|
 |
 |
 Saturday, January 08, 2005
EPISCOPALIANS TO MEET ON GAY UNIONS: From the Deseret Morning News
After nearly a year and a half of dealing with the fallout over the ordination of the faith's first openly gay bishop, the Episcopal Church's top leaders will gather in Salt Lake City next week to discuss how to respond to the outrage of millions of fellow Anglicans worldwide. The Episcopal House of Bishops -- made up of scores of U.S. church leaders -- will convene here Wednesday and Thursday, and the top items on their agenda include two proposed moratoriums: one on the future ordination of gay bishops living in a same-sex relationship, and another on formal blessing rites for same-sex couples. The bishops will also consider whether to issue -- and if so, how to word -- a formal apology for the uproar their decision in August 2003 has caused within the 77 million member worldwide Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is one small division within Anglicanism, representing some 2.3 million members. Largely conservative in membership, the majority of Anglicans view the action by American bishops as an act of hubris that defies biblical teaching against homosexuality. Eighteen months ago, the group voted to allow ordination of V. Gene Robinson as Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, despite the fact that he is openly gay and living in a longtime relationship with his partner. Bishop Robinson was formally installed in his new post last year. He is viewed as a high-profile advocate for gay rights. more Thursday, January 06, 2005
MARRIAGE AS NORM: Mark Barton replies to Maggie Gallagher
Maggie G.: I think I've said what I can on this. Mark B.: I'm surprised you would think that, when it seems you could, easily, answer my question and say who exactly your norm is supposed to be normative on. Moreover, this is something that you can usefully say, to advance the debate, because the appropriate argument for me to make next depends critically on your answer. Is it all people? Is it all people who aspire to be sexually active (without regard to sexual orientation)? Is it all straight people? Is it something else? I have different responses in mind for each possibility, and the if-then routine is tiring for me and doubtless tedious for the readers. Maggie G.: I'm not seeking an exemption from you on charges of homophobia. Mark B.: I'm not sure what you mean by that. All I know is that this is marriagedebate.com and that any homophobic beliefs you might have are relevant if and only if your arguments against SSM implicitly depend on them, inadvertently or otherwise. If your anti-SSM arguments were clearly independent of homophobic assumptions, it would be an ad hominem fallacy for me to speculate. But they're not clearly independent, in part because you've been resisting clarifying basic details. Maggie G.: I'm seeking to focus people's attention on whether same-sex marriage 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. Mark B.: I put it to the readers that if you genuinely can't tell us basic stuff like who the norm you're promoting is supposed to be normative on, it's implausible that you could have thought through the issue carefully enough for your predictions to be worth anything.
"A SOCIETY WITHOUT FATHERS OR HUSBANDS": Maggie Gallagher
This is actually considered a form of marriage by anthropologists and really not such an uncommon one: "weak" marriage systems in which the woman and her children continue to live with her family and the father role is split between the biological father and the mother's brother, who takes on a fair amount of socializaiton responsibilities, esp. for his sister's sons (who are often his heirs in these family systems). It raises interesting philosophical questions though: How do you recognize a particular social institution as a "marriage"?
"A LAND WITHOUT FATHERS OR HUSBANDS": From the Globe and Mail
[Only available to subscribers. --Eve] LUGU LAKE, CHINA -- Four generations of women live together in a log farmhouse on a remote lake in the Himalayan foothills. There isn't a husband in sight -- and that's the way they prefer it. "This is our tradition," Ahlu Zhuoma says, feeding a batch of fried potatoes to her two-year-old daughter at the cooking fire on the floor of their house. "My daughter's father lives with his sisters and mother in the daytime. At night, he comes to visit me in my bedroom." It's the same arrangement that the 30,000 Mosuo people of southwestern China have followed since time immemorial. "It's not good to live with the family of your man," says Ms. Ahlu, a tall, slender 22-year-old with short hair and a distinct air of authority. "We can live happily with our own family. There's no complicated relationship with a mother-in-law. And if the relationship with the man is not good, we just go our separate ways -- we don't have to waste time with a divorce." They call it the "walking marriage," but, in essence, it is not a marriage at all. In the families of Lugu Lake, the fathers are incidental. Their relationships with the mothers of their children are not legally registered. They play no role in raising their children. Nor do they pass on their names or their property to their offspring. Children take the names of their mothers and usually address their fathers as "uncle." Property is held communally within the family. The Mosuo women have extraordinary sexual freedom. Sexual relationships take place with visiting men in the bedrooms of the women, known as "flower rooms." Because these relationships don't have an economic component, they do not interfere with the brother-sister and mother-child connections that are central to their families. ... Anthropologists call it "a society without fathers or husbands." Perhaps not coincidentally, it is also a society without crime, without war, without rape or violence, and without the domestic tensions that have bedevilled Western societies ever since the concept of marriage was invented. ... The reality of life among the Mosuo people is more prosaic than the tourists might have hoped. While it may be a matrilineal society, it is certainly not a feminist utopia or a matriarchal paradise. It is the men who control the local government: The village directors are men, and a majority of the councillors and village officials are men. "Unlike women, who are constantly preoccupied with housework and farm work, men are available to pursue positions in the outside world, to become village chiefs, administrators, cadres, technicians, teachers, traders and so forth," writes Ms. Mathieu, the French anthropologist. Middle-aged women squatting on the edge of the lake, washing tubs of clothing by hand, grumble to visitors. "Mosuo men are the luckiest in the world," Yang Zhuoma says. "They don't do any housework. They don't raise the kids. They only do five or six days of farm work in a year -- just the plowing. The rest of the work is done by women." Within the family, however, the role of women is much stronger than it is in many other societies. Power and money are shared communally in the family, with income-earners giving most of their money to the oldest woman in the household. more
MICHIGAN GOVERNOR VETOES A MARRIAGE PACKAGE: From the Detroit Free Press
The end of the year always signals a flurry of bill signings by Gov. Jennifer Granholm. But in 2004, the bills she signed were overshadowed by the legislation she vetoed. With the stroke of her pen Thursday, she angered a range of politicians -- from conservative Republicans to Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. She vetoed a package of bills that would encourage premarital counseling for couples and require counseling for married couples with children who are about to divorce. She said the bills were too intrusive on private decisions. "Let me be clear: Marriage preservation is a very important issue," she wrote in her veto letter. "But the decisions men and women make about marriage are private decisions. State government should not expand its role into such private matters." She said there were bills in the package that she would have approved, such as allowing retired clergy to perform marriage counseling, but the bills were connected and a veto of one bill meant a veto of the whole package. ... The bill that caused the most consternation for Granholm was one that would require couples to wait three days for a marriage license if they didn't go through premarital counseling. more
GAMBLING WITH HISTORY: R.K. Becker replies to Mark Barton
I'm wondering just what an argument against SSM has to be in order for Mark Barton to classify it as "non-homophobic". Now, to me, a homophobic argument would be one which relies on negative stereotypes about homosexual individuals or couples. Maybe Mark's definition of "homophobic" is broader. Perhaps he feels that any argument that redefining marriage as an androgynous institution could negatively affect the next generation is "homophobic." If that's the case, it is an expansive definition of the term which crosses into pure political correctness. To say that an argument based on effects, or even possible effects, be dismissed as offensive crosses the line from sensitivity into a deliberate attempt to stifle debate through the threat of negative branding. 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." In other words, it doesn't matter how radical a proposed change is. Unless its opponents can demonstrate exactly what its negative results will be, it should be enacted. Would Mark apply the same standard to the economy? To the environment? To letting an amateur try to repair his computer? Or does he feel that human culture is not as complex an organism, and that it is simply resilient to any change no matter how radical or untried? Does it need to be said that the more radical and untried the change, the less any of us can know with certainty about its effects down the road? That has been my main argument from the start. Also, that the absence of SSM from the historical record is not a fact without implications for us now. Mark and other SSM proponents will usually assert that the argument from history is meaningless, if they deal with it at all. They'd rather argue about its effects in the abstract, without reference to history. If pressed about the reason why there is no record of any culture defining marriage as an androgynous institution, the answers basically take two forms: 1. The idea of marriage as a union between any two persons regardless of gender has simply never been tried, anywhere, anytime. No culture has been enlightened enough to think of it. Some special change has occurred in recent years making the very thought of it possible for the first time in human history. Since it's never been tried, there's no reason to believe that it's harmful, and in the absence of proof otherwise it should be assumed not to be harmful. The burden of proof is on the opponents of SSM to demonstrate why it is harmful. 2. SSM may have been tried before somewhere, or at least conceptualized, and not worked out. But while it may have been unworkable in the past there has been a change in human society in recent years which makes it workable now. The above explanations are not impossible. However, they beg questions. What has prevented all cultures in the past from even conceptualizing the idea? And what change has made it possible to conceive of it now? Something technological? Or has some technological change made it workable now where it was not before? What is this change? The third possibility is that the absence of SSM is not due to a lack of conceptualization but to a lack of success in past cultures that have conceptualized it and/or implemented it, however briefly. And that the reasons for its lack of success may still be valid today. If so, then its absence reflects not cultural ignorance, but cultural experience. Any of the above explanationss could be true, but I believe the third one is more probable than the first or second. I cannot see how the idea of same-sex marriage requires any technological advancement for its conceptualization. The fact that so many primitive cultures tolerated homosexuality far more than Western culture did until thirty-five years ago seems to argue against this explanation. Similarly, I've heard no explanation of what recent technological change would make SSM work now where it was unworkable before. I find it more likely that given the variety in human societies throughout thousands of years, there have been some which have conceptualized the idea, and even some which have implemented it, which would leave failure (either of the society's experiment with SSM or of the society itself) as the most likely reason for our not finding it as a permanent arrangement in any culture that we know of. Of course, I could be wrong. But my point is that Mark and other SSM supporters are engaging in a gamble that its historical absence is due to ignorance rather than experience. And that this is a gamble they cannot have confidence in, however much confidence they think they have about the future. Santayana's maxim applies as much to the past we don't know as to the past we do.
SPAIN MOVES CLOSER TO SSM: From The Scotsman
Spain’s Socialist government today approved a bill to legalise same-sex marriages, putting the predominantly Roman Catholic country on course to become only the third country to recognise gay marriages. The bill was approved at a Cabinet meeting and is expected to be presented to Parliament in February for debate. “The right to marry is a right for everyone, without distinction. It cannot be understood as a privilege,” Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega told a press conference after the Cabinet meeting. “The recognition of homosexuals’ rights eradicates an unjustified discrimination.” Under the bill homosexuals will be allowed to adopt children and couples of the same sex will be able to inherit from one another as well as receive retirement benefits from their working spouses in the same way in which heterosexual married couples do now. more
HE CALLS THEM "DAD": From the Pa. Times-Leader
They've been in a committed relationship for nine years, but Don Murray and Donnie Strawser always felt there was something missing. The same-sex couple worked hard to develop a strong, loving relationship, they said. But their happiness was tempered by an unfulfilled desire each had: to have someone call them "dad." It took two years, lots of hearings and even more patience, but the men got their wish Dec. 21 when Murray's adoption of Shawn, an 11-year-old foster child for whom he and Strawser were caring, was finalized. With the adoption, Murray and Strawser join more than 300,000 homosexual men and women nationwide who were identified in the 2000 U.S. Census as raising children, said Sean Cahill of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in New York. While it remains a controversial societal debate, gay adoptions have gained approval through courts nationwide, Cahill said. Currently only two states, Florida and Mississippi, ban adoptions by homosexuals, he said. ... The couple, of Grant Street, said they love children and thought about adopting for years. Having once been a foster child, Murray said he chose to work through the foster care system because he wanted to help children from troubled homes overcome their problems. "There are hundreds of thousands of kids in Pennsylvania sitting in group homes and foster homes who desperately need someone to love them. That's what Donnie and I are trying to do with these children, show them caring and love," Murray said. more
ADOPTED GET BIRTH PAPERS: From the Associated Press
In a bittersweet moment, adults adopted as children lined up yesterday to take advantage of a new state law to get copies of their birth certificates. Among them: a state lawmaker. First in line was Rep. Janet Allen, who had pushed hard for New Hampshire to change the law, though she had identified her birth parents several years ago through other means. "I spent three years going through probate court arguing and fighting. I probably petitioned that judge eight times," she said. ... Jack Ferns, 53, of Loudon, had hoped his father's name would be on the certificate, but it wasn't. "I was hoping it was, but I was a realist, too," he said a few minutes after getting his certificate. ... New Hampshire becomes the fifth state to allow adult adoptees unfettered access, joining Oregon, Alabama, Alaska and Kansas. Delaware and Tennessee also allow access, but with some restrictions. Under another provision of the law, birth parents can indicate whether they wish to be contacted. more
IRS WARNS SAME-SEX COUPLES NOT TO FILE JOINTLY: From 365Gay.com
The Internal Revenue Service is warning same-sex couples that they cannot file joint income tax returns even if they were legally married in Massachusetts or Canada. The IRS says it is basing its denial of joint filings on Federal DOMA which restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples. The warning follows a court ruling in Minnesota where a federal judge Monday dismissed a lawsuit that was filed by a gay couple. more
THE FRAMING OF POLITICAL DEBATE: From the Los Angeles Times
... Dean is speaking of George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, whose slender treatise on language, brain structure and politics has become a surprise bestseller, making "framing" the season's hot fashion and yielding a growing legion of followers -- as well as critics. (Last month, he addressed House Democrats in Washington at the invitation of their leader, San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi.) Put simply, Lakoff says conservatives have been winning elections -- along with hearts and minds -- through the strategic use of language over the last 30 years, to a point where central tenets of the Republican philosophy are not just common wisdom for millions of voters but, more, are a hard-wired part of their brains. "People think in frames," Lakoff writes in the opening chapter of his new book, which credits a national network of conservative think tanks and sympathetic media outlets with abetting the GOP's neural conquest. "To be accepted, the truth must fit people's frames. If the facts do not fit a frame, the frame stays and the facts bounce off." The title of the book, "Don't Think of an Elephant!," reflects Lakoff's central thesis; naturally, when you read the words, you think of an elephant. His point is that by evoking certain images, or frames, Republicans have forced Democrats to fight elections on the GOP's terms. Two examples: the debate over "tax relief," which frames taxes as an affliction and Democrats as the defenders of an onerous burden. And the "war on terror," which conflates the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with the fighting in Iraq. ... For example, he suggests Democrats talk about taxes as "dues" or "the membership fee" that citizens pay for the privilege of living in America. When Republicans assail money-grubbing trial lawyers, Democrats should counter by pointing out the efforts of "public-protection attorneys" striving to establish "poison-free communities." The fight over "gay marriage" should be recast with Democrats asking voters, "Do you want the government telling you who you can marry?" more
NY SSM CASE IN COURT THIS MONTH: From the Ithaca Journal
The "Ithaca 50" will finally have their day in court later this month, though few expect it will be the last word in their battle for the legalization of gay marriage in New York. "We know that, ultimately, it's going to take a ruling by the highest courts to make the decision," Jason Hungerford said. Hungerford and partner Jason Seymour are among 50 people -- 25 couples -- who are suing the state Department of Health and the City of Ithaca for denying them marriage licenses last year. Filed last June, their case will be heard by state Supreme Court Justice Robert C. Mulvey on Jan. 14 in Elmira. That legal case essentially hinges on two arguments: that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates their right to due process under the state constitution, and that such denials create gender and sexual orientation distinctions that violate the state's own equal protection provisions. As Hungerford noted, the plaintiffs and their attorneys fully expect that, regardless of who prevails in Elmira, appeals will follow. more
WASHINGTON CASE TESTS PROPERTY DIVISION RIGHTS OF SAME-SEX COUPLES: From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
A woman in a lengthy lesbian relationship is suing her estranged lover to divide assets they shared or accrued while living together. The trial started Tuesday before retired Superior Court Judge Harold Clarke II and is based on a court ruling last year that gay couples can be treated like married couples when they split up. ... The state Court of Appeals ruled last year that the legal doctrine on "meretricious"--marriage-like--relationships applies to same-sex couples, even though they can't legally wed in Washington. The state Supreme Court had laid out several criteria for determining whether property acquired by unmarried couples should be divided as though they were married. One of the criteria was the couple's intent to assume marital roles that are legally denied to gays. Day claims in court documents that she took on the role of "wife" when she moved into Kelsh's home in mid-1990. more
NEW YORK TOWN ENDS D.P. BENEFITS: From the New York Times
Four years ago, Eastchester became one of the first communities in Westchester County to offer health benefits to the domestic partners of its employees. Critics charged that the town supervisor had rammed the plan through and voted him out of office. Now Eastchester has become the first town in New York to end the benefits. At a meeting Tuesday night, the Town Board voted 3 to 2 to approve new union contracts and to end a town policy of providing coverage for domestic partners. The town's Civil Service Employees Association and police union agreed to dropping the coverage, saying their members had more pressing concerns. The two employees who have made use of the benefits will be allowed to continue to do so, but new employees will not be eligible. Town officials say they took the action to save money, but when the issue arose four years ago, one local group condemned the idea of domestic partner benefits as an effort by gay activists to promote same-sex marriage. Gay rights groups said yesterday that the town's decision was a dangerous step backward that could eat away at policies that have become common in government and the private sector. more
JUDGE DISMISSES FEDERAL SUIT: From the Associated Press
federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a gay couple who claimed they deserved a tax refund because they were legally married and should be granted "married" taxpayer status. The lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service was the latest attempt by Jack Baker and L. Michael McConnell to have their 1971 marriage legally recognized. Baker, a Minneapolis attorney, filed the lawsuit in May on behalf of McConnell. McConnell sought to change his taxpayer status to married, and claimed he deserved a refund of nearly $800. The lawsuit, dismissed Monday by U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen, also asked the federal court for an order "declaring plaintiff to be a full citizen who is lawfully married" in Minnesota. more
VERMONT DEMS REGAIN LEGISLATURE FOR FIRST TIME SINCE CIVIL UNIONS: From the Associated Press
Democrats who were swept from power four years ago in a backlash over enacting the first-in-the-nation civil unions law for gay and lesbian couples triumphantly reclaimed their majority in the House on Wednesday, along with a bigger majority in the Senate. ... Lawmakers and political observers widely believe Democrats won their majority in large measure because voters have become more comfortable with the notion of civil unions, which grants same-sex couples all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage -- but the name. They also believe anger over an education funding law enacted three years before civil unions has faded. ... What these new majorities are unlikely to tackle again, at least in their current two-year term, is gay marriage. Advocates would like to see civil unions amended to become marriage, just as has happened in neighboring Massachusetts. But most lawmakers say they're unwilling to take on such an emotional issue again, especially in a year where the budget is so pressed by funding shortfalls in such programs as Medicaid. more
ARIZ. GOVERNOR PUSHES FOR MARRIAGE AMENDMENT VOTE IN '05; STRATEGERY ENSUES: From the Arizona Republic
Gov. Janet Napolitano is challenging legislators eager for a state constitutional ban on gay marriages to let voters decide this year rather than wait for the November 2006 election. Napolitano's idea, which would require a special election in 2005, will inject a new twist into a divisive debate that is sure to resonate at the Capitol during the legislative session that starts Monday. In November, conservative social activists and key lawmakers said they would pursue a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages in Arizona. The popular thinking in Republican circles is to put the measure on the 2006 ballot, which includes the election for governor, a U.S. Senate seat and every statewide office. Republicans quickly chastised Napolitano's move as a political ploy to keep a gay marriage referendum off the 2006 ballot because it could bring more conservative voters to the polls. more True Love/Maggie Gallagher Over at familyscholars.org, Sara Butler has posted comments from evolutionary psychologist David Buss, in response to the question: What do you believe in that you cannot prove? David's answer? True love. "While love is common, true love is rare, and I believe that few people are fortunate enough to experience it. The roads of regular love are well traveled and their markers are well understood by many-the mesmerizing attraction, the ideational obsession, the sexual afterglow, profound self-sacrifice, and the desire to combine DNA. But true love takes its own course through uncharted territory. It knows no fences, has no barriers or boundaries. It is difficult to define, eludes modern measurement, and seems scientifically wooly. But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it." Hmmm, mesmerizing attraction, the ideational obsession, the sexual afterglow, profound self-sacrifice, and the desire to combine DNA. Regular love sounds good enough to me. Tuesday, January 04, 2005
GAY SPOUSES PRESS BENEFITS CASE IN R.I.: From the Boston Globe
In a case thought to be the first of its kind in Rhode Island, a Massachusetts woman who retired from teaching in the neighboring state has asked that her health insurance benefits be extended to her same-sex spouse. In response, the Tiverton School Committee in Rhode Island has asked a state Superior Court judge to rule whether Cheryl McCullough, 60, of Swansea, can include Joyce Boivin, 54, in her retirement health plan. Written arguments are expected to be submitted by Jan. 21 to Judge Stephen J. Fortunato Jr. McCullough and Boivin wed in June, shortly after Massachusetts allowed same-sex couples to marry following a historic ruling by the state Supreme Judicial Court. ... Civil rights and union attorneys working on McCullough's behalf said yesterday that the case is strictly contractual and will not have sweeping implications in Rhode Island, where some state and municipal entities already provide health benefits to domestic partners, some of whom are of the same sex. more Monday, January 03, 2005
THOUGH THEY CAN'T WED, GAYS MAY NOW DIVORCE IN CA: From the Los Angeles Times
Gays and lesbians still can't marry in California. But starting today, the more than 26,000 couples registered with the state as domestic partners will have to divorce if they split up. If they have children, they will automatically receive a wide array of parental rights. Community property suddenly applies, just as for married spouses. The changes are part of a law, put on the books by the Legislature and former Gov. Gray Davis in September 2003 but going into effect only now, that greatly expands California's 5-year-old experiment with domestic partnerships. ... To Olivia Higgins, 30, and Jackie Kiang, 35, the law has practical consequences. It means that Higgins can place the baby Kiang is expecting in a few weeks on her health insurance at work, even though she is not the birth mother. When Kiang, a physician, has the baby, Higgins' name will go on the birth certificate as the second parent, although the state has yet to print gender-neutral forms. ... All that is more than some couples bargained for when they registered their partnerships. In recent months, the number of couples getting off the state's registry has increased. Oakland attorney Frederick Hertz and his partner decided to terminate their registered partnership in November. Both are professionals with their own health insurance and other benefits, and they have worked out their financial relationship through other legal agreements. They have no children. The possibility of unforeseen tax consequences from the new law motivated their decision, said Hertz, the coauthor of a legal guide for gay men and lesbians who has been advising clients on the new law. There are other reasons why remaining registered may no longer make sense, legal experts said. Many state benefit programs -- MediCal, for example -- are available only to people with low incomes. Until now, if someone on the registry applied, the state could not consider the partner's income. Now, both incomes will count, just as for a married couple. ... Sociologists have suggested that the rights and responsibilities of marriage benefit both partners, Hertz said: If you are liable for your partner's debts, you may pay more attention to his spending patterns, and if you are entitled to half his income, you may be more supportive of his long work hours. "What's going to be interesting is to see if the application of marital laws to gay people starts fostering the same kind of behavior in the gay community," he said. more
AT LEAST ONE FOX AFFILIATE WON'T SHOW "WHO'S YOUR DADDY?": From Reuters
[In which we learn that Fox has a standards and practices department. Who knew? --Eve] At least one Fox Broadcasting Co. affiliate has balked at airing Monday night's 90-minute special "Who's Your Daddy," which has raised the ire of adoption advocacy groups for a premise that revolves around an adopted woman trying to pick her biological father from a group of eight candidates. WRAZ-TV (Fox 50) in Raleigh-Durham, N.C., has yanked "Daddy" and instead will air a documentary, "I Have Roots and Branches: Personal Reflections on Adoption," in the 8-9:30 p.m. EST block slated for "Daddy." ... Fox reps have stressed that despite the show's provocative title, all of the people featured in "Daddy" were willing participants and that regardless of the competitive element, all of the women are reunited with their biological fathers as a result of their participation in the show. more
ARK. JUDGE OK'S GAY FOSTER CARE: From the San Francisco Chronicle
An Arkansas judge's ruling allowing gays and lesbians to become foster parents contains findings on parental fitness that could have an impact in both the U.S. Supreme Court and a court in San Francisco, where major decisions on the rights of same-sex couples are imminent. In his ruling Wednesday, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox said the ban enacted by an Arkansas state agency in 1999 had nothing to do with protecting children's health or welfare, but instead was an attempt to regulate "public morality," which is beyond the agency's authority. Fox also issued a series of findings, based on testimony by child welfare and mental health experts: -- Children of lesbian and gay parents are as well-adjusted as other children. -- Being raised by lesbian or gay parents doesn't increase a child's risk of psychological, behavior or academic problems, confusion about gender identity, difficulties in relating to peers, or child abuse. -- There is no evidence that heterosexual parents can guide children through adolescence any better than homosexual parents can. ... Arkansas and Florida are among the few states with sexual orientation restrictions on adoption or foster parenting. Mississippi forbids adoption by lesbian or gay couples, though not by individuals, and Utah bars all unmarried couples from becoming foster or adoptive parents. ... But officials in Arkansas and Florida argue that the ideal situation for a child, which a state is entitled to promote in its laws, is to be raised by a mother and father. That position was endorsed by the federal appeals court in Atlanta that upheld a Florida law banning adoption by any gay, lesbian or bisexual. more
CRITICISM OF WASHINGTON POST PIECE ON MATERNAL HOMICIDE (which we linked here): Jack Shafer
...Is maternal homicide on the rise? Are pregnant women and new mothers in any special danger of murder? And what the hell is maternal homicide? On Dec. 20 ("The Muddled Maternal Murder Series"), I took St. George to task for the alarmism of her series and chided her for not only failing to prove anything with her series but failing to promise to prove anything. more
SAYING NO TO "I DO": Jonathan Rauch
...When people ask how I feel about the election, I tell them that this must be what it's like to be worked over in a dark alley by a couple of loan sharks. Gay couples and their children (more than a fourth of households headed by same-sex couples have kids, according to the 2000 census) need the legal protections and the caregiving tools--not, mostly, "benefits"--that marriage uniquely provides. Gay individuals, coupled or not, need the prospect of marriage, with its sustaining promise of a destination for love and of a stable home in a welcoming community. In 13 states the dream of marriage has, for gay Americans, receded far over the horizon. ... The consensus has shifted rapidly, meanwhile, toward civil unions. The 2004 exit polls showed 35% of voters supporting them (and another 25% for same-sex marriage). Particularly after the Nov. 2 debacle, civil unions look to many gay-rights advocates like the more attainable goal. It is not lost on them that Vermont's civil-unions law and California's partnership program have proved surprisingly uncontroversial. For their part, social conservatives increasingly, if grudgingly, accept civil unions as deflecting what they regard as an attack on marriage. John Kerry endorsed civil unions, and in October Mr. Bush accepted them, saying, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do." ...Republicans' continued control of Supreme Court nominations makes it nearly unimaginable--and it was always unlikely--that the court will overrule the states on gay marriage. The Supreme Court recently sidestepped an opportunity to intervene in Massachusetts' gay marriages, and the election returns will give lower federal courts second thoughts about butting in. The enactment of those 13 state amendments demonstrates that popular sovereignty is alive and well in the states. I am dismayed by the amendments' passage, but I can't complain about the process. Nov. 2 showed that our federalist system is working exactly as it should, and it made the case for federal intervention weaker than ever. more |
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|