|
 |
 |
 Friday, December 17, 2004
MORE ON DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS AS THREAT TO MARRIAGE: Random Blade readers
Re "Taking the blame for messing up marriage" (editorial by Chris Crain, Dec. 10) 1. Let's say the unsaid: Gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage because it's the chief tool to maintaining a male-dominated society. When all the sex-discrimination laws are off the books, when we all have equal opportunities at work, there will still be the domestic front, the final domain of "privacy" and oppression. With gay marriage, we dissolve any possibility that men and women have biologically-determined roles and simultaneously break down the culturally-determined ones. If men (even gay men) can enter into a legal relationship as either oppressor or oppressed, then women can no longer be oppressed because of their sex. And the lesbian threat--that women actually can survive without men--needs no mention, I hope. There's no point in tiptoeing around this issue. The conservatives know it in their bones. It's time to be up front: proponents of same-sex marriage are out to radically change the institution of marriage. And that's a good thing. 2. Excuse me? Only gays should have access to legal nonreligious relationships such as civil unions and domestic partnerships or we are a threat to marriage? As a divorce lawyer in Tennessee, let me tell you without fear of contradiction that heterosexuals need no help from us in trashing the institution of marriage. Chris Crain's editorial reveals his affection for conservatism, tradition for its own sake, and religious mumbo jumbo. 3. As a human resources executive, I have had the opportunity to add domestic partner benefits as an option for employees. In all instances, the benefit was available to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. We offered the benefit to help define ourselves as an employer of choice in our industry. It had nothing to do with senior management's views on homosexuality or marriage; no one was making a statement in support of gay rights. Gay men and women certainly benefited, but it really wasn't about them. So if a Massachusetts company decides to eliminate same-sex D.P. benefits now that gay marriage is legal in their state, I can assure you it is about saving money, not some ideological statement about a newfound equality. here posted by Eve at 6:08 PM | link 0 comments 
ADVICE COLUMNIST FROM WASHINGTON BLADE
Dear Ms. Behavior: My girlfriend Andrea left me a few months ago because I'm ready to have a baby and she's not. It wasn't an impulsive decision; we've discussed it endlessly and we're just in different places. I'm sad about losing Andrea, but I understand how she feels. We ended it well, for what that's worth. Now I've lined up a sperm donor (through a sperm bank), and I've changed my job enough to accommodate childcare. I'm a little apprehensive about doing it alone. This isn't exactly what I'd imagined, but I'm basically ready. The problem is that I'm suddenly meeting all kinds of resistance from my mother and my friends, who are begging me not to rush, as if I'm 25 and haven't spent the last 10 years talking about having a baby. They are warning me that a baby will put the kibosh on any romantic possibility I might have for the future. I hope that's not true. But if I were pushed to make a choice, I'd probably choose the baby over some theoretical girlfriend. Am I crazy? Should I listen to my mother and wait a few months? Nervous Dear Nervous: Don't let your mother's spinster fears influence your decision. Your plan hardly sounds impulsive, and you can't exactly put your life on hold while waiting for a new partner to ring your buzzer. Besides, a baby isn't quite the scourge on a relationship that some people like to imagine. Many of your luscious lesbian dates will actually find your bouncy, drooling infant rather alluring. Some even welcome the idea of a ready-made family. Of course, having a baby does reduce your mean number of relationship prospects, but that's not necessarily a bad thing because you wouldn't have wanted to be with someone who loathes little ones anyway. The trick will be finding someone sane and lovely and crazy about babies, who'd be delighted with the package deal of you and your spawn. link posted by Eve at 3:35 PM | link 0 comments
D.P. BENEFITS ARE WORTH SAVING: Marshall Miller and Dorian Solot
...In his editorial last week, "Taking the blame for messing up marriage," Chris Crain argued that domestic partner benefits should be limited to same-sex couples, and then yanked away when those couples are granted the right to marry. To the contrary, the approach he suggests is not a way to strengthen the institution of marriage, nor does it help the very real families, gay and straight, that exist today. A fair-minded approach to these issues is based on fundamental respect for personal choices. While same-sex couples should be able to choose whether to legally marry, marriage should never be the only way of ensuring basic rights and protections. ... And that's the point. If marriage isn't an adequate litmus test for "family" when it comes to hospital visitation, what makes us think it's adequate in the realm of employment benefits or anywhere else? Marriage is one way to recognize who is family, but when it's upheld as the only way, real families are endangered. ... Forcing people to marry because they need health care does not strengthen the institution of marriage. more posted by Eve at 3:24 PM | link 0 comments
COHABITATION RIGHTS BILL BEING DRAFTED IN UTAH: From the Salt Lake Tribune
Gov.-elect Jon Huntsman Jr. first suggested legislation to grant rights to unmarried, cohabiting adults in the heat of an election-year debate about gay rights and Utah's marriage amendment. But now that a bill has been drafted that would put some of Huntsman's ideas into place, the governor's chief of staff is carefully describing the legislation as an effort to preserve "human dignity"--for a grandmother and her granddaughter, as well as for gay couples. Fruit Heights Republican Sen. Greg Bell's draft legislation would allow unmarried adults who live together but are ineligible to marry in Utah--a sister and brother, aunt and niece, or a gay or lesbian couple--to sign a contract legally establishing their relationship and granting the couple some rights assumed in marriage. ... Under Senate Bill 89, "mutual dependents" would have some of the same rights as a married couple, such as hospital visitation and end-of-life decisions about organ donation and the choice of burial or cremation. If two people purchase a home together and one dies, the contract would grant the remaining person "survivorship," without requiring a trip to probate court. The state Department of Health would develop a form couples could fill out, eliminating the need for lawyers. The contracts would be terminated if either party married. more posted by Eve at 3:20 PM | link 0 comments
MLK'S WIFE, DAUGHTER AT ODDS ON GAY RIGHTS: From the Washington Blade
...The Dec. 11 "Re-ignite the Legacy" march--coordinated by Bishop Eddie Long, leader of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia--drew between 20,000 and 25,000 people, according to Atlanta Police Department estimates. The trek from Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s gravesite to Turner Field was in response to Long's call for black churches to become more vocal political players on issues like banning same-sex marriage, reforming the education and health care systems, and creating economic opportunities for minorities. ... Several prominent black clergy, civil rights leaders and politicians harshly rebuked the New Birth march, saying Martin Luther King Jr. would not have supported Long's message. The critics included U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.); Rev. Joseph Lowery, former SCLC president; and Rev. Timothy McDonald III, head of the African-American Ministers' Leadership Conference. ... King's widow has been a staunch public supporter of gay civil rights. The King Center did not respond to repeated interview requests about whether it supported the march. But the center, along with the city, granted march organizers a permit, according to Locke from APD. more posted by Eve at 3:11 PM | link 0 comments
MASS. EDUCATORS GO WITH THE FLOW ON SSM: From Bay Windows
As same-sex marriage moved from theory to reality in the Bay State last spring, opponents warned that the impact of those marriages would be felt prominently in the schools, and predicted that dire consequences would follow. For instance, Gov. Mitt Romney, one of the state's most outspoken critics of same-sex marriage, testified in June before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that schools across the Commonwealth would be forced to alter their curricula to promote same-sex marriage. ... At least for the time being the fears of same-sex marriage opponents seem unwarranted; there has been no mandate from the state Department of Education to rewrite school curricula to promote same-sex marriage. While there is no comprehensive portrait of how schools across the state are reacting to the legalization of same-sex marriage, some parents and educators said that the topic of same-sex marriage is coming up in their schools, but not in the way that Romney and MFI might have imagined. In some instances the topic was brought up not by teachers but by curious students. In another instance a private school worked with parents to ensure that their school treated same-sex marriage as just another form of family. In all of the cases examined by Bay Windows students appear more comfortable with same-sex marriage than their adult counterparts. ... If teachers are steering clear of the subject, the same cannot be said of the students. Marc Lewis, an openly gay seventh grade social studies teacher at Acton's R.J. Grey Junior High School, said that all discussions of the topic in his classroom have been at the prompting of students. ...Lewis credits the increased tolerance among students to greater exposure to gay and lesbian people among their family and friends. He also explained that the school makes an effort to promote tolerance for GLBT people, for instance, by showing the documentary "That's a Family," which depicts diverse family structures, including those headed by same-sex couples, in the first week of school. This puts students more at ease to talk about the issue in the classroom, Lewis believes. more posted by Eve at 3:06 PM | link 0 comments
JEB BUSH VS FLA. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: From the Palm Beach Post
Gov. Jeb Bush said Thursday he does not support amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage in Florida because he believes a 1977 state law already does that. ... But Sen. Daniel Webster, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he thinks the statute may not be enough to preserve the traditional institution of marriage. ... Webster, a conservative Republican from Winter Garden, said he is considering pursuing ballot initiatives banning gay marriage and removing the separation of church and state from the state constitution. more posted by Eve at 3:03 PM | link 0 comments
SSM CASE IN NEWFOUNDLAND; FEDERAL GOVT SHIFTS SUPPORT: From the Toronto Star
Same-sex marriage may become legal in yet another province as early as next Monday with the federal government subtly shifting its support in favour of a marriage application by two gay couples. A lawsuit brought by two Newfoundland and Labrador couples was set to be heard last week, but was postponed because of the imminent reference opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of gay marriage. ... The Newfoundland case is now slated to be heard Monday and Tuesday, but could be decided quickly Monday morning. That's because the federal government indicated to the parties yesterday that it would not merely drop any opposition to the couples' claim -- as it has done since an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling upholding gay marriage rights in May, 2003 -- but rather support the claim. It's a subtle but significant shift that strongly indicates to the Newfoundland and Labrador court that the federal government, which has the exclusive power over the definition of marriage, according to the Supreme Court, considers "marriage" does extend to gays and lesbians. more posted by Eve at 2:57 PM | link 0 comments
NEW QUESTION: WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE MARRIAGE MOVEMENT?
This new report details the successes of the marriage movement, and offers ideas for renewing marriage. What are the most important things that can be done to strengthen our marriage culture? What do you think of the specific suggestions in the report, from marriage education in schools to reforming divorce laws? What are the greatest challenges and opportunities the movement now faces? What struck you in the report--did anything surprise you or make you want to know more? Where should our attention and energy be focused in order to build on the successes that have already been achieved? posted by Eve at 8:03 AM | link 0 comments
Thursday, December 16, 2004
WHAT NEXT FOR THE MARRIAGE MOVEMENT?: Press release
The trend of family breakdown in the U.S., which many thought was inevitable, has largely stopped in its tracks, and the work of the grassroots marriage movement over the past decade is responsible for at least part of this good news, according to a report released today by over 140 leaders of the grassroots marriage movement. While the country's attention has been focused on the debate over same-sex marriage, members of a grassroots marriage movement on both sides of the issue have been working to strengthen marriage, lower the rates of divorce and unwed childbearing, and ensure that as many children as possible have the benefit of growing up with their own married mother and father. Their efforts are having a real impact, the leaders of the marriage movement say in their report, entitled What Next for the Marriage Movement? "It seems clear that much of the recent good news on marriage stems from the work of the marriage movement," says David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values and a signatory to the statement. "We've been arguing for the importance of marriage in the public debate for more than a decade, and community marriage education programs have mushroomed in recent years. Research shows some of them are dramatically cutting the rates of divorce and unwed childbearing. On a lot of different levels, there have been increased efforts in lots of communities to strengthen marriage. There are more pastors doing pre-marriage education, more articles in local papers about the importance of marriage, more pro-marriage curricula in the public schools." ... The goals of the marriage movement include expanding access to marriage education so that more couples have a chance to learn skills to improve their marriage. For instance, the leaders advocate increasing federal funding for marriage education programs in low-income communities, as a part of the reauthorization of the federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. The statement also calls for new state laws offering reduced marriage license fees, shorter waiting periods for marriage licenses, and tax credits for couples who choose to participate in pre-marriage education. The leaders also want to see high-quality marriage and relationship education added to the public school curriculum. Also included among their goals is a call to reform divorce laws to reduce unnecessary divorce. Proposals to do so include combining longer waiting periods for divorce, except in cases of abuse, with stronger provisions for courts to refer couples to marriage education. more; full report is here posted by Eve at 4:21 PM | link 0 comments
SAME-SEX UNIONS DIVIDE "MARRIAGE MOVEMENT": Jane Eisner
One-hundred and forty scholars, health-care professionals, clergy and public officials are releasing a statement today lauding the work of the grassroots "marriage movement" in helping stem the tide of family breakdown in America. And they have reason to celebrate. Some damaging trends--such as divorce and out-of-wedlock births--are stabilizing or, in the case of teen pregnancy, declining. Research is pointing out programs that work, and why, enabling a more rational, persuasive public conversation. ... The document explicitly links same-sex marriage and family breakdown. Because of that, some notable pro-marriage activists, from both left and right, have declined to sign today's statement. "We heterosexuals have enough on our plate to keep us occupied for the rest of our lives," says Mike McManus, founder of Marriage Savers. He declined to sign the statement even though it singles out for praise the clergy-led Community Marriage Policies, which he developed and has expanded to 190 congregations nationwide. ... Perhaps. But many of those who work to promote healthy marriages find the same-sex debate a monumental distraction. After all, the decline in marriage and the increase in the number of children born outside of wedlock--much more threatening trends--began in the 1960s, whereas Massachusetts began sanctioning gay marriage only in May of this year. Divorce, too, is a much more pressing threat. The number of gays and lesbians who "marry" and raise children pales in comparison with the number of heterosexuals who give the United States what is probably the highest divorce rate in the world. more posted by Eve at 4:17 PM | link 0 comments
MORAL AND OTHER REASONS: Maggie Gallagher replies to Mark Miller
[Note: Mark Miller, not Mark Barton. --Eve] Just a side note. Mark says objections to SSM and polygamy are primarily "moral," not really rooted in the welfare of children or getting mothers and fathers for kids. I know many people use the word "moral" in this fashion, but I can't really grok it: A moral objection is one for which you can offer no explanation. I myself consider concern for the welfare of children to be a moral issue. "Morality" is about what is good, including how you value and order complex goods. posted by Eve at 4:14 PM | link 0 comments
MARRIAGE AND HOMOSEXUALITY: Maggie Gallagher replies to Mark Barton
There is no doubt that one's view on gay marriage are often influenced by views about homosexuality and about moral norms related to sexuality in general. No doubt many people are opposed to gay marriage because they don't wish to normalize or affirm gay sexual relationships. Nor am I claiming my views on these things the same as Andrew Sullivan's. But I have been in the public arena for 20 years, without focusing on the gay debate. And I quit my job to found a think tank to address the gay marriage issue as a marriage issue (which has been my central focus for 20 years). So, I think you ought to believe me, wrongheaded as it may seem to you, that I'm here in the thick of things because I think it really is a big deal for marriage. Moreover about 40 to 50 percent of Americans think homosexual acts are wrong. About 60 to 75 percent of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. So while some people may oppose gay marriage solely because they oppose homosexuality, some other things are at work here in the public mind. I'm always surprised at the extent to which many (not all) advocates of gay marriage do not seem to fathom what a radical transformation in a basic institution they are asking for. I suppose its because in their own heads they've already redefined marriage, such that same-sex marriage is not a big deal. So its hard for them to see what they are asking the rest of us. posted by Eve at 4:11 PM | link 0 comments
MARRIAGE AS A NORM: Mark Barton replies to Maggie Gallagher
Maggie Gallagher: For me the question of what SSM will do to marriage is primary. Advocates of gay marriage tend to secretly or openly believe that opponents are motivated primarily by opposition to homosexuality. For me the question of what SSM will do to marriage is primary. [...] I don't see marriage as a "right." I see it as a "norm" and a social institution, which means it has to have substantive content. Mark B.: I'd have to admit that I do believe that SSM opponents tend to be motivated primarily by opposition to homosexuality. In fact I don't just believe this, I know it, because I've seen surveys that asked as much, and disapproval of homosexuality had a healthy lead over other concerns. Of course, I'd like to believe that Maggie is an exception, but whether I can accept her assurances depends on what exactly she means by"norm," something she appears to me to be terminally vague about. A reasonable reading that would make sense of a lot of what she has to say is, "something that people quite generally should be expected to do"or perhaps "something that people who aspire to be sexually active quite generally should be expected to do." But in that case, I'm afraid I can't accept her assurances. It's not that I think she's necessarily being disingenuous, but (again, if that's what she means by "norm") I think she's badly mistaken about how thoroughly homophobic such a view is. I suggest that any view that tacitly or otherwise presumes that gay (i.e., same-sex attracted) people should be in opposite-sex relationships or not in relationships at all is quintessentially homophobic. Of course, perhaps Maggie means something quite different by "norm," but in that case I'm at a loss. I honestly can't guess what else she could mean that would still imply that SSM was to be opposed. posted by Eve at 4:06 PM | link 0 comments
ROLE OF COUPLES' RELATIONSHIP SKILLS AND FATHERS' EMPLOYMENT IN ENCOURAGING MARRIAGE: Robert Rector and Kirk A. Johnson
This paper examines the factors that are most likely to contribute to healthy marriages among low-income couples. Using data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing survey, we analyzed couples who were unmarried at the time of their child's birth, but who subsequently married within the first year after that birth. The analysis revealed four factors that were significant predictors of subsequent marriage among couples who were unmarried at the time of their child's birth. These factors were: Parental marital attitudes and relationship skills; Mother's race; Mother's age (25 or older); and, Father's employment. Neither the annual earnings nor education level of mothers or fathers were found to be significant predictors of post-birth marriage among unmarried parents. The analysis also indicates that improving paternal employment alone would have, at best, a modest impact on marriage. Increasing fathers' employment, so that all fathers were currently employed and worked 52 weeks per year, would increase the marriage rate among unmarried couples only slightly; from a base rate of 11.3 percent up to 13.2 percent. The Fragile Families data indicate that the marital attitudes and relationship skills of a couple play an important role in encouraging marriage. An 11-point scale for each parent was devised, measuring attitudes toward marriage, gender trust, supportiveness, and conflict in the relationship. An upward shift of one point for each parent on this scale doubled a couple's probability of marriage. The analysis suggests that healthy marriage programs should put their primary emphasis on improving couples' attitudes and relationship skills. Effective job training and employment services can also play a positive role in encouraging healthy marriage, but job training should play an ancillary and supportive--rather than a dominant--role in marriage promotion programs. more posted by Eve at 4:01 PM | link 0 comments
VATICAN COMBATS TODAY'S MANICHEANS: Chris Roberts
...The Manichaeans were a quasi-Christian sect who could not believe that a good God would be involved in the material world. They emphasized that what matters in a person is immaterial spirit, and that our bodies are indifferent or even hostile to spiritual pursuits. Augustine, although once a Manichaean himself, studied the Bible and changed his mind. He deduced that our bodies, like all of material creation, are not hostile or indifferent, because in Genesis, God calls them good. Although we are beset by sin and suffering, the problem lies in our pride and selfishness, and not in the mere fact of having been embodied. On that basis, and buttressed by the implications of Christ's Incarnation and the Resurrection, Augustine believed that God loves what he has made, and that God works with and through materiality for our redemption. In other words, when we think about ethical problems related to the body, we shouldn't act as if the body were a curse, as if it were an obstacle to ignore, overcome or tame. ... The present Vatican document works on these premises. The basic claim in the letter is that the material existence of humankind as male and female is not meaningless. Sexual difference is not a neutral bystander in our redemption. There are other claims and other arguments in the letter, but they all relate to this core point. ... For example, arguments on behalf of gay marriage that say that the sexual difference is irrelevant, that what really matters is love and keeping a covenant, don't touch the Vatican where it counts. Whatever one wants to say about the beauty of these ideals, or the justice or fairness of denying marriage to gay people, this line of critique misses Augustine's point. The Vatican's letter simply cannot entertain the notion that sexual difference is neutral or irrelevant. God made it; it must be for some good purpose, and it cannot be treated as merely biological raw material, liable to be valued or not according to human preferences. The letter claims that sexual difference has a "nuptial significance," by which it means that having a sex implies a vocation, an orientation of self-giving with regard to the opposite sex. This is not to insist on compulsory marriage or coupling of any sort, and it is a more basic point than any arguments about procreation. Nuptiality or "self-gift" has a precise meaning in this letter, and can mean either marriage or celibate singleness. Marriage, because God loves us by means of covenants, and therefore men and women should love each other the same way. Marriage takes the biology of sexual difference and places it in an arena of promise-keeping and mutual service, disclosing our biology's true meaning. ... ...But for those who want something better, this letter, despite all its shortcomings, offers a challenge: How would you reform traditional sexual ethics without undermining basic beliefs about God and the significance of creation, including sexual difference? if you subscribe to the Nat'l Catholic Reporter you can read the rest... posted by Eve at 3:48 PM | link 0 comments
A BLOW TO CANADA'S FAMILIES: David Frum
...Did homosexuals ever really want to marry in the first place? There are about 24 million Canadians between the ages of 18 and 65. It's a reasonable guess that about 750,000 of them are gay. In June and July 2003, the two largest English-speaking provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, began issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples. Within the first six months, some 300 Canadian same-sex couples had been married in B.C. Within the first year, about 4,000 Canadian couples had been married in Ontario. Since then, the number of same-sex marriages seems to have dropped off. National statistics are hard to come by, but it's a good guess that 18 months after same-sex marriage arrived in Canada, some 98 percent of adult Canadian gays have chosen to ignore their new legal right. Will same-sex marriage damage the institution of marriage generally? Forty years ago, Canadian men and women faced one choice: Get married or stay single. Unsurprisingly, most of them chose to get married. Today, Canadians can choose from a proliferating menu of lifestyle options. Next year, there will be one more: a new form of marriage recognized by the government but condemned by every major religion in Canada. ... Will the weakening of marriage harm Canadian children--and Canadian society? When marriage declines, children lose. Children who grow up with their biological mother and biological father are dramatically--that is by margins from 50 percent to 300 percent--less likely to break the law, drop out of school, get pregnant in their teens and end up as single parents themselves than children raised by single parents or in stepfamilies. Today, after three decades of anti-family policy, a Canadian child's odds of reaching age 18 in the same home as his or her father and mother are less than 50-50. As if recognizing that Canada is becoming an inhospitable place for children, Canadian women are giving birth to fewer and fewer of them. more posted by Eve at 3:44 PM | link 0 comments
OPPOSITION TO CANADIAN SSM: From the Globe and Mail
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper proposed Tuesday that the government entrench the traditional definition of marriage, but refused to say whether he would support use of the notwithstanding clause to ban gay weddings. Mr. Harper said he will offer amendments to same-sex marriage legislation to guarantee equivalent rights and benefits for gay couples. The amendments also would recognize the traditional definition of marriage as involving a man and a woman and provide more protection for religious institutions that refuse to perform gay weddings. more posted by Eve at 3:41 PM | link 0 comments
CANADIAN OFFICIALS CAN CHOOSE WHETHER TO PERFORM SSM: From the Winnipeg Sun
Ottawa is setting itself up for a jurisdictional battle by saying it won't force civic officials to perform gay marriages if it's against their religious beliefs, says a University of Manitoba law professor. Karen Busby said Ottawa can only decide who can legally marry. The rest is up to the provinces. "The federal government has no jurisdiction over the question of who can perform a marriage ceremony," Busby said yesterday. "That's the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces." Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler yesterday said the recent landmark Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriages recognizes that equality rights should not infringe on religious rights. ... Marriage commissioners in Manitoba are required to perform same-sex marriages. If commissioners refuse, they are asked to resign. Churches are not required to perform the marriages. ... Conservative justice critic Vic Toews was critical of Cotler for announcing he would not force civic officials to perform same-sex marriages without explaining how he'll enforce such a policy. more posted by Eve at 3:38 PM | link 0 comments
MARRIED ADULTS LIVE WELL AND ARE MERRY: From the Washington Times
Married adults are more likely to be healthier--physically and mentally--than divorced, widowed, cohabiting or never-married adults, a new federal report says. Regardless of age, sex, race, education, income or nationality, married adults were least likely to be in poor health, suffer serious psychological distress and smoke or drink heavily, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) says in its new report, which reviews health data gathered from more than 127,000 adults from 1999 to 2002. ... "Wives are especially good at what social scientists call 'social support' and ordinary people call 'nagging,' " said columnist Maggie Gallagher, who heads the District-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. ... "When you're married, you have somebody to be accountable to ... and I see this even in marriages that are stormy--sometimes, they're stormy because of someone caring about a health issue," said Illinois therapist Michele Weiner-Davis, who is nationally known for her "divorce-busting" books and materials. In addition, Mrs. Weiner-Davis said the "emotional connectedness" in marriage, plus its likelihood for sexual satisfaction, often leads to a sense of well-being in husbands and wives. So, saying that married people are the healthiest "seems to me to be an obvious truth," she said. One caveat in the NCHS report is that federal interviewers asked for--but did not confirm--the participants' marital status and didn't confirm whether they were legally married, the report says. Researchers also don't look at whether the data included same-sex couples, Mrs. Schoenborn added. However, the surveys clearly categorize adults who are "living with a partner," and the data shows that those who cohabit are not nearly as healthy as married adults. more posted by Eve at 3:31 PM | link 0 comments
SOUTH AFRICAN CHRISTIAN LEADERS WANT REFERENDUM ON SSM: From CNSNews.com
Stung by a recent court ruling in favor of same-sex "marriage," Christian leaders in South Africa are calling for a national referendum on the controversial issue. They argue that homosexuality not only contravenes the Bible, but also is rejected by a majority of South Africans. South Africa's Supreme Court recently ruled that the common-law definition of marriage, which excludes homosexuals and lesbians, contravened the country's ultra-liberal constitution. ... The South African Christian Leadership Assembly (Sacla), an umbrella organization of 30 church groups, said the decision to legalize same-sex "marriage" could not be left to the courts because all South Africans would be affected by the decision. "Before that decision can be contemplated, a referendum should be held," it said in a statement. ... The South Africa Council of Churches' response to the court ruling, however, illustrated differences on the issue among those identifying themselves as Christians. Council general secretary Molefe Tsele said Christian leaders should respond "cautiously" to the decision because Christianity's core teachings do "not explicitly prohibit validation [of] faithful, loving same-sex relationships." more posted by Eve at 3:25 PM | link 0 comments
DONOR-CONCEIVED CHILDREN WRITE: At Family Scholars Blog
here, here, here. Lots of powerful stuff. posted by Eve at 3:21 PM | link 0 comments
NORDIC FAMILY TIES DON'T MEAN TYING THE KNOT: From USA Today
...In Norway, half of all children are now born to unmarried mothers. In Pettersen's county, 82% of couples have their first child out of wedlock. The numbers are similarly high for Sweden and Denmark. While many couples marry after having the first or second child, it's clear marriage in parts of Scandinavia is dying. ... In turning away from marriage, Scandinavians have done little to harm their quality of life. Norway ranked first and Sweden second in the United Nations' quality-of-life survey for 2004, which rates per capital income, education levels, health care and life expectancy in measuring a nation's well-being. The USA came in eighth. But family policies in Scandinavian countries have a downside for women. Female job candidates have a harder time getting work in the private sector. Few rise to the management ranks. The reason: Companies are reluctant to hire or promote women because they take so much time off to raise their children. ... "You choose a father and then you choose a different husband," says Anne-Maren Hanssen, 25, Nonshaugen's youngest daughter. "It's like, 'You'd be a great dad, but I don't want to marry you.' I've got quite a few friends who've got kids and they decided the kids are their own." Hanssen doesn't believe the traditional, one father/one mother family model is necessarily best for raising kids. "I've had plenty of parents and I've been pretty happy," says Hanssen, who studied dance in London and now is applying to medical school. ... Social welfare policies in Scandinavia treat all parents the same, married or not. "The government does not think it is their place to show people how they are supposed to live," says Maria Lidstrom, a co-coordinator for family policy for Sweden's division of children and family affairs. "Since it was (becoming) more common to live together and have children without marrying, they introduced laws that made it easier for families who were not married." more posted by Eve at 3:15 PM | link 0 comments
REPUBLICANS' MASS. APPEAL: George F. Will
A Republican can be elected governor of the bluest state. Indeed, Republicans have held the statehouse here since Michael Dukakis's last year, 1990. Mitt Romney is the inexplicably happy holder of it now. ... Romney's disadvantage will be that, given his legislature, he has had no real opportunity to advance a conservative agenda. However, thanks to the state's Supreme Judicial Court, he lives at ground zero in the debate on same-sex marriage, and he has pleased social conservatives by opposing resolution of the debate by judicial fiat. He endorses "moral federalism" -- the right of each state to legislate its own consensus -- but testified before Congress in support of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. more posted by Eve at 3:10 PM | link 0 comments
"ONE THOUSAND FEDERAL BENEFITS": Larry Kramer
[Not quite. --Eve] ...Solomon: The marriage issue stirs people--both those among us who long for it, and among those who hate us and rail against it--not so much because of the benefits-- Kramer: That's why I want it. There are over 1,000 economic benefits the government passes out to married couples. I want 'em. Solomon: --but more around the symbolic power of the state recognizing our relationships. Kramer: I'm hoping that the symbolic stuff is beginning to fade. I think it's sentimental. I have nothing against that, but I don't think we should hold out for sentiment if we can get cold hard cash. I think we were on our way to getting the more easily obtainable civil union when the Massachusetts thing passed and marriage took its course. Then we had no choice but to fight for it, when a lot of us would have been happy to have the civil union. So when at the last minute Bush seemed to offer civil union, we weren't in a negotiating position to say, OK, we'll take that instead. more posted by Eve at 3:05 PM | link 0 comments
KY JUDGE ASKED TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM SSM CASE: From the Associated Press
A judge who disclosed he contributed to a group opposed to Kentucky's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has been asked to remove himself from hearing a lawsuit challenging the amendment. Franklin County Circuit Judge William Graham told lawyers in the case Tuesday that he had made a modest contribution to the Kentucky Fairness Alliance. He told the lawyers he was giving them time to decide whether to seek to disqualify him. more posted by Eve at 3:01 PM | link 0 comments
OREGON COURT ARGUMENTS: From The Oregonian
Gay-rights advocates brought their appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court on Wednesday, urging the justices to order the 2005 Legislature to create civil unions for same-sex couples. Despite the November passage of a ballot measure prohibiting same-sex marriage, they argued, the Oregon Constitution still requires the state to treat gay and lesbian couples equally by giving them the same rights and benefits of marriage even if the institution is off limits. Supporters of Measure 36, which limited marriage to one man and one woman, countered that the passage of the constitutional amendment last month required the justices to dismiss the suit before them. The original lawsuit sought the right to marry. Measure 36 took that off the table. The lawsuit is moot, said Kelly Clark, the lead attorney for Measure 36 supporters. If gay-rights advocates want civil unions, Clark said, they need to file a new lawsuit or seek legislative approval like anyone else. more posted by Eve at 2:58 PM | link 0 comments
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
WHAT IF CANADIAN SSM BILL DOESN'T PASS?: Greg Weston
here posted by Eve at 9:23 PM | link 0 comments
WHY DON'T POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN DO THE SAME THING?: Mark Miller replies to Justin Katz
To be sure, there are a number of factors as to why polygamy is objectionable to some, but my point is only that there is a competing interest between the value of a legally acknowledged married mother and father to the child and the moral objection to legally acknowledging a polygamous relationship. The same may also be said for SSM. My only point here is that I feel that the primary objection in both cases is the moral one. I too was not among the culture that decided no-fault divorce was the way to go. But we disagree that this generation has come to a different conclusion about divorce. Also, I'd suggest that Justin is comparing Apples to McIntosh. Lumping SSM in with no-fault divorce does not make sense. No-fault divorce means divorce is granted "regardless of fault." In order to make it analogous to SSM, the conclusion would need to be to not allow divorce in any case--as is with legitimization of same-sex relationships, which is forbidden regardless of the reason entered into. I do not see the case for SSM resting at all on the ease of divorce. I do see that one of the factors is that consenting adults are free to choose to enter and exit relationships despite the existence of competing interests--the moral factor not withstanding--which was my point from the start. posted by Eve at 9:20 PM | link 0 comments
SPOUSE AS A "SOCIAL OFFICE": Scott Fitzgibbon
[Scott Fitzgibbon is a professor at the Boston College Law School.] I agree with Maggie that marriage is not (just) a right, or a consequence of the exercise of rights. "Spouse," "husband," and "wife" are the names of social offices, like "physician" or, in some societies perhaps, "wetnurse" or "nanny." posted by Eve at 9:12 PM | link 0 comments
COMPARING CANADIAN AND AMERICAN LAW RE SSM: Joanna Grossman
...Since 1999, throughout Canada, same-sex couples have been able to enter, by contract, into common-law marriages (marriages by consent without the benefit of solemnization or a license). More recently, within the last eighteen months six Canadian provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan) and the Yukon territory have each ruled that banning same-sex marriage violates the Canadian Constitution. Only one provincial government (Alberta) officially opposes same-sex marriage. And commentators predict that the remaining jurisdictions, if asked in an appropriate case, will join the majority of seven. ... Nevertheless, some argued to the Canadian Supreme Court that the Canadian Parliament's power over marriage, though broad -- does not give Parliament authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. They have said that would violate Canada's fundamental law, its Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- which trumps Parliament's laws, just as the U.S. Constitution trumps federal statutes. According to this view, the definition of marriage is constitutionally fixed to mean whatever it did in 1867, when the Constitution Act was passed. And at that time, the definition of civil marriage was bound to its religious roots, and was defined as the "voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others." But the Canadian Supreme Court refused to see Canada's fundamental document as encompassing only "frozen concepts"; it saw it, instead, as a "living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life." Such an approach ensures, the Court reasoned, "the continued relevance and, indeed, legitimacy of Canada's constituting document." ... Many American conservatives have suggested that same-sex marriage would be less objectionable if mandated by a legislature. We will soon see if their Canadian counterparts hold the same view. more posted by Eve at 9:03 PM | link 0 comments
Monday, December 13, 2004
WHY DON'T POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN DO THE SAME THING?: Mark Miller replies to Maggie Gallagher
I had not known that you were on record that saying gay marriage is worse for the institution of marriage than polygamy for the reasons you describe. I, myself, am on record saying that the gay marriage debate is far more complicated than just a civil rights or equality issue. I do not believe this debate can be reduced to 'bigotry' vs. 'equality'. That is an unfair and oversimplistic accusation just as those who say advocates of SSM are not interested in the needs of children. Also, I never said that being opposed to both polygamy and same-sex marriage did not make sense or was inconsistent. My point was that the 'mother and father' grounds for opposition does not apply to both and that the central argument for opposition to both is on moral grounds. Your comment that you do not see marriage as a 'right' but a 'social norm' is interesting. I guess what you are saying is that opposite-sex attractions are the social norm and same-sex attractions are not. And the next step is that there should be an institution (legal and social) that encourages, legitimizes and upholds that 'normal' standard over others. Marriage has historically always referred only to opposite-sex relationships. I certainly acknowledge that. Where we disagree is that I think there should be an institution that does encourage and legitimize the value of stability and building a family for those with same-sex attractions. And why should there be a different institution for same-sex partners as there already exists one which currently applies to opposite-sex partners? I don't feel there is a societal value for giving legal acknowledgment to polygamy or incestuous relationships. In other words, I feel homosexuality is not on the same moral level and that the law should recognize that. In my view, the fact that same-sex relationships are not the social norm in no way justifies disallowing their relationships from being legally acknowledged. There are a number of opposite-sex relationships that do not fit in the social norm--as I described earlier--yet the people in those relationships have the institution of marriage available to them. The question then becomes, is the opposite-sex nature of marriage primary--as far as its legal and civil definition? posted by Eve at 5:58 PM | link 0 comments
WHY DON'T POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN DO THE SAME THING?: Justin Katz replies to Mark Miller
Mark Miller asks, "If marriage laws were about children, even primarily but not solely, then why not support polygamy?" To be sure, polygamy is not purely objectionable because of its direct effect on children, but that effect certainly can't be discarded as a non-factor. Would it be better for a child from the first marriage if the father were to marry a second wife? Whatever one's response to that question, it would clearly be better for the child to have marriage law that does not encourage the father to seek additional wives and, consequently, to produce half-siblings. As for the supposed disingenuous of "the 'mother-father preference' reasoning," I'd suggest that Mark has merely restated the arguments of many SSM opponents, but turned around. Take the most significant example that he provides as one area in which "we have decided as a culture that giving adults the freedom to do it outweighs the costs of allowing" it: divorce. If same-sex marriage makes coupling between adults the definitive factor of marriage, then reforming divorce laws becomes all the more difficult. To personalize it in a generational way, I was not among the culture that decided no-fault divorce was the way to go, and my generation has reason to come to different conclusions about the costs that the freedom must outweigh. Somehow, I don't suspect Mark will chip many SSM opponents away from their opinion by insisting that they'd have to favor divorce reform, as well. To the extent that folks see that the case for same-sex marriage rests partially on the current ease of divorce, Mark's argument may actually have the opposite effect than he intends. posted by Eve at 5:46 PM | link 0 comments
WHY DON'T POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN DO THE SAME THING?: Maggie Gallagher replies to Mark Miller
Mark, trust me here. I may well be wrong--anyone can be wrong--but I'm being as honest and as little disingenous as I can. For me the question of what SSM will do to marriage is primary. Advocates of gay marriage tend to secretly or openly believe that opponents are motivated primarily by opposition to homosexuality. Andrew Sullivan's arguments increasingly now consist of attempting to unmask such "secret" or "disingenous" motivations, to reduce the gay marriage debate to a debate about homosexuality. (This is not to say the gay debate is somehow illegitimate or unimportant, but its not exactly the same debate: one cannot be reduced to the other.). I am on record as saying that polygamy is "better" than gay marriage, precisely for the reasons you suggest (polygamous marriage systems are still oriented towards generativity and getting fathers for children). (See my NRO piece last year). I also think polygamy is a pretty wretched family system, much inferior to our own marriage tradition, for reasons involving everything from inherently lowering the status of mothers to reducing paternal investment in children (relative to monogamy), to intensifying male competition for wives in ways that tend to be inconsistent with democratic forms of government. (If only 10 percent of men get 4 wives, 40 percent of men at the bottom get no wife, barring importation of wives from outside the society) I don't see marriage as a "right." I see it as a "norm" and a social institution, which means it has to have substantive content. So being opposed to both gay marriage and to polygamy makes sense. We have several thousand years of experience with both systems. I think the verdict in favor of our own marriage norms is pretty persuasive. posted by Eve at 5:41 PM | link 0 comments
SIGN OF THE TIMES?: Maggie Gallagher
The Connecticut Family Institute is reporting on the Connecticut Gov.'s attitude toward gay marriage. Sign of the (changing) times? Maggie. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In an interview published in the New Haven Register, Gov. M. Jodi Rell has this to say: On the issue of gay marriage, Rell said she does not favor it. posted by Eve at 5:37 PM | link 0 comments
MARRIAGE RITES AND WRONGS: William Raspberry
...The church has no interest in joint filings, and the state no interest in declarations of love or religious affiliation. To the one, marriage is a sacred rite; to the other, it is the sanctioning of a contractual relationship. The church may care whether he is a philanderer or she a gold-digger, or whether there's too great a gap in their ages. The state's interests run to the validity of the contract. And what has any of this to do with same-sex marriage? Maybe if we can get past such churchly considerations as God's will as expressed in Leviticus, we can make peace with the bifurcation Lewis urged in his 1952 book: Let the church handle the sacrament, the state the contract. If we could get there, we might even calm down long enough to ask ourselves what would really be the risk in same-sex marriages. I mean, if our sexuality is pretty much hard-wired, how likely is it that legitimizing gay or lesbian marriages would tempt straight people into homosexuality? On the other hand, keeping the status quo seems unlikely to turn gays or lesbians into straights. Maybe what we are principally talking about is the effect of marriage on couples who are already involved in sexual relationships. We believe it's a good thing for heterosexual couples to commit to fidelity. Do we think it's a bad thing for homosexual couples to do so? more posted by Eve at 5:29 PM | link 0 comments
VOTING DADS: Gary J. Andres
...Men with children favored the president on the question of agreement on cultural direction by nearly 60 percentage points (Bush 77, Kerry 18), while men without kids slightly favored Mr. Kerry (Bush 37, Kerry 43). The pattern among women still strongly favors President Bush, but the differencesare smaller--a 25 percent advantage for the president among women with kids and a statistical tie among those without children. Many analysts, including myself, assumed that the "values voters" popularized in this election were mothers with kids, concerned about the increasing moral relativism and cultural coarseness in the world around them. These data support that idea. Yet men with kids are even more divided and intense on the issue--a less-understood pattern. more posted by Eve at 5:23 PM | link 0 comments
Sunday, December 12, 2004
CANADIAN COURT DECISION: Colby Cosh
...Nearly six months ago I pointed out that the legal certification of polygamy (or, for that matter, polyandry) was a natural corollary of the logic of permitting gay marriage; others, notably Mark Steyn, have made the same case. About two-thirds of the readers I heard from on this subject disagreed with me. They ought to go back and read that second paragraph again: the Supreme Court has left itself--for better or worse--defenceless against polygamy. You don't think "views diverge" on how many people belong in a marriage? All they do, all over the world, is diverge. There is a great deal more "divergence of opinion" on this subject than there had ever been, before about 1970, on what sexes could get married. The language used here is so doctrinaire in its deference to disagreement that Muslims and unreformed Mormons have, to all intents, already won their case. Feminist opponents of polygamy in fundamentalist religious communities will find, soon, that the "living tree" bears bitter fruit. more posted by Eve at 7:49 PM | link 0 comments
"FERTILE RED STATES"
is one of the New York Times Magazine's "ideas of the year." posted by Eve at 7:45 PM | link 0 comments
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|