IMAPP MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION REVIEW: Maggie Gallagher

After the same-sex marriage issue "broke," I was often asked how married couples are treated in state adoption laws. Joshua Baker (iMAPP's legal analyst) and Bill Duncan (of the Marriage Law Foundation) just completed for us a legal review of marriage and adoption law in all 50 states.

The results are disturbing, to those of us who believe that children deserve a married mom and dad: "Legal preferences for married couples in adoption are rare. More states explicitly ban "discrimination" based on marital status than contain even mild preferences for marriage."
For a copy (and to see how your state shapes up on the issue) email Joshua Baker at: joshua@imapp.org.
posted by Eve at 10:21 PM | link 0 comments

NEW YORK SSM DECISION: Justin Katz

...Asserting that there is another "aspect of the fundamental right to marry" that exists independently of the previous--"the right to choose whom one marries" (restated on the next page as "the right to choose one's life partner"--Ling-Cohan works her way around to the conclusion, on page 43, that:

... in the present case, the "liberty at stake" that is fundamental is the freedom to choose one's spouse. Thus, for the State to deny that freedom to an individual who wishes to marry a person of the same sex is to deny that individual the fundamental right to marry.

Homosexuals are not barred from marriage, in other words, because they can enter into the relationships that the definition of "marriage" covers. But because the definition of "marriage" does not include the relationships that they would prefer, they are barred from marriage, and the definition must be changed.

By the time she announces her judgment, Ling-Cohan has found a right to same-sex marriage on just about every possible grounds--due process and equal protection. She has continued the practice of turning the inherent circularity of a definition (A is A because it is A) into a license to rewrite definitions. She has claimed freedom to interpret New York law as distinct from the laws of the federal government and other states when it suits her, and she has relied on other governments' laws when that suits her. On page 51, she notes "an evolving public policy," evinced purely in the "recent decisions" of other New York judges, and as described above, she has literally rewritten the law, under the judicial euphemism of "construed," in order to accord with her own preferred policy. ...

I daresay that a Federal Marriage Amendment is the least of the measures that must be taken. But the reality that the measure must be taken is exemplified in the possibility that some future judge, cutting and pasting her way to another progressive ruling, will find this paragraph on page 45 of Ling-Cohan's effort too apropos not to find precedential:

Defendant's historical argument is no less conclusory than amici's tautological argument that same-sex marriage is impossible, because, as a matter of definition, "marriage" means, and has always meant, the legal union of a man and a woman. Further, the premise of that argument is factually wrong; polygamy has been practiced in various places and at various times, for example, in the Territory of Utah.

more
posted by Eve at 10:18 PM | link 0 comments

DOES UTAH MARRIAGE AMENDMENT HINDER BIGAMY PROSECUTION?: From the Deseret Morning News

Those who argued against a new state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage say its potential impact on a bigamy conviction appeal is just the latest example of the measure having a broader impact than just defining marriage.

Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham on Thursday, during a hearing on the appeal, questioned whether Amendment 3 would prevent the state from establishing co-habitation as a means of prosecuting bigamy.

The amendment defines marriage as the relationship between "a man and a woman" and prevents giving legal recognition to any other "domestic union."

In an interview after the hearing, Monte Stewart, president of the Marriage Law Foundation and a prosecutor of polygamist Tom Greene, said Amendment 3 shouldn't impact Rodney Holm's appeal of a bigamy conviction for taking his 16-year-old sister in law as a third "spiritual" wife.

That's because Amendment 3 prevents the state from giving legal recognition to, or sanctioning, a bigamous relationship, he said. It does not, Stewart said, prevent the state from establishing whether a bigamous relationship exists for the purposes of prosecution.

"The state is hardly approving the second relationship when it throws you in the slammer for being part of it," he said.

However, Supreme Court justices questioned Thursday how the state can prosecute bigamy if a person is not legally married to more than one person at the same time. Holm, who is married to his first of three wives, does not claim to be legally married to his other two "spiritual" wives.

Justices questioned whether living with someone can be crime and noted the bigamy statute is intended to prevent, when a married person marries again without the other spouse knowing.

more
posted by Eve at 10:08 PM | link 0 comments

SF MAYOR CELEBRATES ANNIVERSARY OF GAY WEDDINGS: From the Associated Press

A year after he made San Francisco a bull's-eye in the national debate over gay marriage, Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to mark the first anniversary of the city's "Winter of Love" with a show of defiance on the issue that, for better or worse, has defined his political career.

The Democratic mayor has invited the nearly 8,000 gays and lesbians from across the country who accepted his offer to get married in San Francisco last year to a Feb. 12 reception at City Hall, where he'll give a speech that calls for regaining the momentum of those heady days. He'll give a similar gay rights address at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government on Tuesday. ...

Newsom was only five weeks into his first term when he told his staff to begin sanctioning same-sex marriages on Feb. 12, 2004, the day gay activists observe each year as "Freedom to Marry Day" by showing up at county clerk's offices to make symbolic requests for marriage licenses.

more
posted by Eve at 9:37 PM | link 0 comments

FMA: Vikram Amar and Alan Brownstein

...It is generally recognized that federal constitutional law entrenches legal principles by taking them outside the normal scope of the political process. By this, we mean that requirements and prohibitions embodied in the U.S. Constitution and its interpretation are very difficult, if not impossible, to displace or even modify through conventional political channels. Indeed, one might reasonably say that nothing about the development or modification of constitutional law involves the conventional or normal operation of democratic politics.

Constitutional law develops in two ways. First, constitutional law evolves through judge-made interpretations of the Constitution in U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions. Concededly, there is a political dimension to judicial rulings (even constitutional decisions by courts can not be entirely isolated from the prevalent political culture of the United States). Yet judicial decisionmaking is not really political in the same sense that congressional lawmaking is political. And judicial decisionmaking is certainly not democratic, in that the will of the majority - at least as expressed through current statutes -- is often frustrated by what judges do.

Second, constitutional law evolves through the amendment process by which the text of the document is itself changed. Unlike judicial decisionmaking, this process is certainly political -- amending the Constitution is accomplished by a "campaign" and a voting process that has many similarities to other elections. The relationship between the amendment process and democracy is more complex, however. ...

Finally, whether the amendment process is political and/or democratic, it certainly cannot be said to be normal or conventional. To the contrary, the amendment process has been successfully invoked only sporadically. ...

Over the very long haul, of course, the meaning of even a precisely crafted constitutional amendment can sometimes be transformed by judicial interpretation. (Certainly, the current Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment bears little resemblance to the language of the text.)

But we submit that doing so is a much more demanding and costly undertaking for the Court than is a re-evaluation of any meaning assigned to a contested constitutional provision by the Court itself in an earlier case. Put simply, it is much easier for the Court to second-guess its own judgment, than to second-guess the judgment explicitly embodied in a clear constitutional amendment. ...

Our suggestion here is simple enough: The Constitution ought not be amended to forestall acceptance of legal developments that are beginning to receive serious attention and consideration for the first time, and are starting to gain democratic traction in the polity. Rather, those kinds of developments should be allowed to be fully considered in democratic debate.

more
posted by Eve at 9:58 PM | link 0 comments

UTAH BAN ON PLURAL MARRIAGE QUESTIONED: From the Salt Lake Tribune

A lawyer for polygamous former Hildale police officer Rodney Holm urged the Utah Supreme Court on Thursday to lift a ban on plural marriage, and justices responded with sharp questions about whether the ban is constitutional.

Attorney Rodney Parker argued his client has a right not only to believe in a religious tenet of polygamy but also to practice his belief in a meaningful way.

"The ban on plural marriage affects so many fundamental rights," he said, contending that tens of thousands of Utahns are forced to hide their relationships for fear of prosecution.

Parker asked the high court to decriminalize polygamy, allowing its adherents to have a legal marriage with a first wife, then enter into religious unions with other women as a way to reach the highest degree of heaven.

He stressed Holm is not asking for legal polygamy, which would make marriage to each wife state-sanctioned. Under his request, married individuals could also live as a spouse to other partners without being considered part of a common-law marriage and, therefore, bigamists. ...

Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins asked about possible constitutional conflicts between religious tolerance and a prohibition on polygamy. Justice Jill Parrish wondered if a man living with a fiancee while waiting for his divorce to be finalized is a bigamist. ...

Divorces would become complicated with more than two people entangled in custody and other issues, she said.

But Durham said judges have been dealing for years with sticky domestic situations, including ones involving live-in partners, same-sex couples and surrogate parents.

"There is nothing to suggest polygamous relationships would be more or less complicated," the chief justice said.

more
posted by Eve at 9:54 PM | link 0 comments

NY COURT RULES FOR SSM: From 365Gay.com

A New York State court ruled Friday that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.

State Supreme Court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan said that the New York State Constitution guarantees basic freedoms to lesbian and gay people, and that those rights are violated when same-sex couples are not allowed to marry.

The ruling said the state Constitution requires same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage, and that the couples represented by Lambda Legal must be given marriage licenses. ...

In today's ruling, Judge Ling-Cohan said, "Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as the utmost expression of a couple's commitment and love. Plaintiffs may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage."

"I was even more moved than I thought I'd be when I heard about this ruling. All of us cried; me, Mary Jo and our 15-year-old daughter. For the first time, our family is being treated with the respect and dignity that our friends, coworkers and neighbors automatically have," said Jo-Ann Shain, a 51-year-old New York City resident who is a plaintiff in the case with her partner, Mary Jo Kennedy, 49.

more

decision is here (PDF)
posted by Eve at 9:30 PM | link 0 comments

D.C. BILL GIVES GREATER BENEFITS TO UNMARRIED COUPLES: From the Washington Blade

D.C. Councilmember Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large) on Jan. 18 introduced a bill to expand the city's domestic partners law by providing an additional package of benefits and obligations for same-sex couples, including inheritance rights and a requirement to support a partner after a breakup through payments similar to alimony.

The legislation, Bill 16-52, the Domestic Partnership Equality Act of 2005, would provide same-sex and opposite sex couples that register with the District government as domestic partners with another seven benefits or obligations that currently are applicable only to married couples.

Among them are the recognition of domestic partners and their children as legal heirs should a partner die without leaving a will; immunity from testifying against a partner in a civil or criminal case; the obligation to repay a partner's debts; legal standing to sue for negligence in the event of a wrongful death of a partner; and the right to make the equivalent of legally binding "pre-marital" agreements.

The bill would also allow one partner to assume the power of attorney to manage the other partner's legal affairs.

In the event of a separation or dissolution of a domestic partnership, the bill establishes the same procedures and requirements for alimony and child support that currently exist under D.C. law for the separation and divorce of married couples. Obligations for alimony and child support are enforceable by the D.C. courts and could result in garnishment of wages or imprisonment if a domestic partner fails to comply, the bill states.

more
posted by Eve at 9:26 PM | link 0 comments

GAY MATRIMONY: GET USED TO IT: Allison Xantha Miller

...For queers, marriage seemed for so long both an unglamorous, assimilationist goal and an utter fantasy. Now, judging from the reactions it provokes, it seems radical and, perhaps, imminent. How did this happen? A recent book by historian George Chauncey attempts to put the debate in perspective historically. Why Marriage? draws on Chauncey's pathbreaking first book, Gay New York, as well as his work writing the Historians' Amicus Brief in the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the nation's sodomy laws and was part of the reasoning behind the Massachusetts' court decision to allow same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage, he maintains, has been floated as a possibility by successive generations of queers, from a variety of political standpoints. A kind of "marriage" had always existed informally whenever partners lived together and were recognized by the community as a couple. (This, not church-sanctioned nuptials, was the "ancient" form of marriage.) What brought it to the fore in the '80s was AIDS and the so-called lesbian baby boom -- in other words, death and children. You could say this raised the stakes somewhat.

These experiences made gays and lesbians realize the ways in which the lack of legal recognition of their relationships interfered with some of the most intimate aspects of their lives -- the ability to care for a sick partner, for instance, or the bonds between parents and children. Those with exceptional foresight and enough money learned how to navigate the bureaucratic nightmare of powers of attorney and other sorts of legal documentation. "A full set of the documents necessary to approximate the protections provided by marriage could cost several thousand dollars," Chauncey writes, "a marriage license might cost $ 25. . . And given the expense of other legal documents, marriage was the only way many poorer couples could afford such protections at all." ...

Chauncey also clarifies the limits of marriage -- it's not synonymous with equality, as some of its proponents believe -- and acknowledges that some in the gay community are wary of marriage, if not outright against it. Those attitudes are represented in the raucous anthology That's Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation, which dares ask whether the LGBT movement can include social justice goals such as universal health care, housing, the protection of civil liberties, the rights of immigrants and youth services. Contributors include community organizers, punks, artists, anarchists, sex workers and students. The focus is on activism; there's no queer theory. The tone is fierce and funny, inspired as much by the spirit of Seattle as Stonewall. ...

It's also ironic that part of resisting assimilation has to be essentially conservative -- that is, preserving gay culture as it is. Forget for a moment that this is impossible, that gay culture, like everything else, is subject to the forces of time. Forget too that it was created as a refuge against oppression. The radical heritage of gay culture is real, and it is worth preserving to whatever extent possible. ...

Chauncey suggests another way of seeing assimilation, based on recent theories of ethnicity, which "recognize that even as immigrants were reshaped by their incorporation into American culture, so too was American culture." As annoying as the marriage movement can be -- its squeaky-clean poster children, its romantic sentimentality, its denial of genderqueers -- the process of trying to change marriage laws is having a radical impact on American society. Although the aspect of heterosexual privilege that marriage advocates target is extremely specific, it is also profoundly consequential. It is perhaps the most obvious boundary separating straight from queer, and as such is taken by many as a profound threat to heterosexual identity. Yet marriage advocates didn't start this process; challenges to heterosexual privilege have been driven for the past 30 years by those willing to put their bodies on the line to fight homophobia and trans-phobia. And they're not going away.

more
posted by Eve at 10:19 PM | link 0 comments

BC ATTY GENERAL SAYS POLYGAMY RESTRICTION IS WEAK: From the Ottawa Citizen

Canada's law prohibiting polygamy is vulnerable to a legal challenge and could be struck down because of a conflict with religious freedom, says B.C. Attorney General Geoff Plant.

Mr. Plant, whose view is based on confidential legal opinions provided to the B.C. government on two occasions, said he has failed to convince the federal government to amend the anti-polygamy law.

He said the legal opinions have played a major role in the refusal by police over many years to lay charges against polygamists in the B.C. community of Bountiful, where girls as young as 13 have allegedly been forced to become "celestial wives" of much older men.

"There might well be a case where the court would have to deal with religious freedoms arguments, and I think there is at least some risk that those arguments might succeed," Mr. Plant said.

He added, however, that he supports the current RCMP investigation into alleged Criminal Code offences in Bountiful.

more
posted by Eve at 10:11 PM | link 0 comments

CANADIAN JUSTICE MINISTER SAYS NO REFERENDUM ON SSM: From CBC News

Cotler says if a referendum had been held to decide whether women were entitled to vote when the franchise was extended to them, women would have likely lost. He says a national vote won't protect minority rights.

Some Liberal MPs say they are feeling pressured to accept the bill.

Backbench Ontario Liberal MP Pat O'Brien has been trying to drum up interest in a referendum. He says Liberals opposed to the legislation are being told to consider staying away from the House when it comes to a vote.

more
posted by Eve at 10:05 PM | link 0 comments

KS SETS APRIL VOTE ON MARRIAGE AMENDMENT; PLUS OTHER NEWS: From the Washington Times

The Kansas House of Representatives yesterday approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage only as the union of one man and one woman, and outlaws civil unions.

The amendment, which cleared the state Senate last month, goes before Kansas voters April 5.

If it passes, Kansas would become the 18th state with a constitutional marriage amendment. ...

In Idaho, however, it was homosexual-rights supporters who were celebrating yesterday after the state Senate voted down its marriage amendment, 21-14, a few votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed.

more
posted by Eve at 9:45 PM | link 0 comments

GAY FATHER APPEALS MD CUSTODY RULING: From the Washington Post

A gay Montgomery County father is trying to overturn a court order that forced his partner to move out of their shared house as a condition for retaining custody of his son.

The order initially was issued in an Alexandria family court in 2002, before the men moved to separate apartments in Rockville. Now attorneys for the father, Ulf Hedberg, have appealed to Maryland courts to declare the custody order unconstitutional.

"If there is no evidence of any problem with a gay or lesbian partner being present in the home, the court should not interfere in those private relationships," said Susan Sommer, supervising attorney with New York-based Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. ...

Detthow, a sign-language interpreter who is not hearing-impaired, does not intend to let her son live in the same house with the man who broke up her 12-year marriage, said her attorney, Patrick Stiehm. ...

But Hedberg argued that his partner of nine years is an integral part of the boy's life.

"Blaise had spent time with our son with different activities, comforted him while I was not around, like another parent does," Hedberg wrote. "Our son cried every night in the beginning and asked me why Blaise moved out. I struggled to find a word to explain [to] him why this happened."

more
posted by Eve at 9:39 PM | link 0 comments

CHARGES REINSTATED AGAINST NY GAY-MARRYIN' MAYOR GUY: From the Associated Press

...The rush to write same-sex marriage bans into state constitutions is part of a heated debate that New Paltz Village Mayor Jason West helped ignite last February when he married about two dozen same-sex couples. West, 27, was quickly hit with 24 misdemeanor counts.

But the charges were later dismissed by a town court judge who said there were constitutional problems in banning same-sex marriages.

Ulster County Court Judge J. Michael Bruhn brought back the charges Wednesday, saying public officials cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. He said the case was not about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, but whether West lived up to his oath of office to uphold the law.

The case will now go to trial, barring a settlement or a successful appeal by West's lawyers.

Attorney Joshua Rosenkranz said no decision had been made yet on whether to appeal, but added that "I know that Jason West is chomping at the bit to face a jury of his peers."

West faces fines and up to a year in jail if convicted on the misdemeanor counts of solemnizing marriages without a license.

West has maintained he was upholding the couples' constitutional rights--and thus his oath of office--by allowing them to wed.

more
posted by Eve at 9:30 PM | link 0 comments

SSM IN SOTU: From 365Gay.com

For the second year in a row President George W. Bush used his State of the Union speech Wednesday night to call for an amendment to the US Constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

"So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.

"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."

Last year Bush told the joint session of Congress that "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

But on at least two occasions in the 12 months between the two addresses the President has appeared to slightly moderate his position, saying he would support civil unions. And, just two weeks ago Bush, in an interview with the Washington Post said he would not push for a vote on the amendment.

more
posted by Eve at 9:24 PM | link 0 comments

NY TIMES OFFERS CORRECTION ON MAGGIE GALLAGHER EDITORIAL: From Editor & Publisher

In a prominent move, The New York Times offered a correction on its editorial page today regarding a previous editorial concerning columnist Maggie Gallagher. She had sent the newspaper an e-mail, E&P has learned, charging "reckless disregard of the truth."

This is the latest twist in the current controversy over payments from government agencies to newspaper columnists and whether some are being paid as advisers or with the expectation they may also promote certain policies in their published writing.

The Times correction reads: "An editorial last Thursday incompletely described the contract between the Health and Human Services Department and the conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher. The deparmtnet paid Ms. Gallagher $21,500 as a consultant on marriage policies, including for help in drafting an essay that was published under the name of an assistent secretary. Ms. Gallagher said the contract did not include promoting the administration's policies in her column."

more
posted by Eve at 9:19 PM | link 0 comments

THE FOIBLES OF LONGING/ONE MAN'S MARRIAGE TRAP: Justin Katz

[A version of Katz's National Review piece on Andrew Sullivan and marriage and stuff is here. I said before, when we posted an excerpt from the piece, that the middle third was the part I found most helpful--the bit under the heading "The Opinion." --Eve]
posted by Eve at 4:25 PM | link 0 comments

DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE CULTURE WAR: Stanley Kurtz

...The question of the cultural and economic consequences of declining birthrates has been squarely placed on the table by four new books: The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It, by Phillip Longman; Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future, by Ben Wattenberg; The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know About America’s Economic Future, by Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns; and Running On Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It, by Peter G. Peterson. Longman and Wattenberg concentrate on the across-the-board implications of demographic change. Kotlikoff and Burns, along with Peterson, limn the economic crisis that could come in the absence of swift and sweeping entitlement reform. ...

...Broadly speaking, both the free market and the welfare state assume continual population growth. "Pay as you go" entitlements require ever-larger new generations to finance the retirement of previous generations. Longman argues that economic growth itself depends upon ever-increasing numbers of consumers and workers.

Population growth, he argues, drove the Industrial Revolution, and there has never been economic growth under conditions of population decline. Thus, for example, he ascribes Japan's current economic troubles to its declining fertility. And though Longman doesn't point to Germany, it is interesting to note that this particular low-fertility country is also struggling economically to the point of revisiting the famously shorter European work week--a phenomenon obviously related to the struggle to reduce the pensions promised to an aging population and premissed on more younger workers than actually came to exist. ...

Despite that vindication, Wattenberg's own views have changed somewhat. Whereas The Birth Dearth advocated aggressive pro-natalist policies, today Wattenberg seems to have all but given up hope that fertility rates can be substantially increased. On the one hand, he thinks it unlikely that worldwide population can maintain a course of shrinkage without end. On the other hand, he sees no viable scenario by which this presumably unsustainable trend might be reversed.

In The Empty Cradle, Philip Longman takes a different view. Longman believes that runaway population decline may be halted, yet he understands that this can be accomplished only by way of fundamental cultural change. The emerging demographic crisis will call a wide range of postmodern ideologies into question. Longman writes as a secular liberal looking for ways to stabilize the population short of the traditionalist, religious renewal he fears the new demography will bring in its wake.

Given the roots of population decline in the core characteristics of postmodern life, Longman understands that the endless downward spiral cannot be reversed without a major social transformation. As he puts it, "If human population does not wither away in the future, it will be because of a mutation in human culture." Longman draws parallels to the Victorian era and other periods when fears of population decline, cultural decadence, and fraying social safety nets intensified family solidarity and stigmatized abortion and birth control. Longman also notes that movements of the 1960s, such as feminism, environmentalism, and the sexual revolution, were buttressed by fears of a population explosion. Once it becomes evident that our real problem is the failure to reproduce, these movements and attitudes could weaken.

Longman's greatest fear is a revival of fundamentalism, which he defines broadly as any movement that relies on ancient myth and legend, whether religious or not, "to oppose modern, liberal, and commercial values." Religious traditionalists tend to have large families (relatively speaking). Secular modernists do not. Longman's fear is that, over time, Western secular liberals will shrink as a portion of world population while, at home and abroad, traditionalists will flourish. To counter this, and to solve the larger demographic-economic crisis, Longman offers some very thoughtful proposals for encouraging Americans to have more children. Substantial tax relief for parents is the foundation of his plan. ...

That is a grave concern, yet there may still be others. The disruptive effects of biotechnology will play out in a depopulating world--perhaps a world shadowed by economic and cultural crisis. So the immediate challenge of biotechnology to human history is the prospect that the family might be replaced by a bioengineered breeding system. Artificial wombs, not the production of supermen, may soon be the foremost social challenge posed by advancing science. Certainly, there is a danger that genetic engineering may someday lead to class distinctions. But the pressure on the bioengineers of the future will be to generate population. If and when the prospect of building "better" human beings becomes real, it will play out in the context of a world under radical population pressure. That population crunch will likely shape the new genetics at every turn. ...

Thus, if faced with an ultimate choice between feminist hopes of workplace equality with men and society's simultaneous need for more children, it is not hard to imagine that some on the cultural left would opt for technological outsourcing--surrogacy in various forms--as a way out. To some extent, this phenomenon has already begun: Consider the small but growing numbers of older, usually career women who choose and pay younger women to carry babies for them. As with Sanger and Firestone, eugenics may be seen by some as the "logical" alternative to pressure to restore the traditional family.

more
posted by Eve at 4:08 PM | link 0 comments

STATE OF THE UNION: Colleen Carroll Campbell

...Why would a leader brave enough to push a divisive Social Security reform plan and bold enough to pledge an end to tyranny around the world appear to be backing down on the very issues that sealed his reelection? After all, the political winds are blowing in his favor: A 2004 poll from Zogby International found that 56 percent of Americans support more restrictions on abortion and believe that abortion should never be legal or legal only in cases of rape, incest, or a direct threat to the life of the mother. A majority of Americans also oppose same-sex marriage, and overwhelming majorities of red- and blue-state voters approved state bans on same-sex marriage last November. Given such strong support for the president's positions--not to mention his own campaign promises on these issues, which accounted for much of the support he received from traditionally Democratic Catholic, Hispanic, African-American, and union voters--Bush's sudden apparent loss of nerve is odd and unsettling.

It is also politically dangerous. Democrats like New York Senator Hillary Clinton--who said last week that abortion is a "tragic choice" that can be averted by teaching "religious and moral values" and encouraging "teenage celibacy"--are eager to fill the vacuum created by Bush's silence. If their rhetoric on moral values becomes indistinguishable from the president's, and he fails to make progress on restricting abortion and protecting traditional marriage, Republicans can expect trouble in 2006.

more
posted by Eve at 4:01 PM | link 0 comments

POLLAGE: MOST CANADIANS WANT REFERENDUM ON SSM, BACK GAY RIGHTS IN GENERAL BUT NOT SSM: From the National Post

As MPs begin debating the government's same-sex marriage bill, a healthy majority of Canadians would actually prefer to see the contentious issue decided by a country-wide referendum, a new National Post/Global National poll suggests.

More than two-thirds said they would prefer a direct say on the gay marriage question, rather than a free vote in Parliament that lets politicians act according to their conscience, the survey indicates.

And the poll suggests the same-sex legislation might go down to defeat in a plebiscite, with 66% saying they support keeping the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

However, about half that number do favour creating a new category of "civil union" for same-sex partners. A similar percentage favour full same-sex marriage. The breakdown of support has changed little in the last year.

Respondents to the COMPAS Inc. poll also indicated same-sex marriage should be far down on the government's list of priorities. And a strong majority said government comments suggesting religious groups do not belong in the emotional debate are a threat to freedom of speech. ...

Conrad Winn of COMPAS said the support for a referendum on the issue is unusual and much higher than the company generally finds, perhaps because it is a subject many people feel they understand and can offer a reasonable opinion about.

Also surprising, he said, was that the poll found public opinion on same-sex marriage had barely changed in more than a year, despite the extensive public debate over it.

Of those polled, 66% said they would strongly or somewhat support keeping the existing definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman exclusively. Another 34% said they would oppose preserving the status quo.

When given more choices, 29% said the marriage law should not be changed at all, 36% favoured maintaining marriage as a heterosexual institution but creating a "civil union" category for gay couples, while 35% said gays should get full marriage rights.

The poll also hinted at what Mr. Winn calls a "civilizational" divide between the spiritually devout and others. Among the one-third who said religion was very important to them, 80% opposed opening the doors to same-sex marriage, compared with 35% among those for whom religion was not important. ...

The poll also asked for views on polygamy, which some critics fear could end up being legalized in the wake of the same-sex marriage legislation. A surprising 14% said they believe any tolerant society must allow people to have more than one spouse, even though it is now barred by law.

more
posted by Eve at 3:50 PM | link 0 comments

VA. BILL WOULD ALTER CHURCH-OWNERSHIP RULES: From the Washington Post

[I admit this is anything but directly relevant, but it's fascinating. --Eve]

A bill before the Virginia Senate has alarmed the Episcopal Church and other mainline Protestant denominations that are deeply torn over the ordination of gay ministers and the blessing of same-sex marriages because, they say, the measure would give local congregations unprecedented powers to break away from their national denominations.

Several major church groups on Tuesday urged lawmakers to reject the bill, which they said would entangle state government in church politics.

The bill, now on the Senate floor, would allow congregants to vote to leave their denominations and keep their church buildings and land, unless a legally binding document such as a deed specified otherwise.

Many denominations have long had rules that prevent dissenting congregations from leaving the parent church and taking their land, buildings and other property with them. Since 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous other courts have upheld those rules in all but a few exceptional circumstances.

As a result, relatively few of the Episcopal congregations in Virginia and other states that vehemently object to the consecration of a gay bishop in New Hampshire have simply left the Episcopal Church USA. Instead, most have formed a network of disenchanted parishes that some call a church within a church, and they have tried to muster international pressure on the U.S. Episcopal hierarchy from the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Opponents of Senate Bill 1305, sponsored by Sen. William C. Mims (R-Loudoun), said it would be an unconstitutional intrusion of the government into that dispute. ...

Although Episcopal Church officials did not learn of the bill until the middle of last week, delegates to the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia's annual convention in Reston over the weekend passed a resolution opposing it, said Russell V. Palmore, the chancellor, or lawyer, of the diocese.

more
posted by Eve at 3:40 PM | link 0 comments

UTAH SENATE KILLS UNMARRIED-DEPENDENT BENEFITS: From the Deseret Morning News

The state Senate on Tuesday killed an effort to provide those who can't legally marry a few health and property related benefits.

Following the 18-10 vote against his proposed "Mutual Dependence Benefits Contract," Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, said the measure is dead for now.

"Some of the very conservative groups drew a line in the sand and said this was a gay bill," Bell said. "The perception out there was greater than the reality."

Before the vote, Bell asked senators to consider SB89 independently of Amendment 3, a voter-approved state constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage and prevents giving any other "domestic union" the same or "substantially equivalent legal effect" as marriage.

He introduced an amendment that clarified the measure was not meant to create a marriage-like relationship. ...

Other lawmakers who opposed the measure said the benefits that would have been provided by the contract are already available individually. Bell acknowledged that but pointed to the expense of hiring an attorney.

more
posted by Eve at 3:36 PM | link 0 comments

SSM AND POLYGAMY: Gabriel Rosenberg

[More older links, but well worth your time. The posts include comments and trackbacks, so really, it's quite a bit of pure chewing satisfaction. --Eve]

part one: "I view the choice of partner as an integral part of the right to marry, but in the case of polygamy the state is not denying an individual this choice. Rather it requires that the individual choose. If Tim wants to marry Sally he is permitted to do so provided he first obtains a divorce from Sue." (more)

part two: "As I noted in the last post both polygamy and incest prohibitions deal with prohibiting marriage because of the presence of another kinship relation. In the polygamy case it is the marital relation of the individual to another spouse. In the incest case it is the already existing kinship relation between the prospective couple. I believe that the new relation (and even the possibility of such relation occuring) interferes with the already existing relation. I think this is what sociologists and anthropologists refer to as role conflict but I'm no sociologist. In any case, I will explain in more detail below about ways this conflict in roles creates problems. First, however, I will note that the legal marital roles used to be distinctly defined by gender. Likewise a person's role in society used to be legally defined by gender. Thus a huge conflict could have arisen from the preson of one gender taking on the legal role of another. That problem no longer occurs today for two reasons. In many states, including Massachusetts, the legal role of husband and wife is no longer distinct. A few laws on the books may be gendered, but in all likelihood such laws would be required to be read gender neutrally should they be challenged. Likewise, the legal role in society is no longer gender determined. I'm not saying there are no differences between men and women, but rather there are no legal rights or obligations in the commonwealth of Massachusetts that apply to only one sex. (At the Federal level a few remain. For example, men must register with selective service.)" (more)

part three: "Courts are used to thinking of things in gender-neutral terms, considering the individual and not the sex. Polygamy requires considering two (or more people) the same way you would consider one person." (more)
posted by Eve at 6:36 PM | link 0 comments

CONFESSIONS OF A LIBERTARIAN POLYGAMIST: Anonymous

[I linked this months and months ago, but it stuck in my head; so, as with the Gabriel Rosenberg posts I'm about to link, I figured I'd refresh your memories. --Eve]

...Reason published a piece by Ms. Young that did a lot of hand wringing about gay marriage being expanded to polygamy. A lot of what she said about polygamy sounds lifted straight out of the mainstream, Bible-belt news, not libertarian at all. Then she brought out the Cato Institute big gun, David Boaz, who said, "Two people seems like a good number for a marriage." Well, thanks for your tolerance David, and minding your own business!

To see supposed libertarians saying that polygamy is bad and, well, just too much freedom, is disappointing. Watching all the news over that Fresno guy is sickening, because that's all people see, that's all they think of, when they think of polygamy. It isn't all like that. Not even close.

I know because I'm part of a polygamous family. Actually, because none of us is married in the legal sense (no church or state papers, just our own personal ceremonies), we use the term polyamory, which means "many loves." My family is a triad, one woman and two men. None of us is gay, so its really more like she has two husbands, but we're all very good friends. We also have some kids. (Yes, we all know which man is the dad of which kid.)

Our family looks a lot like any family you'd like to have as your neighbors. We're quiet, decent people, and we mind our own business. We don't party, our kids are all well behaved, and even if you tried, you wouldn't catch either of us so much as holding our wife's hand outside. We're not wild sex swingers and we're not horny kids. Our sex lives are private -- even from each other as much as we can. In the town where we live we look as dull and normal as much as possible. My libertarian stuff is all on-line, under a different name than the one my neighbors know. The only difference between our family and others is that we have an "Uncle Steve" that lives with us.

Yes, one of us pretends to be our wife's brother so that we can all live together and be left alone. Some of the kids pretend that their dad is really "Uncle Steve" when they're out in public. This isn't all that important because we all raise the children equally, and treat them all like they are our own kids. Because they are -- all of us are one family.

more
posted by Eve at 6:27 PM | link 0 comments

HEATHER HAS (N, WHERE N IS A POSITIVE INTEGER) MOMMIES: Evan Kirchhoff

...It's not because I have a reaction along the lines of "I told you gay marriage would lead to ruin!" Same-gender and many-partner marriages should, of course, both be permitted, and legalizing one hasn't "led to" the other except in the sense that they share a common cause -- an intuitive rejection of state management of people's personal arrangements. Historically, marriage is a Christian sacrament converted into an intrusive social program; the former is no longer seen as a legitimate government feature, and the latter shouldn't be either.

Happily, marriage has acquired a third role -- the public and legal affirmation of human pair-bonding -- that has largely trumped the other two. That's the revolution (or, if you prefer, the downfall), and the "gay" aspect simply makes it impossible to ignore. Having gone that far, the lateral move of attaching surplus wives to a standard heterosexual marriage is practically conservative. Gay marriage hasn't put us on a slipperly slope to polygamy; it merely flags a previously-existing leap well down the slope beyond polygamy. (Which, I repeat, is a good thing, because people own themselves and stuff.)

But most people still recoil at polygamy, which is what makes the impending collision so delicious in at least three different ways...

more
posted by Eve at 6:24 PM | link 0 comments

POLYGAMY: Mary Lyndon Shanley

...One way to think about the differences in these two approaches is to consider whether polygamy should be legalized in the United States. As Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby asks, "If the state has no right to deny a marriage license to would-be spouses of the same sex, on what reasonable grounds could it deny a marriage to would-be spouses . . . who happen to number three or four instead of two?" Would a continuation of the ban on plural marriage simply shift the boundary between who's in and who's out?

For contractualists, the case for a right to plural marriage is straightforward: it expresses individuals' rights to form affective and sexual relationships free from state interference. Martha Fineman said in 2001 that "if no form of sexual affiliation is state preferred, subsidized, and protected, none could or should be prohibited. Same-sex partners and others forming a variety of other sexual arrangements would simply be viewed as equivalent forms of privately preferred sexual connection." The law would have to be gender-neutral, allowing marriages with plural husbands as well as plural wives. But as long as protections against coercion, fraud, and other abuses that invalidate any contract were enforced, people could choose multiple marriage partners.

Proponents of the equal status conception fall on both sides of the question. Laurence Tribe, supporting legal recognition of polygamy, asks rhetorically in American Constitutional Law whether the goal of preserving monogamous marriage is "sufficiently compelling, and the refusal to exempt Mormons sufficiently crucial to the goal's attainment, to warrant the resulting burden on religious conscience." Peggy Cooper Davis condemns in Neglected Stories the "cultural myopia" that led the Supreme Court to outlaw Mormon polygamy in Reynolds v. United States in 1879, and argues that a principled objection to polygamy in a multicultural society would require more than "a political majority's wish to define and freeze the moral character of the polity." But the flaws in the Reynolds decision do not mean polygamy should be legalized. Many people are convinced that polygamy is profoundly patriarchal. The "larger cultural context of female subordination" is too deeply rooted and strong even for gender-neutral principles that allow both women and men to have more than one spouse to overcome its effects. In this view, plural marriage reinforces female subordination and is unacceptable on grounds of equality.

The answer to the question, "If we legalize same-sex marriage, won’t we have to legalize plural marriage?" is not, then, an obvious "yes." Equality as well as liberty is implicated in marriage law and policy. In assuming the equal agency of the parties to the contract, the contract model leaves aside the question of whether choices themselves may lead to subordination. In order to decide whether plural marriage should be legalized, one must address the question of whether polygamy can be reformed along egalitarian lines. Equality must be a central attribute of any marital regime based on considerations of justice.

more
posted by Eve at 6:17 PM | link 0 comments

CANADA AND POLYGAMY DEBATE: Colby Cosh

..."Two men or two women can have the kind of relationship a man and a woman have; one man and five women cannot." Perhaps if this is chanted often enough, we'll all become convinced that it is true; we'll adopt it as an axiom! That's really all we can do, since it's a statement for which no evidence is offered and no test is possible. Other than asking some of the world's zillions of polygamists, that is, whether they have intimate, fulfilled, contented relationships.

Gays and lesbians have succeeded in making it impolite to ask whether two men or two women can really have the kind of relationship a man and a woman have. In truth, I do wonder; nature has arranged things so that roughly equal numbers of males and females are born, and we two sexes appear to possess very different psychologies, as well as genomes so dissimilar, by some accounts, that we might as well be different species. I regard these things as VERY LOUD clues to the possibility of an innate biological complementarity between the sexes. But I don't think they matter much when we're tackling the question whether gays and lesbians should be permitted to marry, which is different from the question whether it is wise or prudent or appropriate for them to marry (a question whose answer I leave to my gay and lesbian friends, with my best wishes). And, in fact, these clues were mostly ignored in the debate over gay marriage. The dominant pretext for gay marriage was that there were same-sex couples who wanted very much to be married. Am I crazy, really, for thinking that that's relevant to the polygamy question--if and when it arises, which it appears to be doing right now?

quite a bit more--all of it growly, contrarian, and interesting
posted by Eve at 6:08 PM | link 0 comments

POLYGAMY--CALL FOR RESEARCH FROM CANADIAN GOVT

more
posted by Eve at 5:56 PM | link 0 comments

NEW QUESTION: IS THERE A RIGHT TO POLYGAMY?

Canada is debating it. The head of the American Civil Liberties Union defends it.

What do you think? As always, click below to join the debate!
posted by Eve at 5:51 PM | link 0 comments

AMENDMENTS ON MARRIAGE AND ON ABORTION: Ramesh Ponnuru replies to Andrew Sullivan

...Actual supporters of the FMA would be better situated to answer this question than I am. I assume the answer is political. Republican politicians think that pushing for an anti-abortion amendment would be politically damaging, whereas pushing for the FMA isn't damaging and may even be helpful. Religious conservatives know they therefore won't get anywhere asking politicians to push for an anti-abortion amendment but will get somewhere asking them to hold votes on the FMA.

...Having said this, I certainly agree with Sullivan that abortion is a far graver evil than any that may be involved in same-sex marriage. And I wish him all success in his non-blog endeavors.

more
posted by Eve at 5:38 PM | link 0 comments

AMENDMENTS ON MARRIAGE AND ON ABORTION: Andrew Sullivan

WHY NOT AN ANTI-ABORTION AMENDMENT? Here's an interesting question, posed by my friend Jon Rauch. The Senate Republicans have vowed to push their anti-gay marriage amendment, even though it won't stand a chance of getting the necessary 67 votes. The point is political and rhetorical. They are trying to build momentum, raise money, and keep the cause of banning same-sex unions alive. So why not push an anti-abortion amendment instead? They have one such amendment on hand. Both proposed amendments are allegedly against judicial meddling. Both will fail. But one deals with a much graver issue, by the religious right's reckoning--an immense loss of human life, rather than the grave evil of two human beings committing to one another for life. So why this priority? Surely, abortion is a more important matter than same-sex marriage--even for the religious right. Or is it?

link
posted by Eve at 5:35 PM | link 0 comments

FUTURE AND REASONS FOR MARRIAGE: Justin Katz

[It seems to me that the intermingling of so many aspects of spouses' lives (e.g. finances) and the difficulty of divorce would prevent this scenario from occurring in most cases. But see this New York Times piece for a sense of relationships where Justin's scenario might play out. --Eve]

...One of the "conservative" arguments for same-sex marriage is that there will no longer be any need for "marriage-lite" designations that are intended for homosexuals but that wind up being available to heterosexuals. Change the definition of marriage such that homosexuals can marry, and heterosexuals will lose the option of alternative designations with less cultural weight.

The gamble is that the same sort of cultural barrier that keeps opposite-sex acquaintances from getting married will keep same-sex friends from getting married. If possible, I think that would entail an undesirable cultural suspicion of close friendships that mirror marriage in some respects (e.g., cohabitation)--just look at the new eye that modern society brings to the historical practice of sharing a bed. Given the vastness of heterosexuals' majority, however, I don't think preservation of marriage via full sexualization of same-sex relationships likely, and it is made even less so by the solidifying economic norm of the two-income family.

Consequently, the availability of same-sex marriage will be exploited by same-sex acquaintances. Two men or women who've had their expectations of marriage shattered already will be particularly prone to redefine the institution to fit their own purposes. That leaves only those other relationships that would continue to be barred from marriage (say, for example, single-parent plus adult child households), and they have all the claims of mutual care and support that homosexuals do, thus deserving the quick fix of marriage rights.

more
posted by Eve at 3:18 PM | link 0 comments

GOP COURTS BLACK CHURCHES: From the Los Angeles Times

Black conservatives who supported President Bush in 2004 and gained new prominence within the Republican Party are launching a loosely knit movement that they hope will transform the role African Americans play in national politics.

The effort will be visible today at the Crenshaw Christian Center, one of Los Angeles' biggest black churches, headed by televangelist Frederick K.C. Price. More than 100 African American ministers are to gather in the first of several regional summits to build support for banning same-sex marriage -- a signature issue that drew socially conservative blacks to the Republican column last year.

Before the meeting, one prominent minister plans to unveil a "Black Contract With America on Moral Values," a call for Bible-based action by government and churches to promote conservative priorities. It is patterned loosely on the "Contract With America" that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich used 10 years ago to inaugurate an era of GOP dominance in Congress.

A separate group with ties to Gingrich will announce a similar "Mayflower Compact for Black America" later this month in Washington, which includes plans to organize in key states ahead of the 2006 and 2008 elections. And at the end of the month, the Heritage Foundation will cosponsor a gathering of black conservatives in Washington designed to counter dominance of the "America-hating black liberal leadership" and to focus African American voters on moral issues. ...

But by courting conservative blacks in battleground states -- reaching out through programs such as the president's faith-based initiative -- GOP organizers believe they made the difference that secured Bush's victory in 2004. In Ohio, for instance, a concerted effort increased black support for Bush from 9% in 2000 to 16% in 2004, providing a cushion that allowed the president to win the pivotal state outright on election night. The Black Contract With America will be unveiled by Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., a registered Democrat from suburban Washington who backed Bush in 2004 after voting against him four years earlier. He was drawn, he said, to the GOP's social conservatism that he thought reflected the true values of black churches.

In addition to such conservative GOP priorities as allowing workers to create private Social Security accounts and banning same-sex marriage, the Jackson contract deals with some potentially dicey issues for Republicans -- such as restoring rights to former felons. The contract, Jackson said, combines the Bible-based elements of the traditionally Republican and Democratic platforms.

more
posted by Eve at 2:45 PM | link 0 comments

MORE STATES STIR AGAINST THE EASE OF NO-FAULT DIVORCE: From the Christian Science Monitor

In Spokane, Wash., a judge delays a woman's divorce from her abusive husband when he learns that she's pregnant.

Georgia and several other states consider whether to lengthen the waiting period before marriages can be legally ended. Elsewhere, a growing movement is under way to promote "collaborative divorce," in which couples agree to settle such issues as child custody and finances without going to court--taking some of the civil war, in theory, out of marital breakups.

How--or even whether--to dissolve troubled marriages is becoming a prominent topic of public discussion and political activity.

It's part of the generally conservative marriage movement which includes the option in several states (Arkansas, Louisiana, and Arizona) to choose more restrictive "covenant marriages" and resists same-sex marriages. But the issue crosses ideological and political lines--liberals and conservatives alike worry about the high rates of divorce in this country--and in many ways it comes down to government's role in this most personal of decisions.

In addition, there are a growing number of laws that aren't directly related to the availability of divorce but could affect the instances and impact of failed marriages. Some provide "marriage skills" education in public schools as a way of avoiding divorce; others mandate "custody counseling" for divorce cases involving children. ...

A bill being considered by the Georgia Legislature would extend the waiting period for divorce from 30 days to four months for couples without children and to six months for couples with children. The waiting period could be waived in cases involving spouse abuse, but parents would have to attend special classes on how divorce affects children.

While several states are moving in the same direction, similar bills have been considered and rejected in some states, including New Hampshire and Colorado. Lawmakers in New York--one of the last states which still do not grant no-fault divorces--are debating the need to make divorce easier. Last month, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed bills that would encourage premarital counseling for couples and require counseling for couples with children who seek divorce.

more
posted by Eve at 2:39 PM | link 0 comments

CANADA UNVEILS EXPLOSIVE GAY MARRIAGE LEGISLATION: From Reuters

Canada's minority government unveiled draft legislation to permit gay marriage on Tuesday, taking a political gamble on a social issue that has split the country and the ruling Liberal Party.

Prime Minister Paul Martin says Ottawa had to act after courts in seven of the country's 10 provinces ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. To do nothing, he argued, would mean gays and lesbians were being discriminated against in the remaining three provinces.

But church groups and the main opposition Conservative Party, which have both suggested that a law on gay marriage could one day lead to the legalization of polygamy, say they will do all they can to defeat the bill.

If the bill is approved Canada would become the third country in the world after Belgium and Holland to permit same sex marriages. ...

A poll of all 308 members of Parliament in Tuesday's Globe and Mail newspaper showed that 139 legislators backed the bill, 118 opposed it and 49 were undecided. Almost 30 Liberals say they will vote against.

Despite this, initial estimates suggest that the Liberals -- backed by two minority left-leaning parties -- will gain the bare majority needed to pass the measure.

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

BISHOPS IN CANADA LAUNCH MARRIAGE CAMPAIGN: From Lifesite

With Federal legislation to redefine marriage coming out tomorrow, Catholic bishops across the country have been taking an active role in fighting the legislation. In addition to the recent interventions of Calgary Bishop Fred Henry and Cardinals Aloysius Ambrozic and Marc Ouellet, over the weekend several bishops have taken measures to stop the bill.

In Sudbury, Ontario, Bishop Jean-Louis Plouffe led about 100 people in a demonstration in defence of traditional marriage in front of the offices of a pro-homosexual marriage politician. The group was met by counter protestors.

In Vancouver, British Columbia, Archbishop Raymond Roussin issued a pastoral letter in defence of marriage to all parishes with a request that it be read from the pulpit and made available to parishioners. Archbishop Roussin also asked for prayers for the country. (see the full text of his letter here )

The Halifax Archidiocese in Nova Scotia placed a full page ad in the provincial paper, the Chronicle Herald, defending marriage and asking people to contact their MPs.

All across the country churches of every denomination are passing out postcards to send to MPs asking that traditional marriage be protected.

more
posted by Eve at 1:42 AM | link 0 comments

OREGON MARRIAGE AMENDMENT CHALLENGED: From the Associated Press

Basic Rights Oregon on Monday filed a lawsuit challenging the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, arguing the ban revises the fundamental principles of the Oregon Constitution rather than merely amending it.

Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved the ban last November as the state joined 10 others to write a specific ban on gay marriage into state law during the national election. ...

The lawsuit also argues the ban should be overturned because it makes more than one change to the Oregon Constitution in violation of state law barring multiple changes to a law via a single initiative.

The complaint also argues the gay marriage ban is drafted as a statement of government policy rather than as a statement of law, as required for a constitutional amendment.

more
posted by Eve at 6:16 PM | link 0 comments

EXPERTS DISPUTE BUSH ON GAY-ADOPTION ISSUE: From the New York Times

...The experts, who cross the political spectrum, say studies have shown that on average, children raised by two married heterosexual parents fare better on a number of measures, including school performance, than those raised by single parents or by parents who are living together but are unmarried.

But, said Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, "there is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children."

Dr. Stacey, who published a critical review of studies on the subject in 2001 and has argued in favor of allowing adoption by gays, added, "The debate among scientists is all about how good the studies we have really are."

Since 1980, researchers have published about 25 studies comparing children from same-sex households with peers in traditional families, using measures of social adjustment, school performance, mental health and emotional resilience. Some of the studies have focused on elementary-school children, others on those not quite teenagers, a few on adolescents; a handful have followed children for years. Uniformly, the authors have reported that there are no significant developmental differences between the two groups of children.

Yet the field is still highly controversial, in part because the research on gay households with children has so far tended to be small; usually no more than a couple of dozen families have been involved. ...

"In many of these studies, they simply aren't asking hard questions," said Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University who has agued against adoption by gay couples.

The researchers, Professor Wardle said, ask the families about the children's self-esteem, "about whether they have friends--soft and fuzzy questions--but not about sexual behavior, sexually transmitted disease and drug use." ...

As the political debate over same-sex parents becomes more contentious, the quality of the research appears to be getting better, some social scientists say. Last month psychologists at the University of Virginia and the University of Arizona published a study of 44 adolescents from all over the country being raised in female same-sex households.

The families, with a variety of income levels, were drawn from a huge, continuing national family survey. The survey was random, and therefore unaffected by the sort of volunteer bias created when, say, families with good stories to tell respond to advertisements placed by investigators. In addition, the interviews were conducted by a team of government researchers who were interested in a wide array of social and demographic factors, all but eliminating the researcher bias that some critics point to. The survey's results, published in the journal Child Development, confirmed some previous findings: the 44 girls and boys were typical American teenagers, the researchers found, no more confused or moody than a comparison group of 44 peers from similar but traditional families.

more
posted by Eve at 6:12 PM | link 0 comments

CANADIAN MARRIAGE COMMISSIONER FILES COMPLAINT: From the Saskatoon StarPhoenix

A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner has filed a complaint with the human rights commission, citing the government's requirement to perform same-sex marriages as a violation of his right to freedom of religion.

"I would like the justice minister, and his deputies down to his marriage unit, to allow me to have the right to say I do not wish to perform a same-sex marriage," marriage commissioner Bruce Goertzen said in an interview. ...

Earlier this month, Justice Minister Frank Quennell said he expects marriage commissioners to follow the law and marry same-sex couples, prompting several to resign and others to prepare to take court action. ...

"If Saskatchewan's Justice Minister Mr. Frank Quennell is not prepared to voluntarily demonstrate this level of tolerance, then the province's Human Rights Commission needs to compel him to do so in order to protect me and other marriage commissioners from discrimination on the basis of our religion," the complaint read. ...

Quennell declined to comment on the specific complaint, indicating he hadn't seen it, but reaffirmed his stance on the issue.

He maintained, "it undercuts the purpose of civil marriage to allow marriage commissioners to import either their religious beliefs or their own personal prejudices cloaked as religious beliefs and impose those on people who have a right to a civil marriage and for whom civil marriage was in a sense created because they don't want a religious marriage," he said.

more
posted by Eve at 6:09 PM | link 0 comments

GAY GROUPS SEEK DELAY IN CALIF. CASE: From 365Gay.com

Two national LGBT civil rights groups Thursday asked a federal judge not to issue a ruling in a challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act until California courts have dealt with the issue of same-sex marriage.

A suburban Orange County gay couple, Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt, are suing the federal government in a bid to have DOMA struck down, but Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed friend of the court briefs Thursday arguing that the cases already before California courts should take precedence.

"Marriage traditionally has been a state law matter," said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

more
posted by Eve at 6:07 PM | link 0 comments

CHANGE IN WAL-MART POLICY TO INCLUDE SAME-SEX PARTNERS: From the Associated Press

The nation's largest employer is expanding the definition of "immediate family" in its ethics policy to include an employee's same-sex partner. ...

Company spokesman Gus Whitcomb on Thursday declined to say if the change would affect employee benefits, or whether it meant Wal-Mart was taking a position on the issue of same-sex marriage or civil unions. ...

The revisions deal with sections of the company's ethics code that bar employees from using confidential information to benefit themselves or immediate family members, and from approaching Wal-Mart's suppliers about jobs for immediate family members, the company said.

more
posted by Eve at 6:02 PM | link 0 comments

UTAH MUTUAL DEPENDENCE/"MARRIAGELIKE RIGHTS" BILL TARGETED BY CONSERVATIVES: From the Salt Lake Tribune

Legislation that would grant marriagelike rights to adults not able to wed barely passed a preliminary vote in the state Senate on Friday after several conservatives assailed it.

Lawmakers opposing Senate Bill 89 argued it was retreating from a same-sex marriage ban approved by voters in November.

The bill, which would allow adults to sign a legal agreement for rights such as hospital visitation and property inheritance, passed 15-10, just enough votes to make it to a final Senate debate. And several lawmakers signaled with their votes that they may not support the bill in another vote.

Sponsor Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, argued the bill didn't detract from Amendment 3, which passed overwhelmingly in the general election, and noted that he had even campaigned for the constitutional change. ...

In fighting for the bill, Bell cited a statement by five attorneys -- including one of the leaders of the Amendment 3 campaign -- that said that Senate Bill 89 would actually reinforce "Utah's fundamental marriage policy" of a man and a woman.

more
posted by Eve at 5:58 PM | link 0 comments

RALLY FOR MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IN MARYLAND: From the Washington Post

Hundreds of opponents of same-sex marriage rallied in front of the Maryland State House yesterday, filling a pedestrian mall north of the capitol with placards, shouts and speeches calling on the General Assembly to pass an amendment to the state Constitution barring such marriages.

"Maryland is a battleground," U.S. Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-Md.) told the crowd. "We need to make sure our unelected judges here in Maryland understand the will of the people."

Maryland law defines marriage as between a man and woman, but some lawmakers have said they fear the law will not be adequately enforced. So for several years, they have pushed for a constitutional amendment specifically barring such unions.

Del. Charles R. Boutin (R-Harford) said yesterday that he will again submit a bill calling for such an amendment. A similar measure died in committee last year before reaching the House floor, and supporters expect an uphill battle again this year. Amendments must win support from three-fifths of the lawmakers in each chamber, then be placed on the ballot for consideration by voters.

more
posted by Eve at 5:54 PM | link 0 comments

BLACK BAPTISTS FORGE AGENDA: From the Chicago Tribune

Tired of seeing America's moral agenda hijacked by debates over gay marriage and abortion rights, thousands of black Baptists met this week in a bid to define new priorities, including health care, education, new jobs and voting rights.

The historic gathering was a first for delegates of four black Baptist groups, which in the last century have splintered over internal squabbles. Now speaking with more unity, these African-American churches--representing 15 million believers--want their core concerns to capture the nation's conscience and attract attention on Capitol Hill, just as conservative evangelical alliances have advanced their agenda in recent decades.

"While African-Americans have expressed certain sentiments that reflect opposition to an expansion of the gay homosexual agenda, there is still much more concern about bread and butter issues in terms of the public agenda that they would like to see their churches pursue," said Rev. R. Drew Smith, a Baptist minister who directs the Public Influences of African American Churches project at Morehouse College in Atlanta.

But Rev. Jesse Jackson warned delegates Thursday to watch out for political trickery. Thousands of hands shot into the air when Jackson surveyed who wanted a higher minimum wage, stable Social Security, affirmative action and an end to the war in Iraq.

No hands went up when he asked how many churches had blessed a same-sex union. "How did that get in the middle of our agenda?" Jackson asked. "That's called a wolf in sheep's clothing. Beware."

more
posted by Eve at 5:48 PM | link 0 comments

UTAH MEASURE TO OFFER BENEFITS TO UNMARRIED: From the Deseret Morning News

A bill that would create a contract to provide some health and property-related benefits to those who can't legally marry was given preliminary approval in the Senate Friday.

However, some of those who voted 15-10 to move the "Mutual Dependence Benefits Contract" to a final Senate vote expressed concern about the measure.

Sen. President John Valentine, R-Orem, said the debate should continue but said he has "serious concerns" about the mechanics.

The bill would give those who cannot marry the ability to obtain one contract, registered with the state Department of Health, to visit a partner in the hospital, make informed consent medical decisions, dispose of a dead partner's remains and make organ donation decisions, and to have joint tenancy rights to property acquired while under the contract.

Those who spoke against the bill said it looked like an effort to circumvent Amendment 3, which voters approved in November. The amendment banned in Utah's constitution same-sex marriage and any other "domestic union" that is substantially similar to marriage. ...

Examples of people who might benefit from the provisions are roommates who are not involved in a relationship or family members who share a home. But some legislators fear the primary benefit would be to same-sex couples who are denied marriage under Amendment 3 provisions. ...

Bramble said the bill was unnecessary because any two citizens can already enter into these contracts individually.

"Who is it we are creating this new body of law for?" he said. "Is it the two roommates? I don't think so."

Bell defended his bill, saying that while those benefits could be obtained individually, it "takes sophistication, it takes expense."

more
posted by Eve at 5:37 PM | link 0 comments

DIVORCE TIES CHILE IN KNOTS: From the New York Times

TWO months ago, Chile became the last country in the Western Hemisphere to legalize divorce. Everyone predicted an avalanche of divorce petitions, but it hasn't worked out that way. In fact, almost nobody is lining up outside the courts, except lawyers.

Chileans, it turns out, are being as canny--some say sly--as they were all the years that they had to function under a marriage code written in the 1880's. There was no provision for divorce, so Chileans became famous for the novel ways they got out of or ignored unhappy marriages.

Small wonder, then, that in the first eight weeks of legal but cumbersome divorce procedures, barely 1,000 couples in a nation of 15 million took advantage of the new law. According to news reports here, only four divorces were granted.

As for the rest of the country, it seems to be writing off the opportunity to divorce as too bureaucratic and expensive. ...

Grounds for divorce include abandonment, abuse and adultery. But claims and proof are different things. Complainants must show "repeated infidelity," for example, not just one instance. Or they must submit evidence of physical violence, like photographs or police records. Hiring a lawyer is almost a necessity. ...

Before divorce was legalized, Chileans could escape from failed marriages, but usually only by subterfuge. The most creative schemes involved civil annulment, which required the separating couple to persuade a court that the original marriage had not met legal requirements. So marrying couples frequently left an escape hatch, in case things didn't work out.

more
posted by Eve at 5:33 PM | link 0 comments

FROM MAGGIE GALLAGHER

Statement from Maggie Gallagher, January 29, 2005.
Yesterday I sent a letter to the Washington Post, asking the paper retract the specific claim the Bush administration paid me "to help promote the president's proposal." For, as I wrote, "whether Howard Kurtz and the Washington Post acknowledge it or not, it is this specific charge and not the question of disclosure that is feeding the media coverage."

This morning, the editorial leadership of the Washington Post has done an honorable thing by retracting this charge: "[Gallagher] was not paid to covertly espouse administration views in her columns."

I hope that other media outlets that, relying on the reputation of the Washington Post, repeated that false charge as fact will show the same integrity and issue their own retractions or corrections. I specifically ask the New York Times to retract the charges made in its January 27 editorial "The Best Coverage Money Can Buy."
posted by Eve at 5:14 PM | link 0 comments

THE RULES OF PUNDITRY: Fred Hiatt

...The Williams story, first disclosed by USA Today, has been followed by several others, including allegations concerning columnists Maggie Gallagher, who does not write for The Post, and Charles Krauthammer, who does. Some people have tried to put all three in the same basket, but they do not belong together. Because I oversee both the editorial and op-ed pages at The Post, I thought it would be useful to explain how I think they differ.

We wrote editorials criticizing Williams for accepting money to promote, as his contract stated, government views in his commentary. Even more strongly we criticized the administration for awarding such a contract and (in the case of then-Education Secretary Rod Paige) refusing to acknowledge its mistake. Fortunately, Paige's boss, President Bush, has stated clearly that the contract was wrong and should not be replicated by anyone in his administration.

We have not written editorials about Gallagher; she was not paid to covertly espouse administration views in her columns. She was paid, as The Post disclosed, to write brochures and essays for the Bush administration on marriage policy; and she separately praised the administration's marriage policy in her syndicated column.

Was that wrong? A member of The Post's editorial board doing the same thing would be fired. Post journalists do not take money from the government, a policy that applies as strictly to news reporters (whom I do not oversee) as to opinion writers. But we also have the luxury of regular paychecks, which freelance contributors and independent columnists may not enjoy.

So the Gallagher case is murkier. Since the Post story was published, she has described herself both as an "opinion journalist" and as a marriage expert entitled to do consulting work in the field. It seems to me these roles coexist uneasily if the consulting work is for the government. At a minimum, as she has since acknowledged, she should have disclosed her government payments in columns on the subject.

more
posted by Eve at 9:08 AM | link 0 comments