OLDER AND OLDER YOUNG PEOPLE: Book review from Frank Furstenburg

...A half-century later, the social script for growing up has again been radically altered, and no one thinks that the young are taking on responsibilities too early in life. Today, it is nearly universally accepted that one cannot attain a middle-class life without at least a college degree and some years of experimentation in the labor force. Marriage, if it occurs, comes later than ever before in our nation's history. Well-educated people awkwardly postpone childbearing to their late twenties or early thirties (if not later); the less educated embark on it earlier and often outside of marriage.

Jeffrey Jensen Arnett is one of a growing legion of social scientists, and one of the few psychologists, examining this new pattern of coming-of-age in American society. His slender and engaging book, "Emerging Adulthood," reworks and integrates some of his professional writings. Some of his ideas about this developmental stage are informative and insightful, but many professionals and policymakers will find the volume singularly focused on middle-class youth and detached from the changing social and economic context that has rearranged the social timetable. ...

Drawing on the work of Erik Erikson and other theorists, Arnett defines emerging adulthood as a time of instability, self-focus, exploration and perceived possibility. This process generally takes place from the late teens to the mid-twenties. According to both Arnett and the participants in his studies, emerging adulthood concludes by age 30. This assumption is neither demonstrated nor especially convincing, since many of the events that shape development -- schooling, renegotiation with parents, intimate relationships and partnership, childbearing and childrearing -- are often not concluded by the late twenties. ...

My biggest disappointment with the book is the omission of those young adults who have been marginalized by the mainstream institutions of school, work and even family. ...

...At a time when cutbacks are being made on a daily basis in public assistance for education, housing, childcare and health, it appears that parents are being called upon to assume a growing share of economic, social and psychological support for their young adult children. It is just possible that this go-it-alone approach may drive families out of the business of having children altogether.

more

posted by Eve at 11:49 PM | link 0 comments

UNDER GOD, BUT DIVISIBLE: Peter Steinfels

[Interesting in light of the "values voter" piece linked on Friday. --Eve]

Ever wonder where Bible-believing, church-attending evangelical Protestants stand on taxing the rich to help the poor? Or whether Latino Catholics have grown more or less favorable toward legal abortion over the last 12 years? Or what single religious group has grown more negative toward gay rights during that period?

For some time, the go-to guy for answers to such questions has been John C. Green, professor of political science at the University of Akron and director of its Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.

Recently, Professor Green released a report, ''The American Religious Landscape and Political Attitudes: A Baseline for 2004.'' It stemmed from the Fourth Annual National Survey of Religion and Politics. The Bliss Institute and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life were co-sponsors.

Conducted in March, April and May, the telephone survey gathered information from a random sample of 4,000 adults and had a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points.

Professor Green's report is rich in interesting findings. His survey found that traditionalist evangelical Protestants, 12.6 percent of the population, were the sole religious group to rank cultural issues like abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex marriage above domestic and foreign policy issues as the nation's leading problems.

As for the questions above, 46 percent of the same very conservative group said they favored additional government spending to fight hunger and poverty, even if that meant higher taxes on the wealthy, compared with 33 percent opposed. ...

And African-American Protestants are the lone religious group whose backing for gay rights has dropped since 1992, by 19 points.

The greatest achievement of the report may simply be the map of the ''American religious landscape'' that had to be drawn up before tracking political attitudes.

more

posted by Eve at 10:43 PM | link 0 comments

CALIF. ATTY GENERAL ON SSM: From the San Francisco Chronicle

Attorney General Bill Lockyer defended California's ban on same-sex marriage Friday, arguing that the state is entitled to follow "the deeply rooted and historic understanding of marriage'' while granting gay and lesbian domestic partners most of the rights of spouses.

In a long-awaited filing in San Francisco Superior Court, Lockyer's office disputed arguments by advocates for same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco that state law, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

"California agrees that the ability to choose one's own committed life partner is an intimate and important decision,'' wrote Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Mauro. He cited a state law, scheduled to take effect in January, that expands California's 1999 domestic partner law to include virtually all the rights the state can confer on married couples, including child custody and support, bereavement leave and the equivalent of divorce.

At the same time, Mauro wrote, "The common understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman predates the founding of this state or nation, and is deeply rooted in our history and traditions. ...There simply is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage in California or in any other state.'' ...

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued a quick rebuttal.

"The state is advancing a separate-but-equal doctrine that would relegate gays and lesbians to second-class status under the law,'' said Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for Herrera. "It further seeks to deny the judiciary its rightful role as the ultimate guardian of civil liberties.'' ...

The brief reflected Lockyer's effort to steer a course between fulfilling his duty to defend state law while maintaining his political stance as a supporter of gay rights, with an eye toward a possible Democratic candidacy for governor in 2006.

He disavowed arguments offered by conservative opponents of same-sex marriage -- that it was harmful to children and destabilizing to society -- saying those views were contrary to California's policy of equal treatment. Lockyer also issued a statement declaring that "committed and loving relationships between two individuals deserve recognition under California law, '' but that changes in the marriage laws should be left to legislators and voters, not the courts.

more

posted by Eve at 10:40 PM | link 0 comments

THE RISE OF THE VALUES VOTER: Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon

IF YOU HAD TO PICK a single reason why the Democratic party is weaker at all levels than at any time in the last 50 years, it is the transformation of moral-values issues into an overwhelming Republican asset.

...The proportion of voters who say they are keying their vote on "moral values issues like gay marriage and abortion" has gone up sharply--to a level of 15 to 18 percent, according to five national polls commissioned by Time and conducted by Schulman, Ronca, and Bucuvalas since July. More important, the profile of such voters is no longer definable in the vocabulary of polarization and divisiveness. The most recent Time poll (taken September 21-23) has George W. Bush winning socially driven voters by a lopsided 70 to 18 percent. If not for these voters, according to the poll, Bush would be trailing John Kerry by 5 points instead of leading by 4.

These numbers would be striking enough if the only available data concerned the national popular vote. But as MSNBC's mid-September polls in 10 pivotal states in the Electoral College make clear, the GOP advantage on social issues is even more salient in the struggle for the handful of states both sides agree will determine the presidential outcome. ...

The biggest social-issue event in the past year or two, of course, has been the acceleration of the drive for same-sex marriage and its court-imposed advent in Massachusetts. Because there has been little polling on the relation of same-sex marriage to presidential voting (only the Time national polls seem to have thought to test it), a large share of any speculation is bound to be circumstantial. But it did seem that the July referendum on same-sex marriage in Missouri marked a turning point in the Bush-Kerry matchup there--the Kerry campaign soon afterward pulled its advertising--and that a widely reported controversy over putting a prohibition on gay marriage on Ohio's November ballot coincided with an underperformance by Kerry in a state that has experienced a weak economy during the Bush years.

more

posted by Eve at 9:25 PM | link 0 comments

KAUS, SULLIVAN ON KERRY

Mickey Kaus: ..."The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position."--John Kerry, in today's NYT

Actually, of course, Kerry is trying to pull off a straddle here--he hints to gay rights audiences that he'll support gay marriage down the road. The problem, as with most of Kerry's straddles, is that he doesn't let both sides know both faces of his position. In the above quote, he's trying to con conservatives into thinking--well, that he has the same position as the president. (here; scroll to Oct 7 entries)

Andrew Sullivan: ...I should be plain. I have never trusted Kerry on gay civil rights, still don't, and wrote a piece earlier this year for the Advocate, warning gay voters not to trust him. So, yes, Mickey, I am aware of his slippery, unprincipled and vacuous stand on civil rights for gay couples. ...

The difference, however, is obvious. Kerry supports civil unions that contain all the rights and responsiblities of civil marriages; Bush doesn't. In fact, Bush has endorsed a federal amendment that would bar both gay marriage and any civil arrangements that, like civil unions or even domestic partnerships, would give gay couples even basic protections. So the difference is stark. And, of course, the constitutional amendment is a HUGE deal. ... I've never regarded support for civil marriage rights a litmus test for supporting a candidate. But elevating this to the level of a completely unnecessary constitutional amendment was a new development, an unprecedented attack on gay citizens, on states' rights and the constitution. Kerry's opposition to such an amendment is a vast and vital distinction. For gay voters, there is therefore no meaningful choice. (more)

posted by Eve at 9:18 PM | link 0 comments

CANADIAN SSM IN COURT--RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: From the Toronto Star

Several Supreme Court of Canada judges challenged conservative arguments yesterday that letting gays wed would wreck the "ideal norm" of heterosexual marriage and undermine social and religious institutions.

During the second day of landmark hearings into whether Ottawa can extend the legal right to marry to same-sex couples, there were pointed questions from the high court bench to the opponents of gay marriage.

There was also a striking admission from the lawyer for the attorney-general of Canada, who said even the government is not sure how strong the religious-freedom protections are in draft legislation recognizing same-sex marriage.

Constitutional scholar Peter Hogg, speaking for Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, said courts will have to deal with concerns on a "case-by-case basis."

Justice Louise Charron asked Hogg yesterday if the Supreme Court can, without having any facts, provide "a meaningful opinion" on whether the draft bill would protect clergy who don't want to perform same-sex marriages or lend their facilities to ceremonies.

"Justice Charron, I have asked myself the same question," he replied.

Hogg conceded it is "going to be difficult" for the court, without having any facts before it, to "drill too deeply" into the question.

But if the court at least made clear that freedom of religion is a broadly protected right, that would "provide some comfort and help" in "subsequent litigation," he suggested.

more

posted by Eve at 9:13 PM | link 0 comments

CANADIAN SSM IN COURT: From the Globe and Mail

The Charter of Rights equality guarantee must not become a rampaging monster that destroys one social institution after another, lawyers for Alberta and several religious groups told the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday.

The definition of marriage as a union of man and woman, rooted in procreation, is beyond the reach of the Charter and only a full-scale constitutional amendment can change it, they said.

"We would lack humility if we think that as a society, we have learned enough in the course of 20 years of Charter jurisprudence to displace in one fell swoop the wisdom accumulated since time immemorial and sweep into the dustbin the core of the historically accepted definition of marriage," said Robert Leurer, a lawyer for the Alberta government. ...

"The state interest in marriage is a simple and compelling one that is time-honoured: the integration of the sexes in a way that children are born and raised," argued William Sammon, a lawyer representing Catholic bishops. "It's not rocket science. The state interest is in producing the next generation."

However, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie noted that with so many pressures on society and organized religions these days, it seems unlikely that allowing gays to marry "would bring the whole thing crashing down. ...

Meanwhile, gay-marriage advocates argued that thousands of gay couples have married in recent months without causing the slightest social breakdown. ...

Joanna Radbord, a lawyer for several gay couples, said newly married couples have discovered for the first time what heterosexuals take for granted: the feeling of being included in a momentous community ritual..

more

posted by Eve at 9:09 PM | link 0 comments

PENNA. JUDGE LIKELY TO RULE AGAINST LAWMAKERS IN WEIRD LAWSUIT: From the Philadelphia Inquirer; headline is Eve's

A Bucks County Court judge today indicated that he is likely to rule against 12 state representatives suing a New Hope gay couple who want to marry.

Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg told a hearing that he has "serious doubts as to whether plaintiffs' action will survive." ...

On March 15, Robert Seneca and Stephen Stahl were denied a marriage license application by the Bucks County register of wills.

On May 14, the state representatives and a western Pennsylvania firm filed suit asking Bucks County Court for a "declaratory judgment" that the state's marriage laws are constitutional. ...

Glen Lavy, senior counsel at the Scottsdale, Ariz., headquarters of the Alliance Defense Fund--an agency fighting same-sex unions--said in a May interview that the representatives' suit was the first of its kind in the nation. ...

Lavy argued that a declaratory judgment is necessary because "the defendants intend to challenge the constitutionality of marriage laws," through the courts and thus "infringe" on the right of legislators to define marriage through legislation.

The Arizona lawyer said that marriage laws are threatened because Seneca and Stahl had sought a marriage license application and because they had said in newspaper interviews that they intend to challenge the laws. ...

The judge then asked Lavy why the legislators didn't wait until the gay couple had filed a challenge to the marriage laws.

more

posted by Eve at 9:03 PM | link 0 comments

ARK. AMENDMENT STAYS ON BALLOT: From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

The Arkansas Supreme Court ordered Thursday that a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage be kept on the state’s ballot for the Nov. 2 election, dismissing arguments that it was vague and misleading to voters.

The 5-2 ruling said that although the critics of Proposed Constitutional Amendment 3 "may be correct in asserting that the ballot title could have been written more clearly, they have not met their burden of proving that the ballot title is misleading." ...

The Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition with the Supreme Court in August seeking to remove the measure from the ballot, arguing that its "popular name" and "ballot title"--terms for the language describing the amendment on the ballot--were overly "vague and ambiguous." ...

It argued that the proposed amendment’s popular name and ballot title as they will appear on the ballot fail to meet requirements set by earlier court opinions that they be "intelligible, honest, and impartial."

While recognizing those earlier rulings, the majority opinion written by Justice Donald Corbin said Supreme Court’s "most significant rule" requires that the court give room for "reserving to the people the right to adopt, reject, approve or disapprove legislation."

The ACLU argued that the amendment's popular name--"An Amendment Concerning Marriage"--was misleading because it does not mention that the measure affects anything other than marriage.

Instead, the ACLU argued, the amendment would affect the rights of single people and the potential for future "legal recognition of any future union or partnership." ...

The ballot title is the exact language of the proposed amendment.

more

posted by Eve at 8:57 PM | link 0 comments

NJ SSM CASE STILL AT APPEALS COURT LEVEL: From the Star-Ledger

A legal appeal seeking the legalization of same-sex marriages in New Jersey will not get a speedy hearing by the state Supreme Court, the justices decided yesterday.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices turned down a request by gay activists to have the case bypass a lower court and be heard directly by the state Supreme Court. Instead it will follow the usual course and be heard by a three-judge state appeals court. The loser could then ask the state Supreme Court to review the appeals court's decision.

more

posted by Eve at 8:53 PM | link 0 comments

TODAY'S TOMORROWS: Eve (and the New York Press)

I can't help but note the contrast between '60s-'70s Malthusian nightmares (say, "The Mark of Gideon" from The Only Star Trek That Matters) and this item from the NY Press's "Best of Manhattan: Best of Manhattan, 2104" piece:

BEST NEWS FOR ASPIRING PARENTS:
BREEDING REIMBURSEMENTS

here (scroll all the way to the last item)

posted by Eve at 9:27 PM | link 0 comments

SSM DEBATE IN NYC

[If you go, why not let me know what you thought of it?--Eve]

On October 14 (Thursday of next week), the New York Lawyer's Chapter of the Federalist Society will be hosting a debate at the NYC Cornell Club:

Same-Sex Marriage: Who Decides?

Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr.
Yale Law School
v.
Prof. Hadley Arkes
Amherst College

Moderated by:Hon. Loretta A. Preska
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of N.Y.

The debate, which will begin at 7:30pm, will center on questions of federalism and institutional competence, but I'm sure the merits of the underlying issue will creep in, especially in the question-and-answer period. And with even mayors engaging in constitutional interpretation, there's a lot to talk about.

The two speakers are two excellent scholars who are also very well-spoken. Entertaining, even. And there's a reception beforehand (at 6:30pm). It'll be a good place to be after work and before your night cap.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2004
THE CORNELL CLUB
6 EAST 44TH STREET (Betwn. Madison and 5th )
NEW YORK, NY
Reception 6:30 PM
Debate 7:30 PM
The event is free and open to the public. No reservations or RSVP required.

posted by Eve at 7:34 PM | link 0 comments

GAY MARRIAGE IN NORWAY: Stanley Kurtz

Marriage in Scandinavia is in serious decline. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway now are born out of wedlock. In some of the more socially liberal districts, marriage has virtually ceased to exist. ...

In the socially liberal Norwegian county of Nordland, rainbow flags fly on churches as signs that same-sex registered partnerships are fully accepted and that clergy who preach against homosexual behavior are banned. In Nordland, the out-of-wedlock birthrate in 2002 was 67.29 percent markedly higher than the rate for Norway as a whole.

The out-of-wedlock birthrate for first-born children in Nordland county in 2002 was 82.27 percent. More significantly, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for second-and-above born children in Nordland county in 2002 was 58.61 percent.

In the early '90s, when the debate on same-sex partnerships began, most Nordlanders already bore their first child out of wedlock. Yet in 1990, 60.26 percent of Nordland's parents still married before the birth of the second child. By 2002, the situation had reversed. Just less than 60 percent of Nordlanders now bear even second-and-above born children out of wedlock.

That nearly 20-point shift signals that marriage itself now is a rarity in Nordland county. What began as a practice of experimenting with the relationship has turned into a general repudiation of marriage itself.

In the parts of Norway where de facto gay marriage finds its highest degree of acceptance, marriage itself has virtually ceased to exist. This fact ought to give pause.

more

posted by Eve at 5:06 PM | link 0 comments

GAY MARRIAGE IN NORWAY: Monika Persson

My first thought when I heard that the Herald was looking for Norwegians to do a pro and con on the subject of gay marriages was, "Good luck finding a Norwegian who is against that!"

This pretty much summarized the attitudes to gay marriages among Norwegians: Being against same-sex marriage is practically nonexistent. The issue is not something we need to explain. On Aug. 1, 1993, a new law called Registered Domestic Partnership was established in Norway, giving gay couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples.

I still can remember the commotion and discussions that followed. Yet, now it seems so far away that just thinking the issue was controversial leaves me with a bitter taste of wrongfulness and ignorance. Of course, someone always will be opposed to the issue, but the subject itself is old, worn out and accepted many years ago by most Norwegians. ...

While opponents to gay marriage keep arguing that gay marriage will lead to the destruction of the family and also to a negative social impact in general, research shows something very different. Research in Scandinavia done by Darren Spedale found no negative aspects but many positive ones. ...

Denmark, for one, has continued to see a statistical increase in the number of couples marrying per capita in the 15 years since gay marriage became legal there. ...

Scandinavia's 15-year history with gay marriage should be an indicator that it will work. In the Scandinavian countries, same-sex marriage has become fully accepted by the public, the government is satisfied with the results and most important, thousands of gay and lesbian couples now are able to live out their lives together as a couple with the security that the law will help nurture and grow their loving, supportive, permanent relationships. Therefore, there is no reason to expect different results in other countries that adopt gay marriage laws of their own.

To read more about the research in Scandinavia, go to www.freedomtomarry.org

more

posted by Eve at 4:52 PM | link 0 comments

ARK. AMENDMENT SURVIVES COURT CHALLENGE: From the Associated Press

The proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in Arkansas has survived a court challenge and appears headed for the November 2nd ballot.

The state Supreme Court Thursday rejected arguments that the proposal didn't fully explain limits it would place on marriage-type unions. ...

The American Civil Liberties Union claimed the proposal was unconstitutionally vague. The court ruled five-to-two to put the measure before voters.

more

posted by Eve at 4:45 PM | link 0 comments

KERRY ON GAY UNIONS: From the New York Daily News

JOHN KERRY TOLD a gay magazine that he would be the first President to push for same-sex civil unions--even though he still opposes gay marriage.

The Democratic candidate said he agrees with the vast majority of Americans that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he also said civil unions should hold the same legal weight. "I am for civil unions. Tell me what presidential candidate in the history of the nation has supported that?" he told The Advocate for its Oct. 26 edition. "I'm for equality." ...

He blasted President Bush for proposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and predicted Bush would appoint anti-gay Supreme Court judges if he's reelected.

more

posted by Eve at 4:39 PM | link 0 comments

ST. LOUIS CATHOLICS DEBATE ARCHBISHOP'S LETTER: From the Los Angeles Times

After Wednesday's morning Masses, Catholic parishioners voiced anger and support for the archbishop of St. Louis, who issued a pastoral letter saying it was a "grave sin" to vote for politicians who supported same-sex marriage, abortion or stem-cell research.

Archbishop Raymond Burke's letter states that voters are violating "the solemn duty to protect human life" if they support politicians who back those issues. The letter -- about 6,700 words long -- was published Friday in the weekly archdiocesan newspaper and posted on its website. "Procured abortion and homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, and, as such, can never be justified in any circumstance," Burke wrote. "Although war and capital punishment can rarely be justified, they are not intrinsically evil; neither practice includes the direct intention of killing innocent human beings."

If all candidates in a race support abortion rights or same-sex marriage, then a Catholic can vote without committing sin, according to Burke's letter.

"I don't know what to do," retiree Terrence Praince, 69, said as he left Mass Wednesday at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis. "I think [same-sex] marriage is wrong, but I'm also against the war. My wife and I are both Democrats. How do we vote?"A summary of the letter, as well as a question-and-answer section regarding it, was released this week.

A few priests took things a step further and invited members at several area Catholic churches to sign a pledge saying that legalized abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning and same-sex marriage were "intrinsically evil." ...

The pastoral letter was not designed to sway voters away from Kerry or any other specific candidate, said the Rev. Edward J. Richard, spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Louis. Instead, the archbishop was "presenting traditional Christian teaching to help voters make informed decisions, not only about this election but future ones," Richard said. "We had these values before there were Republicans and Democrats. And the church will have them long after this race."

more

posted by Eve at 4:29 PM | link 0 comments

CATHOLIC CHURCH IN MICHIGAN STEPS UP CAMPAIGN FOR MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: From the Detroit Free Press

Catholic Church leaders in Michigan have decided to mount a full-blown effort to win approval of Proposal 2 -- the constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman -- comparable to church participation in campaigns for school vouchers and against physician-assisted suicide.

In a letter to be sent this week to each of the more than 800 parishes in the state, Michigan's six bishops assert that "we must reaffirm marriage as the basic institution of all human society."

Voting for Proposal 2 will help to "ensure that the meaning of marriage is secured and preserved," according to the bishops' letter.

Parish priests are being asked to sermonize on the issue this weekend and show a videotape produced by the Archdiocese of Detroit featuring Cardinal Adam Maida. The Catholic Church's support for the proposal will include financial contributions. But Paul Long, executive director of the Michigan Catholic Conference, said this week that each diocese will decide the extent of its financial support. ...

The conference is also sending out promotional literature by mail to 500,000 Catholic households. "In the end, if people are well educated about what is at stake ... they'll approve Proposal 2," Long said. ...

A Free Press poll of Michigan voters last week found that Catholics supported Proposal 2 nearly 2 to 1, 62 percent to 34 percent. ...

Opponents of the proposal say it would stop private and public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees. Backers of the proposal say the measure would not affect the private sector or existing labor agreements with same-sex benefits in the public sector. But they agree that new contracts for public employees could not offer the benefits if the measure passes.

more

posted by Eve at 4:21 PM | link 0 comments

POLYGAMY AND SSM: PRACTICE VS. IDENTITY: Tom Sylvester

Jonathan Turley tries to sound clever and oh-so-contrarian in an USA Today op-ed on polygamy. Turley, a law professor (surprise!), argues:
"For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law."

I don't see it, of course. Polygamists aren't a "minority" in the sense that, say, homosexuals are a minority. Most gay men probably realize they are gay sometime around puberty (maybe earlier? I don't know). It's not as if a 15-year-old thinks, "I'm a polygamist." Polygamy is just not analogous to race, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation. A homosexual is a homosexual whether or not he acts on those desires. A white person is white. A woman is a woman. One becomes a polygamist through the act of marrying more than one person. The law prohibits all sorts of behaviors and acts. How does equal protection apply? ...

Quite frankly, I'm baffled as to why he thinks he has an argument here. He first slides to polygamy from the right to engage in consensual sexual activity with "any number of partners." But the Lawrence decision was rooted in privacy rights and equal protection. Marriage isn't about privacy--as a social institution, there's an important element of public recognition and support. We have the right to do a lot of things in the privacy of our home (maybe we should have more rights), but that doesn't mean the state has to recognize and affirm those acts.

more

posted by Eve at 6:30 PM | link 0 comments

GAY UNIONS BLASTED AT UTAH CONFERENCE: From the Deseret Morning News

Same-sex marriage was the target of not-so-friendly fire on the last day of the Families Under Fire conference at Brigham Young University.

BYU philosophy professor Terry Warner on Tuesday took aim at the hot-button political issue, saying marriage between a man and a woman benefits couples and children--therefore, society as a whole--in a way same-sex unions cannot.
"It is madness to destroy the most venerable of our civilization's institutions just because a relative minority of intellectual faddists have taken to the notion that their social theory will work," he said. ...

"Our culture is not likely to produce individuals who live altruistically, with expectations of personal sacrifice, domestic order, lifelong-fidelity, patience, inward security, modesty, sobriety and reverence if the traditional order of marriage disappears in the course of a few generations." ...

His talk will be available next week in the archives section of ce.byu.edu/cw/fuf/archives/. ...

Warner called same-sex marriage "a replacement kind of marriage that would weaken all marriage because it no longer would be undergirded by tradition . . . And hence marriage, redefined as a legal union of any two people, will inevitably become more casual and impermanent, and this will remain true even if some same-sex couples stay together until death."

He warned that the pressure to extend rights such as health insurance to same-sex partners does not require marriage. He also disputed arguments by the same-sex marriage lobby that granting marriage to gay couples wouldn't damage man-woman marriage.

more

posted by Eve at 6:26 PM | link 0 comments

OREGON MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DANGEROUS TO CHILDREN: David Sarasohn

...The real issue is whether it's better for kids if the people raising them are legally obligated to their kids and to each other.

Most people think it is.

Voters are being warned that Measure 36 is about whether children should be raised by gay couples -- and, as the initiative's Web site throbbingly warns, "The research is overwhelming; children with a married mother and father consistently do better in every measure of well-being."

Except the people who do the research say it's not true.

And besides, we've already made the decision about whether gay Americans can raise children.

Gary Gates of the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., points out that 150,000 same-sex couples in the United States are now raising 250,000 kids, according to the 2000 census -- which probably understates the number.

About a third of female same-sex couples and a fifth of male same-sex couples are raising at least one child -- which in Oregon adds up to several thousand children. ...

Nobody seriously proposes doing anything to change this reality. Nobody wants to separate parents and kids, and nobody -- even people to whom it's been revealed that gay people shouldn't be parents -- wants to deal with a quarter-million kids.

But that's a lot of kids to leave legally unprotected, or to dismiss as collateral damage of the culture wars.

more

posted by Eve at 3:38 PM | link 0 comments

FMA IS BAD FOR BUSINESS: Howard Paster

...For example, New York City's the Village Voice, the nation's first alternative weekly, was also the first employer in America to offer health insurance to its employees' domestic partners in 1982. That benefit, offered by a small, progressive employer in the Northeast has ballooned into what today includes 40% of the Fortune 500 companies. It includes oil giants Shell Oil and BP, the Big Three auto makers, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Coca-Cola and so on. Bottom-line, business decision-making explains it: Respected employees perform better and stay longer and these benefits cost very little.

Corporations have added domestic-partner benefits even though the Internal Revenue Service considers them taxable income to the employee. This means that both federal-income and payroll taxes are levied on health-insurance premiums paid to cover a domestic partner. The same is true for income tax levied in all but three states. While this doesn't raise insurmountable costs, it does place an administrative burden on companies that need to set up one payroll system for married heterosexual couples and another for partnered gay couples.

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment could label any benefit that employers extend to same-sex couples -- from group health insurance to family leave to bereavement leave -- as unconstitutional. Forty percent of Fortune companies and countless thousands of others could lose their ability to define their own benefits plans in terms that support their business operations. Even if private plans were not affected, the amendment would continue the IRS policy of taxing health-insurance premiums and jeopardize equal tax policies in Vermont, California and Massachusetts.

And legal marriage has its upsides, too. Not just because newlyweds take a lot of pictures, buy a lot of flowers and go on honeymoons. One unexpected consequence of the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts is that small businesses are actually more competitive. Now that gay partners who marry meet the definition of "spouse," smaller employers no longer have to wrangle with insurers and struggle to make benefits available to their employees that large self-insured companies have always done with ease. The result is that smaller firms are better positioned to compete for talent against larger firms that can entice gay employees with fully comparable benefits plans.

more

posted by Eve at 3:30 PM | link 0 comments

DEMOGRAPHICS OF BLACK SAME-SEX COUPLES: From the Associated Press

Nearly half of black same-sex couples listed in the 2000 Census lived in the same residence for at least five years--almost as high as for married black couples--and a majority of those households included children, according to a report released Wednesday.

The report from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Black Justice Coalition also found that black same-sex couples reported lower median incomes than either white same-sex couples or black married opposite-sex couples. ...

Additionally, the report found that black same-sex couples--both female and male--were raising children at nearly twice the rate of their white counterparts: 61 percent to 31 percent for females and 46 percent to 24 percent for males.

Nearly 600,000 same-sex couples identified themselves in the 2000 Census. Of those, nearly 85,000, or 14 percent, included at least one black partner. In most cases both partners were black, though 21 percent of the couples were interracial. The numbers are in line with the 13 percent of the total U.S. population that is black.

Black male same-sex couples reported a median income of $49,000 a year, and black female couples earned $42,000 a year. In comparison, black married opposite-sex couples earned $51,000 a year and white same-sex couples averaged $69,000 a year.

The report found that 47 percent of black same-sex couples had lived in the same home for at least five years, almost as high a proportion as the 58 percent of black married couples who had lived in one place for five years. Only 19 percent of black unmarried co-habiting heterosexual couples reported living in the same place for five years.

more

posted by Eve at 3:01 PM | link 0 comments

SHERIFF TO PROBE OHIO PETITION PROBLEMS: From the Akron Beacon Journal

The look into potentially forged Summit County petitions to get an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment on the Ohio ballot is now a criminal probe.

The Summit County Board of Elections turned over information -- that 20 to 30 signatures appear to be forged -- to Summit County Sheriff Drew Alexander's office Tuesday morning.

It isn't the first time this election season that circulators hired to gather Ohio signatures have faced criminal probes of questionable petitions.

Two circulators who worked a Florida initiative are facing nearly 100 counts of fraud there. ...

Summit County Board of Elections officials reiterated Tuesday that only one of the petition's circulators collected the 20 to 30 signatures the board referred to the Sheriff's Office. ...

The same Florida firm -- JSM Inc. -- that provided petitions with invalid signatures to get presidential hopeful Ralph Nader on the Ohio ballot was hired to gather signatures for the gay marriage amendment.

more

posted by Eve at 2:56 PM | link 0 comments

MORE CANADIAN SSM IN COURT: From the Globe and Mail

Lawyers for the federal government launched their argument before the Supreme Court of Canada on Wednesday that same-sex marriage is a justice issue --the beginning of a process that may forever change the institution of marriage in Canada.

The country's highest court began hearing arguments Wednesday morning in Ottawa on the federal government's proposal to allow same-sex marriages. ...

So far, courts in several provinces have allowed such unions, including British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Yukon.

In British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, lawyers for the federal government unsuccessfully argued that it had sole jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. Ottawa did not intervene in either the Manitoba or the Nova Scotia case.

more

posted by Eve at 2:53 PM | link 0 comments

SSM IN VP DEBATE: From Reuters

In Tuesday's vice presidential debate marked by sharp personal attacks and exchanges, the one kinder and gentler moment centered on Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.

As Cheney and his Democratic challenger Sen. John Edwards disagreed about a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Edwards praised Cheney and his wife Lynne for his public expressions of love and support for Mary, one of Cheney's two adult daughters. ...

But on policy, the two disagreed.

Cheney said that he would prefer to let states regulate marriage as they have traditionally done but he backs President Bush, who is pushing for a constitutional amendment.

"He (Bush) sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president,'' Cheney said.

Cheney repeated his belief that "people ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.'' But he said that does not mean the government should sanction or approve homosexual relationships.

Edwards said he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman but backed partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term committed relationships.

He also said marriage law should be left in state hands. But he attacked the idea of a constitutional amendment as unnecessary, divisive and politically motivated.

more

posted by Eve at 2:49 PM | link 0 comments

LA. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT THROWN OUT BY COURT: From the New Orleans Times-Picayune

A recently adopted constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was thrown out Tuesday by a state judge who said lawmakers improperly passed the measure last spring.

An appeal of East Baton Rouge Parish District Judge William Morvant's ruling is expected to be filed with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge by Monday. Seventy-eight percent of the state's voters approved the amendment Sept. 18.

Morvant, a Republican, said the amendment is flawed because, while the state Constitution prevents a law or constitutional amendment from having more than one purpose or objective, it contains two "objects":
-- Defining what a legal marriage is by specifying that it can exist only between one man and one woman while constitutionally prohibiting same-sex marriages.
-- Preventing the state from recognizing "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for any unmarried individuals."

As adopted, Morvant said, the measure would prevent civil unions, domestic partnerships and other relationships between gay or straight couples -- a measure that should have been addressed in a separate constitutional amendment. ...

The judge said his ruling "in no way prohibits the state from introducing a same-sex marriage ban" and a ban on other unions -- as long as they are covered in separate constitutional amendments.

Michael Johnson, a Shreveport attorney for several lawmakers who support the legislation and two conservative groups, said they will appeal the ruling. ...

"We are surprised and disappointed," Johnson said. "A clear reading (of the constitutional amendment) by any layperson shows it has the single object of protecting marriage . . . from all perceived threats. If we are going to defend marriage, we have to do it in one fell swoop" and not with separate amendments.

Although the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected a gay-rights groups' challenge of the amendment in early September, ruling it was not properly filed, Chief Justice Pascal Calogero took a position similar to Morvant's recent ruling.

Calogero wrote that "the proposed amendment compels voters to decide with a single vote whether to deny gay couples both the right to marry and the right to enter into such arrangements as civil unions, and does not permit voters to decide to allow one and not the other."

He added: "There are a significant number of voters who would support permitting gay couples to form civil unions, even though they would deny these couples the right to marry. . . . The court may yet have to address this constitutional question in a post-election challenge."

more

posted by Eve at 2:45 PM | link 0 comments

PROFILE OF FIRST COUPLE TO SEEK CANADIAN SSM: From the Toronto Star

Same-sex marriage may be a new issue for the Supreme Court of Canada, but it's 30 years of ancient history for Chris Vogel and Richard North.

Vogel, 57, and North, 52, were the first gay couple in Canada to attempt a legal marriage. They failed in the courts in those days before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but were married by a Unitarian minister in Winnipeg in 1974.

Thirty wedding anniversaries later, Vogel will cast an eye toward the country's highest court today, when a hearing gets under way into the constitutionality of a federal government draft bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. ...

A group called the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and the Family plans to argue that the equality rights of members of many religious faiths will be violated by allowing same-sex couples to marry.

"There is a concern that the proposed act, out of a desire to achieve equality for some, will seriously exacerbate inequality for other vulnerable groups in society, whose concept of marriage cannot be reconciled with the proposed act and who will be further marginalized from wider civil society," the group says in a written argument filed with the court.

Vogel said he and North attempted to marry because "we believed if people would look at us realistically, our problems would end."

Back then, "few people could say 'homosexual' without choking" and "we were spoken of as if we were evil," he said. At the time, gay and lesbian marriages were being performed by clergy in some parts of the United States, notably Arizona, Vogel said.

more

posted by Eve at 2:41 PM | link 0 comments

CANADIAN SSM IN COURT (2): From the Globe and Mail

The federal government will bring a same-sex-marriage bill before Parliament the moment the Supreme Court of Canada gives it the go-ahead, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said.

Speaking in an interview just hours before the Supreme Court is to commence a three-day hearing in a major reference case, Mr. Cotler said neither he nor his government have ever wavered in their desire to see same-sex marriage become law.

He said he was shocked by prominent, published reports over the weekend suggesting that a secret plan had been hatched to delay the same-sex legislation until the fall of 2005 -- in spite of the government's purported belief that the Supreme Court will reach a quick ruling. ...

"Frankly, I don't know where it came from, because it's nothing that ever passed by me," he said. "I know some references were made in a newspaper report to a cabinet document, but I never saw it." ...

The same-sex marriage issue is as divisive in the ranks of parliamentarians as it is among the general public, giving rise to considerable speculation recently about how it will be handled by the Liberal minority government.

On a motion dealing with same-sex marriage last year, more than 50 Liberals voted to retain the existing definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman.

more

posted by Eve at 2:38 PM | link 0 comments

CANADIAN SSM IN COURT: From the Toronto Star

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler says the bill to legalize gay marriage that the Supreme Court of Canada examines today may look different when it goes to Parliament but it will be "similar in principle." ...

The federal government has said it would adjust the bill if necessary to account for changes urged by the court.

But it argues that its draft contains all the safeguards necessary to extend equality rights to same-sex couples while protecting religious groups against being forced to act contrary to their beliefs. ...

Some lawyers for same-sex couples plan to argue in court today that the government does not have the political will or muscle in a minority Parliament to win a vote on gay marriage rights in the Commons, so it prefers that the Supreme Court of Canada take the lead.

more

posted by Eve at 2:34 PM | link 0 comments

ARE HUMAN RIGHTS A STATE ISSUE?: Jonathan Rauch replies to David Blankenhorn

Thanks to David B. for his post. A prefatory remark, to avoid future misunderstanding. To some extent I'm speaking for others here without fully agreeing with them. I believe that marriage is indeed a basic human right. The Supreme Court says so in no uncertain terms. But, unlike some who favor same-sex marriage, I don't believe that defining marriage is a basic human right. I believe that the question of how to define marriage should and must be settled through a long process of political skirmishing and individual soul-searching. For the reasons I mentioned in my last post, I think the states are the proper political forum.

On to David's latest, in which he seems to move from opposing moral federalism to opposing judicial review. ...

At this stage, gay-marriage opponents often shift to arguing that marriage should be turned over to the Feds if it is not left to the legislatures of the states. In other words, state courts should be cut out of the process, even at the cost of cutting out states altogether. (That's what the Federal Marriage Amendment would do.) In order to sustain this position, some gay-marriage opponents--I do not put David B. in this group, I merely note the common phenomenon--embark on a vigorous campaign of court-bashing. ...

David B. says two interesting things. One is that "the U.S. Supreme Court suddenly imposing same-sex marriage on the entire country" is "not even a remote possibility." Why, then, a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage? The answer, of course, is to prevent any state from adopting same-sex marriage, and to ensure that no gay couples can ever marry anywhere in America. The people of Massachusetts may affirm same-sex marriage in 2006 by statewide plebescite. FMA proponents would overrule them. That's a very peculiar way to defend popular sovereignty. If anyone in this debate is guilty of tactical cynicism, I think it would have to be those FMA supporters who insist they are only trying to stop "activist judges." ...

For same-sex marriage proponents, the mistake hasn't been going to the courts, it has been going only to the courts. Another unfortunate holdover of civil-rights-era thinking.

more

posted by Eve at 6:15 PM | link 0 comments

AARP AGAINST OHIO AMENDMENT: From 365Gay.com

The American Association of Retired People has announced its opposition to a proposed amendment to the Ohio state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. ...

“State Issue One would deny property ownership rights, inheritance, pensions, power of attorney and other matters of vital interest to the health and well being of unmarried older couples," AARP Ohio said in a statement.

The support from the association is a major boost for opponents of the proposed amendment. Older citizens are more likely to vote.

more

posted by Eve at 5:42 PM | link 0 comments

(tap tap) is this thing on?
(trying to get post below to publish, sorry)

posted by Eve at 11:15 PM | link 0 comments

LICENSING PARENTS: Peg Tittle (in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

[More: here, here, here, here; via the intrepid commenters at Mark Shea's. --Eve]

...The thing is, we can already create human life. Kids do it every day.

And although we've talked ourselves silly and tied ourselves in knots about ending life --active, passive, voluntary, coerced, premeditated, accidental, negligent -- we have been horrendously silent, irresponsibly laissez-faire about beginning life. We would not accept such wanton creation of life if it happened in the lab. Why do we condone it when it happens in bedrooms and backseats?

It should be illegal to create life, to have kids, in order to have another pair of hands at work in the field or to have more of us than them. It should be illegal to create a John Doe Jr. to carry on the family name and/or business.

And it should be illegal to knowingly create a life that will be spent in pain and/or that will be severely substandard. ...

Then again, wait a minute -- we have set a bar for parents: adoptive/foster parents. Those would-be parents have to prove their competence. Why do we cling to the irrational belief that biological parents are automatically competent -- in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? We have, without justification, a double standard.

One common response to this notion of licensing parents is dismissal with a giggle, as if I'm suggesting the presence of police in the bedroom. But there is no necessary connection between sex (whether or not it occurs in the bedroom) and reproduction (unless, of course, you reject all forms of contraception), so that response indicates an error of overgeneralization. On the other hand, sex can make you a parent only in the biological sense; since I'm proposing that we license both parentage (the biological part of being a parent -- the provision of sperm, ovum, and/or uterus) and parenting (the social part of being a parent -- the provision of care, very comprehensively defined), the response also indicates an error of undergeneralization. ...

Yet another response is dismissal with indignation, because surely such a proposal violates our rights! But do we have the right to replicate ourselves, to create a person? And do we have a right to raise that, or any other, person? ...

Why should children born as a result of assisted insemination or in vitro fertilization be privileged to a higher standard of care in their creation than children born as a result of coitus? These questions about rights are not easy questions to answer, and this particular dismissal of the proposal to license parents reveals gross naivete.

Yet another dismissal appeals to the difficulty or impossibility of implementing the idea: Who would set the requirements, what would those requirements be, how would they be assessed ... ? ...

Well, those bedrooms and backseats -- we could never really control the parentage part. No, not at the moment. But what if we developed a contraceptive vaccination? ...We could administer the vaccine as a matter of routine, perhaps once puberty is reached. And then, as part of the license, the antidote could be made available.

One last objection concerns the potential for abuse. Do we really want to give the state this particular power? I have to say, seeing a theocracy coming ever closer, that this is the argument that gives me most pause.

I want to point out that just because something will be abused doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, and I want to point out that our many other licensing policies still exist despite the occasional abuse.

more

posted by Eve at 10:39 PM | link 0 comments

PROFILE OF LAWYER WHO'S BRINGING SSM CASE TO CANADIAN SUPREME COURT: From the Toronto Globe and Mail

...The Supreme Court will sit down on Wednesday to hear a historic reference case precipitated by the string of provincial rulings. It has been asked by Ottawa to review a draft bill proposed to amend the legal definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian couples. ...

Prof. Cameron said the judges may mildly resent being again placed on the social firing line by the government, but they will probably warm to the opportunity to influence public opinion and political events. Such judicial receptivity provides a lesson in how litigation can be used to further social goals, she added. Aided by a sympathetic press, she said, the gay-rights movement has followed a steady path to changing the law.

"If you push too far, too fast, you can ruin your chances for a generation," Prof. Cameron said. "It wouldn't have been very smart to start out with gay marriage. Whether they consciously adopted a litigation strategy or it just evolved that way, it has produced good results for them." ...

In legal briefs filed with the Supreme Court, the federal government now argues that it is time to complete the long march to gay equality. It flatly rejects arguments from some religious groups and the Alberta government that allowing same-sex marriage would open the door to polygamy, or might compel unwilling religious groups to perform marriages for same-sex couples.

Federal lawyers also dismiss the notion that marriage is all about heterosexual procreation, or that opening the institution to same-sex partners will dilute its cultural significance. "Marriage is widely understood as an institution that is monogamous in nature, based on intimacy, companionship, recognition, economic benefits and obligations," the federal brief states. "It also has the goal of being permanent and providing a stable foundation for the raising of children.

more

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

COMMENTS ON TURLEY POLYGAMY COLUMN

[Interesting comments thread at Amy Welborn's site, including this:]

...I know people who grew up in families where polygamy was practiced. They were normal, except for maybe a more developed sense of sibling rivalry between children of different mothers. Makes the whole settlement of the patriarchs estate more complicated. Most children of polygamous families that I know of realize the complexities and resource demands of having more than one wife, and don't practice it. (Of course, intercontinental polygamy is a different issues--wives on different continents/countries/legal systems).

My point: polygamy has existed; the Bible does not condemn it; it is not abusive to women or children and can be a family-positive experience (especially in areas where men tended to die from war or dangerous work).

People do it now without legal sanction (I know this from friends), and "serial polygamy" through divorce and remarriage is very common, including visits with former wives and "polygamish" family visits for the kid's sake, etc.

Polygamy is here. It's not going away.

more

posted by Eve at 5:15 PM | link 0 comments

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND SSM: Justin Katz

...Whatever the mechanism of implementation, a country that recognizes same-sex marriages is one in which discrimination can be held as invidious in new ways. The Salvation Army already may lose its New York City contracts because it doesn't offer health benefits to unmarried domestic partners. In various cases across the country, the Boy Scouts are facing threats to both funding and land usage. Perhaps most relevant of all is the California supreme-court ruling that the mission of Catholic Charities is not sufficiently religious in nature to grant it an exemption from a law requiring employee prescription drug benefits to include contraception.

To use the language of the ABA's proposed ethics rule, the court deemed Catholic Charities insufficiently "dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or legitimate cultural values" to count as a religious organization. By this measure, one can only guess where an organization that places the right to discriminate above millions of dollars in contracts would stand on the religiosity and invidiousness scales. Surely, groups that refuse to call a "marriage" a marriage will fall on the wrong side of the latter adjective. The former adjective might offer such a slight loophole as to let religious judges slip from the bench to the pew only.

The truly invidious possibility is, however, that religious organizations--and their worldview--will come to lack sympathy within the judiciary by design. If an individual judge's membership in a group raises questions about his impartiality, what is forgivably concluded from an institutional prohibition against membership? For its part, the American Bar Association has a history of bias against the traditional side of the cultural divide, and with its recent noises about religiously based healthcare organizations, that bias is of growing breadth. Recalling that the Model Code of Judicial Conduct covers discrimination on the basis of religion, judges might soon have reason to wonder whether, just to play it safe, they ought to quit the ABA, too.

more

posted by Eve at 5:10 PM | link 0 comments

NEW QUESTION: HERE COMES THE JUDGE?

At the Family Scholars blog there's a great discussion about the consequences of the idea that same-sex marriage is a fundamental civil right. Especially given the court challenges to the various state marriage amendments, this seems like an excellent time to look at these questions (and any related aspects you all want to discuss):

1) If same-sex marriage is a fundamental civil right, should it be imposed by courts over & against voters' wishes?
2) Should the state amendments be kept off ballots or (if they pass) struck down?
3) Is state-by-state same-sex marriage the equivalent of a nation"half slave, half free"?
4) Would there be different consequences for the nation as a whole if same-sex marriage were imposed nationally, or by the courts, vs. state-by-state or by voters? If, as Jonathan Rauch argues, "And it [= a Supreme Court decision requiring same-sex marriage] wouldn't get gay couples what we really need, which is marriage that's socially as well as legally recognized. No court can deliver that. A vote is a vote is a vote, but a marriage takes place in the eyes of one's community," is that enough reason to oppose court decisions--including state court decisions--that override the majority of voters, or is the end-result worth it for SSM supporters?

Click below to join the debate!

posted by Eve at 4:36 PM | link 0 comments

ARE HUMAN RIGHTS A STATE ISSUE?: Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn

Rauch: ...So we have a fundamental disagreement in the country about rights. How should we handle fundamental disagreements involving rights and morals and family policies? Usually, unless and until we reach some sort of national consensus, we should let states decide instead of letting either side impose its judgment on everyone. As we should have done with abortion.

David B. seems to think it's somehow underhanded to "gradually introduc[e] the idea to a country that, as of now, is largely opposed to it." Um ... isn't that exactly why we have federalism? To try ideas and adapt gradually to a changing moral climate? ...

...I oppose a Supreme Court imposition of same-sex marriage against the wishes of the American majority. It would short-circuit the moral and political discussion the country needs to have. And it wouldn't get gay couples what we really need, which is marriage that's socially as well as legally recognized. No court can deliver that. A vote is a vote is a vote, but a marriage takes place in the eyes of one's community. It's an unfortunate holdover of the civil rights era that so many people think that anything someone calls a right has to be imposed nationally by Supreme Court fiat. I don't think that. I can't answer if Stanley Kurtz or David B. does.

It does seem to me there are violations of rights so severe that they should not be permitted by any court policy. Slavery, to pick one that's obvious. But a lot of things people refer to as "rights" aren't like that. Most things, in fact. It can't be correct to accuse pro-gay-marriage folks of hypocrisy or underhandedness if they want to try to build a consensus instead of escalating to all-or-nothing demands. In fact, wouldn't it be more appropriate to praise pro-same-sex-marriage federalists for their restraint?

more

Blankenhorn: ...[Rauch] says that some human rights are fundamental, but that others--he mentions the right to smoke cigarettes--are not, and that these less-than-fundamental rights can therefore legitimately be treated by different states, and different courts, in different ways. But is he suggesting that the right to marry is not a basic human right? That getting married is in the same category as smoking? I don't believe that, and I'm pretty sure that he doesn't, either. ...Nowhere in his response does Jonathan explain why in his view a basic human right can legitimately be granted in some places, and by some courts, and legitimately denied in other places and by other courts. Just reporting that "people currently disagree" is not an answer to this problem.

Relatedly, Jonathan uses the term "federalism" to include both legislation and court decisions. He therefore conveniently glides over the fact that all same-sex marriage victories to date have been the result of court actions. The only thing that is happening, or is likely to happen, legislatively or constitutionally consists of efforts to prevent same-sex marriage. So what is likely to happen in Jonathan's preferred scenario is a number of after-the-fact, literally reactionary efforts to take away what a court has already declared to be a fundamental human right. ...

The only way forward for the same-sex marriage movement for the immediate and forseeable future is to: a) rely on selected state courts to create against the will of its citizens the right to same-sex marriage in certain states; b) to convince the public over time that same-sex marriage is a basic human right; and c) to make sure that nothing is done at the national or constitutional levels to block same-sex marriage nationally. That's what Jonathan calls the "federalist" approach, and I undertand why he favors it.

more

posted by Eve at 4:28 PM | link 0 comments

GIRLFRIENDS ARE THE NEW SPOUSES: Rebecca Traister

...The power of female friendship is widely dramatized and almost as frequently fetishized in fiction. From Marianne and Elinor Dashwood to Nicole Holofcener movies to recent ads for Ortho-Tri-Cyclen birth control pills, to a certain high-heeled HBO series, yarns about women's abiding affection for one another -- especially in tart contrast to their relationships with men -- have been knit into yards and yards of narrative melodrama. But as mating patterns change, and many women put off marriage until their 30s, we gain a decade of independence; a decade that might have once been dedicated to bonding with husbands and children, but is now often unfettered by men or the limitations of family. We may be single, but rarely do we spend those years without a coterie of girlfriends. We may not be growing up within the context of our marriages anymore, but we are not alone. Women become each other's de facto spouses: we practice habits of sharing and intimacy; urge each other to be stronger, sharper, to get better jobs and accept no less than just and healthy relationships.

more (you have to watch a short little ad)

posted by Eve at 4:23 PM | link 0 comments

BISEXUALITY AND SSM: R.K. Becker

I agree with Justin Katz that "it is actually the advocates for same-sex marriage who 'seek to reduce this emotional and complex issue to straight versus gay.'" For SSM advocates, bisexuals throw a monkey wrench into the debate because once they are added in, it becomes much more clear what the SSM debate is really about.

A sizeable minority of heterosexuals (anywhere from 25 to 40 %, depending on how the question is phrased) now seem to support marriage for gays. But what most of them appear to mean by this is that they support marriage for gays who simply cannot feel sexual attraction toward the opposite sex. This is not the same thing as saying that they support the idea that any person, gay, straight, or bisexual, may marry someone of either sex, and that the concept of marriage should be changed to reflect this idea.

In other words, there are two different perceptions of what SSM means:

1. That marriage is still defined as between a man and a woman, except for gay people, who can marry their own gender.

2. That marriage is defined as between any two individuals, regardless of gender. And, ultimately, regardless of orientation.

The former is the perception more acceptable to heterosexuals, and even to many advocates of SSM.

Hence, it is understandable that SSM advocates would try to persuade the public with arguments and individual cases that stress the former perception rather than the latter. And the issue of bisexuality shifts the perception too much in the wrong direction.

The question for SSM advocates is whether there is any way that, once legalized, it cannot inevitably lead to the second perception--that marriage is between any two persons regardless of gender or orientation. Do any proponents of SSM wish to argue that it will not lead to this? And why they believe that it will not?

Or, they may argue that there is nothing wrong with the second perception.

posted by Eve at 4:17 PM | link 0 comments

WHICH SLOPE?: From the Traverse City Record-Eagle

Panelists for and against a state proposal to constitutionally ban gay marriage debated which way the "slippery slope" slides.

Members of both sides mentioned the term in arguing their views at a town meeting on Proposal 2 attended by about 200 at Northwestern Michigan College.

Kristina Hemphill, spokeswoman for Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, a group that supports the amendment that will appear on the Nov. 2 statewide ballot, said allowing gay marriage could open the door for polygamy and other unions.

"When you take away any one element that defines marriage, why not take away all of the elements?" she said.

Paul Heaton, a member of Coalition for a Fair Michigan, which opposes the measure, fears it would encourage people to regulate other behaviors they don't like.

"You wonder about a slippery slope," he said. "If we pass this, how much further will we go?"

more

posted by Eve at 3:57 PM | link 0 comments

POLYGAMY LAWS EXPOSE OUR OWN HYPOCRISY: Jonathan Turley (in USA Today)

Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.

If the court agrees to take the case, it would be forced to confront a 126-year-old decision allowing states to criminalize polygamy that few would find credible today, even as they reject the practice. And it could be forced to address glaring contradictions created in recent decisions of constitutional law.

For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law.
Individuals have a recognized constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relationship with any number of partners. Thus, a person can live with multiple partners and even sire children from different partners so long as they do not marry. However, when that same person accepts a legal commitment for those partners "as a spouse," we jail them.

Likewise, someone such as singer Britney Spears can have multiple husbands so long as they are consecutive, not concurrent. Thus, Spears can marry and divorce men in quick succession and become the maven of tabloid covers. Yet if she marries two of the men for life, she will become the matron of a state prison. ...

While the justifications have changed over the years, the most common argument today in favor of a criminal ban is that underage girls have been coerced into polygamist marriages. There are indeed such cases. However, banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse. The country has laws to punish pedophiles and there is no religious exception to those laws. ...

The First Amendment was designed to protect the least popular and least powerful among us. When the high court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas, we ended decades of the use of criminal laws to persecute gays. However, this recent change was brought about in part by the greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians into society, including openly gay politicians and popular TV characters. ...

I personally detest polygamy. Yet if we yield to our impulse and single out one hated minority, the First Amendment becomes little more than hype and we become little more than hypocrites. For my part, I would rather have a neighbor with different spouses than a country with different standards for its citizens.

more

posted by Eve at 3:31 PM | link 0 comments

AD TAKES THE CAKE: From the New York Post

WHAT is sure to be a controversial new TV commercial features U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer and GOP challenger Howard Mills standing together — as a gay couple atop a wedding cake.

The provocative ad--a copy of which was obtained by The Post — is set to start airing on cable channels across New York today.

The commercial, for Conservative Party Senate candidate Marilyn O'Grady, depicts two men, instead of a traditional bride and groom, atop a cake. The figures are meant to represent Schumer and Mills.

"They oppose President Bush on defending marriage and they support gay civil unions," says the narrator.

"Schumer and Mills: the perfect liberal couple."

Both Mills, an Orange County assemblyman, and O'Grady, a Nassau County doctor, have been running far behind Schumer in polls.

more

posted by Eve at 3:25 PM | link 0 comments

PROFILE OF FIRST LESBIAN COUPLE MARRIED IN S.F.: From the Contra Costa Times

...Their hastily planned private ceremony Feb. 12 amid the national attention focused on City Hall inspired peals of applause and rivulets of tears from the select few witnesses. The couple wanted the right to marry primarily so they could publicly declare their commitment but also so they could receive the same tax and health benefits as married partners.

Now that the California Supreme Court has invalidated nearly 4,000 same-sex licenses, the duo are taking center stage again. They and 11 other couples are legally challenging the constitutionality of a same-sex marriage ban. ...

The couple met in Seattle in 1950 while working at a trade publication. They became close friends, but it wasn't until they were at a Press Club function that Lyon discovered her friend's sexual orientation. ...

They met a woman interested in forming a social group for lesbians who would gather and sponsor dances in one another's homes without the fear of arrest. Eventually, the couple steered the group of eight toward tackling social and legal issues and holding forums. Membership grew.

The Daughters of Bilitis -- their name taken from the title of a French author's book that featured women's love poems-- blossomed into an international organization. The group's name was meant to help lesbians instantly identify with its purpose without revealing that it was a lesbian organization. In 1956, Lyon became the first editor for the group's influential newsletter, "The Ladder."

Martin and Lyon eagerly slipped into the role of activists, advocating for change in numerous institutions. Martin attended American Psychiatric Association meetings where she hounded members to stop designating homosexuality as a mental illness. The board did so in 1973. ...

"I don't think people get married just so they can get benefits because presumably they're in love and want to make a life together," Lyon said.

But, given their ages, Martin and Lyon see it as crucial to obtain the same benefits accorded to heterosexual couples. They registered as domestic partners with the state and the city but are entering a stage in life where the federal rights of married couples are important.

"In our case, for instance, we're both on Social Security. If we were married and were recognized by the federal government and one of us died, the other would get part of that. The way it works now, our income is just cut in half when one of us dies," Lyon said. "And there's nothing for families with small children ... .In the meantime, we pay taxes, we do all these things that we're supposed to do but we don't get the same benefits."

more

posted by Eve at 3:18 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND THE COURTS: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Voters in 10 other states will join Georgians on Nov. 2 in deciding whether to ban same-sex marriage in their state constitutions. But, as in Georgia, gay rights groups in several of those states are pinning their hopes on the courts, not the electorate, to halt the measures.

...So far, courts in Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan and Oklahoma have been unwilling to prevent voters from casting ballots, but opponents of the ban say the fight is far from over. Long after voters go to the polls, state and federal judges might ultimately decide the issue.

Opponents of gay marriage argue that judicial interference is precisely the reason they have pushed for constitutional amendments. A Massachusetts Supreme Court decision last year to allow same-sex marriage prompted lawmakers across the nation to propose constitutional amendments, which they think will be more difficult to overturn. But gay rights activists say they see nothing wrong with turning to the courts for help.

"Nothing's going on in the gay marriage debate that hasn't already happened in this country," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Issues like abortion, segregated schools, civil rights and divorce were all largely won through the judicial process." ...

Gay rights activists and their attorneys also are formulating strategies to take the fight to federal court on civil rights grounds. David Buckel, director of the Marriage Project for Lambda Legal, said such litigation already is in progress in Nebraska.

In 2000, voters there approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Lambda Legal and the ACLU filed suit in federal court declaring the amendment unconstitutional. A lower-court judge denied the state's motion to dismiss the case, allowing it to go forward. Lambda Legal and the ACLU plan to file their briefs in court this month.

more

posted by Eve at 9:35 PM | link 0 comments