|
 |
 |
 Friday, January 28, 2005
APPLES AND ORANGES: Mitch Ledford
[Mitch Ledford is a telecommunications consultant in Chicago.] Maggie says, "there are vastly more parents available to adopt babies, than there are babies available. Special needs kids or older children are a different story." She could, of course, say, "there are vastly fewer parents available to adopt special needs kids and older children, than there are such children available. Babies are a different story." I don't really see a debate here. Give married couples preference to adopt babies. However, other than this preference, don't have any other barriers to children being placed in a loving home. This will achieve the following: 1.) Babies will end up in the best possible home 2.) Special needs children will not be neglected.
MARRIAGE AS NORM: Maggie Gallagher replies to Mark Barton
The norm I'm supporting is that most children should be born to married couples and most of those marriages should last. That's the ideal for which I'm striving, which I think is uniquely important to the common good. I cannot understand why you consider this an evasive answer. You seem to be moving on some underlying logic like "marriage is a moral issue. What else is a moral issue?" I don't think about marriage like that.
MARRIAGE AS NORM: Mark Barton replies to Maggie Gallagher
Maggie G. [at end of post]: Does that help? Mark B.: No. It's terminally evasive: it tells me at length for the umpteenth time that you think marriage as a norm is important, but it adds only one trivial data point about what sort of norm you think marriage is not, and is entirely silent on what sort of norm it is. Of course it appears from your writings elsewhere that you're a proudly doctrinaire Catholic, and I fancy I could write the doctrinaire Catholic answer for myself, but since I anticipate making harsh criticisms, I very much don't want to put words in your mouth. Maggie G.: 1. Marriage, in my view, is a key social institution. Mark B.: Certainly, if a society doesn't manage procreation successfully it doesn't survive. Certainly, particular conceptions/implementations of marriage have been used historically to manage procreation. And certainly, particular conceptions of marriage will have a useful role to play in the future. But it doesn't follow from this that any particular conception of marriage is remotely optimum. The devil is in the details, and you're not being forthcoming about important details. Maggie G.: 3. In addition, children and communities suffer various harms when marriage norms erode; Mark B.: This can hardly fail to be true to some extent for at least some conceptions of marriage as a norm and at least some departures therefrom. At the same time, some conceptions of marriage or parts thereof cause harm as well as or instead of preventing it, such as conceptions that trap women in abusive relationships. The tradeoffs need to be carefully considered and publicly debated. In particular, if your views are at all similar to standard Catholicism then, as I will argue, they entail considerable harm to gay people, and I submit that the readers and I have a right to know the details, so we can judge how much harm will be involved, and whether it's a good tradeoff. Maggie G.: 4. Everyone ought to support the norm of marriage, as it is in their interest and the common good to do so. Mark B.: What, exactly, is everyone supposed to support, how are they to support it, and how strongly are they supposed to support it? See below for elaboration. Maggie G.: However Mark B.: That's the one negative clue I spoke of above. It still leaves things very vague however. If someone doesn't get married, is it of no consequence whatever? Is it of no consequence provided there are enough other couples getting married that society is meeting its procreation quota? Is it mildly regrettable but not worth making a fuss over? Is it a serious matter that calls for everyone to redouble their "support"? Is it a tragedy that requires every form of persuasion short of a shotgun? Is the answer the same if the couple is sexually active? Further, is the answer the same if the couple is sexually active and same-sex? Do individuals in same-sex couples have to be "supported" to marry opposite-sex partners, or does it suffice if they just break up? If either of the preceding, how exactly is this to the individual interest of gay people? Maggie G.: [...] Moreover Mark B.: I'm afraid I don't quite see how this is supposed to work. The carrots at my disposal seem awfully limited compared to the other forces involved. Will it suffice to offer congratulations and buy wedding presents for couples who get married? That's not how it worked in the old days, or so I hear. Not getting married before having sex was met with severe disapproval at the absolute minimum, and having a child out of wedlock could get you banishment from polite society. Gay sex came with prison terms. Maggie G. [Second part of item 5, taken out of order]: The necessity is social not individual. Mark B.: Now you're really not serious! The one thing we know with total certainty about your idea of marriage as a norm is that it's opposite-sex only. But you don't propose to encourage same-sex couples to consent not to get married to preserve the pristine opposite-sex nature of the institution, you propose to legally prevent them. Similarly, you don't propose to let couples consent to stay married, you propose to eliminate no-fault divorce and legally require them to.
MARRIAGE AS NORM: Jason Ross replies to Maggie Gallagher
[Jason Ross is a corporate information systems consultant in Dallas, Texas.] Regarding your post: No, it does not help, because you have still completely disregarded the fact that the promotion of traditional marriage and the acceptance of same-sex marriage need not be exclusive concepts. They are not part of the same ballgame. Same-sex marriage will extend benefits, it will not take them away. Homosexual couples already live together, already raise children, and already and co-exist alongside heterosexual married or unmarried couples. Denying them the right to a legally recognized marriage is not going to lead a significant number of homosexuals into traditional marriages, and the ones that do opt for the socially more acceptable arrangement will be doing far more harm to themselves and to the institution than if they had been allowed to enter into a same-sex union. The preservation of traditional marriage is as important as you say it is, in my view. It's a social necessity. However, your conclusion that the legalization of same-sex marriage will usher in the inevitiable decline of civilization borders on hysteria. The two are not mutually exclusive enterprises, because they are non-competitive. Your experience should have taught you that the vast majority of people do not choose to be gay any more than they choose to be born male or female. Your ideology of fear has apparently won, for the time being. Thus, I can only hope that the momentum from both sides will lead to reconciliation instead of continued conflict... but I doubt that this will be the case. I truly wish that individuals such as yourself would use their considerable talents for the benefit of all of our society instead of hoarding them for the bigoted half.
RALLY AGAINST SSM MISSES THE POINT: Rev. Jason Poling
AS AN EVANGELICAL pastor with conservative views on most political issues, I might be expected to attend today's expected Defend Maryland Marriage Rally in Annapolis. But I'll skip it, and here's why: This rally misses the point about marriage. I share with rally organizers a concern for the state of marriage in our society. As a pastor, I am intimately familiar with the tragedies that are involved in once-healthy marriages that are threatened and dying, and I have counseled people through the pain of infidelity and divorce. I am very aware of the responsibility I bear when I unite a couple in marriage. But I am not convinced that same-sex marriages are the primary threat to marriage today. Far more dangerous are the many pseudo-marital arrangements that allow people to experience "marriage lite" without entering into the serious commitment involved in marriage. The recognition of "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" among homosexual couples can necessitate the same recognition for heterosexual couples. This phenomenon is well advanced in Scandinavia, where marriage has become the exception rather than the rule even for families with children. It is the commitment involved in marriage that makes it so fulfilling when it is pursued faithfully. It seems ironic that at a time when marriage is threatened by the lack of commitment, those who want to uphold marriage are seeking vigorously to oppose those who pay this noble institution the honor of participating in it. ... Condemning homosexual arrangements is easy for people who have no interest in homosexual behavior, much easier than addressing inappropriate heterosexual behavior. It's been my experience that it's a lot easier to fall into immoral behavior when one's attention is directed at somebody else's immoral behavior rather than at one's own faults. more
REPORT: NUPTIALS FOR GAYS BENEFITS MASS.: From the Boston Herald
Gay weddings and gay tourists traveling to Massachusetts to get hitched could pump an estimated $150 million into the state economy, while legalized same-sex marriage could save about $14 million a year in state spending, according to researchers at the University of Massachusetts. But their study, published in the quarterly journal Massachusetts Benchmarks, quickly drew fire from a local group opposing same-sex marriage, even as one of the UMass researchers acknowledged that out-of-state gay couples aren't flocking here to get married. From receptions to rings, spending on gay nuptuals could translate into a state economic boost of between $85 million and $102 million over a period dating from last May--when same-sex couples began getting married--to the end of this year, according to the report's authors, UMass professors Randy Albelda, Michael Ash and M.V. Lee Badgett. Those estimates are based on the assumption that half of the roughly 17,000 gay and lesbian couples living together in the Bay State get married, the study said. ... The report also estimated that gay married couples could end up paying an additional $250,000 in state taxes. "Conservatives call it the Marriage Penalty," Albelda said. According to the study, the state could save $14 million a year on public assistance to newly wed gay men and lesbians who might no longer qualify for Medicaid, welfare and disability benefits. more
SEN. DICK DURBIN ON MAGGIE GALLAGHER
STOP GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA ACT -- (Senate - January 26, 2005) Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning's Washington Post contains a story about yet another case of the Bush administration apparently using taxpayer dollars to try to buy favorable news coverage of their most controversial proposals. In a column she wrote for the National Review Online, the conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher wrote that the administration's marriage initiative could ``carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children.'' In fact, the big payoff so far appears to be to Ms. Gallagher herself. According to the Washington Post, Miss Gallagher received $21,500 from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services in the year 2002 to promote the Bush administration's marriage initiative. She received an additional $20,000 from the administration for writing a report entitled ``Can Government Strengthen Marriage?'' Last year, Miss Gallagher defended the administration's proposal for a Federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in her columns, interviews, and television appearances. She also testified in favor of such an amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have her testimony. I have attended many meetings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It appears we will now need to ask each witness who apparently comes from the outside whether they are on the inside. Miss Gallagher was on the inside. She was such an insider that she was paid handsomely by some in the administration for her ``objective'' views on administration policies. This is the third time in less than a month we have heard allegations of political payola by the Bush administration. It troubles me. I can recall recently being on FOX--I know you are surprised if you follow the newscast to know that I would go on FOX, but occasionally I think it is good for them to meet a Democrat--I went on Chris Wallace's Sunday show. We were joking ahead of time about Armstrong Williams. I said: Chris, before you ask me any questions on FOX, I have to ask you, Are you being paid by the administration to ask these questions? We laughed about it. But there is nothing funny when we hear about Miss Gallagher and Armstrong Williams. We learned the Federal Department of Education paid well-known conservative commentator Armstrong Williams--get this--$240,000 to promote the administration's No Child Left Behind Act in television and radio appearances. Picture this. We come to the Senate lamenting the fact the administration does not have enough money to send to our schools to help failing children do better on tests and improve their education. GPO's PDF; this is pp S547-8
TACTIC MAY STALL BIDS FOR CT CIVIL UNIONS: From the Hartford Courant
Connecticut appeared poised this year to become the first state to approve civil unions for same-sex couples without the threat of court intervention. But now the chances of passage have greatly dimmed as the result of a controversial decision by an influential gay rights group. Love Makes A Family began telling legislative allies Wednesday it is launching an all-or-nothing campaign for a same-sex marriage law. It is a decision that puts the group at odds with legislative supporters, some of whom see Connecticut on the threshold of extending an important civil right. ... Anne Stanback, the president of Love Makes a Family, said the group feels that Connecticut has a special place in the debate today: Polls show the state is open to the idea of same-sex marriage. "We are one of only a few states that can get marriage," she said. "It is very important that we not take this second-class citizenship [of civil unions]. It's not a stepping stone to marriage, it is a dead end." A University of Connecticut poll in April found 49 percent of residents supporting gay marriage and 46 percent opposed. By contrast, an overwhelming 74 percent support same-sex civil unions. more
GAY MARRIAGE FIGHT SHIFTS TO CALIFORNIA: From the Associated Press
Calling gays "the most oppressed minority since slavery," an attorney for a gay couple urged a judge Thursday to overturn California and federal laws banning same-sex marriage. The lawsuit is one of only a few challenges to gay marriage bans that are pending in federal court, and the case is being closely watched nationwide. more
MORE REACTIONS TO MAGGIE GALLAGHER/HHS/WASH POST PIECE: Various
Jonathan H. Adler: "The Gallagher kerfuffle conceals one of the Beltway's tidy little secrets: Hundreds, if not thousands, of policy experts and advocates receive federal grants and contracts. Federal funding of experts, advocacy groups, and other nonprofits is so widespread that it scarcely ever warrants attention. The real scandal is not that a federal agency paid Maggie Gallagher for her expertise, but that federal agencies dole out millions in taxpayer dollars each and every year to activist organizations that turn around and call for Congress to grant these agencies even greater power. This is the real 'political payola' in Washington, and it is about time it received some attention." (more) Editor & Publisher: "Now that two syndicated columnists have admitted taking government money for promoting certain points of view, is the growing scrutiny of all commentators long overdue? Or is the new scrutiny just a kind of witch hunt? In the wake of Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher's ethics problems, E&P asked a dozen columnists if they have any ghosts in their pasts and what ethics rules they believe should be set for columnists. "In all cases, the columnists flatly opposed any government payoff for promotion, said they had never engaged in such actions, and had rarely been offered payment. Kathleen Parker was typical. 'It's called conflict of interest,' she said. 'It's very simple. If someone's paying you and you're going to write about a subject related to that person or entity, than you have to disclose it. Period. End of story.'" (more) David Frum: "Gallagher was not paid for advocacy. A well-known expert on family and marriage, she was hired by the Department of Health and Human Services to write and edit HHS materials summarizing the state of research on those issues. This is the kind of work that policy experts exist to do. It is work of a kind that the US government regularly purchases from a wide range of experts and consultants. Perhaps most importantly, and unlike Williams, Gallagher was paid at what looks like a market rate: a total of $21,400 for her work drafting articles and presentations for officials of HHS to use. ... The government was not trying to influence her thinking. It was paying her to have access to the results of her thinking." (more) Howard Kurtz has a roundup here. Kate O'Beirne: "Based on the undisputed facts, Howie Kurtz manufactured a controversy and with it a wholly new standard for (presumably only conservative) policy experts who do work for the government. HHS was not paying Maggie Gallagher to say she believed what they did, but rather to learn what she knows. Had we known and disclosed the work she did for HHS, she wouldn't have looked conflicted, she would have looked even more credentialed as a recognized expert on marriage. That's why we should disclose--to tell our readers 'listen up' Maggie Gallagher really knows what she's talking about." (link) Glenn Reynolds: "An early report from Drudge made things sound a lot like the Armstrong Williams story -- payola in exchange for support. But the actual story from Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post makes clear that Gallagher was actually paid for other work, and in one case the 'federal money' was merely money from a nonprofit organization that got federal grants. If there's a story here, it's one that probably applies to half the pundits in Washington. ...The fact is that people like to point to appearances of impropriety and conflicts of interest because it's a way of taking a shot without taking a stand." (more) Michael Triplett is still posting quite a lot on it here. If people see other especially interesting, important, or well-phrased reactions--as with all marriage news--they should send it to me at the email address you reach by clicking the link below. Wednesday, January 26, 2005
AMONG LAST TO OK DIVORCE, CHILEANS DEAL WITH IMPACT: From the Boston Globe
After allegedly enduring more than 20 years of beatings, insults, and infidelity -- including a decade in which Chile's Congress fought over a law that would allow the dissolution of marriages -- Maria Victoria Torres recently became the first person in the country to apply for a divorce. ... In updating its marriage code of 1884, Chile became the last country in the Americas to legalize divorce. Malta and the Philippines are the only nations that forbid it. Critics of legalizing divorce, including the Catholic Church, have warned that the new law will fuel a host of societal ills, from broken homes to delinquent children. They cheered the recent news that only 1,035 divorce petitions were filed from mid-November, when the law took effect, through the end of December, a fraction of the tens of thousands that the Justice Ministry had predicted would file. Legal analysts say many people may be waiting to see how much bureaucracy is involved in the early petitions before filing their own. Yet even before the divorce law, marriage was becoming an endangered species in this predominantly Catholic and traditional society, with the annual number of new legal unions plummeting from about 105,000 in 1990 to fewer than 58,000 in 2003, according to civil registry figures. More striking in a country in which most prominent Catholic schools do not admit "illegitimate" children, and in which until 1997 there was no law granting child support or inheritance rights for children born outside wedlock, more than half of children in Chile now are born to unmarried parents -- one of the highest rates in the world, according to national statistics. Abortion and the morning-after pill are illegal in Chile. Proponents of the divorce law say it could serve to reinforce rather than extinguish the institution of marriage, by allowing cohabitating couples who could not dissolve prior unions to remarry and by encouraging skittish young people to tie the knot, secure in the knowledge that there is a legal escape route. more
GAYS IN FLA. SEEK ADOPTION ALTERNATIVES: From the New York Times
A state law deems them unfit to adopt and their challenges have failed in federal court, but gay men and lesbians in Florida say that will not stop them from raising children. Gay rights advocates say there are several alternatives, though they can be arduous or less fulfilling--foster parenting, artificial insemination, private adoptions in other states, and in some cases, illegal private adoptions in Florida. Florida, with more than 4,000 children in foster care, is the only state that has a law banning adoptions by gays, but it does allow them to serve as foster parents. Last week, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to an appellate court decision upholding the ban. ... Gary Sanford, 48, a consultant to children's services offices in the Southeast, says that some gay couples in Florida who want full parental rights are using artificial insemination. In other cases, members of gay and lesbian couples are teaming up to become biological parents. Cathy James, a Tampa accountant, and her partner chose artificial insemination and now have a 4-year-old son. Because Ms. James was not the birth mother, she has no legal rights with the child. more
ADOPTION: Jonathan Rowe
...The problem: These studies demonstrating the superiority of mother & father households typically compare them to SINGLE PARENT homes, where the children commonly are born to young unwed mothers who do not finish high school. And no doubt, such births are connected to a whole host of social pathologies, including crime, poverty, and lack of educational achievement. ... But, since there is good reason to believe that gay couples raising children eliminate many of the key problems inherent in single mother households, the studies demonstrating married intact families' superiority over young-unwed single mother families, in and of themselves, prove nothing against the prospects of children being raised by gay couples. First, studies demonstrate that if you control for wealth & income, many of the gaps in social pathologies between single-parent homes and married ones shrink. (To be fair, Wilson's above linked article notes a study by Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur that shows that although controlling for income shrinks the gaps, it doesn't eliminate them entirely. "The rest of the difference is explained by a mother living without a husband.") ... But more importantly, "wealth & income control" is relevant to gay adoption: Some studies already show that gays have higher rates of wealth, income, and education (and the social right loves to trot them out when arguing why gays don't need anti-discrimination protection). Stereotypical gay neighborhoods, from Dupont Circle, DC, to Provincetown, MA to New Hope, PA, to San Francisco, CA--and on and on--do tend to be affluent, educated, and urbane--the very opposite of places like North Philadelphia, PA, or Camden, NJ--or the many white ghettos like Lowell, MA--where out of wedlock births are the norm. Moreover, adoption procedures very often DO screen (or "control") for economically stable families. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that gay adoptors as a class will be economically stable, educated, and middle-class. This is not to say that there will never be any problems that result from two men or two women raising children. But one of the major problems confronting out of wedlock births--urban poverty, and its social environment of high crime and educational dysfunction--is a major concern entirely absent from gay adoptions. What about those "gaps" that may persist between single parents and intact families, even when controlling for income? Well, evidence shows that those gaps are likely caused by there being only ONE, and not TWO parents present to take on the parental responsibilities. ... Finally if, as it is being argued, adoption agencies have an obligation to prefer heterosexual couples to homosexual ones, they also should have an obligation to prefer homosexual couples to single parents seeking to adopt. more
FATHERHOOD BY A NEW FORMULA: Mark Miller replies to Justin Katz
I do not understand what this has to do with SSM. It is true that parenthood has become more 'parent-centered' than 'child-centered'. But I don't see how that connects to legitimizing gay relationships or acknowledging that gays--both single and partnered--raise children. Unless his point is that gays wanting to become parents is inherently selfish while heterosexuals wishing to become parents is not. If Justin's point is that allowing this specific instance is more about meeting his needs than the child's needs, then I would agree. But couldn't the same thing be said about any couple choosing to have biological children rather than adopt? Isn't that 'selfish'? There are many scenarios in which it is selfish to want and have a child. I suspect Justin's point is that any scenario where a child is brought into a home where there is not a married man and women is 'selfish' since it is clearly in the best interest of the child to be raised in that environment. But if he is to take that stand, then he must also apply that to other scenarios not involving homosexuals. Would he write the same if the man in question were heterosexual? If it were a single woman? Is it selfish for someone who has lost their spouse to want to keep custody of their children when those children could be put in a home with two parents? While it is true that more people want to have children for what would be considered selfish reasons to many, the pursuit of a legal solution to that is akin to putting a cap on income and savings because 'greed' is a bad thing. "But what about the child?" is a legitimate question to ask. But that question needs to be evenly applied to both gay and straight persons.
PARENTING STATISTICS: Chairm Ohn
The NGLTF press release to which you linked said the following: "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." According to the US Census, the rate at which children are included in same-sex households (28%) is significantly lower than the rate for unmarried opposite sex households (43%) and married households (46%). Also, while about 11.5% of the homosexual adult population (HRC estimates 5% of adults are homosexual) lives in same-sex households, just 3% (170, 000 couples) reported residing with children. One wonders why there is such a discrepancy in the estimates?
CIVIL DISCOURSE ON CIVIL UNIONS: John Corvino
...I'm the first to admit that I could be wrong in the strategy I proposed for securing equal marriage rights. But if you're going to attack that strategy, please try first to understand it. In brief, I argued that: (1) Properly crafted civil-unions legislation could grant ALL of the legal incidents of marriage (albeit under a different name). I am not talking about "watered-down" civil unions here; I'm talking about the full legal enchilada. (2) The difference between such unions and marriage, since it is not a difference in legal incidents, appears to be a difference in level of social endorsement carried by the "m-word." (3) Our best strategy (in most states) for securing the tremendously important legal incidents is to fight for them under the name "civil unions." (4) Our best strategy for securing the social endorsement (i.e., marriage under the name "marriage") is first to secure the legal incidents. Then people will look at our civil unions, realize that they are virtually indistinguishable from marriages, start calling them marriages, and gradually forget why they objected to doing so before. That's what happened in Scandinavia, and it's happening elsewhere in Europe. (5) Attempts to force the social endorsement too quickly (by demanding the name "marriage" above and beyond the legal incidents) may backfire, resulting in state constitutional bans not only on gay marriage but also on civil unions. The upshot would be to delay BOTH the legal incidents and the social endorsement. more
GALLAGHER CRITICIZES WP ARTICLE; KURTZ REBUTS: From Editor & Publisher
Maggie Gallagher released a statement this afternoon taking issue with aspects of the Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz that today broke the news that she received $21,500 from the Department of Health and Human Services for marriage-themed writing projects. She called one of the Kurtz passages "completely false." Kurtz, after being contacted by E&P, read a rebuttal statement over the phone, in which he said she was attempting to "blame the messenger." Here are Gallagher's comments, followed by Kurtz': "On January 26, 2005, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote that I 'had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the President's proposal.' "To me, this is an extremely serious charge. It is also completely false. I was not paid to promote the President's marriage proposal. In 2001 I was approached by HHS to do research and writing, not on the President's $300 million marriage initiative, but on marriage: specifically four brochures on the social-science evidence on the benefits of marriage for populations serviced by HHS (such as unwed parents), a draft of an essay for Wade Horn, and a training presentation on the social-science evidence on the benefits of marriage for regional HHS managers. ... "I did not and would not accept any payment to promote anyone else's policies of any kind in my newspaper column or anywhere else. Moreover on Jan. 25, I offered Howard Kurtz copies of my contract and invoice as documentation of my work product. He had also received a copy of my Jan. 25 column, explaining the exact nature of the work I performed, before he filed his story. ..." In response, Kurtz told E&P: "It's too bad that Maggie Gallagher, in the process of apologizing for her mistake, has seen fit to blame the messenger. My story made quite clear that her work at HHS included writing brochures for the President's marriage initiative, ghostwriting a magazine article for a top official, and briefing other department officials on the issue. That sure sounds like promotion to me, but none of this would be a media controversy had Ms. Gallagher disclosed the contract in her writing trumpeting the Bush marriage plan." more
MARRIAGE AS NORM: Maggie replies to Mark Barton
[Reply to this post from a while ago. --Eve] OK, one last stab: 1. Marriage, in my view, is a key social institution. By this I mean (to put it more strongly) 2. It is necessary for the survival of any society: if a society doesn't manage procreation successfully it doesn't survive. 3. In addition, children and communities suffer various harms when marriage norms erode; in that sense 4. Everyone ought to support the norm of marriage, as it is in their interest and the common good to do so. However 5. Not everyone "has to" get married or have children. The necessity is social not individual. In this sense marriage is not a norm to be "imposed" on anyone. It requires consent. Moreover 6. Supporting marriage as a norm does not necessarily requires hating, disliking, or punishing people whose lives do not conform to this norm. Does that help?
NGLTF ON EUGENE RIVERS: Letter to the Boston Globe
SENATOR HILLARY Clinton's keynote speech at a fund-raiser for the Rev. Eugene Rivers's charities is disturbing (''Sen. Clinton urges use of faith-based initiatives," Jan. 20, Page B1). While I'm sure these organizations do good work, Rivers is a demagogue with a history of trying to pit gay people and people of color against one another. Last week in a speech in Grand Rapids, Mich., Rivers characterized efforts by gay couples to marry as an assertion of white privilege (Grand Rapids Press, Jan. 12). Rivers claimed most gay couples seeking to marry are ''white lesbians" living in ''positions of socio-economic privilege." In fact, lesbian couples earn less than married straight couples, and seek not privilege but ''equal protection of the laws." Rivers irresponsibly stokes resentment against gay people based on misinformation. He talks like there are no gay people of color. Ironically, some of those hurt most by the antigay policies Rivers promotes are black lesbian mothers. Black lesbian couples parent at nearly the same rate as black heterosexual married couples, yet earn $9,000 a year less and enjoy none of the benefits and protections of marriage. SEAN CAHILL Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute link
MARRIAGE AND BABIES IN INDIANA: Maggie Gallagher
[By the way, sorry about the low posting levels lately. I have been fighting my computer for days. It's fixed now, though, I think, so I'm catching up. --Eve] From the Indiana court of appeals decision upholding the rationality of opposite-sex marriage laws: "The State of Indiana has a legitimate interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to enter and remain in, as far as possible, the relatively stable institution of marriage for the sake of children who are frequently the natural result of sexual relations between a man and a woman. One commentator put it succinctly as follows: 'The public legal union of a man and woman is designed. . .to protect the children that their sexual union (and that type of sexual union alone) regularly produces.' Maggie Gallagher, What Is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law 61 LA L Rev 773,781 (2002)."
CANADIAN LESBIANS FIGHT TO HOLD WEDDING RECEPTION IN CATHOLIC HALL: From CBC News
A B.C. lesbian couple, who accuse a Catholic men's group of discriminating against them by refusing to rent them a hall for their wedding reception, took their case to a human rights tribunal Monday. The hearing is sure to further inflame passions over the issue, given that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last month that religious officials opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them. Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith rented a Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam for their wedding reception back in 2003. They allege the group cancelled the booking after finding out it was for a same-sex couple. The women claim it's discriminatory to offer a facility to the public and then say a particular group can't use it. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal began hearing their case on Monday. The couple's lawyer, Barbara Findlay, said they didn't realize a Catholic group operated the hall when they rented it. more
OREGON LAWMAKER PROPOSES MARITAL-PREFERENCE BILL: From the Associated Press
A bill that would require adoption agencies to give opposite-sex, married couples preference over same-sex couples or single people is being attacked as "outrageous" by a gay rights organization. Basic Rights Oregon pledges to fight the measure that was introduced by Rep. John Lim, R-Gresham. Lim said Friday that he has no intention of discriminating against gay or single parents with the measure, House Bill 2401. "I'm considering what's the best interest of the child or children," Lim said, "and the chance is they will have a better opportunity to grow up under the circumstances of mom and dad." But Rebekah Kassell of Basic Rights Oregon said there's no evidence to support the idea that opposite-sex parents are better for children or more capable, loving or committed than same-sex parents. ... Exceptions include if the prospective parent is a birth relative or if the child has developed attachments to single or same-sex foster parents. more
VA PROPOSAL WOULD BAR GAYS FROM ADOPTING: From the Washington Times
[Note that this would not be a marital-preference law, but a ban. Ugh. --Eve] Lawmakers will consider a bill that would forbid homosexuals from adopting children. Delegate Richard H. Black has proposed a bill that would add new criteria for adoption reports filed with the circuit court. The Loudoun County Republican's bill amends the state's adoption law by adding a phrase that states: "No person under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual." Current law permits any person or married couple residing in the state to petition to adopt. Herb Lux, Mr. Black's legislative assistant, said the measure would require investigators during the screening process to ask an adoption candidate whether he or she is a homosexual. more
BUSH BACKPEDAL ON MARRIAGE IRKS RIGHT: From the Washington Times
Some social conservatives are angry with President Bush for saying a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage" lacks the requisite votes for approval in the Senate. Mr. Bush has acknowledged no such obstacle for his proposal to add personal investment accounts to the Social Security program, even though that plan also lacks support among some Republican lawmakers. "Are the votes there for privatizing Social Security?" asked Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins has joined with several other prominent social conservative leaders in warning the White House that if the president backs away from the marriage amendment, he will lose the support and trust of social conservatives on other issues, including Social Security reform. more
PRESIDENT COURTS BLACKS WITH PLANS FOR SECOND TERM: From the Washington Post
...The issue of Bush's support for a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage was raised by several participants at yesterday's meeting, but Bush demurred, explaining that the issue is a non-starter in Congress -- at least for now. "He was noncommittal on it because he's got other priorities," Woodson said. Bush was more interested in talking about his ideas for moving society toward greater independence and less reliance on government. "His whole notion of an ownership society and African Americans owning homes and businesses was very much on his mind," said Michelle D. Bernard, a senior vice president at the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative research group. Among others who attended the meeting were the Rev. Joe Watkins of Philadelphia's Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church; the Rev. Eugene Rivers of the TenPoint Coalition in Boston -- one of the leading proponents of Bush's faith-based initiative; Deborah Wright, chief executive officer of New York's Carver Federal Savings Bank; and John Bryant, chief executive officer of Operation HOPE, a Los Angeles-based group that teaches financial literacy. more
STATEMENT FROM MAGGIE GALLAGHER
On January 26, 2005, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote that I "had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal." To me, this is an extremely serious charge. It is also completely false. I was not paid to promote the President's marriage proposal. In 2001 I was approached by HHS to do research and writing, not on the President's $300 million marriage initiative, but on marriage: specifically four brochures on the social science evidence on the benefits of marriage for populations serviced by HHS (such as unwed parents), a draft of an essay for Wade Horn, and a training presentation on the social science evidence on the benefits of marriage for regional HHS managers. I've been a marriage expert, researcher, and advocate for nearly twenty years. I've written two books on marriage, numerous articles in scholarly journals, as well as many newspaper columns and magazine articles. My research and expertise is why HHS hired me, and why I accepted the work assignment. I have written a syndicated column for almost ten years, but my main work has been research and public education on marriage as a social institution. I did not and would not accept any payment to promote anyone else's policies of any kind in my newspaper column or anywhere else. Moreover on Jan. 25, I offered Howard Kurtz copies of my contract and invoice as documentation of my work product. He had also received a copy of my January 25 column, explaining the exact nature of the work I performed, before he filed his story. It is not uncommon for researchers, scholars, or experts to get paid by the government to do work relating to their field of expertise. Nor is it considered unethical or shady: if anything, government funded work is considered a mark of an expert's respectability. Until today, researchers and scholars have not generally been expected to disclose a government-funded research project in the past, when they later wrote about their field of expertise in the popular press or in scholarly journals. For these reasons, it simply never occurred to me there was a need to disclose this information. I certainly had no intention or motive to hide my work from anyone. As a journalist, however, when the question is raised, "Should you have disclosed?" the answer is always, yes. It was a mistake on my part not to have disclosed any government contract. It will not happen again.
HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN WANTS MAGGIE INVESTIGATED: Press release/open-letter-type-thing
The Human Rights Campaign, on behalf of its more than 600,000 members nationwide, writes to express dismay over recent information indicating that Maggie Gallagher was a recipient of federal government grants to promote Bush administration family initiatives, but did not disclose these facts to the public or to Congress when she testified in the Senate on the Federal Marriage Amendment (later renamed the Marriage Protection Amendment) or when she wrote numerous syndicated columns on these and other family issues. This appears to us to be a clear violation of journalistic ethics and a possible violation of law, as well. We ask you to conduct a thorough investigation on this issue, as set forth more fully below. (more)
REACTIONS TO WASH. POST PIECE ON MAGGIE: Various
Barry Deutsch: "Maggie is a leading writer (perhaps the leading writer) against same-sex marriage, so I'd be delighted to see her discredited. No one has less interest in her defense than me. Nonetheless, this is not a big deal. Why? Because, given Maggie's work before 2002, there is no question in my mind that she would have supported Bush’s marriage initiative--and supported it in column after column after column--even if they never paid her a cent. "Nor is this like the other recent right-wing-Journalist-taking-federal-money scandal, because Maggie was not being paid to to put certain content in her newspaper columns or to try and talk up the initiative among other journalists. She was being paid to write pamphlets and speeches for the federal government, which she did. Presumably, they would have paid her even if she had quit writing her column; Armstrong Williams cannot say the same." (more) "Captain Ed": "Gallagher should have revealed her working relationship with HHS, both to her readers and her publishers. NRO editor Rich Lowry told Kurtz that he would have preferred to know about the relationship in order to include it in her bio on the site, and that's understandable. Moreover, I think Gallagher's glib response to the question of an ethical violation -- 'I don't know, you tell me' -- shows a contempt for reality that damages her credibility more than her undisclosed consultancy for HHS. "However, unlike Armstrong Williams, Gallagher did not sell her column space to HHS, nor did she push others to cover the proposals or solicit positive commentary as a contractual duty. Gallagher wrote some of the brochures for the program, most of which went unused, and ghost-wrote an essay for program chief Wade Horn. She also spoke to program officials about marriage, which amounts to nothing much more than a stop on a lecture tour. She exercised some poor judgment and should apologize (which she already has), but it's a much different situation than Williams." (more) Kathryn Jean Lopez (at National Review): "We (Rich and I) did not know about the relationship until late yesterday, when Howard Kurtz called. Had we known about it, as Rich told Kurtz, we would have disclosed it, of course, so you knew where she was coming from. We wish we had known—I wish she had told us." (more) Michelle Malkin: "Can't tell you how deeply disappointed I am to read this, especially given that Gallagher has been a fearless and independent (or so I had thought) voice in defense of traditional marriage. "Also can't tell you how galling the stupidity of the Bush administration officials who doled out taxpayer funds to conservatives in the media is. Who else is out there? First, the Department of Education. Now, the Department of Health and Human Services. What other departments put the right's media figures on the dole? Better step forward and come clean. NOW." (more) Elizabeth Marquardt: "I think the main confusion here lies with the multiple hats that Maggie wears – researcher, expert, frequent media guest, and journalist. Marriage is suddenly big and Maggie, who's been doing what she does for many years, is suddenly in the limelight. Like all of us, she's learning as she goes along. She apologizes to her readers in her column today. She's certainly learned her lesson for the future. She's the real deal, someone who knows the literature on marriage and divorce better than anyone I know and who writes with passion and rigor. I don't always agree with Maggie on her arguments but I am always amazed by the power with which she constructs them. If the Post wants to take down some hired hack, look elsewhere. Leave Maggie alone." (more) Ryan Sager: "So, as much as gay-marriage proponents might like to see an ideological foe discredited, there's simply not much meat on these bones. If Maggie Gallagher was credible before this kerfuffle, she's credible now." (more) Andrew Sullivan: "She argues, reasonably, that her case is not a direct equivalent to Williams'. She received a tenth of the money, and wasn't paid to be a mere flack for a piece of legislation. She just worked for the government, while seeming to be writing independently of any government position. ...I wonder who else is out there." (more) Tom Sylvester: "It does bring up interesting issues of disclosure, though. I wonder if everyone in the marriage movement is more paranoid now. For example, this summer I worked for Wade Horn at the Administration for Children and Families. I continued to blog in support of HHS’s marriage initiative. Now, granted, blogging isn't journalism, but should bloggers disclose all potential "conflicts of interest"? To be honest, I don't know if I mentioned my job on the blog or not. (HHS did know, though, that I was a Kerry-supporting, pro-gay-marriage Democrat who disagreed with pretty much every Bush Administration proposal except the Healthy Marriage Initiative.)" (more) (and here) Michael Triplett: Lots of stuff, scroll about.
WRITER BACKING BUSH PLAN HAD GOTTEN FEDERAL CONTRACT: From the Washington Post
In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families. "The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," Gallagher wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children." But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. Her work under the contract, which ran from January through October 2002, included drafting a magazine article for the HHS official overseeing the initiative, writing brochures for the program and conducting a briefing for department officials. "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it. Later in the day, Gallagher filed a column in which she said that "I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers." ... President Bush, asked about the practice at a news conference this morning, acknowledged that his administration had made a mistake by awarding contracts to commentators who support his policies. Bush said he expects his Cabinet secretaries to end the practice. "Mr. Armstrong Williams admitted he made a mistake," Bush said. "We didn't know about this in the White House. There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press, the administration and the press." ... Wade Horn, HHS assistant secretary for children and families, said his division hired Gallagher as "a well-known national expert," along with other specialists in the field, to help devise the president's healthy marriage initiative. "It's not unusual in the federal government to do that," he said. The essay Gallagher drafted appeared under Horn's byline -- with the headline "Closing the Marriage Gap" -- and ran in Crisis magazine, which promotes humanism rooted in Catholic Church teachings. Horn said most of the brochures written by Gallagher -- such as "The Top Ten Reasons Marriage Matters" -- were not used as the program evolved. "I don't see any comparison between what has been alleged with Armstrong Williams and what we did with Maggie Gallagher," said Horn, who founded the National Fatherhood Initiative before entering government. "We didn't pay her to write columns. We didn't pay her to promote the president's healthy marriage initiative at all. What we wanted to do was use her expertise." The Education Department is now investigating the Williams contract. more Tuesday, January 25, 2005
CANADIAN PM SAYS NO ELECTION ON GAY MARRIAGE: From the Globe and Mail
Prime Minister Paul Martin moved to calm opponents of same-sex marriage in his caucus yesterday by phoning MPs to reassure them that he has no intention of calling an election over the controversial issue. On the eve of a three-day meeting of Liberal MPs where same-sex marriage is expected to be a hot topic, Mr. Martin called some of the most vocal opponents within his Liberal ranks, MPs said. "He just reiterated that there's not any desire for an election on this," said London, Ont., Liberal MP Pat O'Brien. "He knows that I would have very serious concerns about any election call based on same-sex marriage, so that it was a discussion around those issues." Mr. Martin is set to meet with Liberal MPs today -- with some annoyed that the Prime Minister raised the idea of holding an election over the issue. ... Although senior Liberals believe the government will have enough votes to pass the bill -- with support from most Bloc Quebecois and New Democratic Party MPs, as well as a handful of Conservatives -- a sizable faction of Liberal backbenchers oppose same-sex marriage. more
NO APPEAL IN FEDERAL DOMA CASE: From 365Gay.com
Last week's ruling upholding the federal Defense of Marriage Act will not be appealed the attorney in the case announced Monday night. "With the present Supreme Court not willing even to hear the Florida adoption case, and the possibility of newly appointed Supreme Court judges by the Bush administration being even more conservative, it would not be prudent at this time to continue this effort," said Ellis Rubin. The case was the first legal challenge to federal DOMA. The decision, Rubin said, followed a meeting with Matthew Coles, Director of the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. The case involved a Tampa lesbian couple who were married in Massachusetts. more
BACKERS OF GAY-MARRIAGE BAN USE SOCIAL SECURITY AS CUDGEL: From the New York Times
[Hey, do good guys ever use cudgels?... Anyway, Ramesh Ponnuru comments here. --Eve] A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage. But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient. In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage. The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition. more
A QUESTION OF DISCLOSURE: Maggie Gallagher
I just got off the phone with Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. He called me with a very good question: "You had a contract with HHS to some work on marriage issues in 2002. Should you have disclosed that?" Hmm, good question, Howard. First the facts. In 2001, HHS approached me to do some work on marriage issues for the government, including to do a presentation on the social science evidence on the benefits of marriage for HHS regional managers, to draft an essay for Wade Horn on how government can strengthen marriage, and to prepare drafts of community brochures: The Top Ten Reasons Marriage Matters, stuff like that. The contract reads; "ACF is pursuing research to create knowledge about the dynamics of marriage among low-income populations, and potential strategies states might pursue to strengthen marriage. ACF needs additional expertise to accomplish this work. "Statement of work: The Contractor shall consult with and assist ACF in ongoing work related to strengthening marriage, and provide assistance advice on development of new research activities in this area. The contractor shall performa a variety of activities including (but not limited to) providing information on the programs to strengthen marriage, advising on the dissemination of materials, and participating in meetings and workshops." The contract did not authorize a general consulting fee. Instead, it authorized payment for actual work performed, to be submitted and approved via separate invoice. By my records, I was paid $21,500 from HHS in 2002. Is it acceptable for someone who writes a newspaper column to do research and writing for the government? Of course the reason Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is interested is the now notorious case of conservative columnist Armstrong Williams, who signed a very different sort of government contract: to promote the Bush No Child Left Behind Act on his television show. Armstrong defended himself in two ways. First by saying "I'm a pundit, not a journalist" and second by saying that he supported the Bush act anyway so why shouldn't he take money? It cost him his newspaper column. Very properly, I might add. I have no interest in taking either of these lines of defense. So what' | ||||||||||
