GAY MARRIAGE BACKLASH: Boston Herald editorial

Being tagged blue or red made no difference in the 11 states which passed ballot questions prohibiting same-sex marriage. Oregon and Michigan voters joined Mississippi, Oklahoma, Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, Arkansas, North Dakota, Montana and Utah to preserve traditional marriage.

Anyone still think Massachusetts voters will tolerate not getting their say, too?

The not-so-secret hope of gay marriage proponents here has been that the furor over the Supreme Judicial Court ruling would fade with time. Then they could convince the Constitutional Convention not to give a similar ballot question a final round of approval.

Or better yet, they'd like to get the Con-Con to never quite get to the question when they meet to consider their agenda in 2005.

We see no signs of furor. Nonetheless, such a fundamental question ought to be put before the people. ...

Ironically, here, where the Supreme Judicial Court got the ball rolling, lawmakers are likely feeling sanguine about the political fallout. No legislative campaign outcome appears to have hinged on the issue and same-sex marriage proponents might even have gained a few friendly faces on Beacon Hill.

But, nationally, Democratic leaders are blaming Massachusetts' activists in part for John Kerry's defeat. ...

Guess what happens when courts, not legislators, make laws? There's a backlash. Duh. ...

Will a ban pass here? We have no idea. But beware the backlash if voters aren't the ones to decide the answer to that question.
more

posted by Eve at 8:30 PM | link 0 comments

A MODEST PROPOSAL: Maggie Gallagher

Barry Davis, writes to me (via snail-mail!): "With this letter I wish to share my euphoria over the recent victories for traditional marriage that occurred in 11 states. . .Your staunch support for the cause has inspired me to write you about a similar imminent threat to traditional values. It is my belief there are certain other groups that should warrant at least as much attention as those awful gays and lesbians who are trying to undermine our most sacred Christian institutions. . .

"All decent Americans should unite to fight against their influence. This is, of course, The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. . .

"We've already seen how much fun it is to let voters choose to deny certain rights and privileges to minority groups, even when the majority enjoys those same rights and privileges. If you are in need of any more ideas like the one I have mentioned here, please let me know. There are a million more where that came from."

Barry, thanks so much. I have another modest proposal: Let's get courts to redefine the word "gay" to mean people who are attracted either to the same-sex or to the opposite sex. People who fail to do so will be deemed bigots who prefer exclusionary language, organizations and ideas. Organizations that currently call themselves "gay" who fail to adapt to the new law may face legal pressures applied to other bigots in the public square.

posted by Eve at 8:21 PM | link 0 comments

DOING WHAT CHRIST TELLS US ABOUT MARRIAGE: Fr Robert Landry

Today we are present at the most famous wedding of all time ... one in which we do not even know the names of the bride and groom. It's the one that took place in Cana in Galilee, and it's the most famous wedding because Jesus Christ was there --and what happened at that wedding has been remembered by Christians ever since. ...

We are now in the midst of a heated debate about what marriage is. For God, it is very clear what marriage is. When Christ was asked by a lawyer about whether divorce was possible, Jesus gave a clear teaching about the real meaning of marriage that is as relevant to the debate about whether homosexuals can marry as it was to the subject of divorce-and-remarriage.

If Jesus were to testify up on Beacon Hill before our legislators about the meaning of marriage, I think he could use the very same words that he used in St. Matthew's Gospel. Listen to him with fresh ears: "Have you not read that in the beginning God 'made them male and female,' and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

In this teaching of Jesus -- who is the Truth incarnate, who is our Creator and knows how and for what the human person is made, who loved all of us enough to die out of love for us -- we see four things that are relevant to our debate:
a) "In the beginning, God made them male and female." There is great meaning to our masculinity and femininity in God's plan. God didn't clone Adam, but made Eve, who was equal to him in dignity, but complementary.
b) "For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife." God's plan is not that a man leave his parents and cling to whomever he wants, but to cling to a wife.
c) "The two shall become one flesh." This refers more than merely to their sharing a bed together and temporarily joining their bodies physically in the act of making love, because that act is just temporary. God wanted from the beginning a more permanent union, "so they are no longer two, but one flesh." The way this occurs is in a child, who is the perduring union of the flesh and the man and the woman and blessed by God with the infusion of an immortal soul. This one-flesh union in children "made in love" is for Christ, our Creator and Savior, part of the essence of marriage.
d) "What God has joined together, man must not divide." This refers not just to a particular couple joined by God in marriage, but to the union planned by the Creator for a man and a woman in marriage. To try to divide man and woman in the institution of marriage by opening marriage up to two men or two women is clearly contrary to God's plan for marriage and for man and woman.

God created marriage in a particular way from the beginning for our own happiness as well as for our salvation, to teach us how to love according to the nature he gave us. But he also had something else in mind in creating marriage the way he did. He wanted to use marriage as an analogy to communicate his own love for us his people. We see this in the first reading from Isaiah: "As a young man marries a young woman, so shall your builder marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you." God's love for us is likened to a husband's love for his new bride.

...Human heterosexual spousal love was created by God to reflect God's own love for his people. To change the meaning of marriage to encompass homosexual "unions" will not only do damage to individual men and women with same-sex attractions, to others and to society as a whole, but it will gradually incapacitate our ability to understand the meaning of all creation and God's love for us, of which traditional marriage is the highest reflection.

more

posted by Eve at 7:44 PM | link 1 comments

RADICAL CHANGE BY DEFINITION: Justin Katz

...To declare so haughtily that traditional marriage laws violate the rights of homosexuals, one must believe that there are no differences between men and women that are relevant to marriage. If marriage is not centrally about gender, then it is not centrally about the most obvious thing that men and women can only do together: create children. And if marriage is not about procreation, then there's no reason it has to be about sex. And if it isn't about sex, then intimate love -- as opposed to other forms of mutual interest or affection -- needn't be definitive. Marriage, in other words, becomes a partnership in the most bland, contractual sense of that word.

That outcome has proven all but inconceivable to many who support same-sex marriage (at least those whom we trust about their intentions). They take for granted that the emotional culture of marriage is written in firm ground that they imagine at the core of our social being. As they, themselves, prove that ground is not as firm as it might seem. Even if it were, however, we would still have to keep in mind that the law does not require married couples to act married, or even to proclaim that they are. Any stigma associated with same-sex marriages of convenience would have no readily visible identification on which to accrue and would therefore quickly slip away.

I can only muse that those who are most willing to force radical changes on our culture are also the most naive about the ways in which the culture can change. And I can only be distressed that too many seem to believe that same-sex marriage would represent no change at all.

more

posted by Eve at 7:37 PM | link 0 comments

ORE. SUIT SHIFTS TO BENEFITS: From The Oregonian

Gay rights leaders on Thursday asked the Oregon Supreme Court to order civil unions for same-sex couples and to uphold the legality of 3,000 marriage licenses issued to gay and lesbian couples earlier this year in Multnomah County.

While conceding that passage of Ballot Measure 36 this month bans future same-sex marriages in Oregon, gay-rights advocates said they still might challenge the constitutionality of the initiative in a separate lawsuit at a later date. ...

Kelly Clark, attorney for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, sponsor of Measure 36, said the passage of the measure eliminated any doubt about the validity of state laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Clark also questioned how gay-rights advocates can change tactics and push civil unions after arguing against them in earlier legal briefs.

"You can't change your request two-thirds of a way through a lawsuit," Clark said.

Gay-rights advocates say they were seeking the right to marry as well as the legal benefits of marriage. Measure 36's passage eliminated their constitutional right to marry, but not their rights to the benefits of marriage.

The Oregon attorney general's office has identified 279 state laws that relate to marriage. Most define benefits and rights in areas such as Social Security, taxes, inheritance, public assistance, immigration and housing -- benefits that generally become important in times of illness, crisis, divorce and death. ...

In their legal briefs, attorneys for Basic Rights Oregon and the American Civil Liberties Union ask the Oregon Supreme Court to order the Legislature to pass a law giving gay and lesbian couples the same state benefits, obligations, rights, responsibilities and protections that married couples and their children receive.

more

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

NAT'L FOUNDATION TO DEFEND MARRIAGE OPENS IN UTAH: From the Associated Press

On the first anniversary of a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage, two Utah attorneys announced a new foundation Thursday to defend traditional marriage across the country.

Monte Stewart and Bill Duncan's Marriage Law Foundation will provide legal support and resources against lawsuits challenging attacks on any state's ban on gay marriage.

The group will track legislation being passed on the issue while protecting laws that ban same-sex marriage against "judges not willing to defer to the will of the people on those laws," Duncan said. ...

Stewart said the group would also review legislation that provides benefits or other legal rights to co-habitating couples. There are many kinds of legislation that provide benefits of that nature that don't threaten heterosexual marriage, he said. ...

Board members include Robert Destro, also with the Columbus School; Maggie Gallagher, of New York, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and co-author of "The Case for Marriage," and William Maycock, an Atlanta attorney.

Dixie Leavitt, former president of the Utah Senate and father of former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, is also on the board.

more

posted by Eve at 7:22 PM | link 0 comments

POLLAGE: NEARLY 60% BACK CURRENT WASHINGTON MARRIAGE LAW: From the Seattle Times

Nearly 60 percent of Washington residents, in a statewide poll conducted before this month's elections, said the state law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman should not be changed.

Eighty-eight percent of those surveyed said marriage is not an outmoded, old-fashioned institution, and more than 90 percent said they expected their own marriages to last the rest of their lives. ...

Wirthlin Worldwide polled 402 Washington adults by telephone between Oct. 6-9. The firm said the survey has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.
Among the poll's findings:

Thirty-nine percent said they were not aware of the same-sex marriage cases pending before the state Supreme Court.

Fifty-nine percent of the poll respondents said the definition of marriage should not be changed, while 39 percent said they thought it should be.

Fifty-seven percent said marriage should remain between one man and one woman, while 41 percent said it should be between two loving adults, regardless of their gender.

(By comparison, a Seattle Times poll this spring found slightly more than 50 percent of those surveyed said same-sex couples should be denied the right to marry, while 44 percent supported gay marriage.)

more

posted by Eve at 7:16 PM | link 0 comments

COUPLES ADOPT AS GAYS PROTEST: From the Orlando Sentinel

As 15 married couples appeared before a judge Friday at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando to adopt a total of 23 kids, gay rights activists stood on the courthouse steps below campaigning for the same right -- to legally adopt children.

Activists of the Coalition for Fair Adoption in Orlando, Miami and Clearwater announced plans Friday to push for a repeal of a Florida law banning gays from adopting children. ...

The boy was one of the 3,300 Florida children in foster care eligible for adoption.

Coalition members are targeting those children. They say loving gay couples can parent as successfully as heterosexual parents and give children in the state's care a permanent home.

However, opponents of gays adopting argue that same-sex parents don't provide the parental role models children need. What a child needs, they say, is a mother and a father.

more

posted by Eve at 7:10 PM | link 0 comments

UK CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS BILL CLEARS FINAL HURDLE: From the Scotsman

Government plans for so-called "gay weddings" passed their final hurdle in the Lords tonight -- after a three hour heated debate and protests that it would create unfair tax advantages for a minority.

The Civil Partnerships Bill gives gays and lesbians the right to form legally binding civil partnerships -- giving them the same tax, inheritance and tenancy rights as married couples.

It now awaits Royal Assent. ...

Baroness O'Cathain argued that the Bill was discriminatory because it would give inheritance and capital gains tax advantages to same sex couples that were not available to sisters, brothers, parents and children who looked after each other.

The death of an elderly sibling could often mean the one left faced great hardship and the loss of the family home. ...

Lord Tebbit called for a clear explanation from Lady Scotland adding "you said there was a clear distinction between civil partnerships as envisaged in this Bill and civil marriage.

"Would you elucidate now what that difference is?"

Lady Scotland replied: "One of the differences is consummation.

"In relation to marriage, for a marriage to be valid it has to be consummated by one man and one woman and there is a great deal of jurisprudence which tells you exactly what consummation amounts to, partial, impartial, penetration, no penetration.

"If you wish me to give a dissertation on family law I would be happy to do so. There is no provision for consummation in the Civil Partnerships Bill.

"We do not look at the nature of the sexual relationship, it is totally different in nature."

But Lord Tebbit said that if there was no question of consummation in a civil partnership why couldn't it be extended to people who have a close family relationships, such as two homosexual brothers?

Lady Scotland said it was improper for those related to one another to enter into a relationship, similar to that of marriage.

more

posted by Eve at 10:03 PM | link 0 comments

BREAKING UP IS HARD TO DO FOR GAY COUPLES: From the Washington Blade

..."Being denied divorce protections is one of the problems of not having equal marriage rights," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, an organization working to win marriage equality for gay couples nationwide. "It's one of the most important reasons to have marriage equality."

The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and allows state governments to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; currently, nearly all do not as a matter of record, though refusals have not been tested in court.

But DOMA "is silent on divorce," according to Heather Sawyer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal.

Marriage and divorce laws vary from state to state, forcing same-sex couples who seek to dissolve their partnerships into uncharted legal territory.

"Some same-sex couples have not carefully thought out the consequences" of getting married, Wolfson said. "Now that we have that freedom [in Massachusetts], it's important to make an informed choice. As gay people come closer to equality, it's our responsibility to take it seriously."

Vermont civil unions are only valid in that state, and offer some of the rights of civil marriage. While it is easy for a resident or out-of-state couple to obtain a civil union -- all they have to do is get a license from the town clerk -- it's relatively difficult to dissolve that union in Vermont.

"The issue at hand is what people can do if they live in a state other than Vermont, go to Vermont to obtain a civil union, and then decide to dissolve the civil union in their home state," said Heather Sawyer, a lawyer with Lambda Legal. "What happens then?" ...

Out-of-state couples that file for dissolution in their home state may face legal challenges to first prove the validity of their union prior to dissolving it. ...

All couples that file for divorce in Massachusetts must fulfill the one-year residency requirement to have the divorce granted. However, Sawyer noted that if someone resided in a state that does not honor a Massachusetts marriage, it's unlikely that it will honor a divorce, as there would be no recognized legal ties between the parties to begin with. ...

"Many states are asking, 'Does marriage in Massachusetts equal marriage in Ohio?' Some states may balk at managing that divorce," given the lack of legal precedent thus far, Buseck said. If the 1913 law is overturned, out-of-state same-sex couples may marry in Massachusetts and file for divorce in their home state, though he did not know of any couples that had done so.

Lambda Legal recommends same-sex couples, whether entered into a civil union/marriage or not, should maintain "wills, powers of attorney, health care proxies, [and] partnership and parenting agreements" to protect their family's interest while the validity of same-sex unions are challenged in court.

more

posted by Eve at 9:55 PM | link 0 comments

GAY GROUPS TO FOCUS ON WINNING LOCAL BATTLES: From the Washington Blade

While gay leaders evaluated dozens of national strategies to consider in the fight for gay rights during last week's Creating Change conference in St. Louis, many advocated for a greater focus on state and local issues.

The 17th annual conference -- organized by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force -- included about 2,500 organizers from gay rights groups across the country reviewing legislative strategies for the upcoming years. ...

Some activists pointed to Connecticut as another example of a state taking on gay rights issues in a local and measured way. The Connecticut Legislature may consider a civil unions bill when it reconvenes in January.

The bill would likely have support from Democrats, who hold strong majorities in both houses, and possibly from Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and House Minority Leader Robert Ward, who have indicated they might be willing to expand rights for gay couples, though they both oppose gay marriage, according to the Danbury News Times.

Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, a Connecticut-based gay rights group, said she also expects to see a marriage bill introduced. Stanback said same-sex marriage bills have been introduced in previous years but have never made it out of committee. ...

Keith Boykin, a White House special assistant in the Clinton administration and a member of the National Black Justice Coalition, said meeting participants were "fired up" and ready to be "motivated and active," adding that it was important for the gay activists to have a multi-pronged strategy -- pushing for marriage, fighting for civil unions -- similar to tactics employed during the black civil rights struggle of the 1950s and '60s. ...

"It's not an either-or strategy. During the civil rights struggle, Dr. King pushed for a more moderate agenda than Malcolm X, but both men needed each other in many ways. For civil unions to have been taken seriously, marriage had to be pushed to the agenda."

more

posted by Eve at 9:49 PM | link 0 comments

BRIDGES BURNING, GAY GROUPS STRUGGLE TO COPE WITH GOP DOMINANCE: From the Washington Blade

Concern and frustration spilled out into the open this week over how the Human Rights Campaign will navigate the post-election of a capital city now even more tightly within the grasp of conservatives.

A member of the HRC's Federal Club of key donors raised concerns at a Tuesday night meeting with HRC staff about the group's laserlike focus on marriage equality and hinted that without a new strategy for working with the GOP-dominated government, new leadership might be needed at the country’s largest gay lobbying group.

Randy Foster, 39, said he became concerned about the direction gay groups were taking this year after talking with a congressman during a flight from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., three days after the election.

The lawmaker, whom Foster declined to identify, said that marriage had become such a priority for gay leaders he wondered how effective gay lobbyists would be during the next four years. ...

Some have criticized gay groups for pushing the marriage issue during an election year. But Jacques dismissed concerns about the timing of the gay marriage issue, adding that the "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed us marriage equality." ...

Others, including gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), have criticized HRC and other gay groups for embracing the actions of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in February.

Jacques defended the group's support of Newsom, adding that the San Francisco mayor did not ignite the outcry from social conservatives to push ahead with the 11 state amendments. Jacques said, "that fire was already lit."

more

posted by Eve at 9:42 PM | link 0 comments

VIEW FROM THE BACK OF THE MARRIAGE BUS: Steve Koval replies to James Driscoll

James Driscoll, a former appointee to George W. Bush's Presidential Advisory Council for HIV-AIDS (PACHA), has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Times. ...

Driscoll claims that "the slight drop in George Bush's 2004 percentage of the gay vote, from 26 percent to 23 percent, indicates that for grassroots gay voters, marriage remains a low priority."

But Driscoll's conclusion does not at all follow from the facts. At best, he could claim that gay marriage has not become an overwhelming issue for the one-quarter of gay voters who voted for Bush in 2000. These are hardly representative of gay voters as a whole. ...

What Driscoll fails to appreciate is that any gay issue is a red flag for "religious conservatives." Driscoll forgets how radical the Vermont Supreme Court decision, in response to which the state's legislature adopted civil unions, seemed in 1999.

By demanding full marriage equality, those radical civil unions are so moderate that even President Bush said he saw no problem with states adopting them. And the tactic of pushing for full marriage equality seems to have worked well in moving public opinion: over 60 percent of Americans now favor gay marriage or protections offered by civil unions.

Driscoll is obviously right on one point: In 2004, gay marriage is not an idea that most Americans are ready for. However, if gays don't push for full civil rights, America will never be ready.

more

posted by Eve at 9:32 PM | link 0 comments

D.C. GAY MARRIAGE BAN PETITION WITHDRAWN: From the Washington Blade

A D.C. woman who said she believes gay marriage is harmful to African-American families withdrew a petition to place an initiative on the ballot to ban same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. Ward 4 resident Lisa L. Greene said she withdrew the proposal after an attorney with the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics informed her that she used the wrong "legislative format" in drafting the initiative and she failed to submit a required campaign finance statement. "I will submit it again," she told the Blade. "I will contact them beforehand and make sure I have it correct." ...

Bill O'Field, a spokesperson for the elections board, said Greene's initiative could not be placed on the ballot until the next regularly scheduled citywide election, which takes place in September 2006. The text of Greene's proposed initiative states, "The Citizens of the District of Columbia and the District Council defines and preserve marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman only." Greene named the initiative the District of Columbia Marriage Protection Act
.
more

posted by Eve at 9:22 PM | link 0 comments

"THE RIGHT TO MARRY INFINITE PEOPLE": Eve

That's what some moot-courting students said distinguished a hypothetical right to polygamy from the hypothetical right to same-sex marriage that they were defending. But... doesn't "the right to marry infinite people"--or at least the ability to ditto--already exist? It's called divorce. It's subject to various rules and restrictions; but so is marriage, in general. I'd be interested to know if Petitioners had some other way of distinguishing serial monogamy from polygamy, and if they would uphold a claim to "the right to marry infinite people, one at a time." Would a distinction between "the right to marry infinite people at the same time" and "the right to marry infinite people one at a time" pass the kind of intensive scrutiny that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gave that state's marriage statutes?

posted by Eve at 9:11 PM | link 0 comments

MOOT COURT REPORT: Waddling Thunder

[I don't make up these blog pseudonyms. I just report 'em. --Eve]

The Ames Moot Court Competition is held at Harvard Law School every year. Traditionally, a Supreme Court Justice arrives for the final, along with two judges from the circuit courts of appeal. This year, the judges were Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of the US Supreme Court, Richard A. Paez, of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Reena Raggi, of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The cases for the Ames are invented, but usually discuss a major topic of the day. Accordingly, this year's case tackled the constitutional issue of gay marriage, in an action called Amy Annis, et al v. The State of Ames and the Ames Department of Health. ...

The argument for Petitioners on Due Process covered several major topics. Of course, the chief problem for the case on that side is one of line drawing--if Loving v. Virginia said that bans on interracial marriage were illegal because marriage was a fundamental right, and Lawrence v. Texas tells us that being homosexual is a protected privacy right, what keeps someone who wants to marry their both grandmother and their sister from coming to the court for redress? I thought respondents gave as good an answer that exists on that point--polygamists aren't being denied the right to marry but the "right to marry infinite people". What gays and lesbians are asking for is fundamentally different than that. The Court didn't push on the pure incest case, so I'm not sure what Petitioners response would have been.

Justice Ginsburg drove at one point on why Petitioners were bothering the Court about this question. Couldn't the legislature do as well? Respondents answered that fundamental rights were subject to no election. Ginsburg followed by asking about the international context--certainly, gay marriage has been legalized around the world, she noted, but almost always by legislatures. Did respondent know of any country besides Canada to legalize gay marriage through the Courts? Respondents answered that they did not, but that this didn't change their argument on fundamental rights.

There were two main issues on the Equal Protection side of Petitioners argument, as one might expect. First, the question was whether the Court should apply some sort of heightened rational basis scrutiny. Second, regardless of which standard of review the Court was to apply, the Respondents had to show that the State's reasons for banning gay marriage had no rational basis.

There was considerable debate between Justice Ginsburg and Petitioners about the first of these points. Obviously, the position of Petitioners was that there was such a thing as heightened rational basis scrutiny. Justice Ginsburg pursued them, asking them which case supported their position. Petitioners conceded that no specific case held as much, but that the Supreme Court practice betrayed a difference between the kind of rational basis scrutiny applied in economic regulation cases, and that applied in cases where, as their brief put it, "a classification significantly interferes with important personal interests and relationships". Romer was thought to be the chief of these cases. Justice Ginsburg pursued again--in Romer, she said, the problem was denial of the classes' right to the political process. They couldn't just go to the legislature, because discrimination had been embedded in the state Constitution--here, the Justice continued, the obvious remedy was to go to the legislature. Petitioners responded, I believe, by noting that the plaintiffs in Romer could indeed go to the legislature, but that the effort was just harder. And in any case, they noted, the right to marriage shouldn't rely on efforts before the legislature.

On the second point, both Judge Raggi and Paez pressed Petitioners on their definition of rational basis. The former asked Petitioners why the imperative of bringing order to an institution that produces disorder, such as marriage, was not a rational basis. The rational basis, she said, wasn't the protection of procreation, but the imposition of order. Judge Paez at one point followed by asking whether tradition itself was not a rational basis. Petitioners were able to respond to that point by wielding Loving--tradition also forbade inter-race marriage, and yet the Court ruled bans on such marriage unconstitutional in Loving.

This brought the Respondents to the podium, first to argue the due process point. The obvious problem for respondents is Loving. How can it possibly be different than the current case, several judges wanted to know? There really are only two answers available to Respondents. ...The second, which Respondents did argue, is that Loving differs from the current case because of the state's emphasis on procreation. Respondents were pushed hard by several judges on the question of whether marriage itself, devoid of procreation, was a fundamental right or not. Their answer was again to put the discussion in the context of procreation. As their brief explains it, "[the pertinent] enquiry is not whether a fundamental right to marry exists, but whether that long recognized right includes the right to marry a same-sex partner". Justice Ginsburg, I believe, raised the inevitable question of the sterile marrieds, drawing an unclear response. Judge Raggi leaned in for the kill by putting respondents on the spot--if a state drafted a law forbidding marriage between obviously sterile adults, but allowed same sex partners to marry who were committed to using a third party to have children, would that be constitutional? Stuck between a rock and a hard place, Respondent agreed that it would--but that other constitutional concerns would keep the state from passing such a law.

more

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

ONTARIO MINISTER URGES MUSLIMS TO STAY IN GAY-ED CLASS: From the Canadian Press

[Via the conservative Western Standard blog, where you can find discussion in the comments. --Eve]

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty encouraged Muslim parents Wednesday to allow their children to attend public school classes that include teaching tolerance of gays and lesbians.

McGuinty and Education Minister Gerard Kennedy both reached out to Muslim parents who are upset about what the Toronto District School Board calls "anti-homophobia education" at a downtown school. ...

Controversy erupted after students at Market Lane Public School were shown videos that depicted the feelings of children who get taunted at school because their own parents are homosexuals.

Angry Muslim parents complained that their religious beliefs were getting less respect from the board than gay rights and demanded that their children be excluded on religious grounds from similar presentations in the future.

The board rejected their request Tuesday night on the grounds that allowing some students to be excluded from discussions about gay families would violate the rights of those children with same-sex parents.

"Ultimately, our civil values include respect for sexual orientation," Kennedy said before a cabinet meeting Wednesday.

"I don't think there's any harm done to parents who find their children exposed to ideas that are different than the ones they teach at home." ...

Ontario's New Democrats echoed the government's position.

"I believe that human rights come above religious rights," said NDP critic Michael Prue.

"I would hope Muslim parents would understand that they have chosen to move to a pluralistic society, and it goes along that that we have respect for everyone, including them."

more

posted by Eve at 8:59 PM | link 0 comments

WHY WE NEED A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: Robert P. George and David L. Tubbs

...In the traditional or classic understanding of American federalism--expressed in the Federalist Papers and reflected in the design of the Constitution--democratically elected state legislators represent the citizens who elect them. Those legislators enjoy wide authority to make laws relating to marriage and family life, and promoting public health, safety, and morals. Because the U.S. Constitution vests state lawmakers with such wide-ranging powers in these areas, on the classic view, courts must defer to state legislatures. Such deference is no mere courtesy or convention, but a constitutional duty. A judge may invalidate state legislation relating to marriage and family life or on public health, safety, and morals only if it conflicts with norms fairly derived from the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the state or the federal constitution. As private citizens, judges may object to a law or policy on prudential or moral grounds, but as judges, they must distinguish the desirability--even the justice--of a policy from its constitutionality. Virtually all judges still pay at least lip service to this obligation.

Even so, state judges today ignore or circumvent it in practice with alarming frequency, so that the kind of federalism we increasingly have is not one of state legislatures but of state judiciaries. For this, the late U.S. Supreme Court justice William Brennan bears considerable blame. In an influential 1977 article in the Harvard Law Review, Brennan noted that state constitutions, like the U.S. Constitution, include provisions that convey important legal norms and principles in abstract-sounding language. Such provisions sometimes admit of multiple interpretations, especially when jurists ignore the relevant history and precedents. Brennan urged state appellate judges to interpret the state constitutional provisions expansively to secure individual rights, just as the Supreme Court had done under Chief Justice Earl Warren.

It was advice that many state-level judges proved eager to heed. In the years since Brennan wrote, state supreme courts--among them California's, Kentucky's, and Georgia's--have coined new rights or enlarged the scope of rights promulgated by the Warren and Burger Courts. Nowhere have the state courts run amok more wildly, however, than on same sex-marriage, an idea opposed by a sizable majority of Americans. In Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and now Massachusetts, judges have sought to redefine marriage, against the voters' will.

Can't states just deal with this judicial arrogance themselves, by flexing their federalist muscles? One prominent advocate of redefining marriage, Andrew Sullivan, says it's already happening (to his regret). He cites the following facts: 38 states have passed legislative bans on same-sex marriage; four states have already amended their constitutions to the same end (with an overwhelming 70 percent of Missouri voters endorsing a state constitutional ban this past August); and roughly a dozen states have scheduled referenda to consider similar amendments. ...

Regrettably, these state-level political efforts ultimately won't stop the march to redefine marriage. The reason: the Supreme Court is almost certain to nationalize the issue and make same-sex-marriage legal from coast to coast. ...

But one can also make a strong positive case for an amendment. After all, the idea of same-sex marriage would have seemed outlandish only a few years ago, and today only a minority, led by an elite of academics, journalists, entertainers, and, of course, state and federal judges and their clerks, gives the idea any credence. The vast majority of Americans holds as self-evident the truth that marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental institution of a free and democratic society. And in a free and democratic society, they have the right to enshrine that truth in their constitution.

more

posted by Eve at 8:54 PM | link 0 comments

I WED THEE, AND THEE, AND THEE: Kay S. Hymowitz

Same-sex marriage advocates tend to jeer at the argument that allowing such unions will open a smorgasbord of marital practices. They insist that what interests them is not to transform the institution radically but only to welcome their homosexual friends, neighbors, and relatives to its benefits. A few recent developments suggest that they're dead wrong. Consider a recent USA Today op-ed by Jonathan Turley, arguing that it's time for polygamous marriage to receive constitutional protection. However misguided, Turley is no bomb thrower. He is a Georgetown University prof, a prolific scholar, and a frequent television talking head on legal issues. Here, he simply underscores two points that homosexual advocates downplay: first, that the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence decision, striking down anti-sodomy laws, "recognized the constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relation," presumably including multiple partners; and second--and somewhat more plausibly, given that Lawrence is about private sexual practices and implies nothing about marriage--that Reynolds v. United States, the 1878 Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on polygamy in the United States territories, is so filled with racist innuendo and cavalier attitudes about religious freedom that it would be unlikely to pass muster today. ...

More disturbing still, several legal cases pleading the cause of polygamy are already in motion. In Bronson v. Swensen, a Utah threesome has filed suit against the Salt Lake County Clerk's office for denying them a marriage license. Their attorney, who, like Turley, specializes in civil rights cases, argues that if Texas cannot criminalize sodomy, Utah should not be able to criminalize polygamy--though again, why the right to commit sodomy implies anything about marriage, let alone marriage with multiple or same-sex partners, is unclear.

more

posted by Eve at 8:49 PM | link 0 comments

ISRAELI COURT RULES FOR GAY COUPLE IN INHERITANCE CASE: From the PlanetOut Network

A court in Israel has ruled that lesbian and gay couples must also be recognized in the realm of inheritance tax -- the first time such a decision has been made in the country.

Nazareth District Court has ruled that same-sex couples can be included in inheritance laws, despite the existing legislation using the terms "man and woman" to describe a partnership.

The ruling follows a recent case where Kiryat Shmona was contesting a decision made by the Family Court, which barred him from inheriting his long-term partner's estate.

The couple had lived together for a number of years, and the now elderly man argued that their relationship should be recognized as being akin to marriage.

The case must now return to the country's Family Court, which is set to organize the changes needed for the case to push forward.

However, the government is expected to challenge the case, newspaper Ha'aretz claims.

more

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

NORWAY REJECTS SSM: From the PlanetOut Network

Lawmakers in Norway rejected a measure on Thursday that would have granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, including the right to adopt children.

According to Agence France-Press (AFP), a majority of the members of Parliament voted against an amendment to make existing marriage law "gender-neutral." The opposition included many Christian Democrats, the party of Lutheran pastor and Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik.

The Scandinavian country currently allows same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, which carry most of the same privileges as marriage.

The prohibition on adoption, however, does not necessarily keep same-sex couples from having children. Some couples travel to nearby Denmark, AFP reported, to take advantage of artificial insemination by anonymous donors.

Proponents of the measure argued that the adoption rights would most benefit existing children of same-sex couples.

"We should ensure that these children have the same rights as children who grow up with a father and a mother," Labour MP Trond Giske said, as reported by the country's NTB news agency.

link

posted by Eve at 8:44 PM | link 0 comments

MICHIGAN PARTNER BENEFITS SHOULD STAY: Jay Kaplan and Kary L. Moss

...For those concerned with keeping gay people from marrying, this state already had a law prohibiting same-sex marriage. The ballot initiative was thus unnecessary. But, as we argued before the election, its passage could do even more. What is unclear is how the amendment's last six words, "or similar union for any purpose," will be interpreted.

Will that language also prohibit domestic partner benefits, including health insurance?Proponents of Proposal 2, in public statements throughout the campaign, emphatically stated that this amendment was simply about marriage.

Marlene Elwell, chair of Citizens for Protection of Marriage, was quoted as stating, "This has nothing to do with taking benefits away. This is about marriage between a man and a woman."

Spokesperson Kristina Hemphill said, "There's nothing in this amendment ... that will erase anything on the books."

Even Gary Glenn, of the American Family Association of Michigan, was quoted as saying, "the proposal will not affect benefits offered to people living together or in same-sex relationships."

What is frightening is the ambiguity of those six words. Not surprisingly, the day after the election, Glenn contradicted his previous statement.

If these words are broadly interpreted by Michigan courts, both heterosexual and same-sex couples (and their children) could lose important health care benefits they currently receive from their employers. ...

We know from the people who call us for help that they stand to lose a great deal. For example, one same-sex couple we know -- Dennis and Tom Patrick -- are the parents of three children. Tom works part-time so he can take care of Josh, who is developmentally disabled. Dennis works for a state university that provides domestic partner insurance coverage for their family. Should the university discontinue insurance coverage for Tom, he will need to work full-time and spend less time home caring for his child. ...

We will hold Marlene Elwell, Gary Glenn and Kristine Hemphill to their words. Should there be any attempts to take away domestic partner benefits from employees and their families, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan will work aggressively to contain the potential damage of this amendment.

more

posted by Eve at 1:09 AM | link 0 comments

NEW GAY POLITICAL STRATEGIES: James Driscoll

The big losers in the 2004 election were Democrats and gays. Constitutional bans against gay marriage in 11 states have set back gay rights across the country. Gay leaders bet the ranch and lost. What went wrong and why? How can the gay-rights movement find smarter strategies, tactics and timing that will get better results? Two years ago gay marriage was a low priority. The slight drop in George Bush's 2004 percentage of the gay vote, from 26 percent to 23 percent, indicates that for grass-roots gay voters marriage remains a low priority. Had Mr. Bush said gays should not be allowed to teach in public schools, or work for the federal government, his gay vote would have fallen to single digits.

Where gays have the right to marry, e.g. Canada, few have married. Indeed, straight couples are choosing marriage less often: Divorce is costly and traumatic; couples have fewer children; women work in careers; and people live longer and opt for broader experience over lifelong security. Straights are becoming more like gays; only self-hating gays think this is a bad trend.

So why was it necessary to wave a red flag before religious conservatives and give ammunition to the far right by backing a sensational split decision from one of our most liberal state courts? Timing is everything in politics: In America in 2004, gay marriage was not an idea whose time had come.

The gay movement's haphazard embrace of gay marriage seems reactive and media driven. Too often gay-rights groups measure their success in volume of newsprint and minutes on prime time, rather than in numbers of openly gay people at the tables where decisions are made.

Instead of gay marriage, our strategic priorities for 2004 should have been: 1) allowing gays to serve in the military without hiding who they are; 2) eliminating employment glass ceilings for gay people; 3) getting our place at the table, which means openly gay representation in government and both parties in rough proportion to our numbers and talents; 4) civil unions.

more

posted by Eve at 11:50 PM | link 0 comments

OF CHURCH AND STATE: Adrian Walker

[A.k.a. "You're not the boss of me!" --bitter Eve]

Barbara A. L'Italien isn't all alone, if that is any consolation.

As the Legislature considered an amendment banning gay marriage earlier this year, other Catholic lawmakers heard, in some cases from the pulpit, that perhaps they would not be good influences on the young people of their parishes if they persisted in supporting the right of gay couples to marry.

One lawmaker, who did not want to be identified, told me about going toe-to-toe with a priest over whether the legislator would be welcome at a dinner for a parish youth organizations. It wasn't their first battle over gay marriage. This representative, like many of his colleagues, had taken to sending staff members to attend Mass in his district's parishes, to monitor the beating he was taking from the clergy.

The cleric ultimately backed down; he was counting on the legislator's support to help fight off a possible parish closing. But it had been a painful lesson in how faith and politics can collide.

L'Italien, a representative from Andover, was asked two weeks ago to step down as cantor of the children's choir because of her support for gay marriage. To her credit, she refused. ...

The expectation that lawmakers should slavishly follow the doctrines of any religion or any single constituency doesn't make much sense, really. Too many factors figure into a political decision, and one's public and private positions may well be different. That is especially true on a moral issue that has divided many Catholics. ...

This week, L'Italien was quoted as saying that church should be a sanctuary, apart from her work. She couldn't be more right.

more

posted by Eve at 11:36 PM | link 0 comments

BISHOPS OK PLAN TO BOLSTER MARRIAGE: From the San Francisco Chronicle

The nation's Catholic bishops, promising to "stop the erosion of marriage in our society," voted on Wednesday to start a campaign against divorce, gay marriage, birth control, premarital sex and unmarried cohabitation by heterosexual Catholic couples.

The bishops approved a National Pastoral Initiative on Marriage just two weeks after 11 states passed initiatives outlawing same-sex unions and after a large number of U.S. voters cited "moral values" as their most pressing concern. ...

Bishop Kevin Boland, chairman of the conference Committee on Marriage and Family Life, said the church needs to do much more than "counter certain threats" such as gay marriage and divorce on demand.

"A pastoral letter at this time could deliver a positive, pro-marriage statement," Boland said.

Civil unions for gay couples, Boland said, "is not our main cause or focus."

"In the United States, the marriage rate has declined by more than 40 percent in last 30 years," he said. "Among Catholics, it has declined at a similar rate."

The new four-year initiative will start with research, consultation and the drafting of a major pastoral letter on marriage.

That will be followed by a revision of guidelines to prepare people for marriage, new parish programs designed for different ethnic groups and a radio and television campaign to try to change the hearts and minds of the nation's 65 million Roman Catholics -- and the broader American society.

more

posted by Eve at 11:21 PM | link 0 comments

FEWER GAY COUPLES SEEKING MARRIAGE LICENSES: From the Boston Globe

The number of gay and lesbian couples applying for marriage licenses has slowed to a trickle since a rush to the altar in the days after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts on May 17, according to state records and a Globe survey of large cities and towns.

In the first week after the Supreme Judicial Court decision took effect on May 17, 2,500 gay and lesbian couples applied for licenses; 1,700 have done so in the six months since then, according to unofficial tallies by the Globe and state officials.

In all, the state's Registry of Vital Records has received an estimated 4,266 marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples, a spokeswoman said yesterday. ...

Some Boston marriages probably involve people coming to the city because it offered an accepting environment. Gates said the relatively high number of gay and lesbian couples getting married probably reflects pent-up demand.

"You have to remember that same-sex couples haven't had the ability to marry, so you would expect a surge that probably would not be sustained over time as it becomes a much more normalized process," Gates said.

In Provincetown and Northampton, same-sex couples made up the majority of people who received marriage licenses in the last six months.

In Provincetown, 912, or 97 percent, of the 937 couples who have applied for licenses since May 17 are same-sex couples. In Northampton, 325, or 66 percent, of the 494 couples who got licenses were gay or lesbian.

In Provincetown, 225 of the same-sex couples applied for licenses during the first week after May 17, and in Northampton 114 did. Other cities and towns also had relatively high percentages of same-sex couples applying: In Somerville 32 percent of the applicants were gay or lesbian couples, and in Springfield the percentage was 12 percent. ...

But the percentage of male and female same-sex couples seeking licenses differed greatly from city to city, according to the Globe survey conducted yesterday. In Boston, 63 percent of the same-sex applicants were men, while in Northampton 88 percent were women.

more

posted by Eve at 11:16 PM | link 0 comments

ONE YEAR LATER: From the Boston Globe

One year after the historic court ruling giving gay and lesbian couples the right to marry in Massachusetts, activists and lawyers here are sticking with their strategy of aggressively pushing to expand that right, even though the Nov. 2 election revealed a nation far from ready for same-sex unions.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Massachusetts group that successfully argued for the right to marry in the Bay State, is pressing ahead with a case to allow same-sex couples from out of state to marry here. In August, GLAD filed another lawsuit, on behalf of seven gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to marry in Connecticut.

Other activists are also arguing the issue in the courts. Cases seeking marriage rights for gays and lesbians are still pending in New Jersey and California courts. In several states, advocates plan challenges to bans on same-sex marriage approved by voters on Election Day, though activists remain divided about whether those efforts might backfire, speeding passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment. ...

Some, like Andrew Koppelman, professor of law and political science at Northwestern University, would like to see the lawyers hold off, in the hope that with more time Americans will accept same-sex marriage.

''Imagine you have a hornets' nest outside your house, and it's November," he said. ''You can wait for the winter to come and kill the hornets, or you can go out and whack the nest with a baseball bat. What we just saw in this last election are the consequences of whacking the hornets' nest with a baseball bat. All litigation can accomplish now is to make people who are already uncomfortable about same-sex marriage more anxious and defensive."

But GLAD civil rights director Mary Bonauto says, ''The hornets have been buzzing at us for 30 years." ...

Besides, Bonauto said, polls of voters on Election Day give advocates of same-sex marriage cause for optimism. More than half of those surveyed favored extending rights to same-sex couples, an indication, she said, that voters are more willing to recognize gays and lesbians than the 11 electoral defeats suggest.

more

posted by Eve at 10:15 PM | link 0 comments

MULTIPLE MOMS, DUELING DADS: From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The surrogate triplets born in Erie nearly a year ago now have two mothers.
One is the egg donor. The other is the womb donor.

An Ohio judge decided last week that the egg donor has a mother-child relationship with the triplets. Three months earlier, in another genetic-donation case, Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a sperm donor must pay child support. The two cases raise questions about the rights and responsibilities of people who buy and sell genetic material. ...

The fear for sellers of eggs and sperm is that someone will track them down for child support. The fear for buyers of eggs and sperm is that a seller will demand rights to the child.

That's what happened in the triplets' case, but it was with the aid and consent of the man who bought the eggs, provided the sperm, paid for the womb, and is the father of the boys.

He is James Flynn, a 63-year-old Cleveland man who paid tens of thousands of dollars for the surrogate birth of the triplets but then neglected to get the legal papers necessary to take the boys home from the hospital.

When Flynn hadn't visited his newborns for five days straight, the womb donor, Danielle Bimber, took them from the hospital. An Erie judge declared in April that she is the babies' legal mother.

Shortly after that, the egg donor, Jennifer Michelle Rice, a 23-year-old Arlington, Texas, resident, asked an Akron judge to declare her the mother. ...

A judge's decision that a donor has a parent-child relationship should raise concern with anyone who sells or uses genetic material, said medical ethicist Arthur Caplan, chair of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania medical school. ...

The Erie case, and the case the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided in July, are good examples, he said. In the Superior Court case, a man donated sperm to a woman who told him he'd have no responsibility for the child. But then he was ordered to pay child support for what turned out to be twins. The judges ruled invalid the agreement between the two adults depriving the children of their right to support.

more

posted by Eve at 10:24 PM | link 0 comments

TIES THAT UNWIND: From the Chicago Tribune

...Across the country, same-sex adoptions and the rights of gay and lesbian parents increasingly are being challenged during a time when the gay marriage debate has ignited a movement by conservative groups seeking to protect the traditional family.

A growing number of legal challenges can be attributed in part to the dramatic rise in same-sex families. According to 2000 U.S. Census data, 34 percent of all lesbian couples and 22 percent of all gay male couples are raising children under the age of 18, compared to 19.5 percent of lesbian couples and 5 percent of male couples in 1990.

But in particular, pregnancies achieved through artificial insemination and state laws that have made it easier for non-birth parents to adopt have placed two-mommy households under fire. ...

"I think it's interesting how the gay marriage debate has been really large in the media, and there's been very little focus on gay families," said Michelle M. Hughes, an adoption attorney in Chicago who has handled same-sex adoptions. "While everybody is arguing over whether there should be marriage or not, the number of gay families is increasing astronomically. And these kids are going to be raised in these homes. Whether you allow adoption or not, it's going on."

Oklahoma is the latest state to crack down on gay adoptions. Florida is the only state with a law that prohibits homosexuals from adopting children, whether single or as a couple. Mississippi and Utah have strict prohibitions against adoption by same-sex couples, while states such as Arkansas and North Carolina restrict unmarried couples, which would preclude gays and lesbians. Yet, overall, same-sex adoption has gained acceptance in the last 10 years. ...

Today, the majority of same-sex adoption cases involve a biological parent and a non-biological co-parent, Kendell said. But even in the best relationships, non-biological parents who rely solely on their partner's goodwill could potentially face a custodial challenge from their partners' relatives if the birth parent dies, or from their partner if the couple break up. ...

It's fair to say that when Janet Miller-Jenkins and her former partner, Lisa Miller-Jenkins, traveled to Vermont in 2000 to be joined in a civil union, which is legal in that state, they thought they would be together forever. Lisa became pregnant through donor insemination and gave birth to Isabella in April 2002.

Janet, 40, said she cut the umbilical cord and gave Isabella her first bath. But she did not adopt Isabella, because she said she believed the civil union provided her legal status as Isabella's parent.

...Afterward, their relationship soured, Janet said. Lisa moved back to Virginia and filed for dissolution of the civil union in Vermont. A Vermont judge gave Janet temporary joint custody. But Lisa challenged Janet's presumption of parentage, said Judy Barone, Lisa's attorney in Vermont, speaking on her behalf.

Barone said that Janet's mistake was not adopting Isabella. "If you're a stepparent, you have to adopt to call yourself a parent to that child," she said. ...

Barone said the case underscores that women--regardless of sexual orientation--need to understand the law when making choices about marriage and children.

"It's ludicrous in our society that these are fuzzy issues, and we as women need to stand up and make sure they're not," she said. "You'd think that people who decided to enter a legal relationship and have children would have looked into what they needed to do to secure their legal rights. They're just going haphazardly into these situations and having children."

The outcome can be equally devastating when the biological parent in a same-sex family dies.

more

posted by Eve at 10:12 PM | link 0 comments

70 MD PASTORS READY FIGHT AGAINST SSM: From the Baltimore Sun

Spurred by the passage of anti-gay-marriage ballot measures in 11 states, about 70 pastors gathered in Rosedale's Mount Pleasant Baptist Church yesterday pledging to renew efforts to keep same-sex marriage from becoming legal in Maryland.

Calling itself the largest interdenominational group of clergy assembled statewide to fight gay marriage, the group said it hopes to assemble 100,000 protesters for a march on the State House in Annapolis on Jan. 27.

The goal of the "Defend Maryland Marriage Rally" is to pressure legislators to strengthen laws against same-sex marriage, even though two such legislative bills were defeated by wide margins last session. ...

In July, nine gay couples sued the state after court clerks in Baltimore City and several counties refused to issue marriage licenses to them. The lawsuit contends that Maryland's ban on gay marriages is unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Equality of Maryland collaborated on the lawsuit, and a hearing is scheduled in Baltimore Circuit Court on March 14. The group of ministers plans a march on March 10 to draw attention to the hearing. ...

Last session, the General Assembly defeated two bills that would have shielded the state's legal definition of marriage from same-sex couples.

One would have reinforced a 1973 state law that defined marriage as between a man and woman and would have prevented the state from recognizing same-sex marriages from outside of Maryland. The other was a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

more

posted by Eve at 10:09 PM | link 0 comments

WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR SSM CASE IN MARCH: From 365Gay.com

The Supreme Court of Washington will take up the issue of same-sex marriage on March 8.

Lower court judges in King and Thurston counties earlier this year struck down the state's ban on gay marriage.

King County Superior Court Judge William Downing said that the state Constitution guarantees basic rights to lesbian and gay people--and that those rights are violated by a state law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. ...

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks ruled that the state prohibition on gay marriage does not serve a valid purpose, and instead could weaken families who are trying to make stable homes for children.

more

posted by Eve at 10:03 PM | link 0 comments

KS JUDGE RULES FOR TRANSSEXUAL: From the Associated Press

A transsexual who signed a marriage license application as a woman did not lie, even though she is legally considered a man, a judge ruled Tuesday.

In his opinion, issued from the bench immediately after attorneys gave their closing arguments, Leavenworth County District Judge Frank Stewart said it was impossible to determine whether Sandy Clarissa Gast had intended to lie on the application or whether she truly believed herself to be female.

Gast was on trial on a misdemeanor charge of false swearing, which carries a $500 fine. Prosecutors said she should have been listed as a man on the marriage license application, filed in February.

Gast, 48, was born Edward Gast and underwent sex change surgery in October after living for several years as a woman. She had planned to marry George "Georgi" Somers, who is a man but lives as a woman.

Gast, who hugged Somers and other supporters after the verdict, said she was not sure if she would apply for another marriage license, which would require another court challenge. She surrendered the first application at her initial court appearance in March, and she and Somers went through what they called a "holy union" ceremony in Topeka on March 20. ...

In 2002, the state Supreme Court invalidated a transsexual woman's marriage to a man, even though J'Noel Gardiner's sex change was recognized in her home state of Wisconsin. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision, effectively upholding it.

more

posted by Eve at 9:59 PM | link 0 comments

SUIT FILED TO NULLIFY KY SSM BAN: From the Associated Press

A court challenge seeks to nullify the approval of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and civil-unions by Kentucky voters this month.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Frankfort, claims the measure that passed by a 3-to-1 margin was flawed because it dealt with two separate issues--the first part pertained to marriage, the rest civil unions. ...

Kent Ostrander, executive director of The Family Foundation, a socially conservative group based in Lexington that pushed for the gay-marriage ban, said he wasn't surprised by the suit.

He said the plaintiffs' complaints were off the mark.

"I differ with their perspective in that the amendment was simply about protecting the definition of marriage, barring any counterfeit of marriage," he said Wednesday. ...

The lawsuit claimed the Kentucky amendment was "fatally flawed" because the language adopted by the General Assembly and placed on the ballot was misleading and offered "only a vague definition of marriage."

more

posted by Eve at 9:55 PM | link 0 comments

PRIEST ASKS LAWMAKER TO QUIT CHOIR POST: From the Boston Globe

A Catholic priest at St. Augustine Parish in Andover has asked state Representative Barbara A. L'Italien to step down as cantor and leader of the children's choir because of the legislator's support for abortion rights and gay marriage.

"He said because of my views, he did not want to have me on the altar at church anymore," L'Italien said yesterday, adding that she had refused the request from the Rev. William M. Cleary nearly two weeks ago.

L'Italien has been attending Wednesday night children's choir practices and plans to act as cantor again during the holidays, unless she receives a written order from Cleary, she said.

"I'm trying to be a good Catholic," L'Italien said. "But this should be a separate issue. Church should be a sanctuary for me and my faith and not have anything to do with my work."

more

posted by Eve at 7:56 PM | link 0 comments

TRANSSEXUAL MARRIAGE LICENSE TRIAL OPENS IN KANSAS: From the Lawrence Journal-World

Sandy Gast insists she was telling the truth earlier this year when she told the Leavenworth county clerk of the district court's office she was a woman intent on marrying Georgi Somers.

Leavenworth County authorities disagreed. After learning Somers and Gast were transsexuals and that Gast had checked the box marked female on the marriage license application, sheriff's deputies went to the couple's home, handcuffed Gast and took her to jail.

Gast, who later was to have a sex change operation but even then considered herself a woman, was forced to strip off her shorts, flip-flops and halter top and shower in front of a male deputy.

Gast, 49, was in court Monday, accused of filing a false marriage-license application, which is a misdemeanor. ...

Kohl said Gast was charged because under Kansas law, marriage is between a man and a woman. Also, the Kansas Supreme Court in 2001 ruled that a person's sex is determined at birth and is not subject to change, no matter what happens in surgery.

Gast's birth certificate, the prosecutor argued, lists her as male. It's also true, he said, that Gast has been married three times -- each time to a woman -- and that one of those marriages produced a child.

more

posted by Eve at 7:20 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGE IS GA. AMENDMENT'S ONLY SUBJECT: Jim Wooten

...The amendment is in two paragraphs. The first declares: "This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state." The second paragraph is the one four members of the Georgia Supreme Court can use to substitute their preferences for those of 2,454,912 Georgians. It says:
"No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. The state shall not give effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship."

The challenge, filed last week in Fulton County Superior Court, contends the amendment violates the state constitution's prohibition against multiple subjects in a single amendment. The underlying contention is that marriage is one subject and same-sex unions is another, and that the amendment prohibits state recognition of both. ...

The first paragraph of the amendment is essentially meaningless. The only thing it protects is the word "marriage." Not the institution, the word. ...

The second paragraph elaborates on the definition of marriage. The state can't alter marriage by defining it differently, nor can it recognize another state's attempt to do so. Nor can the courts in Georgia apply the laws of marriage to other personal relationships.

That doesn't mean that the state cannot compassionately and properly address the legal issues of committed partners. As issues of inheritance, ownership, decision-making, visitation and others arise, legislative remedies should be found. The state can, if the General Assembly chooses, recognize that two people are in a legally committed relationship.

more

posted by Eve at 7:02 PM | link 0 comments

"VALUES VOTERS": Rich Lowry

...The numbers fell off on Election Day. According to the exit polls, Bush's support among blacks nationally inched up only slightly from 9 percent in 2000 to 11 percent in 2004. But the kind of dramatic movement in the pre-election Joint Center survey showed up in the battleground states where the GOP invested the most resources to woo black voters. Bush went from 7 percent of the black vote in Florida in 2000 to 13 percent in 2004. In all-important Ohio, Bush's support among blacks rose from 10 percent to 16 percent.

"I have not found a single black precinct where Bush's vote went down from 2000," Nadler says. "It just went up everywhere." One Republican strategist predicts that the GOP share of the black vote will hit 30 percent within the next few election cycles. If it does, many religious black voters will be finding their appropriate home in a political environment defined by a cultural split over social issues. ...

But it was gay marriage that had the most resonance. "It really played," Nadler says. Black preachers, desperate to reinvigorate the traditional family, opposed it from their pulpits. "In the churches, there was a backlash against the notion of sexual proclivity being equated with civil rights," says Nadler. In the end, according to some estimates, 60 percent of black voters voted for the state-level referenda banning gay marriage.

more

posted by Eve at 6:59 PM | link 0 comments

PATTERSON STUDY: Tom Sylvester

[There's an interesting comment appended to his post, too. --Eve]

...Now, I want to be clear that this may not be a problem with this particular study, as I haven't read it. I'm not criticizing the study, and its findings seem to correspond with other research we have so far. But the "family relationships matter, not family type" formulation is usually trotted out in an attempt to downplay the evidence that children tend to do best with their own, two married parents. Of course family relationships matter more than family type. Does any family scholar suggest otherwise? The issue is to what extent family structure affects parent-child relationships. Parent-child relationships are, on average, stronger and more positive in intact families. And I don't think that finding can be fully explained by selection effects, genetics, or other confounding variables.

more

posted by Eve at 6:57 PM | link 0 comments

TEENS WITH SAME-SEX PARENTS WELL-ADJUSTED: From HealthDayNews

Adolescents who have two moms as parents are no different from teens growing up with a mother and a father, a new study finds.

On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, the teens with same-sex parents were as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. The authors found very few differences between the two groups. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment, they found, is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents.

"This is the first study that has looked at adolescents with same-sex parents in a national sample, and it shows clearly across a wide range of variables that they're doing pretty well," said study author Charlotte J. Patterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

The research, published in the November issue of Child Development, draws data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a school-based study of the health-related behaviors of kids in grades 7-12. ...

The study sample included 44 children, 12 to 18 years old, parented by same-sex couples and an equivalent number of peers with opposite-sex parents. The two groups had an equal number of girls and boys and other similarities, including ethnic background, family income, and parents' level of education.

Overall, researchers found no significant differences between the two groups. Teens with two moms, for example, were neither more nor less likely than their peers with two opposite-sex parents to report having been involved in a romantic relationship during the past year or ever having sex. Both groups were generally well-adjusted, with relatively high levels of self-esteem, relatively low levels of anxiety, and good achievement in school.

more

posted by Eve at 6:52 PM | link 0 comments

THERE'S REALLY NO SUCH THING AS A NO-FAULT DIVORCE: David Yount

..."No fault" is clearly a euphemism when applied to the breaking of a holy bond meant to last a lifetime. No couple parts without acknowledging or assigning blame. The fault and the pain are personal.

The poet T.S. Eliot called divorce the death of the spirit -- even worse than the extremes of physical pain. "Every day a little death," composer-lyricist Stephen Sondheim remarked of divorce.

Bob Geldof, the former punk rocker and Live Aid promoter, has mounted a campaign to save marriages by making divorce more difficult to obtain.

In two British TV documentaries, "Geldof on Marriage" and "Geldof on Fathers," he points to the financial burden placed on all taxpayers for government benefits to single parents.

"I know it's uncool," he admits, "and I truly have no desire to cause upset or offense by saying this, but the truth of every study is clear: dual-parent upbringing produces healthier, better-educated children. That's it." ...

Geldof blames marital breakdown on "an overblown sense of self. We imagine ourselves to be free people, but we should not be free to destroy others, especially children," he argues.

Government, he believes, must act to protect marriage by making it more difficult to divorce: "We've got to take back the right to speak about the most important institution that man has evolved over thousands of years."

more

posted by Eve at 3:41 AM | link 0 comments

"VALUES VOTERS": Jonathan Rauch

...Social conservatives and the media ballyhooed the National Election Pool survey's finding that "moral values" topped the public's list of voting issues, at 22 percent (narrowly edging out the economy and terrorism). In particular, the Religious Right spun the "moral values" answer as endorsing their agenda (against gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research). Actually, the concern with "moral values" is neither new nor, for most voters, specific. Bowman notes that the Los Angeles Times exit poll has regularly included "moral/ethical values" on its list of "most important issues," and that this choice emerged on top in 1996, 2000, and 2004. In 2004, the same proportion chose it as in 1996. Clearly, those 1996 voters were not up in arms against gay marriage and stem cells.

Most voters who plump for "moral values" seem to equate that term not with a particular policy agenda but with plain speaking, solid values, and a clear moral compass, all of which Bush offered. In 2004, the electorate barely moved on abortion, which only 16 percent of voters think should always be illegal; and 60 percent of voters supported gay marriage or civil unions (predominantly the latter).

Religious conservatives boast that they won the election for Bush. True, their turnout rose in 2004, but so did everyone else's. According to Luis Lugo, the director of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, evangelical Christians made up about 23 percent of the electorate in both 2000 and 2004. What happened in 2004, Lugo says, is that evangelicals and Catholics shifted more of their support toward Bush; about 78 percent of evangelicals voted for Bush this year, as compared with about 72 percent in 2000. Those votes certainly mattered, but only because the election was so close. In other words, marginal evangelical votes were important because the center did not move.

More precisely, the electorate's center did move, but only about 3 percentage points. That was about how much Bush improved his showing over 2000 in the average state he won twice, and it is also about the size of his margin of victory this year. It was enough to win him a close election, but hardly a breakthrough.

If anything structurally important happened in 2004, it was that the country moved to the right a little, but the Republican Party moved to the right a lot. John Kerry's Democrats aimed for the center and nearly got there, whereas Bush pulled right. He won, of course, but in doing so he painted his party a brighter shade of red—especially on Capitol Hill, and above all in the Senate, some of whose new Republican members seem nothing short of extreme.

The upshot is that Washington's governing establishment has moved further to the right of the country, and of the world, that Washington seeks to lead. A 50-50 country has produced a lopsided government and a sore temptation for Republicans to overreach. If they steer hard to starboard, they may capsize the boat.

more

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

PROFILE OF LIBERTY COUNCIL'S MAT STAVER

here

posted by Eve at 3:35 AM | link 0 comments

CT CIVIL UNIONS BILL LIKELY: From the Danbury News-Times

On Election Day, voters in 11 states approved constitutional bans on gay marriage. But when the Connecticut legislature meets in January, the state may buck the national trend.

Democrats hold strong majorities in both houses of the legislature. The party's leaders favor some sort of civil unions which would grant same-sex couples many of the same rights as married heterosexual couples.

Rep. Robert Godfrey, D-Danbury, and other lawmakers say it is almost inevitable that a gay union measure will become law in the 2005 session of General Assembly.

"Connecticut may be the first state in the nation where the legislature cobbles something together," said Godfrey, the chairman of the screening committee that decides which bills go to the House floor. "I have yet to meet a colleague that says it will not happen. There will be a resolution this year." ...

Two other New England states have expanded rights for same-sex couples in recent years. But Vermont's civil unions and Massachusetts' gay marriages were court-ordered. The judicial branch is not forcing the hand of Connecticut's legislature.

At least not yet.

However, earlier this year, seven same-sex couples filed suit to force Connecticut to legalize gay marriage. Some preliminary hearings have been held on the case, which is pending in New Haven Superior Court. The case is expected to take at least two years to decide; most observers expect it to end up before the state Supreme Court.

Lawmakers on both sides say they would prefer legislature to deal with the matter before they face a court order. ...

Gay marriage opponents were particularly vocal when Vermont began issuing civil union licenses on July 1, 2000. But now, in some eyes, approving civil unions is almost a compromise position. Even President Bush -- a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage -- has said he might be willing to accept state-sanctioned unions.

more

posted by Eve at 10:14 PM | link 0 comments

SIGN OF THE TIMES: Maggie Gallagher

I got an email today headlined: "Your an ignorant biggot."

I'm telling you all so I can muster the self-mastery not to bother the poor chap with the obvious.

posted by Eve at 10:03 PM | link 0 comments

GOP TO PRESS FOR FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: From the Boston Globe

Emboldened by the 11-state sweep of bans on same-sex marriage Nov. 2, conservative leaders intend to fuel the debate further when they return with an expanded majority to the next Congress, and press vulnerable Democrats into an awkward corner over the divisive issue.

There is little chance a federal constitutional amendment will pass the House or Senate with the necessary two-thirds' majority, but advocates expect it to be reintroduced in both chambers, prompting a vote that would placate conservatives and could then be used against Democrats up for reelection in 2006.

With as many as 15 states poised to introduce their own same-sex marriage bans in the next two years, following a campaign that proved the political potency of the issue, Republicans see it as one of their most powerful issues heading into the 109th Congress. ...

Gay-rights advocates strongly disagree and cite polling data that show many voters support civil unions and oppose a step as drastic as a constitutional amendment, preferring to leave decisions about marriage to the states. ...

At the state level, ban opponents are considering introducing their own ballot initiatives, stopping short of same-sex marriage but ensuring domestic-partner provisions, such as healthcare benefits and visitation rights.

At the federal level, where a constitutional ban failed in both houses of Congress last year, both sides are floating a number of proposals in the hope of working toward a national consensus on same-sex marriage. One proposal, backed by groups opposing same-sex marriage, would bar the federal courts from hearing cases that would extend gay marriage beyond states that allow it.

more

posted by Eve at 5:20 PM | link 0 comments

CA DOMESTIC-PARTNER LAW UNDER FIRE: From the Palm Springs Desert Sun

Activists trying to overturn state laws granting major legal rights and obligations to domestic partners Friday announced a new two-track legal and political strategy. The challengers said they will appeal a trial court decision that upheld the law, which primarily takes effect Jan. 1, and will try to recall the judge who rendered the trial court decision.

"This (trial court) judge has not jealously guarded the vote of the people to protect marriage," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, an advocacy group. "This is gay marriage by another name," he said of the targeted laws.

Steve Hansen, lobbyist for Equality California, said the recall was a spiteful reaction to losing the case. "Because they didn’t win, they are going after the character of this judge rather than the issues brought up in his ruling," Hansen said.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster, who upheld the domestic partner laws and is the recall target, had no comment Friday on the campaign to unseat him. But Attorney General Bill Lockyer condemned the recall bid for trying, in his words, to reduce judges to being "political weather vanes." ...

At issue are the sweeping Assembly Bill 205 and the narrower AB 25. A statewide domestic partner registry was established in 1999 and AB 205 expands the rights and responsibilities of registrants so they are similar but not equal to married couples.

Among the issues covered by AB 205 are community property ownership; child custody, visitation and financial support; autopsy and burial of remains of a deceased partner; health insurance coverage, pension rights and family and medical leave; mutual responsibility for debts to third parties, and state government-regulated benefits like workers’ compensation. These rights also apply to unmarried seniors who register as domestic partners.

more

posted by Eve at 5:17 PM | link 0 comments

WILL FAMILIES BENEFIT FROM TAX REFORM?: Joseph A. D'Agostino

...Bush has not endorsed the flat tax, only tax simplification, and maybe this is the reason why: the most popular versions of the flat tax could raise taxes on many middle-class families.

Many conservative, pro-family advocates have long supported a flat tax for its salutary effect on families, such as its elimination of the marriage penalty--which is still around, though in reduced form since the 2000 elections. "An additional benefit of a single tax rate is that it will eliminate the insidious 'marriage penalty,' which taxes married couples at a higher rate than if the man and woman filed singly as individuals," wrote Randy Tate, former Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, on July 9, 1999. "At a time when family breakups are all too common, tax policy should place government on the side of America's families. . . But a flat tax does more than simply hand a windfall tax cut to American families--it encourages economic growth. By taxing income only once (unlike the current system, which taxes income when we make it and again when we save it and earn interest), a flat tax encourages savings and investment. Small family businesses will have incentives to invest on the basis of what makes the most financial sense, not what constitutes the best tax write-off."

At a time when more and more families are starting small businesses or relying on income from working for them--most job creation in this country is by small businesses--that can make a big difference. The increased productivity and economic growth triggered by a flat tax could be its greatest advantage. ...

But there is a danger in the flat tax. Although in the long term it would lead to higher incomes, in the short term it could lead to higher taxes on families which now benefit from the $1,000-per-child tax credit, assuming it is not allowed to expire under the current system. Entin calculates that a family with four children making $50,000 a year could owe about $1,500 more under an Armey-style flat tax with a 17% rate. A similar family making $70,000 could owe more than $2,000 a year. A flat tax that doesn't include a tax cut but is revenue-neutral could even raise taxes on many families with two children, said Berthoud.

Flat tax proponents need to find a way to ensure that their idea doesn't lead to tax hikes on families. Otherwise, there are a lot of people in Middle America whose support they won't earn.

more

posted by Eve at 4:07 PM | link 0 comments

LESSONS FROM PAPER'S OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT: From the Lexington Herald-Leader

[Posting this b/c I find it very interesting (though not surprising) how monolithically newspaper editorial boards opposed the marriage amendments, and this is the only piece I've seen about it. --Eve]

The only thing more gratifying than seeing Kentuckians give an overwhelming vote of support for the institution of marriage is seeing the Herald-Leader get so upset about it.

How many editorials has it written condemning those who supported the amendment and bemoaning the fact that 75 percent of Kentuckians approved the Marriage Protection Amendment? Ten? Eleven? Twelve?

If a politician were repudiated by the margin the Herald-Leader was, the paper would be writing editorials about how out of touch he was. But when you're the one who's out of touch, it's hard to know exactly how far. The media's condescending attitude in the debate over the definition of marriage is at the heart of only one of the many lessons that can be gleaned from the amendment's passage.

more

posted by Eve at 3:48 PM | link 0 comments

AMENDMENT TESTS LOOM: From the Deseret Morning News

...Newly passed Amendment 3 takes effect Jan. 1, but already Utah lawyers are exploring ways to employ this legal standard -- based on its second sentence, which prevents the legal recognition of any domestic union that is the same, or substantially equivalent, to a marriage.

Salt Lake attorney Mary Corporon recently filed a motion for a male client who contends that Amendment 3 makes it unconstitutional to enforce a court protective order that his former live-in girlfriend got from a judge.

..."If you have two people who occupy the same space together, a man and a woman in a romantic relationship, and the court steps in and says, 'One of you gets to occupy the space you have and the other doesn't,' that begins to look like a marriage breaking up and the temporary protective orders issued in divorces," Corporon said. ...

Attorney Monte Stewart, co-chairman of Utahns for a Better Tomorrow, which supported the amendment, said arguments such as Corporon's are bad ones that will ultimately fail.

"Lawyers representing clients, especially in criminal cases, are obligated to throw up just about everything and anything they can think of," Stewart said. "That's just the nature of the system. As they throw these arguments up, one by one, they will be rejected." ...

Corporon -- who did not support Amendment 3 -- is nonetheless using it to represent her client by contending that a protective order in essence grants property rights to the girlfriend because the order forbids the man from coming into the apartment they shared. But this couple cannot have "substantially equivalent" rights as married people because they were never wed, she argues. ...

Stewart, however, said lawyers who present such legal defenses probably have two motives -- to defend a client and their own position against Amendment 3.

"A number of lawyers said it's going to cause unforeseen consequences," Stewart said. "They have a personal and a vested interest in getting to the point they can say 'I told you so.'" ...

But Corporon predicts the amendment now will be used in ways that could affect criminal, family and probate law, as well as such things as debt collection.

"We will all start to fight out one case at a time what Amendment 3 means," Corporon said.

"I know from 25 years of doing family law there are court orders out there which order somebody to pay alimony to somebody under a common law marriage decree and divorce. Somebody who's ordered to pay alimony would have a huge incentive to say, 'You can no longer enforce your decree against me because it's unconstitutional, so I'm going to stop writing my alimony checks,' " Corporon said.

more

posted by Eve at 3:39 PM | link 0 comments

DATA SCARCE ON MASS. SSM: From the Washington Times

Same-sex "marriage" has been legal in Massachusetts for about six months, but research on the topic likely will remain scarce for a while because the state's Department of Public Health does not plan to release any data on the couples for at least a year.

Recent studies and press reports offer only a few contemporary glimpses into same-sex "marriage." For instance, it appears that lesbians are more likely to want to "marry" than homosexual men. Lesbian couples also are more likely to have children in the home than are male couples. Early tallies of same-sex "marriages" in Massachusetts, plus the unions performed illegally by local officials in California, Oregon and other states, indicate that nearly 11,000 couples lined up for marriage licenses this year. This is about 2 percent of the 594,391 same-sex partnered homes in the United States that the 2000 census found.

The U.S. Census Bureau also counted 415,970 children living in same-sex-couple households--a minuscule figure compared with activist groups' estimate of 6 million to 14 million children living with a homosexual parent. ...

In Massachusetts, surveys by the Boston Globe and Mass Equality, a homosexual-rights group, estimated that two-thirds of that state's same-sex "marriage" licenses went to lesbians. The Globe said at least 2,500 couples signed up for licenses when they became legal in May. An unknown number have been issued since then, although the Globe recently reported that some areas average two application requests per week.

more

posted by Eve at 3:34 PM | link 0 comments

TO AVOID DIVORCE, MOVE TO MASS.: From the New York Times

[more here, here --Eve]

If blue states care less about moral values, why are divorce rates so low in the bluest of the blue states? It's a question that intrigues conservatives, as much as it emboldens liberals.

As researchers have noted, the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest are also frequently the areas where many conservative Christians live.

Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003, based on figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.

The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage. ...

Some people, like Bridget Maher, an analyst on marriage and family issues at the conservative Family Research Council, attribute it almost entirely to the religions in the different regions. "The Northeast and Midwest have high populations of Catholics and Lutherans and they have lower divorce rates than other Christians," she said. ...

Many experts believe the explanation to be more multidimensional, with high divorce rates tied to factors like younger age of marriage, less education and lower socioeconomic status. ...

Ms. Whitehead, who lives in Amherst, Mass., said that New England is a region that has "more stability" than other regions. "People stay here, their families stay here, and there's more social and family support for people, a more communal versus individualistic culture in New England compared to the cowboy states."

She said religion may underscore those regional differences.

"In states with lots of evangelicals, the more individualistic Protestant religious faiths may actually also encourage more go-it-alone attitudes than communal ones," Ms. Whitehead said. And these are also states where the culture encourages sexual abstinence before marriage, she said.

"If your family or religious culture urges you not to have sex before you get married," she said, "then one answer is to get married, and then you're more likely to divorce."

more

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