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 |