|
 |
 |
 Friday, December 24, 2004
CHRISTMAS TIME IS HERE, BY GOLLY!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year-- Marriagedebate.com is going on vacation. Be back in the fray January 3. Eve Thursday, December 23, 2004
CALIF. COURT HEARS SSM ARGUMENTS: From the New York Times
...Lawyers for the City and County of San Francisco and more than a dozen same-sex couples presented their cases in San Francisco Superior Court, the first step in a lengthy legal process that will determine the constitutionality of state laws that define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. The hearing continues on Thursday. "The state should not be able to reach into our homes and choose our life partners," said one of the lawyers, Waukeen McCoy, who represents six same-sex couples who want to be married. "It is bad enough when our parents do that." ... "The word 'marriage' has a particular meaning to them, and they don't want that meaning to change," said Louis R. Mauro, a senior assistant attorney general. Mr. Mauro added, "Complex social policies should not be determined in this courtroom" and "the public needs to be a part of the process." In addressing the 30 or so lawyers from several consolidated cases, the judge, Richard A. Kramer, said the dispute was "not so much what marriage is about, but who gets to be married and participate in those benefits." more Wednesday, December 22, 2004
MARRIAGE AND HOMOSEXUALITY: Maggie replies to Mark Barton
Mark writes: The issue is whether you have any non-homophobic arguments in support of this belief. I think I've said what I can on this. I'm not seeking an exemption from you on charges of homophobia. I'm seeking to focus people's attention on whether same-sex mariage will hurt marriage as a social instituiton. Because if it will do what I think it will, it is a disaster for my country, and yours. Obviously not everyone agrees. That's why it's a debate.
MARRIAGE AND HOMOSEXUALITY: Mark Barton replies to Maggie Gallagher
Maggie G.: 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. Mark B.: I don't doubt that for a moment, but it evades addressing my concern. I doubt there's a single person on the anti-SSM side who doesn't think or pretend to think it would be a big deal for marriage--that's why we have not only the bipartisan "Defense Of Marriage Act," but the virulently homophobic FRC's "Protect Marriage" campaign. The issue is whether you have any non-homophobic arguments in support of this belief. Now you're an advocate who's trying to put together a broadly acceptable case, so it would be surprising if we found any explicit homophobia, and indeed I haven't noticed any. At the same time, you appear to be a proudly doctrinaire Catholic, so it would be surprising if you didn't have homophobic views, and it would be unsurprising if your case tacitly relied on some of them at key points. Thus I don't think I have to apologize for pressing you to clarify your view of (opposite-sex) marriage as a "norm." A norm is something that is normative, i.e., some standard that people are to be held to. Thus there must be a fact of the matter about who exactly you envisage being held to this norm, and it matters crucially to the SSM debate who you think those people are. As I've argued, one obvious reading that would make sense of much of your writing is that it's all people, or all people who intend to be sexually active, who are expected to marry, without regard to sexual orientation. But if that's the case, then that part of your argument is (i) homophobic, (ii) incomplete, because the homophobia is not justified as part of the argument, and (iii) question-begging, because it's smuggled in as a premise (everyone should enter OSM) not interestingly different from the conclusion (nobody should enter SSM). Of course, possibly you mean something else, but if so, I honestly have not the foggiest idea what, and I suggest you seriously need to consider spelling it out. Maggie: 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. Mark B.: Which seems about right and is entirely consistent with my claim that among Americans opposed to SSM, disapproval of homosexuality had a healthy lead over other concerns. Maggie: So while some people may oppose gay marriage solely because they oppose homosexuality, some other things are at work here in the public mind. Mark B.: I accept that this is possible in principle, but as a practical matter I'm not aware of any non-homophobic objections that make the slightest bit of sense. In particular, even if I allow that having children raised by their biological parents (or an opposite-sex adoptive couple where that is quite impossible) is of such paramount concern that it trumps all other considerations, all that follows from that is that sexually active opposite-sex couples should be married, should stay married, should never put children up for adoption, and should remarry an opposite partner immediately if bereaved with dependent kids. But it's a complete non-sequitur from any of that to the idea that gay couples should not be able to get married. Maggie: 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 it's because in their own heads they've already redefined marriage, such that same-sex marriage is not a big deal. So it's hard for them to see what they are asking the rest of us. Mark B.: I couldn't care less how big a transformation it seems to Maggie or people of like mind, nor am I under the slightest obligation to care. All I care about is whether there are any valid arguments that on balance people will be worse off as a result of the transformation.
THAT OTHER KIND OF RELATIONSHIP: Elizabeth Marquardt
...But step back from the fire for a moment and look to a far quieter, but much larger, sector of the marriage debate. Over here, you'll find that there are many pressing concerns about marriage on the table today--concerns generally related to the vast majority of marriages that are, and always will be, between heterosexuals. These vital questions include: - How do children fare when their parents divorce? - Why has the out-of-wedlock birth rate climbed so precipitously? - What does it take for a couple to stay happily married for a lifetime? - What role should society have in helping couples to achieve lasting, healthy marriages? ... But, these marriage leaders remind us, anyone concerned about marriage today has a lot more to be concerned about than the plight of same-sex couples. The United States leads the world with its divorce rate. The number of children living with cohabiting adults is rising. One-third of all children in this country are born to unmarried mothers and most of them will have few, if any, ties with their fathers. ... The shared goals? Specific proposals for state and federal governments on marriage license fees, divorce laws, tax credits, welfare reform, public school curricula and more; forums in which the same-sex marriage question can be respectfully and fruitfully debated; a nationwide task force to develop model legislation, direct the legislative agenda and monitor the movement's progress. ... But marriage remains the best solution we have ever come up with for helping to ensure children the protection, love and support of their own mother and father. Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal idea. Similarly, although marriage has been tremendously influenced by religions, it is not solely a religious institution. If you are concerned about child well-being, you might find many like-minded souls in the marriage movement, no matter your background. more
GOOD NEWS FOR MARRIAGE: Maggie Gallagher
The good news on marriage is that a lot of Americans are not taking the bad news lying down. Under the leadership of David Blankenhorn and the influential Institute for American Values, a new Marriage Movement statement signed by more than 100 scholars, therapists, policymakers, church leaders and marriage activists (including me) calls for a "marriage renaissance" in the United States: "We unite around a vision of America where more children are raised in nurturing homes by their married mother and father, and where more adults enjoy mutually fulfilling and lifelong marriages." The good news on marriage is that the destructive increases in family fragmentation, which conventional wisdom 10 years ago predicted could not be stopped, have been stopped. According to the Marriage Movement statement: "Divorce rates are now modestly declining. Rates of unwed childbearing, after increasing sharply year after year for decades, have changed very little since 1995. Teen pregnancy rates have declined dramatically. Rates of reported marital happiness, after declining steadily from the early 1970s to the early 1990s, have stabilized. Perhaps the more encouraging news is that, from 1995 to 2000, the proportion of African American children living in married-couple homes rose by about 4 percent." Remember all those voices of despair who told us high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing were inevitable, part of the postmodern condition? Reports of the death of marriage have been premature. more
NEWFOUNDLAND COURT LEGALIZES SSM: From CBC News
The Newfoundland Supreme Court has cleared the way for two lesbian couples to marry legally, making Newfoundland and Labrador the seventh province to sanction same-sex marriage. ... Justice Minister Tom Marshall said earlier this month the provincial government would not oppose the court ruling. Newfoundland now joins Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and the Yukon in legalizing same-sex marriages. more
COURT WON'T BLOCK CALIF. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP LAW: From the San Francisco Chronicle
A state appeals court refused late Tuesday to stop California's domestic partners law taking effect next week, a move that keeps more than 25,000 same-sex partnerships on track to be recognized by the state Jan. 1. The order by Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland of the Court of Appeal in Sacramento denied an attempt to block the law signed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003, which will grant same-sex couples nearly all of the legal rights and responsibilities married couples have in California. Among them: the rights of community property, shared child custody and the right to collect a dead partner's remains, as well as joint responsibility for debt to third parties and child support obligations. Scotland's ruling did not turn back challenges to the pending law, which was affirmed in September by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster. But his order means that, barring intervention by the state Supreme Court, the law will not be put on hold as the appellate court begins considering the matter. ... Knight was author of Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Voters passed it in 2000, and opponents of the domestic partners law say it flouts that measure's intent. more Tuesday, December 21, 2004
THOUSANDS OF NJ COUPLES REGISTER AS PARTNERS: From the Star-Ledger
Nearly 2,700 couples have registered as domestic partners in the first five months of a New Jersey law that gives added rights and benefits to same-sex couples, the state Health Department reported yesterday. Through Dec. 15, 2,640 gay couples signed up under New Jersey's Domestic Partnership Act. Another 42 unmarried heterosexual senior citizen couples also registered. When the law took effect July 10, about 700 couples showed up at town halls to register as domestic partners, which entitles them to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, visit each other in the hospital and enjoy other rights on health insurance and inheritance. ... Goldstein said, however, that many gay couples have not registered as domestic partners because they are waiting to see if the state courts will sanction gay marriage. The latest Census Bureau figures show there are more than 17,000 self-reported gay couples in New Jersey, a figure Goldstein said is low. "We in the lesbian and gay community believe this is going to be the year that same-sex couples will be able to marry in the state of New Jersey," Goldstein said. In all, 1,582 lesbian couples and 1,058 male couples registered as domestic partners. ... The law also allows unmarried, unrelated heterosexual couples who are at least 62 years old to register. Supporters of the bill said they were included because some senior citizens may choose to remain single as a way to pool their income and not affect individual retirement benefits. A total of 42 of these couples registered through Dec. 15. more
FIVE YEARS OF VT CIVIL UNIONS: From 365Gay.com
Monday marked the fifth anniversary of the landmark ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court ordering the legislature "to assign to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The ruling led to the creation of "civil unions", making Vermont the first state in the country to formally recognize same-sex relationships. Since then some 7,000 gay and lesbian couples from around the country have affirmed their commitments in Vermont. more
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN REVERSES ON MARRIAGES IN NEW PALTZ, ETC.: From the Associated Press
The Social Security Administration reversed course Monday and said it will accept marriage licenses issued for heterosexual couples in communities in New York and Oregon that briefly performed weddings for gay couples earlier this year. more Monday, December 20, 2004
PRO-MARRIAGE EFFORT RENEWS: From the Salt Lake Tribune
...The 28-page document titled "What Next for the Marriage Movement?" calls for expanding marriage education programs, reforming divorce laws, building a stronger grass-roots base and creating a task force to help develop marriage-friendly public policies nationwide. It was signed by more than 140 civic leaders--spiritual advisers, politicians, researchers, academics, legal experts, therapists, and family and marriage educators--and published by the Institute for American Values. Local signatories to the document include a handful of Brigham Young University and Utah State University professors. Four years ago, movement organizers formally launched an effort to reverse a trend of family breakdown they said was signaled by spiraling divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates. Those trends have slowed, which the movement says shows a pro-marriage campaign, including education, financial incentives and national dialogue, has had an impact--a claim critics say is undeserved. Divorce rates have modestly declined, unwed childbearing has leveled off and the proportion of children living in married-couple homes has stabilized. ... Critics worry that many of the movement's goals are aimed at "turning the clock back," as family scholar Stephanie Coontz puts it, particularly as states tinker with divorce law. ... The marriage movement's mission may get a high-level boost in support if former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt moves successfully from the Environmental Protection Administration to the top post at the Department of Health and Human Services. Leavitt was the first governor in the country to launch a marriage-boosting initiative when he set up a marriage commission in 1998. more
"DISTRACTIONS": David Blankenhorn
...Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, the statement we released is not distracted at all by the issue. In a 26-page statement, we devote only a few sentences to the issue of same-sex unions. The statement contains 93 goals, exactly one of which concerns same-sex unions. And what does the statement say about the issue? We say that it is an important issue about which we in the marriage movement disagree, and that we are committed to having a civil discussion of the issue. That's it. So who is getting distracted here--our statement, which hardly mentions the issue, or Eisner's column, which hardly mentions anthing else? What I take from an article like Eisner's is that we are living through an unusual period, such that any time that anyone or (especially) any group says the word "marriage" in public, they are going to be criticized over the issue of same-sex unions--irrespective of whether or not they say anything about it, and, if they they do say something, irrespective of what they say. For example, if we had followed Eisner's implicit advice and had completely ducked the SSM issue in this statement, that too would have criticized, and justifiably so. What's the solution? The only things I can think of are very simple. Keep doing our work. When we don't agree about a controversial issue, admit it, and keep working together on the many issues on which we do agree. And try not to get distracted. more
A RIGHT "NOT TO BECOME A PARENT"?: Howard Bashman
"The plaintiff argues that the Kentucky paternity and child support laws are inconsistent with sexual and procreative 'privacy' rights recognized by the Supreme Court." Do Kentucky statutes requiring a natural father to pay child support for his son born out of wedlock violate the substantive due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment? Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the arguments of the father, a lawyer proceeding pro se, that the right to procreative privacy "includes the right to decide not to become a parent even after conception" and "must extend to both biological parents" so that Kentucky's statutory scheme must be invalidated because it "imposes parenthood on biological fathers while denying them any right or opportunity to decide not to become a parent after conception." You can access today's ruling at this link. Today's opinion begins by stating that "Plaintiff-appellant, a lawyer, brings his own pro se action and appeal against the mother of his child born out of wedlock and her husband, the stepfather of the child." While the plaintiff was permitted to initiate the action using only his initials, and thus the official name of the case is N.E. v. Hedges, the listing of counsel in today's opinion includes the full name of counsel for the appellant. link
MANY NEW OR EXPECTANT MOTHERS DIE VIOLENT DEATHS: From the Washington Post
...Five years ago in Maryland, state health researchers Isabelle Horon and Diana Cheng set out to study maternal deaths, using sophisticated methods to spot dozens of overlooked cases in their state. They assumed they would find more deaths from medical complications than the state's statistics showed. The last thing they expected was murder. more Sunday, December 19, 2004
MARRIAGE MOVEMENT ON THE AIR!
(David Blankenhorn talks to Wisconsin Public Radio. No transcript yet.)
INTERNAL SPLITS EMERGE IN CANADIAN PARTIES OVER GAY MARRIAGE: From the New York Times
A week after the Supreme Court gave the government the constitutional go-ahead to expand marriage rights to gays and lesbians, a bitter battle has emerged in Parliament that is creating deep fissures in the Liberal and Conservative parties. Polls indicate that a comfortable majority of Canadians actively support or passively accept legislation being prepared by Prime Minister Paul Martin to redefine marriage across the country. Already courts in six provinces and one territory, all told including 85 percent of the population of nearly 32 million, have struck down old marriage laws to allow gays and lesbians to marry. Only minor protests have occurred. But pockets of dissent have emerged in rural areas and suburbs of Toronto with heavy immigrant and Muslim populations, putting as much as one-quarter of the governing Liberal caucus in the House of Commons in a political quandary. Mr. Martin has said that Liberal backbenchers may vote their conscience but that cabinet members must toe the party line in favor of the legislation. ... The greatest rancor has surfaced in the Conservative Party, which united social conservatives, libertarian conservatives and moderates from two parties last year. more
SAME-SEX COUPLES GAIN NEW RIGHTS, LIABILITIES IN CALIFORNIA: From the Los Angeles Times
California doesn't have gay marriage, but it's about to get a financial facsimile. Starting Jan. 1, many unmarried couples will be able to qualify for some of the same benefits as married couples, including the right to inherit property without a will and legal standing to sue on a partner's behalf. The law applies to same-sex couples, as well as unmarried male-female couples as long as at least one of the partners is 62 or older. ...But with benefits come responsibilities. Couples who sign up for partnership status under the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act also have potential liabilities. If one partner dies with debts, for example, the other partner will be responsible for paying them. Frederick Hertz, an Oakland attorney who runs the website SameSexLaw.com, said he and his partner had kept their finances separate. They have no intention of mixing them, he said, because neither one wants to retain a financial tie if the relationship were to end. Supporters of the domestic partners legislation anticipated a varied reaction. Although the bill passed the California Legislature two years ago, implementation was delayed until Jan. 1, 2005, to give domestic partners time to consider the implications of the new law. more--a Q&A on what the law says
DOCUMENTS OF WEDDINGS IN NEW PALTZ, NY, REJECTED: From the New York Times
Susie Kilpatrick, a New Paltz newlywed, took her New York State marriage certificate to the Social Security Administration's office in Kingston on Dec. 3 because she planned to take her husband's name. A self-described traditionalist, she said that she simply wanted the federal government to recognize her new identity as a wife, an equal partner -- as Mrs. Jeremy Wilkening. But, Ms. Kilpatrick said, the agency's officials rejected her certificate. They told her that no marriage documents from New Paltz could be used to establish identity if they were issued after Feb. 27, when the mayor of the Village of New Paltz, Jason West, began performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. ... About 125 other heterosexual New Paltz couples who married since Feb. 27 could also be affected, according to town officials, who say they are confused and angered by the agency's stance. The policy, Section G of a document titled ''Evidence of Identity for an SSN Card,'' also extends to several other municipalities that permitted gay marriage ceremonies. more |
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|