|
 |
 |
 Saturday, November 27, 2004
TAKING EXCEPTIONS: Eve replies to Andrew Sullivan
Okay, as you might guess, I have a bunch of problems with Sullivan's recent post on procreation and marriage and stuff. I could yap about how procreation is obviously not the sole guiding standard of marriage law, since, if it was, polygamy would be a-okay (boy can those folks procreate!), so perhaps something more complex is going on, hmm? I could growl about Sullivan's interpretation of rational basis review as a license to erase any law that doesn't make sense to a majority of the New York Times editorial board or the faculty of Harvard Law. But whatever. These things bore me. I want to talk about a methodological problem with Sullivan's approach, which I haven't seen other people address yet. Warning: rambling ahead, more questions than statements. Sullivan basically says, If marriage were really "about" procreation in some interesting sense, we wouldn't let people marry unless they could prove they were able and willing to procreate. Let me quote: "Maybe these non-reproducers can have civil unions until they reproduce. Maybe they can get married, but have their licenses revoked after five years if no babies are forthcoming." Earlier, Sullivan notes that "civil marriage is available to any straight couple, regardless of their willingness or ability to have children." But this same approach could "prove" that marriage isn't really about care, or sexual fidelity, or personal loyalty, in any interesting sense, given that we obviously let couples marry with no proof of any of the above, and even in the teeth of the evidence. We don't forcibly divorce or annul marriages where one partner can be shown to be unfaithful, uncaring, or disloyal. Civil marriage is available to any man/woman couple, regardless of their willingness to be faithful, care for one another, or even have sex. How much can exceptions teach us? If we look at what you can get away with under the law, how much does that really tell us about what the law ought to be or how it ought to approach new cases and questions? Would same-sex marriage be just another exception? What about other "expansions" of the marriage right, like (again) polygamy? Presumably most people wouldn't want it. So would it be just another exception? In order to answer these questions, I think we have to a) figure out what marriage is for, not what you can get away with under the law (since surely marriage has a purpose beyond the circular "some people want to get married!"); b) realize that the law is never going to perfectly map onto culture or ideals, but it does shape culture and ideals; and c) recognize that marriage law has more than one element and purpose, but some elements are more essential than others.
REPLY TO ELIZABETH MARQUARDT: Barry Deutsch
...There's a genuine pattern here, I think. Elizabeth and others would like to use the government's powers to make it more likely that children will be raised by their own, married, biological parents. However, there's a general consensus - even, I think, within the marriage movement - that some ways of doing this (category A) are unreasonable and shouldn't be pursued. No one at the Institute for American Values (Elizabeth's employer) is suggesting that we bring back coverture or outlaw divorce, for example. So what differentiates category A from category B? The general principle seems to be that although the government should encourage childrearing by married bio-parents, in the name of the common good, it shouldn't do so at the expense of removing civil rights or endorsing outright discrimination. Instead, the government is allowed to use the methods in category B: the government can cajole, the government can persuade, the government can educate. Here's what puzzles me: I'm sure that Elizabeth would agree that the government should be doing a lot to encourage a society in which more children are raised by married bio-parents. I'm sure that she would also agree that some means of doing this are acceptable, and some are not. I suspect that if she made a list of acceptable and unacceptable methods, it might look pretty similar to my two lists above. It seems obvious to me that refusing to recognize same-sex marriage belongs in category A, similar to refusing to recognize divorce, refusing to recognize interracial marriage, and so forth. But Elizabeth must think it belongs in category B, similar to providing tax breaks and marriage education programs. And I genuinely don't understand why. more
COURT EXTENDS RIGHTS TO GAY MOM: From the Indianapolis Star
When female partners in Indiana agree to conceive a child through artificial insemination, both partners are the legal parents, according to a groundbreaking decision this week by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court also chided state lawmakers for being slow to deal with advances in reproductive technology, urging the legislature to address the "current social reality" of unconventional families. "No (legitimate) reason exists to provide the children born to lesbian parents through the use of reproductive technology with less security and protection than that given to children born to heterosexual parents through artificial insemination," Judge Ezra H. Friedlander wrote in the ruling issued Wednesday. ... The appeals court overturned the ruling of Monroe Circuit Judge Kenneth G. Todd, who found Dawn King had no legal standing with the girl born to her former partner, Stephanie Benham, because King was not a biological parent. The child is 5 years old. ... Previously in Indiana, the only way for same-sex partners to each attain legal parent status was through a "second-parent adoption," a costly undertaking that grants parental rights to a nonbiological parent. However, some judges in Indiana have refused to allow the second-parent adoptions for same-sex partners. Fishers attorney Sean C. Lemieux, who represented King, said the case is about the rights of parents and children and was based on a state Supreme Court ruling involving a married heterosexual couple who had a child through artificial insemination. "It is not the courts that have engendered the diverse composition of today's families," Friedlander wrote in the decision. "It is the advancement of reproductive technologies and society's recognition of alternative lifestyles that have produced families in which a biological, and therefore a legal, connection is no longer the sole organizing principle." more
SAME-SEX COUPLES WIN CANADIAN PENSION FIGHT: From the Globe and Mail
The federal government violated the rights of gays and lesbians by depriving them of more than $100-million in survivor pension benefits, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The court said that limitations that denied benefits to those whose partners died before 1998, and paid benefits only for the period after July, 2000, were arbitrary and harmed the survivors both emotionally and financially. Moreover, they were rooted in a mistaken belief that notions about same-sex equality came into being only in recent years, the judges said. "The impairment of the rights of same-sex survivors cannot be said to be minimal," a 3-0 majority ruled. "The denial of equal access to such a fundamental social institution constituted a complete non-recognition of these same-sex survivors as full members of Canadian society." ... Its ruling was another triumph for a group with a record of success since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into being in 1982. "It's just too bad we have to keep fighting through the courts," said R. Douglas Elliott, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. Mr. Elliott said in an interview that at least 1,500 surviving spouses will benefit from the ruling, a number that would have been considerably higher had AIDS not killed so many couples. more Friday, November 26, 2004
MARRIAGE, PROCREATION, AND THE CONSTITUTION: Justin Katz replies to Andrew Sullivan and Allan Carlson (comments well worth your time also)
Advocates of same-sex marriage have a thin beam on which to balance. On one hand, they have to argue in such a way as to leave the path through the courts -- the only currently viable route for their cause -- both practically and rhetorically open. On the other hand, they have to allay fears of precisely that path in order to prevent the courts from being restrained. This makes for some stunning reversals. For the case in point, begin with Allan Carlson's Family Research Council piece on the link between marriage and procreation. Carlson traces the connection, historically, back to the days of the Roman Empire's decline; theologically, he traces it through the New Testament back into the very foundation of Judeo-Christian religious tradition. He then examines the factors that have contributed to its decline and offers some strategies for reinvigorating it. How do you suppose somebody like, say, Andrew Sullivan might respond to such a piece? Well, as it happens, Sullivan responded by making the case for the Federal Marriage Amendment (emphasis Sullivan's): The basic problem for the anti-gay marriage forces is that they are upholding a marital standard for gays that no one any longer upholds for straights. And this obvious inequality--recognized even by Scalia, for example--cannot withstand judicial scrutiny under any reasonable standard of equal treatment under the law. Thats why I think it's hyperbole to describe the Massachusetts court of judicial "activism." The argument of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was that gays couldn't marry because they couldn't procreate. Once it was obvious that this standard did not apply to heterosexuals, the court had no choice but to strike down the inequality. It was not a radical decision at all. It was an inescapable one. ...So, despite my expectation of disagreement when I began reading Sullivan's post at the urging of an emailer, I find that he and I are of like mind: an amendment to the Constitution is necessary if the citizens of the United States of America want the law's definition of marriage to accord with the culture's definition, and not the other way around. Oh, he'll insist that those citizens only "have to amend a state constitution," but if the decision of Massachusetts' high court was "inescapable," it is a thin ruse to insist that the same would not be true for the nation's high court. more
YOUTH CULTURE: Marty McKeever
For a year we've heard that "the majority of youth support same-sex marriage," the implication being that these kids are more enlightened and will ALWAYS support it. I'm 38 and young enough to remember being just that kindof open-minded kid. But I'm old enough to see that opinions change drastically when people marry and become parents. If your priorities are limited to the next 6-18 months of your car/apt/job/lover, you're going to have a whole different perspective than they will when you're concerned not just about your own kids, but theirs, and theirs as well.
BRIDE AND PREJUDICE: From the New Haven Advocate
The Senate's most zealous Christian conservative loses his seat to a Democrat who favors near-gay-marriage. The Republican chief executive "supports equal rights and opposes discrimination in any form for any couple." What planet are we on? Planet Connecticut, 2004. ... "The real discussion," says state Rep. Mike Lawlor, "seems to be whether you want to settle for civil unions or hold out for marriage." ... You remember civil unions. Four years ago when Vermont became the first (and so far only) state to allow this marriage-in-all-but-name, it was revolutionary. Opponents predicted that legislators who voted for civil unions--in order to comply with a state Supreme Court ruling--would lose their jobs that fall. Most stayed in office. By now, a large majority of Vermont voters support civil unions. As do a majority of Connecticut voters: 59 percent in a Quinnipiac poll this June, 74 percent in a UConn poll in April. ... There's one point on which Brown and Lawlor agree: Civil unions are marriage by a different name (though the name is an important difference). And if the first one passes, the goal will be to make it a stepping-stone to the second. more
THE RELIGIOUS REVIVAL, GAY MARRIAGE, AND FEDERALISM: Dale Carpenter
...Exit polls showed that 27 percent of voters favor gay marriage, while 35 percent favor "civil unions." This led some excited gay pundits to proclaim that a whopping 62 percent of the public favors gay marriage or its equivalent. Don't believe it. Polls on gay marriage cannot be trusted. They systematically undercount opposition, often by 10 or more percentage points, as they did before the election. As for civil unions, it's doubtful most people understand what the term means, much less understand it in the way gay activists do. Confronted with a polling question containing the actual definition ("Should homosexual couples receive all of the benefits and privileges of marriage, albeit under a different name?"), public support would drop. Informed specifically that gay couples in a civil union would have a right equal to married couples to adopt children, public support would likely fall to levels close to the support for gay marriage. But there's a deeper reason to be concerned, deeper than particular fights over state amendments. We may be in the midst of a long-term religious revival, a periodic fact of life in this country's history. The revival has been most pronounced among Christian evangelicals who cleave to a literal -- and anti-gay -- interpretation of the Bible. ... This leads to my third suggestion. In the face of resurgent anti-gay religiosity, our best bet is to defend the principle of federalism. ... Federalism-based arguments are the only thing that saved us from a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage this past summer. more
PROFILE OF PHIL BURRESS: In the New York Times
...It is easy to think of the campaign to ban same-sex marriage as a recent phenomenon, one orchestrated by prominent Christian conservatives and Republican Party officials. But the movement's backbone is built on little-known activists like Mr. Burress, a former union organizer who has devoted the last decade of his life to stopping gay marriage. To understand Mr. Burress's story is to see not only where his movement has come from, but also where it may be going. Just days after their thundering victories in the fall elections, Mr. Burress and other Christian conservative leaders met in Washington to discuss next year's constitutional amendment battles, which will focus on about 10 states, including Arizona, Florida and Kansas. They hope those fights will be the prelude to their real goal: amending the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, which could take years. Beyond that, Mr. Burress plans to take his grass-roots movement in Ohio to a new level, using a computer database of 1.5 million voters to build a network of Christian conservative officials, candidates and political advocates. He envisions holding town-hall-style meetings early next year in Ohio's 88 counties to identify issues, recruit organizers and train volunteers. With a cadre of 15 to 20 leaders in each county, he says he believes religious conservatives can be running school boards, town councils and county prosecutors' offices across the state within a few years. more
COUPLES USE A.G.'S WORDS AGAINST HIM IN CALIF. CASE: From the San Francisco Chronicle
A group of gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco are trying to use Attorney General Bill Lockyer's cautious defense of California's ban on same-sex marriage to their advantage as they challenge the law. In separate filings Monday before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, lawyers for the couples and the city claimed that Lockyer had virtually conceded one of their main points--that domestic partnership falls far short of marriage, even under a new California law that provides partners many of the same benefits as spouses. That law is due to take effect Jan. 1, but is also being challenged in court. Kramer is scheduled to hear arguments Dec. 22 on whether the ban on same- sex marriage discriminates unconstitutionally on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Lockyer, in a filing last month, contended California has a policy of treating intimate partners equally--as illustrated by the domestic partner law--but is entitled to follow "the deeply rooted and historic understanding of marriage.'' ... Stephen Bomse, a lawyer for 12 couples seeking the right to marry, said Lockyer had undercut his own argument with his position in a separate case in Sacramento, in which Lockyer defended the domestic partner law by maintaining that it was less than marriage. In that suit, opponents of gay rights claimed that the new law was the equivalent of same-sex marriage, which California voters prohibited in 2000. A Sacramento Superior Court judge disagreed in September and now faces a recall petition. "The attorney general eloquently explained that California's dual system of marriage laws and domestic partnership laws carefully maintain second-class status for same-sex couples and their families,'' Bomse wrote. He cited Lockyer's recitation in the Sacramento case of the rights enjoyed only by married couples--including joint tax returns, nationwide recognition and federal benefits--and quoted Lockyer's statement that "marriage has a unique role in society that no domestic partnership law or civil union can duplicate.'' more Tuesday, November 23, 2004
"TWO MOMS, NO HARM" STUDY
Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, Charlotte J. Patterson Child Development; Volume 75, Issue 6, Page 1886
IS GAY MARRIAGE INEVITABLE?: Maggie Gallagher
This is the argument more than any other single argument, that gay marriage advocate have successfully preached. See for example this quote from a recent Associated Press story: "But William Sinkford, president the Unitarian Universalist Association, said strong support for gay marriage among younger churchgoers makes it widespread acceptance inevitable. " Is it true? Has the next generation made up its mind on gay marriage. iMAPP has just released a new policy brief summarizing 8 national polls on young adult opinion. The results surprised us. I think you'd be interested too. If you'd like the pdf shoot Josh Baker an email at joshua@imapp.org. And let me know what you think.
MARRIAGE AND PROCREATION: Andrew Sullivan
Kudos to the Family Research Council for intellectual honesty. Here's a frank argument by one Allan Carson, conceding what is now obvious: it is very hard to hold the line against civil marriage for gay couples on the grounds that they cannot procreate. The reason is that civil marriage is available to any straight couple, regardless of their willingness or ability to have chidren. And this national consensus is now decades old.... Well, yes. The basic problem for the anti-gay marriage forces is that they are upholding a marital standard for gays that no one any longer upholds for straights. And this obvious inequality -- recognized even by Scalia, for example -- cannot withstand judicial scrutiny under any reasonable standard of equal treatment under the law. Thats why I think it's hyperbole to describe the Massachusetts court of judicial "activism." The argument of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was that gays couldn't marry because they couldn't procreate. Once it was obvious that this standard did not apply to heterosexuals, the court had no choice but to strike down the inequality. It was not a radical decision at all. It was an inescapable one. And that's why even a conservative court like Alaska's upheld it. And that's why you really do have to amend a state constitution to prevent its guarantees of equality from being applied to gay citizens. ...Carlson has another suggestion: Perhaps we should restrict some of the legal and welfare benefits of civil marriage solely to those married during their time of natural, procreative potential: for women, below the age of 45 or so (for men, in the Age of Viagra, the line would admittedly be harder to draw). That works too. And when you see the issue this way, you can see why the current effort to focus only on excluding gay citizens is so unfair. If non-procreative, companionate marriage is the civil norm, then you simply don't have a case against gay couples having marriage licenses. And if you keep this standard for straights, while forcing gays alone to bear the burden of your battle against four decades of marital evolution, then you are being deeply, deeply unfair. So which is it? A new standard? Or equality now? more
CA PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER FACES CHURCH CHARGES FOR GAY MARRIAGE: From the Marin Independent Journal
A Presbyterian minister in Marin County is facing an internal church trial for presiding over the marriage of two gay men earlier this year in Canada. The Rev. Janie Spahr married the men, Douglas Potter and Gregory Partridge, in a ceremony last February in Ontario and announced the wedding on a Web site she operates. The announcement raised no hackles in Marin County, where Spahr is affiliated with the Westminster Presbyterian Church in Tiburon, nor in the Presbytery of the Redwoods, the church's regional governing body in Napa. But the announcement caught the eye of the Rev. James Berkley, a traditionalist church official in Bellevue, Wash. When Berkley contacted officials at the Napa presbytery and demanded to know what they intended to do about Spahr's possible breach of the church Constitution, the presbytery opened an official investigation. A team of five church investigators conducted an inquiry and will present the case at a pretrial hearing next month before the Permanent Judicial Commission, an elected, seven-member court in the Redwoods presbytery. The trial could take place in January, said Joan Runyeon of San Rafael, a top official at the presbytery. ... The Presbyterian Church (USA), with 2.5 million members nationwide, has a constitution that defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. In 2000, the church's highest court ruled that ministers can bless same-sex unions, but cannot marry gay couples. But recent events have clouded the issue. more
THE RISE OF THE VALUES VOTERS: Maggie Gallagher
...To its everlasting credit, the Pew Research Center has just released a new poll, "Moral Values: How Important?," that should settle this debate definitively. Pew asked respondents to select from the same seven-issue list that exit pollsters had given, and then asked those who chose "moral values" to explain what the term meant. In the Pew poll, like the exit poll, moral values emerged as the single most important issue, named by 27 percent of the electorate, compared to 22 percent for Iraq, 21 percent for the economy/jobs, and 14 percent for terrorism. Voters who cared most about Iraq were 34 percent of Kerry voters but just 11 percent of Bush voters. Terrorism voters constituted 24 percent of Bush voters but 3 percent of Kerry voters. David Brooks is just plain wrong: Add up the Bush voters who picked either Iraq or terrorism as their main issue and you get to only 35 percent of the Bush vote (compared to 44 percent who picked moral values). Only 4 percent of Bush voters picked taxes as their main issue. Which means that even if you create a "catch-all" category consisting of the other main GOP issues -- Iraq/terrorism and taxes -- you get to just 39 percent of Bush voters. "Moral values" is still the single most important element of the GOP coalition, at least in terms of what voters say matters to them. But what do the voters mean by "moral values?" Here too the Pew poll makes it clear that voters were not at all confused by what they meant. When voters who chose moral values as their most important issue were asked "what comes to mind when you think about 'moral values,'" 44 percent named specific issues (29 percent said gay marriage, 32 percent said either abortion or stem cells). Eighteen percent said something like "God, the Bible, or religion," and 17 percent said some version of "traditional values" such as "family values," "right versus wrong," living by a "moral code," or a "general decline in morality." About 23 percent gave some response that indicated a reference to the candidates' personal moral qualities. All told, 79 percent of values voters agreed that the phrase referred either to social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, or to traditional values generally, or to religion. (The numbers add up to slightly more than 100 percent because voters could list up to two items.) Voters who did not choose "moral values" were also asked what they thought the phrase meant, and though their pattern of responses varied from the values voters (12 percent gave negative responses such as, it's a "wedge" issue used against Democrats), some 71 percent also chose either "traditional values," social issues, or religion as its core meaning. ... Iraq and terrorism were part of the Bush victory. But without the values voters, even a wartime GOP president doesn't have a prayer. more Monday, November 22, 2004
ORE. LAWMAKER WHO SUPPORTED SSM BAN DRAFTING CIVIL UNIONS BILL: From The Advocate
Just a few weeks ago, Oregon state senator Ben Westlund voted yes on Measure 36 to ban same-sex marriages in Oregon. Now, the central Oregon lawmaker is hard at work drafting a civil unions bill for the 2005 legislature to give gay and lesbian couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples. "It's just the right thing to do," the Tumalo Republican says. "Nothing in Measure 36 prevents the legislature from affording equal rights and privileges to same-sex couples." ... A big question mark is how the Oregon supreme court will rule in a case resulting from Multnomah County's issuing of marriage licenses to nearly 3,000 gay and lesbian couples in March before a judge halted the practice. The supreme court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on December 15, and it's not clear how or whether Measure 36 affects the pending case. Gay rights supporters already have filed briefs urging the court to order the legislature to pass a law creating a civil union alternative to marriage for same-sex couples. Lawmakers aren't obligated to wait for the court, and Westlund said he and others are preparing to take up the challenge on their own. ... Westlund, for his part, said crafting a civil unions measure won't be an easy task. The Republican senator said that just in the initial stages of drafting his bill, he's found 436 state statutes that relate to marriage that might have to be amended or folded into any civil unions law. "It's going to be an extraordinarily complicated task, but it also will be a huge step forward," he said. more
WHY MARRIAGE EQUALITY WILL WIN: Andrew Sullivan
...Moreover, the broader climate showed remarkable acceptance of the union rights of gay couples. According to the exit polls, a full 62 percent of Americans favor either full marriage rights or civil unions for gay couples. Only 35 percent want what eight state amendments and the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) promise: no legal protections whatsoever. In the week before the election, the president himself came out in favor of civil unions. When you look at the context, what is striking is how weak the backlash was, not how strong. Marriage rights for gays were unheard of two decades ago. Only an eleven-year span marks the length of time since the first court decision for equality in marriage came down in Hawaii. That effort failed, of course. Actual marriage equality in America has been around for a matter of a mere six months. Six months. Backlash is not a rarety in civil rights movements. It is the norm. ... How do Democrats successfully deal with this issue? First, they must assert the federalist nature of the problem. In a country where San Francisco exists as well as Mobile, Alabama, a single national rule on this contentious issue can only provoke social conflict of the deepest kind. That means Democrats should oppose legalizing marriage rights nationally as strongly as they oppose banning them nationally. Let each state decide. That means opposing the FMA as an abuse of the U.S. Constitution and an infringement on states' rights (the FMA would void Massachusetts' marriages and Vermont's civil unions). This federalist point is not a liberal argument. It's a conservative one--and it will divide Republicans as effectively as it will unite Democrats. Secondly, the Democrats should be relentless in exposing the real agenda of the religious right. That agenda is not about marriage. It is about stripping gay couples of all legal protections for their relationships. Eight of the state amendments that just passed do exactly that. So does the FMA, in banning not just marriage for gay couples, but all the "legal incidents" that go with it. ... Lastly, the Democrats need to get over their squeamishness and defensiveness on this issue. The movement for equal marriage rights is, in fact, a centrist issue, and should be framed as such. Instead of speaking of it nervously as a matter of ending discrimination, and implying that all opponents are somehow prejudiced, Democrats need to use the positive language of faith and family to defend the reform. It should be framed as a way to bring all members of the family into the unifying institution of marriage; it must be spoken of as an issue that upholds responsibility and fidelity. more
UTAH MARRIAGE AMENDMENT HURTS WOMEN WHO WANT TO FLEE POLYGAMY: Paul Rolly
One unintended consequence of the voter-approved Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution may be the boon it could provide to the illegal practice of polygamy by discouraging unhappy plural wives from bolting. Tapestry Against Polygamy, a group that helps women who want to leave polygamist relationships, warned about that potential side effect before the amendment was approved by voters. But the warning went unheeded. Vickie Prunty, Tapestry's executive director, said before the election that Amendment 3 could deprive women of an opportunity to claim property rights and financial compensation from the polygamist husbands they want to leave. The amendment, which passed with more than a two-thirds majority, defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman. The second part of the amendment, which has raised concerns among Tapestry and others, including the Utah Attorney General's Office, says, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect." That, says Prunty, could either force women to stay in polygamy for economic reasons, or drive more of them, as well as other women in domestic partnerships not blessed with a marriage certificate, onto welfare rolls. "When there is a divorce with a legal wife, or a departure of a non-legal wife, they both need to be recognized by the courts to obtain an equitable portion of the commingled property," said Tapestry co-founder Rowenna Erickson. "When polygamists are forced to share their assets with former wives, more polygamist fathers will be held accountable and less taxes will be spent on an already exhausted welfare system." more
COURT SAYS BOTH IN GAY UNION ARE PARENTS: From the Washington Post
A Vermont family court has ruled that both parties in a same-sex civil union are legal parents of a child, a contradiction of an earlier Virginia court ruling that awarded custody to the biological parent. The cases center on Lisa and Janet Miller-Jenkins, who were joined in a civil union in the Green Mountain State in 2000 and split up last year. They are now embroiled in a contentious custody dispute over Isabella, 2, to whom Lisa Miller-Jenkins gave birth in Virginia after being artificially inseminated. Janet Miller-Jenkins is her former partner in a Vermont civil union. In August, Frederick County Judge John R. Prosser ruled that Lisa Miller-Jenkins is Isabella's "sole parent," citing a Virginia law that prohibits recognition of same-sex unions. But in a Nov. 17 ruling, Rutland Family Court Judge William D. Cohen in Vermont wrote that "parties to a civil union who use artificial insemination to conceive a child can be treated no differently than a husband and wife, who, unable to conceive a child biologically, choose to conceive a child by inseminating the wife with the sperm of an anonymous donor." ... In most custody disputes, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act helps states resolve jurisdictional issues. But it is unclear how that law applies to cases involving same-sex relationships that have legal standing in some states but not in others. more
DEMS NEED TO CALL BLUFF OF ANTI-GAY CROWD: Deb Price
...How can the mousy Democrats get off the defensive and outfox their deceitful rivals? Unmask the amend-the-Constitution crowd that bogusly claims not to have an anti-gay agenda. Expose them for what they are -- way out of step with mainstream America on guaranteeing all Americans essential legal protections. ... The Senate Democrats' new leadership team ought to use its fresh start to get "the gay thing" right: Seize the national spotlight by making every senator vote on a host of everyday protections that most Americans want those of us who're gay to share. Call the bluff of Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist, who helped trap the Democrats in their "Groundhog Day" misery by cornering them on marriage. Call his bluff by saying, "Want to talk about gay couples? Fine, let's vote on whether to protect gay families from job bias. Let's vote on whether it's right to continue to levy an extra tax on gay couples' joint health insurance. Let's vote on whether it's moral to leave gay parents vulnerable when a child needs emergency surgery." By getting away with talking about gay couples only in terms of the lightning rod marriage issue, the amend-the-Constitution gang keeps Democrats and moderate Republicans quivering, creates the false impression that gay Americans already enjoy every protection short of marriage, and camouflages how anti-gay the gang tends to be. Imagine how hollow it would sound for amend-the-Constitution senators to claim "I don't have anything against homosexuals" if they had to defend such votes as continuing to allow Social Security to exclude elderly gay couples from its protective safety net. more
CALIF. DEMS RENEW SSM PUSH: From the San Jose Mercury News
If at first you don't succeed, should you really try, try again? It's a question that could dog Democrats as two of the most controversial social issues in California -- gay marriage and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants -- come up again when lawmakers return Dec. 6. By tradition, many legislators use the first day of the session to introduce a favorite bill, and Assemblyman Mark Leno and Sen. Gil Cedillo don't plan to wait another day. They plan to promptly introduce bills to legalize same-sex nuptials and driver's licenses for undocumented workers, again. ... Even with this backdrop, Democrats Leno and Cedillo say they plan to forge ahead, arguing that their party will gain support -- not lose it -- by doing what they view as the right thing. Many prominent Democrats support them. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, for example, championed the driver's license issue last year, and he has signed on as a joint author of the gay-marriage bill. But privately, some Democrats wonder if their party is drifting away from public sentiment at its peril. ''If Democrats aren't careful, the driver's license and gay-marriage bills could be the real assisted-suicide measures this year,'' said one Democratic strategist, alluding to lawmakers' plans to push a controversial right-to-die bill, too. ... Leno, who is gay, said he does not ''buy the premise'' that gay-marriage missteps helped Bush. Nevertheless, he acknowledged, ''certainly the question is asked: Is this the right time?'' ''Well, when is the best time? I would tell you that law-abiding, tax-paying, loving same-sex families have lived with the injustice of the current law far too long.'' He speaks passionately about people who are denied pensions or who have lost homes after a partner's death. more
LAW CHALLENGES UNION BENEFITS FOR GAY PAIRS: From the Detroit News
It didn't take long for Michigan to feel the impact of its new ban on gay marriage. With five state unions about to ratify new contracts that allow gay workers to extend their benefits to domestic partners, several groups are likely to use the new law to challenge those benefits. The American Family Association of Michigan, which helped lead the fight for the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, said its passage prohibits the state from treating gay relationships as similar to marriages. ... But the unions said they were just as willing to defend the benefits if they're challenged by anyone. The state's biggest union, UAW Local 6000, said it expected the state to live up to the spirit of the new contracts. "We believe an agreement is an agreement and a deal is a deal," said union President Sharon Rivera. Rivera said the proposed agreement shouldn't be affected by the amendment because it was reached before the voters approved the new law. But Glenn said the tentative accord hasn't been finalized yet, so therefore it should come under the purview of the new amendment. The new state contracts would go into effect in October 2005. more Sunday, November 21, 2004
CONSERVATIVES URGE CLOSER LOOK AT MARRIAGE: From the Associated Press
[Obviously this is a shocking, unexpected new development (sigh). Still, props to the AP for noticing the broader contemporary attempt to renew marriage. --Eve] "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution. "When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues. While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats to marriage's place in society. "If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated--if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness--then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside." ... Carlson decries no-fault divorce, where neither spouse is held responsible for the breakup, but acknowledges that its demise is not imminent. He proposes more modest steps: tax revisions benefiting married couples, a more positive portrayal of marriage in textbooks, policies aiding young college graduates so they could afford to marry sooner. In several of the states that approved gay-marriage bans on Nov. 2, initiatives are underway to bolster heterosexual marriage. A bill pending in Michigan's legislature would encourage premarital education; Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and his wife have invited 1,000 couples to join them in a Valentine's Day covenant marriage ceremony in which they would voluntarily reduce their options for a quick divorce. more
IRISH VOTERS ON SSM: From the Sunday Independent
A LARGE minority of voters in Ireland--almost 40 per cent--are in favour of gay marriages being allowed in this country, according to a Sunday Independent/ Millward Brown IMS opinion poll. But there is still staunch opposition to such a move, with 50 per cent of all voters opposed to the idea of same-sex couples getting marriage rights in this country. Yesterday, the Minister for Justice Michael McDowell threw his weight behind the idea of "legal recognition" as Catholic bishops spoke of the need for "just treatment", "consideration" and "respect" for gay couples. A surprisingly high 39 per cent of those questioned were in favour of the suggestion that same-sex couples should be legally allowed to marry in Ireland. 50 per cent were opposed to the idea and 11 per cent undecided. Voters were questioned days after Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said he wanted gay couples in established relationships to have more equal legal rights in matters such as tax and inheritance. ... The issue is becoming hugely contentious. Pope John Paul II yesterday warned countries, including Ireland, against attempts to tamper with what he called "the irreplaceable" institution of marriage-based family, saying that such efforts would deeply wound society. ... The results also reflect concern within the Catholic church that granting legal recognition to couples who live together would undermine the status of married couples. ... The bishops are to discuss the issue at their conference next month. They are likely to urge the Government to afford special treatment to married couples, in a submission to an all-party Oireachtas committee that is examining the role and definition of the family in the Constitution. Minister McDowell echoed some of those comments yesterday and said he believed that some form of civil partnership would be preferred instead. He said: "This could offer greater flexibility than a form of marriage." "There are many co-habiting heterosexual couples. There may be brothers sharing a farm. There may be an elderly parent being supported by a child. I believe that it makes sense from the perspective of fairness and equality to expand the debate beyond same-sex relationships to include such people." more |
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|