|
 |
 |
 Saturday, December 11, 2004
THIS IS ALL I KNOW ABOUT THIS:
Supreme Court of Alaska rejects challenge to state law that prohibits a landlord from refusing to rent property based on the marital status of prospective tenants: You can access today's ruling at this link. --from How Appealing posted by Eve at 6:57 PM | link 0 comments 
MARCH DIVIDES KING FOLLOWERS: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
[Photos and "voices from the scene." --Eve] Some civil rights leaders are denouncing a decision by an influential black pastor to lead a march from the King Center calling for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Bishop Eddie Long, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Church, a predominantly black megachurch in Lithonia, will lead the march today from the King Center to Turner Field. Organizers of the demonstration said about 25,000 marchers were expected, including Bernice King, youngest daughter of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and an elder of the New Birth church. The church's Web site said the march advocates "a constitutional amendment to fully protect marriage between one man and one woman." Other goals include education reform, health care and creating wealth in the black community, the church said. "If Dr. King were here today, he wouldn't participate in this march," said U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a veteran of the civil rights movement who marched alongside King. "During the civil rights movement, we were trying to take discrimination out of the Constitution." ... Neither Bernice King nor her mother, Coretta Scott King, were available for comment on today's march, but they have spoken publicly about their beliefs on same-sex marriage in the past. Coretta Scott King said in March that constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages," she said during a speech at the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. Bernice King, the Kings' youngest daughter, expressed how she felt her father would have responded while speaking at a church in Auckland, New Zealand, in October: "I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions." more posted by Eve at 6:46 PM | link 0 comments
GAY GROUPS ARE DEBATING SOCIAL SECURITY: From the New York Times
...Leaders of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy group, said this week that they would consider supporting Social Security revisions that included private retirement accounts if the changes brought the right of gay partners to receive survivor benefits under the program. Because federal law does not recognize gay marriages, surviving partners of gay men and lesbians, and their nonbiological children, are not entitled to Social Security benefits. The political director of the Human Rights Campaign, Winnie Stachelberg, said on Friday that although the group did not endorse any particular approach to Social Security reform, it was willing to discuss changes that would extend equal benefits to gays and their partners. ... ''We have to talk about the denial of benefits in a way that people can hear,'' Ms. Stachelberg said. ''We have to say privatization might bring more equity to the system because it gives an individual more flexibility in designating a beneficiary. That addresses one concern of the gay and lesbian community, but it may raise others.'' That suggestion provoked a sharp protest from other gay and lesbian leaders. After the article was published, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sent a letter to all members of Congress saying the gay rights movement should not try to obtain equal rights at the expense of any other group of Americans. more posted by Eve at 6:40 PM | link 0 comments
Friday, December 10, 2004
WHY DON'T POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN DO THE SAME THING?: Mark Miller replies to Maggie Gallagher
Maggie writes, To assert that there are no important differences, legally or socially, between same and opposite-sex couples IS to assert that the fact that only opposite-sex couples can a. create new life and b. connect that new babies to the man and woman who made them, is not a very important difference, legally, socially, and morally. This, in my opinion, is the gist of this debate. The acknowledgment that this debate IS about the legal and social/moral equating of same-sex couples to opposite-sex couples. (I think that social and moral can be lumpedtogether in the context of this debate.) For example, it is true that some of the same argument SSM advocates are using can also be applied to support legal legitimization of polygamy and even incestuous relationships. Certainly, these are adult relationships that can result in children and giving these legal status does promote stability and provide legal and social support for the children born out of them. In other words, there are clear benefits to giving legal acknowledgment to those relationships. Yet the reason we do not is primarily that people have decided that giving legal acknowledgment to those relationships has a greater societal cost in terms of morality and social culture than the benefits to the adults and children in those relationships. Even the issue of the potential disabilities of relatives having biological children is not really enough to justify exclusion of legally accepting those relationships. My point being is that Maggie is being honest here in saying that this issue for her is the cost of acknowledging and hence, normalizing same-sex relationships so that they have the same legal status of opposite-sex relationships. Where I feel she is being a little disingenuous is where she--and other SSM opponents--say that this is about children. That is not and has never been true. If marriage laws were about children, even primarily but not solely, then why not support polygamy? It would be in the best interests of children if their biological parents were legally linked together--as in a family--regardless of the existence of a pre-existing relationship between one of the parents and someone else. Again, society has decided that the costs of giving legal acknowledgment to non-monogamous relationships are greater than the obvious benefits to the children. Also, the "mother-father preference" reasoning is also disingenuous to a point. Obviously, there are a number of marriage arrangements that are not "preferable," such as ones where there is a significant age difference or ones where one of the persons is incarcerated--or even allowing and giving legal status to divorce. But we allow these because we have decided as a culture that giving adults the freedom to do it outweighs the costs of allowing these. Ultimately, my point is that this is about defining the legal and social/moral differences between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. We have made decisions that there are reasons to acknowledge the differences between men who marry one woman and men who have multiple wives--and brother-sister couplings and unrelated couplings. I happen to feel that we can and should draw the line after same-sex relationships. I feel that the costs (in terms of social/moral basis) of excluding them from legal acknowledgment are outweighed by the freedom factor for adults. Or in other words, I don't think there is a moral reason to exclude them. Having said that, I think the debate should revolve around the costs/benefits issue of giving legal status to same-sex relationships--because I feel that is ultimately what the debate is about. posted by Eve at 9:08 PM | link 0 comments
DAMNED IF THEY DO, DAMNED IF THEY DON'T: From the Utne Reader
During the 1996 congressional debate on the Defense of Marriage Act, gay rights activist Andrew Sullivan was asked if legalized gay marriage wouldn't simply send society sliding down a "slippery slope," where the next thing on the agenda would be legalized polygamy. "To the best of my knowledge, there is no polygamists' rights organization poised to exploit same-sex marriage and return the republic to polygamous abandon," Sullivan retorted. ... There are a few important lessons to be gleaned here. First, social conservatives see the slippery slope as a poison arrow that can prevent all-out gay marriage, and they will use it again and again. Second, gay marriage advocates will say anything to distance gays and lesbians from other sexual minorities: the polygamous, the swingers, the S&M practitioners, and those rare couples that happen to be related. This arms-length strategy is good PR. The reality, though, is that non-gay sexual minority groups are doing exactly what Sullivan said was improbable in 1996: they have formed political organizations to fight for their rights. more posted by Eve at 9:03 PM | link 0 comments
TAKING THE BLAME FOR MESSING UP MARRIAGE: Chris Crain
...Former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey is only one example of a closeted homosexual who entered into marriage with a woman in a bid to meet the heterosexual expectations of faith, family and society. True respect for marriage--from conservatives and from those who are questioning their sexual orientation--precludes misusing the institution as a lab experiment to see if sexual orientation is malleable after all. ...But the bad news is that we should take some of the blame for marriage's decline in popularity in Europe, and unless we're very careful, we'll risk the same fate here in the States. In a number of Western European countries, most notably France, the public was not ready for full marriage equality for gay couples, so our advocates and allies pushed for something not unlike the civil unions enacted in Vermont. But in the spirit of equality, these well-intentioned progressives opened up civil unions to heterosexual couples and they've signed up by the tens of thousands. THE SAME PHENOMENON is already at work in the United States, but usually in the private sector and always around the availability of health insurance benefits. Domestic partner benefits are now commonly available at many large corporations and from some local governments for their employees. Their original intention was to offer some recognition and assistance for long-term gay couples who cannot legally marry. But as in Europe, well-meaning progressives have extended D.P. benefits in many cases to heterosexuals as well. And because most gay activists are left-leaning themselves, they have at times insisted that D.P. benefits be available without regard to the gender of the couple. ... D.P. benefits and civil unions are only worthy goals if they are limited to gay couples and recognized as interim measures, to be dissolved on that happy day when we all can walk down that aisle. more posted by Eve at 8:58 PM | link 0 comments
AFTER LOVE, INEVITABILITY: Brian McGrory
Probably it was inevitable, but still, it seems kind of quick. Not six months into the era of gay marriage in Massachusetts, the first divorce filings by gay and lesbian couples have unceremoniously landed in local probate courts. ... Love may be a many-splendored thing, but it's often a temporary thing as well. The divorces reveal less about gay marriage than about the human condition. People fall in love, they fall out of love, and a bad marriage can be the loneliest place on earth. ... Their names were part of the filing, but the decision here is to leave them out of print. The two men only did something that millions of heterosexuals have done before them. They came to their senses -- I mean, they concluded that they should no longer be married. "Our interests have grown in different directions," the two of them wrote on the filing. "Prior to our separation, differences in personality affected our well-being." ... Iannella says "these cases will be treated the same as any other." But he adds a worrisome twist. Under his reading of the law, any couple living out-of-state at the time of their divorce is required by Massachusetts statute to seek the divorce in the closest jurisdiction. But other states will refuse to recognize gay marriage, meaning they won't grant a divorce. more posted by Eve at 8:55 PM | link 0 comments
POLISH SENATE APPROVES GAY-PARTNERSHIP MEASURE: From the Associated Press
Poland's upper house of parliament approved a bill last week that would allow gay couples to gain legal partnership rights, immediately drawing sharp criticism from the nation's powerful Roman Catholic Church. The Senate voted 38-23 with 15 abstentions to send the draft to the lower house, or Sejm, where the bill was expected to meet resistance. If it becomes law, the bill would allow gay couples to register with city or town officials, which would give them inheritance rights and other legal guarantees--but not the right to adopt children. Sen. Maria Szyszkowska, a member of Prime Minister Marek Belka's Democratic Left Alliance who authored the bill, said the decision marks the "start of building tolerance in Poland." But Father Jerzy Kloch, spokesperson for the Polish Episcopate, blasted the measure, saying it violates Poland's constitution, which says "a marriage is a union between a man and a woman." "If this bill was implemented it would bring irreparable social damage for marriage and family and upbringing of children," Kloch said. link posted by Eve at 8:48 PM | link 0 comments
CUSTODY RULING MAY AFFECT OTHER CASES: From the Deseret Morning News
Attorneys on both sides say this is not a case about gay marriage. But a legal battle over an ex-lesbian partner's visitation rights could have an impact on rights of unmarried partners, regardless of sexual orientation. A Utah mother is fighting a district court judge's order to allow her ex-partner visitation rights to the mother's child, whom the former couple planned through artificial insemination. ... Under Utah law, Barros said, four standards must be met to determine a parent/child relationship: -- The mother must intend to have the other adult have a parental relationship with the child. -- The other adult must also intend to have a parental relationship. -- Evidence must exist that the parental relationship did indeed exist. -- There must be evidence that the adult had involvement in the day-to-day care of the child. Barros said Jones has met all the criteria. However, Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, said there is strong precedence that able parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit. He pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held a parent's interests in a child's upbringing are generally protected by the 14th Amendment. ... Mylar said the issue also applies to heterosexual, unmarried couples and he feels there is the danger that any adult can claim a relationship to a child, be it a college roommate, schoolteacher or day-care worker. "Should a woman's boyfriend have a right to visitation rights? What if she decided to get married? Do you want this person to be involved in this child's life then?" Barros counters that Jones held herself out not just as a simple care-giver but as a parent. more posted by Eve at 8:37 PM | link 0 comments
GROUPS OPPOSING SSM TARGET CANADIAN M.P.'S: From the Globe and Mail
Pleasantly caught off guard by yesterday's Supreme Court decision, conservative church and family organizations suggested their task now is to persuade members of Parliament that the same-sex marriage issue is too complex for simple legislation. They indicated their strategy would be to press government and opposition MPs not to head into any quick deliberation on legislation changing the definition of marriage but rather to allow more time for study, rumination and listening to the public's views. ... Derek Rogusky, vice-president of family policy for Vancouver-based Focus on the Family Canada, said the court's refusal to answer the fourth question means it did not consider that expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples to be a civil-rights issue but rather only a public-policy issue. The court, he said, has a strong civil-rights record, and if it had thought the rights of homosexual couples were being impaired by an opposite-sex definition of marriage, it would have said so. more posted by Eve at 8:28 PM | link 0 comments
CANADIAN PM STILL FACES GAY MARRIAGE FIGHT: From the Toronto Star
The stage is set for Canada to become--as early as next year--the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage. But it will require an exercise of political will and muscle for the federal government to pass legislation that puts the country in the same league as the Netherlands and Belgium. Prime Minister Paul Martin, armed with a dry Supreme Court of Canada legal opinion that stamped "constitutional" on the Liberals' bill to extend civil marriage rights to gays and lesbians, said his minority government will move in January to do just that. Martin said he has enough votes within the divided 134-member Liberal caucus and other parties to pass it, and will oblige his cabinet ministers to vote with one voice in favour of gay marriage. Martin needs 155 votes in all. ... "It is one that I've struggled with, but fundamentally it comes down to the equality rights under the Charter," said Martin. "I do not believe you can have two classes of citizen." "The Charter essentially says all Canadians must be treated equally, and I don't think that there's any other way to interpret the Charter, and I don't think there's any other way to look at our country." Northern Development Minister Joe Comuzzi signalled that he might vote against the bill. Several Liberal MPs have said they will do that, but Comuzzi is the first cabinet minister to suggest it. more posted by Eve at 8:22 PM | link 0 comments
GAY ACTIVISTS REFUSE TO BARGAIN AWAY RIGHTS: From the Washington Post
[More fallout from this piece. --Eve] Dozens of prominent advocates for gay rights sent a letter to every member of Congress yesterday stating that they would reject any plan to bargain for equal rights, and specifically decried a report that the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, was planning to "moderate" its positions and would possibly support President Bush's plan to create private Social Security accounts. ... But HRC officials said yesterday that the article was incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate. They denied that the HRC is planning to endorse the partial privatization of Social Security or back away from any of the major issues surrounding gay rights, including marriage rights. "Our tactics are adapting; our goals are not," said Winnie Stachelberg, HRC's political director. more posted by Eve at 8:16 PM | link 0 comments
Thursday, December 09, 2004
SHE'S OUR BABY MAMA: From Canada's National Post
...Conversely, but with similar reasoning, the winner of American Idol's third instalment is trying to establish herself as her own woman -- a true individual who will not yield to the pop-star machinery that created her. So the 20-year-old diva-in-training Fantasia Barrino speaks seemingly freely, records with innovators like Missy Elliott and, most importantly, loudly proclaims her single-motherhood of a two-year-old daughter. She does so most notably with a song from her debut album Free Yourself, entitled Baby Mama -- an anthem that declares unwed mothers "the backbone of the 'hood." ... Twelve years ago, Murphy Brown set the terms of the baby mama debate. Well, actually, it was Dan Quayle -- his family values crusade just happened to make a hero out of the television character's choice to raise her child without the support of a father. ... Her success is credited for bringing new worshippers to a church in her hometown that opened its doors for Idol parties. And, in a gesture that surely befuddles those who would question Baby Mama's anthemic intentions, she credits God as the father her daughter, Zion, lacked. ... Conservatives who might demonize her find a young woman seeking forgiveness -- forgiveness for a sin they'd rather she not endorse, but forgiveness all the same. Liberals who might rally to her side as they did to Murphy Brown's, are equally tied -- drawn by her defiance, but unable to accept her terming baby mamahood a sin. No one, in this case, can have it both ways. No one except her. more posted by Eve at 6:28 PM | link 0 comments
MARRIAGE AND PROCREATION: Beverley Eyre
[Beverley Eyre is a research engineer with NASA specializing in micro and nano systems development, who lives in the Bay Area.] Marriage is not, and never has been, society's way of putting its "stamp of approval" on a private relationship. Marriage is the way society *creates families*. The concept of "family" is not the label we give to a random aggregate of people who live together, but is a set of symbolic relationships that defines the most fundamental group that can exist. It provides the link between what we are (biological organisms trying to survive) with who we are (a member of groups of human beings, on all levels). All successful societies have their basis in the concept (symbol) "family," and all families are created by linking males and females in marriage. Humans are symbolic creatures. The destruction of culture is the destruction of our symbols, which means the destruction of our relationships (familiy, mother, father, husband, wife, etc), our institutions (marriage, family), our mores, taboos, rituals, etc. These are what hold us together and these are the things that must be destroyed (as they have been in Europe) for our culture to vanish. posted by Eve at 6:16 PM | link 0 comments
CANADIAN COURT DECISION: David Frum
...From an American point of view, however, what may be most remarkable about the Canadian debate has been its disingenuousness. I've been participating in this argument since the late 1980s. At every step along the way, it was obvious what the next step was--and what the ultimate destination would be. At every step along the way, proponents of same-sex marriage passionately denied that the next step was coming--or was even contemplated. That same spirit of disingenuousness has now crossed the border. Take a look at Andrew Sullivan's blog this morning. He has an item affirming his support for a "federal" approach to same-sex marriage. He even links to a story about two Massachusetts women who were married in Massachusetts and then moved to North Carolina where their marriage was not recognized. Andrew describes this as an example of the system working. But either he's kidding himself or he's kidding his readers. Here’s how "federalism" on the marriage question really "works": Two Vermont women, Lisa and Janet, entered a civil union. One became pregnant. The relationship ended. The mother and child moved out of state to Virginia--a state that does not recognize civil unions. The non-custodial women sued for visitation rights in Virginia and lost. So she sued in Vermont and on November 20 won a custody order from a Vermont court. If the birth mother ignores the order, Vermont will hold her in contempt--and will then demand that Virginia enforce the contempt ruling. Result: Either Virginia must accept the validity of a marriage that flagrantly violates the public policy of the Commonwealth--or else it ignores a facially valid custody order and violates the public policy of the United States in favor of comity between state courts. To put it more bluntly: the "federalist" approach to marriage will destroy either federalism (as states ignore each other’s judicial orders) or else it will destroy marriage (as individuals using their freedom of movement carry same-sex marriages with them into states that do not wish to recognize them). And just as a footnote: I did a quick google search this morning and discovered that none of the self-described proponents of federalism have taken Virginia's side in the custody matter. No surprise there: For the advocates of same-sex marriage, federalism is a tactic, not a principle. It will be discarded as soon as it ceases to serve its purposes. more posted by Eve at 6:09 PM | link 0 comments
CANADIAN COURT DECISION: Bill Duncan
...On the first question, the Court decided that the national Parliament had sole authority to define marriage but could not legislate on who may (or must) perform the marriages. On the second question, the Court ruled that the Charter did not prevent a redefinition of marriage (rejecting arguments that the definition of marriage was settled at the time the Charter was created and thus could not be changed) so Parliament could go ahead with its proposed legislation. On the third question, the Court held that "absent unique circumstances" the Charter prevents compulsion of religious officials to solemnize same-sex marriages or requiring religious facilities to be used for such marriages. Somewhat surprisingly, the Court did not answer the fourth question saying that since many Provincial courts have already redefined marriages and the government has not appealed those decisions, the answer is probably settled. This refusal, however, preempts any use by Members of Parliament that they were forced to enact legislation by the Court. In theory, then, Parliament could reject the government bill to redefine marriage. So, the debate now shifts to the Parliament with news reports suggesting the bill will be formally introduced early next year. more posted by Eve at 6:02 PM | link 0 comments
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN VS NEW YORK TIMES: Press release
Today's New York Times article was an incomplete and therefore inaccurate representation of the plans of the Human Rights Campaign. more posted by Eve at 3:44 PM | link 0 comments
CANADIAN COURT DECISION: Maggie Gallagher
In its decision today the Canadian supreme court refused to answer the most important question: What will same-sex marriage do to marriage as a social institution? Is the great, historic, cross-cultural understanding of marriage as the union of husband and wife rooted only in animus and discrimination? Or is there a real deeply rooted human need for a social institution that specifically addresses those people whose sexual attractions and relationships produce new life? Children need mothers and fathers, and marriage is the way societies everywhere get that important good for children. Same-sex marriage amounts to an official declaration that marriage in Canada is now about something else: some other adult agendas and needs. Gay marriage is the debate that just won't go away, because it is not primarily about homosexuality at all: it is about the purpose of marriage. The ongoing, urgent need for a better, stronger, richer marriage culture, one more oriented towards generativity and the needs of children, can't be ruled away by any court. posted by Eve at 3:18 PM | link 0 comments
CANADIAN HIGH COURT SAYS SSM WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL; MUM ON WHETHER IT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED; BACK TO PARLIAMENT: From the Globe and Mail
A federal proposal to extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians would be constitutional, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday in a unanimous opinion. The court, however, called a federal bluff by refusing to answer whether the current common-law definition of marriage, which excludes same-sex couples, is constitutional. ... The court opinion--arising from four questions referred to it by the federal government--forces the government to go ahead with its proposed legislation without the comfort of a Supreme Court ruling that current same-sex prohibitions are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court opinion is not binding but Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has made it clear that legislation will be brought before Parliament promptly. ... His comments appeared to rule out compromise options, such as civil unions, that have been raised as a alternative to full marriage rights for homosexual couples. more posted by Eve at 2:33 PM | link 0 comments
MAGGIE AND JONATHAN--editor's note
Hi there. Because of a medical condition known as "astonishingly poor time management" (scientific name: "lameness"), I am only now posting the most recent reply in the excellent exchange between Maggie Gallagher and Jonathan Rauch. It's right below this post. Go read it! You may want to refresh your memory about how we got here; click here and here and scroll down to find the previous exchanges. It's great stuff, so please don't let my malady prevent you from clicking and scrolling. --Eve posted by Eve at 5:05 AM | link 0 comments
WHY DON'T POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN DO THE SAME THING?: Maggie Gallagher replies to Jonathan Rauch
Jon, thanks. I know how frustrating it can be when people mutely refuse to enter a key point of the debate. So I will respond directly to your question, "What about the risks of NOT doing SSM?", in the next post. So why don't older women marrying interfere with marriage's role in managing procreation in the same way that same-sex couples would? (I'm concentrating on these as the hard cases--since "infertile couples" are not really an identifiable class and many infertile couples do have children, even without reproductive technology. You don't know which couples won't have children until they've tried for quite a few years). Well, the first thing to notice is that they don't. That is, throughout all the approximately 200 centuries in which clergy, civil leaders, artists (e.g. Shakespeare--"The world must be peopled!"), intellectuals, and ordinary people affirmed that marriage is centrally "about" managing procreation in some way, older people were allowed to marry. And infertility in our legal and cultural tradition (unlike some others--as in many parts of Africa where the child is the consummation of a marriage) never legally invalidated a marriage. (Although it remains the case law in at least some U.S. jurisdictions, that marrying with the willful intent not to have ANY children with your spouse gives that spouse grounds for annulment, as a species of fraud.) Think about it: For roughly 2000 years, pretty much no one ever thought of saying that because we let older women marry, and because some married couples don't have children, marriage is not really about childbearing, it is primarily about adult relationships. It is only in the context of the SSM debate that people (gay marriage advocates) began to argue, and judges began to rule, that because older women can legally marry, marriage is not about procreation. Or, as Andrew put it, "non-procreative companionate marriage" is "the civil norm." (He still won't tell me what a civil norm is but. . .) What's the difference? In the first place, allowing older women to marry still obeys the first rule (or internal logic) of marriage: if these people have children, it's not a social concern. They don't visibly contradict the public purposes in the same way that asserting that two men are just the same as a husband and wife. Also, practically speaking any man who marries an older woman is not going to be producing fatherless children across multiple households (presuming he lives up to his vow). So in that limited sense their marriage serves the public purposes of marriage. Secondly, older couples and childless couples are all part of the normal lifecycle of marriage in our tradition. Married couples start up childless (ideally) and end up old and infertile together (ideally). So the presence of these couples in the pool of marriages does not carry any powerful social signal at all. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is part of a dynamic cultural movement to affirm the equality of same-sex and opposite sex couples ("marriage equality"). There is every reason to believe that this cultural movement, if successful, will succeed; the law will become an instrument exerting social pressure on marriage traditionalists to make sure it does succeed (cf my last post). To assert that there are no important differences, legally or socially, between same and opposite-sex couples IS to assert that the fact that only opposite-sex couples can a. create new life and b. connect that new babies to the man and woman who made them, is not a very important difference, legally, socially, and morally. That's the difference. posted by Eve at 4:59 AM | link 0 comments
WILL SSM HELP OR HARM MARRIAGE?: Maggie replies to Josh Jasper
Add Josh to the advocates of SSM who say that "children need love and stability, not necessarily fathers and mothers." And then he wonders why I think these ideas are connected? posted by Eve at 4:57 AM | link 0 comments
WILL SSM HELP OR HARM MARRIAGE?: Josh Jasper replies to Maggie Gallagher
Maggie states, "Raising men to be good family men takes an enormous amount of social energy. Don't expect it to happen if the idea that fathers matter to their children is replaced by the idea that 'the people who contract for children are the parents' and that 'children need love and stability, not necessarily fathers and mothers.'" There are two ideas here that are not necessarily connected. The last is, in fact, true. Children need love and stability, and a mother and a father are not the only place where this can occur. Love and stability can be found in children raised by same sex parents. You and the rest of the anti-SSM squad have yet to present anything that vaguely resembles proof that children raised by same sex parents are growing up with a disadvantage. You're certainly (and suspiciously) quick to try and poke holes in any study that claims to provide proof that there's no difference. The first idea is that SSM has to replace the idea that fathers matter. Why can't fathers matter alongside two mothers or two fathers? What you're proposing is that social energy that raises men to be good family men will be diverted or lessened by SSM. You don't explain how, or give an example of it happening. We're supposed to take your word for it because you're a "family scholar"? That's not going to work. Being a scholar requires scholarship. You're not giving us any. It's just as plausible that SSM will have no effect at all on the social energy that goes into making men good fathers and husbands. In fact, a strong case could be made that in cultures where homosexuality is treated with intolerance, men end up being lousy husbands and fathers. How do you explain that? posted by Eve at 4:55 AM | link 0 comments
UTAH JUDGE SAYS GIRL BETTER OFF WITH TWO MOTHERS: From the Scripps Howard News Service
After considering Utah law and the best interests of a 3-year-old girl, 3rd District Judge Timothy Hanson has decided the child is better off with two mothers. One is her birth mother, who conceived her through artificial insemination while in a lesbian relationship. The other is the birth mother's former partner, joined to her in a Vermont civil union before the girl's birth. ... But Hanson has said the case does not turn on the debate over gay marriage or gay adoption. "What this case is about, is whether or not a child is better off in this rather uncertain world, with as many people as possible taking an interest in the child, both financially and emotionally," the judge said in an October court hearing. ... Cheryl Pike Barlow, the girl's birth mother, wants the appellate court to overturn the visitation order. In court filings, Barlow says she is no longer a lesbian and now has religious objections to exposing her daughter to her former partner. ... Judge Hanson had ruled in October that Jones would be eligible for visitation if she could establish she had a parent-child relationship with the girl. He cited Utah case law on the doctrine of "in loco parentis," in which a person acts as a parent although they have no blood or legal ties to a child. Hanson pointed to a 1978 Utah Supreme Court ruling that supported a stepfather's bid to seek visitation. ... Jones participated in the child's birth and care, and became a co-guardian of the girl, who had the surnames of both women on her birth certificate, the judge said. Attorney Frank Mylar, who is affiliated with the Alliance Defense Fund and represents Barlow, says Hanson has done an end-run around Utah laws. Mylar said in loco parentis only applies to cases where the parent is absent from the child's life. "Where does it end, when you have a legal stranger that is not related by blood, marriage or adoption, and they are claiming rights to your child?" he asked. "Anyone who is a fit parent has a constitutional right to say how their child is to be raised, and what associations they are to have." more posted by Eve at 4:50 AM | link 0 comments
MARRIED IN MASS., SINGLE IN N.C.: From the Charlotte Observer
Karen Kitchens-Law and Mary Stuart Law were sitting in their lawyer's office in July, closing on their $343,000 home in University City, when they came across a question in the paperwork: Are you married? The couple, partners since 1988, had wed in a legal ceremony in their Massachusetts backyard in June, shortly after the state legalized same-sex unions. ... The couple is Exhibit I in the nationwide debate that has led 37 states to ban gay unions. Voters in 11 states did so in November, refusing recognition to same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The Carolinas have had their laws in place since 1996, when Hawaii considered legalizing same-sex unions. An effort in recent years to put the restriction in the N.C. Constitution has failed. But as couples like Karen, an occupational therapist, and Mary, a financial analyst at TIAA-CREF, move out of Massachusetts, they're challenging how their new homes handle their union. more posted by Eve at 4:45 AM | link 0 comments
SSM IN THE COURTS: From the Miami Herald
[Contrast with this piece. --Eve] ...As state after state has adopted constitutional bans on same-sex nuptials -- by 3-1 ratios in some referendums -- and momentum toward amending the U.S. Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage has gained steam, it has seemed in recent months that perhaps marriage advocates were outmatched. But they have regrouped to pursue targeted tests in carefully chosen state courtrooms. By keeping the fight in state courts about state laws, they are trying to avoid having the ''wrong'' federal case reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The strategy is intended to produce a patchwork of rulings, with some states condoning and others condemning same-sex marriage, a muddle that could persist for a decade or more. The strategy's success hinges on the gamble that a strong federal case eventually could emerge to inspire a Supreme Court ruling that broadens the definition of marriage. That was the strategy that eventually removed laws against interracial marriage from the books. more posted by Eve at 4:06 AM | link 0 comments
CIVIL UNIONS AS CAMOUFLAGE: Maggie Gallagher
Many people support civil unions for their own sake. That is one thing. The ACLU article below explains how legal civil unions are just part of a strategy for creating court-imposed gay marriage. OP-ED: M. Coles: Don't just sue--do something useful; excerpt:
posted by Eve at 4:00 AM | link 0 comments
MASS. UNMARRIED GAY COUPLES LOSE BENEFITS: From the Boston Globe
Many of the state's largest employers are dropping health benefits for unmarried gay couples, seven months after Massachusetts became the only state to legalize same-sex marriage. Massachusetts companies, some of which pioneered so-called domestic-partner benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners, said they are now withdrawing them for reasons of fairness: If gays and lesbians can now marry, they should no longer receive special treatment in the form of health benefits that were not made available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples. ... No data are available on how many employers that offered the benefits are dropping them in Massachusetts. Typically, the proportion of employees who avail themselves of domestic-partner benefits is small, ranging from less than 1 percent at some employers to perhaps 2 percent. ... Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, or GLAD, a New England advocacy organization, argues that taking them away is an unfair hardship, because the decision to marry is still more difficult for gay and lesbian couples. Unlike opposite-sex married couples, gay married couples will have to pay taxes on their benefits to the Internal Revenue Service, because federal law defines marriage as a partnership solely between a man and a woman. Gay marriage can also jeopardize enlistees' military status, and gay couples who marry may be barred from international adoptions. Some said they simply aren't ready to marry just because a longstanding barrier to marriage was suddenly lifted. ... Among employers that provide domestic-partner benefits, those dropping them are the exception, said Russell Isaia, partner in the Boston law firm Bingham McCutchen. "It's been largely a nonevent," he said. more posted by Eve at 3:28 AM | link 0 comments
NEW ZEALAND PASSES CIVIL UNIONS BILL: From the New Zealand Herald
The Civil Unions Bill has been passed by Parliament. From April 26 next year couples can commit themselves to the new civil union. Parliament voted 65-55 to pass the controversial legislation which has polarised opinion and split political parties. During the last three days MPs opposed to it fought to change the Civil Union Bill and to force a referendum on it. They failed, and today the majority on the third reading was the same as it has been through most of the legislative process. The bill also applies to heterosexual couples, but it does not change the Marriage Act which still applies only to men and women. After MPs cast their conscience votes and the final count was announced, the debating chamber was drowned in applause from the public galleries. MPs embraced, cheered and congratulated each other while Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki and his followers glowered down. Outside Parliament rival rallies attracted about 400 people, with opponents slightly outnumbering supporters. While the bill's backers played music and threw orange balloons, opponents stood in silent protest. more posted by Eve at 3:21 AM | link 0 comments
GROUPS DEBATE SLOWER STRATEGY ON GAY RIGHTS: From the New York Times
Leaders of the gay rights movement are embroiled in a bitter and increasingly public debate over whether they should moderate their goals in the wake of bruising losses in November when 11 states approved constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages. In the past week alone, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay and lesbian advocacy group, has accepted the resignation of its executive director, appointed its first non-gay board co-chairman and adopted a new, more moderate strategy, with less emphasis on legalizing same-sex marriages and more on strengthening personal relationships. The leadership of the Human Rights Campaign, at a meeting last weekend in Las Vegas, concluded that the group must bow to political reality and moderate its message and its goals. One official said the group would consider supporting President Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security partly in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the program. "The feeling this weekend in Las Vegas was that we had to get beyond the political and return to the personal," said Michael Berman, a Democratic lobbyist and consultant who was elected the first non-gay co-chairman of the Human Rights Campaign's board last week. "We need to reintroduce ourselves to America with the stories of our lives." more posted by Eve at 3:12 AM | link 0 comments
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
SECOND NEW YORK COURT UPHOLDS STATE'S MARRIAGE LAWS; WILL BE APPEALED, OF COURSE
Dueling press releases from Liberty Counsel and the ACLU Decision is here (PDF) posted by Eve at 1:42 AM | link 0 comments
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
"THE MOST REPELLENT ARGUMENT AGAINST SSM I'VE EVER SEEN": Lynn Gazis-Sax
[I agree. Disgusting. --Eve] ...OK, now, I'm a bisexual who has made exactly the choice that I'm presumably supposed to: I married a man, fully intending for that marriage to be faithful, last till death do us part, and include children. And it turns out that my husband has multiple chronic illnesses, odds of our ever procreating before I read menopause are slim at best, and so I am pretty nearly exactly in the same position as that selfish man who wants his company to insure his partner with AIDS. In a few years, I will be definitively infertile, and Joel will still be chronically ill. Should I divorce him then, so I don't steal insurance money from children? Do we really have to choose between kids dying and dropping all medical care for adults once we're sure they don't have kids? Could you please, pretty please, get a better anti-same-sex marriage argument, one that doesn't suggest that life only has value when you're young, or when you're of some use to somebody? And dump this argument in the trash bin where it belongs? more (scroll down) posted by Eve at 5:50 PM | link 0 comments
HUSBANDS? WHO ARE THEY?: David Blankenhorn
In Sunday's NYT, a front-page story says that U.S. Latinas are "shifting to smaller families." Accompanying the story is a nice photo of a young Latina woman, Rocio Yniguez, and two of her children. What's amazing about the story is that it says next to nothing about fathers. Ms. Yniguez is obviously a single mother, but the point is not mentioned in the piece. A couple of times, in discussing the decision-making of these young women, the report refers to "boyfriends"--in one comment, in which the reporter can barely hide her disdain, we learn that some Latina women "still" believe that having lots of children will "keep their men faithful"--but basically, men are absent from this story. Husbands are completely absent, except for a casual mention of the fact that Ms. Yniguez’s mother (you know, one of the older set, with all those kids) happens to have had, you know, a husband. It's as if the reporter never heard of the fact--or perhaps more precisely, is straining hard to avoid by ostentatiously ignoring what she considers to be a bad fact--that babies have fathers as well as mothers and that across human societies, including in the U.S., it is considered normative for children to be connected to their fathers as well as their mothers, typically through marriage. ... By the way, as a simple empirical matter, doesn’t it seem likely that the spread of father-absence might have something to do with the trend toward smaller Latina families? Oh, well. more posted by Eve at 5:26 PM | link 0 comments
"NATALISM" AND POLITICS: Ramesh Ponnuru replies to David Brooks
David Brooks notes the link between family size and party affiliation. (And he's got a good headline, too.) A friend emailed me yesterday about a related trend: "I was looking through some demographic numbers today and came across something very interesting in a publication by the National Center for Health Statistics. The data was from 2002 and show the median age of women in each state at first birth. In states where the median age at first birth is 24 or less, Bush won 199-3 in electoral votes. The only exception was DC. In states with a median age at first birth of 25, the electoral vote split was 118-87 in Kerry's favor. In states with a median age of 26 or more, Kerry won 131-0." Brooks tries, unpersuasively, to minimize the political effects of the trend he describes. Politicians shouldn't "pander" to natalists because they are less interested in money than in values, and they should understand that the natalists are too busy to be culture warriors. Well, there's pandering and there's pandering. Federal tax policy has gotten much tougher on large middle-class families over the last few decades, and I suspect that they would appreciate a reversal of that trend. Social Security is an implicit tax on large families, and I can see a case for reducing its anti-natalist bias. As for the "culture wars"--horrible phrase--I suspect that large families do tend to have more conservative views on issues such as abortion. People with conservative social views must be more likely to have large families in the first place, and then having them reinforces those views. Can Brooks really think otherwise? link posted by Eve at 5:23 PM | link 0 comments
THE NEW RED-DIAPER BABIES: David Brooks
There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States. The movement is "natalism." All across the industrialized world, birthrates are falling--in Western Europe, in Canada and in many regions of the United States. People are marrying later and having fewer kids. But spread around this country, and concentrated in certain areas, the natalists defy these trends. They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do. Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling. ... You can see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates. In The New Republic Online, Joel Kotkin and William Frey observe, "Democrats swept the largely childless cities--true blue locales like San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation--but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas." ... Natalists resist the declining fertility trends not because of income, education or other socioeconomic characteristics. It's attitudes. People with larger families tend to attend religious services more often, and tend to have more traditional gender roles. more posted by Eve at 5:17 PM | link 0 comments
SHOULD WE TRY TO (RE)PRODUCE MORE?: Andrew Ferguson
"I've always been an optimist,'' said Ben Wattenberg the other day, tucking into a lunch of turkey with cranberry dressing. "But now I'm not so sure. This stuff is really pretty alarming.'' "This stuff'' is the subject of Wattenberg's new book, "Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future.'' ... At its center is a simple but oddly overlooked fact about contemporary life: "Never have birth and fertility rates fallen so far, so fast, so low, for so long, in so many places, so surprisingly.'' ... What's new and so far unpublicized is this: Among developed countries, the decline in fertility rates is proceeding much faster than anyone expected. Italy and Spain, for example, are now down to 1.1. Moreover, the decline will soon become universal. Fertility rates in less developed countries, what we used to call the "Third World,'' are falling so fast that they're due to dip below "replacement'' by mid-century, according to United Nations' estimates. Several countries -- Mexico, for instance, and Iran -- already have fertility rates below 2.1. ... The great exception to these trends is the U.S., where the fertility rate is just below replacement and moving higher. The UN projects 400 million Americans by 2050, up from about 285 million. Much of the U.S. growth is fueled by immigration. ... Not so long ago, Wattenberg advocated a vigorous package of "pro-natalist'' public policies to encourage fertility -- tax subsidies for child care, mandates for generous maternal and paternal leave, flex time, even allowances for families who choose to have more children. Pro-natalist policies have blanketed Europe, however, to little discernible effect. more posted by Eve at 5:08 PM | link 0 comments
KANSAS LAWMAKER CONSIDERS COVENANT MARRIAGE BILL: From the Associated Press
The renewed focus on marriage is persuading Kansas lawmakers to try again at passing a measure that would make certain holy unions tougher to sunder. Republican Sen. Tim Huelskamp of Fowler, who this year led the unsuccessful effort for a Kansas constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, said he would like to introduce legislation providing for so-called covenant marriage. Such marriages would be optional but would require the couple to undergo premarital counseling, file an affidavit saying they intend to stay together for life and take reasonable steps to preserve the marriage, such as marriage counseling. If the marriage had problems, the legislation would limit the grounds for divorce to adultery, spousal or child abuse, abandonment for at least a year or a felony conviction. It would also require the couple to remain separated for two years before the divorce could be final. Huelskamp and his House counterpart, Rep. Kathe Decker, R-Clay Center, said covenant marriages would set a higher standard for couples who want to meet it. "It's too easy to get a divorce," Huelskamp said. "The way the law is now, a husband or a wife can walk out on a marriage with no reason. That hurts families, and it hurts the children of those families." link posted by Eve at 5:04 PM | link 0 comments
CALIF. BATTLE OVER SSM: From the San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage Monday, opening another front in the debate -- nationwide and within the Democratic Party -- over how far to extend gay rights. Five weeks after voters in 11 states adopted constitutional amendments defining marriage as solely between a man and woman, Leno is convinced that a majority of Californians favor bucking that trend. There is opposition to the idea among moderate Democrats, however, and a counter to Leno's push was also introduced Monday, the first day of the legislative session. Two Republican lawmakers introduced a bill that calls for the enactment of a constitutional amendment that would not only outlaw same-sex marriage but also strip gay couples of domestic partner rights outlined in several laws adopted in the last few years. While some Democrats have concluded that association with same-sex marriage has hurt the party, Leno, who is gay, insisted Monday that the time was right for legislation. "Why play defense?" Leno said. "It makes more sense to speak about this plainly as a civil rights issue. Equal protection is guaranteed under the constitution." ... "Not every Democrat represents Los Angeles or San Francisco," noted Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, D-Pittsburg. "There are a number of members (of the Democratic caucus) who think this is a mistake." more posted by Eve at 4:23 PM | link 0 comments
CALIF. WILL LIKELY SEE BILL LEGALIZING SSM AND AMENDMENT AGAINST IT: From the San Francisco Chronicle
As a state lawmaker seeks to legalize gay marriage, a church-led group has announced efforts to insert the existing definition of marriage into the California Constitution and to strip same-sex couples of domestic partner benefits. ... The announcement came as Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, filed a bill that would allow gays to marry. At the urging of the coalition, Sen. Bill Morrow, R-Oceanside, and Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Murrieta, introduced constitutional amendments that would elevate the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman from statute to the constitution. ... Four years ago, California voters passed Proposition 22, which held that the state could only recognize a marriage between a man and a woman as valid. Since then, however, lawmakers have passed a broad array of domestic partner benefits, including a law that takes effect Jan. 1 giving same-sex couples who register as domestic partners nearly all the legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses. ... Leno's bill, renamed the "Religious Freedom and California Civil Marriage Protection Act," would amend a section of California's family code that defines marriage as "a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and woman" to read "between two persons." The new version of the bill contains a section that specifically says clergy members are not required to participate in a marriage ceremony against their beliefs. more posted by Eve at 4:11 PM | link 0 comments
TEL AVIV FAMILY COURT RECOGNIZES TWO MEN AS COMMON-LAW COUPLE: From Haaretz
The Tel Aviv Family Court recently overruled the state to give two men de facto recognition as a common-law couple by giving legal force to a child support agreement they had drafted. The decision follows on the heels of last month's Nazareth District Court verdict recognizing two men as a common-law couple for the purposes of the inheritance laws--also over the state's objections. Family Court Judge Yehuda Granit's verdict was issued in the case of two men who, after living together for 19 years, decided to have a child with the aid of a woman who underwent a fictitious marriage with one of them. In 2001, the woman had twins. The men then drew up an agreement with her detailing financial arrangements for the children's care and asked the court to give the agreement contractual force. The attorney general asked the court to reject this request. But Granit lambasted this stance as discrimination against homosexual couples. Heterosexual couples who choose not to marry are entitled to various legal rights as common-law spouses, he wrote, so homosexual couples should receive the same rights. The right to equality is enshrined in the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, as is the freedom to choose a spouse of the same sex, he said. ... Attorney Irit Rosenblum, head of the New Family Association and the men's representative in court, hailed the verdict as "an important victory for the gay and lesbian community" and said it should also serve as a warning to the Knesset, which last year rejected an amendment to give homosexual couples status in family court. more posted by Eve at 4:07 PM | link 0 comments
WEST VA. CHILD-CUSTODY CASE: From 365Gay.com
A four year old West Virginia boy is in danger of losing his second mom following the death of his birth mother. The state supreme Court this spring will consider to uphold a lower court ruling that gave custody of the child to his maternal grandparents, or to the partner of his birthmother, the only other parent he has ever known. After falling in love and committing to each other, Tina Burch and Christina Smarr decided to have a child together. The couple agreed that Smarr would carry their child. On December 25, 1999, Smarr gave birth to Zachary. The couple raised Zachary together as a family until Smarr was tragically killed in an automobile accident on June 1, 2002. Following Smarr's death, her parents, Paul and Janet Smarr, sought to take custody of Zachary. The trial court sided with Burch and awarded her primary custody, with visitation rights to the grandparents. The court found Burch to be Zachary’s "psychological parent"--one who, while not related to a child biologically or through adoption, has functioned as a parent in every way. West Virginia appeals courts have recognized psychological parents in the past, but never involving gay couples. The Circuit Court reversed the trial judge's ruling, deciding to remove Zachary from a parent he has lived with since birth and give custody instead to his grandparents. The Circuit Court refused to apply the psychological parenthood doctrine in the context of a gay couple. more posted by Eve at 4:01 PM | link 0 comments
N.Y. ATTORNEY GENERAL SUPPORTS SSM: From GAGVNews
Politics took an unexpectedly prominent position at the Gay Alliance's Equality Leadership Conference on Nov. 6 at the Burgundy Basin Inn, as N.Y.S. Attorney General Eliot D. Spitzer responded to a statement of support for his potential campaign for governor of New York. Spitzer, keynote speaker at the conference, said that he will announce soon whether he will join the gubernatorial race, and reiterated his unqualified support for marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples. ... Spitzer said that his position on same sex marriage is that New York State must permit full marriage equality. "There's no question in my mind," he said. "New York State law must permit gay and lesbian marriage. That's the only thing that's fair. We have work to do and a long way to travel." He said that he foresees a victory in New York within the next five or six years. "It will take longer in the heartland. But we will continue to make our case and we will win this battle." more posted by Eve at 3:52 PM | link 0 comments
COURT OK'S PHILA. SAME-SEX BENEFITS: From the Philadelphia Inquirer
The city acted within its powers six years ago when it extended benefits to the same-sex "life partners" of its employees, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday. The Supreme Court overturned a two-year-old Commonwealth Court decision that held that the city had overstepped its authority in the 1998 ordinance that awarded same-sex couples employee benefits. In 2002, Commonwealth Court ruled that the way the city went about awarding the benefits amounted to an effort to amend the state's marriage law, something that only the state government is legally permitted to do. In writing for the court, however, Justice Russell M. Nigro rejected Commonwealth Court's reasoning. "While we acknowledge certain facial similarities between marriage and life partnership, we simply do not agree that they are sufficient to establish that the city has legislated in the area of marriage here," Nigro wrote. William Devlin, the conservative activist who sued to stop the city's plan, vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. ... The city's victory was not complete, however. The court disallowed parts of the statute that would have prohibited discrimination against couples who registered as life partners and given them an exemption from the city's real estate transfer tax. Nigro wrote that the anti-discrimination provision was illegal because it allowed people from outside the city to register as life partners, something the city did not have the power to do. Besides, the justice wrote, the city's laws already ban discrimination based on sexual preference. On the issue of the transfer tax, the justices said Pennsylvania law requires that taxes be assessed evenly within a class of people, and the city hadn't adequately justified giving a tax break to some same-sex couples but not others in long-term non-marital relationships, such as two cousins sharing a house and bank account. more posted by Eve at 3:45 PM | link 0 comments
MAINE LEGISLATIVE LEADER SAYS IT'S TIME TO CONSIDER CIVIL UNIONS: From the Kennebec Journal
House Speaker John Richardson said Friday that he'd like the Legislature to consider allowing gays and lesbians to enter into civil unions. Richardson, D-Brunswick, told Morning Sentinel editors that if the Christian Civic League of Maine moves forward with a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, he'd support changing the bill to create civil unions for gays and lesbians. Rep. Brian Duprey, R-Hampden, already has announced his plan to introduce legislation for a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Michael Heath, executive director of the civic league, said his group will actively support the legislation. ... "A civil union is same-sex marriage under a different name," Heath said. more posted by Eve at 3:39 PM | link 0 comments
SEARCHING FOR "HAPPILY EVER AFTER": Profile of couples in NJ case, from the Star-Ledger
...Even Marcye Nicholson and Karen McFadden did not imagine they might one day marry when, as twenty-somethings, they started dating in 1989. "If you come to an understanding at a young age that you're gay, it was never even on the radar screen that you could marry the person you love," said Karen, 38, who grew up in Broomall, Pa., outside Philadelphia. ... Each wears a thick band, cut from the same block of gold, on her left ring finger. "We consider it a marriage ring, and it's a symbol obviously to the outside world that we're quote-unquote 'married' -- so nobody gets the wrong idea," Karen said. In 1997, they legally changed their last names to Nicholson-McFadden. ... They each conceived a child through artificial insemination. Marcye carried Kasey, who was then adopted by Karen. Then, Karen carried Maya, who was adopted by Marcye. By court ruling, New Jersey has allowed members of same-sex couples to adopt their partner's children since 1995. They do not know who the genetic father is except that it was the same donor for both children, giving them a shared biology, Karen said. But while they willingly share the genetic and legal details, they are adamant on one point: these are their children. "We had a child together," Karen said of Kasey's birth. "People will say Kasey is Marcye's child, and that makes me crazy. They're both my kids." Marcye, who feels the same, said, "I think as a society most of us are beyond how kids are brought into being." ... A coalition that includes the Catholic Conference and the New Jersey Family Policy Council contends that by endorsing same-sex marriage, "law and government will be making a powerful statement: our government no longer believes children deserve mothers and fathers." "If two mothers are just the same as a mother and a father, for example, why can't a single mother and her mother do just as well as a married mom and dad?" the coalition asked rhetorically. "Why are dads relevant at all?" more posted by Eve at 3:34 PM | link 0 comments
COUPLES SEEK REVERSAL OF N.J. GAY MARRIAGE RULING: From The Times (Trenton)
New Jersey would become the second state in the country to permit gays and lesbians to marry if a lawyer representing seven homosexual couples persuades a panel of appeals court judges to overturn a lower court ruling tomorrow morning. ... At issue is a Nov. 5, 2003, ruling by Mercer County Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg that gays and lesbians do not have the right to marry. The judge rejected arguments by the plaintiffs' attorneys that the refusal of town clerks to issue marriage licenses to the couples violates rights guaranteed by the state constitution. ... Many of the arguments offered during the lower court case are expected to resurface tomorrow, with Buckel likely to argue that denying marriage licenses to his clients runs roughshod over their state rights to privacy and equal protection. DeAlmeida is expected to argue that the power to define marriage rests with the Legislature, not the courts. ... DeAlmeida said he will point out that since Feinberg issued her ruling in 2003, the Legislature has provided plaintiffs much of the relief they sought when it adopted the landmark New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act. As of Wednesday, 2,607 couples have registered as domestic partners, including 1,542 lesbian couples, 1,024 gay couples and 41 heterosexual couples over the age of 62, according to a Department of Health and Senior Services spokeswoman. The domestic partnership law took effect in July and gives the couples numerous rights and benefits, including inheritance benefits, hospital visitation rights, a state income tax deduction for dependents and the right to make critical medical decisions for an incapacitated partner. ... Buckel said he will mine a friend-of-the-court brief written by two matrimony lawyers who argue that the New Jersey Domestic Partnership Law falls woefully short. "The NJDPL provides only eight rights to same-sex couples and serves to promote the illusion that separate can be equal," attorneys Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich and Edward J. O'Donnell wrote in their brief. In contrast, state statutes "make over 850 references to various rights, obligations, privileges and benefits that come solely with marriage," they wrote. more posted by Eve at 3:23 PM | link 0 comments
SSM PROPONENTS DECRY OPPONENTS' CLAIMS IN CALIF. CASE: From the Associated Press
Proponents of gay marriage told a judge that arguments over whether marriage is designed to foster procreation and whether gays make good parents are irrelevant to their case. Twelve couples are suing to get California to overturn its statutory ban on gay marriage, a response to legal claims of two Christian groups. In briefs filed Friday, the couples' lawyers pointed out to Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer that California's Legislature and Supreme Court have already settled the procreation-parenting question by allowing gays to have children through adoption or reproductive technology. "California's public policy unambiguously rejects the notion that families headed by same-sex couples provide a harmful or inferior environment for children, and unambiguously has embraced the premise that same-sex children and their children should be treated equally," they wrote . ... The Christian groups, the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund and the Campaign for California Families, adopted Lockyer's reasoning and took it a step further, arguing that the state should maintain the status quo because "children do best with both a mother and a father." The couples, who are represented by lawyers from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, said the groups' claim amounts to gender discrimination. more posted by Eve at 3:19 PM | link 0 comments
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|