NEW QUESTION: SHOULD CONGRESS PASS A FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT?

The post below contains Sen. Gordon Smith's statement of the reasons for his support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Andrew Sullivan and former Rep. Bob Barr (among others) have made the case against such an amendment.

What's your view? Click below to join the debate--
posted by Eve at 10:27 PM | link 0 comments

FLOOR STATEMENT: Sen. Gordon Smith introducing the FMA

SENATOR GORDON H. SMITH
Floor Statement of the Federal Marriage Amendment
July 9, 2004

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CORNYN). The Senator from Oregon is recognized.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Allard for his willingness to change and clarify the proposal he makes today so that it leaves open to the States the elbow room that is appropriate to define legal rights for nontraditional families, gays and lesbians, and others.

It is a fact that sociologists say marriage, as we have traditionally known and practiced it, is the ideal circumstance for the creation and rearing and nurturing of children. But it is a fact that not all children have the opportunity of a family with a mother and a father, though what marriage does as a legal institution is to say to children here and those yet unborn that there is a legal framework in which they can enjoy protection and have the society of a mother and a father.

It is clear as we wrestle with this sensitive issue, it is clear to the conscience of the American people that boys and girls need moms and dads. Not all get them, but the law has provided a framework for it. Those children who do not have it should also enjoy legal protections not unlike those that are enjoyed in the institution of marriage.

In all the time that I have been a U.S. Senator, I have been an advocate of gay rights. Yet throughout that time I also have believed it right to defend traditional marriage. I have tried hard to be clear,
consistent, and careful about this issue and this debate. I know my position as being for gay rights but for traditional marriage is a disappointment to many of my gay and lesbian friends.

I also note for the record I get little credit from the right because I do advocate for many gay rights. Indeed, the other night on his radio program, Dr. James Dobson said to a national audience, which included many Oregonians, that I was not going to vote for traditional marriage. I wish he hadn't done that. I believe that is a form of bearing false witness because I have been clear and I have been consistent on this point. He may owe me no apology, but I wish he would make it clear to my constituents.

I make no apology for supporting many of the needs of gay and lesbian Americans. Issues of public safety, housing, employment, benefits: these are rights that we take for granted, rights which many of them have felt out of reach. So I have believed it is not just right to advocate for these things but it even be a part of my belief system to advocate for those who are oppressed and to show tolerance by helping those in need. Matthew Shephard comes to mind, and many others who have suffered hate crimes against them in the most vicious of fashion. I think our society is changing its heart on these issues in ways that Americans want to be tolerant, they want to be careful, they want to say to gays and lesbians that we love you, we include you, we care about you.

But in saying that, I think many feel intuitively to be careful on the issue of marriage. Marriage is a word. Words have meaning. Few words have more meaning to our culture and our future and our civilization than marriage because marriage ultimately is about more than just consenting adults. It is about the natural rearing and nurturing of children, preparing them for citizenship under the most ideal circumstances possible.

Senator Robert Byrd often comes to this Chamber, and I love it when he quotes Cicero, an ancient Roman Senator. So I quote Cicero this morning. Cicero said very long ago, "The first bond of society is marriage." I believe Cicero was right. He was not a religious man, he was a secular man. He was a nonbeliever. But he also saw the incredible benefit to building up citizens of Rome through this first bond of society which was then and is still marriage.

I suppose I take this position, a nuanced position, to be sure, because I am somewhat of an old-fashioned idealist. However imperfectly practiced by the American people, marriage still is a perfect ideal. I think the American people deserve a debate on this that is civil, that is respectful, and that includes all Americans.

Some have come to this floor, and will in the coming days, to hold up the Constitution. Here is a copy of it. They will say this is a sacred document, a document that should not be amended. I will admit to the Presiding Officer it would be better that we not have to do this, to even resort to a constitutional amendment. But this is what Article V of the Bill of Rights says:
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution....
It goes on.

They would not have included this Article V in the Bill of Rights if it were not intended that this be a living document. But they intended the Constitution to be a living document, and the United States has amended this Constitution 27 times.

Were it not a living document, this document would have failed. Were it not subject to amendment, the most egregious kinds of actions would have been put in place that would have made us ashamed forever.

For example, perhaps the most dreadful decision ever rendered under this Constitution was that of Dred Scott. Roger B. Taney, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, held that African Americans were not human and were the subject of property and could be controlled as property like any other chattel. That is a decision that goes down in infamy, if ever there was one. It took a Civil War and then the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, which before was silent on the issue of slavery, to ultimately overcome this insidious practice in parts of the United States.

Some say: Well, that is a sacred thing that was done. And I agree, it was. I believe the Constitution is both sacred and secular, but living and improving, and open to debate.

I mentioned the last time the Constitution was amended was in 1992. It is the twenty-seventh amendment. It reads:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
That is the twenty-seventh amendment. It is about money. It is about salaries for Senators and Representatives. I suggest to you that may be appropriate to be in the Constitution because it went through the process, but there is nothing sacred about that.

So the question then becomes, Is it appropriate to put a definition of marriage into our Constitution? I would say, as a matter of preference, it is better not to put cultural issues in the Constitution, until you come to this question: Shall the Constitution be amended? And I tell everyone, the Constitution of the United States is about to be amended. The question is: By whom? Will it be done by a few liberal judges in Massachusetts, a lawless mayor in San Francisco, or clandestine county commissioners, or by the American people in a lawful, constitutional process, as laid out in our founding document?

You will hear lots of people beating on their chests and sounding very sanctimonious in this debate that: We should not do this or that. But the truth is, the Constitution is going to be amended. And I say: Include the American people.

Now, some also say: The issue of marriage has nothing to do with the Federal Government. Leave it to the States. My family has an interesting history in regard to leaving it to the States. My ancestors were, for the most part, Mormon pioneers who came from England in little boats, crossed the ocean, and walked across the country. They had a peculiar practice among them. It is found throughout the pages of the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. They practiced a principle they called "plural marriage." The marriages practiced by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

My great-grandfather David King Udall had two wives, one large, happy family. I am descended from the second. He came to America, helped found the State of Arizona, and spent time in prison because he violated a Federal law, the Edmunds-Tucker law from the 1870s, in which the Federal Government defined marriage as "one man and one woman." He was a great man, a great pioneer, had great sons and daughters who helped the desert of the West blossom as a rose.

He has a large posterity. He sacrificed much for the principle of his faith. But he paid a price because the Federal Government, long ago, defined what marriage was. Ultimately, Grover Cleveland pardoned him, and he named one of his sons Grover Cleveland Udall.

Some people would say this is enacting discrimination into the Constitution. Well, my progenitors were discriminated against, I guess, but the truth is, our country through a lawful process in the 1860s and 1870s defined marriage at the Federal level.

Now what is happening? What is happening in our country is we have elected officials and unelected judges reinterpreting the Constitutions of their States and of our Nation to find in it rights that are not mentioned in it. This has happened a lot in recent years. I have concluded it is better that these things be resolved with the American people than without them.

The American people have a sense of fairness and tolerance and justice and right and wrong. What is happening is their views, their values, their beliefs, their respect for law is being trampled upon by a few liberal elites. That is not right.

In my own State of Oregon, in 1862, Oregon passed its law on marriage. Mr. President, 142 years have transpired, 142 years of Oregon law and practice and custom. But what happened recently? Four or five county commissioners in one of our counties ignored 142 years of law, ignored 1,000 years and more of human history, and, without notice, without a public meeting, changed the law. To me, this is deeply disappointing and terribly undemocratic. Before this happens again, I think it is appropriate, on an issue this central to our country, to our civilization, to the future, we involve "we the people." The only way to do that is through a constitutional process.

Now, I wish this cup would pass from us. I do not like this. I love people. I believe in tolerance. But I believe in democracy. Many will tell you we should leave this alone. But if you leave this alone, you will leave it to others. And if you leave it to others, they will dictate to the American people what it has to be. The only recourse then available -- when a Federal judge nullifies all State DOMA or constitutional provisions of the several States, finding an equal protection right to same-gender marriage -- the only recourse then is through the constitutional process laid out by the fifth amendment in the Bill of Rights.

That is how you include the American people. I say public meetings, public notice, public debates, let people vote, let their elected representatives in the several States vote on it. If we are going to change it, let's change it with the American people, not at the American people. Unfortunately, that seems to be what many who will argue against this want to happen. They want to do this to us, not with us.

For the record, let me express to my gay and lesbian friends, I don't mean to disappoint you, but I can't be true to you if I am false to my basic beliefs. I believe that marriage, as we have known and practiced it in this country for hundreds of years now, is something that should be preserved. New structures can be created, new legal rights conferred, without taking down this word that represents an ideal -- not about adults but including children. I mean to hurt no one's feelings in my position. I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me. But on this one, I have to be able to get up in the morning and look in the mirror and be true to myself.

I have spoken what I believe to be true this morning. I believe marriage is more profoundly important than we might now recognize. Before we let a few tell the many what it is going to be, I think we ought to debate it, carefully consider it, because while we debate issues of war and peace and recession and prosperity, some will say there are so many more important things to discuss than this.

I say to you, there probably isn't a more important issue to discuss than the legal structure that binds men and women together for the creation and the rearing and nurturing of future generations of Americans. I make no apology for my vote for this process, for an amendment that defines marriage, because that is where it is headed, because the courts will compel it. And our legal structure gives American citizens an avenue to be included. So with my vote, I say include we the people.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
posted by Eve at 10:16 PM | link 0 comments

ADULT CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES: Maggie Gallagher replies to Andrew Sullivan

Of course one story doesn't settle the question of how children fare in SS unions. I believe I made the point myself that Bronagh's story is just her story, it's not science. Nor do I believe that the question of how children fare in same-sex unions is the main question in the same-sex marriage debate.

But hers is a viewpoint I have NEVER seen represented in print. Not once. She wanted a voice. I gave it to her.

I am sure not every child raised by same-sex parents feels this way. I am sure she is not the only one either.
posted by Eve at 9:57 PM | link 0 comments

FAMILIES LIKE MINE: GROWING UP WITH GAY OR LESBIAN PARENTS: From the Miami Herald

...Northup, Spirk and Lessem are children of gay and lesbian parents, and their experiences are as varied as their circumstances. Now, with the debate over a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriages raging in Congress, there has been a renewed interest in their lives, an interest that that also has been partly fueled by a recent book, Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is by Abigail Garner.

At times poignant, at times distressingly honest, Garner's book recounts her own experience as the daughter of a gay father. In interviews with more than 50 other children of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) parents, Garner discovered that regardless of how they became part of a family -- through adoption, artificial insemination or past heterosexual relationships -- all had faced anti-gay prejudice at some point. It's not unusual, Garner adds, for these kids to hear that their family is abnormal, deviant, lacking in values.

Has such prejudice abated lately? "I would love to say it's improved, but I'm absolutely stunned that in 2004 the validity of our families is still being questioned," Garner says. "At an individual level, there are places that are becoming more accepting, but there are also many communities where these families are vilified."

Proof is in the number of adult children who declined to be interviewed for this story despite the fact that their parent was openly gay or lesbian. One, an older teenager, said, "I'm glad somebody's doing something on this, but I don't want to call attention to myself."

About 600,000 households in the United States are headed by same-sex partners, according to the 2000 Census. Of those, about 33 percent of lesbian couples reported having children 18 or under, while 22 percent of male couples did. Though there are no comparable numbers for previous census, Garner believes these figures reflect only a portion of the true numbers. For one, she adds, the numbers overlook single gay parents, bisexual parents and transgender parents. What's more, these numbers will grow as more single and partnered gays and lesbians begin to actively seek ways to become parents.

Lessem, for instance, recently bought a house in El Portal with his partner. He wants to have children in about three years, when they're both more secure financially. This, despite the fact that his own adolescence and young adulthood -- trying to hide his father's sexuality, then trying to figure out his own -- was far from perfect.

"The first time I felt really, really comfortable was when I found myself among a group of people who understood what it had been like for me, and that was at Family Week (when children and families of LGBT parents get together in the summer in Massachusetts)," says Lessem, 29. He also attended Mountain Meadow, a camp for children in south New Jersey. ...

Another misconception: Gays and lesbians are "recruiting" their children and others into homosexuality. Spirk, 27, says his mother always maintained an excellent relationship with his father after they divorced, but when Jack Spirk got together with Richard Hughes more than two decades ago, she didn't want her son spending nights at his father's. After much discussion and several sessions of therapy, she consented.

Even then, she sometimes expressed concerned. "She kept asking me if I was gay and that I shouldn't worry about telling her because it was all right for me to tell her I was," Spirk says. "I think that kind of reaction is pretty common among straight spouses."

Statistically, children in LBGT families are neither more nor less likely to be gay than if they had straight parents. Spirk has a long-time girlfriend. Her parents have met his fathers, an event that was more pleasant than Jack Spirk and partner Richard Hughes expected. ...

At many events, Spirk has had two sets of parents attending -- his mother and her husband, his father and Hughes. That, he believes, has worked to his advantage, making him less likely to make quick judgments. "When I see something, I know there are at least 10 other angles out there to see it from," he adds. "That cliche, don't judge the book by its cover, is true." ...

In addition to homophobia, the biggest problem gay families face is lack of communication. Garner, the author, says that even when they are living openly, some parents don't think it is necessary to empower their children with the right vocabulary or even sit down to discuss any issues.

more
posted by Eve at 9:43 PM | link 0 comments

RELIGIOUS LEADERS DISAGREE ON COURT-MONITORING PLAN: From the Kansas City Star

As a project gets under way to monitor electioneering activities in Johnson County churches, religious and political leaders disagreed Friday over what's truly at stake.

"It's not really politics, it is standing for the traditional family," said the Rev. Jerry Johnston, pastor of First Family Church in Overland Park and an opponent of same-sex marriage. "... Evangelicals cannot stand back and do nothing."

On the other hand, Caroline McKnight, executive director of the Mainstream Coalition, said the issue boils down to following the law. "We applaud anybody's attempt to educate the electorate," she said. "We're all about voter education."

But what matters, she said, is whether ministers support or disparage specific candidates from the pulpit.

Under IRS rules, tax-exempt groups such as churches may not participate in political campaigns for or against candidates. Certain political activities are permitted, such as voter education or registration conducted in a nonpartisan manner. Alleged violations could bring federal scrutiny.

The coalition, a Johnson County-based group, has recruited volunteers to covertly attend church services to see whether the IRS rules are being broken. ...

Also appearing were the Rev. Vern Barnet, minister emeritus of CRES, a Kansas City educational and interreligious organization, and the Rev. Brian Schieber, a Catholic priest representing the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas.

"We should not allow politicians to use religion," said Barnet, who writes a column for The Kansas City Star. "Nor should we allow religious leaders to encroach upon the government that belongs to all the people."

Schieber said Catholics have a responsibility to participate in elections.

"We have an obligation to live our faith, and that means to get involved in the political process," he said.

The Catholic Church, however, doesn't endorse specific candidates, he said.

more
posted by Eve at 9:38 PM | link 0 comments

OREGON COUNTY TO REGISTER SSM: From the Associated Press

Oregon became the second state to register same-sex marriage licenses Friday after a state appeals court upheld a lower court order directing officials to record more than 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in Multnomah County.

Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers asked the appeals court to order a hold on registration while a lawsuit challenging the licenses is pending. Myers played down the importance of registration, saying it was an administrative act that would not authenticate the 3,022 marriage licenses Multnomah County issued earlier this year, because the Oregon Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue.

The lower court in April also ordered Multnomah County -- which includes Portland -- not to issue more licenses to same-sex couples until there could be a binding response to the issue from either legislators or the state Supreme Court.

State recognition of same-sex marriages as valid presumably would entitle the couples to the same state benefits accorded to heterosexual married couples, including health care benefits and the right to sue on behalf of a spouse.

Voters may settle the issue in November, inasmuch as a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage appears headed for the ballot.

The Defense of Marriage Coalition, the group leading the fight against same-sex marriage, has turned in a record 244,000 signatures -- with 100,000 needed to send the measure to voters.

State officials have until Aug. 1 to validate the signatures.

Steve Wagenhoffer, a gay father who married his partner of 13 years on the first day Multnomah County began offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples, was overjoyed after hearing of the appeals court action.

"There's a sense of great relief I feel," he said.

To date, only Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, although Vermont recognizes civil unions. California, New Jersey and Hawaii have domestic partnership laws that provide certain legal rights to same-sex couples.

link
posted by Eve at 9:30 PM | link 0 comments

CANADA OFFERS PREVIEW OF GAY-MARRIAGE IMPACTS: From the Denver Post

...Montreal sits in Quebec province, one of three in Canada where gay couples are allowed to legally marry. Ontario, just west of Quebec, and British Columbia, in the far west, also allow the marriages. The three are the most populous regions, housing three-fourths of Canada's 30 million people.

As the United States wrestles with the issue of gay marriage, Canada offers a window into what might sit on the horizon.

Polls show about half of Canadians oppose gay marriages, about the same proportion as in the United States. But the largest Canadian courts--as with the Supreme Court in Massachusetts--decided marriage laws must be rewritten to include gays and lesbians. The same-sex marriages started in Ontario about a year ago.

Last week, Canadians retained the Liberal Party as the controlling force in Parliament. The Liberal Party has said it supports legalizing gay marriage nationwide, as do two of the three other parties in Parliament. Gays who feared the country's Conservative Party would try to overturn marriage laws know that's not likely, at least not now. Of Parliament's 308 members, the majority comes from political parties that endorse an expansion of liberalized same-sex marriage laws. The Supreme Court of Canada, meanwhile, is considering the issue. Popular thinking is that the court will support gay unions. ...

While gay couples lined up to wed in Massachusetts and in San Francisco when municipalities allowed it, Canadian gays and lesbians aren't running to the courthouses. There's no official tally of how many gay couples have wed, but gay-rights groups put the number at about 3,000 nationally since Ontario first legalized the marriages in June 2003. Of those, they estimate 1,000 were Americans who then returned home.

This is happening as Canadian marriage rates are declining. Canada in 2001 recorded 4.7 marriages per 1,000 people, compared with a rate of 5.1 for the four previous years, and a 7.8 rate in the U.S.

Quebec province has the lowest rate of marriage in North America, at three marriages per 1,000 people.

Quebec residents said in interviews that the nonmarriage trend is a rebellion against the Catholic Church, which they feel controlled their lives for decades. The province is still about 90 percent Catholic, but as Niziblian explains, "The church doesn't have the same sort of influence on Canadians."

Canadians differ from Americans culturally in other key ways, said those tracking this issue. Americans focus on individual freedoms, while Canadians focus more on the rights of all members of society. ...

In 1982, Trudeau removed the Canadian Constitution from the British Parliament's jurisdiction. He incorporated into it the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Soon, a series of court cases began to rule that the charter granted gays the same kind of anti-discrimination rights that all citizens shared.

Gay and lesbian groups began to demand the right to marry.

Parliament reacted in 1999 by voting overwhelmingly to affirm the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. It was similar to a measure approved by the U.S. Congress and President Clinton in 1996.

But Canadian courts continued to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. In 2002, supreme courts in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec said the existing definition of marriage was discriminatory. The Ontario court told Parliament to resolve the issue. When Parliament failed to act, the court declared gay marriages legal in June 2003.

Gays began marrying the next day in Ontario.

Hendricks and LeBoeuf, who've been together 30 years, won their lawsuit against Quebec in March 2004.

In Canada, gay marriage brings only a few more tangible benefits than gay and lesbian couples already enjoy. Since 1997, gay couples that registered with the state have had most of the benefits of married couples, such as community property rights, tax benefits, the right to jointly adopt children, and some survivor benefits. It's called conjoint de fait, French for "spouse in fact." ...

Not all gays agree that legalized marriage is a positive thing. At a dinner party at Niziblian's home, two gay men debated whether the right to marry is an advancement.

"I just don't identify with an institution that was created for straight people," said George Berberian, 32. "It doesn't really suit gay people and their lifestyle."

Berberian said gay men primarily are motivated by sexual desire and stay together for shorter periods than heterosexual couples. He said that fighting for gay marriage is equivalent to conforming to heterosexual lifestyles and that gays instead should fight to be recognized for their differences.

Paul Dumont, 29, who also is gay, would like to get married.

"I still believe one day I'll meet the right person. I know it's going to be true love, and I want to celebrate that love," he said.

"You can celebrate it some other way," Berberian said.

"No, I want that ring," Dumont said with an impish grin.

Canadian groups that oppose gay marriages--most of which are religious--say redefining marriage violates their rights. It's equivalent to condemning one definition of marriage, they said, and imposing a new one.

"It's really the states and the courts imposing a particular moral code on some societies," said Daniel Cere, director of the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture, a think tank.

more
posted by Eve at 9:19 PM | link 0 comments

SENATE DEMS OFFER EARLY VOTE ON SSM: From the New York Times

Senate Republicans began arguing their case on Friday for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as Democrats signaled that they were willing to drop procedural hurdles and allow a vote on the proposal next week.

At the same time, President Bush restated his backing for the politically charged amendment, telling a crowd in Pennsylvania that the issue of gay marriage should be settled through ratification of a constitutional amendment rather than left up to the courts.

"What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do," Mr. Bush said. "This is America. It's a free society. But it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage."

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic whip, said Democrats would not mount a filibuster against moving to a final vote on the amendment as long as Republicans agreed not to offer changes to the proposal. ...

If Republicans accept the Democratic approach, the Senate would face a vote as early as Wednesday on the amendment.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said he would review the Democratic approach with his colleagues. But Mr. Frist indicated he supported the idea of debating the issue for two more days and concluding with an up-or-down vote, saying that process would produce a result "clear to the American people." ...

Mr. Allard's proposed amendment states in part that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Supporters say it would not prohibit same-sex civil unions allowed by state law.

The political elements of the debate quickly surfaced on Friday as Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, criticized Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the all-but-certain Democratic nominee for president, for his views on the subject. Mr. Hatch noted that Mr. Kerry previously opposed a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman on the grounds that such a law was not needed.

"Eight years later, a bare majority of John Kerry's own State Supreme Court has brought marriage, same-sex marriage, to the state and to the citizens of Massachusetts," said Mr. Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "What is his position now?"

Mr. Kerry and his running mate, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, say they oppose same-sex marriage but also oppose the constitutional amendment on the grounds that marriage is a state issue.

Only one Democrat, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, joined in the debate on Friday, accusing Republicans of promoting a divisive issue during an election year rather than concentrating on more important topics.

"Political expedience, whatever it takes, seems to be the leadership's guidepost, not the pressing needs of the country," Mr. Leahy said.

more
posted by Eve at 9:16 PM | link 0 comments

STAY DENIED ON OREGON SSM: From the Associated Press

Oregon may become the second state in the nation to recognize gay marriage, after the Oregon Court of Appeals on Friday refused to order a hold on registering 3,022 licenses issued in Multnomah County to same-sex couples. ...

But the Oregon recognition could be short-lived. A spokesman for Attorney General Hardy Myers said the state might try to avert it by quickly appealing the appeals court decision to the state Supreme Court.

State registration of the licenses would presumably entitle gay couples to the same state benefits accorded to heterosexual married couples, like health care benefits and the right to sure on behalf of a spouse.

Gay marriage has been a hot topic in Oregon since last spring, when Multnomah County commissioners began issuing the licenses to gay couples. Eventually, more than 3,000 couples got licenses before a Multnomah County judge in April put a stop to the practice, in order to allow a lawsuit challenging their constitutionality head toward the state Supreme Court.

But in the same ruling, Circuit Judge Frank Bearden did direct the state to officially register the licenses from ceremonies already performed. It was that decision that the Court of Appeals upheld Friday. ...

David Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the practical impact of the appeals court action is an open question.

"We won't know for a long time exactly how significant the registration of the licenses is," Fidanque said. "The state argued it is a critical step in legal recognition of the marriages. We don't know whether the appeals court agreed with that."

The appeals court issued just a brief announcement without an opinion.

Gay marriage foes say the state's founders never intended to sanction such marriages, citing a law dating to territorial days defining marriage as a contract "entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age."

They've mounted what appears to be a successful initiative petition drive to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot outlawing gay marriage.

more
posted by Eve at 1:43 AM | link 0 comments

TAMING MEN: Mark Barton replies to Sandy Frank

Sandy Frank writes: "Maybe allowing men to form marriages with other men could help society by stabilizing their relationships. But why, then, didn't marriage evolve that way in the first place, as a union of any two people?

"Because society's idea of marriage has always been to tame men, not by hooking them up with someone but by hooking them up with women. Women bring a different energy, a different point of view to marriage, and it's their energy that tames men, domesticates them, if you will. Without that domestication, society is in big trouble."

Mark B.: There's a bit of a disconnect with reality here. Certainly traditional opposite-sex marriage is in part about channelling the sex drive of "men" into productive or at least non-damaging directions. However it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense in this respect except to the extent society pretends gay men don't exist, or that they're evil monsters whose quality of life doesn't need to be taken into account.

The point here is that to a straight man, traditional marriage is at worst a tolerable deal. It means rather less sexual variety than might otherwise be achievable, especially for the young and attractive, but in compensation one gets consistent access and protection from predation by other men. In the old days one even got housekeeping services.

By contrast, to a gay man, traditional marriage is an unbelievably lousy deal. I'm "gay", in the sense that's standard among self-identified gay men: sexually attracted more or less exclusively to other men and not at all to women. I've never been the least attracted to a women in my entire life, whereas I've been attracted to assorted cute guys ever since puberty. And in this, I'm very typical of a lot of "gay" men and the exact opposite of straight ones. (I don't doubt that there are also bisexual men, but I'm not one and I don't claim to speak for them.) You might as well try to domesticate our sex drives by marrying us off to lampposts as to women.

On the one hand you won't succeed in getting gay men into opposite-sex marriages simply by making same-sex marriage unavailable. There's no honey of any sort on the proposition, only vinegar: opposite-sex marriage means no decent sex or sex-related intimacy ever, for a whole lifetime. You don't stand a chance of making it happen without bringing back the good old days where sodomy was a felony and not getting married incurred suspicion of sodomy. And on the other hand, it would all be spectacularly pointless or even counterproductive because (i) such marriages are not particularly stable, (ii) men in such marriages are likely to be cheating with other men in unsavory circumstances that promote STDs, and (iii) gay men are not particularly likely to father children except in such marriages.
posted by Eve at 8:12 PM | link 0 comments

SEX, CHILDREN, AND MARRIAGE: Lynn Gazis-Sax replies to Eve

[quotes from Eve's post are in bold]

Being married to a chronically ill husband, I'm really big on the "mutual care" and "in sickness and in health" aspects of marriage. And that sort of influences my view on *how* (not whether) sex is involved in setting the boundaries of marriage.

"So why can sexual/romantic relationships set the boundaries? Why not sexless but deeply committed relationships?"

Sexless but deeply committed relationships are still marriage, as long as both husband and wife are willing to stay together for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health. I don't think it's the government's business to look at whether people are actually having sex, or are willing to have sex. Given that married people are expected (and, I think, should be expected) to not have sex with anyone else, people are surely going to want to be able to have sex with whomever they marry, but it's not up to anyone else whether they do.

"Should sex be part of the norm of marriage, or should the norm be restricted solely to commitment and care? Should we encourage people to marry even in situations where we think it's best that they care for one another, but we do not think it's best that they have sex?"

On the other hand, sex should very much be part of the norm of marriage in the sense that it should be expected that it is OK to have sex with your spouse, and that we shouldn't be marrying people for whom it is not OK that they have sex (and, in fact, I can't think of any case where we now do so, though there seem to be some cases where we allow marriage even if we don't think it best that people have children--that law Andrew Sullivan reported about first cousins being allowed to marry if they're beyond fertile age comes to mind).

"If not, these seem to be parallel arguments to the arguments that marriage is how we link children to mothers and fathers. And yet those arguments were found, by SSM advocates, insufficient to define the boundaries of marriage. Why is sex/romance more central to marriage than childrearing?"

Personally, I don't think we should simultaneously marry people and try to discourage them from rearing children together. If we came to the collective conclusion (which seems unlikely to me at this point) that same-sex couples should be offered every right opposite-sex couples have *except* the ones related to childrearing (no adoption, no access to fertility clinics, no right to be presumed the parent of your spouse's kids), then I'd say that whatever we'd be granting them, it wouldn't be marriage, and I'd prefer it be called a different name. (That's the one case I can think of where I might join the "please call this a civil union rather than marriage" group.)
posted by Eve at 7:58 PM | link 0 comments

LIBERALISM AND FAMILY STRUCTURE: Josh Jasper replies to Elizabeth Marquardt and Bill Doherty

In the Newsday article, Elizabeth Marquardt states that she's a liberal, and then goes on to say: "It's one thing to accept all kinds of families as you find them. But when you talk about larger policy goals, and changing the norm, that's not acceptable."

As was the case with Susan Shell's argument, this simply fails the test of a general liberal attitude. The idea that Marquardt's views are liberal isn't true. She may have some liberal views, but this isn't one of them. Liberals don't hold that changing the norm is unacceptable. They do so for valid reasons of social progress. There's little substance behind her article, and much undefined and unproven fear of change.

Later in the article, Bill Doherty suggests that children raised in same-sex marriages will look like stepchildren. I'm not sure why he thinks that. I was raised as a stepchild myself, and I'm fairly sure
it's different from growing up as an adopted child, one borne through a surrogate, or via artificial insemination. The main difference in a child having two parents of the same sex is going to be in growing up with a hostile culture, and probably with the GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual and transgendered) culture as a support for the parents. I don't think that's comparable to having one's parents divorce and re-marry, and I'd be interested in hearing any ideas on why that might be.
posted by Eve at 7:54 PM | link 0 comments

UNBEATABLE INFERTILITY ARGUMENT: Michael Triplett replies to Eve and Maggie

I've been thinking a lot about the "unbeatable infertility argument" which you find so overtly abstract because I find it just the opposite: so concrete and real. If we want to create a child-centered institution with legal rights and policy importance, then we do need to figure out what to do with the infertile.

If, as you say, "[m]arriage is the place where society promotes childrearing, because marriage links children to mothers and fathers," then what do we do with marriages where that is impossible and not the goal? Clearly, in the case of SSM, we ban it and deny legal rights. So why are marriages of the barren different? The Bible stigmatizes barren women and historically, a woman's worth in a marriage was defined in part for her ability to have children. Therefore, just like SSM, infertility raises the question of what do with do with marriages that are stigmatized both historically and theologically. In the case of infertile couples, we annoint them with legal rights and in the case of SSM, we try to pass constitutional amendments banning them.

Admittedly, it's a crazy argument but it raises an interesting point about the collision of legal rights, public policy, and social policy. As the courts that have wrestled with it have demonstrated, it's difficult to win an equal protection argument in favor of only traditional marriage when it is laden with so many equal protection contradictions. If marriage is about child-raising, then you can't make an equal protection argument on that basis when you allow infertile people to marry. But that's the legal arguments we can have for days.

Both you and Elizabeth Marquardt have talked eloquently about "fatherless children" and how children yearn for a father and mother. As an advocate for SSM, it's the hardest question to overcome. Undoubtely, children raised in "fatherless" families miss that connection with their father and their adult identities are often intrinsically linked to that loss. The conflict--which is Oedipal in its creation--asserts that our identities are only fully developed when we have a father and a mother that are married.

So was Freud right about all of this? Or is it possible that the yearning for the missing "father" is actually the yearning for the missing "parent" and that the "parent" need not be gender-specified? The reason children talk about missing "father" is because they know that's what is missing from their "mother's" life. If the only language that exists is that parents = father + mother, then of course they will talk about missing "father" when only mother is still around.

But isn't it possible that children with two, intact parents of the same sex won't miss "father" because they either have two of them or they have two, loving mothers? Isn't it possible that they will miss little because they have an intact family and their parents are not stuggling with the emotional and financial impact of mom having a child with a father who isn't around? Is it possible that these children, who have been adopted from dysfunctional opposite-sex relationships, will thrive in a home where those dysfunctional mother and father no longer exist?

More importantly, why is providing important legal rights to couples and parents that are not "mother and father" saying that mother and father don't matter? Why don't infertile marriages send the same message? I guess I have a lot more faith in the institution and concept of marriage then you do, because I believe it will survive SSM. I believe people will always understand that having two parents are important and that in 97% of those situations, those two parents are a mother and a father. The presence of mother and mother or father and father doesn't diminish the importance of fathers committing to their children or mothers making better decisions about the fathers they choose and that those parents should come together in marriage. In fact, it reinforces the importance of two people committing to raise children despite the societal odds.

That, of course, brings us to Maggie Gallagher's anecdotal example of the adult child who hated being raised by two moms. I cringed when I read the story because I knew it would fuel pages of "we told you so" rhetoric. It's a sad story about a child raised in a very different time then 2004, but tragic nonetheless. It is, however, not really the "proof" that these children are harmed but only that one sad adult was harmed by her parents--just as the millions of adults can tell stories of being raised by dysfunctional heterosexual parents in intact marriages.

[Eve notes: I asked what Michael thought of this post from Maggie Gallagher. Excerpts from Maggie's post (in bold):

"I start with the social institution. Marriage is the place where we think it is a good idea to have children. This is no longer written anywhere in the law, when we got rid of provisions restricting the sexual license to marriage and also giving special privileges to children born within marriage.

"But regardless of whether or not the law is articulate about this purpose, it is still one of the things that marriage is (marriage not being the sum of its legal incidents).

"Therefore, in giving marriage to unisex couples, we are saying that we think it is a great idea of unisex couples to acquire children. We are saying children do not need mothers and fathers.

"None of that is true with any male-female union."

Michael replied:]

In regards to Maggie's comments about "[m]arriage is the place where we think it is a good idea to have children" and "regardless of whether or not the law is articulate about this purpose, it is still one of the things that marriage is (marriage not being the sum of its legal incidents)":

As a lawyer, I guess I keep going back to the fact that it is a legal relationship. No one wants to amend the constitution just because of the marriage concept (well, maybe they do) but by altering the constitution and limiting the ability of legislatures and courts to create law, it comes back to the fact that marriage is about the legal rights and not just the philosophical or social construct.

If we believe that we should create social policy that "marriage is the place where we believe it good to have children" then why aren't there fertility requirements or financial disincentives to not having children? Aren't all those childless male-female couples hurting the instutition by their unwillingness or inability to procreate? Shouldn't the fertile people be encouraged to enter marriages with other fertile people (just as Maggie has suggested gays should enter sham marriages with heterosexuals so that children can be created). Aren't they putting selfish love and adult needs before the needs of children?

I also think it goes back to that belief that unisex couples raising children is a harm or should be discouraged. While not the "gold standard," we recognize non-"gold standard" relationships in our legal and social consruct of marriage already (second marriages, infertile couples) because we believe there is some social or legal good. Why is there as social and legal good in encouraging infetile couples to marry when they can never have the "gold standard" parenting structure or even have children, but refuse to consider a social and legal good in encouraging same-sex couples?
posted by Eve at 7:46 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGE = CHILDREN?: Josh Jasper

That seems to be where the arguments are going these days. Marriage is talked about in a way that's primarily about children, and the idea is put forth that same sex marriage being made into law will cause heterosexual marriages to be taken less seriously. Obviously, I think this is absurd, but let's follow the idea that this line of thinking will somehow win out, and same sex marriages will be banned by a constitutional amendment. What then?

Outside of the fact that GLBT groups will continue to work to overturn the law, I'll give you my prediction. I think it's an easy one to figure out:

Same sex couples will continue to get married, just not with the law's blessing on a federal level. Some states like Virginia will drive out all of the same sex couples they can manage due to not providing any social support for them. States like California, Vermont and Massachusetts will probably attract same sex couples from bigoted states (I'm sorry. "family values states") and America will simply become more and more divided.

Also, same-sex couples will continue to raise kids. It's already happening, and by my personal estimation, those that I know are excellent parents. They'll just not raise kids in places like Virginia or Alabama unless they have to. Will all of the children be well adjusted? No more or less so than the children of heterosexual couples are as far as I can tell. My next door neighbors are heterosexual, and regularly get drunk and scream at their children. Where's the federal marriage amendment that'll protect them? The police won't do anything, but the federal government will step in and make sure the same-sex couples I know who are doing a great job of raising kids are punished by not getting the same rights and protections that the abusive neighbors get.

So, unless the anti SSM movement force the law into taking my friends' kids away, they're going to get raised by same sex partners. This isn't a shrinking trend either. People want to be parents. That much is undeniable. Opposing same-sex marriage doesn't just create second-class couples, it creates second-class children. It doesn't make the same-sex couples already raising children any less married in their eyes, or the eyes of their children.
posted by Eve at 7:36 PM | link 0 comments

FERTILITY DECLINE: Jacob T. Levy replies to Sam Brownback

...All rich developed societies undergo a decline in fertility, regardless of the state of their marriage laws. The United States, Japan, Italy, Ireland, and the Netherlands have very different marriage laws and public cultures regarding sexuality and family life. All have seen very sharp declines in fertility, to levels below replacement. In the absence of immigration, all will see their populations shrink. (Not all of their populations will in fact shrink, as some of those countries have substantial immigration.) Yes, even Ireland, which has the strictest divorce laws of any developed country, no legal abortion, and certainly no same-sex marriage, has below-replacement fertility-- and its fertility was falling fast even before divorce was legalized in the '90s.

So, yes, rich developed countries that have embraced liberal attitudes on homosexuality and divorce and cohabitation have experienced fertility decline. So have all the other rich developed countries. There's not only no causal argument here; there's no correlation.

more
posted by Eve at 5:45 PM | link 0 comments

FMA DEBATE STUFF

[A random friend of mine sent this note:]

So the Senate went into session a half-hour ago, and they're actually debating FMA now. Sen. Smith from Oregon just pointed out that it's not unprecedented for the federal gov. to define marriage--one of his ancestors served time in prison for polygamy! A useful link to keep up with the debate without actually watching it on cspan.org is "More From the Floor," run by Sen. Leahy's office. It's the closest thing there is to a blog of the Senate floor.
posted by Eve at 2:36 PM | link 0 comments

RESPONSES TO MAGGIE GALLAGHER'S "ADULT CHILDREN SPEAK OUT ABOUT SAME-SEX PARENTS": David Morrison and Andrew Sullivan

David Morrison comments: "...There it is, that old bugaboo of biology. We can't just change our gender roles and identities like overcoats and maintain it doesn't matter. Sure, it may not matter to us, but it can sure as heck matter to the children we decide to bring into this situation.

"The reality is that there have been same sex couples (usually related by blood, however distant), or single parents, for years now; because of death, divorce, or other tragedy a child has had to be reared without the input of both his or her parents. But not until now have we had the arrogance to decide, a priori, for our children, that having a father or mother just doesn't matter...."

Andrew Sullivan comments: "...Oh, so that settles it. You don't need science or research, you just need one anecdote! Don't you think, for example, that you could find a child of a mixed race couple who feels and felt socially isolated in childhood or the object of peer pressure as a kid? Would that make a mixed-race marriage a 'selfish' proposition for two adults in love? Yes, that was exactly the argument used in the 1950s and 1960s against inter-racial marriage: think of what it does to the kids."
posted by Eve at 2:30 PM | link 0 comments

DEFINING MARRIAGE DOWN: Sen. Sam Brownback

As the United States Senate debates the wisdom of a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman and protects against judicially-mandated same-sex unions, it is important to keep in mind the costs that we face as a society if we fail to protect traditional marriage.

Proponents of same-sex unions have pointed to a recent study showing federal revenues increasing by upwards of $1 billion a year as a result of redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. Ironically, most of the increased revenue would result from the still-existing marriage penalty in the tax code, which taxes married couples at higher rates than individuals. Pro-family groups have been trying to eliminate the marriage penalty for years. ...

But these shortsighted arguments miss the point entirely. The costs to our society should rogue federal judges force the states to recognize the legal equivalence of same-sex unions would be significant--even devastating--when measured in terms of the effects on our central social institution, the family.

Marriage is at the center of the family, and the family is the basis of society itself. The government's interest in the marriage bond--and the reason it treats heterosexual unions in a manner unlike all other relationships--is closely related to the welfare of children. Government registers and endorses marriage between a man and a woman in order to ensure a stable environment for the raising and nurturing of children.

Social science on this matter is conclusive: Children need both a mom and a dad. Study after study has shown that children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father. And the government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children; the social costs of not doing so are tremendous. As Child Trends, a mainstream child-welfare organization, has noted, "research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes... There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents."

Giving public sanction to homosexual "marriage" would violate this government responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by placing individual adult desires above the best interests of children. There is no reliable social-scientific data demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples (or groups) do as well as children raised by married, heterosexual parents. Redefining marriage is certain to harm children and the broader social good if that redefinition weakens government's legitimate goal of encouraging men and women who intend to have children to get married.

If the experience of the last 40 years tells us anything, it is that the consequences of weakening the institution of marriage are tragic for society at large. The movement away from traditional moral conventions left us with soaring divorce and out-of-wedlock birthrates, family breakdown on an unprecedented scale, and devastating consequences for children. Social science tells us that child poverty, child abuse, and child developmental problems increase with the decline of marriage. It also tells us that the children of intact, traditional marriages are much healthier in body, spirit, and mind, more successful in school and life, and much less likely to use illegal drugs, abuse alcohol, or engage in crime than are children from homes without a mother and a father. This is not to say that good children cannot be raised in other family settings. Many healthy children are raised in difficult circumstances and many single parents struggle heroically to raise good children. Still, the social science is clear. The best place for a child is with a mom and a dad. Both are needed.

more
posted by Eve at 2:21 PM | link 0 comments

SSM POSES KEY QUESTIONS: Sandy Frank

...Because every human society, ancient or modern, religious or secular, Jewish or Christian or secular has had the institution of marriage. I guess I'm a Darwinist: If every society has evolved an institution, then I'm reluctant to tamper with it, just as even if I had no idea what the heart did, just the fact that every animal has one would make me very, very cautious about cutting into it.

A society’s evolution is for survival just as much as an organism's is. Compare marriage to friendship, for example. Society lets us form friendship without a ceremony and dissolve it without going to court. Why? Because while my relationship with my buddy may be very important to the two of us, it's just not all that important to society, unlike my marriage to my wife.

What does marriage do for a society? I can think of two things.

The first benefit is often discussed: Marriage seeks to provide the ideal situation for raising children, a stable household with a father and a mother. To say that two men -- or two women -- can raise a child just as well is to say that mothers -- or fathers -- are irrelevant, a dangerous message when studies suggest that boys raised without a father are more than twice as likely to end up in prison, and girls raised without a father are more than four times as likely to get pregnant as teens.

The other benefit of traditional marriage, little-discussed even by opponents of same-sex marriage, is society's huge interest in curbing the aggressive energy of men and channeling it into productive activities. In segments of society with an overabundance of unattached men, we see crime, promiscuous sex and fatherless children. ...

Maybe allowing men to form marriages with other men could help society by stabilizing their relationships. But why, then, didn't marriage evolve that way in the first place, as a union of any two people?

Because society's idea of marriage has always been to tame men, not by hooking them up with someone but by hooking them up with women. Women bring a different energy, a different point of view to marriage, and it's their energy that tames men, domesticates them, if you will. Without that domestication, society is in big trouble.

Finally, advocates argue that allowing same-sex marriage might not help society, but it would leave the benefits of opposite-sex marriage in place. After all, the vast majority of men will still marry women, excepting only gay men who -- in this day and age —- wouldn't marry women anyway. I don't think so.

Allowing the unimportant will dilute the important. Allowing men to marry men and women to marry women will make marriage more like simple friendship. Because of the importance or raising children and taming men, society is wounded whenever a traditional marriage breaks up. But if two married men were to divorce, society would suffer no more than when two friends call it quits.

If we allow same-sex marriage, there won't be two sets of rules: All marriages will have to be treated the same. The traditional marriages that are so vital to society will be treated like the same-sex marriages that are not. It would become less important.

more
posted by Eve at 2:18 PM | link 0 comments

GETTING TO THE CRUX OF GAY MARRIAGE: From the Oregonian

...The message underlined something that the leadership of the ACLU, treating gay marriage as a main theme of the meeting, already knew: It's tough to win a debate about gay marriage. It's a different conversation when it's about people.

In resisting gay marriage, says Matt Coles, director of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, "people aren't worried that their kids will be gay. They're worried that basic values are collapsing, and that's what pulls them negative. What pulls them positive is, people really don't think it's fair to treat people differently."

Especially when they can see gay people working to build the same kinds of lives and commitments other people are trying to manage.

Mayor Gavin Newsom told the crowd about his first municipal marrying: "This was a couple entitled to all the rights, privileges and obligations my wife and I got when we got married three years ago."

After 50 years, you'd think a couple should be entitled to anything. It's a theme likely to be vital in all the states -- notably Oregon, the highest-profile battle in the country -- voting on anti-gay marriage initiatives this fall. ...

About a third of Americans, Coles says, oppose any legal recognition of gay relationships. Another third -- actually, he corrects himself carefully, more like 30 percent -- support same-sex marriage. ...

Which may be why, at the conference's information desk devoted to same-sex marriage, you can get a sticker that reads, "Grandparents for Fairness." It's a sticker that combines two phrases that test very positive.

"If you talk about allowing same-sex marriage, people think you're asking for their approval, and they don't want to give that," Coles says. "If you talk about exclusion, they come around. The key concept is commitment, and showing that people suffer consequences." And most Americans will be against that. Maybe not, Coles admits, this November or next, but they will be.

more
posted by Eve at 2:12 PM | link 0 comments

DEMS COULD LOSE SOUTHERN VOTES: From the Associated Press

...No other social issue carves a wider divide between the North and the South than gay marriage. Not abortion. Not gun control. In the South, where as many as two-thirds oppose same-sex marriages, voters say they are far less willing to back a candidate that feels differently.

The Democratic ticket's Southern bounce could hit a speed bump.

Gay marriage, says Merle Black, a professor at Emory University in Atlanta, "goes to the heart of (Southern voters') cultural beliefs. They really believe marriage should be between a man and a woman."

While Kerry and Edwards oppose gay marriage, they argue that it is an issue that should be left to the states to decide. Both senators say they would vote no on the proposed constitutional amendment.

"It will give the Republicans ammunition against Edwards across the South. And they would use that in their advertising closer to the election," Black said.

The Senate vote would come just days before the Democratic National Convention in Boston July 26-29 when Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator, and Edwards are nominated by their party. Supporters of the gay marriage amendment acknowledge it is doomed to fail, and the Kerry campaign sees the timing of the vote as pure politics. ...

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Kerry slightly strengthened his support in the South with the addition of Edwards.

But polling done in February and March by the Pew Research Center suggests that Southerners, more than folks in any other region, will consider the gay marriage issue in the voting booth.

According to the Pew poll, 68 percent of Southerners oppose gay marriage and nearly 40 percent said they wouldn't cast a ballot for a candidate who votes otherwise. By comparison, 48 percent of those polled in the Northeast oppose gay marriage, and just 26 percent said they wouldn't vote for someone who disagrees. ...

Providing a bit of cover for Kerry and Edwards is that some conservative Republicans -- including former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr -- oppose the amendment saying they don't want the constitution littered with directives that should be left to the states. Others say it shouldn't be used as a tool for discrimination.

And some activists argue that the issue really won't sway votes, with a good portion of the electorate having decided on their candidate or influenced by other matters.

"People vote on broader issues like the economy or the war" in Iraq, said Jeff Soref, a Democratic National Committee member and major fund-raiser in the gay community. "I think that people for whom this is an important issue made up their minds a long time ago."

more
posted by Eve at 1:54 PM | link 0 comments

FMA TIMING/STRATEGY: From the Washington Post

After proceeding cautiously for weeks, the Republican-led Congress is moving full-speed on proposals to bar same-sex marriage even though leaders in both houses acknowledge they lack the votes to pass them. ...

The issue's accelerated pace is especially dramatic in the House. Two weeks ago Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said he did not want the House or Senate to vote on a constitutional amendment until they had enough votes to pass it.

But he told reporters Wednesday that the traditional notion of marriage "is under attack" and "we intend to fight it on all fronts" this summer. Before Congress adjourns July 23 for a five-week recess, DeLay said, the House will vote on a bill that would bar federal courts from ruling on state laws defining marriage.

"At the same time, we expect to go forward sometime in September" with a vote on a constitutional amendment similar or identical to the Senate version, DeLay said. He said he had "no idea" whether the 435-member House could muster the necessary two-thirds majority. Some senior Republicans say the goal is unattainable.

"I'm not even sure they can get a simple majority," Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) said yesterday. Davis said he and numerous GOP colleagues will vote against the proposed constitutional amendment, as will most House Democrats. ...

DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said the House will act on the proposed constitutional change even if it lacks a two-thirds majority because "voters want people to be on the record" on the gay marriage issue. Asked why the vote would be held in September -- when the presidential and congressional election campaigns will hit full stride -- Roy said, "you want to have a vote on it while there's a window of opportunity" in which Americans are paying attention to politics and public issues. ...

In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 59 percent of Americans said it should be illegal for gay couples to marry, with nearly half of all respondents saying they felt "strongly" about the issue. But 53 percent said state laws should govern such questions, while 44 percent said a constitutional amendment is needed.

more
posted by Eve at 1:39 PM | link 0 comments

BILL WOULD END COURT'S PURVIEW OVER MARRIAGE: From the Washington Times

The House is expected to vote within weeks on legislation limiting federal court jurisdiction over cases involving marriage, and this fall, members will vote on a constitutional amendment defining the institution, a top Republican said yesterday. ...

The court-jurisdiction bill--which will come up for a House vote in the next few weeks--is another way to defend traditional marriage, Mr. DeLay said.

Voting on the court-jurisdiction bill, he said, could put pressure on the Senate to take up similar court legislation. Many House Republicans like the idea of reasserting congressional authority over the judicial branch.

"We've done it before on other issues, and we frankly intend to do more of it," Mr. DeLay said yesterday.

The House court-jurisdiction bill is crafted by Rep. John Hostettler, Indiana Republican. It 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 says states don't have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.

Democrats say court-stripping is unfair and proposed by Republicans as a tool to get their own way.

"Whenever a federal court issues a ruling that conflicts with their conservative leanings, the Republicans try to strip federal courts from hearing similar cases," said House Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Rep. John Conyers Jr., of Michigan, speaking at a June 24 hearing on the court-stripping bill in the Judiciary Constitution subcommittee.

Supporters of the bill say it is an immediate way to stop a renegade federal judge from striking down DOMA and forcing states to recognize same-sex "marriages" performed in Massachusetts. 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.

more
posted by Eve at 1:35 PM | link 0 comments

FMA AND REPUBLICAN CONVENTION: Kate O'Beirne

[Referring to this column and this post. --Eve]

The Human Rights Campaign has a full page ad in today's Roll Call. It features pictures of Schwarzenegger, McCain, Pataki, and Giuliani and asks, "Want to get a primetime spot at the Republican National Convention?" and answers: "Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment." I rest my case.

link
posted by Eve at 5:38 PM | link 0 comments

STILL NOT FIRST-CLASS CITIZENS: New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial

Starting Saturday, same-sex couples in New Jersey will no longer be third-class citizens; they'll gain the rank of second-class citizens with some -- but not all -- the privileges of first-class citizenship.

That's when the state's domestic partnership act takes effect. It provides a number of benefits to gay and lesbian couples and unmarried heterosexual couples over 62 similar to those enjoyed by married couples, such as the power to make medical decisions on behalf of a spouse and the ability to file a joint state income tax return with the ensuing benefits and to inherit property from a partner without paying inheritance taxes. ...

While domestic partnership is a step up, it's not cause for wild celebrations. We still have a system that says some relationships deserve more rights than others. The new law does not require private employers to offer same-sex couples health insurance benefits; there's no provision for distribution of property or alimony if a couple breaks up; couples have no protection under federal law.

The next step is for same-sex couples to gain all the rights and benefits accorded to opposite-sex couples by being allowed to marry. Just like all other first-class citizens.

more
posted by Eve at 5:35 PM | link 0 comments

NEW MEXICO COURT REJECTS CLERK'S SSM REQUEST: From the Associated Press

The state Supreme Court Thursday rejected the Sandoval County Clerk’s request to issue more marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The court unanimously denied a request from Clerk Victoria Dunlap to lift a temporary restraining order that stopped her from issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The court turned down the request without comment.

Dunlap issued more than 60 same-sex marriage licenses on February 20th. She stopped late in the day after Attorney General Patricia Madrid declared that same-sex marriage was not legal under state law.

Dunlap contends New Mexico laws support same-sex marriage. The attorney general says state law limits marriage to a man and a woman

link
posted by Eve at 1:57 PM | link 0 comments

DUTCH SCHOLARS ON SSM: News story

Here's a news story on the statement in the posts below; what follows is an English translation:

Academics raise the alarm over marriage
THE HAGUE--In an open letter to this newspaper, five academics raise the
alarm over the deteriorating state of marriage in The Netherlands.

"People seem to attach less and less importance to marriage. More people are having children out of wedlock, even though marriage is the best setting for successfully raising a child."

Whereas in 1990 more than 95,000 couples got married, in 2003 this number had fallen to 82,000. And while in 1989 only one in ten children was born out of wedlock, in 2003 it was almost one in three. The five academics, including prof. mr. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law at Nijmegen University and Dr. J. van Loon, a sociologist working at Nottingham Trent University, express their deep concern over these developments. "There is a broad base of social and legal research which shows that marriage is the best structure for the successful raising of children. A child that grows up out of wedlock has a greater chance of experiencing problems in its psychological development, health, school performance, even the quality of future relationships."

One remarkable aspect of the letter is the fact that the authors establish a link with the introduction of gay marriage in The Netherlands. "There are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. The introduction of gay marriage paved the way to a greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation." The authors call for "a national debate about how to strengthen the position of marriage." They hope that the devaluation of marriage in The Netherlands will be an important reason for countries like the US not to introduce gay marriage.
posted by Eve at 1:29 PM | link 0 comments

DUTCH SCHOLARS ON SSM: Interview with two signers

An interview with two of the signers of the statement in the post below. Here it is in Dutch; what follows is a translation into English:

"When it comes to relationships, we're clueless"

By Addy de Jong

THE HAGUE--They fear it might be too late to turn things around. Nevertheless five academics want to raise the alarm over the deteriorating state of marriage in Netherlands, especially now that other countries are discussing the issue of gay marriage. "It would already be a major step forward if people in our country would recognise that we have a serious problem on our hands."

Professor M. van Mourik, one of the signatories of an open letter on the future of marriage published in today's edition of this newspaper, sees examples of it in his legal practice every day. "The reputation of marriage as an institution is in serious decline." Apart from being a professor in contract law at Nijmegen university, he also runs a legal practice as a notary (a lawyer dealing exclusively with private law contracts). "I see it all the time: people no longer understand what’s so special about marriage. Everything has been reduced to the level of financial decisions. What options do we have? What are the advantages and drawbacks of unregistered cohabitation, a registered partnership or marriage? Well, in that case we'll choose this option or that one."

It hurts Van Mourik to think that fewer and fewer people realise that marriage is a publicly witnessed lifelong commitment. "It's more than just loving someone. But when it comes to relationships, people today just seem clueless. Most of them just don't understand that all this private stuff is really just an expression of the fear of permanent commitment to others." While Van Mourik is talking from experience, Dr. J. van Loon, head of a research unit on culture and communication at Nottingham Trent University, is first of all a man of numbers. Van Loon, co-signatory of the letter: "I'm a researcher, a statistician. One year ago I completed a piece of research in which I compared English and Dutch statistics on marriage and relationships. It showed that The Netherlands still scores better on marital fidelity and stable caring relationships, but that we are busy copying the bad British family habits. We're moving in their direction."

Van Loon points out that in 2003 there were 13,000 fewer marriages than in 1990. Even more remarkable is the fact that last year almost one in three children were born out of wedlock, whereas in 1989 it was only one in ten. "Those sort of figures are hugely important. There’s been a lot of research carried out, especially in the US, on the correlation between unstable, frequently changing relationships of parents and drug abuse, criminal behaviour and STD's among teenagers. There is an unmistakably strong connection between them." Hence Van Loon's conclusion: "Marriage is the best setting for the raising of children. And you don't even have to think in such serious terms as crime. A child that grows up out of wedlock will have a greater chance of problems in the development of its personality, its physical health, its school performances and even the quality of its future relationships."

The main question is now what The Netherlands can do to reverse this decline. "The first thing that should happen is that politicians, academics and opinion leaders should recognise that we are faced with a serious problem," Van Mourik says. "Then we need a national debate about the question of how we can restore marriage to its original special, protected status." What should certainly never have happened, was the decision to legalise gay marriage. "In my view that has been an important contributing factor to the decline in the reputation of marriage. It should never have happened. Just like in Germany and the Scandinavian countries, we should have limited ourselves to the creation of registered partnerships for homosexuals. We should have had the guts to tell a relatively small group in our society: leave marriage alone."

Van Loon does not want to talk of a clear causal connection between the introduction of same-sex marriage and the devaluation of marriage. "But I obviously do see a strong correlation. Both development have a common source. It's no coincidence both take place at the same time. It's a consequence of the rejection of normative schemes that are based on eternal values--whether they are connected to the natural law or to God--and the adoption of a different approach, one that says that we are quite capable of redesigning society based on our own fashionable preferences." Van Loon does think that the debate about gay marriage has contributed to the decline in the reputation of marriage. "Supporters of gay marriage often based their argument for legalisation on the separation of marriage and the raising of children. Those two things were supposed to be completely unconnected. It's difficult to imagine that an intensive media campaign based on the claim that marriage and parenthood are unrelated and that marriage is just one among a number of morally equivalent cohabiting relationships did not have any serious social consequences."
posted by Eve at 1:23 PM | link 0 comments

DUTCH SCHOLARS ON SSM

New statement. Here it is in Dutch. What follows is an unofficial English translation:

At a time when parliaments around the world are debating the issue of same-sex marriage, as Dutch scholars we would like to draw attention to the state of marriage in The Netherlands. The undersigned represent various academic disciplines in which marriage is an object of study. Through this letter, we would like to express our concerns over recent trends in marriage and family life in our country.

Until the late 1980's, marriage was a flourishing institution in The Netherlands. The number of marriages was high, the number of divorces was relatively low compared to other Western countries, the number of illegitimate births also low. It seems, however, that legal and social experiments in the 1990's have had an adverse effect on the reputation of man's most important institution.

Over the past fifteen years, the number of marriages has declined substantially, both in absolute and in relative terms. In 1990, 95,000 marriages were solemnized (6.4 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants); by 2003, this number had dropped to 82,000 (5.1 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants). This same period also witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of illegitimate births--in 1989 one in ten children were born out of wedlock (11 percent), by 2003 that number had risen to almost one in three (31 percent). The number of never-married people grew by more than 850,000, from 6.46 million in 1990 to 7.32 million in 2003. It seems the Dutch increasingly regard marriage as no longer relevant to
their own lives or that of their offspring. We fear that this will have serious consequences, especially for the children. There is a broad base of social and legal research which shows that marriage is the best
structure for the successful raising of children. A child that grows up out of wedlock has a greater chance of experiencing problems in its psychological development, health, school performance, even the quality of future relationships.

The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends. However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.

In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.

Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful
development. We call upon politicians, academics and opinion leaders to acknowledge the fact that marriage in The Netherlands is now an endangered institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order.

Signed,
Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University
Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam
posted by Eve at 1:17 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY: Sen. Orrin G. Hatch

"I think it is inevitable now."
--Patricia Logue, LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund, on nationalizing same-sex marriage.

In 1996, Senator John Kerry was one of only 14 senators, all of them Democrats, to oppose passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The bill was unnecessary, he said, since "no State has adopted same-sex marriage." Well, the future is now, and Sen. Kerry's own state of Massachusetts is leading the way. Last November, in its Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declared same-sex marriage to be the policy of the commonwealth. Today, same-sex-married couples live in 46 states and activists are implementing a well-funded, multifaceted, and highly coordinated legal assault on traditional marriage. The inescapable conclusion is that, absent an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, same-sex marriage is coming whether you like it or not.

Next week, the Senate will vote on a Federal Marriage Amendment. In a series of hearings in several different Senate committees, witness after witness confirmed what the American people already know. Traditional marriage is the single best arrangement for raising children and forming citizens. For that reason, government may certainly select this time-proven institution for special preference and protection and a high burden exists for those who would introduce radical and untested substitutes. And it should be the American people who make such choices, not judges imposing their own preferences without the people's consent. ...

When allowed to choose, legislatures protect marriage rather than dismantle it. Therefore, advocates of same-sex marriage resort to strategies involving the executive or judicial branches. ...

...In California, even though 60 percent of voters recently approved a statewide ballot initiative to maintain traditional marriage, the California supreme court is now considering the constitutionality of that democratic action. In Nebraska, the American Civil Liberties Union has challenged a duly passed state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Second, there will likely be a federal court challenge to state marriage laws, similar to the challenges that have eliminated state laws against certain sexual activity.

Third, a federal lawsuit in Florida is challenging DOMA's traditional definition of marriage for purposes of federal benefits.

Fourth, same-sex couples from across America who obtained marriage licenses in places such as San Francisco and Massachusetts have gone home and will try to change their home-state's policy by forcing it to recognize their union. They will cite the Constitution's requirement that states give "full faith and credit" to other states' judicial proceedings.

And fifth, look for lawsuits should states refuse to recognize these imported unions by citing their own opposition to same-sex marriage or DOMA's protection against recognizing non-traditional unions from other states. ...

"DOMA does violence to the spirit and letter of the Constitution."
--Senator John Kerry, The Advocate, September 3, 1996

"The Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land today."
--Senator John Kerry, February 26, 2004

The very people who said in 1996 that DOMA is unconstitutional tell us today that DOMA is good law, solid enough to protect marriage without amending the Constitution. While this legislative protection should be enough, recent court rulings and other developments have convinced most analysts--either grudgingly or enthusiastically--that the DOMA solution will not last.

States such as Louisiana, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Nebraska have all acted to protect traditional marriage, but each of those states now has same-sex resident couples who were married in another state. Will those marriages be recognized or dissolved? DOMA sought to provide the states with a blanket right to refuse recognition of same-sex unions. The Goodridge decision, however, exposes its potential deficiencies. First, a court could conclude that, even though the Constitution gives Congress a role, it may not go as far as it did in DOMA. When DOMA was passed, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe expressed the "unequivocal" conclusion that "Congress possesses no power under any provision of the Constitution to legislate [as it does in DOMA] any such categorical exemption from the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV." ...

To permit a handful of liberal judges to force this radical change on the entire nation is wholly inconsistent with the right of people to govern themselves. This debate over same-sex marriage is fundamentally a question of who decides important matters of public policy in a constitutional democracy. Judges who usurp the role of legislatures by imposing their preferred policies on the people dramatically undermine democracy's vitality and legitimacy. I fear that we have lost sight of this fundamental principle.

more
posted by Eve at 1:11 PM | link 0 comments

S.F. MAYOR DEFENDS HIS DECISION ON GAY VOWS: From the San Jose Mercury News

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told liberal activists Wednesday that his decision to allow same-sex marriages in February has not created the political backlash feared by some prominent Democrats.

Newsom spoke to more than 1,500 members of the American Civil Liberties Union as they gathered for their annual convention in San Francisco. He said that his decision took the spotlight off presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry and has advanced the debate from domestic partnerships to the full rights of marriage.

"Now we get beyond domestic partnerships. Now civil unions almost seem passe. And now we're having a real debate about discrimination," Newsom said. "I think in a curious way, it's helped the Kerry campaign."

But Newsom acknowledged resistance to same-sex marriage remains, even among his mayoral peers.

Last week, the U.S. Conference of Mayors voted 46 to 44 to not take up a resolution he co-sponsored that would have put the mayors on record in opposition of the proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. ...

On Wednesday, ACLU leaders urged members to call or e-mail their senators to register their opposition to [a federal marriage] amendment. The ACLU also has filed suits in seven states, including California, seeking to allow same-sex marriages.

The real battle this year will be in the more than half-dozen states that have November ballot measures seeking to add or strengthen bans on same-sex marriages.

"We can be very clever about the cases we put together, very smart about the cases that we do and we can have the best lobbying operation in Congress," said Matt Coles of the ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project. "None of that will work unless we can make victories in court and victories in Congress sustained" by defeating state bans.

more
posted by Eve at 12:53 PM | link 0 comments

GAY-MARRIAGE DEBATE FUELS SHOWTIME DRAMA: From the Associated Press

While the issue of gay marriage has received its share of television news and talk show time, it has been largely absent from TV series until now. Showtime's "Queer as Folk" charges into the debate in the season's last two episodes, in which partners Michael and Ben (Hal Sparks and Robert Gant) ponder marriage and decide it's right for them.
But their joyful, legal Canadian wedding founders on the U.S. prohibition against same-sex unions.

The scene in Sunday's episode (10 p.m. EDT) in which Ben proposes is superficially mundane, with familiar words of commitment and a ring. Whether the gesture is seen as promising or unsettling is up to the viewer; those involved in the show hope it's the former.

"Michael Novotny, you are the man I've been looking for all my life," college professor Ben Bruckner says. "I'm so very blessed to have found you. Which is why I am asking you to do me the honor of accepting my hand in marriage."

Michael, a comic book creator who's usually an optimist, is unsettled and shares his feelings with a friend, Brian (Gale Harold).

"It wasn't a story I told myself, the way straight kids did," Michael says. "That one day I'd meet that special person, and we'd fall in love and have a big wedding. For me, it was never real."

When cynical Brian derides the idea of homosexuals needing marriage or society's blessing, Michael protests: "It's also our God-given right to have everything straight people have. Because we're as much human beings as they are."

"You're a writer. Rewrite the story," Brian replies.

Series producers Ron Cowen and Daniel Lipman are eager to do some revision of their own on attitudes toward gay marriage in America, especially as the stakes rise with proposal of a constitutional ban.

They created the story for this Sunday's episode (along with Shawn Postoff, who wrote the teleplay) and wrote the July 18 finale in which Michael poignantly questions whether his Canadian marriage, discounted back home in Pittsburgh, meant anything.

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

GAY MARRIAGE VOTE COULD PROVE POLITICALLY PERILOUS: From the Gannett News Service

When the Senate debates a constitutional amendment next week limiting marriage to a man and a woman, the outcome might not change the law of the land.

But it is likely to have a political effect in the next five months, as campaigns around the country deal with the ongoing fight over gay marriage and civil unions.

The amendment, scheduled for the Senate floor next week, would state that only unions of a man and a woman qualify as marriages. Judges in several states, most notably Massachusetts, ruled recently they see no justification for denying gay and lesbian couples the legal rights of straight married couples. Changing the Constitution would mean rights like property ownership, medical decision-making and child custody legally could be limited to straight couples.

Conservatives say the amendment is necessary to protect marriage, which they believe the court rulings have threatened. Opponents say it would write discrimination into the Constitution and could be used to block secular civil unions.

Even Republicans sponsoring the amendment and scheduling the debate say it has little chance of passage. The proposal needs 67 votes to be passed to the House and a possible vote in state legislatures. ...

"I think it could be a sleeper issue," Larry Sabato, a politics professor who directs the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "I don't think it will determine the election, but I think it's more of an issue than the Washington-New York crowd thinks because they're in places where gays are almost completely accepted and where gay marriage is considered de rigeur."

He puts the topic at No. 3 in people's minds behind the dueling issues of national security and the economy.

Yet, seven in 10 registered voters say the gay marriage debate shouldn't be a part of election year politics, according to a CBS News Poll taken May 20 to 23.

In the same poll, more than half said they would vote for someone who does not share their views on gay marriage, but the trend is stronger among registered voters who consider themselves independents or Democrats. Fewer than half of the Republicans felt the same way, even including the poll's margin of error. ...

In some states where gay marriage already has come before courts, the issue could carry more political weight. In Oregon, one of 19 presidential battleground states, a ballot initiative would ban civil unions.

The issue also could pose a problem for incumbent lawmakers like Daschle, who faces a tough challenge from Republican John Thune as he seeks re-election in South Dakota. ...

Democratic leaders have not decided how to handle the debate on the amendment. They could try to prevent it from coming to the floor or could try to hold together the 34 votes needed to keep it from passing.

Still, some Democrats worry that the party won't come up with a powerful argument on why lawmakers are voting against the amendment. Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., said the party risks ceding the rhetorical battle to conservatives.

more
posted by Eve at 12:28 PM | link 0 comments

LAWSUIT IN MD: From the Baltimore Sun

Propelling Maryland into the national debate over the nature of marriage, nine same-sex couples filed suit yesterday in Baltimore Circuit Court to overturn a law prohibiting gay marriage, saying it violates the state constitution.

The plaintiffs, following a strategy similar to the one used to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts, sued Baltimore City Clerk Frank Conaway and clerks in four other Maryland jurisdictions for refusing to issue them marriage licenses last week. In the 39-page complaint, the plaintiffs argue that a 1973 Maryland law that says only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid violates constitutional protections of due process, equality and prohibitions against sex discrimination.

At a news conference yesterday, the couples said they were suing not only on legal principle, but also to receive the practical benefits of marriage, from access to health insurance under a spouse's policy to family visitation rights in hospitals.

"Today, we are here to seek marriage equality in the interest of creating a stable, safe and secure future for our families and children," said Lisa Polyak, 43, an environmental engineer with the U.S. Army Medical Department, as she stood with her partner, Gita Deane, 42, a learning specialist at Goucher College. "I hope there will come a time when no family is set aside and all the children and parents in Maryland will be treated equally in the eyes of the law."

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation in New York, its Maryland branch and local attorneys collaborated on the complaint. With its filing, Maryland joins at least five other states--Oregon, New York, Washington, Florida and New Jersey--where gay rights advocates have sued to marry. ...

Yesterday, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. reiterated his opposition to gay marriage and said Maryland needs a Defense of Marriage Act, which would add another legal hurdle to the suit filed yesterday. "Traditional marriage, in my view and in the view of the vast majority of Marylanders and Americans, is the cornerstone of society," Ehrlich said. "That used to be common sense. I look forward to the day when that returns to the category of common sense."

The attorney general's office has 30 days to respond to the complaint. Regardless of how the Circuit Court rules, the case is almost certain to be resolved by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. Kenneth Choe, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project in New York, said the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the matter because it pertains to a state constitution.

Choe said the ACLU is pursuing a case in Maryland for reasons that include strong support from the gay community here, as well as what gay rights activists say is a relatively friendly legal and political environment. ...

Choe cited a 1998 ruling in which the Maryland Court of Appeals said that sexual orientation is not relevant in determining the best interests of a child regarding custody and visitation. He also said that for many years, Maryland courts have permitted both members of a gay couple to serve as legally adoptive parents, which he said recognizes that gay couples can form families.

Legal opponents, though, questioned whether Maryland was the best state in which to file such a suit now. An official at the state attorney general's office said that Maryland judges tend to follow federal legal protection standards, which do not extend to gay marriage. ...

Furmansky said gay rights advocates have been encouraged by the General Assembly's willingness to defend their interests. He said that Maryland is one of 14 states that prohibits discrimination regarding employment and public accommodation based on sexual orientation. Furmansky also cited the House of Delegates' overwhelming passage of a bill this year that would have extended to gay partners many of the legal rights married people have regarding serious medical decisions involving their spouses. ...

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said he did not expect the suit to provoke a legislative backlash and a flurry of bills for the next legislative session, which begins in January.

"I don't think there's going to be any act or legislation because of this lawsuit," said Miller, a Democrat who represents Prince George's and Calvert counties. "Hopefully, the matter can be decided by the court."

more
posted by Eve at 12:24 PM | link 0 comments

MY BABY JUST CARES FOR ME: Eve Tushnet replies to Jonathan Rauch and sundry

[Part of a disorganized series of semi-random reflections on Rauch's Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.]

For a while there, I thought Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marriage wouldn't mention sex at all.

He kept talking about care and commitment, and detailing the ways that marriage would make that care and commitment easier. All the ways that legal marriage ties us to others, imposes responsibilities even as it confers rights. As Jonathan nicely puts it, "Most of what are usually thought of as the legal benefits of marriage are really gifts with strings attached. Or maybe strings with gifts attached."

But see, that understanding of marriage doesn't fence it off as much as Jonathan wants. It especially doesn't fence off marriage when you consider how Jonathan presents the single life: alone, helpless, loveless, anchorless, without support or succour.

I read this and think, OK now. I'm single. My health is... sub-optimal. My mental state, very much ditto. (I'm sure you haven't noticed!) And there's nobody I want to have sex with who also wants to have sex with me. So am I consigned to the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth?

Jonathan needs to confine marriage to sexual/romantic relationships. Otherwise he might have to accept caring, committed marriages between sisters, cousins, mother and daughter, or several people. (He tries to avoid the last problem by citing the free-rider problem, but frankly, that's just weird. We don't worry that parents will neglect their kids because the other parent could take care of the kids. We don't worry that children will neglect their parents because their siblings might do the work. Why would we assume that people who choose the responsibilities of marriage would shank simply because somebody else might not shank?) Clearly we can care and be committed to more than one person; clearly we can care and be committed to people to whom we already share relations too close for marriage but too distant for the specific rights and responsibilities that marriage currently confers.

So eventually Jonathan does have to talk about sex, baby. And he describes eloquently his belief that sex, love, and marriage should be connected. But a few questions remain.

First: Yes, connecting (certain relationships involving!) sex, love, and loyalty is one huge function of marriage. But Jonathan has already said that one core function of marriage need not define the institution: Although one major function of marriage is to hook children to mothers and fathers, that function cannot, for Jonathan, limn the boundaries of marriage. So why can sexual/romantic relationships set the boundaries? Why not sexless but deeply committed relationships?

Should sex be part of the norm of marriage, or should the norm be restricted solely to commitment and care? Should we encourage people to marry even in situations where we think it's best that they care for one another, but we do not think it's best that they have sex? If not, these seem to be parallel arguments to the arguments that marriage is how we link children to mothers and fathers. And yet those arguments were found, by SSM advocates, insufficient to define the boundaries of marriage. Why is sex/romance more central to marriage than childrearing?

Is the "marital act" a sexual act?
posted by Eve at 4:00 PM | link 0 comments

TEACH YOUR CHILDREN: Eve Tushnet replies to Jonathan Rauch and sundry

[This was written (longhand, I'm old-fashioned) over a week ago, but I was super busy and lame and didn't post it until today.]

I'm writing this at my volunteer job, while I'm waiting for the evening's first client. That seems appropriate, since in my job I mostly work with unwed mothers and women who fear they may be pregnant out of wedlock. That's where I start from in considering all marriage issues. I don't start thinking about same-sex marriage in terms of gay rights--I understand that's part of the story, but I start with "fatherless America," with the women I work with and their children and the men in their lives.

Maybe that's why the section on children in Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marriage was so unsatisfying to me. The chapter's title gives you a sense of its focus: "Married, Without Children." Rauch addresses arguments surrounding procreation, so he deploys the "Unbeatable Infertility Argument." He's replying to what strike me as overly abstract discussions--and I was a philosophy major! I'm really, really into what Pope John Paul II calls the "theology of the body"--how embodiment and sex reveal meaning and demand that we give ourselves wholly to one another--and yet even I often just don't get it when people in the SSM debate start rattling on about "one-flesh unions" and so forth. So I sympathize with Jonathan's bewilderment!

But I wonder why he never addresses a much less abstruse and more obvious claim: Marriage is the place where society promotes childrearing, because marriage links children to mothers and fathers. SSM either makes marriage no longer the norm, the place where it is good to have kids; or it says that children do not need mothers and fathers at all, only unisex "parents."

Scandinavia has taken option #1, allowing same-sex couples to wed but denying them the ability to adopt. Now Scandinavia has marriages where childrearing is actively discouraged.

America seems to be taking option #2. That's understandable--gender, with its emphasis on the constraints of the body, is unattractive to Americans, who tend to prefer unfettered intellects and wills. So for us, SSM will intentionally create legally fatherless and legally motherless children--and will say that these family forms are just as normative as families with father and mother.

I really can't sign on to that. I have little experience with motherless families--although the shock of the spiritual "Motherless Child," and the deep emotions almost all of us feel toward our own mothers, suggest that mothers do play a special role in our lives. (I've noted before that women who have troubled relationships with their mothers often need to work to forgive their mothers before they can forgive themselves and build their own identities. These ties run deep.) But fatherless families--wow, I see them all the livelong day. I see women raising kids alone. I see women raising kids with their own mothers. I see women raising kids with their sisters, with their cousins, with their best friends. But almost never with their babies' fathers.

And I've heard too many women discuss the trouble they have showing their sons that men have a necessary and beneficial role in the family: that men are not destructive, not fly-by-night interlopers, but integral parts of the family. I've heard too many women describe their own fatherless upbringings, their own hard-fought attempts to teach their daughters to expect more from men rather than hanging around with trifling males, their own struggles to find men who know they are needed in their children's lives.

Proponents of SSM often argue that the problem of "fatherless America" isn't fatherlessness. It's poverty; or it's the generational clash between mother, daughter, and granchild. And yeah, poverty sucks. Generational conflicts do happen. But far more often than I hear about either of those two problems, I hear really simple pleas: "My son misses his daddy."

So I don't know. Maybe it's "awful" and "egregious" to say that SSM works against efforts to make sure kids have mothers and fathers. But I at least want us to start from this discussion, and not from stuff about whether 80-year-olds can marry, or whether (gasp! oh I'm shocked!) there are married couples who don't have children.
posted by Eve at 3:31 PM | link 0 comments

ADULT CHILDREN SPEAK OUT ABOUT SAME-SEX PARENTS: Maggie Gallagher

It was the TV pictures that first got to Bronagh Cassidy. Same-sex couples marrying in San Francisco: "They were so proud of themselves. And then they had these little children with them." Cassidy, a 27-year-old married mother of two, sighs. "Something inside of me wants to be able to help those kids, because I know they are going to have problems." ...

Back in 1976, Cassidy's mom had a religious ceremony with a woman named Pat. To make Cassidy, they did artificial insemination at home, mixing the sperm of two gay friends "to make sure nobody would ever know who the father was," says Cassidy. (That was in the days before widespread DNA testing.) The two women stayed together for 16 years, until Pat died. Three years later, Cassidy's mother married a man.

What was it like for Cassidy being raised by two women she called "Mom" and "My Pat"?

"When growing up, I always had the feeling of being something unnatural," Cassidy says. "I came out of an unnatural relationship; it was something like I shouldn't be there. On a daily basis, it was something I was conflicted with. I used to wish, honestly that Pat wasn't there."

Why does she oppose same-sex marriage? "It's not something that a seal of approval should be stamped on: We shouldn't say it is a great and wonderful thing and then you have all these kids who later in life will turn around and realize they've been cheated. The adults choose to have that lifestyle and then have a kid. They are fulfilling their emotional needs -- they want to have a child -- and they are not taking into account how that's going to feel to the child; there's a clear difference between having same-sex parents and a mom and a dad."

Sounds judgmental in print. But up close, Cassidy comes across as fiercely protective of her mom (Cassidy is a pen name she's adopted to protect her mom's privacy). Like many children of same-sex parents, she was expected to defend and protect her mothers from society's homophobia. Her own troubled feelings about her family life were clearly unacceptable to her parents. Even now, the prospect of speaking about her own experience gives her the shakes. ...

A few years back, she watched "20/20" interviews with children like her. "They were asked questions like: 'Are you happy? Do you love your parents?' I don't think it's fair to ask them those questions. These are their parents. They aren't going to say they are suffering, because they don't want to make their parents feel bad."

Some people will say if Cassidy's mom and "my Pat" had been legally married, everything would have been fine. Cassidy doesn't think so. "Even if society were open to it, there's just the whole issue of your self-identity. I always had the feeling I was in a lab experiment." ...

Do any other adult children with same-sex parents feel the same way? Will we allow any space in this intense debate between adult combatants for something as simple as one child's feelings?

more
posted by Eve at 3:22 PM | link 0 comments

METHODISTS AND MARRIAGE: From the Weekly Standard

ONE OF AMERICA'S largest Protestant denominations voted in May to prohibit the solemnization of same-sex unions in its churches, to withhold ordination from practicing homosexuals, to ban church funding for "gay" causes, to require celibacy for its single clergy, and to endorse civil laws that define marriage as uniting a man and a woman. And it wasn't the Southern Baptists.

No, all this occurred at the governing General Conference of the United Methodist Church, a "mainline" denomination whose leadership has been decidedly liberal for decades. Over 8 million strong, the United Methodists are the third largest church in the United States after the Roman Catholics and the Southern Baptists, and the turn they have taken on the issue of homosexuality is almost directly opposite to that of the quintessential mainline group, the Episcopalians.

The Episcopal Church--only one-fourth the size of the United Methodists--has been much in the spotlight since the election of its first openly homosexual bishop last year. Advocates of approving homosexuality hoped the Episcopal Church was a harbinger of America's religious future. But the Methodists aren't following its lead.

The United Methodists have always been Main Street, to the Episcopalians' Wall Street. They are more suburban and small town than the Episcopalians, more southern and midwestern, and on the whole more culturally conservative. United Methodists are also highly international. Almost one-third of the U.S.-based denomination is now overseas, mostly in Africa. This represents not only growth abroad but also diminishing numbers at home.

Methodism was America's largest church as recently as the late 19th century, but after 40 years of continuous decline, the United Methodists have gone from 11 million to 8.3 million in the United States. Meanwhile, their former mission churches in places like the Congo, Angola, and Mozambique are surging. Full of enthusiastic recent converts, these congregations are ones where liberal theology holds little sway. Africans and to a lesser extent Filipinos have been crucial to setting United Methodism's more culturally conservative direction. ...

Sixty percent voted that homosexual practice was incompatible with Christian teaching, 72 percent voted to uphold the ban on practicing homosexual clergy, 80 percent reaffirmed the ban on same-sex unions, and 85 percent reaffirmed that clergy must be celibate if single and monogamous if married.

Seventy-seven percent voted to affirm "laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," making the United Methodists the first mainline church to adopt a political stance on same-sex unions. The ban on funding of homosexual advocacy by the national church was expanded to include regional bodies. And adultery, premarital sex, homosexual practice, and same-sex ceremonies were all made chargeable offenses that could precipitate church trials. ...

...Almost all the United Methodist churches in America that are growing are in the deep South. There are now more Methodists in Georgia than in all the Pacific and Rocky Mountain states combined.

The conservative African church, meanwhile, keeps growing. This year, the formerly autonomous Methodist Church of the Ivory Coast, with a million members, joined the United Methodist Church. This raised the non-U.S. component of the denomination from 20 percent to 30 percent.

Church liberals are flummoxed. For decades they styled themselves champions of the Third World. But Third World Christians are conservative on what is, for liberals, the most important cultural issue.

United Methodism, like most old mainline denominations, exerts cultural influence beyond its numbers. Although less than 3 percent of the U.S. population are United Methodists, about 12 percent of members of Congress are, including Hillary Clinton. So are President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

more, if you subscribe
posted by Eve at 3:18 PM | link 0 comments

GAY DIVORCE NEW PRACTICE AREA: From the National Law Journal

...In Hertz's case, he is preparing for the implementation of the California Domestic Partner Rights Act of 2003, which essentially will give marriage benefits to same-sex couples who have registered as domestic partners. And in other areas of the country, lawyers are readying themselves for divorce business from a new demographic. ...

Hertz's predicament involves the California law, which will include registered same-sex couples under the domain of family law. It is designed to allow such couples who decide to split up to have their disputes handled by courts under the state's divorce laws, which previously applied only to opposite-sex marriages. The law requires registered couples who do not want to be included to provide written notice to the state.

For the less-moneyed partner, it is good news, Hertz said, since much family law is designed to level the field for the poorer spouse.

But it gets complicated. The statute also applies California's community property law to the state's estimated 23,000 registered same-sex couples, Hertz said. In other words, all income, assets, savings and debt acquired by either partner after the couple has registered as domestic partners are presumed equally owned during the duration of the union, regardless of how the assets or debts are titled.

A major problem, he asserts, deals with taxation. Since the federal government does not recognize same-sex unions, any court-ordered support or property given by one partner and received by the other will be subject to tax. The burden could be daunting for less-moneyed spouses and strip them of what they are entitled to, he said. It also could create constitutional issues if same-sex partners are taxed under federal law but opposite-sex partners are not.

Another concern is the fate of couples who executed contracts and opt out of the law. Couples who devised such contracts often used the same attorney -- as did the majority of Hertz's clients -- which would disqualify the contracts as prenuptial agreements under California law.

For couples to avoid the state's family law by using a prenuptial agreement, both parties must have separate counsel and must waive their marital rights. ...

But it isn't only niche practices on the coasts that are expecting big changes. James H. Feldman, head of Chicago-based Jenner & Block's matrimonial practice, anticipates that so-called same-sex divorces will make their way to middle America. His prediction comes despite a pending bill in the Illinois Legislature that would amend the state's constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and would not recognize same-sex unions from other states. ...

Even if particular jurisdictions do not have laws allowing for some form of same-sex unions, and even if those jurisdictions do not recognize unions created in other jurisdictions, much remains unanswered if, for example, a same-sex couple wed in Massachusetts goes to a lawyer in Oklahoma seeking a divorce. That sequence of events is problematical, since most of the laws are untested. Still more issues arise if the couple has adopted a child. ...

But an alternative does exist. About 30 percent of the work handled by Richard Gordon, president of A Fair Way Mediation in San Diego, is the dissolution of same-sex relationships. He said he creates a "legal fiction" for his clients by operating as if they were married in a community-property state. That way, the assets and debts are fairly apportioned, he said.

Yet the parties must agree between themselves to use mediation, and it may be difficult for the poorer partner to convince the moneyed partner to participate. "They're stuck, unless they can get the other party to agree," Leonard said.

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

COURT DATE SET IN MASS. OUT-OF-STATE SSM CASE: From 365Gay.com

Thirteen Massachusetts town clerks will square off against Attorney General Thomas Reilly in a Boston courtroom next Tuesday in a battle to allow out-of-state same-sex couples wed.

Same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts this spring but only residents of the state, and those gay couples who swear they intend to move here are eligible for marriage license applications.

The clerks say barring out-of-state same-sex couples is discriminatory and a violation of the commonwealth's Constitution.

At issue in the case is a directive from Reilly that the clerks must obey a 1913 law that says marriage licenses cannot be issued to couples from other states if those marriages would be "void" in the states where the couples reside.

The law had been created when Massachusetts legalized interracial marriage and faced an outcry from other states which still banned the unions. Even then, the law was seldom enforced. After the US Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that preventing interracial marriage was illegal and struck down bans in those states which still prevented them the Massachusetts law collected dust.

Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, a foe of same-sex marriage, dusted off the old statute and declared it was still valid and would apply to gay and lesbian couples from outside the state seeking to wed in the Commonwealth. Romney pressured Reilly to lean on clerks across the state after four communities, Provincetown, Somerville, Springfield, and Worcester, refused to obey the law and began issuing licenses to gay couples from outside Massachusetts. When the four were served with cease and desist orders out-of-state same-sex marriages ended in the state.

Tuesday, July 13, at the preliminary hearing in the clerks' suit, a judge will be asked to enjoin the state from initiating any prosecutions or from taking any enforcement action against the clerks.

link
posted by Eve at 3:14 PM | link 0 comments

REGISTRAR WHO REFUSES SSM IN NETHERLANDS ORDERED TO RESIGN: From Expatica News

Leeuwarden Council is demanding that a marriage registrar who has refused to officiate at gay and lesbian weddings resign her position from January 2005.

The city council previously tried in 2001 to force the resignation of the public servant--who is in principle opposed to gay marriages--but a judge thwarted the move due to a procedural error on the part of the municipal authority.

If the issue comes to a court battle again, the judge will need to make a precedence-setting ruling as to whether a public servant with conscientious objections may refuse to marry a homosexual couple.

The public servant, identified as Nynke Eringa-Boogaardt, has refused to confirm if she will take legal action against the council's decision. She is currently consulting her lawyer.

Leeuwarden Council's decision to sack the woman was passed by a small majority, after the proposal was lodged by the Labour PvdA and the PAL-GroenLinks factions, Dutch public news service NOS reported.

"It would now be very fair if Eringa-Boogaardt resigned as a marriage public servant," local PvdA leader Amerins Dikken said.

The executive council--made up of the Friesland capital's mayor and aldermen and women--was in favour of allowing Eringa-Boogaardt to remain in her position until 2015.

The executive council will discuss the main council's decision later on Tuesday.

Gay marriages have been legal in the Netherlands since April 2002. The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legally allow marriages between same sex couples.

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

ACLU FILES SUIT FOR SSM IN MARYLAND: From Yahoo News

The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday sued the city of Baltimore and four Maryland counties for the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The lawsuit was filed in Baltimore Circuit Court on behalf of nine couples and a man whose partner recently died. The couples had sought marriage licenses and were denied, said Ken Choe of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, based in New York.

Maryland law specifically defines marriage as between a man and a woman. In February, Attorney General Joseph Curran sent a memo to state legislators and the 24 clerks of the court reminding them that clerks are not authorized to issue licenses to gay couples.

The ACLU has pending legal challenges in Massachusetts, Oregon, New York, Washington state, California and Nebraska.

Other groups have filed lawsuits in New Jersey and Florida to legalize gay marriage.

link
posted by Eve at 3:08 PM | link 0 comments

SSM: THE LESSER-HEARD OPPOSITION MOVEMENT: From New York Newsday

Elizabeth Marquardt is 33, married for eight years, a mother of two young children, an author and researcher on the topic of divorce and family. ...

She is also, much to the surprise and dismay of her liberal friends and colleagues, opposed to same-sex marriage, even though her best friend is gay. ...

Marquardt said her argument has nothing to do with homosexuality itself. Instead, she said, gay marriage brings up the same concern as divorce and single parenthood: That all potentially compromise the emotional health of children by aspiring to something less than what she considers the gold standard, a family led by a man and woman, married to each other. Broken and imperfect families are realities of life, but only gay marriage involves changing the fundamental definition of marriage, she said.

"I'm not willing to say right now," she said, "that the rights of adults to do what they want trump the question of how this will affect children." ...

Marquardt supports gay adoption and legal protections for gay couples and parents. But she stops short along with a great many Americans when it comes to granting wholesale the rights of marriage to gay couples.

"It's one thing to accept all kinds of families as you find them," Marquardt said. "But when you talk about larger policy goals, and changing the norm, that's not acceptable." ...

"We believe marriage is about family, too," said Corri Planck, with the Family Pride Coalition, a national advocacy group for gay and lesbian families. "It seems both sides are saying the same thing. We just have some different ideas of what constitutes a family."

Social scientists generally agree that the family structure best suited to raise the healthiest children is one led by a married mother and father, a position that is difficult to assert without appearing anti-gay, some said.

Gay rights advocates point to research that shows gay parents raise healthy and happy children. But some scientists and scholars say those studies are too new to be conclusive. Samples are small, do not take into account all variables, and have been studied over a short period of time, they say.

Bill Doherty, a professor in the Department of Family Social Science at the University of Minnesota, said that "kids in same-sex households will probably look like kids in stepfamilies. They're not quite as well off, but they're not terrible. And we don't ban stepfamilies."

more
posted by Eve at 6:00 PM | link 0 comments

"FMA EXTREMISTS LAUNCH DISGUSTING AD": Human Rights Campaign action email

[Note: For some reason, the email that I got had the wrong link where it says "Click here to see the whole, awful ad." It's fixed now. Everything that follows is either HRC, or HRC's quotation of the pro-FMA ad. --Eve]

Dear ,

With just ten more days until the week our Senators vote, the extremists behind the Federal Marriage Amendment have unleashed their worst yet: A disgusting newspaper ad that is not only anti-gay, it also condemns all single parents--gay or straight.

Friends, this is exactly what we're up against: well-funded, hate-filled people who will stop at nothing to achieve their discriminatory, offensive goals. And we have only ten more days to stop them. Here's how you can continue turn up the heat:

1. Fund the fight against the people responsible for this egregious ad. We can win this battle that they've forced on us, but countering their ugly message with our own newspaper and internet ads and commercials, activating hundreds of thousands of supporters, and educating Senators is the costliest work we have ever done. Please, support this fight of our lives.

2. Tell your Senators to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. We know that many Senators are hearing from ultra-conservatives who support the FMA far more--in some cases, by a ten-to-one margin--than they are hearing from people who oppose it. Please, contact your Senators today. Click here.

3. Drop off a letter to your Senator's local office. A personal visit speaks volumes! Hand write a note and personally visit your Senator's office to deliver it. All you need to do is to call your Senators' offices and ask to make an appointment or get their schedule. Click here to find the phone numbers to get started.

Thank you--again--for all you are doing to stop President Bush and his colleagues from writing discrimination into our Constitution. We're glad you're with us. If there's a way you'd like to help that we've missed, drop us a line: field@hrc.org.

Many thanks,

Cheryl A. Jacques
Human Rights Campaign President

[This is a sidebar in the email:]
The extremists behind the Federal Marriage Amendment are placing this egregious ad in newspapers across the country (Ohio example below):

Text of ad starts with "Why Don't [Ohio] Senators DeWine and Voinovich Believe Every Child Needs a Mother and a Father?" and continues with: "...Here's the bottom line: homosexual marriage intentionally creates fatherless families or motherless families. Think about it.

Every child understands how important a mom and a dad are. Help make your senators as smart as a kid. Pick up the phone and tell their staffs you support the Federal Marriage Amendment, and they should too."

Click here to see the whole, awful ad--and then do something about it.
posted by Eve at 1:46 PM | link 0 comments

INSURERS PUSHED TO CONSIDER NON-TRADITIONAL COUPLES: From the Chicago Tribune

Pamela Lukas and Chris Grijalva celebrated 20 years of unwedded bliss recently. Long ago, the Irvine, Calif., couple decided that while they love each other deeply, they didn't want children and didn't want to commingle their finances. They don't even share a joint checking account for household expenses. He takes care of the groceries, she pays the homeowner's insurance, and they both pay into the mortgage.

Though the social stigma of living together outside of marriage has faded, Lukas, 50, says the financial toll remains.

"I regret that I can't put him on my medical insurance at work," she said of Grijalva, a self-employed computer consultant who has to buy his own insurance. "I've been living with him longer than my co-workers have been married, and they're all on the company plan."

Still, the risk manager for a restaurant chain has done the math and continues to choose independence.

"I wanted to have my own financial base," she said.

At the same time, millions of same-sex couples are fighting a legislative war to be allowed to do exactly what Lukas and Grijalva have shunned all these years.

"The movement for gay marriage has been the biggest advertisement for marriage in years," said Arlene Skolnick, author of several books on how social and economic change affects family life. "It's simply equal access that they want."

The debate has some potentially huge ramifications as we whittle away the relative financial advantages of the traditional family. ...

Now more single people are buying homes and getting those juicy tax deductions--once largely the domain of the nuclear family. More employers are introducing domestic-partner benefits to attract the best and brightest, even as some of their legal teams scramble to figure out what they'll do about new state laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

In San Francisco, an Internet-based insurance company is pushing the envelope on marketing to non-traditional families. Esurance (www.esurance.com) will write car insurance policies that offer multicar discounts to any qualifying group of people who share a garage--whether they are lifelong partners, an elderly parent living with an adult child, or college roommates. ...

Of course, the proof will come in whether or not the larger insurance firms and bank underwriters begin to follow suit.

"Companies will be forced to look at non-traditional families because that's where the business is," Lukas said.

more
posted by Eve at 12:04 PM | link 0 comments