|
 |
 |
 Saturday, August 28, 2004
MEAN PEOPLE AND MARRIAGE: R.K. Becker replies to Bruce C. Steele
"Kids have an instinct for finding out what makes other kids different, and they use that knowledge as a weapon when they spar with their peers, whether playfully or angrily. As long as Clyde's dads can't get married, he'll always be more vulnerable to bullying than are his classmates." Isn't it more likely that Clyde is being bullied because his dads are gay, not because they're unmarried? Is there any evidence that the children of unmarried heterosexual parents are more vulnerable to bullying today than the children of married parents? I think it has been generations since the marital status of a child's parents has been a focus of ridicule among his peers. Indeed, if it is at all today, it is equally if not more likely that it is the other way around--that the children from broken homes or of unwed parents often resent those from seemingly 'idyllic' or 'perfect' families and bully them. It is as likely if not more likely that SSM will make the bullying of the children of gay parents worse because it will simply advertise the fact of their parents' homosexuality, confirming to the other kids what in many instances was uncertain before. Not that this is a good argument against SSM; it isn't, and shouldn't be used as such. But Steele's use of this movie to promote SSM is indicative of the extent to which its advocates are determined to use any argument, no matter how bad, to bolster the cause. The idea that SSM will magically cause all anti-gay prejudice to disappear is a pipe dream.
MICHIGAN AMENDMENT HEADS TO THE COURTS: From MLive.com
The courts will decide not only whether a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and possibly civil unions, is on the Nov. 2 ballot, but the ballot wording as well. The Michigan Board of Canvassers deadlocked for the third time along party lines this week by declining Friday to approve ballot language proposed by its own state elections staff. Judges on the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court will have the final say next week. Also before the courts is the board's Tuesday refusal to certify more than 464,000 valid signatures collected by the Citizens for the Protection of Marriage to put the gay marriage amendment on the ballot. more
MICHIGAN AMENDMENT WAS BLOCKED LEGITIMATELY: Doyle O'Connor
[This is a letter to the Detroit Free Press, replying to their editorial here. O'Connor is a member of the Board of State Canvassers. --Eve] ...The proposal would do nothing to outlaw gay marriage, which is already outlawed in Michigan. What it would do -- and this is not speculative -- is outlaw any form of civil union or domestic partnership for opposite sex or same-sex couples. Out the window go existing health insurance and pension plans, company policies and union contracts. It was not improper for the board to consider whether or not the petition was constitutionally sufficient. The Michigan Supreme Court in the 1970s, on the Parochiaid issue, held that the board must review petitions to determine if they are defective or use deceptive language. The decision was later upheld by the Court of Appeals for striking the drug sentencing amendment petition after the proponents had gotten sufficient signatures. An untold part of the story is that the proponents of the so-called marriage petition brought the late decision on themselves. The Open Meetings Act was violated by shoehorning the petition language onto the board's agenda at 3:45 p.m. on Good Friday for a 9:30 a.m. Easter Monday meeting. No notice, no public opportunity to be heard. more Friday, August 27, 2004
A NEW STRATEGY TO WIN MARRIAGE: Eric Rofes
...With this in mind, a group of activists in the Bay Area have worked to create a Web site intended to support direct action and non-violent civil disobedience related to marriage equality and to serve as a focal point for thoughtful, critical analysis. ... Concern No. 1: The strategic focus on love and romance in our campaigns must be balanced with a focus on liberty and full and equal participation in the institutions of democracy. ... Concern No. 2: Racial diversity in the fight to democratize marriage must be addressed seriously and immediately. ... Concern No. 3: The repeated refrain of "We all deserve the freedom to marry" is problematic politically and philosophically and should be reconsidered. ... Promoting the idea that civil rights and participation in the institutions of democracy should be granted to "deserving" or "meritorious" people plays into the conservative strategy of shifting civil rights from universal entitlements linked to citizenship or residency to rewards that are delivered to only the "deserving." more
CRUEL AND PREDICTABLE: Washington Post editorial
...Lisa and Janet Miller-Jenkins came together under Vermont's civil union law. When the relationship fell apart, Lisa went to court in Vermont to dissolve it, and she asked the Vermont court to determine custody and visitation. This summer the court issued a temporary order awarding custody to Lisa, who moved to Virginia shortly before filing for the dissolution, and visitation rights to Janet. Janet's lawyer alleges, however, that Lisa has defied this order, prompting a contempt proceeding in Vermont. Instead of letting the Vermont case play out, Lisa went to court in Virginia, arguing that she should be declared sole parent and granted all parental rights. This week, Frederick County Circuit Judge John R. Prosser ruled that a law the General Assembly passed this year makes the couple's Vermont marriage irrelevant in the commonwealth. His decision is legally wrong as well as cruel, and an excellent illustration of why passing this law was so dangerous in the first place. Why legally wrong? Virginia's Affirmation of Marriage Act declares "void in all respects in Virginia" any "civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state." The law is noxious, but in this case it also should have been deemed irrelevant. Whether Virginia must honor Vermont's civil unions was not at issue; federal law makes clear that it does not have to. But federal law also makes clear that no Virginia court can interfere in an ongoing custody case in another state, whether the dispute involves the dissolution of a marriage, unmarried people, grandparents or members of Vermont's civil unions. The law, which Judge Prosser simply ignored, says that once a custody proceeding has properly begun in any state, no other state's courts have jurisdiction over that case. ... In any custody dispute, the interests of the child should be paramount. The Vermont court, following orderly proceedings, has provided access for two parents who presumably love Isabella. Whatever one thinks of gay marriage, it isn't the place of Virginia courts to score political points by jumping in and declaring one side the sole legal parent. Unfortunately, neither the interests of children nor fidelity to the law were the intentions of the flagrantly unconstitutional Affirmation of Marriage Act, which was designed to insult and impugn gay people's dignity. Mission accomplished. more
MEAN PEOPLE AND MARRIAGE: Bruce C. Steele
You wouldn't think a movie about four teenagers who decide to get even with the school bully would be a good place to look for an argument in favor of marriage equality. But mixed up with everything else that's going on in the terrific indie film Mean Creek is a simple lesson about how marriage discrimination makes kids suffer through no fault of their own. ... Clyde--the skinny, well-behaved kid who declines to indulge in doobies and beer--has two gay dads, and both his friends and George the bully tease him about it repeatedly, his pals in "good fun" and George viciously. ... Estes didn't have to show [the gay couple] at all, but I think he decided that after making them the albatross around their son's neck, he needed to depict them as the harmless, ordinary people they are. The scene also serves to establish that Clyde's relationship with his dads is no different from any other teen's interaction with the parental units: He loves them, they mean well, and they just don't get it. ... Whatever you think of the institution of marriage and whether gay people should be chasing after it, the fact is, marriage normalizes relationships. In this country, people know what "married" is supposed to mean: love, commitment, family unity. [Any] other kind of arrangement--whether it's straight folks shacking up or two lesbians getting a Vermont civil union--falls short. It requires explanation. It varies from couple to couple. It isn't normalizing. People don't get it. ...Kids have an instinct for finding out what makes other kids different, and they use that knowledge as a weapon when they spar with their peers, whether playfully or angrily. As long as Clyde's dads can't get married, he'll always be more vulnerable to bullying than are his classmates. more
CANADIAN POLITICAL SPEECH AND SSM AD: LifeSite News
Focus on the Family Canada, a group devoted to the Christian view of the family, revealed to LifeSiteNews.com Friday that it pulled a simple ad promoting the family just prior to the election period in late May so as not to transgress a federal election law banning such advertising. ... The restrictions limit national spending on advertising to under $170,000--far below what would be needed to launch effective national television, radio and print campaigns. As the dissenting justices put it, "The limits imposed on citizens amount to a virtual ban on their participation in political debate during the election period." ... The limits are draconian since they not only restrict advertising expenses to promote particular parties or candidates but also, and most importantly, restrict advertising on "taking a position on an issue with which they (candidates or parties) are particularly associated." (See section 350subsection 2d of the Election Act http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/E-2.01/15004.html ) That is, if one party takes a definite position against same-sex marriage versus the other parties, third party organizations are severely limited, during election time, from simply promoting natural marriage or anything else that might seem to support that party or candidates opposing same-sex marriage. ... Derek Rogusky, Vice President of Family Policy at Focus on the Family Canada, told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview Friday that an ad supporting the traditional family was pulled prior to the election so as not to infringe the law. The ad ran: "We believe in Mom and Dad. We believe in marriage", as the main caption with a subscript saying, "Traditional marriage--if you believe in it, protect it. The family is a schoolroom for life, and lasting lessons come from a man and a woman--a father and a mother. We believe in mom and dad. Their marital commitment to each other and their parental commitment to their children is the foundation of our society." more
SSM ADVOCATES WANT LA. JUDGE REMOVED FROM CASE: From the Associated Press
Lawyers seeking to block a Sept. 18 vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages and civil unions in Louisiana want state Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Victory removed from any hearings on the matter. Randy Evans, an attorney for Forum for Equality, said Thursday that the group filed papers with the high court to have Victory removed because the justice, who faces re-election this fall, took a strong position in favor of the amendment. more
SUIT FILED TO BLOCK ARKANSAS MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: From 365Gay.com
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas today filed a legal challenge on behalf of three concerned citizens to the so-called "Amendment Concerning Marriage." The ballot initiative was certified last month for the November ballot by the Arkansas Secretary of State. The challenge, which is based on the Arkansas state constitution, maintains that the ballot initiative is misleading to voters and, if passed, could potentially make significant changes to the legal landscape for single Arkansans. ... "For starters, this amendment would give the legislature the power to ignore Arkansas's current protections for married people," said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "The Arkansas constitution currently grants married people the right to keep their homes if they go bankrupt: with this amendment this right could be swept away by the legislature. We're also concerned about the potential loss of rights to single people, since the amendment's wording could mean that any law prohibiting discrimination based on marital status is invalid. Single people could return to their former position as second-class citizens when it comes to things like availability of credit. But most of all, we think the average voter standing in the voting booth is not going to be able to see all the possible effects of this amendment: they'll just think they're voting against same sex marriage." more Thursday, August 26, 2004
THIRTEEN BAD ARGUMENTS FOR SSM: Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott
...Bad argument No. 4 "Marriage has changed through the centuries, so gay marriage would be just another development in its ever-changing definition." True, our understandings of sex and the role of women in marriage have grown. While these changes are important, they are trivial when compared to the agreement across time and from East to West that the social institution of marriage is about the union of sexual opposites for, primarily, the procreation of children, as well as intimate companionship. ... Bad argument No. 7 "There is no proof that gay marriage would change the marriages of heterosexuals." If marriage is all about fulfilling human desires and not parenting (as many proponents of gay marriage argue), it makes sense to dissolve marriages that don't seem fulfilling. Recent experience in Scandinavia suggests that when a society reduces marriage to this minimalist definition, families dissolve more quickly. British demographer Kathleen Kiernan has shown that since gay marriage came to Scandinavia in the early '90s, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has leaped significantly, and the family dissolution rate has risen. Only where the gay marriage movement had little success has the out-of-wedlock birthrate remained low. Marriage has virtually disappeared in the most gay-friendly districts of Norway, formerly the most conservative of the Nordic countries. ... Bad argument No. 9 "The fact that many married couples do not have children proves that marriage is not intrinsically related to procreation." Yet the fact remains that most married couples either have had or will have children. The exceptions prove the rule: Being married tends to prevent a person from having a child with someone other than his or her spouse. In all cultures, even if some couples are childless, marriage as an institution is principally concerned with children and, therefore, society's future. more
KERRY AND MARRIAGE: Hugh Hewitt
...That's the question that needs to be asked: "John Kerry, since you opposed DOMA, what actions do you support to prevent the courts of one state from imposing their rulings on another state?" Followed by: "If federal courts strike down DOMA, thus providing for the export of same-sex marriage from one state to another, would you then support an amendment to the federal Constitution to prohibit such export?" more
HEADLINE VS. STORY: WHAT IS GOING ON IN OREGON?
The NY Times headline of this Associated Press story reads, "Ore. County Gays to Get Marriage Licenses." But the story itself says: "An Oregon county that stopped issuing marriage licenses until a court could decide whether gay marriage was legal has been told to again offer them to couples. "Senior Judge Wayne R. Harris ordered Benton County on Wednesday to resume issuing the licenses, saying officials had failed to provide a service. Though his order didn't specifically mention same-sex couples, officials expect licenses only will be given to marriages between a man and a woman." The Chicago Tribune also used a "more gay marriages in Oregon" headline; 365Gay.com and the San Francisco Chronicle did not, saying only that marriage licenses (of kind unspecified) would be issued again. I'm betting that the Times and Tribune were wrong, but will of course update if these really are same-sex marriage licenses we're talking about. Wednesday, August 25, 2004
GAY CONN. COUPLES SUE TO MARRY: From 365Gay.com
A lawsuit challenging Connecticut's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples was filed Wednesday in New Haven Superior Court. Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the Boston-based group that won marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts, launched the suit on behalf of seven couples from across Connecticut who were recently denied marriage licenses in Madison, Connecticut. ... Five of the seven couples have young children; some have faced health issues and worry about being denied access to one other in times of crisis. While all the couples are concerned about receiving the full range of protections that only flow through marriage, many also believe that only marriage will convey the depth and commitment of their relationships to their families and the world at large. more
EXCLUSIVE LESBIAN ADOPTION: Wally Kosterman
[Wally Kosterman is a Professional Engineer, father of four, living in Calgary, Alberta.] Quoting this 365Gay.com news story: "Social workers have told a British court that two children must only be adopted by a lesbian couple because their birth mother was in a same-sex relationship. ...For the past year the young boy and girl have been living with heterosexual foster parents. The reason the children came into the care of the council has not been revealed. "Social workers told a Family Proceedings Court judge that the situation is similar to that of a child of black or Jewish parents who should be adopted into a family of the child's racial or cultural background." Wouldn't the same argument hold the other way? That the experience of infants raised in heterosexual households preclude adoption by same-sex couples for similar reasons? Couldn't this proposal by the British court, if widely adopted, put an end to adoption by same-sex couples?
THE MAN BEHIND THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: From Christianity Today
At a press conference inside the U.S. Capitol to promote the Federal Marriage Amendment, 40-year-old Alliance for Marriage (AFM) founder Matt Daniels is easy to spot. At 6 feet 5 inches, he towers over everyone else in the room. The Washington, D.C. lawyer is the man behind the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which would change the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. ... Since the Alliance for Marriage's inception in 1999, Daniels and his ethnically, religiously, and politically diverse coalition have been prominent voices in the battle to preserve marriage. Their motto--"more children raised at home with a mother and a father"--drives their support for marriage tax exemptions, eliminating welfare penalties for married couples, promoting adoption--and, now, thwarting gay marriage. ... Violence and abandonment marked Daniels's own unhappy childhood. He grew up in New York City's Spanish Harlem, the son of a nominally Catholic mother and a father "intellectually hostile" to the gospel. Daniels was two when his father, a writer and Russian-speaking translator, abandoned the family. It was the second of four marriages he would desert, leaving "a trail of human suffering in his wake." Daniels recalls the uncertainty and fears of the resultant poverty. ... Yet Daniels is no darling of the Right either. Some conservative groups, including Concerned Women for America (CWA) and the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), criticized the Federal Marriage Amendment because it does not prevent state legislatures from approving same-sex civil unions and marriage benefits. ... Many conservatives also complain that the AFM avoids debate over the morality of homosexuality. Instead it relies on sociological and economic arguments. ... Having never seen a lifelong marriage modeled, Daniels doubted his ability to commit to one. He sought counseling from married couples within the church. "It seemed undoable to me," he says. "But my Christian faith was also telling me that I wasn't just going into this with my own resources, so I didn't have to be in fear." more
BAD AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ON BALLOT: Detroit Free-Press editorial
The State Board of Canvassers plainly overstepped its authority in blocking a proposed ban on gay marriage from the Michigan ballot this fall. The board's well-established role in such matters is to certify petition signatures and approve ballot wording, not to decide on the merits of a proposal. ... The gay-marriage ban is a bad idea, but the place to beat it is at the polls. The canvassers' decision appears very political -- fear of this proposal bringing more conservatives to the polls in November. ... O'Connor's argument is the same one made by opponents of the proposal, that it would affect common-law marriages and even employee benefits for domestic partners or same-sex couples. Supporters say otherwise, and that is likely to be the central issue of the campaign this fall. If the ban passes, courts may ultimately have to decide just what it does affect. In any case, that's not an issue for the canvassers. more
SOME BLACK RELIGIOUS LEADERS BACK BUSH: From the Alameda (CA) Times-Star
Citing biblical opposition to same-sex marriages, a group of African-American pastors said Tuesday they support President Bush for re-election. "We are not selecting a party but a principle," said the Rev. Lester Cannon Sr. of Cornerstone Baptist Church. He said Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry would usher in "a change in the environment for same-sex marriages and (acceptance of) homosexuality. God made Eve, not Steve, (for Adam)." Nineteen other pastors, standing with Cannon, said they're concerned about an erosion of values and the negative message same-sex unions sends to children. Comparing gay rights to civil rights is "an insult," they said. ... Among pastors who spoke were the Revs. Harvey Smith, Walter Humphries, Kevin Barnes, Keith Clark, Daniel Stevens and Dr. Earl Crawford. "This will be my first time ever voting Republican," said Smith. "But we stand for what the Bible says." ... Other black Bay Area pastors have said they, too, had been contacted in recent months by Republicans who stated the president's stand on the issue and noted he favors faith-based initiatives or church-run social service programs. To some pastors, even subtle promises of faith-based program funding sounds like an attempt to "buy" votes or a key endorsement. A number of other local black pastors declined to join the group, saying it was the wrong move politically. more
VT. CIVIL UNION NULL IN VA., JUDGE SAYS: From the Washington Post
A Winchester judge ruled yesterday that Virginia has jurisdiction over a complex custody battle between a toddler's biological mother and her former lesbian lover after the couple wed in Vermont and then split up. The decision dealt a blow to gay-rights advocates who said the case represented a chance for Virginia to recognize same-sex unions and the rights of non-biological parents. Frederick County Circuit Court Judge John R. Prosser cited Virginia's Affirmation of Marriage Act, which specifically declares unions or domestic partnership contracts between members of the same sex void. He described the biological mother as the child's "sole parent" and said the laws of Vermont conflict with Virginia's and should have no bearing on custody. ... "Because someone feels like a parent or acts like a parent doesn't mean they are," Barone said. "There's nothing in the civil union law that defines Janet as a parent." ... Attorneys for Lisa Miller-Jenkins, who calls herself a "former lesbian," say she does not oppose visitation for Janet Miller-Jenkins, but she does not want her to be granted the same rights as a parent. more
MICHIGAN BALLOT WONKERY THAT IS ACTUALLY INTERESTING (I think): From the Detroit Free Press
The Board of State Canvassers is an agency so obscure that news organizations often have a hard time getting its name right (leaving out the "state"). Even less often do citizens clearly understand what it is doing. Monday was no exception as a pair of highly-charged issues -- Ralph Nader's independent candidacy for president and a constitutional amendment to prohibit same sex marriage -- came into the board's latest meeting with piles of petition signatures and what appeared to be a clear path onto the November ballot. Then they ran into a partisan train wreck. The canvassers board voted 2-2 along party lines on both, leaving it for Nader and traditional marriage advocates to seek relief in court. Legal experts around the state Capitol were almost unanimous Tuesday in the view that the board's action will be reversed by the appellate courts, and that Michiganders will be able to vote for (or against) Nader and same sex marriage. But the tumult that it ignited raised questions that seem to recur periodically whenever the Board of State Canvassers wades into a fiercely contested issue. Such as, who the heck are these guys and what gives them the right to decide what goes on the ballot? more
G.O.P. ADDS ANTI-SSM PLANK: From the Washington Post
Republican activists sharpened their party's opposition to gay marriage Wednesday only hours after Vice President Cheney defended such unions. The action was among several steps that conservatives took to firmly place their stamp on the GOP platform ahead of next week's convention, where the long list of moderate speakers has irked some on the party's right. At the outset of the two-day platform hearings, Republican delegates reaffirmed long-standing planks that have stalled in Congress, such as allowing prayer in public schools and amending the Constitution to ban abortion. But they added a second proposed constitutional amendment -- to bar same-sex marriage -- which President Bush embraced this year. At the urging of conservative groups such as the Family Research Council, the platform subcommittee on family issues went further in tone and detail than did the original draft, assembled by GOP staffers. Unless rewritten by the full 110-member platform committee tonight or Thursday, the marriage section will condemn "a few judges and local authorities" who presume to change "the most fundamental institution of civilization." It will say same-sex couples should not receive legal benefits set aside for married couples, and it calls on the Senate to join the House in voting to strip federal courts of the authority to overturn state laws banning gay marriage. more
CHENEY SEES SSM AS STATE ISSUE: From the Washington Post
Vice President Cheney spelled out his differences with President Bush on the volatile issue of gay marriage Tuesday while making his most revealing public comments so far about the sexual orientation of his gay daughter. Asked his position on the subject at a town hall meeting here, Cheney replied: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. . . . With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People . . . ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to." Cheney went on to reiterate the position he first outlined in the 2000 campaign -- that same-sex marriage should be left to the states to decide. He noted, however, that Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment preventing the states from recognizing such marriages. "At this point . . . my own preference is as I've stated," Cheney said. "But the president makes basic policy for the administration. And he's made it." more Tuesday, August 24, 2004
GIVE GAY COUPLES RIGHTS: Gail Schoettler, Dem. nominee for Colorado governor
...How unfortunate that some politicians, including Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and Sen. Wayne Allard, see political gain in isolating a significant percentage of our population. They claim that gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage as we know it, a union between a man and a woman. I am mystified as to why gay marriage threatens my marriage (which is to a person of the opposite sex) or anyone else's marriage, for that matter. What really threatens the institution of marriage in this country is the high divorce rate. It's all the factors that contribute to divorce, including domestic violence, poverty, caring for disabled children or parents without help, and the enormous stress of catastrophic accidents or illnesses when you have no health insurance. Sometimes, it's a lack of commitment to your partner or your children. Or disagreements over values or education or money. There are countless reasons couples divorce, but I've never heard gay marriage cited as one of them by a divorcing couple. more
BRITISH SOCIAL WORKERS SAY CHILDREN OF LESBIAN MUST BE PLACED WITH LESBIAN COUPLE: From 365Gay.com
Social workers have told a British court that two children must only be adopted by a lesbian couple because their birth mother was in a same-sex relationship. ... For the past year the young boy and girl have been living with heterosexual foster parents. The reason the children came into the care of the council has not been revealed. Social workers told a Family Proceedings Court judge that the situation is similar to that of a child of black or Jewish parents who should be adopted into a family of the child's racial or cultural background. ... Britain has seen an explosion in gay adoption since it became legal 18 months ago. In some parts of the country, rates have reached one in six of adoptions. more
WEBSITE FOR MASS. CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT SSM: From the Boston Globe
A new Web site has been created to funnel campaign donations to state legislative candidates who support gay marriage. Two Massachusetts Internet entrepreneurs started SupportEquality.org as a way to attract donations from gay rights advocates across the country and use them to support pro-gay marriage candidates in Massachusetts who are running in tight races. more
OREGON COURT HEARING ON MARRIAGE COULD BE MOOT: From the Salem Statesman Journal
Two weeks after voters might decide the issue, the Oregon Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether state law allows same-sex marriages. The court has scheduled a hearing for Nov. 17 about the legal challenge by nine same-sex couples, who are represented by a Portland lawyer cooperating with the American Civil Liberties Union. State law, dating to 1862, defines marriage as a civil contract involving males and females 17 or older. The couples argue that the law denies them equal protection under the Oregon Constitution. ... But if voters approve Measure 36 in the Nov. 2 general election, it could undercut the court case in Oregon. The measure would change the state Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. more
STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DIVIDING UTAH RACE: From the Deseret Morning News
Utah gubernatorial candidate Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican, says he will vote for a "traditional marriage" amendment to the Utah Constitution this November and hopes it will pass. Democratic candidate Scott Matheson Jr. says he stands with GOP Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and his own Democratic Party attorney general candidate Greg Skordas in opposing Amendment 3, adding that the issue is best solved through statutes, not a constitutional amendment. ... Huntsman told the Deseret Morning News Monday that should Utahns approve Amendment 3, as it is officially called on the ballot, he will work to pass complementary new laws that would allow "life partners" to have legal rights short of actually being married. Huntsman calls this "reciprocal beneficiary" legislation -- meaning that partners could enter into contracts, attend to the medical needs of their loved ones and so on. "Two people with mutual economic interests should have rights and privileges, such as visitation rights, medical decision-making." more
COURTS LOOK AT LOUISIANA SSM BAN AMENDMENT: From the New Orleans Times-Picayune
On its likely march to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the question of whether voters will cast ballots next month on a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in Louisiana made stops Monday at two state appeals courts. In Baton Rouge, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal said after hearing arguments that a lawsuit seeking to strip the amendment off the Sept. 18 ballot was "premature" because state law allows an election challenge only after the election occurs. Appeals court judges in New Orleans heard arguments for an hour on a similar lawsuit trying to block the election but issued no ruling. ... In the 4th Circuit, attorney John Rawls claimed that if the same-sex marriage amendment is written into the state Constitution, gay and lesbian citizens would be deprived of rights that the document's Article One guarantees all the state's citizens. The only way to eliminate those rights, Rawls said, is for voters to change that part of the Constitution. "The people of Louisiana have expectations of a clean, legal ballot. This amendment would take away rights that are inalienable and inviolate," he said. "If this goes into the Constitution, I am sure, there will be a proposal that gays and lesbians, being of inherently immoral character, cannot practice law," said Rawls, who is a gay man. more
ACLU PLANS LAWSUIT TO BLOCK OKLA. AMENDMENT: From the Associated Press
Attorneys working with the ACLU are preparing a lawsuit to challenge a state question to put a ban on same-sex marriage in the Oklahoma Constitution. more
GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BLOCKED FROM MICH. BALLOT: From the Detroit News
Backers of a ban on same-sex marriage in Michigan will have to go to court to get their proposal on the November ballot, following the unexpected and stunning rejection of the group’s petitions by the Board of State Canvassers on Monday. ... Democrats who voted against the measure said it could be construed to outlaw domestic partnership benefits, union contracts, common law marriage, the equal protection clause and religious freedom. ... An attorney for supporters said the board clearly overstepped its authority when it rejected the proposal based on the substance of the issue. It is supposed to decide simply whether the petition signatures are valid and sufficient, he said. more Monday, August 23, 2004
REVIEW OF J. RAUCH'S GAY MARRIAGE: Phillip Munoz
[Not online yet; here are excerpts; for the whole thing, pick up the current issue of The American Enterprise. --Eve] ...The book's great virtue is its straightforwardness. Ranch's first chapter asks: What is marriage for--why does society privilege marriage legally? His threefold answer is: to provide a healthy environment for children, to settle the young (especially men), and to provide reliable caregivers (especially in the case of catastrophe). Ranch assumes such interests are severable--that is, raising children can be separated from marriage as a domesticating and care-giving institution. This allows him to leave children out of his definition of marriage: the legal recognition of two people's lifelong commitment to care for each other. ...The possibility of marriage would elevate gay men's expectations (Rauch says little about lesbians in this context) and open them to the idea that security, happiness, and health are found in stable, committed, life-long relationships. Not only would gay marriage be good for gay men, Rauch maintains that it would be good for marriage itself. By adopting same-sex matrimony, society could normalize the expectation that all couples should marry, thus de-legitimizing cohabitation. We could uniformly adopt what Rauch designates "Rule 1 ": If you want the benefits of marriage, get married. The obvious rejoinder is that it is not so clear that children can be removed from our core understanding of marriage without fundamentally undermining the institution. Marriage, no doubt, is in a state of crisis, but not primarily because couples are failing to marry, as Rauch suggests. The decline of marriage coincides with society's acceptance of the separation of sex from procreation, and marriage from parenthood. The former made sex before (and outside of) marriage easier; the latter made cohabitation and divorce tolerable. Marriage started to fall apart, in other words, when couples started to think it was primarily about personal commitment and mutual caregiving and stopped thinking about marriage in terms of duty and responsibility toward children.
GAVIN NEWSOM'S CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: Byron Williams
...I marvel at those who advocate that change should take on a more diplomatic approach. They contend that the traditional legal avenues should be pursued before an elected official breaks the law. Theoretically, I agree. However, with few exceptions, such rationale tends to be argued by those who already benefit from the largess of society, making the need for radical nonconformity nothing more than a philosophical exercise. In breaking the law, Newsom forces us to look at that law and ask, "Is this a just law?" Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which was overwhelmingly passed by the voters of California, trump the equal protection under the law clause that is guaranteed to all by the state's constitution? more Sunday, August 22, 2004
SAME-SEX VOTE FOES WIN A ROUND IN LA.: From the New Orleans Times-Picayune
A New Orleans judge has ruled that a scheduled Sept. 18 vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Following the late Friday decision by Civil District Judge Christopher Bruno, the case will be heard by an appeals court on Monday and the matter will likely be resolved in the state Supreme Court. In his decision, Bruno said the proposed amendment is unconstitutional because it doesn't confine itself to a single issue. He also ruled that the amendment couldn't be on the ballot because Sept. 18 is not a statewide election. more
CHEROKEE PANEL: MARRIAGE MEANS MAN, WOMAN: From the Associated Press
About a month after a lesbian couple successfully filed for a tribal marriage application, the Cherokee National Tribal Council voted to clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman. more |
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|