FATHERHOOD BY A NEW FORMULA: Justin Katz

...I suppose everybody who hasn't yet reached the age is "hurtling toward 50," but it sounds as if this child will--if he or she is lucky--have a nearly 70-year-old single-father attending his or her high school graduation. There's a housekeeper and a nanny, but no other parents in the picture at all. Says the father to be: "I want somebody to love me and I want somebody to love."

These articles don't provide enough information (with sufficient credibility) to react too boldly, but there's definitely enough to justify lip-pursing. The father claims that he's "tired of being the star of the show," and he's counting on this leading him "in a different direction." But what about the child?

more
posted by Eve at 4:35 AM | link 0 comments

CANADIAN ANTI-SSM CAMPAIGN ADS TARGET ETHNIC GROUPS: From CBCNews

The federal Conservative party confirmed Wednesday it will be launching an advertising campaign against gay marriage that will make an appeal to ethnic groups.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says the party needs to send a clear message against the proposed change to the legal definition of marriage.

"Frankly, we think a clear majority of Canadians support the compromise I put forward, including a lot of people who vote Liberal and traditionally don't vote for this party," said Harper, following a speech to the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce.

Harper has said he believes the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman should be preserved and that homosexual couples should have civil unions with the same rights as married people.

One of the ads says, "Paul Martin wants to impose same-sex marriage. Stephen Harper believes in traditional marriage. We'd like to know where you stand."

more
posted by Eve at 4:32 AM | link 0 comments

NGLTF RELIGIOUS COALITION DENOUNCES REV. EUGENE RIVERS: Press release

On January 12, 2005, the Grand Rapids Press (Grand Rapids, Michigan) reported on a speech given by Reverend Eugene Rivers of Boston stating that the gay rights movement had co-opted the language of the civil rights movement for its own benefit. The following is a response from the National Religious Leadership Roundtable of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

"On January 12, the Reverend Eugene Rivers made several ill-informed and offensive statements about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, particularly about the struggle for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Reverend Rivers called the gay rights movement's use of the language of civil rights, 'an exercise in marketing and merchandising,' and suggested gay advocates were 'playing the race card' to gain societal sympathy. It is unfortunate that Reverend Rivers has aligned himself with leaders of the religious right who attempt to pit people of color against gay people. These individuals argue, incorrectly, that laws protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are 'special rights' that threaten the civil rights of other minorities.

As Reverend Rivers' colleagues, we condemn his abuse of power as a faith leader. As religious leaders, our sacred texts and traditions call us to make connections among all people who experience discrimination, and to expand the community of love to seek greater justice. ...

Furthermore, Rivers' statement, 'Same-sex couples wanting to marry are white lesbians who seek the accouterments of family life,' reflects his misunderstanding about the makeup of his community. According to a report published by the National Black Justice Coalition and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, based on the 2000 Census, black same-sex households make up 14% of the same-sex households in the United States, greater than the 13% of the general population that is African-American. Black lesbian couple households are almost as likely as Black married opposite-sex couple households to include a child of one or both of the adults (69%). Nearly half of Black male same-sex couple households (46%) include a child of one or both of the partners. As Bishop John Selders, Presider of The Inter-Denominational Conference of Liberation Congregations and Ministries observes, laws discriminating against same-sex couples cut across racial lines: "There are significant numbers of people of color, African Americans in particular, who are equally discriminated against because of unjust laws." Bishop Selders adds, "I'm disappointed again by the shameful rhetoric espoused by brothers and sisters of color regarding same gender loving marriage."

more
posted by Eve at 2:16 AM | link 0 comments

BRAZILIAN PROSECUTOR CALLS FOR SSM: From the Associated Press

A well-known federal prosecutor said Wednesday he has asked a judge to order justices of the peace throughout Brazil to perform same-sex marriages.

Joao Gilberto Goncalves Jr. said he filed paperwork Tuesday asking a federal judge to issue a nationwide order -- a move likely to stir controversy in the world's largest predominantly Roman Catholic country.

"In addition to recognizing their rights as couples, the action is intended to help reduce the prejudice against homosexuals, which is a cause of violence in Brazil," Goncalves said.

If approved, the marriages would entitle gay couples to all the rights accorded heterosexual married couples, including inheritance and legal grounds to seek insurance benefits and pensions. ...

Brazil's Constitution specifies that marriage is a union between men and women, but Goncalves said "it does not make any restrictions against marriage between same-sex couples."

The Catholic Church has steadfastly opposed allowing gays to marry. Church officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In March, the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul became the first in Brazil to legalize civil unions between gays.

more
posted by Eve at 2:12 AM | link 0 comments

SSM IN RACE FOR FORMER MASS. HOUSE SPEAKER'S SEAT: From the Boston Globe

In the back room of a Dorchester watering hole, cordoned off by a screen and a "room closed" sign, five candidates for state representative nervously explained their positions on same-sex marriage to a neighborhood group of gays and lesbians.

One candidate said he has no problem with gay marriage but believes the Supreme Judicial Court overstepped its powers in legalizing it. Another candidate said she would protect gays' and lesbians' right to marry, while a third said only that she "doesn't want to introduce prejudice into the state constitution." A fourth reluctantly supports gay marriage, while the fifth would support civil unions for gay couples but not marriage.

In the race for the seat of former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, the issue has become of central importance to the candidates. All five showed up at the DotOUT meeting at the Harp & Bard last week, where an endorsement and a pledge of campaign workers were up for grabs. In a field of five Democrats with strikingly similar positions on nearly every other subject, same-sex marriage has emerged as a distinguishing issue. ...

The race is also critical for groups supporting gay marriage that hope to defeat a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would strip gays and lesbians of the right to marry but allow civil unions. The amendment was approved by the Legislature with 105 votes in the spring four more votes than it needed for passage but must clear the Legislature a second time in order to go before voters.

Gay marriage supporters, who want to kill the amendment, now have a chance to pick up three more seats in special elections scheduled April 12, including the seat held by Finneran, a strong gay-marriage opponent. The March 15 party primary will be crucial in the Democrat-dominated district.

more
posted by Eve at 2:00 AM | link 0 comments

COURT UPHOLDS INDIANA'S MARRIAGE LAW: From the Indianapolis Star

An Indiana appellate court panel ruled unanimously today there is no constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.

In a long-awaited ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals said the proper forum for pursuing such a right is the Indiana General Assembly. ...

Indiana has a law on the books banning gay marriage, and it's likely the Republican-controlled General Assembly will pursue a constitutional ban on gay marriage. ...

Bosma said the ruling is likely to be appealed and the Indiana Supreme Court could disagree. He said House Republicans will proceed with their plan to seek a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. ...

"The key question in our view is whether the recognition of same-sex marriage would promote all of the same state interests that opposite-sex marriage does, including the interest in marital procreation," Judge Barnes wrote for the court. "If it would not, then limiting the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples is rational and acceptable under Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution."

more

ruling is here (HTML, yay!) and here (PDF)
posted by Eve at 1:49 AM | link 0 comments

FLA. COURT UPHOLDS DOMA: From the San Francisco Chronicle

In the first known ruling of its kind, a federal judge in Florida on Wednesday upheld a federal law that lets states refuse to recognize marriages between same-sex couples who were legally wed in Massachusetts.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Moody comes less than a week after President Bush told the Washington Post he would not lobby aggressively for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage because it had no chance of passing unless the federal law -- the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- was struck down.

Bush's position, which contradicted his stance during the presidential campaign last year, angered some conservative groups that had worked for his victory. The White House quickly issued clarifying statements stressing that the amendment remained on the president's agenda.

The federal law authorizes states to refuse to recognize a same-sex couple's marriage that was performed in a state or nation where the marriage was legal. Massachusetts is the only state that has legalized such marriages.

The Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged in numerous states, including California, under a constitutional provision requiring states to give "full faith and credit" to other states' laws and court judgments. ...

The law was challenged by a Tampa couple, Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, who have been together for 27 years. They went to Massachusetts in July to get married after Massachusetts' highest court issued a ruling legalizing same-sex marriages under state law. The couple returned home and sued for recognition of marital status in Florida. ...

A suit that "seeks to force an unwilling state to recognize the marriage" has little chance of winning and is likely to galvanize support for a federal constitutional amendment, said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco. She said challenges should instead be directed at the section of the 1996 law that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.

more

the ruling is here (PDF)
posted by Eve at 1:42 AM | link 0 comments

LA. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: From the New Orleans Times-Picayune

Louisiana's constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of "one man and one woman" was correctly written by lawmakers and properly cast into law by voters, a unanimous state Supreme Court said Wednesday.

But the amendment does not erode the rights of any unmarried couple to own property, enter into power-of-attorney contracts or craft wills, the court noted.

In a 32-page decision, the court reversed a Baton Rouge judge and upheld the amendment, which Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved in September.

Judge William Morvant had ruled the amendment improperly had more than one purpose, but the Supreme Court disagreed.

Both sides of the gay marriage debate claimed victory. ...

Opponents of the amendment view the high court's ruling as limiting an amendment that could have been worse for gay couples.

Attorney Randy Evans of the Forum for Equality, a gay rights group that challenged the amendment along with others after last year's election, hailed the court's clear defense of property and other rights. "All of those rights are preserved," Evans said. "It's about protecting existing rights that unmarried couples presently have. The court affirmed those rights. From our perspective, today is a win." ...

Chief Justice Pascal Calogero Jr. wrote a separate concurring opinion, saying that the ruling does not disturb the fundamental contract and property rights of all people, whether gay or straight, married or single.

"Nothing in the majority opinion would prohibit an unmarried couple from contacting to be co-owners of property, from designating each other agents authorized to make critical end-of-life decisions, or from leaving property to each other through wills," Calogero wrote.

more

the ruling is here (PDF)
posted by Eve at 1:38 AM | link 0 comments

RISKS OF BARRING SSM: David Fried

You said:

"Rauch and others argue that failing to enact same-sex marriage will teach children that cohabitation (by gay couples) is a-okay, and that sex and marriage can rightfully be separated. They predict that some, maybe even many, heterosexual couples will shun marriage as a discriminatory club. (Some people already do this.) And they predict that without same-sex marriage we won't just have marriage and not-marriage; we'll have a bewildering array of quasi- and pseudo- and kinda-sorta-not-really-marriages, like domestic partnerships and civil unions and 'well, we had a commitment ceremony at our synagogue, but obviously we're not married' and individualized contractual arrangements."

I would take this argument much further. The enactment of same-sex marriage is the single most indispensable step toward strengthening marriage in general. When I put it cynically, I say only then will the state be able to encourage marriage, within the bounds of fairness, by discriminating against the unmarried.

The oddest mistake made by the Supreme Court in the 'sixties and 'seventies was its conclusion that marital status is a "suspect category," meaning that the state cannot discriminate on the basis of marital status except for the most compelling reasons. In other words, state encouragement of marriage is generally an unconstitutional violation of civil rights. This principle was rapidly extended into a positive ban on private discrimination against the unmarried, so that landlords and hotels, for example, cannot exclude unmarried couples living together. In other words, neither the state or private individuals may treat marriage as normative and act accordingly.

But the principle that one cannot discriminate against the unmarried gets further support from the increasing reluctance of, e.g., corporations, to discriminate against gays. Once you extend domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples living together you must do so to opposite-sex couples living together, or you're impermissibly discriminating.

When Massachusetts allowed same-sex marriage, every employment lawyer in the state (and I'm an employment lawyer in Mass.) immediately had the same thought: Their clients could now permissibly withdraw partnership benefits such as health insurance from all unmarried employees, both straight and gay. If marriage is available to all, then it is perfectly permissible to discriminate against those who choose not to formalize their relationships. All straight couples who have been saying "We don't need a piece of paper to show our commitment to one another," suddenly discover that they do need that piece of paper to get health insurance for the unemployed partner.

The question is whether you think this is good or bad. I think it's great, myself. When marriage is available to all, it is both permissible and a good idea to discriminate against those who claim societal recognition for their relationships without marrying. In the real world, that's an excellent way to encourage marriage.

Is it really possible that the hordes of people who believe that SSM will destroy straight marriage haven't thought of this? Until you brought it up, I have seen this argument expressed only in the negative, by gay people who prefer the freedom of the current state of affairs and fear that SSM will result in pressure on them to get married. I think that this is exactly what will happen--and I'm in favor of it (if only because, as a straight divorced guy, I don't see why gay people should be exempt from the general misery!)
posted by Eve at 2:36 AM | link 0 comments

SIKH STRICTURES OVERSHADOW CANADIAN PM'S INDIAN VISIT: From the Toronto Star

Prime Minister Paul Martin vigorously countered an influential religious edict from the highest Sikh clerical authority urging all Sikhs to resist the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Sikh voters in Canada ought to consider the protection the Charter of Rights affords them and other minorities and support the bill that the Liberal government plans to introduce as soon as Parliament resumes Jan. 31, Martin said yesterday.

Martin stressed that no religious group will be forced to perform gay marriages, and launched into a lengthy defence of his bill, in remarks aimed squarely at a Canadian audience.

"I would point out that we are a country of ethnic and religious minorities," Martin told Canadian and Indian journalists after meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh here.

"The purpose of the Charter of Rights is to protect minorities, protect them against oppression of the majority. That's the reason that you have a Charter."

The controversial issue caught up with Martin and overshadowed his visit here, which was aimed mainly at promoting trade and his ideas for a new global forum of 20 country leaders.

more
posted by Eve at 2:32 AM | link 0 comments

RUSSIAN SSM REJECTED: From The Advocate

Two gay Russian men tried on Tuesday to get married in Moscow to call attention to discrimination against gays and lesbians, but they were turned away by authorities who told them marriage is a union between a man and a woman, reports Agence France-Presse. Edvard Murzin, a deputy from the region of Bashkortostan, and Eduard Mishin, who edits the Internet site Gay.ru and the Kvir newspaper, handed in a marriage declaration to Moscow City Hall.

After their attempt was turned down with the argument that the Russian family code restricts marriage to a union between a woman and a man, they went on the air at a local radio station to explain their motivation. "We do not love each other, but we want to see the establishment of justice. We share the same ideas and are united in the fight for justice," Mishin told Moscow Echo.

Admitting that they were actually creating a negative image for themselves, Mishin said they had decided to go to City Hall because "if we don't do it, society will never do it." Many Russian gays, he added, believe the country is not ready for same-sex marriages, as practiced in Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands. "Why should one wait until society is ready? It's not certain that society will become more tolerant with time; the opposite could actually happen," he said.

Both men vowed to take their case to court, if necessary, or all the way to the supreme court or even the European Court of Human Rights.
more
posted by Eve at 2:28 AM | link 0 comments

HONDURAS MEASURE TO BAN SSM MOBILIZES RIGHTS GROUPS: From the Los Angeles Times

..."In various countries of the world -- Holland, Spain, various states of the United States -- there is already [same-sex] marriage," Discua says. "It is already coming, and it is already accepted."

But not in this impoverished, crime-racked Central American nation of 6.8 million. In October, Discua sponsored a congressional motion to ban marriage and adoption by homosexuals. Strongly backed by the country's swelling evangelical Christian movement, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, the motion passed unanimously.

If the measure passes a second legislative vote, as required by federal law, the constitution will be amended to read that marriage only between a man and a woman is legally valid. In effect, Honduras would implement nationwide what 11 U.S. states voted for in ballot measures in November and what President Bush says he hopes to enact across the U.S.: a comprehensive ban on gay marriage.

"We hope that next year they will ratify it, in which we recognize that the state of matrimony is between a man and a woman," says the Rev. Oswaldo Canales, president of the Evangelical Fraternity of Honduras, which represents 98% of the country's estimated 2 million evangelicals. "For me, a homosexual is like an alcoholic, like an addict that needs help. They are sick morally and have a sickness of the soul."

Marriage rights aren't a high priority for Honduran gay rights activists, but the proposed constitutional ban has mobilized them against what they see as another attempt to relegate gay and lesbian Hondurans to second-class citizenship. The activists say they're fed up with job discrimination, police brutality, hate crimes and the media's stereotyping of them as prostitutes, junkies and delinquents.

They place some of the blame for the issue on the U.S. With national elections coming up, gay activists say Honduran conservatives are taking a cue from their counterparts to the north and trying to rally support with the gay-marriage issue. ...

Canales, 45, believes that homosexuality is one of several behaviors destroying traditional Honduran family life, which, he acknowledges, has its own grave problems. He believes lesbianism is increasing because of heterosexual domestic violence against women, a byproduct of what he disapprovingly calls a macho culture.

more
posted by Eve at 2:17 AM | link 0 comments

FLA'S PUZZLING CASE AGAINST GAY ADOPTIONS: Steve Chapman

The state of Florida is not ridiculously selective when it comes to letting people adopt children--and with some 4,200 kids in need of adoption, it can't afford to be.

It allows single adults to adopt. It accepts people with serious illnesses and disabilities. It leaves the door open to drug addicts. It is even willing to consider people who are known to have neglected, abandoned or abused children.

It doesn't accept homosexuals. ...

Normally, the state assesses applicants individually, on the crazy assumption that it should focus on what's best for the child. But when the prospective parent is gay, the interests of the child go out the window. Despite everything Lofton has done for the boy, the state is trying to place him in another home.

This approach is not the preference of the people charged with looking after the needs of kids. When the state's chief adoption official was asked under oath if there is any "child-welfare reason at all for excluding gay people from adopting children," she answered: "No."

The original impulse, it turns out, was not to protect children but to penalize gays. The measure, passed in 1977, was an offshoot of singer Anita Bryant's successful campaign to repeal a Dade County ordinance banning discrimination against homosexuals. The bill's chief sponsor explained it as a valiant effort to open lines of communication with gays: "We're trying to send them a message, telling them: `We're really tired of you. We wish you'd go back into the closet.' "

The state now insists it has perfectly pure motives for the ban. It claims that a child is best served in a stable home that includes a married mother and father. This kind of family, it argues, gives a child good gender role models and spares her from "social stigmatization" about her parents.

If the state really wanted to avoid such stigmatization, it might stop treating such parents as if they are a menace and a disgrace. Expressing moral disapproval of homosexuality, after all, is one of the reasons Florida gives for the ban.

As for gender role models, it's not clear how important they are in a child's development. Almost all gays grow up with heterosexual parents and nonetheless adopt a different "gender role." Sexual orientation aside, Steven Lofton looks like a pretty decent role model. If Florida thinks gender role modeling is so critical, why does it let children spend years living with gay foster parents like him?

more
posted by Eve at 4:33 AM | link 0 comments

ALL HAPPY FAMILIES: Julian Sanchez on Fla. adoption law

"Will you be my daddy?"

Wayne LaRue Smith regarded his young foster son, who had only a short time earlier come to live with Smith and his partner Dan Skahen, from across the dinner table. His first instinct and fervent desire, he says, was to respond: "Of course! I'd love to be your dad." But the hard realities of Florida law required him to maintain a pained silence: A checkbox on the state's adoption form requires prospective parents to declare whether they are homosexual and therefore, under a unique provision of the state's family law statutes, ineligible to adopt.

Smith was "rescued," he says, by his other, younger foster son--one of 23 the pair have cared for at various times. "No, I want you to be my daddy. Or," turning to Skahen, "you can be my daddy." And then, evincing enormous satisfaction at his sudden epiphany: "I know, I'll have two dads."

And, in effect, he will: The state has since awarded permanent guardianship of the younger child, now in first grade, to Smith, a Key West attorney, and Skahen, a real estate broker. While that doesn't give the child all the benefits full adoption would--a guarantee of Social Security survivor benefits should some accident befall his guardians, for example--it provides the kind of stability vital to children in foster care, who have often been removed from homes where they faced abuse or neglect. The couple's older foster child, now eight, is less fortunate: Though he has now spent almost four years with Smith and Skahen, the state continues to seek to place him in a heterosexual home. ...

Their model for emulation, Florida, is currently "protecting" quite a few children from gay adoption: Its foster care system holds more children than any state's save California's and New York's. And keeping track of them all is hard work. As 2004 drew to a close, Florida could not account for the whereabouts over 500 children nominally in its custody. Sometimes the protection is of the sort afforded Yusimil Herrera, who after being moved from one foster home to another 20 times, homes in which she was beaten and sexually abused, won a $4.5 million jury verdict against the state. (The verdict was later overturned; Herrera and her sister accepted a much smaller settlement.) Herrera now stands accused of murdering her own young daughter.

Florida's children will continue to be protected from the likes of healthcare professionals Steve Lofton and Roger Croteau, who care for five children born with HIV, three of whom have been with the couple since infancy. The Miami-based Children's Home Society named an annual award for outstanding foster parents after Lofton and Croteau, its first recipients. No matter, according to Florida Christian Coalition director Bill Stephens, who maintains that "courts are doing what's in the best interest of children and keeping them in heterosexual homes." That's not quite right, of course, but they are, at any rate, keeping them in homosexual homes only under constant threat of transfer.

more
posted by Eve at 4:29 AM | link 0 comments

LOVE AND MARRIAGE: Jose Solano

As many people know, love is probably the most confused and abused word in our entire lexicon. Someone even suggested we not use it at all but rather just use other words to state what we are specifically referring to. Of course, because it often has such "ultimate" connotations everyone wants to hear it said to oneself or wishes to express it to the object of one's desire or attraction. But it may be also something of degrees in which case it simply is an exaggerated form of "like" or "want"; "I love my car." "I love that pie." Etc. Most frequently it is made synonymous with "desire," "lust" and that old term "concupiscence." When people speak of "orientation" these days I understand the latter three terms.

Allow me to express an observation I have made with regards to marriage and the reconciliation of opposites. For humans marriage is the natural cauldron for the blending of opposites. At the one end you have masculinity and at the other femininity. The natural sexual attraction of the opposite sexes brings the two together and through an amazing growing process over the years, usually unperceived by the couple, the powerful masculine driving force of the male is softened as he wishes to please his wife, while the yielding, beckoning allurement of the female becomes aggressive as children and life¹s necessities become priorities. In this way one gradually takes on the characteristics of the other, the man becomes more "feminine" while the woman more "masculine." The oneness that is fulfilled in the initial nuptial bliss begins a transformation process in which the poles are slowly blended together as the two grow into a more permanent and complete union. This does not generally happen without enormous struggle and sacrifice and there are many failures. It¹s a realizable ideal and natural goal but not for those who refuse the struggle and the sacrifice. It can never happen in same-sex relationships simply because they are not true opposites. Both the man and the woman also remain rather infantile and are easily tempted into adultery if they seek to retain permanently or repeatedly recapture the initial nuptial bliss. A greater and deeper harmony and joy is experienced through the transformation.
posted by Eve at 4:26 AM | link 0 comments

DIVORCE AND TAKING WOMEN FOR GRANTED: Hugo Schwyzer

...Even my parents divorce was both an important feminist lesson and a wonderful, if difficult, opportunity for growth. Divorce is never easy on children, and I won't pretend that it was. But my parents' decision to separate sent me a lasting message that I could not take women for granted. Just because you've married and had children doesn't mean you will stay, regardless of external circumstances. When you're certain that you won't ever be left, no matter how badly you behave, you have far fewer incentives to exercise self-control than when you know darned well that if you blow it, the other party may well say goodbye. I'd like to think that was a good and important lesson for my brother and me to learn, and that it has helped us enormously in our adult relationships with women to the present day.

more
posted by Eve at 4:24 AM | link 0 comments

GROWING UP, MARRIAGE, AND "TWIXTERS": Time magazine cover story

[Kathryn Lopez has some short but good comments on the marriage parts of the story here and here. --Eve]

Michele, Ellen, Nathan, Corinne, Marcus and Jennie are friends. All of them live in Chicago. They go out three nights a week, sometimes more. Each of them has had several jobs since college; Ellen is on her 17th, counting internships, since 1996. They don't own homes.

They change apartments frequently. None of them are married, none have children. All of them are from 24 to 28 years old.

Thirty years ago, people like Michele, Ellen, Nathan, Corinne, Marcus and Jennie didn't exist, statistically speaking. Back then, the median age for an American woman to get married was 21. She had her first child at 22. Now it all takes longer. It's 25 for the wedding and 25 for baby. It appears to take young people longer to graduate from college, settle into careers and buy their first homes. What are they waiting for? Who are these permanent adolescents, these twentysomething Peter Pans? And why can't they grow up? ...

Social scientists are starting to realize that a permanent shift has taken place in the way we live our lives. In the past, people moved from childhood to adolescence and from adolescence to adulthood, but today there is a new, intermediate phase along the way. The years from 18 until 25 and even beyond have become a distinct and separate life stage, a strange, transitional never-never land between adolescence and adulthood in which people stall for a few extra years, putting off the iron cage of adult responsibility that constantly threatens to crash down on them. They're betwixt and between. You could call them twixters.

more, mostly subscribers-only
posted by Eve at 4:18 AM | link 0 comments

EMPTY NESTS, AND HEARTS: David Brooks

[Interesting response here. --Eve]

Over the past 30 years, the fraction of women over 40 who have no children has nearly doubled, to about a fifth. According to the Gallup Organization, 70 percent of these women regret that they have no kids.

It's possible that some of these women regret not having children in the way they regret not taking more time off after college. But for others, this longing for the kids they did not have is a profound, soul-encompassing sadness.

And it is part of a large pattern. Most American still tell pollsters that the ideal family has two or three children. But fewer and fewer Americans get to live in that kind of family.

Why?

For some, it's a question of never finding the right person to have kids with. Others thought they'd found the right mates, but the relationships didn't work out. Others became occupied with careers, and the child-rearing part of their lives never got put together.

But there is also one big problem that stretches across these possibilities: Women now have more choices over what kind of lives they want to lead, but they do not have more choices over how they want to sequence their lives.

more
posted by Eve at 4:15 AM | link 0 comments

DELAY DIVORCE, SAVE A MARRIAGE?: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

With proposed legislation to make couples wait longer for no-fault divorces, Georgia takes its place in a national movement to preserve marriage. But would the extra time promote reconciliation or just prolong the battle?

Murky research and incomplete statistics complicate the question.

The waiting period between the time divorce papers are filed and a decree can be issued varies by state, from 180 days to none at all. At six months, Georgia would be at the upper end of waiting periods. Here's a sampling of waiting periods in other states.

180 days: California, Michigan (if minors are involved) and Louisiana
90 days: Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Oregon and Utah
60 days: Indiana, Kansas and Nebraska
30 days: Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii
20 days: Idaho, Florida and Wyoming

Proponents say slowing down the divorce process would give couples more time to think through the decision and avert divorces based on emotional impulse. Critics argue it will only drag out an emotionally charged period, leaving families in limbo.

A state Senate bill introduced Wednesday would extend the waiting period after filing for divorce from 30 days to six months for an uncontested divorce of a couple with children. Couples without children would wait four months. The waiting period would be waived if either spouse has a protective order or if there has been family violence.

Divorcing parents would be required to attend a minimum of four hours of classes that focus on the effects of divorce on children.

The debate over the bill stretches beyond political affiliations. Even therapists disagree on its effectiveness.

"What you're doing when you extend the waiting period for divorce is increasing the time for the most hostility and conflict," said Carl Johnson, executive director of the Georgia Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. The group opposes lengthening the waiting period but supports mandatory classes for parents, already required in many of the state's judicial districts.

But other therapists, including Wendy Patterson, an Atlanta counselor who leads marriage workshops, favor the longer waiting period.

"Most people who get divorced do not quit loving each other but they could not figure out a way to to make it work out of a lack of knowledge," Patterson said. "The potential is there that if it is not so easy to divorce, we might move forward, take a class about how to help the kids."

The Senate proposal is part of a national push to promote the institution of marriage. Alarmed by the declining number of children being raised in traditional two-parent households, officials in every state have adopted at least one policy or sponsored at least one activity to promote marriage since the mid-1990s, according to a study by the Center for Law and Social Policy.

Initiatives range from high school relationship classes in Florida to handbooks for marriage license applicants in Arizona. Three states--Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana--have adopted a two-tier marriage system that allows couples to opt for a "covenant marriage," requiring premarital counseling and counseling before divorce. Nationally, the Bush administration has proposed a $1.5 billion spending initiative over five years to encourage healthy marriages.

more
posted by Eve at 4:09 AM | link 0 comments

ACLU HEAD ON POLYGAMY: From the Yale Daily News

...In response to a student's question about gay marriage, bigamy and polygamy in certain communities, [Nadine] Strossen said the ACLU is actively fighting to defend freedom of choice in marriage and partnerships.

"We have defended the right for individuals to engage in polygamy," Strossen said. "We defend the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals."

more
posted by Eve at 4:07 AM | link 0 comments

FATHERHOOD BY A NEW FORMULA: From the Washington Post

It's a feeling the wealthy Washington entrepreneur likens to "stepping off into thin air," a gut-churning, middle-of-the-night realization that his life-changing choice is based on "some really big leaps of faith."

But most of the time, the single gay executive said, becoming a father using his sperm and eggs donated by a 24-year-old woman he met once in a downtown Starbucks to create embryos that were implanted in the uterus of a 22-year-old surrogate mother he barely knows, absolutely seems like the right thing to do.

It was, he said, the culmination of increasingly urgent soul-searching that accelerated as he hurtled toward 50.

"I've always loved children and I thought, 'What am I waiting for?' I want somebody to love me and I want somebody to love," said Scott, who agreed to be interviewed on the condition that his last name not be published because he was concerned about the reaction of some business associates.

After the demise of a long-term relationship, Scott decided that he had the means and the motivation to become a single father. He rejected adoption because he wanted his own biological child. Instead Scott embarked on a two-year process, fraught with uncertainty, that will cost him $100,000 by the time he takes the baby, due in late June, home from the hospital.

Scott found his donor and surrogate through Creative Family Connections, a three-year-old law firm with offices in Tysons Corner and Bethesda. The firm often serves as a broker for would-be parents, finding both egg donors and surrogates and handling the associated legal work.

"We believe that everyone can build a family, and that's what we try to help people do," said the firm's founder, Diane S. Hinson. A Harvard Law School graduate, Hinson stopped practicing communications law to start the firm, a move she said was prompted by personal experience. Several years ago when she was single, Hinson adopted a baby, which she calls "the best thing I ever did." ...

Some medical ethicists say that while the desire of gay men to father children is understandable, the technology required to create such children raises a host of thorny issues society has been slow to address. Few states, they note, have passed laws governing the practice of surrogacy or egg donation. ...

To minimize the possibility of future legal problems, Hinson said she works solely with gestational surrogates: The woman who gives birth is not the egg donor and has no genetic link to a baby.

Egg donors are usually paid $7,500, while surrogates receive $20,000 for a single baby and $25,000 for twins. All expenses, including fees for outside lawyers to represent the interests of each woman, are paid by the prospective father. Egg donors and prospective parents are not told each others' last names to minimize the possibility of claims of custody or financial support. ...

"It was very important to me to look the egg donor in the eye," said Scott, who met with five candidates. A 90-minute meeting at Starbucks, he noted wryly, is "not a lot to choose the mother of your child."

more
posted by Eve at 4:00 AM | link 0 comments

NY LAWSUIT OVER CANADIAN SSM: From the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

A Monroe Community College employee is suing the college and Monroe County for not extending health care benefits to her same-sex partner.

The litigation joins an array of similar suits around New York pushing the legal issue of how the Empire State is going to recognize gay civil unions or marriages performed in other states or countries. It is the first such suit filed in Monroe County. ...

Martinez, 49, is a word-processing supervisor. She and Lisa Ann Golden have been a couple since 2000, according to the suit. Their relationship was formalized in a civil union in Vermont in 2001 and a marriage in Canada in 2004, Martinez said.

more
posted by Eve at 3:57 AM | link 0 comments

OHIO MARRIAGE AMENDMENT USED IN DEFENSE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES: From the Associated Press

Some attorneys are attempting to use Ohio's new gay marriage amendment to defend unmarried clients against domestic violence charges.

The constitutional amendment, which took effect on Dec. 1, denies legal status to unmarried couples.

In at least two cases last week, the Cuyahoga County public defender's office has asked a judge to dismiss domestic-violence charges against unmarried defendants, arguing that the charges violate the amendment by affording marriage-like legal status to unmarried victims who live with the people accused of attacking them. ...

The state law on domestic violence applies to a "person living as a spouse."

Therefore, motions by the public defender's office argue that domestic violence charges against their clients violate the new amendment, which forbids any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design . . . of marriage."

"The thing is, you can only get a domestic-violence charge now if you are a wife beater, not a girlfriend beater," said Jeff Lazarus, a law clerk for public defender Robert Tobik who helped draft the motions to dismiss.

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason called the motions "ridiculous."

Assistant Prosecutor Lisa Reitz Williamson said the domestic-violence law describes the type of relationships to which it applies without creating any special legal status for unmarried couples. ...

Some legal scholars argue that if a judge were to agree with the public defender's ruling, a court could declare the amendment in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

[argh, I can't find a link for the AP story, and there's a similar story here but I can't read past the headline. Will update this post when I have better links. --Eve]
posted by Eve at 4:58 PM | link 0 comments

"THE FEMINIZATION OF LOVE": Why do I keep quoting Camassia? Because she's just that cool.

...Another point that might be relevant here is another theory I learned about in my Family Sociology class, about the "feminization of love." A couple of researchers who studied married couples noticed that men and women tended to have somewhat different ideas about how to show your love for someone: men lean toward "instrumental help" (doing things for people, in other words), while women tend toward "verbal self-disclosure" (talking about intimate matters). The authors argued that society in general thinks of love more in the "female" terms of emotive intimacy, which means women are regarded as being better at love, which has negative consequences for both sexes.

more
posted by Eve at 2:38 AM | link 0 comments

BUSH ON FMA, PART TWO: From the New York Times

The White House sought on Sunday to reassure conservatives that President Bush would work hard on behalf of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, backtracking from remarks Mr. Bush made in an interview suggesting that he would not press the Senate to vote on the amendment this year.

In an interview with The Washington Post published on Sunday, Mr. Bush said many senators did not see the need for the amendment as long as the law known as the Defense of Marriage Act was in place. Because many senators are waiting to see if that legislation can withstand a constitutional challenge, "nothing will happen" for now with the proposed amendment, Mr. Bush said. ...

In interviews on Sunday on television news programs, Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's counselor, said Mr. Bush was referring in The Post interview only to the reality of legislative vote counting and was not suggesting that his support for the amendment had diminished.

"What the president was speaking to was some of the legislative realities in the United States Senate," Mr. Bartlett said. "As you know, it requires 67 votes in the United States Senate for a constitutional amendment to move forward. That's a very high bar. What we learned through the debate last year is that many members of the Senate believe that the Defense of Marriage Act first must be overturned or challenged before we take the next step of a constitutional amendment."

The president's statement in the interview with The Post, Mr. Bartlett said, "does not change President Bush's view about amendment, the need for an amendment. And he'll continue to push for an amendment."

Some of Mr. Bush's conservative allies on Capitol Hill said that they would keep pushing the issue and that they believed the president would be with them.

more
posted by Eve at 2:36 AM | link 0 comments

BUSH ON FMA, PART ONE: From the Washington Post

The Post: Do you plan to expend any political capital to aggressively lobby senators for a gay marriage amendment?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that the situation in the last session -- well, first of all, I do believe it's necessary; many in the Senate didn't, because they believe DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] will -- is in place, but -- they know DOMA is in place, and they're waiting to see whether or not DOMA will withstand a constitutional challenge.

The Post: Do you plan on trying to -- using the White House, using the bully pulpit, and trying to --

THE PRESIDENT: The point is, is that senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously.

The Post: But until that changes, you want it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate. Do you see what I'm saying?

more

Andrew Sullivan comments here.
posted by Eve at 2:33 AM | link 0 comments

UNMARRIED FATHERS GAIN TAX INCENTIVES IN NY GOV'S PROPOSAL: From the New York Times

Gov. George E. Pataki will unveil a program this week that would make New York the first state in the nation to use tax credits, along with other incentives, intended to motivate low-income fathers to work and pay child support, according to state officials.

"We think that engaging the dads has to be the next phase of welfare reform," said a senior administration official who provided details of the plan in advance on the condition that he not be identified. "We want to encourage really poor dads to get into the economic mainstream by rewarding work."

The central proposal of the plan would vastly expand the state's Earned Income Tax Credit for fathers under 30 who earn less than $12,000 a year and who do not live with their children but are up to date in their child support payments, the official said. The maximum annual credit such a man can receive now is $390 from the federal government and $130 from the state. Under Mr. Pataki's proposal, the same man could receive up to $1,560 from the state.

Such tax credits, which provide low-wage earners with cash payments that far exceed what they might have paid in taxes, are already available to low-income working parents who have custody of their children--mostly women. They are widely believed to have been pivotal in helping millions of women leave welfare rolls in the last decade and stay in their jobs.

Until now, however, no state has extended such a credit to those parents--mostly men--who do not have custody of their children. To qualify for the credit, a recipient must have a legitimate job, creating an incentive for men and women to leave the underground economy and find work on a company payroll.

In addition to the tax credit, the official said, the administration will propose creating intensive work programs and child-rearing courses for unemployed fathers, giving new discretion to judges and child-support magistrates to order unemployed fathers into work programs, and suspending child support obligations if the father marries the mother of the child and lives with her.

more
posted by Eve at 2:30 AM | link 0 comments