WHAT WILL STATE AMENDMENTS ACTUALLY DO?: Joshua Baker

Watching the debate over the state marriage amendments makes for a fascinating study of public messaging strategies. It seems proponents of the amendments talk about marriage (and little else), while opponents are inclined to talk about anything but marriage, whether that be hospital visitation, employee benefits, inheritance rights, or parental support obligations. See, e.g., here, here, here, and here. Obviously, such disciplined messaging reflects the fact that the American public opposes same-sex marriage by large margins, but is more evenly divided over questions of rights and benefits.

The legal implications of these amendments are certainly worthy of careful consideration by voters, but it seems some standard of likelihood (or at least plausibility) should govern the public rhetoric. Repeatedly raising the specter of gay partners being thrown out of hospital rooms, or children being deprived of parental support, or businesses being told they can no longer offer partnership benefits to their employees serves simply to obscure, rather than illuminate, the real issues at stake.

Take the private employee benefits issue. No state, not even Nebraska (with a marriage amendment that explicitly bans recognition of domestic partnerships) has ever limited the right of a private employer to extend health insurance to the domestic partners of its employees. It is true that these domestic partners will not be deemed "spouses" under state law, but nothing prohibits employers from giving benefits to non-spouses. It's not clear to me how any private action can make a domestic partner into the legal equivalent of a spouse, much less simply naming that person as a health insurance beneficiary.

Or take the hospital visitation issue. If a state legislature proposes to limit hospital visitation to legal spouses, let's join together to oppose the bill, but that's not the issue today. And parental obligations? Surely there are enough unmarried parents paying child support to evidence the fact that child support hinges on parental, not marital, status.

It's easy to make claims. But claims need support from argument and/or (at least) anecdote. To date, I haven't seen a serious analysis supporting these claims. From those who take them seriously, I'd welcome such an explanation.

posted by Eve at 5:30 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGE, STATE INTEREST, AND KINSHIP: Marty McKeever

"What is the state's interest, if any, in preserving a definition of marriage as involving a man and a woman?"

What is at stake is the importance of biological kinship, vs. legal kinship, to one's own children. In custody cases of all types, biological kinship of a parent carries grave implications in the placement of the child. Same-sex marriage/parenting causes the notions of legal kindship to become exactly equal to that of biological kinship, because in most cases the "other" biological parent has relinquished all of their rights and is practically anonymous.

What is missing though, is the fact that in a traditional family, biological kinship also comes hand in hand with a legal kinship bond. This SHOULD make the bonds TWICE as strong as either one alone (and it has been implicitly interpreted that way in most custody cases). But with same-sex parenting, there can be only one biological parent, and one legal-only parent, forcing custody cases to see the parents as equals (you've seen recent examples of this, I know). BUT -- and this is key -- the biological parent also has the same legal kinship as does the non-bio parent-- so to treat them equally REQUIRES that we discard any preference for biological kinship altogether, and ONLY consider the legal!

Biological kinship is something that is created by God (or whatever name you want to use) and can only be destroyed by God, while legal kinship is only a creation of man, and can always be destroyed by mere men.

Worst case example? Try this: We let the courts take kids away from their biological parents because of child abuse, and place them into foster homes. This is a decision done with serious consideration of the biological link to a child's family, and a last resort. But when biological kinship is removed from this equation, and legal kinship is the only hurdle, then arguably any child can be removed from any family for any reason, so long as the foster family is deemed to be "better" by the courts -- because separating a child from a biological parent requires a MUCH higher standard than it does from a legal guardian.

It seems like a stretch, I know, but we remove the grave deference to biological kinship at our own peril. Same-sex marriage makes a legal precedent for doing just that.

posted by Eve at 5:23 PM | link 0 comments

POLYGAMY AND UNISEX MARRIAGE: RK Becker replies to Tom Sylvester

In response to Jonathan Turley, Tom Sylvester writes:

"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...."

The problem with Tom's argument is that to refute one false analogy, he himself is drawing a false analogy between polygamists and gays as categories identically situated in regard to the unions they respectively seek, namely, polygamy and SSM. The proper analogy is between polygamists and, not just gays, but anyone, gay, straight, or bisexual, who for any reason might decide to enter into a same-sex marriage. The analogy Tom makes would be true only if it could be stated with certainty that only gays, not bisexuals or even heterosexuals, could or would ever enter into same-sex marriages. Being in a polygamous marriage makes one a polygamist by definition, but being in a same-sex marriage does not by definition make one gay anymore than being in a heterosexual marriage makes one straight. Hence Tom's attempt to refute Turley (and hence allay fears of any slippery slope between SSM and polygamy) by demonstrating a false analogy breaks down.

This relates to the argument that the cultural perception of what SSM means will in time shift from the idea of a special side-category of marriage for gays only to the total androgynization of the concept of marriage as something between any two persons regardless of gender or orientation.

To date, I have not heard any advocate of SSM propose that it be limited only to those medically or psychologically certified as gay. And I don't expect them to, as it would be abhorrent, but it is the only scenario under which I could see the public perception of SSM not sliding over time into something quite different from what most advocates present it as.

posted by Eve at 5:08 PM | link 0 comments

A MARRIAGE SOLUTION FOR AN ISOLATED WORLD: Justin Katz

Right at the outset, let me say that I respect Noah Millman's thinking and writing. When I manage to read his blog, I find him always thoughtful and usually correct. Still, a recent post of his, arguing that "the fight to prohibit the redefinition of marriage as a unisex institution is deeply hypocritical," falls in the category of rhetoric that many conservatives find sufficiently persuasive to let a difficult practical decision loiter unto irrelevance. ...

While writing about divorce, Noah mentions that "we're talking about changing a culture, not building a machine." His phrasing is so true, and so relevant, that it's jarring that he does not apply the principle to the ostensible topic of his post. In the process of cultural change, the first step is to arrest an insidious trend; only then can we overlay a beneficial one.

more

posted by Eve at 4:46 PM | link 0 comments

KENTUCKY AMENDMENT Q & A: From the Lexington Herald Leader

Here's a primer on what Amendment No. 1 would or would not do, based on conversations with lawyers who specialize in family or constitutional law. In some cases, the lawyers disagree. If the amendment is passed, its meaning will ultimately be decided by judges. ...

If the amendment is passed, would the legal agreements that some same-sex couples use to define their relationship still be valid?

Legal documents such as wills, power-of-attorney documents and health care proxies would not be affected.

However, more complicated agreements could be vulnerable, especially if written in terms traditionally associated with marriage, said Sam Marcosson, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Louisville and has spoken publicly against the amendment.

For example, a same-sex couple could draft an agreement saying that one partner would pay the other a set amount if their relationship ended. The partner required to make the payment could challenge the contract based on the amendment, Marcosson said, arguing that the contract was essentially setting up alimony, a benefit of marriage.

Paul Salamanca, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Kentucky, contends that such challenges would fail. "Otherwise it would just make chaos out of the law of contracts," Salamanca said.

At a minimum, unmarried couples would have to be careful to avoid using marital language when writing legal agreements, Marcosson said.

If the amendment is passed, will employers be able to offer benefits to same-sex couples?

A private employer could still extend benefits to same-sex couples. However, the amendment could prevent public employers -- state agencies, public universities and local governments -- from extending benefits to same-sex couples. ...

If the amendment is passed, will members of unmarried couples still be able to seek protection under the state's domestic violence laws?

In 1992, state law was rewritten to allow members of unmarried couples to obtain a protective order against an abusive partner. Five years later, the Court of Appeals ruled that the rewritten law included same-sex couples.

Someone could argue that, by giving to members of unmarried couples a right reserved by tradition to married couples, the legislature gave status to unmarried relationships -- an act forbidden by the amendment.

Salamanca doubts that such an argument would succeed: He contends that the more specific language of the statute and the Court of Appeals ruling would govern the more general-language of the amendment.

Marcosson disagrees. The amendment doesn't specify whether protective orders are part of a status similar to marriage, he said.

more

posted by Eve at 4:42 PM | link 0 comments

CANVASSING AGAINST KENTUCKY AMENDMENT: From the Lexington Herald Leader

...Republicans with a libertarian bent can be convinced because they don't want the government to intrude on people's lives, Reece said. Others are moved by personal stories of long-term couples or the fact that the amendment would ban not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions. "If we were able to build a big enough team to talk to every voter in this commonwealth, we would win by a landslide," Reece said. ...

More than anything else on a recent Sunday, the Ashland volunteers found confused voters: What would the amendment do? What would it outlaw? What would voting against it mean?

Biff and Johnda Holbrook were typical. Gilmore approached them on their screened-in back porch, where Biff sat in a hot tub. Johnda, who came to the door, said she hadn't heard about the amendment but then nodded in recognition as Gilmore began to explain.

Gilmore pointed to the amendment's first phrase: "Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky Constitution to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky ..."

That's already state law, and she didn't have a problem with it, Gilmore explained in a spiel she would repeat over and over again.

"It's the second part they're wanting to add onto it," she said, pointing to the language "... and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized?"

"It's not only going to hit same-sex couples," Gilmore said, "but it's going to hit straight unions as well."

Gilmore, 36, managed convenience stores until a car wreck in 1994. She has a twangy mountain accent and a triangle tattoo on her wrist. She doesn't read from the talking points provided by No on the Amendment. "I try to talk to them like everyday people," she said.

She explained to the Holbrooks that state law already prohibits same-sex marriage and that the amendment would prevent the state from creating civil unions or domestic partnerships. Without marriage-like arrangements, long-time same-sex partners can't make medical decisions for one another, she said.

The last part caught Biff Holbrook's attention. "They should be able to do that," he called from the hot tub. "... So we vote no on the amendment?" ...

The volunteers didn't convince everybody. Tammy Deboard of Catlettsburg said she spoke to two men who were drinking beer. "At first they just said no," Deboard said. "And then they said all fags should die. And I just left it at that and walked away."

more

posted by Eve at 4:19 PM | link 0 comments

OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS: Douglas LeBlanc

...These are some open-ended questions about gay marriage that I hope some journalists will explore -- if not with presidential candidates, then with other important figures in the gay-marriage debate:

Some clergy and journalist Michael Kinsley have proposed separating civil marriage from marriage as a religious rite. How well do you think such an approach would work in the United States?

What is the state's interest, if any, in preserving a definition of marriage as involving a man and a woman?

Jon Meacham of Newsweek has said, "We have changed the definition of marriage before, and so we can change it again." For what philosophical reasons do you oppose redefining marriage to incorporate gay and lesbian couples?

In what ways might our culture address gay marriage without turning it into a decades-long battle in the culture wars?

more

posted by Eve at 8:47 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND DIVORCE: Sara Butler

...The other thing that puzzles me about Mr. Sullivan's response is that apparently Ms. Morse is the first oppponent of same-sex marriage he's found who is also concerned about the impact no-fault divorce has had on our marriage culture. That's kind of funny because I thought there was this whole marriage movement thing, some members of which also oppose same-sex marriage, that's kind of devoted to trying to strengthen marriage and reduce the divorce rate.

Excuse my complaining for a moment, but I'm getting a little tired of gay marriage advocates who seem think they discovered the topic of marriage and that no one in our society was even talking about it until the issue of same-sex marriage came up. I’ve criticized some opponents of same-sex marriage in the past for paying too little attention to the other dangers to marriage in our society, and I still think there are people out there who do that. It's just not true, though, that everyone who opposes same-sex marriage falls into that camp. But it sure is useful for advocates of same-sex marriage to suggest that's the case, since it if it were, it would support their argument that the only reason anyone opposes same-sex marriage is because they hate gays.

more

posted by Eve at 8:35 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND DIVORCE: Andrew Sullivan

[Email. I asked him to let me know if he didn't want me to post his reply, and he didn't, so I assume this is okay. --Eve]

I'm open to the idea of tightening up divorce laws. That may well be a good thing. I'd like to see specific proposals. Abolishing no-fault divorce is something that strikes me as sensible.

I just wish the anti-equality folks would talk more about strengthening marriage and less about marginalizing gays. but that would defeat their purpose--which is not really about strengthening marriage. It's about maintaining the stigmatization of homosexuality.

posted by Eve at 8:27 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND DIVORCE: Noah Millman replies to Jennifer Roback Morse and Andrew Sullivan

I was making this argument at least five years ago. One of the many reasons I can't get on the FMA train (along with the fact that this is an inappropriate subject for the Constitution) is precisely that I think the fight to prohibit the redefinition of marriage as a unisex institution is deeply hypocritical. The push for same-sex marriage is not the cause of the decline of the marriage culture in America; it is a symptom. Why are so many focused on attacking the symptom while largely ignoring the cause? Because the symptom--same-sex marriage--is the subject of advocacy by an often-despised minority, while the cause--no-fault divorce--is something that affects the majority of the citizenry (given the prevalence of divorce in our society, I'd bet a majority of the citizenry falls into one of the following categories: divorced, parent of a divorcee, or child of a divorcee). ...

Saying there's a beam in our own eye doesn't mean the mote doesn't exist. Same-sex marriage would be a mistake. But it's not a mistake we're likely to make freely. The only states that have even talked about redefining marriage this way have been forced to do so by the courts. The solution to that problem is to punish the courts--systematically, by reducing their power, and not in an ad-hoc fashion by exempting this or that law from review or amending the Constitution every time they rule in a way the people dislike. ...

People have talked about [our] culture as "serial monogamy"--a version of polygamy where you can marry multiple times, but not simultaneously--and like polygamy but from the opposite direction, serial monogamy has harmed women and had profoundly damaging consequences for the social structure that underpins a healthy, democratic society.

We have got to restore the distinction in law between annulment and divorce. I'd be favorable to a liberal annulment law--i.e., relatively easy dissolution of marriage when there are no children. But this should not be an option once children are involved. Then, the only option should be divorce, and divorce should only be possible upon a finding of fault--adultery, cruelty, abandonment, something substantive that would have to be demonstrated in court. And society--and maybe even government; I'm open to the idea--should do whatever it can to promote reconciliation within marriage. ...

Finally, an open question to Andrew Sullivan: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. ...

So here's my question: are you *predicting* that an attack on no-fault divorce is coming ("divorce is next" is how you title this item) and hence warning straights, in effect, "first they came for the gays"? Or are you mocking the Christian Right for *ignoring* divorce and focusing only on sins their flocks would not commit ("Why not combine . . . amendments 'defending' marriage with bands on no-fault divorce? Well, you know the answer.")? Are you attacking your opponents for *not* really caring about marriage, or warning us that they *do* really care? And what do you think we *should* do about divorce? Are you happy that no-fault divorce exists, or unhappy? Is freedom to exit marriage at will something important to how you understand marriage, or something that undermines that understanding? What, finally, does marriage *mean* to you, Mr. Sullivan, since you want it so badly. Just a basket of goodies? Or social approval of your relationship? You have devoted much of your public life to advocacy to redefine marriage to encompass your relationship with a hypothetical man who asks you to marry him. In the final analysis, and honestly, *why*?

more

posted by Eve at 8:19 PM | link 0 comments

DOMA/Kerry: Jonathan H. Adler

Bush finally nails Senator Kerry for voting against DOMA. This is the first time this has been mentioned in any debate. It's a key point to make to occupy the center on this issue. Cheney left it alone when Edwards said Kerry believed states should choose for themselves, so it's good that Bush mentioned it. (Kerry's answer on the other hand, is disingenuous.)

link

posted by Eve at 8:10 PM | link 0 comments

INTERVIEW WITH WHY MARRIAGE? AUTHOR GEORGE CHAUNCEY: From the Windy City Times

...OK: I found it fascinating to learn in your book how much of this anti-gay and lesbian legislation was put into place relatively recently, mostly in the 1920s-1950s.

GC: It's really dangerous and it hurts us that we are so unfamiliar with this history because the opponents of gay rights and certainly same-sex marriage like to claim that history is on their side and that discrimination and hostility against gay people is age old. It's important to note there's been a long history in the regulation of sexual acts of various kinds, not just homosexual acts but many acts that happily married heterosexual couples engage in as well. The history of the systematic discrimination of gay people on the basis of their status as homosexuals is really a product of the 20th century. Most of it was put in place between the 1920s and 1950s and most was dismantled between the 1960s and the 1990s so that the right wing is simply wrong when it calls on its theories of millennium world teaching against gay people. ...

OK: So what factors prompted this seemingly sudden push for gay marriage?

GC: Marriage has always been a contentious issue within the gay movement. Many people have been opposed to pursuing marriage rights for a variety of reasons though it's also important to note that even many early gay liberation activists thought gay people should have access to marriage like they should be able to do anything else that heterosexuals do. But clearly, the terrible impact of AIDS on people and the way it confronted people with the fact that all sorts of powerful institutions did not recognize their relationships--hospitals, funeral homes, insurance companies, and so forth. All that really brought home to people how vulnerable our relationships were. Also the lesbian baby boom did too. People want to provide as much security to their children as possible and it's very difficult to do if the relationship of the two mothers or the two fathers is not recognized. So this sort of searing mass experience of death and childbirth in the 1980s and '90s really made many of us think much more seriously about marriage.

But I am also interested in looking at the history of the opposition to the same-sex marriage campaign. It's clear that the opponents of same-sex marriage are the same people who have opposed every advancement of gay rights be it domestic partnership or increased gay visibility in the media. Even though they often claim they respect gay people and their relationships and they just want to save marriage for heterosexuals, they have in fact opposed gay people in every stage of the game. They are also the people who are most opposed to changes in marriage in heterosexuals as well. Part of what I try to do in this book is show how marriage itself has changed as an institution for heterosexuals. The old strict division of labor between husbands and wives has given way in the past century and especially the last several decades so that roles aren't just prescribed to people the way they used to be--which makes it easier to imagine people of the same sex getting married. Also for many of the opponents of same-sex marriage this is an important source of their hostility to all changes in gender relations between men and women.

more

posted by Eve at 8:03 PM | link 0 comments

"MAYDAY FOR MARRIAGE" RALLY FRIDAY: From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

More than 100,000 Christians are expected to flood the National Mall tomorrow to uphold marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and to remind politicians of their power at the polls.

The massive gathering in Washington, D.C., was conceived by the Rev. Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, who organized the Mayday for Marriage rally at Safeco Field on May 1.

With support from a number of national Christian ministries, including Focus on the Family, Hutcherson led the planning of tomorrow's event, also called Mayday for Marriage. ...

Following are excerpts from a Seattle Post-Intelligencer interview with Hutcherson earlier this week:

What's the value of traditional marriage to society?
It's the whole foundation of what society is about. It is so important to understand that if you break down the family, you break down culture. ... We believe this fight is so important because (those wanting to expand the definition of marriage) are trying to get the Christian influence, religious influence, out of society. The Constitution never says there was a separation of church and state. It is the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion. And that's why we're fighting so hard. ...

If heterosexuals are divorcing at high rates, why uphold only traditional marriage and ban same-sex marriage?
We agree that divorce is bad. We agree that divorce has hurt our society. Why would I want another evil? That doesn't make things better. You know, my house is on fire in the living room, so let me go start a fire in the kitchen. It doesn't make sense to me.

more

posted by Eve at 7:59 PM | link 0 comments

SSM IN PRES. DEBATE: From Reuters

[Pour me another double cliche/You can't write a song that's never been sung. IOW, there's nothing that's new here. --Eve]

President Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry, who both oppose gay marriage, disagreed Wednesday on whether the issue should be left up to states and offered differing answers on whether a person could choose to be homosexual.

In their third presidential debate, devoted to domestic issues, Massachusetts Sen. Kerry cited Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter Mary in arguing that sexual orientation was not a matter of individual choice and he said states have shown they are capable of managing their own marriage laws.

Bush, who supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, said he was unsure whether a person could choose to be homosexual and that an amendment was needed to ensure that the issue of marriage does not end up "being defined by courts."

more

posted by Eve at 7:53 PM | link 0 comments

NEWSWEEK ON KIDS RAISED BY GAY COUPLES

[Stuff not mentioned: Criticism of existing studies of same-sex parenting; whether kids do best with a mom and dad; what thoughts these particular kids have about the mom & dad idea. There's also a cameo by creepy, bullying Christian teens, woo-hoo. --Eve]

...No longer silent, the children of gays are beginning to find their voices--and each other. The Internet has enabled these kids to connect, sparking a "coming out" of an identity group that calls itself Queer Spawn. An advocacy group, COLAGE (Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere), says its membership has climbed 19 percent this year. The success of Family Week in Provincetown--3,000 members of gay-headed homes gathered there this summer--has spurred a similar convocation for kids of gays in Saugatuck, Mich. Meanwhile a flood of books on the subject has recently hit the stores, and television shows have focused on real-life examples of kids of gays. ...

...These are kids who love their parents and fear that bigots will hurt them, or that the courts will try to remove them from their homes. Beyond that they feel left out of the discussion. Bystanders in the culture wars, they are often reduced to caricatures: social conservatives tend to see them as damaged goods being reared by immoral pseudoparents; liberals are eager to cast them as comfortable and carefree--the Huxtables with a minor wrinkle. In fact, these kids often know isolation and fear of rejection from peers, as well as the shame and anger that come with lying about your family. ...

Studies have generally found few differences between children raised by gay parents and those reared by heterosexual ones. In one of the most widely cited reports, sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz in 2001 found that kids of gays have as much self-esteem as those of straights. But the former University of Southern California scholars also found, not surprisingly, that sons and daughters of gays tend not to be as rigid about traditional sex roles. The boys of lesbians--most of the research has centered on kids raised in female same-sex households--were found to be more nurturing than their counterparts, while the girls were a bit more aggressive. These girls were also a bit more sexually adventurous, the boys somewhat more restrained.

Elizabeth Wall, 15, of Lawrenceville, N.J., whose fathers just celebrated their 25th anniversary, says kids of gays are just like their peers, but have been taught to be more tolerant of differences. "We might be more open because we grew up taught to love everyone," says Elizabeth.

more

posted by Eve at 7:29 PM | link 0 comments

HOFSTRA DEBATE: From New York Newsday

New Paltz Mayor Jason West opened the debate on gay marriage at Hofstra University yesterday by declaring "same-sex marriage is already legal in New York State."

West defied long-held interpretations of state law and married 25 gay couples earlier this year and faced criminal charges as a result. Though the charges were dismissed by a judge, West is barred from continuing to perform same-sex marriages.

On the other side was Boston College Professor Susan Shell, who said, "I defend civil unions but oppose gay marriage," calling it "inadvisable as social policy." Her essay, "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage," formed the basis of her talk at Hofstra, which more than 100 students and faculty attended. ...

"When I became mayor [in 2003], I stepped back and read the law, and as far as I can tell, same-sex marriage is already legal in New York State for a couple of reasons," West said. He said New York does not define marriage as between one man and one woman, as other states do, but simply as "a contract between partners."

West said he was motivated by the desire he heard from many gay couples to have their relationships treated with dignity. "What they seem to want more than anything, they want their relationship recognized as equal" to others, he said to loud applause.

Shell said gay marriage "is not a civil right . ... I believe most of the benefits of gay marriage can be provided through civil unions." She also argued that it was "unwise" to tinker with marriage, which has recognized the bond between parents and children throughout different generations and cultures.

more

posted by Eve at 6:32 PM | link 0 comments

NY STATE PENSIONS TO GAY COUPLES MARRIED IN CANADA: From the New York Times

New York State is moving to officially recognize same-sex marriages from Canada for the first time, at least in one limited area: State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi has ruled that the state's pension system will treat gay couples with Canadian wedding licenses the same way it treats other married couples.

The decision came after Mark E. Daigneault, a state employee seeking to wed his male partner in Canada, wrote the comptroller's office asking what the financial implications of the marriage would be.

After studying the issue, Mr. Hevesi wrote back last week that the state's $115 billion pension funds, which he oversees, would ''recognize a same-sex Canadian marriage in the same manner as an opposite-sex New York marriage.'' While the practical impact of the decision is limited, gay rights groups hailed the move as a giant step toward winning wider recognition for gay marriages. ...

New York State already allows employees to make same-sex partners their pension beneficiaries; the comptroller's decision means that gay couples married in Canada would be entitled to automatic cost-of-living increases and accidental death benefits for survivors, benefits that currently go to spouses.

more

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

BISEXUALITY AND EMOTIONAL STRESSES: Eve, rambling

You are warned in advance: This is a meandering and not especially pointed or polemical post. It's food for thought, though, I think; and I'd be interested in people's comments on it.

This year has been very stressful for me. That's bad, of course, but it has also caused me to notice something interesting: The more stressed-out I am by other things, the more I feel overwhelmed by the thought of a heterosexual relationship. Even airily theoretical contemplation of some potential future marriage and family makes me feel exhausted.

Conversely, settling down with a woman for some reliable, sweet, mutual caretaking of the Rauch's-book-approved kind (plus cats!) sounds fantastic. Someone to sand down my rough edges, to fetch soup when I'm sick, to prod and entice me to be better than I am; someone to cook for.

So why do I react this way? I mean, I know full well that lesbian relationships--being relationships between humans, after all--include fighting, giving up things you really value, illness, and, potentially, tragedy. Maybe some of my reaction is grass-is-greener syndrome: Since my religion definitely rules out lesbian householding (with or without cats), I'm free to idealize it.

But it's also just true that the pressures on heterosexual relationships are simply different from those on homosexual ones. Biology can't be separated from emotions; we have huge emotional freight attached to (the most obvious example) fertility. Conceiving unexpectedly; conceiving with a man you don't trust or don't love; trying to conceive, learning you probably can't conceive; conceiving at a time that's okay-but-stressful--all of these present obvious stresses, and can really challenge a woman's sense of self. And no matter how hard our culture tries to convince us that sex doesn't make babies, all this knowledge and past history is present whenever a man and a woman marry and whenever they have sex. Then, during pregnancy, there is miscarriage and worries over potential miscarriage. And if you do conceive, and do give birth, as most women eventually do--

--Oh, now this is where it gets really heart-shaking. A while ago I read a description of motherhood as "having your heart walking around outside your body." That sounds about right. Suddenly this small stranger is utterly dependent on you--and yet, as he or she develops, determined to be independent. Suddenly this child, who likely reminds you of yourself or the father or both, in all kinds of good and bad ways, is out there getting into danger, getting into trouble, doing things you consider horrible, or having horrible things done to her. And if there's a pain worse than losing a child, and worse than seeing one's child do terrible things (as your child, being an independent person, might do), it is probably the pain of believing oneself to be a bad parent.

And then--to climb down from the heights of love and risk--there are the basic differences between men and women. Whether you think these are biological, cultural, or both, they're there; and they can be, honestly, really grating. Men can be very annoying!

And very attractive. There are corresponding strengths binding heterosexual relationships together: the erotic attraction of what's different (and maybe even "the fascination of what's difficult"), for example. Children bind a couple together (whether the couple likes it or not!), and childrearing can serve as a mutual project of the kind Aristotle found so central to friendship. The risks and the faith they require often bring out the best in people.

And humans mostly don't, I think, want too much choice; we don't want a world where all our relationships are chosen, or contractual. In fact, I wonder if our strange cultural belief that romantic love is this unstoppable, outside force, that one can't control, sublimate, channel, or sustain, is a result of our longing for relationships that we have not really chosen. I can't remember if this is Maggie Gallagher's phrasing--maybe from Enemies of Eros?--but we want "I love you because you're mine" relationships, not solely "You're mine because I love you" ones. So even the strangeness and unpredictability of children is part of the point of children!

Nonetheless--I am less fascinated by what's difficult when other things in my life seem difficult. I am less interested in risk when everything else feels shaky. And so I'm less interested in men when just getting out of bed feels like a challenge.

(I wonder if some of this emotional mess isn't behind that "Girlfriends are the new spouses" piece at Salon.)

Anyway. I said I would ramble, and I did.... To the extent that there's a point to all this, I think it's this: The pressures on heterosexual relationships are very different from those on homosexual ones; and I conclude, from that, that heterosexual relationships need specific and greater societal support than gay ones. Others, of course, will likely disagree; that's what the email link is for. As I said, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on this stuff.

posted by Eve at 4:20 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND DIVORCE: Eve replies to Andrew Sullivan

Well, not so much a reply, as a set of questions. I'd be interested to know what Sullivan thinks of divorce in itself, rather than divorce as a useful stick to beat "evangelical" (...Catholic) opponents of same-sex marriage.

So, my questions for him: Are there, in some meaningful sense, too many divorces in America today? If so, should anything be done about that? If so, what?

What are his objections to barring no-fault divorce? Are those objections independent from his case for same-sex marriage, or inherently intertwined with it? (To oversimplify: An independent objection might be, "You'll never get people to agree to bar no-fault divorce, so talking about it is pointless"; a linked objection might be, "People should have the right to marry whomever they want for as long as they want," which would lead one to support both no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage.)

What does he think of Morse's account of three reasons the divorce rate has spurred the push for same-sex marriage?

posted by Eve at 4:08 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND DIVORCE: Andrew Sullivan replies to Jennifer Roback Morse

DIVORCE IS NEXT: Kudos for one evangelical for conceding that the battle to keep civil marriage an exclusively heterosexual privilege in the name of traditional values is hard to sustain given the high rate of straight divorce. So ... tighten up divorce! Why not combine state constitutional amendments "defending" marriage with bans on no-fault divorce? Well, you know the answer.

link

posted by Eve at 4:04 PM | link 0 comments

STRIVING FOR THE MARRIAGE IDEAL: Jennifer Roback Morse

...Divorce is in the background of the gay marriage debate in at least three ways. First, gay marriage is the end of the trend that no-fault divorce began. The legal innovation of unilateral divorce began to reduce marriage to nothing but a temporary association of individuals. If marriage is merely a free association of individuals, there is no principled reason to exclude gay couples, or even larger groupings of sexual partners. The permanence of marriage was one of the key features that distinguished it from an ordinary contract.

Second, the high divorce rate and the resulting non-permanence of marriage made the institution of marriage more attractive to same-sex couples than it otherwise would be. If marriage still meant one to a customer for life, I seriously doubt that we'd be hearing about same-sex marriage today. Gay couples evidently have a more relaxed concept of both permanence and fidelity than do heterosexual couples. Gay activists would be much less likely to invest time and energy working for the right to marry, if divorce were available only for adultery or cruelty.

Most importantly, the high divorce rate has made it difficult to articulate opposition to gay marriage. ...

Admit that unilateral divorce has undermined marriage. Agree that straight people have already done a lot of harm to marriage. The divorce rate is too high. Our attitude toward divorce is too casual. Current law often does reward irresponsible behavior, on the part of men and women alike.

We need to work to change all that. ...

... Figuring out how to live more comfortably with the person you married; figuring out how to keep love more actively alive; making a wiser choice of partner in the first place: all these areas need work. Individuals and institutions, laws and customs, all have room for constructive change. And society needs to reform itself in all these ways, regardless of what gay people do or don't do, regardless of what the law says or doesn't say about gay marriage.

Of course, there is much more to be said about gay marriage, and about divorce, too, for that matter. But let's not kid ourselves. The current demand for homosexual marriage and the sad prevalence of heterosexual divorce are part and parcel of the same trend toward reducing marriage to a loose association of sexual partners. All of us need for marriage to be more than that.

more

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

SSM AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN CANADA: Janet Epp Buckingham

...However the Supreme Court rules on the current reference case, governments will inevitably feel tempted to dictate to clergy who they must marry -- for there is actually little separation between Church and State when it comes to marriage. Over 75% of marriages are solemnized by clergy in Canada and all of these are recognized civilly. Every minister of religion who solemnizes marriage must be licensed by and register the marriage with the provincial government.

In Ontario, 98% of marriages are religious while only 80% of the population admits a religious affiliation. To the devout, marriage is clearly seen as a religious institution. But to the government, it is a service the clergy provide to the broader community. Since clerics already marry couples that are not church members, how will they defend themselves from a human rights complaint if they refuse to solemnize a same-sex wedding?

And what about judges and marriage commissioners who solemnize civil marriages? Do they not also deserve the full protection of the Charter? Just because someone is not a religious official does not mean they should be obliged to perform a marriage whose nature offends their beliefs. Yet last March, British Columbia marriage commissioners were told to resign if they objected to same-sex marriages. This issue will soon arise in Ontario as municipal clerks have now been licensed to solemnize marriages.

more

posted by Eve at 3:49 PM | link 0 comments

REMINDER: NYC DEBATE!

[If you go, why not let me know how it was? --Eve]

"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.

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 2:53 PM | link 0 comments

EFFECTS OF UTAH AMENDMENT: Maggie Gallagher replies to Daniel Greenwood


Re: "Children of divorced parents may suddenly discover that their parents' domestic union is of no legal significance--that parental obligations end with the marriage."

I'm wondering: Does anyone really believe this? Is this hysteria or deliberate deception?

The Supreme Court abolished legitimacy as a legal category 30 years ago. No parental support obligations are dependent on marital status.

posted by Eve at 7:55 PM | link 0 comments

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

Thanks to Jonathan Rauch for his post. Let's recap. These exchanges between the two of us have focussed on two related questions. The first is my suggestion that there is a contradiction in insisting a) that the right to marry anyone you choose is a fundamental human right, while simultaneously insisting b) that whether you actually get to marry anyone you choose is a matter properly left to the states. Jonathan disputes that point. The second is my suggestion that it's a bit self-serving for Jonathan and other SSM proponents to insist that anything related to SSM fitting under their rubric of "federalism" is morally permissable, whereas any national-level activity related to SSM is morally odious to the point of flat-out bigotry. I call this formula self-serving because anything that advances SSM in the near to medium term future in the U.S. is almost certainly going to occur at the state level, mostly through the state courts. Jonathan also disputes this second suggestion.

In his latest reply, Jonathan concedes that marriage is a basic human right, but says that (unlike some others in his camp) he does not believe that "defining marriage is a basic human right." I'm not sure I understand this distinction, and even if I did, I doubt that this or any other fine-print semantic clarifications would remove the essential problem. If marriage is indeed a basic human right, and if state courts begin (as they have already begun) to declare that the right to marry anyone you choose is a basis human right, the denial of which is morally beyond the pale in our society, then it is very hard to see how, in the long run, this right is going to be granted to citizens in some localities and denied to other citizens in other localities. The last time we tried this solution was with "popular sovereignty" in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, and it did not work. ...

On the second question, Jonathan in these exchanges has made some robust defenses of federalism, but he seems hesitant to stress in this forum what he has stressed so forcefully in others--namely, that any national-level activity in opposition to SSM is in his view basically little more than morally repugnant gay-bashing.

more

posted by Eve at 7:46 PM | link 0 comments

NO ON MICHIGAN AMENDMENT: Colleen Pobur

...The overriding purpose of the amendment is to ban gay marriage or civil unions, but it actually reaches much farther than that by jeopardizing existing domestic partner benefits, especially at universities and in city government. Forty percent of Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits today. Many union contracts offer these benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex couples who are not married.

This proposal could wipe out those existing, widely accepted rights, depriving children and families of health care and other vital, basic needs. ...

The supporters of this proposal are trying to legislate love and prohibit anyone but a married man and woman from enjoying legal rights that exist for them today. If two people love each other and are committed, why should anyone attempt to diminish that? ...

My gay and lesbian friends must jump through an amazing number of hoops just to carry out their everyday lives. Two of my closest friends went on a two-day trip recently. As they finished packing, one partner asked the other, "Did you pack the domestic partner agreements and the powers of attorney?" If they had not done so and one of them had been injured or sick, his partner of 10 years could not have made medical decisions for him. We straight people never give this a second thought. Can you imagine the outrage you would feel if you were unable to speak for your spouse because you were Catholic or black? This discrimination is no different.

more

posted by Eve at 7:44 PM | link 0 comments

YES ON MICHIGAN AMENDMENT: Tracey Lee

...Undoubtedly, that's what's best for children. Secular scientific studies testify that a one-man, one-woman marriage is the healthiest, safest, most secure environment for children. Ideally, all children should have a mother and a father, and a caring society will never encourage relationships in which children intentionally, by design, are denied either.

Further, if Michigan's marriage law is left unprotected and judges radically redefine it, then our public schools -- to avoid cries of "discrimination" -- will be forced to teach our children that alternative relationships and traditional marriage are morally equivalent.

Surely, we must not allow any adult special interest group's political agenda to deny our children the social ideal of marriage, or to use our children as test subjects in a risky social experiment with irreversible effects. ...

Harvard University Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Massachusetts "is cutting programs to aid the elderly, disabled and children in poor families. Yet a four-judge majority ruled in favor of special benefits for a group of relatively affluent households, most of which have two (white male) earners and are not raising children -- a real problem of distributive justice." Glendon also noted the cost to taxpayers if marriage is redefined: "The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars."

more

posted by Eve at 7:40 PM | link 0 comments

UTAH AMENDMENT MAY AFFECT POLYGAMY: From the Deseret Morning News

An anti-polygamy group believes that if voters decide to ban gay marriages in Utah's constitution this Nov. 2, they'll also be opening a "legal loophole" that could make prosecuting polygamy tougher.

However, two attorneys who have successfully prosecuted polygamy say that by clearly defining marriage as the union of "a man and a woman," Amendment 3 could make cases against polygamists easier to prove.

Vicky Prunty, executive director of Tapestry Against Polygamy, said lawmakers declined to address polygamy when they refused to change the wording to define marriage as "one man and one woman." At the time, lawmakers said the amendment didn't need to address polygamy, which is already outlawed by the state Constitution....

But Prunty added that the amendment does not allow the state to give the "same or substantially equivalent legal effect" as a marriage to any other "domestic union, however denominated."

She said the fallout of the amendment's language is that polygamists will have a constitutional argument saying the state cannot recognize their "domestic unions" as marriages and, therefore, can't prosecute them. ...

Prunty was referring to the state's common law marriage statute, which can be used to establish a state-recognized marriage, even if no license has been issued. That statute was used to prosecute polygamist Tom Green, who was legally married to one wife and cohabitating with others, for bigamy. ...

Leavitt said the amendment would have no impact on the common law approach for prosecuting bigamy.

"Marriage is when a man and a woman engage in a ceremony and are married, or their conduct is such that the state of Utah can say they are acting like they're married," Leavitt said.

more

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

FIRST AMERICAN GAY COUPLE MARRIES IN BELGIUM: From 365Gay.com

Two American men who work in Belgium have become the first U.S. same-sex couple to be married in that country.

The wedding took pace Oct. 9, in the city of Enghien. ...

An Oct. 1 law change made it possible for any foreign same-sex couple to marry in Belgium if at least one of the spouses has lived there for at least three months. Previously, foreign same-sex couples could marry in Belgium only if their home country or countries also allowed same-sex marriage.

more

posted by Eve at 7:32 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGE ISSUE A MOBILIZER: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Both sides in Georgia's same-sex marriage battle are ratcheting up efforts to reach voters, turning up the volume in a debate that has been relatively quiet since last spring.

Two leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Georgia stepped into the fray Thursday with a letter counseling voters to support an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. "As your bishops, we urge you to vote YES on this amendment," wrote Archbishop John F. Donoghue of Atlanta and Bishop J. Kevin Boland of Savannah.

On the other side, Georgians Against Discrimination, a coalition of groups fighting the amendment, on Monday held a rally and mini-concert in downtown Atlanta featuring Emily Saliers and Amy Ray of the Indigo Girls. ...

"We can't afford to be complacent and pin our hopes on the lawsuit," said state Rep. Karla Drenner (D-Avondale Estates), campaign chairwoman of Georgians Against Discrimination. "Real change happens by having one-to-one conversations and touching hearts and changing minds."

Drenner, Georgia's only openly gay state legislator, said coalition organizers have planned a series of events for the next few weeks. A rally is scheduled for Wednesday at Emory University. A "Campus Day of Action" to educate students about the amendment at several colleges around the state is planned for Thursday. Next week, the group is hosting an anti-amendment rally targeting African-Americans at Clark Atlanta University. Drenner is expected to speak at several colleges and then visit cities starting Oct. 25 urging people to vote "no."

For those who support the amendment, churches are expected to provide a strong network of "yes" voters.

more

posted by Eve at 7:27 PM | link 0 comments

CATHOLIC DIOCESES FUND MICHIGAN AMENDMENT PUSH: From the Detroit News

Cardinal Adam Maida, archbishop of Detroit, and the state's seven Catholic dioceses are crusading for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages in Michigan.

Campaign finance reports show the dioceses have contributed half of the $1 million raised thus far by Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, the group seeking passage of Proposal 2 on Nov. 2. The Archdiocese of Detroit has contributed the most--$270,000--and may still contribute more from a fund it uses to support issues of moral importance. Maida also has filmed an eight-minute video that has been distributed to the state's 802 parishes, to be shown before Election Day during Sunday Masses. Reminders in church bulletins and special inserts about the proposal have been distributed to all parishes by the Michigan Catholic Conference. ...

The group opposing Proposal 2, the Coalition for a Fair Michigan, had raised $194,815 as of Oct. 1. Dana Houle, a Catholic and coalition spokesman, said that since same-sex marriages already are illegal in Michigan, the church's donations are a foolish use of money--"especially at a time when the archdiocese is closing churches, other archdioceses are declaring bankruptcy and cutting programs."

more

posted by Eve at 7:23 PM | link 0 comments

KENTUCKY AMENDMENT FUNDRAISING: From the Lexington Herald-Leader

The lone political issue committee campaigning against Kentucky's constitutional amendment No. 1, which would ban same-sex marriages and civil unions, raised three times as much money as the five groups campaigning for the amendment combined.

Kentucky Families for Fairness, also known as No on the Amendment, raised $326,000 in cash and in-kind contributions between May 1 and Oct. 1, according to reports filed at the state Registry of Election Finance.

The five groups supporting the amendment raised a total of $103,000 in cash and in-kind donations. Unlike No on the Amendment, which collected most of its money from individuals, more than half of the money collected by pro-amendment committees came from conservative public policy groups such as the Family Foundation of Kentucky and the American Family Association of Kentucky. Polls have found that more than 70 percent of Kentuckians plan to vote for the amendment.

The majority of the donations to No on the Amendment came from residents of Louisville and Lexington, but contributions also came from Bowling Green, Covington and other communities. Less than 4 percent of money collected through itemized donations came from residents of other states.

more

posted by Eve at 7:18 PM | link 0 comments

UTAH AMENDMENT DISCRIMINATES: Daniel Greenwood

Should Utah become a refuge for parents fleeing child support obligations? Do family values Utah-style mean that children of divorced or unmarried parents have no right to support from their parents? Is this the way Utah should defend marriage?

Supporters of Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution contend that it is necessary to prevent our lesbian and gay fellow residents from marrying--even though same-sex marriage is not legal anywhere in this country. This discriminatory purpose alone should be reason enough to vote against it. marriage is a fundamental human right, as our Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized. In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the old segregation laws that barred mixed-race couples from marrying were fundamentally unjust. More recently, in Turner v. Safley, it held that prisoners, even convicted murderers, have a fundamental right to marry.

If murderers can marry, surely law-abiding citizens should be allowed to do so, too. It is as unfair and unjust to prevent homosexual Americans from marrying as it was to ban black and white Americans from marrying each other. ...

True conservatives will see that integrating additional people into the marriage establishment--not excluding them--is the best way to preserve marriage. ...

Clause 2 of the amendment states that "no other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

But current law recognizes many domestic unions and gives many relationships some or all of the legal effects of marriage. Family limited partnerships, common-law marriages, divorced and reconstituted families, trust agreements meant to protect children from prior marriages, foster care arrangements, grandparents rights, hospital visitation agreements, family powers of attorney--all these domestic unions share in the legal effects of marriage. Given the vastly greater number of heterosexual than homosexual couples in America, the main effects of Amendment 3 will be on heterosexual parents and their children. ...

Unwed mothers and fathers are obligated to support their children under current law. After the amendment, they will no longer be entitled (or subject to) the legal effects of marriage. Instead, the children will be subject to the tender mercies of taxpayer-financed welfare systems.

Children of divorced parents may suddenly discover that their parents' domestic union is of no legal significance--that parental obligations end with the marriage.

Powers of attorney authorizing grown children to look after the affairs of their parents create rights similar to those of married couples. Every such agreement will be in legal doubt if the amendment is passed.

more

posted by Eve at 5:41 PM | link 0 comments

UTAH AMENDMENT VITAL TO PROTECT FAMILIES: Rep. Chris Cannon

...In the face of activist courts and the certain legal pressure that will come to bear on Utah to recognize other states' definitions of marriage (like Massachusetts or Vermont), we must take a clear and unequivocal stand to protect marriage as we have chosen to establish it here.

Having dealt extensively in Congress with the challenge of protecting marriage, I have heard the arguments and consulted with legal experts on all sides of this issue. Most disturbingly, I've watched as quibbling over which set of words is right has prevented us from acting decisively on the federal level. ...

I would suggest that there is little or no question where the vast majority of Utahns stand on the issue of same-sex marriage. It is critical that we not bog ourselves down over words as we have done in Congress. Opposing Amendment 3 using sentences beginning with: "I'm against same-sex marriage, but . . ." may seem sophisticated; but on this issue, that answer doesn't cut it. The proposed amendment was not written on the back of a napkin in an ice cream shop; it was carefully composed by some of the best legal minds in the state and vetted by many more.

Amendment 3 does two simple things: It protects Utah's definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and it prevents the imposition by the courts of new forms of marriage. Lawyers will argue, but I am convinced the amendment does those things and nothing more. And while some will conjure up the possibility of all kinds of unintended consequences, the intent and, I am satisfied, the effect of Amendment 3 is to simply preserve a legal status quo so important to Utah. And those who disagree have an obligation to be more specific and provide us with a substantive explanation of their concerns, rather than the simple rejoinder that the proposed amendment "goes too far."

In the weeks ahead, we will be assaulted with TV ads, radio spots and all kinds of other "messages" about Amendment 3--by both sides. At the end of the day (or the campaign, in this case), it is important to remember that this has nothing to do with "gay bashing," which I condemn. It is about the value of protecting the nuclear family and the stability it has given us in America.

It is about the reality that our freedom and prosperity come in large part from our religious foundations that inculcate personal responsibility in our citizens, and that this happens largely through the family. This is a choice we, including gays, as a society have to make.

more

posted by Eve at 5:25 PM | link 0 comments

KERRY, JACKSON TELL BLACKS TO IGNORE SSM: From the Washington Times

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and civil rights activist the Rev. Jesse Jackson told black voters at a church here yesterday that President Bush's support for a constitutional amendment against homosexual "marriage" shouldn't be enough to earn their vote.

Mr. Kerry attended Mass at a Catholic church in North Miami, and then spoke during services at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Miami , as he and several black Democratic leaders tried to rally black voters.

"How many of you--someone from your family--married somebody of the same sex?" Mr. Jackson asked of the congregation of about 500. After nobody raised a hand, he asked, "Then how did that get in the middle of the agenda?"

"If your issues are cancer and Medicare and education and jobs and Social Security and decent housing, then how did someone else put their agenda in the front of the line?" he asked.

Following him a few minutes later, Mr. Kerry urged his audience to try to ignore diversions from the issues Mr. Jackson had mentioned. ...

The issue of banning homosexuals from marrying is a wild card, with polls showing black voters overwhelmingly in support of such a ban. ...

If the Catholic priest was trying to send a message to Mr. Kerry, Pastor Gaston E. Smith at the Baptist church was trying to send a message to his congregation.

"For every Goliath, God has a David," he said. "For every Calvary's cross, God has a Christ Jesus. To bring our country out of despair, discouragement, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry."

[Holy 501c(3), Batman! ...Also, ick. --Eve]

more

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

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DEFEAT RAISES QUESTIONS: From the Washington Times

News that Louisiana's new constitutional marriage amendment had been overturned because it is too broad is reverberating in other states, where proposed amendments may be put to similar court tests.

At issue is whether voters can be asked to define what marriage is--and what it isn't--in the same amendment. Or, as a Louisiana judge ruled Wednesday, must voters be given separate ballot questions on other kinds of marriagelike unions.

more

posted by Eve at 4:49 PM | link 0 comments