--to say nothing of the aspirations of the transgendered community, whose dreams are always con­veniently scuttled to the side in favor of queers who more closely resemble Middle America. The more homosexuals step toward assimilation, and the more my heart leaps at the thought of gay relationships being considered "normal," the more I think of that flaming 9-year-old kid who just wanted to be Charlie’s angel, because I'll tell you, there's one of those kids born every minute, and no amount of I dos is going to make that kid's dreams conventional. I don't want gay marriage to go down as somehow completing us, as though we had something missing that heterosexuals are now so generous to bestow on us. Let this amazing, monumental, and, yes, inevitable change in American culture be not an end to the way we look at being gay but a beginning. Let's not think of gay marriage as a way for the rest of society to respect us--because, really, who cares?--but as simply one of many new ways for us to consider each other.

more
posted by Eve at 10:24 AM | link 0 comments

TILL DEATH DO THEY PART?: Nina Shapiro

There's an old joke among lesbians, relates Dorsey Green, a Seattle therapist and author of Lesbian Couples and The Lesbian Parenting Book. Question: What do you take on a second date? Answer: A U-Haul.

Commitment phobia doesn't appear to be a problem when two women are involved. "Lesbian couples tend to move in together faster," Green says. And that's not necessarily a good thing. Like many of her colleagues counseling lesbians, Green says, she believes that women may not give themselves enough time to get to know each other: "I argue hard for people to slow down."

It's something worth thinking about as we haltingly enter a new age of gay and lesbian marriage. While there's been tons of attention on the first controversial bursts of weddings and related court maneuverings, few have looked at what makes gay and lesbian relationships work--or falter. It's a neglected subject in academia as well as in the press, but there is some research out there.

A FEW YEARS AGO, psychologist John Gottman, who runs a famed "love lab" at the University of Washington, made a splash when he announced the results of a 12-year study of gay and lesbian couples. The study, based in part on observations of couples talking about problems, offered mostly positive news. Both same-sex and straight couples had much in common, he concluded, as far as overall relationship satisfaction and quality, mirroring much of the research to date. Where they differed, though, same-sex couples had the edge: Gottman contended that they were more upbeat in the face of conflict, used fewer controlling or hostile emotional tactics, and took arguments less personally. The study, however, looked at a very small number of couples--just 42 gay and lesbian couples in all. ...

Gottman's findings are also overshadowed by more sobering research. Studies consistently find that gay and lesbian relationships tend not to last as long as heterosexual ones—even in places where gay and lesbian marriage exists. A ground­breaking new study by four researchers in Scandinavia compared the divorce rates among gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals in Norway and Sweden, both of which allow gays and lesbians to form "registered partnerships" that are almost identical legally to marriage. Presented this spring at the annual conference of the Population Association of America, the study by Gunnar Andersson and colleagues found that gay men were 50 percent more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples in Sweden. Even more interesting, it showed that lesbians were not only more prone to divorce than straight couples but were twice as likely to split up as gay men. In Norway, the researchers found a similar dynamic.

The researchers posit that same-sex couples may break up more often in part because children tend to be involved less frequently. This coincides with what academics and therapists have observed in this country; only here, with marriage until recently out of the question, gays and lesbians have even fewer obstacles to leaving relationships. Professionals who work with same-sex couples also stress that social and family pressures can weigh heavily on relationships. ...

What's more, lesbians can have a particularly hard time dealing with differences in a relationship, according to therapist Green. There's an expectation that because both partners are women, they're supposed to be the same. Green works with women on accepting differences without seeing them as problems. She says one of the biggest differences that crops up in all couples is around sex drive; one partner usually has more of one than the other. Possibly because women have more emotionally complicated sex drives than men, lesbian couples tend to see sexual interest drop off "sooner and more drama­tically" than either straight or gay-male couples, Green says.

A DIFFERENT KIND of sexual issue surfaces among gay men. Not infrequently, they have openly nonmonogamous relationships, according to psychologist Martell. "It doesn't have to create conflict," he maintains. But couples have to negotiate rules. "In couples that make it work, it's not like it's a free-for-all." One couple might declare the house off-limits for affairs. Another might decide that affairs are only OK on business trips. "If those rules are broken, it causes just as much trouble as infidelity in heterosexual relationships," Martell says. ...

If issues like these can stress a relationship, some therapists wonder whether new trends will slow down the breakup rate among gay and lesbian couples. Not only has the prospect of gay marriage raised the bar on relationship longevity, so, too, has the increasing propensity among gay and lesbian couples to have or adopt children. Will gays and lesbians now find themselves staying together for the sake of the kids?

more
posted by Eve at 10:17 AM | link 0 comments

CAN MARRIAGE BE SAVED? Nation symposium

...We asked a range of writers and scholars to offer their thoughts. Should marriage be abolished? Reformed? How is it that marriage--despite its routine and oft-documented failures--persists as the focus of both our personal aspirations and political struggles? Their responses follow. --The Editors

RANDALL KENNEDY

...Unfortunately, there are some progressive African-American activists who oppose analogizing racial discriminations and sexual-orientation discriminations. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, for example, objects to the analogy, asserting that "some slave masters were gay," that "gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution" and that "they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote." These objections should be swept aside. Yes, some slave masters were gay. But some were also black. And more to the point, some slaves were gay, as are a substantial number of black people who are descendants of slaves--a fact that Reverend Jackson seems keen to ignore. As for comparisons of legal standing, blacks and other racial minorities currently occupy a higher legal status than do gays and lesbians. In many locales, gays and lesbians are subject to open, unembarrassed and legally validated discriminations in terms of marriage, adoption, employment, housing, public accommodations and military service. Today, governments in America prevent no one from marrying on account of racial difference. But in forty-nine of the fifty states, gays and lesbians are wrongly prohibited from marrying on account of gender sameness. This is an injustice in which all Americans have a stake and against which all Americans should rally.

Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School, is the author of Interracial Intimacies: Sex, Marriage, Identity and Adoption (Vintage).

EDMUND WHITE

...Until a year ago I would have sniffed at the gay pro-marriage movement as just one more effort on the part of gay neocons to assimilate with their white, middle-class, straight friends and relatives. But the uproar of the Christian right against gay marriage has won me over to the cause. Anything that Republicans and Christians hate so much can't be all bad. The question for me is no longer one of lifestyle but rather of civil rights. Lesbians and gays should have all the same rights as straights. Some of the rights we gained earlier were peripheral (and often reversible), whereas marriage goes right to the heart of national concepts of community and the future. Civil unions are not as good as marriages precisely because they lack the quasi-mystical symbolism (and many of the rights of inheritance and adoption).

Curiously, perhaps the ardor and zeal that gays are bringing to marriage may renew the prestige of the institution even in the eyes of straights. And maybe gay male couples--who aren't subjected to the compassionate, civilizing influence of women--need marriage to soften them, bring a note of humanity and kindness into their relationships.

Edmund White, who teaches writing at Princeton, has written seventeen books. ...

MICHAEL BRONSKI

LIVING IN CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS--a city so committed to being in the vanguard of the right-to-marry movement that it opened the doors to City Hall at 12:01 am Monday, May 17, to be the first municipality in the United States to issue state-sanctioned marriage licenses to queer couples--I feel that I am often in the eye of the same-sex marriage hurricane. While I have mixed feelings about the fight for same-sex marriage--which range from a 1960s gay liberation-instilled distrust of the institution to a cheerful acceptance that "equality under the law" has to be a good thing--there is one aspect of all this that drives me crazy. Now that many of my 40-60-year-old lesbian and gay male friends are getting hitched (many opting for the traditional wedding dinner and party they cannot afford), I wish them well. But I also wish they would be more honest about their motives.

My friends are, for the most part, women and men who have a history of political activism and who, even a decade ago, would have been dead set against looking for the state's imprimatur on their intimate relationships. Yet they are rushing to the altar. Sure, civil marriage will provide gay couples some benefits that are now granted to heterosexuals--but until the federal government recognizes same-sex marriage, the scope of these benefits is quite limited. The rush to the altar is so strong that I can only think there is another reason; despite their stated countercultural politics and commitment to lesbian-feminism and gay liberation, these friends have a deep-seated, sentimental attachment to traditional marriage, with all its emotional weight and social trappings.

Equally surprising to me is that, to a large degree, this is a gendered affair. In fact, close to 75 percent of marriages that have taken place (legally) in Boston and (illegally) in San Francisco have been between women. (In my extensive social and political circle of friends, I know of only two males couples who have decided to get hitched.) Clearly there is something about state-sanctioned marriage that is more appealing to lesbians, and probably women in general.

And why not? These are women who were raised on Barbie--that rubberized icon of femininity, whose most sublime apotheosis was as a beautiful Bride--and who were caught up in the first wave of commercial propaganda of the postwar Wedding Industry. Is there any doubt, in anyone's mind, that we live in a society that is completely dominated by a Marriage Culture that tells us from the age of consciousness that the only way to be happy is to be married? And that women are the primary targets of this cruel myth? ...

Feminism has astutely dissected how the fashion and "glamour" industries have devastated women's lives. They have scrutinized how commercialism of all kinds has harmed women. Yet, as far as I can tell, the gay and lesbian community has refused to discuss how the Wedding Industry--from Bride's magazine to the newly minted "same-sex marriage greeting cards" that are selling briskly in gay bookstores--has influenced our lives. Marriage means many things to many people. But to willfully refuse to examine how marriage is deeply connected to--and propelled by--consumerism is both dangerous and destructive.

I am less worried about state-sanctioned marriage--there are some useful benefits here that are awarded to heterosexuals and not to same-sex couples--than I am about consumer-sanctioned marriage.

Michael Bronski is a writer, critic and journalist. His last book, Pulp Friction: Uncovering the Golden Age of Gay Male Pulp (St. Martin's), was just awarded a Lammy Award for best anthology. A visiting professor in women and gender as well as Jewish studies at Dartmouth College, he has been active in the Gay Liberation Movement since 1969.

more
posted by Eve at 9:35 AM | link 0 comments

THE WEDDING MARCH: Alisa Solomon

...Laying claim to this narrative, queer spousal supplicants have displaced the once-dominant images of their community as perverts and predators. ... But the imagery glowing into living rooms today cannot whip up that particular anxiety. The marriage demonstrators make no demands, for example, that school curriculums include queer material or that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender teachers be protected from job discrimination. Rather, they seek public equality in the traditionally private realm of family. ...

Moreover, plugging unreservedly into the wedding plot can close down queer options even as it opens straight hearts. In romantic comedies, cast-out and suspect lovers always have to prove that they merit comic closure--whether by answering riddles, retrieving some symbolic object, making it through an ordeal or by simply growing up--and the protest-spectacles for gay marriage have been no exception. In order to be embraced as ordinary couples, the heroes of these nuptials must tacitly renounce such practices as promiscuity or preferences for communal rather than nuclear household arrangements. Even if domestic normality is exactly what innumerable gay and lesbian couples want, the mass public display of this desire as the primary queer demand excludes those in the movement who don't share that dream. Worse, it accepts the meanspirited neoliberal principle that citizens must show that they are worthy of their rights. Like public assistance that is provided only to the so-called "deserving poor," the recognition that gay marriage bestows goes only to "deserving" queers.

Some thirty-three years ago, the Gay Activist Alliance (GAA) took over New York's City Clerk's Office and declared "Gay Day" at the marriage bureau. When heterosexuals applied for licenses, the demonstrators gleefully turned them away.

How thrilling the cheekiness of that zap seems now--as does its openness to the possibility of abolishing marriage altogether. But the GAA--having split off from the Black Panther-supporting, Vietnam War-opposing Gay Liberation Front--helped pave the way down the aisle by narrowing the movement to a single-issue gay rights agenda.

Through spectacle and mass action, this year's protest weddings--and then, the first days of the real ones in Massachusetts--have reasserted the heady possibilities of a queer public sphere even as they have pressed for access to a privatized set of rights. Once married--secure in their protections and recognized as full citizens--will gay and lesbian couples step out into that public space and participate in the contentious work of democracy? Might their contentment renew their sense of solidarity and visions of liberation? Everyone is a sucker for a love story that ends with a wedding. What happens after that joyful finale is ours to invent.

more
posted by Eve at 9:32 AM | link 0 comments

NATION MARRIAGE ISSUE EDITORS' INTRO: Rich Kim and Betsy Reed

...Such a range of perspectives is urgently needed in the gay-marriage debate, which is typically conducted in pro/con format. The "pro" picture often leaves the impression that gays and lesbians just want a place at the altar-neither mining the once-robust queer and feminist critique of marriage nor probing the fractious state of the marital union. "Ironically," notes Judith Stacey, "feminists and gay liberationists find ourselves defending gay marriage against the conservative backlash." Though Donna Minkowitz writes here of her desire to marry, and Catharine Stimpson recounts the reasons she'd prefer to abstain, their essays share a wariness about what gays and lesbians may be marrying into--"a moralistic and ridiculously unitary vision of the way people ought to live," as Minkowitz puts it.

Exactly such a vision is now supported by public policy, as Sharon Lerner reveals in her analysis of the Bush Administration's vaunted marriage-promotion initiative aimed at low-income populations. Absent coercive federal policy, young, white, professional women are pressured to get hitched on a "timetable" by marriage rules repeated ad nauseum in popular culture and self-help books, as Hillary Frey reports. Marriage promotion of another sort occurs nightly on reality TV shows like The Bachelor and Average Joe, where, Judith Halberstam writes, marriage has "become a game show," and a telegenic spouse just one more prize. "Heterosexuality never looked so fragile," she concludes. By contrast, gay protest weddings in New Paltz, San Francisco and dozens of other municipalities, described here by Alisa Solomon, follow the "enduring, endearing narrative" of two lovers overcoming obstacles to wed. Like the larger debate over gay marriage, these ceremonies hold "both radical and depoliticizing potential." Here's hoping the former prevails.

more
posted by Eve at 9:30 AM | link 0 comments

THE NATION's current issue is all about marriage. It looks like some of the most interesting pieces are only available to subscribers, and I can't find them on Nexis; but I'll be linking to the pieces I can read, so you can read them too.

Whole issue is here.
posted by Eve at 9:23 AM | link 0 comments

AMENDMENT'S BACKERS TRY AGAIN ON SSM: From the New York Times

Though a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage stands little chance of passing this year, the issue is nonetheless heating up on Capitol Hill, pushed by Republican leaders who are determined to force Democrats into an uncomfortable debate in the weeks before the Democratic convention at the end of next month.

In the Senate, Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, has scheduled a vote on the amendment for the week of July 12.

On Tuesday, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, a Republican who has emerged as a pivotal figure in the debate since his state legalized same-sex marriage under court order, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, telling lawmakers that the ban was necessary for "the preservation of a structure that has formed the basis of all known successful civilizations." ...

The fight arouses intense passions on both sides, as was evident in Mr. Romney's appearance. Democrats, who had until Tuesday largely avoided a series of Republican hearings on gay marriage, turned out in force, sparring with the governor and interrupting him at every turn. Democrats also complained sharply that Republicans were rushing a vote on the amendment before it had the customary committee review.

"This debate is not about preserving the sanctity of marriage--it is about preserving a Republican White House and Senate," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

Mr. Leahy said the Senate was spending time on the amendment because the Republican leadership wanted to put lawmakers on record as opposing the amendment, "apparently including the many Republicans who have expressed reservations" about it.

One such Republican is Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, a longtime supporter of gay and lesbian rights. Mr. Smith, who opposes gay marriage, has said the only amendment he can support is one that will allow states to decide whether to permit civil unions or offer other legal rights to gays.

On Tuesday though, Mr. Smith stood by the side of Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who is a chief sponsor of the amendment, and read a carefully worded statement that expressed support for considering an amendment, so long as the amendment met those criteria.

"Words have meaning, and few words have more meaning to our culture and civilization than does marriage," Mr. Smith said. "However imperfectly practiced by American men and women, it remains an ideal that deserves to be protected or at least debated by the American people in a constitutional process."

more
posted by Eve at 9:21 AM | link 0 comments

MOTHER GOOSE AND GRIMM CARTOON
posted by Eve at 9:19 AM | link 0 comments

MY BIG FAT FUNKY QUEER MARRIAGE: Richard Goldstein

["Strong language and sexual situations," as the MPAA says. --Eve]

It's rare for the left and the right to agree, especially in the gay community. But on same-sex marriage, they pretty much do. Many radical queers concur with homocons that matrimony is a conservative institution, and that giving gays and lesbians the right to wed will turn them into paragons of normalcy. Of course, the left abhors this prospect while the right can't wait for it to happen. Well, I don't think it will.

I'm convinced that if marriage becomes a legal option, all sorts of queers will exercise it. My guy and I sure will, and it isn't going to make us change our ways. Of course, we're not a lesbian couple, or even a typical gay-male couple. But then, there is no such thing.

Under the matching tuxes and gowns on the same-sex wedding cakes lies a universe of particularities. Queers are as various in our sensibilities as the many words that describe us, and so will our relationships be, even if they're licensed by the state. The media may project an image of us as wholesome folks. I guess that moves the agenda, as activists like to say, but it masks an important truth. That's why I want to write about a real queer marriage--mine. ...

Tony was a real whore back then (we once reckoned that his partners could practically fill the Radio City Music Hall), and I was a conflicted romantic with a jealous streak. I remember lying in his bed during those passion-fruity days and gazing at the books we were reading: a French novel called Tricks for him, Edmund White's A Boy's Own Story for me. This difference sparked a lot of heat between us, and a lot of stress. We've come close to the edge on several occasions. But we've been seasoned by our crises, and we've managed to endure because at the core of our relationship is the vow.

And love, yes: a passionate congruity, an exchange of emotional DNA. In the inner zone where reality and memory meet, we are each other's father and son. He's the lava in my light, the trick that keeps on ticking, the one who calms me when I cling to him at night. I may call him my partner for purposes of formality, but in my heart he will always be my boyfriend.

As you can probably tell, we're liberation babies. I know that times have changed. Gay couples that promise to love and honor, if not obey, may see things differently. A generation raised to fear promiscuity and honor respectability will place a higher value on monogamy. And couples with kids are likely to have a distinct perspective. Children refocus the libido, at least when they're young. But I suspect that, as these gay swains age, the marriages that last will be those that respect each partner's deepest sexual proclivities, whatever they may be. ...

...This prompts another question, one that lies at the core of the current debate: What is marriage now?

To the gay right, it's nothing less than the fulcrum of wholeness. Listen to what Jonathan Rauch has to say: "No other institution has the power to turn narcissism into partnership, lust into devotion, strangers into kin." Personally, I'd like to hold on to all the narcissism, lust, and strangers I can muster, even as a married man. And I'd hate to see folks fall for the idea that marriage is necessary--or sufficient--for devotion.

In his recent book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, Rauch maintains that being denied the right to wed is the main reason why many gays have a rough time finding love. I think he's got it wrong. Stigmatized people don't find it easier to love simply because they can marry. (Just check out the attitude toward intimacy in gangsta rap.) Freedom from stigma, not matrimony, is the key to wholeness. Still, the two are synergistically linked. Gays won't have access to legal marriage until the onus against us is lifted, and the onus won't be fully erased until we gain the right to wed. That's why I believe marriage rights are an essential part of gay liberation--and vice versa. ...

I won't be surprised if the first reaction to legal marriage from gay couples is to replicate the most conventional behavior of straights. That's what happens when you're let into an exclusive club for the first time. But once these couples relax, and same-sex weddings become commonplace, my gaydar tells me that the liberationist code will assert itself in a new setting.

What is that code? You'll find its basis in Walt Whitman's essay "Democratic Vistas." "The greatest lessons of Nature [are] the lessons of variety and freedom," he wrote. That's a pretty good standard for a democracy, but there's a reason why Whitman is the godfather of gay liberation. We live his ideas in a special way. The values of variety and freedom have always been at the heart of homosexual society.

I don't think marriage will change that. Some gay couples will choose picket-fence fidelity while others follow the path Tony and I have chosen, or forge an entirely different route to intimacy. That's what freedom and variety mean in our time, and not just for queers. A lot of straights are embracing these values, too--but not without ambivalence.

Too many straight couples are caught in the conflict between the old hetero ideal of monogamy and the new lived reality. I hope gay couples don't put themselves in a similar bind. Our tradition is flexibility--and I think this value can help our marriages endure. Indeed, the scant data from Denmark and Vermont suggest that gay and lesbian couples are more likely to stick together than are straights. One reason may be their willingness to be supple about the basis of their bond.

When this fight is won, Tony and I will show up at the marriage bureau, not because we yearn to be normal but because matrimony agrees with us. We've both been married before to women whom we still love. I told you we weren't a typical gay couple. Maybe that makes this advice suspect, but I'll give it anyway:

Hello, queer lovers, wherever you are.
You can have your wedding cake and eat it, too.
Marriage is what you make of it,
Not what it makes of you.

more
posted by Eve at 10:02 PM | link 0 comments

THE NON-FANATIC CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE: Geov Parrish at WorkingForChange

...But as gay unions, in whatever form, draw closer to being a legal and cultural reality, a more nuanced, moderate opposition is gathering force. Secular opponents have raised questions that advocates must answer. ...

For better or worse, proponents of gay marriage need to understand and be able to respond to those concerns. They include:

The contract law model. Stanley Kurtz, writing in the conservative journal Weekly Standard, argues that gay marriage is part of a slippery slope that leads inevitably to polyamory and "...a variety of relationship contracts linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female." If this is a change society isn't ready for, Kurtz clearly isn't ready for it; he spends much of his article detailing how polyamory advocates (advocates of multiple partners) support gay marriage, as though this were damning evidence of a massive conspiracy against traditional values. In a sense, it is.

But the underlying point is worth examining. What does it mean if marriage is taken out of the church, taken out of its traditional limits, and derives its legal basis instead solely from contract law? It has implications for alimony and custody of children in divorces; for the finances and real property of common-law marriage; for the tax code; and much more. All must fundamentally change if the logic of gay marriage is followed. Imagine, for example, common property statutes -- or child custody -- if a half dozen pairs of people have various interlocking relationships.

Promoting homosexuality. The most obvious objection, and hardly limited to avowed homophobes. The concern is simply that with the rearrangement of so much law to accommodate it, and stamp of "normality" attached, more and more people will try gay sex, or (gasp!) "become" gay. Reasons why this is seen as a bad thing, without considering any biblical sanctions, range from the traditional (yuck!) to issues of procreating for the species and public health with unsafe sex and multiple partners.

Undermining "family values." ...If marriage is seen as simply a legal contract, such vows might be easier to dishonor, or ultimately break, than when it is seen as a once-in-a-lifetime union under God. Society has already been moving in this direction for decades, with rising divorce rates and the dissolution of the traditional two-parent family as the prevalent model in America. Gay marriage, opponents fret, is more dirt on marriage's coffin.

Assimilation. Finally, opposition to gay marriage also comes from more radical gays who worry about the opposite influence, and reject what they consider a fundamentally straight institution. ...

One of the underpinnings of this argument is the same as the more alarmist opposition: the understanding that one of the ways in which people rebel against the sexual norm is by having multiple partners. Some radical queers, especially men, consider multiple partners, singly or in groups, as an essential part of the gay experience. That's the polyamory bogeyman of opponents like Kurtz.

One way or another, the question he and other secular opponents raise must be answered: if marriage is to become a union between any two consenting adults, what legal limits can or should society put on that? Gender is currently one; a lack of other partners is another. A third -- minimum age -- is almost universally recognized as a useful limit. In the end, opponents have a point: gay marriage is less about an inalienable right, and more about a choice society has to make, a change with far-ranging consequences for law and culture. Our society may or may not be ready to change its mind.

more
posted by Eve at 9:59 PM | link 0 comments

NY APPEALS COURT TO CONSIDER VERMONT CIVIL UNION CASE: From the Associated Press

An appeals court is weighing whether New York should recognize a gay civil union from Vermont and allow a Long Island man to sue a Manhattan hospital for malpractice in the death of his longtime partner.

The court will decide to uphold or overturn a Long Island judge's ruling that John Langan could sue St. Vincent's Hospital for allegedly mishandling the case of his partner, Neal Conrad Spicehandler, who died at the hospital after he was hit by a car in midtown Manhattan.

The case turns on whether Langan and Spicehandler's 2000 civil union in Vermont made Langan a spouse with the right to sue the hospital under New York law.

Nassau County Supreme Court Justice John Dunne ruled in Langan's favor last year, but the hospital appealed. A four-judge panel heard oral arguments Tuesday.

Some gay rights advocates said they believe a victory for Langan could lay the foundation for New York to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts and countries such as Canada and Belgium.

Some experts said, however, that a victory for Langan could have more limited implications.

"This is an important step, but it doesn't usher in gay marriage in New York state," said Katherine Franke, an expert in gay rights and constitutional law at Columbia University School of Law. ...

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and a group of five New York bar associations have filed briefs supporting Lambda Legal, the gay rights law center representing Langan.

Lambda argued Tuesday that New York had long recognized relationships such as common law marriages that were created in other states but would not have been permitted in New York.

New York's highest court even ruled in 1953 that the state had to recognize a Rhode Island marriage between a man and his niece, Lambda attorney Adam Aronson said. ...

Aronson also put forward the argument that Langan and Spicehandler's relationship was entitled to equal protection under New York's constitution and that their 15-year relationship was equivalent to a marriage and should be treated as such.

New York's highest court has ruled that a gay partner is equivalent to a family member in a case involving a rent-controlled apartment, Aronson said. ...

St. Vincent's spokesman Michael Fagan declined to comment on the specifics of the case, saying only, "In New York state the law is that unless you're married you're not entitled to spousal benefits. We're not looking to expand the law or restrict the law."

more
posted by Eve at 9:55 PM | link 0 comments

UK LORDS UPHOLD SAME-SEX TENANCY RIGHTS: From the Guardian

The rights of gays to take over tenancies when their spouses die was upheld by the law lords yesterday.

When the court of appeal gave the same rights as heterosexuals to homosexuals in November 2002 it was hailed as a breakthrough.

Lawyers said at the time that the appeal judges had rewritten previous legislation to embrace European convention rights outlawing discrimination.

Now four out of the five law lords hearing the case have endorsed that decision, throwing out an appeal by a landlord, Ahamad Ghaidan. He wanted to end Hugh Walwyn-Jones's statutory tenancy, which is subject to rent rise restrictions, after he died. ...

Lady Hale, in her ruling, said it was not long ago when people could be banned from a bar because of their sex or colour. The guarantee of equal treatment was "essential to democracy" and this case was an example of a difference in treatment between a homosexual and heterosexual partner.

She went on: "Homosexual relationships can have exactly the same qualities of intimacy, stability and interdependence that heterosexual relationships do." ...

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said the question the case asked was whether the phrase in the Rent Act "as his or her wife or husband" could survive the coming into force of the Human Rights Act.

These words were applied to those eligible to inherit tenancies and the law lords were told the aim of the act was to provide protection for the traditional family.

more
posted by Eve at 9:54 PM | link 0 comments

MITT ROMNEY TESTIFIES BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: From the Associated Press

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose state is the only one to recognize gay marriages, on Tuesday urged passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, even as the conservative who wrote a federal law denying recognition to such marriages said that law was sufficient.

Senate backers of the ban have predicted that gay marriages will spread like a "wildfire" across the country, eroding traditional marriage and voiding more restrictive laws in other states.

"It is not possible for the issue to remain solely a Massachusetts issue, it must now be confronted on a national basis," Romney said.

But in a preview of what is certain to be a politically charged debate, former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the Constitution shouldn't be used as a vehicle for banning homosexual marriage. His remarks suggested that some of the strongest opposition to the proposed amendment may come from conservatives who abhor gay unions.

"We meddle with the Constitution to our own peril," Barr said. "If we begin to treat the Constitution as our personal sandbox, in which to build and destroy castles as we please, we risk diluting the grandeur of having a constitution in the first place."

In contrast, Romney, who has had to grapple with his state's first-in-the-nation court ruling giving gays the right to wed, said that at the heart of democracy is the principle that the people--not the courts--should decide such fundamental issues.

"The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation," the governor said.

Barr, author of the Defense of Marriage Act denying federal recognition to gay unions, said in prepared testimony that conservatives should resist the temptation to use the Constitution to strangle states' rights. He said the Defense of Marriage Act was sufficient to deny recognition to homosexual marriage, and noted that it has yet to be successfully challenged.

Romney conceded that while "the sky's not going to fall" if gay unions are recognized, same-sex marriage "may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years." ...

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said senators will begin debate July 12 on an amendment proposed by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.

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

more
posted by Eve at 9:51 PM | link 0 comments

RECORD NUMBER OF SIGNATURES COLLECTED FOR MONTANA DOMA: From the Helena Independent Record

The Montana Family Foundation says it has collected a record number of signatures in its effort to place on the November ballot a constitutional initiative to ban gay marriage in Montana.

The foundation reported Thursday that it secured just over 70,000 petition signatures from registered voters looking to write language into the Montana constitution limiting marriages to heterosexual unions.

County election officials now must verify the authenticity of the signatures and forward the totals to the secretary of state's office for a final tally.

The group needed to collect 41,020 signatures--including signatures from 10 percent of registered voters in 28 of the state's 56 counties--to get its Constitutional Initiative 96 placed on the November ballot.

The secretary of state's office said the second highest number of signatures gathered in support of a constitutional amendment totaled 50,095 in 1998 on behalf of the right-to-vote-on-taxes measure. ...

But gay rights activists, like Helena's Linda Gryczan, said civil rights should never be left to a popular vote.

"This is such a slap in the face to lots of different kinds of families," Gryczan said. "Who's next?"

Gryczan, who was the lead plaintiff in the Montana Supreme Court case that ultimately overturned the state's sodomy law, said she's confident that the ban, if passed, will later be thrown out by the courts. ...

She also puzzled over the fact that some Montana voters are trying to make gay marriage "more illegal." She pointed out that the Legislature passed a law in 1997 limiting marriage to unions between one man and one woman.

more
posted by Eve at 9:48 PM | link 0 comments

GAY MARRIAGE ROILS A KEY BATTLEGROUND: From the Sacramento Bee

[How do you roil a battleground? Never mind... --Eve]

Even in gay-friendly Cleveland Heights, Mayor Ed Kelley has some advice for gays and lesbians who want Democratic Sen. John Kerry to defeat President Bush in November: Stop promoting gay marriage.

"I wouldn't be pushing the issue," said Kelley, who calls himself a conservative Democrat. "It helps Bush. It's exactly what Bush wants to have happen."

With polls showing most Ohio voters opposed to same-sex unions, many Democrats fear a high-profile fight over gay marriage will do nothing but damage Kerry's chances in a hotly contested swing state.

Some are even calling Ohio "the Florida of 2004," the state that could well decide this year's election.

But many gays and lesbians in the Buckeye State say it would be a mistake to sit back, particularly as their opponents try to force a vote on a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay unions.

"We are not going to shut up and keep quiet," said Doug Braun, a 43-year-old social worker who wants to marry his partner of 15 years.

Gay-marriage opponents in Ohio will get a constitutional amendment on the November ballot defining marriage as solely between a man and woman if they can get 323,000 signatures by Aug. 4. Even many gay-rights activists acknowledge they're likely to reach their goal.

The issue is causing a stir among many African American ministers who are urging the Congressional Black Caucus to oppose gay marriage.

The Rev. Jimmie Hicks Jr., an African American youth minister and member of the Cleveland Heights City Council who opposes gay marriage, said the issue has nothing to do with fairness.

"If you have a moral foundation, it can't be based on fairness," he said. "It has to be based on: What does the word of God say about it? ... I don't base my decision on how I feel about the issue, how it tugs at my heart."

Once a Democrat, Hicks said he decided to leave the party because too many of its members are backing gay marriage. He said he plans to vote for Bush this year.

"It has to do with my attempt to follow the word of God," he said.

On the surface, it would seem that there's not much to fight about in the presidential election: Both Bush and Kerry say they oppose gay marriage.

But there's a key difference between the candidates.

While Bush has endorsed the plan to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban marriage between same-sex couples, Kerry opposes such a move. In addition, Kerry is viewed with suspicion by conservatives because in 1996 he joined with 13 other senators in opposing the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Brian DeWitt, Braun's partner, said that Bush and other conservatives have decided to fight the gay-marriage battle this year and that the only choice for gays and lesbians is to fight or to get run over.

more
posted by Eve at 12:39 AM | link 0 comments

KERRY CAMPAIGN MANAGER ON SENATE FMA VOTE: Press release

Kerry Campaign Manager Mary Beth Cahill released the following statement in response to reports that Republicans will bring up a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the Senate in mid-July:

"The U.S. Constitution is one of our nation's most enduring and sacred symbols and shouldn't be politicized by the President or his surrogates. The only thing this plan will do is continue the President's efforts to further divide an already-divided nation. Like everything else with George Bush, it's all about politics."

link, if you need one
posted by Eve at 12:38 AM | link 0 comments

FRIST: JUDGES FORCING SSM DEBATE: From the Associated Press

Senate action on banning gay marriage has become a priority because judges are redefining marriage as more than just the union of a man and woman as they allow same-sex couples to marry, the Senate majority leader said Sunday.

Sen. Bill Frist rejected a suggestion that he scheduled the debate in mid-July to embarrass his fellow senator, John Kerry, who a few days later will be nominated as the Democrats' challenger against President Bush in November's election.

"That's the most common question: 'Why do you bring up the marriage amendment at this point in time?' And 'These are for political reasons, coming into the convention.'" And the answer is "Absolutely, no," said Frist, R-Tenn.

He noted that Kerry was among 14 senators who voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat.

The act "said marriage is the union between a man and a woman. He voted against that act," Frist said on "Fox News Sunday." ...

The amendment proposed by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., says "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." ...

He said he wants a spirited national debate on the amendment proposal.

"As elected representatives," Frist said, "I think it is our responsibility to use that great democratic process to discuss, "Is marriage a union between a man and a woman, or is it not?"

Amendments to the Constitution require approval by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

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

FOES CONFOUNDED BY LIMITED OUTCRY AGAINST SSM: From the Washington Post

...Across the country, evangelical Christians are voicing frustration and puzzlement that there has not been more of a political outcry since May 17, when Massachusetts became the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Evangelical leaders had predicted that a chorus of righteous anger would rise up out of churches from coast to coast and overwhelm Congress with letters, e-mails and phone calls in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

But that has not happened.

"Standing on Capitol Hill listening, you don't hear anything," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, one of the country's most vigorous Christian advocacy groups.

Perkins and other evangelical leaders contend that the outrage is out there. They say it has not been felt in Washington because defenders of traditional marriage are still in shock, or are focused on winning state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage, or are distracted by the war in Iraq and other issues.

But a few skeptics on the Christian right, as well as many on the Christian left, are beginning to conclude that there is more fervor for a constitutional amendment in America's pulpits than in its pews. And politicians of both parties say the issue has had less grass-roots sizzle than they had expected.

"So far, it's really been a top-down issue," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a strong opponent of gay marriage who has used his chairmanship of a Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution to hold three hearings on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. ...

In the first electoral test of the issue's currency with voters, Democrat Stephanie Herseth narrowly won a special election on June 1 for South Dakota's lone congressional seat. Her opponent, Republican Larry Diedrich, tried to make gay marriage a major issue but was "unable to pin [Herseth] down," said Mark Berg, Diedrich's campaign manager.

Herseth's spokesman, Russ Levsen, said the freshman lawmaker opposes gay marriage but favors civil unions and would support a narrowly drawn constitutional amendment that makes the distinction. "She gave sort of a nuanced answer, and her opponent claimed she was waffling, but his argument didn't resonate with the voters," Levsen said. ...

But the Rev. Richard Land, president of the public policy arm of the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, said he believes that many Americans "intuitively understand" that gay marriage "endangers the bedrock of our society." He pointed to rallies for traditional marriage that have drawn huge crowds -- 20,000 people in Seattle, 8,000 in Phoenix, 2,000 in San Jose -- as evidence that there is a great deal of activity at the state and local levels. "For me, it's a puzzlement why it has not yet bubbled up to Washington," Land said.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a leading religious conservative in Congress, agreed that "most of the action to date has been on the state level." While gay marriage has been the number one subject of phone calls to his office in the past month, he said, the volume has been lower than on past controversies, such as the 1996 government shutdown, the President Clinton impeachment, immigration reform, the authorization for the Iraq war and the ban on a late-term abortion procedure.

more
posted by Eve at 12:32 AM | link 0 comments

HATCH AIMS TO ALLOW STATES TO RULE ON MARRIAGE ISSUE: From the Salt Lake Tribune

After two delays in the past month, Sen. Orrin Hatch will chair a Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday to help set the stage for an expected Senate floor vote next month over a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

"Preserving Traditional Marriage: A View From the States" is the title of the hearing Hatch, R-Utah, will hold to showcase his as-yet-unreleased proposed constitutional amendment. It would give states authority to decide what form of marriage they will honor within their borders and allow them to refuse to recognize marriage contracts deemed legal in other states.

Hatch has said he believes a constitutional amendment is the only way to keep gay nuptials from occurring in states such as Massachusetts, where a state Supreme Court ruling authorizing same-sex marriages went into effect last month. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is expected to testify at Tuesday's hearing.

The legislative focal point of the debate is a resolution for a constitutional amendment sponsored by Colorado Republicans Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave declaring that no state constitution can confer marriage "upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Hatch has said he would vote for the Allard-Musgrave bill, but believes it would be "prudent if we look at approaches which keep the courts from forcing its definition of marriage on states and instead let the legislatures and citizens decide what is best for them."

Although chances of any proposed gay marriage constitutional amendment passing the Senate are slim, Republican leadership wants to stage a high-profile debate and floor vote next month as Democrats head to Boston for their national convention. Presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has said he opposes gay marriage, but does not believe a constitutional amendment is warranted.

more
posted by Eve at 12:29 AM | link 0 comments

MAINE LAWSUIT CHALLENGES MASSACHUSETTS OUT-OF-STATE BAN: From the Portland Press Herald

They have a child, a home and a dog together--many of the usual perks that come with being a married couple.

They are missing just one part: Jim Theberge and Michael Thorne cannot get a marriage license. Not in Maine, and, as they learned earlier this month, not in Massachusetts, either.

A state law that has sat quietly on Massachusetts law books since 1913 thwarted Theberge and Thorne's hopes of finally, legally, tying the knot.

And so, to fight it, they have joined eight other same-sex couples from around New England in a lawsuit that claims the law, known as Section 11, is unconstitutional as applied to gay and lesbian couples.

The lawsuit is one of two filed Friday in Suffolk County Superior Court to test the constitutionality of the law. The lawsuit that Theberge and Thorne are part of was filed by GLAD--Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. The other was filed by 12 municipal clerks. Both groups are looking for the same thing: To overturn the law and allow same-sex couples to apply for marriage licenses in Massachusetts, even if they live in a different state that prohibits same-sex marriage.

"We believe that Section 11 violates both the liberty and equality provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution," Mary Bonauto, civil rights director of GLAD, said in a prepared statement. "This was a law that clerks were instructed to ignore for decades, yet the governor pulled it off the shelves just to deny marriage to some gay and lesbian couples. Plainly stated, the Constitution trumps Section 11." ...

They thought maybe their former residence in the Commonwealth might allow them the same rights as other same-sex couples living there. They filed for a marriage license on June 10 in Somerville, Mass., but were instantly denied because of a cease-and-desist order signed by Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly on May 21.

To them, it made no sense. This was the same state that 14 months ago gave Theberge and Thorne joint parental adoption of their 2-year-old son, Nate. Yet, here they were, being denied the opportunity to marry.

"It seemed Massachusetts was trying to undo a family that it created," said Thorne.

more
posted by Eve at 1:23 AM | link 0 comments