|
 |
 |
 Saturday, August 21, 2004
SSM ACTIVISTS PIN HOPE ON CALIF. LAWSUIT: From the Washington Blade
Following the California Supreme Court ruling last week that invalidated the marriages of nearly 4,000 same-sex couples, activists are now setting their sights on a lawsuit in the lower courts challenging the constitutionality of California's gay marriage ban. ... Jennifer Pizer, senior staff attorney in Lambda Legal’s Los Angeles-based Western regional office, said that several cases challenging the validity of California's same-sex marriage ban have now been consolidated. She said the lawsuit is unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more. In a related development, California Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who chairs the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Legislative Caucus, has authored a bill that would prohibit the state from denying marriage licenses to gays. He predicted the Marriage License Non Discrimination Act (AB 1967) will be on the governor’s desk this time next year. more
CUSTODY CASE PUTS VA. LAW ON TRIAL: From the Washington Blade
... In 2000, the Northern Virginia natives exchanged vows in a Vermont civil union, gave birth and moved to the progressive New England state for its greater range of gay legal protections. Four years later, the Miller-Jenkins family is entangled in a bitter custody battle over Isabella, their 2-year-old daughter, in a case that could test the feasibility of interstate marriage laws, and particularly Virginia’s newly enacted -- and extremely stringent -- civil union ban. On Aug. 24, Frederick County Court Judge John Prosser will decide whether a Virginia court has jurisdiction to grant full custody of Isabella to Lisa, her biological mother who has moved back to Virginia, over a Vermont decree granting co-parental status and visitation rights to Janet. Lawyers on both sides said that while the Vermont court will most likely retain its authority, Virginia could enforce its civil union ban, the Marriage Affirmation Act, which does not permit recognition of civil unions and nullifies other legal agreements that mirror marriage. more
SSM AND HAYEK: Jonah Goldberg replies to Jonathan Rauch
...In his excellent book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, Jonathan Rauch tackles what he calls the Hayekian argument against gay marriage (you can read the relevant excerpt from his book here). According to Rauch, the Hayekian problem with same-sex marriage is simply this: We do not, and most often cannot, know the full importance of some customs and institutions, specifically the mother of all institutions -- marriage. In numerous books and essays, Friedrich Hayek explained how societies, like markets, develop organically into what he called "spontaneous orders." No single person possesses anything close to the invisible collective knowledge held by the society as a whole. In much the same way that the price of a given stock or commodity may not make sense to any individual, the collective actions of millions of individual actors via the market determine the best or most efficient or most intelligent price. ... The only way to make the implementation of homosexual marriage un-radical is to persuade people that such a move isn't radical. And such persuasion is less dependent on reason than it is on time. Let's put it this way: Imagine that it's 1904 instead of 2004. Now, let's suppose that the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. Imagine the social and political upheaval that would ensue. Now, according to its advocates, gay marriage is a matter of justice, so presumably legalization in 1904 would have been as warranted as in 2004. But since virtually no one was asking for gay marriage in 1904, the move would have seemed needlessly or even insanely radical, and no amount of reasonable argument would change that perception. Rauch's version of Hayekianism says that change is necessary whenever the injustice is great. What if, instead, change is necessary when the injustice is obvious? For Rauch, of course, the injustice is already obvious. But obviousness for any individual is never the right criteria. The benefits of socialism or economic planning -- which Hayek dubbed "the fatal conceit" -- were obvious to a great mass of intellectuals and workers. No, the standard must be obviousness for the society generally. In a sense, Rauch is uprooting Hayek by arguing that Hayek would support any reform to existing civilization that corrected the unjust, but he doesn't allow for the fact that it takes time for society to learn from the obviousness of this unjustness. ... ...It sounds awfully utopian to believe that in the span of a generation a few judges, under popular pressure, can convince the rest of society to accept an unprecedentedly radical revision of an institution that existed millennia before traffic lights, and upon which far more depends. more
OREGON EMERGES AS KEY MARRIAGE BATTLEGROUND: From the Gay City News
With gay men and lesbians from coast to coast facing ballot initiatives that would enshrine bans on same-sex marriage in their state constitutions, Oregon has emerged as the place with the best chance of defeating such an amendment at the polls this fall, according to the community’s national political groups. To insure at least one victory out of as many as 12 battles on or before November 2, those groups are investing huge amounts of money in the two Oregon organizations fighting the constitutional amendment there, and sending them field workers, strategists and organizers. A gay victory in Oregon is all the more important in the wake of the trouncing the community received on a similar ballot initiative in Missouri on August 3, one that may foreshadow the experience of lesbian and gay communities in most other states facing a vote on marriage-related amendments this fall. Losses across the board would not only be disempowering, but would also send an ominous signal to those working to protect the community’s most important win to date--in Massachusetts. "Oregon is the place where we have our best chance," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). He added, "We are determined to give at least one state the resources it needs to run a fully financed campaign," later concluding, "we're putting our chips down in Oregon." more
CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHER MAY HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR SSM: From the San Francisco Chronicle
Eleven years after meeting in a college poetry class, Doug Neff and Corey Rothermel donned matching tuxedos and headed across the Bay Bridge to San Francisco City Hall, where their ministers married them. ... And he feels that way even though he believes marrying cost him his job as a religion teacher at Bishop O'Dowd, a Catholic high school in Oakland. In California, it may be illegal for administrators at a religious institution to fire a gay teacher for marrying his partner, some legal experts say. But the law isn't cut- and-dried -- and because state-sanctioned same-sex marriage is a relatively new phenomenon, there isn't a lot of legal precedent. ... James Sweeney, a constitutional lawyer specializing in the First Amendment, said that generally, "matters of religious conscience are protectable interests that the law needs to accommodate whenever possible." But Shannon Minter, legal director at National Center for Lesbian Rights, said "there's a very significant possibility that he is protected" by California's anti-discrimination law. Nonprofit religious organizations aren't subject to all the provisions of the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act, which prohibits sexual orientation discrimination, but that exemption is narrow, Minter said. It may apply in Neff's case, but it depends on a variety of factors including whether he was performing religious duties and whether he was teaching strictly people who adhere to Catholicism. more Friday, August 20, 2004
SSM: WAS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE SETTLED YEARS AGO?: Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog
Thirty-two years ago this Fall, the Supreme Court decided the case of Baker v. Nelson. It was not a full-scale ruling. In fact, this is the whole of the decision: "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." But the Baker precedent--if that is what it actually is--is taking on new life in the current constitutional debate over same-sex marriage. Opponents of constitutionalizing a right to gay marriage, including the Justice Department, insist that the issue is already settled--by Baker -- against federal constitutional support for such marriages. Now, with the first federal court ruling on Congress’ refusal to allow federal benefits for same-sex married couples (under the Defense of Marriage Act), the Baker case has had its fullest airing in years in a lower court. And the judge concluded that the Court’s 1972 dismissal of Baker "is not binding precedent" on whether it is unconstitutional for the federal government to treat same-sex couples differently by denying them marital benefits. That doubtless is not the last word on the subject, however. (The judge went on to uphold DOMA as applied to a federal law, without relying on Baker.) (Thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing for the link to the judge’s 30-page ruling.) more Thursday, August 19, 2004
SPAIN'S SOCIALISTS PURSUE SWEEPING PUSH TO THE LEFT: From the Chicago Tribune
Spain's new government is pressing an ambitious social reform agenda that would put the historically conservative Catholic country on par with the most liberal nations in Europe. ... The new initiatives include combating domestic violence, abolishing Spain's restrictive abortion laws, legalizing same-sex marriage, allowing gay couples to adopt children and ending mandatory religious education in public schools. ... The agenda appears to have the support of the public. A Gallup poll found more than half of Spaniards support same-sex marriage and think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. Two-thirds of the Spanish public support legalizing same-sex marriage, for instance, according to polls. Although the Socialists do not hold a majority in the parliament, most of the proposed laws are widely expected to pass because of support from other left-leaning parties. more
"2-SEX MARRIAGE"
[Next in the "name that marriage" sweepstakes. Philosophically better than "traditional marriage," but oh so clunky. Bill Dillinger suggests the equally clunky, but weirdly provocative, "organic marriage," which makes me think of Whole Foods. --Eve] Wednesday, August 18, 2004
CRITICISM OF AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION'S SUPPORT FOR SSM: Warren Throckmorton
...Many people might assume the APA membership would vote on such important issues before the leadership would go public with a policy statement. No so. No polling was done of the 150,000 members. Six committee members recommended the resolution to the 160-members Council of Representatives and by a show of hands the matter was done. So when APA president Diane Halpern said to USA Today that the APA was "going out on a limb" to support same-sex "marriage" and parenting, a more accurate statement would be that the APA leadership had crawled out there without taking into account where the members stood. more
WASHINGTON STATE COURT SAYS FEDERAL DOMA IS CONSTITUTIONAL--
pro-DOMA commentary here from Shannen W. Coffin.
LOUISIANA COURT FIGHTS CONTINUE: From the Associated Press
Efforts to prevent a Sept. 18 vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions are proceeding on several fronts, lawyers said. Gay rights lawyers plan to file an appeal with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge on Wednesday following a Baton Rouge judge's Monday refusal to stop a vote on the amendment. ... Opponents of the proposed amendment are taking a multifaceted approach. Forum for Equality argues that the ban would violate the Louisiana Constitution's guarantee of individuals' rights to enter into contracts and own property; they say it would invalidate contracts which gay and lesbian partners have drawn up to own houses together or to share responsibility for children. Backers of the amendment in the Legislature say it does not go that far. Opponents of the amendment also say it illegally focuses on multiple objectives -- not just outlawing gay marriages but also civil unions and other legal relationships that bestow "the incidents of marriage." Backers of the amendment say it was drawn up correctly and will withstand court scrutiny. more
MASS. LAW ON OUT OF STATE MARRIAGES UPHELD: From the Associated Press
A state judge on Wednesday declined to halt enforcement of a 1913 state law barring out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts. Eight same-sex couples from out of state had asked Superior Court Judge Carol Ball to block the state from enforcing the law, arguing that it was discriminatory. It prohibits any marriages that would not be legal in the couple's home state. ... An attorney for the couples expressed disappointment Wednesday but said they would continue to push the case. more
WHEN GAY AMERICANS MARRY: Dan Savage
[More McGreeveyness. Everyone has an angle, apparently. This piece is better than others, though I am even more out of sympathy with the entire quasi-journalistic, quasi-science fiction enterprise than I was when this story (aka someone's life) began. Here's to speculative journalism. --Eve] ...If it does nothing else, the McGreevey marriage highlights the chief absurdity of the anti-gay-marriage argument: Gay men can, in point of fact, get married -- provided we marry women, duped or otherwise. The porousness of the sacred institution is remarkable: Gay people are a threat to marriage, but gay people are encouraged to marry -- indeed, we have married, under duress, for centuries, and the religious right would like us to continue to do so today -- as long as our marriages are a sham. As long as we're willing to lie to ourselves, our wives, our communities, our children, and for someone like McGreevey, our constituents. A closeted gay man like McGreevey can even marry twice and have both his marriages regarded as legitimate. Even as an openly gay man, McGreevey can remain married to his wife and smoke all the pole he likes on the side. There ain't no law agin' it, Sen. Santorum. But how does this state of affairs protect marriage from the homos, I wonder? If an openly gay man can get married as long as his marriage makes a mockery of what is the defining characteristic of modern marriage -- romantic love -- or if he marries simply because he despairs of finding a same-sex partner, what harm could possibly be done by opening marriage to the gay men who don't want to make a mockery of marriage or who can find a same-sex partner? Gay Americans -- the out variety -- no doubt expect the newly out McGreevey to follow the standard high-profile/celebrity coming out story arc: Write a book, get a boy/girlfriend, go on "Oprah," make ass of self. (See: Greg Louganis, Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, et al.) Not me. I'm hoping for a different outcome this time. In my perverse heart of hearts, I hope Mr. and Mrs. McGreevey remain married. It might help Americans realize that people marry for lots of different reasons, and that romantic love need not be the only reason -- or even a reason -- that two people decide to spend their lives together. And if the idea of a gay man married to a woman makes America uncomfortable, well, perhaps they should let us marry each other. more (you have to click through a quick ad) Tuesday, August 17, 2004
GAYS PERSIST IN HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES FOR COMPLEX SET OF REASONS [yeah, you think?]: From Newhouse News Service
[Eh, I still think Signorile is more nuanced here. --Eve] ...Buxton has been researching gay/straight marriages and speaking with some 9,000 spouses since the mid-1980s, when her husband came out as gay."He led a perfectly straight life, and it nearly killed him," said Buxton, who has two children with him. "He became physically depressed and withdrawn." Many face similar lifelong struggles in these marriages, which are often based on true affection and respect. Information networks now exist for gay married men, married lesbians, straight partners and their children -- who each face different, painful issues. "There is still a huge, negative wedge that says being gay or lesbian is sinful," said Bob, a 71-year-old formerly married gay man who asked that his last name not be used. He organized a chapter of the GAMMA (Gay Married Men Association) support group in Grand Rapids, Mich., where about 14 members of the national organization meet twice monthly. In speaking with hundreds of gay married men through the years, Bob said, he most often hears of two pressures: church and family."Their families say, 'When are you going to marry and give me grandchildren?' And their churches look down on being gay" -- some even asking gays to renounce their sexuality or leave the congregation, Bob said. ... He runs the Gay Fathers of Rhode Island support group. During twice-monthly gatherings, men discuss the pull between marriage and fatherhood, and their identity as a gay or bisexual. "They're very conflicted about who they are, versus who they need to be for others," Fronczak said. more
WHY THE CALIF. SUPREME COURT REPUDIATED ISSUANCE OF SSM LICENSES: Vikram David Amar
...To begin with, the court repeatedly and explicitly steered well clear of expressing any views on the "ultimate" question in the California gay marriage controversy -- whether the statutes that define marriage as only between a man and a woman are consistent with California's constitution. ... In contrast to its careful avoidance of the issues described above, the court said a lot--perhaps too much--about the limits on executive power that made Mayor Newsom's actions in directing the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses untenable. Again, Newsom claimed he had the power to disregard state statutes he believed to be unconstitutional under the state and/or federal constitutions. In rejecting Newsom's claim, the court might have said simply that local executive officials -- such as mayors -- who are part of a statewide hierarchical system lack such power. But at times in its opinion, the court went further to suggest that no executive official -- local or supreme -- could ever have such a power. ... Why does the California Supreme court's disparagement of the capacities of all executive officials to make constitutional judgments matter? Because it is but one part of a pervasive court-centric perspective that has been repeatedly reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that is now internalized by all the key institutional actors, including high-level executive officials themselves. ... Nor was this broad repudiation of executive power necessary to resolve the Newsom case. As I have explained in an earlier column, a local California Mayor simply does not have the power to independently disregard statewide statutes, even if higher level executive officials -- like a Governor -- might. The court could easily have rested its opinion on this far narrower ground. ... To some extent, the majority's instinct is right: Until and unless California statutes defining marriage as between only men and women have been judicially invalidated, the San Francisco same-sex licenses cannot have any legal force--the persons who hold them cannot now enjoy any of the legal benefits distinctive to the institution of marriage. So couples possessing these licenses should know--and the California Supreme court was right to remind them--that these licenses should not currently be relied upon. But the court went a step further. It said that even in the event that California marriage statutes are later invalidated by appellate courts, same sex couples would have to go through the marriage process (again) in order to obtain marital benefits. more
NEXT GAY MARRIAGE FIGHT COULD MOVE FAST: From Law.com
Now that the sideshow is over, the real fight over the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage is about to begin. And attorneys on both sides of the issue predict that the constitutional challenge in San Francisco Superior Court will move along quicker than many might imagine. "It could be resolved by the end of the year," Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart said Friday. ... The San Francisco proceedings involve four suits that were coordinated into one case. Two were filed against Lockyer, including one by the city and another by two gay rights groups and 12 same-sex couples denied marriage licenses in San Francisco. In a third case, the Rev. Troy Perry, founder of Metropolitan Community Churches, and gay activist Robin Tyler and their partners have taken on the county of Los Angeles. The final case was filed by San Francisco attorney Waukeen McCoy. more
MORE ON "SHE HATE ME": From the Detroit Free Press
...With "She Hate Me," Lee floats some intriguing ideas, especially about family dynamics in the age of same-sex marriage, seen here as a parenting triumvirate of sperm donor and lesbian moms. "We see a glimpse at the end of the film of what might be a new nuclear family," Lee says. "I think that they're going to make a go of it, though I don't think anyone knows how it's going to work . . . The days of Ozzie and Harriet are long gone. We just have to evolve." more
GAY MARRIAGE BALLOT ISSUE HEADED TO LOUISIANA HIGH COURT: From the Lafayette Advertiser
Gay activists lost a second round Monday in their three-court attack on the constitutionality of the Sept. 18 proposition prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions. No matter what any lower court rules, the issue is headed quickly to the state Supreme Court. ... Caldwell did not decide any of those legal questions, just on the procedural issue of timing. The secretary of state’s office Monday began shipping absentee ballots to the printer, said Elections Commissioner Wade Martin. If the Supreme Court invalidates the proposition prior to the election, the secretary of state’s office would simply not count the votes. Monday’s ruling was the second time a state court judge ruled against the lawsuit on procedural grounds. more Monday, August 16, 2004
A "NORMAL" LIFE: MCGREEVEY'S TRUTH IS COMPLICATED: Michelangelo Signorile
[I obviously don't agree with everything here, but it's good to see someone point out how much we don't know about McGreevey's life and marriage. And most of what we don't know is none of our business. That fact gets pushed aside when professional opiners use this scandal to promote some political stance. In order to slot McGreevey into our preferred narratives, we have to assume things that we just can't know and shouldn't seek to discover. --Eve] ...How could someone be happy in his marriage--and have even gotten married twice--and still identify himself not as bisexual but as "gay"? How could someone be so self-accepting of his homosexuality to the point of calling himself a "gay American," but still have gotten married and had children? We need to figure out what it is about our culture that drives people to such extremes in the first place, hiding their true selves and weaving a web of lies. The questions--and the answers--aren't as black and white as politicians and pundits often like us to believe when it comes to gay rights. The McGreevey story reminds us of that, with all the vigor of a bucket of cold water in the face. more
ABOVE THE NOISE: CHILDREN OF GAY PARENTS ARE TRYING TO COPE WITH THE DEBATE OVER LEGALIZING SSM: From New York Newsday
here
LOUISIANA VOTE ON MARRIAGE UNFAIR, LAWYERS SAY: From the Associated Press
A 19th Judicial District Court judge is scheduled to hear arguments today in a lawsuit over a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Louisiana already has a law stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but supporters of a proposed amendment banning gay marriage want to protect that law in the Louisiana Constitution. A group called Forum for Equality filed suit, arguing that the proposed ban would violate the state constitution's guarantee of individuals' rights to enter into contracts and to own property. Forum for Equality lawyers argue that the proposed amendment would invalidate contracts that gay and lesbian partners have entered into to own houses together or to share responsibility for children. more Sunday, August 15, 2004
IMPERFECT UNIONS: Eve replies to Jonathan Rauch and Chris Crain
I think both Rauch and Crain are reading way too much into The James McGreevey Story. If McGreevey's story is really about the lack of same-sex marriage, what is the explanation for the dishonor roll of married politicians who ended up in very similar sex-lies-and-influence scandals with women? We can start with the presidents and work our way down to school board members if you want; but I doubt you've got the time, because there are a lot of 'em. Presenting McGreevey's story as essentially a gay story seems reductionist and psychoanalyzing-from-afar to me. This approach also emphasizes what separates "gays" from "straights" rather than the (to me) more obvious notes of common humanity and common weakness in this story. It's an odd idealization of both marriage and heterosexuality to write as if McGreevey's failures and lies would not have been committed by someone attracted to women rather than men. But Rauch, especially, gets at a larger question: What do people who oppose same-sex marriage suggest as an alternative? The answer to that question varies a lot among opponents of SSM; I expect Elizabeth Marquardt and I would have very different answers. My answer strays from the public-policy arena, which is why I posted it at my personal website rather than here on MD.com, where I tend to keep a tighter focus on policy questions like the state's interest in marriage or the proper role of the courts. However, for those who want it, here's my response to the question implicit in Rauch's piece.
IMPERFECT UNIONS: Jonathan Rauch
...What happened to Mr. McGreevey -- the man, not the governor -- was not strange at all. It was familiar to almost every gay American of Mr. McGreevey's generation. Marriage, not homosexuality, lies at the heart of it. Mr. McGreevey is 47. I am 44. We have in common being among the early members of the post-Stonewall generation. We came of age in the 1970's, when overt expressions of anti-gay animus were becoming unacceptable in polite company. ... There was one thing, however, we knew we could never aspire to do, at least not as homosexuals. We could not marry. By that I mean not just that gay couples could not marry. Self-acknowledged gay people -- coupled or single, adult or adolescent, open or closeted -- also could not hope to marry. The very concept of same-sex marriage had yet to surface in public debate. We grew up taking for granted that to be homosexual was to be alienated and isolated, not just for now but for life, from the culture of marriage and all the blessings it brings. ... For most human beings, the urge to find and marry one's other half is elemental. It is central to what most people regard as the good life. Gay people's lives are damaged when that aspiration is quashed, of course. Mr. McGreevey can probably attest to that. But so are the lives of spouses, of children. Mr. McGreevey can probably attest to that, too. more
REVIEW OF WHY MARRIAGE? AND WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: Liza J. Featherstone
...Chauncey, being a historian rather than an activist, treads more intrepidly into politically sensitive territory. Unlike Wolfson, he discusses disagreements among gays and lesbians over marriage; many lesbians, especially those who came of age in the 1960s and '70s, felt marriage was oppressive to women and did not want to participate in it. Many gay Americans of that generation also spurned marriage as an antiquated bourgeois custom, believing that gay liberation was not only about equality but liberation from conventional strictures. (Several years ago, a New Yorker cartoon featured an urban heterosexual couple expressing sympathy with this view: "So gay people want to get married now. Haven't they suffered enough?") Chauncey shows us how and why some of these attitudes within the gay community changed and presents moving testimony from couples standing in line to get licenses in Boston and San Francisco, many of whom never realized how much they wanted to get married until the right to do so was within reach. Chauncey also shows how the institution of marriage has changed over time in ways that have accelerated the push for gay marriage, while also inflaming backlash against it. Interracial marriage is now legal, heterosexual women are no longer expected to give up property rights when they marry, procreation does not define women's destiny and marriage has become a far more voluntary arrangement (since divorce is easier and unmarried cohabitation far more acceptable than in the recent past). As Chauncey points out, many of the people actively opposing gay marriage are the same ones who have opposed these other changes. Most people now working to stop gay marriage oppose abortion, divorce and sex outside of marriage. They believe, too, in defending traditional gender roles. ... To Wolfson, "civil unions" relegate gay Americans to second-class citizenship, in part because a civil union is not called a "marriage," and that word has a meaning that everyone in our culture understands. Creating a different set of terminology and rights effectively sets up a kind of Jim Crow of the heart. Wolfson exposes this "compromise" as a morally indefensible one. more
REVIEW OF WHY MARRIAGE? AND WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: David J. Garrow
...Beginning in the early 1980s, two tidal waves washed over gay America. The AIDS crisis "led to an unprecedented mobilization of gay men" on behalf of those who fell ill and in protest against government disinterest. About the same time, with "the astonishingly rapid appearance of what everyone soon called the lesbian baby boom," gay people emerged as two-parent families. "The mass experience of child-rearing and death," Chauncey writes, magnified both gays' visibility in society and their painful interactions with officials, who seldom treated unmarried partners with the deference accorded legal spouses. The greater public presence of gay couples led to increased heterosexual support for gay rights but also to a heightened awareness by these couples that they didn't have "the same recognition, protections, or rights that heterosexual couples took for granted." In the early 1970s, a handful of pioneering gay couples unsuccessfully attempted to secure marriage licenses, but aside from the network of gay congregations that made up the Metropolitan Community Church, no other gay organization pursued marriage prior to the mid-1990s. Even a decade ago, Chauncey notes, advocating gay marriage was a "distinctly minority position in the lesbian and gay movement," notwithstanding widespread support from "lesbians and gay men at the grassroots level." ... Likewise, they say, opponents' claim that a male-female household is the optimal setting for child-rearing runs counter to consistent research findings that children raised by same-sex couples experience no detectable disadvantages. What's more, Wolfson writes, "there are at least a million kids being raised by gay and lesbian parents in this country" who are indisputably disadvantaged by their families' inability to secure the legal protections and benefits that automatically accrue to heterosexual parents. more
WEDDING-BELL BLUES: Debra J. Saunders
...In 2000, I was among the minority of Californians who voted in favor of same-sex marriage. I believe in love and marriage. As far as I am concerned, if gay and lesbian couples want to wed, more power to them. That's all the more reason why, as a supporter of same-sex marriage, I'd like to see it legitimized the right way. I'd rather see gay advocates win by pushing a bill through the Legislature, or by persuading Californians to vote their way in a new ballot initiative, than to win in the courts. The reason: They will have more popular support if they win by wooing the people. If the price is calling the unions something other than marriage, so be it. more
GROUP FORMS TO OUST IOWA JUDGE IN GAY DIVORCE: From the Des Moines Register
A group of northwest Iowans wants to unseat a state judge who granted a divorce to a lesbian couple joined in a Vermont civil union. Kevin Alons, 35, a self-employed computer software developer in Salix and son of a Republican lawmaker, said Friday that the Judicial Accountability Group, which filed organizational papers last week, will raise money for an effort to block District Judge Jeffrey Neary's retention this fall. ... Alons claims Neary's decision could be the first step toward recognition of civil unions and same-sex marriages in Iowa. ... Neary said the approval did not recognize same-sex marriages, but was a ruling on a dispute between two parties that involved property distribution. Neary followed the decision with an amended ruling that said he ended only their civil union in Vermont, not a marriage. more |
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|