CIVIL UNIONS: Maggie Gallagher replies to Andrew Sullivan

[Posted late because of my lameness. --Eve]

On his blog, Andrew Sullivan challenges me to "come out" on the civil unions issue. Well, gee Andrew, you could just read what I've written. (It's all posted on www.MarriageDebate.com).

For example, last fall in the Weekly Standard I pointed out that, while I am not for civil unions, marriage and civil unions are not the same thing, and the FMA should not try to ban civil unions. If asked, I would have recommended that state marriage amendment not try to bar civil unions either. (I'd vote for any of the versions I have seen, however).

Why do I not support civil uinons? I have supported a version of them in the past (after Hawaii for example). I no longer do so, because I have been convinced (by Andrew and William Eskridge) among others that civil unions are just a way station en route to gay marriage.

Most personal, intimate and intrinsically-valued adult relationships are totally unregulated by law. (It's commercial relations the law typically regulates). Why is marriage the exception? The current challenge is to deepen and strengthen our understanding of why marriage (the union of husband and wife) is different from other relationships. There is no alternative, in my opinion, to winning the marriage debate, which includes explaining to the American public, the next generation and I hope even ultimately Andrew himself, why the unique legal treatment of marriage is justified--indeed essential--for the common good, including the good of gay and lesbian people.

Tall order, but that's what we have to do.

A brief comment on one of Andrew's other assertions:

"For what it's worth, I tend to think this is [Bush's] real position, rather than a belated realization that his extremism on this matter has cost him many votes."

Andrew is now living in an alternate universe, if he thinks that Bush's stance against gay marriage is costing him votes. Which is why Bush is now including gay marriage in his campaign stump speech while Kerry is avoiding the issue. If Bush wins, his support for protecting marriage will be an important reason why.

posted by Eve at 6:38 PM | link 0 comments

SANCTITY, SATIRE MARRIED IN VOTERS' PAMPHLET: From The Oregonian

"Agree with us or burn in hell."

That's one argument in support of a measure to ban same-sex marriage that Oregonians will find in the state Voters' Pamphlet next week.

Except it's a hoax.

It is one of four bogus statements that have outraged supporters of Measure 36, which would amend the Oregon Constitution to recognizemarriage between only a man and a woman.

"The Bible says that marriage is for procreation," says the phony Defense of Heterosexual Breeding Coalition, adding that Oregon should bar homosexuals, infertile persons, men with vasectomies, and others from marrying.

Fred Neal, Voters' Pamphlet supervisor for the secretary of state, says this kind of ballot argument prank has happened before. His office has no authority to pull such a statement unless it violates state law,which bans "obscene, profane and defamatory language" or words that "incite hatred, abuse or violence."

more

posted by Eve at 6:34 PM | link 0 comments

MICHIGAN MARRIAGE AMENDMENT GOING STRONG, IN A STATE LEANING TO KERRY

"Proposal 2, an amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman, leads by a whopping 60-33."

more

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

BUSH ON SSM (IN OHIO WEDNESDAY)

THE PRESIDENT: I got into politics and I ran for governor of my state because I would not stand by and watch another generation of students miss out on the opportunity of America. (Applause.) And when I came to Washington, I made schools my top domestic priority. If you are a Democrat who believes in strong public schools that teach every child, I'd be honored to have your vote. (Applause.)

Americans of both political parties have always had respect and reverence for the institution of marriage. (Applause.) Never in our history has marriage been a partisan issue, and it's not a partisan issue today. Yet, many Democrats look at my opponent and wonder, where is his commitment to defending the basic institution of civilization. He says he supports marriage, but he will do nothing to defend it.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: My opponent even voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Senate supported it, and my predecessor, Bill Clinton, signed it into law. On the issue of protecting marriage, the Senator from Massachusetts is outside the mainstream of America, and outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party. (Applause.)

I believe that our society must show tolerance and respect for every individual. Yet, I do not believe this commitment to tolerance requires us to redefine marriage. (Applause.) If you are a Democrat who believes that marriage should be protected from activist judges, I'd be honored to have your vote. (Applause.)

link

posted by Eve at 6:17 PM | link 0 comments

WHY BUSH MIGHT WIN HAWAII: Andy Blom

[Ah, the ol' "might." --Eve]

IT'S THE ISSUE that just won't stay in the closet. Republican politicians run skittishly from talking about same-sex marriage. The polls from Hawaii indicate they should be highlighting it.

Hawaii elects Republicans about as often as the Red Sox win the World Series. Only twice since statehood has a Republican president carried Hawaii (Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984). Yet the latest polls show Bush leading Kerry by a percentage point. National and state Democrats are in a tizzy. How can this be? The unknown factor may be Republican Mike Gabbard's campaign in Hawaii's second congressional district.

Gabbard is making same-sex marriage a centerpiece of his race to unseat one-term incumbent Democrat Ed Case. Hawaii was the one of first states tested on the same-sex marriage issue, after an activist state supreme court ruled in 1993 that denying marital status to gay couples was unconstitutional. Voters overturned the decision in 1998, passing a constitutional amendment to forbid gay marriage. Gabbard was a leader in the fight for the amendment and became a noted spokesmen against same-sex marriage. Two years ago he was elected to the Honolulu City Council, one of the most important and influential elected offices in the state. His wife was elected to the statewide school board and his daughter to the state legislature. This year, Gabbard decided to take on Rep. Case.

Gabbard is well liked and respected in Hawaii, and certainly not a single-issue candidate. He and his family have been dedicated public servants. But the importance of the same-sex constitutional battle, and its continuing effect, have motivated his campaign. In an overwhelmingly liberal, Democratic state, against the strong support of the media, labor, and the state Democratic party, the amendment to the Hawaii constitution banning same-sex marriage passed with over 70 percent of the vote (the first of many such state measures passed with similar margins).

A combination of factors contributed to that 1998 success. Christian and conservative voters were dramatically energized. But even an energized conservative Christian electorate is a distinct minority in Hawaii. And Hawaiian culture has traditionally been tolerant of homosexuality. But the issue, and the campaign, touched on the family. And, with the family threatened, Hawaii's second-generation immigrants, union workers, lifelong Democrats voted against their party leaders.

more

posted by Eve at 5:52 PM | link 0 comments

IT'S THE SUPREME COURT, STUPID: David Cicilline

THE ELECTION ON Tuesday will determine whether our nation moves forward on the issues of the humanity, dignity, and equality for gay Americans, or if we begin a tragic process of going backwards.

The future of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, and with it, the direction our nation will take on many issues, including gay rights.

Over the next four years, it is quite likely that Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor, as well as Chief Justice William Rehnquist, will retire. The next president, either George W. Bush or John Kerry, will be nominating their replacements.

On the issue of justice for gay Americans, a Kerry or Bush presidency will make all the difference, not for the next four years, but for the next 40. A president’s term lasts for only four years, but a Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life. ...

One more justice like Scalia and Thomas would likely reverse the landmark ruling in the Texas sodomy case, allowing states to once again treat gay men and lesbians as criminals.

Two more Scalia-Thomas votes would also reverse a Supreme Court decision overturning an anti-gay constitutional amendment in Colorado, and would allow states to abolish local laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

And of course, any hope for gaining federal rights for gay couples, even those with a Massachusetts marriage license or a Vermont civil union, would disappear.

more

posted by Eve at 5:48 PM | link 0 comments

ACADEMICS: STRAIGHTS HAVE ALREADY "OVERTHROWN" MARRIAGE: From the New York Blade

[The only good marriage is a gay marriage. --Eve]

In a newly released collection of academic papers, sociologists, psychologists and historians argue that the institution of marriage has changed dramatically during the past century and that legalized same-sex marriage would have little or no impact on the viability of marriage in the future.

"In my view, marriage as we have known it for 5,000 years has already been overthrown," said history professor Stephanie Coontz, who is writing a book on the history of marriage. ...

Coontz’s paper was among several dozen academic papers and commentaries published in the November 2004 edition of the Journal of Marriage & Family, a 65-year-old, peer reviewed publication that specializes in examining trends in marriage and family issues in the U.S., Canada and Europe.

The journal is an arm of the National Council on Family Relations, which holds an annual conference where university researchers and other academicians present papers on family issues. The November edition of the journal, which was released this month, is a compilation of papers and follow-up analyses from the group's 65th annual conference in 2003, entitled, "What is the Future of Marriage?"

Several of the papers cite statistics from the U.S. government and the governments of Canada and European countries that suggest the institution of marriage is in decline.

A steep rise in the divorce rates beginning in the second half of the 20th century has led to the current state where about half of all U.S. marriages end in divorce, statistics show. The growth of cohabitation among heterosexual couples also rose dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s, the papers point out, with large numbers of opposite-sex couples deciding against marriage.

Today, one out of three births in the United States occur outside of marriage, several of the papers note. In Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland, the percentage of children born to unwed parents is between 45 percent and 65 percent, according to figures presented in the papers. ...

"What's happened is that heterosexuals have changed marriage," Cherlin said in a phone interview with the Blade.

"They've made marriage less about having children and more about intimacy and companionship," he said. "And once that change is made, there is not much reason to limit marriage to opposite-sex people, opposite-sex couples."

Added Cherlin, "I don't think the legalization of gay marriage will weaken heterosexual marriage. In some sense it reinforces the importance of the institution of marriage," he said. "Here we have a group of Americans, gay men and lesbians, who are proclaiming that marriage is very important to them and they want to have that symbolic status," he said. "So in a way, gay and lesbian activists, in urging same-sex marriage, are saying that marriage is important, that it is still here, that it still means something and that anyone in an intimate partnership ought to be able to claim it."

As for heterosexuals, Cherlin concludes in his paper that, "Although the practical importance of marriage has declined, its symbolic significance has remained high and may even have increased. It has become a marker of prestige and personal achievement" and will likely remain an important part of society, despite the prominence of gay marriage.

more

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

LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER EDITORIAL AGAINST KY AMENDMENT

Lucky for President Bush he doesn't have to vote in Kentucky. The marriage amendment would trap him into casting a ballot against one of his own beliefs.

Like many people, Bush opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions. "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do," Bush said in an interview this week on ABC.

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights.''

In Kentucky, unfortunately, the proposed constitutional amendment won't accommodate both of Bush's beliefs. The way the amendment reads, voters who want the constitution to say that marriage is between a man and woman also must vote in favor of blocking any future recognition of civil unions.

And that's not the only problem with the wording. Its denial of "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals" is so vague and broad that all unmarried Kentuckians, regardless of sexual orientation, could lose some rights and protections -- or at least have to fight in court to keep them.

more

posted by Eve at 5:34 PM | link 0 comments

DEPENDENCY, LIBERTY, AND RISK: Hugo Schwyzer/Mary Ann Glendon

[Interesting progressive take on Glendon's recent First Things piece. Key quote follows. --Eve]

...But if we expect the state to provide crade-to-grave care while expecting to sharply limit our own fecundity, the numbers simply don't add up long-term. I wish our politicians would talk about this.

more

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

PEPPERMINT PATTY AND HER FATHER:

Sweet.

posted by Eve at 4:43 PM | link 0 comments

SCIENTISTS SEEK TO CREATE EMBRYOS WITH THREE PARENTS: From the Telegraph (UK)

British scientists have applied for a licence to create human embryos with three genetic parents in an experiment that could lead to new cures for hereditary diseases.

A team at Newcastle University says the research could lead to techniques that would stop mothers passing on genetic defects to their children.

However, campaigners believe the experiments would mark a disturbing step towards the creation of genetically engineered babies.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is expected to rule on whether to allow the experiments in the next few weeks.

The technology is intended to help women with diseases of the mitochondria--the "power packs" that swim around inside cells converting food into energy. Each mitochondrion has its own DNA which gives it instructions on how to behave and which is passed down from mothers to children. ...

Faults in the mitochondrial DNA can cause around 50 known diseases, some which lead to disability and death. Around 1,000 children in Britain are thought to suffer from such diseases.

The Newcastle team, led by Prof Doug Turnbull and Dr Mary Herbert, believe it could be possible to eradicate these diseases by giving newly conceived embryos a "mitochondria transplant".

Couples would use IVF treatment to create a fertilised egg. Within hours of fertilisation, the nucleus--containing the DNA from the mother and father--would be removed from its original egg and implanted into a donor egg, whose own nuclear DNA had been removed. ...

In the Newcastle research, scientists will experiment on fertilised eggs from IVF treatment that would otherwise be thrown away. Under the law, they would not be allowed to transfer the three-parent embryos to a woman.

more

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

ASCHROFT INTERVENES IN DOMA SUIT: From the Associated Press

A couple seeking to overturn government bans on same sex marriages will have to contend with the legal weight of the federal government.

The U.S. Department of Justice has asked to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt that claims federal and state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. ...

Hammer and Smelt, both 45, of Mission Viejo are the first couple to file a suit challenging marriage laws in federal court in California. Other challenges have been filed in state courts.

more

posted by Eve at 4:37 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS ALL EXPECTED TO PASS: From the Washington Times

State constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman are likely to pass in all 11 states where they are on the Nov. 2 ballot, making the amendment a factor in the presidential race in three battleground states--Michigan, Ohio and Oregon.

The big question is whether President Bush or Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry will benefit from having the amendment on the ballot.

"It's really a fascinating question. I don't have an answer," said Brad Snavely, executive director of the Michigan Family Forum, a traditional-values group that supports Michigan's marriage amendment.

"I think it's difficult to tell at this point," said Christopher Barron, political director of the homosexual-rights group Log Cabin Republicans, which opposes the amendments. "There are so many wild cards in this election ... these state amendments are wild cards."

In addition to defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, all but one of the amendments--Montana's--says other marriage-like unions--such as civil unions of same-sex couples--will not be recognized.

Recent polls indicate that the 11 amendments are likely to pass, with support ranging from 52 percent in North Dakota to 77 percent in Arkansas. ...

In light of Oregon's latest polls, which show growing support for the amendment, homosexual activists also are bracing for the worst--and are planning on postelection victories in the courts.

more

posted by Eve at 4:34 PM | link 0 comments

NY DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS SEEN AS TAXING: From New York Newsday

The New York City Equal Benefits Law that took effect yesterday will be catastrophic for small businesses, according to some business experts and advocates.

That law requires contractors doing more than $100,000 of business a year with the city to extend to employees' domestic partners the same benefits they offer spouses. The City Council approved the law in May but Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who believes the law will hurt businesses, sued in State Supreme Court earlier this month to block it. But a judge denied the city's request to halt implementation while the litigation is pending. Bloomberg has said he won't enforce it while the suit is ongoing.

But the executive director of the Manhattan Office of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said the concerns are overblown.

"In other places where similar laws [have been enacted] there's been negligible impact," said Matt Foreman, who quit the city Commission on Human Rights last week because of Bloomberg's lawsuit. Some cities with similar laws include San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle, Foreman said.

What's more, Foreman said that employers' fears about having to insure gay men with HIV are an exaggeration. Sixty percent of people who who use domestic-partners benefits are heterosexual, he said.

more

posted by Eve at 4:31 PM | link 0 comments

PENNA. BISHOPS' STATEMENT ON MARRIAGE AND SEXUALITY

1. Why should the Church be involved in the discussion of same-sex unions or same-sex marriages?

Our understanding of marriage as a life-long covenant between a husband and wife is not the exclusive teaching of any one church or religious communion. Rather we are dealing with a belief that is abundantly evident as a natural human reality. "The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world" (Considerations, 2). Our teaching on marriage reflects the millennia-long human understanding of marriage that is rooted in our human nature and is directed by a moral order implanted in our hearts.

Precisely because the family is the primary cell of human society we all must be involved in the correct definition of marriage. But the Church has an additional reason to join in this debate. The truth about marriage is confirmed by God's word. What the Church teaches about marriage is "contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom in which the voice of nature itself is heard" (Considerations, 3).

2. Does the principle of separation of Church and State exclude the voice of religious and moral conviction from public debate on something as significant as marriage?

All the members of the civil community have a right to express their views and to work together to assure that basic human values are preserved and supported by the laws of the land. One reason we have laws is precisely because we recognize that the community has an obligation to promote its most important values: the dignity of life, the right to property, to our good name, to our personal integrity and the right ordering of all human behavior including sexual activity. The voices that speak for these values should not be silent.

3. What exactly is the Catholic vision of love and human sexuality?

The Catholic vision of love finds its origin in the loving communion that God intended when he created man and woman. Deep in the heart of each human being, created in the image and likeness of God, is the call to love. The model of this love is God's own life, since we are created in God's image. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit enjoy a life of profound personal loving communion. Each of us is called to share in that love and manifest it in our world.

In creating man--male and female--God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1.28). God created man and woman as partners and as complementary members of a communion of life and love. Human sexuality, then, is a part of that wondrous creation of God which he finds so very good. Human sexuality is not incidental to life. The covenant of marriage is a way to accomplish, at a most profoundly human level, both the mutual support that love brings to a couple and the fruitfulness of that love in their children. ...

6. What is marriage?

Marriage, as instituted by God and supported by the needs of human nature, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of one man and one woman joined in an intimate communion of life and love. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are different from, yet created for, each other in all aspects of their being. This complementarity, including sexual difference and spousal configuration, draws them together in a mutually loving union that is always open to the procreation of children. (See USCCB, Statement, 1). ...

11. Why should marriage even be a part of civil law?

The civil government has power to enact legislation because there is a human need for order as we live together with others. The ordering of our society must reflect our deepest and most abiding values.

Civil laws are intended not only to provide a structure within which we can live in harmony and peace, but also to support our most cherished values. In a religiously pluralistic society we find common ground for legislation in the created order and in the natural moral law that follows on that reality.

It is within the context of God's natural created order, human sexuality and marriage, that we can evaluate some of the current challenges to these values today. To propose a new definition of marriage is to present a completely different understanding of human sexuality and its purpose. Thus we see increasingly proposals made for same-sex "marriage"--the desire to legitimize a union of people of the same sex as if it were a relationship equal to marriage. ...

15. Is legal marriage among homosexuals a right to which they are entitled?

While some would frame the definition of marriage solely in terms of civil rights, the reality is far greater. Human rights are reflective of the natural moral order. We do not create new human rights. The state can make legal rights but must first recognize God's created natural moral order. Thus the state has an obligation to avoid anything that would confuse the proper definition of marriage but also to foster marriage and support it as an institution. "Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition" (Considerations, 9). The State should not create legal rights that contradict the natural moral order.

more

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

JUDGE ON CA. SSM-BAN CASE: From the San Francisco Chronicle

A San Francisco judge Tuesday scheduled a hearing for Dec. 22 to try to determine whether California's ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional.

Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer fended off suggestions by the city of San Francisco and other advocates to consider expert studies and personal accounts of the effects of the state law, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Instead, Kramer said he would try to resolve the case without a trial or fact-finding session by limiting the hearing to the legal issues: whether the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, or violates the right of privacy.

He added, though, that if he can't resolve the case without deciding factual issues -- for example, the city's claim that the current law is based on pervasive discrimination against gays and lesbians, and the claim by opponents of same-sex marriage that studies show such marriages harm children and destabilize society -- a further hearing might be necessary.

Kramer was skeptical, however, about the need for such evidence. "My job is not to sit here and figure out ... who's right about their values,'' he said.

more

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

GROUP CHALLENGES TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF ST. LOUIS ARCHDIOCESE: From the Associated Press

A Catholic abortion-rights group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Archdiocese of St. Louis and to stop the archdiocese's attempts to influence the Nov. 2 election.

The complaint says the Roman Catholic archdiocese violated its status as a public charity because such groups are prohibited from acting for or against a certain candidate. The complaint was filed Tuesday by the Washington-based Catholics for a Free Choice.

The complaint cites an Oct. 1 pastoral letter by Archbishop Raymond Burke, who forbade Catholics to vote for candidates who support abortion rights, euthanasia, reproductive cloning, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research -- what Burke called the five "intrinsic evils." ...

Catholics for a Free Choice has filed a similar complaint against the Archdiocese of Denver.

more

posted by Eve at 5:05 PM | link 0 comments

GAYS HOPE TO SWAY CLOSE ELECTIONS: From the Washington Times

Homosexual voters are expected to flock to the polls on Tuesday in a bid to tip as many close elections as they can to the Democrats, with presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry likely to get 90 percent of their vote. ...

According to a decade of exit polls by the defunct Voter News Service, between 4 percent and 5 percent of voters identify themselves as homosexuals--more than enough to sway a close election, especially when homosexuals are likely to register and vote as Democrats.

For example, a survey of 8,000 homosexuals released this month by GLCensus Partners at Syracuse University in New York found that, of registered voters, more than 90 percent of lesbians and nearly 89 percent of homosexual men said they would vote for Mr. Kerry.

Support for Mr. Kerry was particularly strong among homosexuals aged 55 or older, those in partnered relationships and those who were wealthier. More than 90 percent of homosexuals with household incomes of more than $100,000 were Kerry supporters, the survey said.

Mr. Kerry has been a disappointment to homosexual activists because he, like President Bush, opposes full "marriage" rights for same-sex couples, even though he represents the only state in the nation that is performing same-sex "marriages."

Most activist groups, however, have set aside their dismay and gone all out for the Democratic ticket. ...

Homosexual support for Mr. Bush "is likely to be in the single digits," unlike the 2000 election, when he got 25 percent, or more than 1 million homosexual votes, said Chris Barron, political director of Log Cabin Republicans, a group that represents homosexual Republicans.

The "deal breaker" is Mr. Bush's support for a federal marriage amendment and the Republicans' use of it as a campaign issue, Mr. Barron said yesterday, noting that the marriage issue overrode other concerns such as the war in Iraq or tax policies.

more

posted by Eve at 4:59 PM | link 0 comments

BUSH STANCE ON CIVIL UNIONS UPSETS GROUPS: From the Associated Press

(you could write this article yourself, I betcha)

posted by Eve at 6:22 PM | link 0 comments

GA. COURT OK'S VOTE TO BAR GAY MARRIAGE: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

here

ruling here (PDF)

posted by Eve at 6:16 PM | link 0 comments

RAMESH PONNURU ON BUSH ON CIVIL UNIONS (OR SOMETHING)

...The second [comment] is that Bush's underlying position may not even be inconsistent with the Republican platform. Bush took Charles Gibson's word on what the platform is and therefore claimed that he disagreed with the platform. The platform says that "legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage." What Bush appears to be saying is that state legislatures should be able to pass laws that allow people to make certain kinds of contracts with each other. Can you allow such contracts without recognizing same-sex couples? I think so, if other people can enter the legal arrangement, too. So, for example, same-sex couples can go into business together; so can other configurations of people. Allowing such contracts doesn't amount to "legal recognition" of couples, I think, in the sense the platform has in mind. Otherwise the platform would have to be read to prevent all such contracts, which is implausible.

more

posted by Eve at 6:07 PM | link 0 comments

EUGENE VOLOKH ON BUSH AND FMA

...President Bush's position is actually consistent with the FMA (whether or not either is right). President Bush said that "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so"--that, in the Times' words, "the matter should be left up to the states."

The Federal Marriage Amendment would not block a state from recognizing civil unions. It provides (I quote the Mar. 22, 2004 version, S.J. Res. 30) that "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The first sentence would indeed ban same-sex marriages no matter what a state thinks. The second sentence probably bans state and federal courts from holding that a state legislature must recognize a same-sex union (which is what the Vermont Supreme Court did); and it probably bans voters from recognizing same-sex unions via constitutional amendment, though it's not clear whether the drafters intend this, and whether the provision would be interpreted this way. But neither sentence bans state legislatures--or state voters, via initiative statute rather than constitutional amendment--from recognizing same-sex unions.

So if the FMA is enacted (and note that, as I've blogged before, I do not support its enactment), the result will be almost exactly what Bush suggests: A state could still "choose to" recognize "a civil union" as "a legal arrangement." It would have to do so via a statute--just as most family law is defined by statute--not via a court decision or (probably) a constitutional amendment. But it would indeed be free to make such a choice.

more

posted by Eve at 5:45 PM | link 0 comments

ANDREW SULLIVAN ON BUSH STATEMENTS

BUSH AGAINST THE AMENDMENTS: Who knows what to make of George W. Bush's statement today that he now favors civil unions for gay couples--although his party platform is against them. For what it's worth, I tend to think this is his real position, rather than a belated realization that his extremism on this matter has cost him many votes. But if it is his real position, why didn't he say so before? And how can he support the FMA which specifically bars the "incidents of marriage" for gay couples? President speak in forked tongue. More to the point, he must surely be opposed to the state amendments in eight states that ban marriage for gays and also anything that even vaguely looks like a marriage. Those states are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah. If you agree with this president, you have to vote against these state constitutional amendments. They bar civil unions as well. (On a brighter note, now that Bush has come out in favor of civil unions, will Maggie Gallagher and Stanley Kurtz finally tell us what they think? Are they against all these state amendments as well? If not, why not?)

link

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

BUSH FOR CIVIL UNIONS?: From the New York Times

President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states.

Mr. Bush has previously said that states should be permitted to allow same-sex unions, even though White House officials have said he would not have endorsed such unions as governor of Texas. But Mr. Bush has never before made a point of so publicly disagreeing with his party's official position on the issue.

In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday. ...

He added: "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

Mr. Gibson then asked, "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?"

"Right," Mr. Bush replied.

Mr. Bush announced in February that he supported an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, and said at the time that the union of a man and a woman was "the most fundamental institution of civilization." He acted under enormous pressure from his conservative supporters, who had lobbied the White House to have the president speak out in an election year on a matter of vital importance to them.

But Mr. Bush also said at the time that states should be permitted to have same-sex civil unions if they chose.

more

posted by Eve at 4:41 PM | link 0 comments

COURTING THE GAY VOTE: Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon

IF PRESIDENT BUSH is reelected, it's a good bet that the bloodiest fight of his fifth year in office will have nothing to do with the war or the economy. It will be over the filling of one or more vacancies on the Supreme Court.

If Sen. John Kerry is elected, suspense will quickly drain away from the future of the court. This is true even if the court's nine members, eight of them now 65 or older, confound expectations by staying where they are for another year or two. Because even without turnover, at least five members of the present court will undoubtedly interpret the election of John Kerry as a mandate to complete the social revolution they and other judges have begun.

In the context of a Kerry presidency, there will be five solid votes to throw out Congress's ban on partial- birth abortion. There are five justices who made it fairly clear last term, when they set aside on a technicality Michael Newdow's challenge to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, that the right case might well leave the deity considerably more vulnerable.

And, above all, the election of John Kerry will almost certainly mean that six justices would feel free to overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, clearing the way for same-sex marriage to spread from state to state under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause. After all, as one of 14 senators to vote against DOMA on final passage, Kerry attacked the Clinton-signed
legislation as unconstitutional and as "gay bashing." ...

Of course, John Kerry has campaigned this year as an opponent of same-sex marriage. More than once, he has said he agrees with the president on that. More than once, he has said he agrees with voters in Missouri and other states who have carved marriage between a man and a woman into their state constitutions in order to fend off hovering judicial elites. Will those same judicial elites feel free to proceed on their project even if the only prominent candidate who supports same-sex marriage, Ralph Nader, is held to 1 or 2 percent of the national vote?

Such questions are nearly as irrelevant to the judicial revolutionaries as those musty old arguments about whether writers of constitutions, federal or state, intended in their wildest dreams to mandate same-sex marriage. This issue is far from settled even assuming a Bush victory in the election, and subsequent Bush victories in bloody Supreme Court confirmation battles. But legal and judicial elites understand that the election of John Kerry will signal irrevocable victory for the liberal social agenda, most certainly including same-sex marriage.

more

posted by Eve at 10:00 PM | link 0 comments

NEW QUESTION: WOULD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TAME GAY MEN?

Okay, so most iterations of that argument don't put it quite so bluntly. But one of the undercurrents of the gay marriage debate is the idea that marriage tames men, in general, and so gay marriage would help transform gay male culture, shifting it away from promiscuity and toward responsibility and sexual restraint.

But a lot of people within the gay community find this line of argument insulting (gay men as dangerous wild beasts), irrelevant (if same-sex marriage is a right, why does it matter how people would use that right?), or wrong-headed from the start (since people should be able to craft marriages that meet their needs, rather than conforming to a one-size-fits-all model). And many opponents of SSM suggest, among other things, that it's women who tame men in marriage; or that the cultural influences might flow both ways, reducing the cultural belief that marriage requires sexual fidelity.

...I note that lesbians are mostly--though not entirely--conspicuous by their absence on all sides of this particular public debate, and it might be nice if that changed, too.

What's your view?

posted by Eve at 5:19 PM | link 0 comments

CULTURAL CONFIDENCE AND THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE: Eve

One of the things I really liked in Jonathan Rauch's Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America is Rauch's focus on the social, public nature of marriage. He shows how legal obligations, legal privileges, cultural expectations, and social pressures combine to either create or uphold (depending on your philosophical stance) the meaning of marriage. In case this is too vague, here are two of his examples: The privilege of refusing to testify against one's spouse reflects and upholds our belief that spouses should be able to speak entirely freely with one another. And the common, casual question, "So, how's your wife?" or "How's your husband?" expresses and reinforces our belief that spouses should be taking care of each other and concerned about one another's wellbeing.

In order to make statements about the nature of marriage, you need a degree of confidence that marriage has a nature, and that we know what it is, and that everybody ought to respect that nature. You need even more confidence to make marriage something demanding--something that requires personal sacrifice, something that rules out actions we might at some point want.

So you need a robust level of cultural confidence to be able to make statements like, Adultery is always wrong--the wedding band signals a no-fly zone; or, Children do best when they're raised within marriage; or, Don't have sex outside of wedlock; or, Marriage is the ideal for sexual relationships, and everything else falls short.

And I have to say that I do not see that kind of cultural confidence in the gay community. I see support for marriage as One Choice Among Others, as Nice If You Like That Sort of Thing, and as very much a do-it-yourself project where the rules can be made up if you know how. There's a lot more cultural support for "open marriages," for "family diversity," and a lot more disdain for social pressure to marry or to restrict sex to marriage.

You can posit that same-sex marriage would change that. You can point out that there are other American subgroups who also lack cultural confidence in these aspects of marriage: at a guess, maybe twentysomething urban professionals, or holders of graduate degrees. Okay. I'm in no way proposing that this lack of cultural confidence is a dispositive point against same-sex marriage. But I do think it's worth talking about--maybe especially worth talking about among those who do accept "the conservative case for gay marriage," as articulated by e.g. Rauch or David Brooks.

Do y'all think my assessment of what marriage means to most people in the gay community is basically accurate, or totally off-base, or what? If I'm right, is it a problem? If it's a problem, what would be needed to fix it?

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

GROWING UP WITH MOM AND MOM: From the New York Times Magazine

[Big piece, hard to excerpt. Here are a few of the moments that struck me, but there's lots more in there. --Eve]

...Earlier this year, over dinner at a small restaurant in the West Village, a few blocks from where she was raised, Ry was offering me a short lecture that she has been called on to deliver dozens of times, politely solving the puzzle that is her family for other people. She was explaining her name, explaining her mothers' relationship, explaining her older sister, whose name, Cade, also demands clarification. She was explaining how it is that she has no father, and when pressed further -- after all, everyone has a father -- she raised her eyebrows, dark and thick and finely shaped, just a little. ''You mean who's my sperm donor?'' she asked. I apologized -- ''father'' can be a loaded word for children of lesbian mothers -- but she shrugged it off with a small wave of her hand, her dark red nails flashing by. ''It's O.K.,'' she said. ''I'm not fussy about stuff like that.'' ...

If she has volunteered to talk frankly to a stranger about her family life, not to mention her sex life, it's because Ry knows she's one of a relatively limited number of adults who were raised from birth by ''out'' gay parents (as opposed to a parent who revealed he or she was gay after marrying and having kids). As more and more gay men and lesbians feel comfortable coming out earlier in their lives and the possibility of legalized same-sex marriage appears to be gaining ground in select states, Ry's experience may represent the future of gay households. Already, the 2000 Census reported that some 150,000 same-sex couples had children in their homes. If the last three decades of the gay rights movement focused on sexual freedom and acceptance, the next three decades seem destined to continue the current battle for the right to marry and, by extension, the right to be a parent. ...

Lynch emphasized the liberating novelty of his upbringing, its power to pave new routes to a kid's sense of self. ''I'm a nurse,'' he wrote. ''I played competitive tennis and rode my bike across the U.S. Last week I canned five gallons of tomato sauce while crying to stories about the occupation of Iraq on the radio, then flirted with a cute woman at the corner diner.'' He continued: ''Boys raised in gay families can and do reform masculinity so that instead of being simply not feminine, it's positive. There's room for emotions. There's room for affection (even attraction!) for other men. And there's room for women as people, lovers, not a Mysterious Other.'' His e-mail message started out with a pronouncement that he sees as progress, and that conservatives may see as an indictment: ''One of the most powerful parts of growing up in a gay family is the opportunity, which not every child or parent takes, to transcend gender.'' ...

...For Ry, one aspect of being raised by gay mothers is not knowing what to attribute to the travails of being a given age, or a woman, or a feminist, or a New Yorker, and what to attribute to the particular gaps and connections that come with having lesbian mothers.

Ry could find yet another source for her wariness about men by looking to the central drama of her childhood: a legal struggle with the man who donated his sperm to Young. When Ry was 9, her sperm donor, a gay lawyer from California named Thomas Steel, sued for an order of paternity, turning what had been an affectionate, intermittent relationship into a bitter, hostile one. From the beginning, for Russo and Young, it was a given that Steel would have no parental rights, although they made it clear he was welcome to visit the family and to get to know Ry and Cade. ''I mean, it wasn't like a parent at all, but he was affectionate, and I went along,'' said Ry, who saw him a few times a year starting when she was a toddler. ''Here was this really fun, big, tall man picking me up and telling me, 'Oh, you're so cute.' You know, that was fun. But I didn't rely on him for anything -- he was like an uncle you love hanging around with.''

When Ry's mothers refused to let Steel take Ry to California to visit his parents and grandmother, he filed for paternity, which would have granted him certain rights over decisions governing Ry's life. Despite Russo's law degree, she and Young had decided not to ask him to sign a document relinquishing his rights; at the time, they said, they suspected such a document could not have been honored, given the novelty of the issue. As the case made its way through the courts over the course of four years, the family suffered from the stress of the challenge: Young lost 20 pounds, and both women were swamped with legal fees and meetings with lawyers. Cade said she felt the burden of testifying to court psychiatrists about their family's dynamics, fearful that any wrong word would lose her her sister. Ry started having nightmares about the police coming to take her away.

To Russo and Young's dismay, a significant portion of their mutual friends sided with Steel. As groundbreaking as their family was, Russo and Young seemed to be taking an almost conservative view of parenthood, one defined by the number two. In the context of an era when gay men and women were just starting to try to recreate notions of family and community, their structure struck some of their peers as limited: if two parents were good, why wouldn't three be better? Wasn't Steel, indeed, both involved in Ry's life and a biological parent? Shouldn't that give him some rights?

...''I mean, there was a time when I did care a lot about him,'' [Ry] said. ''Not as a father -- more like as an icon of a man.''

Ry's mothers may not have been heterosexual role models for her, but they've always encouraged her in her relationships with men, provided they approved of her choice. When she was 16, she fell in love with her first boyfriend but was unsure of where to take things. Several months into the relationship, there were a couple of weeks, her mothers recall, when she mooned around the house, talking around and about the relationship, seeming stressed out, uncertain, in need of counsel. ''Finally, my mom said, 'You should just go have sex with him,''' Ry recalled. ...

The story has become a favorite family chestnut, partly because of the way it embraces heterosexuality while upholding values Russo and Young pride themselves on, values they see as part of queer culture -- an openness about sexuality, a fearlessness communicated not just from friend to friend, but also, now, from mother to daughter. To Ry, the story signifies something slightly different. ''It was like I needed to ask their permission to have sex with this man,'' she explained to me. The issue for Ry wasn't sex -- it was sex with a man, which meant ''growing up and away from my mothers,'' as she put it. They gave their consent, with love and encouragement, but it seems to pain Ry that she felt, of her own accord, that she had to ask at all: ''I felt a little bit like I was betraying them. Like I was leaving them emotionally. I wasn't sure if it was O.K. with them. But then I got that O.K. and that made me feel relieved, like I could go ahead.''

more

posted by Eve at 4:44 PM | link 0 comments

MORE ON NAME-CHANGING AFTER MARRIAGE: Elizabeth Marquardt

I've written about this on the blog before, but I wish researchers on this topic would consider the divorce culture. My hunch is that women from divorced families (like me) both a) feel less attachment to their surname, which is typically their father's surname. Growing up, it was "their dad's last name" in contrast to their mom who usually had a different last name, and b) because they typically grew up in families where mom and dad had different last names, and stepparents may have had yet a different one, half and step siblings different still, and everything may have changed and changed again with new divorces and remarriages, they nurture a desire to have their own husband, children, and themselves all share a last name. Call it a quirky desire for wholeness…

more

[Eve adds: Elizabeth's comments remind me of this touching column about being a "junior."]

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

COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST FEDERAL DOMA IN CALIFORNIA

[Only link I could find is here (PDF). --Eve]

Smelt v. Orange County
The complaint filed in federal district court alleges that Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer were denied a California marriage license on two separate occasions. It asks the court to declare that provisions in the California Family law code and the Federal Definition [sic] of Marriage Act (DOMA) violate Due Process, Equal Protection, the Right to Privacy, and Full Faith and Credit under the U.S. Constitution. It further prays that the court mandate the use of gender-neutral terms and issuance of a marriage license to Plaintiffs.

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

EXPERT SAYS GAY MARRIAGE OPPONENTS TWISTED HIS RESEARCH: From the Associated Press

A child psychiatrist from Yale University is denouncing efforts by the Oregon group that opposes same-sex marriage, saying they are misusing his research.

But backers of Measure 36, which would amend Oregon's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, said they believe Dr. Kyle Pruett's research shows that a child fares best growing up with a married father and mother.

In its campaign fliers, the coalition writes that Pruett "reveals that infants just 8 weeks of age can already detect the difference between male and female interaction. This further confirms that the role of a mother and a father are not interchangeable when it comes to raising children." ...

Actually, children generally fare better with two parents than one, even if the parents are of the same gender, Pruett said.

"There is to date no credible research that says children raised by gay and lesbian couples are at risk," he said.

more

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

GAY-MARRIAGE VOTE SPARKS FIGHT IN MASS. RACES: From the Boston Globe

...Gay marriage is a central issue in about a half dozen races around Massachusetts, reprising the highly charged debates over morality and civil rights that echoed in the halls of the State House during the Constitutional Convention last spring. Both sides are hoping for an edge before the Legislature reconsiders a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and allow civil unions. The measure would have to be approved in the next session in order to place it before voters in November 2006.

Several of the races touched by the same-sex marriage debate are in metropolitan Boston, including the fight for Walsh's seat and the replay of a Democratic primary fight over a Somerville House seat lost by an incumbent who voted to ban gay marriage. Even state Senate President Robert E. Travaglini of East Boston, a supporter of civil unions for gays, faces a long-shot challenge from a candidate who opposes gay marriage and civil unions.

Activists on both sides of the debate have entered the fray as well. Gay marriage supporters, such as Mass Equality and the Human Rights Campaign, based in Washington, D.C., are mobilizing hundreds of supporters; the Human Rights Campaign has spent about $650,000 in Massachusetts over the last year. Gay-marriage opponents, such as the Archdiocese of Boston and its allies, have used the gay-marriage debate to pump up voter registration.

"The same-sex marriage debate is not over," said an editorial in the latest edition of the Pilot, the official newspaper of the Boston Archdiocese. "A more pro-same-sex marriage Legislature could impede the constitutional amendment that would define marriage in this state as the union of one man and one woman."

Many lawmakers on both sides of the issue feared they would face a tough foe like Walsh when they voted in Constitutional Convention earlier this year. Such fears were overstated, though no one will know the fallout until election day. Four years ago in Vermont, 17 legislators who supported civil unions for gay couples lost their seats in fall elections.

more

posted by Eve at 4:10 PM | link 0 comments