|
 |
 |
 Saturday, March 05, 2005
POLYGAMY AND POLYGAMIES: Eve
There are really two kinds of polygamy being discussed in this piece: the historically common kind, where one man can take many wives, and the (as far as I know) unprecedented kind where any number of people of either sex can combine in a kind of small-scale married communal life. These two kinds actually seem pretty distinct to me, and different arguments for and against would apply to each. A lot of the arguments against many-wives polygamy don't seem to have much purchase on this family's living arrangements, for example, nor do they apply at all well to the lives of the people I've known in "polyamorous" relationships. There are other arguments against polyamory-type polygamy; and enshrining polyamory in law would obviously legalize many-wives-type polygamy as well. posted by Eve at 7:53 PM | link 0 comments 
COMEBACK OF POLYGAMY?: Uwe Siemon-Netto
Will the postmodern "Me" culture in the West advance the cause of polygamy in the world? Will same-sex unions in such nations as Canada act as a vanguard for marriages of not just two, but several partners? Signs abound that a curious combination of circumstances will threaten to reverse a development known since biblical days. As cultures advance, or so one thought, they move from families with multiple wives to the one-man-one-woman model. ... But things have changed -- especially in the West. According to the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, just weeks before introducing its controversial same-sex marriage legislation, the Canadian government has launched an urgent study into the social and legal ramifications of polygamy. This was due to fears that legalized homosexual "marriages" may lead to constitutional challenges from minority groups who claim polygamy as a religious right, the paper reported. And indeed, Sayd Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, told the Citizen that if same-sex marriages are legalized "polygamists would also be within their rights to challenge for their choice of family life to be legalized." ... But while the return to polygamy may not be imminent in the United States, it is coming back forcefully in the formerly Soviet states of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, according to a recent report by the Geneva-based United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. More troubling still is that in some Western European countries, such as France and Germany, the growing immigrant populations practice polygamy almost unabashedly, even though this clearly violates these countries' laws. ... But there is yet another side to this story, which troubles observers of the curious coalition between Islamism and the Western "Me culture": What if at some point polygamy is legalized? Will not feminists demand equal rights for polyandrous unions between one woman and several men? And will insistence on legalized group "marriages" between several men and several women come next? more posted by Eve at 7:44 PM | link 0 comments
PULPIT BULLIES: Jasmyne Cannick
Recently a group of black pastors held a press conference in Los Angeles to kick off their "Black Contract With America on Moral Values." Topping The list on this new moral agenda was, of course, the protection of marriage from the evil homosexuals. Never one to pass up an opportunity to meet the enemy head-on, I decided to attend the press conference to hear and see for myself this new group and their moral agenda for black America. As I expected, standing before us was a group of black pastors inspired, misguided, and led by one wealthy old crone, Reverend Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon, who's white, dominated the press conference with his antigay agenda and showed no support for the other causes the black pastors deemed important in the plight of African-Americans, such as better access to health care and education. Traditionally, black churches do not hold press conferences in this manner. I've seen black churches speak out publicly against police brutality, discrimination, and poor access to health care and education, but never gay marriage. No, this was all the handiwork and money of the TVC in an effort to enlist conservative African-Americans in Sheldon's antigay crusade. ... Several more like this one are taking place in cities around the country including Atlanta, New York, and Washington, D.C. A recent Los Angeles Times article titled "GOP Sees a Future in Black Churches" explained how unlikely alliances are being forged between conservative blacks and Republicans on issues like marriage equality and abortion. We saw this played out during the 2004 presidential election, and it isn't over yet. more posted by Eve at 2:31 AM | link 0 comments
Friday, March 04, 2005
MEN, WOMEN AND MARRIAGE: John Howard replies to Andrew Sullivan
Andrew Sullivan actually makes David Frum's point when he admits that "Support for same-sex marriage -- especially among women -- will soar. Because they will see it for what it is: a big advance for the civil equality of women." Previously, he'd claimed that same-sex marriage was not going to change anyone else's marriage, but now he says that all marriages will be affected, and the equality of women -- presumably all women in every marriage -- will be advanced because same-sex marriage will mean the elimination of gender roles, just as David Frum had been saying. Either that or he's not saying it. Or both saying it and not saying it. posted by Eve at 4:22 PM | link 0 comments
WHAT GAY MARRIAGE MEANS FOR MOTHERS AND FATHERS: Maggie Gallagher
Gov. Mitt Romney said recently that while children may be well raised in many environments, the ideal environment is a mother and a father. Look at the tongue-lashing he got from the Boston Globe who said comments like these have no place in "enlightened political debate." As I and others have predicted, once you have gay marriage, saying that fathers matter will become the equivalent of making racist statements. Because the promise of gay marriage is that gay couples will be viewed and treated as just the same as everyone else. posted by Eve at 4:19 PM | link 0 comments
NOT FAIR, GOVERNOR: Boston Globe editorial
IN ATTEMPTING to make points with national conservative audiences, Governor Romney is denigrating gay families, practicing divisive, mean-spirited politics. He is also peddling ignorance. To say, as he did last week in Utah, that gay marriage is "a blow to the family" misrepresents the commitment lived by same-sex couples here and all over the world. To say, as he did in South Carolina two weeks ago, that gay couples "are actually having children born to them" castigates a loving relationship as somehow shameful. ... Would Romney support dissolving that child's family? Would he prevent gay couples from adopting needy children -- products of often abusive homes or dissolved heterosexual unions? Romney press spokesman Felix Browne answered "no" to both questions in a phone interview Tuesday but adds that while the governor realizes that an intact home with a mother and a father is "not the only environment where children are raised in the Commonwealth," he does feels that such a home is "the ideal environment." That kind of thinking relegates gay couples and their children to second-class citizenship. It is the kind of thinking that barred black people from white lunch counters and kept women in the secretarial pool. It is the kind of thinking that had some people attacking Romney on the basis of his religion in his 1994 Senate bid -- something this page deplored. more posted by Eve at 4:05 PM | link 0 comments
DON'T WAIT AND SEE IN CT: Jennifer Gerarda Brown
At a Judiciary Committee hearing last week, state senators and representatives wondered whether they should delay a vote on same-sex marriage until after a New Haven County Superior Court decides a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Connecticut's marriage law. Wouldn't it be more prudent, they reasoned, to wait and see if the courts would legalize same-sex marriage for them? Well, no. The simple reason our legislators should act first is that it is their job to make the law. And granting equal marriage rights to all Connecticut's citizens, without regard to gender or sexual orientation, is the right thing to do. Besides, the reasons for legislative action now extend beyond our state: By enacting a state statute, the Connecticut General Assembly has a unique opportunity to undermine attempts to alter our federal constitution. President Bush and a group of religious conservatives in Congress have proposed to alter the U.S. Constitution through the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriages. President Bush's central claim is that this amendment is necessary to stop "activist judges" from forcing same-sex marriage on a resistant populace. The president justifies the amendment in the name of "democratic action" and "the voice of the people." But at its core, the amendment is fundamentally anti-democratic: It would prohibit states from legislatively embracing equal marriage rights. Connecticut can reveal the illogic of the proposed constitutional amendment by passing marriage equality legislation now. This would demonstrate that the amendment does more than rein in judges; it pre-empts state legislatures from defining the prerequisites for marriage -- a core state right since the nation's founding. ... For several years, Connecticut's General Assembly has been gathering information and deliberating the merits of same-sex marriage. The Office of Legislative Research studied the likely economic, psychological and sociological impact. Numerous public hearings have featured testimony by ordinary citizens and experts in many fields -- including law, history, religion and psychology. The process has been a great example of democratic deliberation. Now that process should produce marriage legislation that protects and respects the citizens of Connecticut without regard to gender or sexual orientation. more posted by Eve at 3:57 PM | link 0 comments
NY RECOGNIZES CANADIAN SSM: From the Empty Closet
John Galanti and John Hotchkiss, with the help of Lambda Legal Education and Defense Fund, have won recognition of their legal Canadian marriage in the form of insurance coverage from a local town government and two providers, Blue Cross Blue Shield (the third largest provider in N.Y.S.) and Health Economics Group. ... Hotchkiss added, "I have my own coverage through the Postal Service, but after retirement my health premiums would jump, which won't be the case with John's plan... We're registered as a married couple through Blue Choice. We've filed a petition with the New York State Department of Tax and Finance to be allowed to file a joint tax return for the state." The issue of tax filing was complicated, since the couple was advised by Alphonso David that they would end up paying more if they filed jointly. "We figured we'd come this far -- and it's just a few hundred dollars we'd be paying," Galanti said. "We wanted to go ahead on principle." ... At the time when the two men were applying for joint insurance coverage, State Comptroller Alan Hevesi announced that everyone working within the state retirement system would have their legal marriages recognized by the state, including Canadian marriages of same-sex couples. NYS Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's March 4 ruling that legal marriages performed out of state should be recognized here was also a factor in enabling the couple to win recognition for their relationship. more posted by Eve at 3:51 PM | link 0 comments
GA SENATE OK'S LONGER WAIT FOR DIVORCE: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Ending a marriage in Georgia could take months longer under a bill gaining momentum in the General Assembly. The state Senate voted 36-17 on Thursday in favor of a proposal that would extend the waiting time for an uncontested no-fault divorce from 30 days to 120 days for a childless couple and 180 days for a couple with children. The bill also would require divorcing couples with children to take classes on the impact of separation or divorce on kids. The classes would cost $30, but a judge could waive the fee for low-income couples. The measure now heads to the House. Last year, a similar measure passed the Senate but foundered in a House committee. ... The bill would waive the waiting period for victims of domestic abuse if they have obtained a protective order or have alleged abuse in a confidential affidavit. more posted by Eve at 3:46 PM | link 0 comments
iMAPP: MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION MODEL LEGISLATION
A number of top legal scholars have helped us draft model legislation affirming a preference for married couples in adoption law. If you'd like a look, email Joshua@imapp.org. --Maggie posted by Eve at 4:21 AM | link 0 comments
RED FAMILY, BLUE FAMILY: Various
[Some interesting comments on that Doug Muder piece, at Camassia's blog. Here are excerpts from the comments. --Eve] one commenter: Sounds to me that what Muder is describing/advocating is libertarianism, not liberalism. It's libertarianism that says the only obligations you have are those you voluntarily contract for. I always thought liberalism was all about solidarity and looking out for the most vulnerable members of society as an obligation. The idea that only freely chosen commitments are "authentic" is modernist bosh. It requires the notion of an autonomous subject choosing according to the dictates of an unembodied reason. The negotiated commitment model seems to completely capitulate to the logic of capitalism. And this is supposed to be an alternative to the right? I admit I take this sort of thing a bit personally because I'm sure my own family would not live up to the exalted standards of "negotiated commitment." However, I do think that there is an important distinction between how we should view the family and the community and how we should view the state. That's where I think Lakoff goes off the rails -- why should we expect the government to act like a family? I prefer Alister McIntyre and William Cavanaugh's idea that the state is nothing more exalted than a utility company. a later commenter quotes Marilynne Robinson: "I think the biological family is especially compelling to us because it is, in fact, very arbitrary in its composition. I would never suggest so rude an experiment as calculating the percentage of one's relatives one would actually choose as friends, the percentage of one's relatives who would choose one as their friend. And that is the charm and the genius of the institution. It implies that help and kindness and loyalty are owed where they are perhaps by no means merited. Owed, that is, even to ourselves. It implies that we are in some few circumstances excused from the degrading need to judge others' claims on us, excused from the struggle to keep our thumb off the scales of reciprocity." more posted by Eve at 4:09 AM | link 0 comments
RED FAMILY, BLUE FAMILY: Doug Muder
...As you would expect from Lakoff's theory, Ault noticed a profound difference between the families of Shawmut River and the ones he was used to finding among his friends. But the nature of the difference is somewhat surprising: The families Ault found at Shawmut River -- extended families in which multiple generations remain deeply involved in each other's lives -- aren't supposed to exist any more, especially not in a Massachusetts edge city like Worcester. Though a life of mutual dependence within a family circle was commonplace among members of Shawmut River and other new-right activists I met, it was foreign to people I knew in academia and the New Left, as well as to other educated professionals I knew. Most of us were prepared, from the moment we left home for college, to leave family dependencies behind and learn to live as self-governing individuals. This left us free to move from one city to another for graduate education or for those specialized jobs for which our training qualified us. In the process, we learned to piece together a meaningful life with new friends and colleagues alongside old ones. Our material security did not rest on a stream of daily reciprocities within a family-based circle of people known in common, but rather on the progression of professional careers, with steadily increasing salaries and ample benefits to cover whatever exigencies life would bring. ... The key distinction in Ault's account is not strictness vs. nurturance, but the Given vs. the Chosen. What, in other words, is the source of your responsibilities to other people? Are you born with obligations? Or do you choose to make commitments? As with strictness and nurturance, every actual person experiences some combination of obligation and commitment. But emphasizing one or the other makes a striking difference. I, for example, feel some sense of obligation to my 82-year-old parents, but its practical value is limited by the fact that they live a thousand miles away. I maintain a relationship with my similarly distant sister and nephews, but this feels more like a choice than an obligation. My marriage is almost entirely a negotiated commitment, even if it looks fairly traditional from the outside. ... Several liberal/conservative issues become much clearer in this analysis than they are in Lakoff. Abortion. In the Inherited Obligation model, having children is an obligation, not a choice. Of course a pregnant woman may find it inconvenient to have a child at this point in her life, but that's no reason to let her opt out -- obligations are almost always inconvenient. In the long run, however, children are a good deal; their obligation to you pays off when you are old. In demanding that a young woman carry a fetus to term, then, society is looking out for long-term interests she may not yet have the perspective to see. Conversely, in the Negotiated Commitment model nurturance is a gift, not an investment. A child is more like a work of art and less like a retirement plan. Having a child out of obligation, without a sense of commitment, is seen as a recipe for disaster. Pregnancies that result from rape, ignorance, or a birth-control failure are set up for such a disaster. If society is going to hold a prospective mother responsible for the welfare of her child -- and it should -- she must be given a chance to decide whether this child is her project or not. Same-sex marriage. The husband/father and wife/mother roles in the Inherited Obligation model are timeless, unchangeable, and necessary. Someone has to be the husband/father and someone has to be the wife/mother. Same-sex couples just can't cover both roles, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. But no comparable difficulty exists in the Negotiated Commitment model. A child has needs, and the parents have to negotiate a plan to meet those needs. Whether the parents are a mixed-sex couple or a same-sex couple -- or even a single parent with a lot of committed friends -- the problem is the same. If the government recognizes same-sex marriages and same-sex couples as parents, then it is tacitly siding with the Negotiated Commitment model of marriage and parenthood, and undermining the Inherited Obligation model. This is why conservatives believe that marriage needs to be "defended" from same-sex relationships. But from the Negotiated Commitment point of view, "defense of marriage" is nonsense. How a same-sex couple negotiates its relationship has no effect on the negotiated relationships of mixed-sex couples. Social programs. The social safety net is an absolute necessity for the Negotiated Commitment model. Negotiated relationships, by their nature, are based on some notion of fair exchange. But what happens to people who have little to offer? In the absence of a prior obligation, who would volunteer to take responsibility for an indigent person in an irreversible coma? Unless the government steps in, people will fall through the cracks. The Inherited Obligation model, on the other hand, is ambivalent about the social safety net. On the one hand, it is good that people don't just die when they have no one to take care of them. But on the other hand, the safety net weakens the network of familial obligations. A young adult who moves to the big city to seek his fortune doesn't come home when he fails, he draws unemployment. Social Security and Medicare may provide an excuse not to take care of aging parents. ... The virtue of this explanation is that it makes sense of the Inherited Obligation family's swing to the Right, rather than making nonsense of it. The family consistently chooses its politics in order to face what it perceives to be the greatest threat to its continuance as a social system. In FDR's day, that threat was economic and came from big business. Today, many Inherited Obligation families believe that the threat is cultural: the pressures of modern capitalism and the rise of a competing vision of family threaten to break the bonds of obligation that hold the family together. ... There is a lot to promote about liberalism and the Negotiated Commitment model behind it. We take people as they are, rather than demanding that they fit themselves into an increasingly outdated set of roles. We face problems directly, rather than making people jump through hoops that may or may not be relevant. And so, for example, we ask: "Who is going to feed the child, teach the child, protect the child, and love the child?" rather than "Who is going to be the father and who is going to be the mother?" more posted by Eve at 3:59 AM | link 0 comments
HARVARD GROUP DECRIES JADA PINKETT SMITH'S "HETERONORMATIVE" REMARKS: From the Harvard Crimson
After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith's comments at Saturday's Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard. Students said that some of Pinkett Smith's remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships. In a press release circulated yesterday by the BGLTSA--and developed in coordination with the Foundation--the BGLTSA called for an apology from the Foundation and encouraged future discussion of the issue. ... The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith's comments. But the Foundation has pledged to "take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class," according to the release. ... BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods '06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith's speech was "motivational," some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships. "Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable," he said. Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females. ... "I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship--a heterosexual relationship," Barusch said. "I don't think she meant to be offensive but I just don't think she was that thoughtful." more [According to Mickey Kaus, the offending remarks are these: She then addressed issues regarding the roles of men and women today. If that's all she said, this is officially the Weirdest Story, or Non-Story, I've seen so far this year. I mean, what? --Eve] posted by Eve at 3:51 AM | link 0 comments
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
CHINA SEEKS TO STEM SOARING DIVORCE RATE: From the Guardian
Chinese authorities are sending "think again" letters to couples applying for divorce after the number of people ending their marriages surged by 21% last year. The growing number of legal break-ups, which have increased fivefold since 1979, has raised concerns that the first generation to grow up in one-child families were so spoiled that they are unable to make the sacrifices required of marriage. According to figures released yesterday by the ministry of civil affairs, 1.6 million couples divorced in 2004, up by almost 300,000 on the previous year. Although the overall divorce rate is still lower than in Europe or the US, the long-term trend is upwards. ... Last year's steep rise was attributed mainly to simpler marriage and divorce procedures. In the past, couples needed permission from their work units to tie and untie the knot, which meant that, in 1991, two out of five divorce requests were turned down. But under the new rules, couples can obtain quick divorces from register offices by taking in their marriage certificates, ID cards, resident permits and a signed statement that they no longer want to be married. It takes 10 minutes and costs 10 yuan (65p). more posted by Eve at 5:49 PM | link 0 comments
"A UNION OF TWO CITIZENS": Maggie Gallagher replies to Andrew Sullivan
Because Andrew is such a gifted writer, and gifted in particular at "framing" of issues, I am always particularly fascinated by his neologisms. They generally mean something. In his exchange with the equally gifted David Frum, Andrew stresses that "A civil marriage is between two citizens and the state should not distinguish between sexual orientations any more than it should distinguish between other immutable characteristics, like race, or even mutable ones, like religion. I believe that government should be as neutral as possible and as restrained as possible in determining divisive and private issues like how a husband relates to his wife and vice versa. . . May the state be neutral in this social change, except in as much as it encourages social support for relationships as such." Marriage as the union of two citizens? Where did Andrew get that idea? It is not literally true (you don't have to be a citizen of a country to contract a valid marriage there, and American law has never attempted to confine marriage the union of U.S. citizens). But I suppose this new language is intended to suggest the ongoing process of the social desacralization of marriage, its diminuition into a civil right. Why the state should shepherd its citizens into such two-person unions is a question Andrew is never able to answer persuasively. (By his own argument above the state should be neutral with regard to polygamy since that too is a relationship, and of course fidelity, since that too is one of many divisive personal and private issues about how husbands and wives should relate to one another.) But I'm more interested in contesting his view, which I think is wholly false, that redefining marriage as union of citizens represents "neutrality." Same-sex marriage (as the Canadian courts have acknowledged) is a new, substantive vision of marriage, which the state will impose over and against the older "discriminatory" vision. posted by Eve at 9:52 AM | link 0 comments
MEN, WOMEN, AND MARRIAGE: Andrew Berman replies to Andrew Sullivan
Andrew Sullivan's arguments are misleading. Yes, marriage has changed dynamically throughout the ages. But marriage is not a hairstyle -- the different variations in forms of marriage have had positive and negative effects on the people and cultures who were part of it. I thought we were well past the shallow 'embrace change' arguments, but Mr. Sullivan seems stuck on it. Second, Mr. Sullivan pushes David Frum's argument too far. Mr. Frum isn't calling for mandating traditional gender roles in marriage. Mr. Frum is arguing for supporting traditional gender roles which are traditional because they happen to work very well to various extents for most married couples. There's a difference between supporting programs that allow Mothers to stay at home with their kids and preventing women from taking jobs outside the home. Mr. Sullivan is implicitly claiming that the pro-traditional-marriage groups want the latter. This is extremely unfair. posted by Eve at 9:47 AM | link 0 comments
Tuesday, March 01, 2005Monday, February 28, 2005
RIFT IN ANGLICAN COMMUNION: three links
From the BBC: "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has conceded the row over gay bishops has caused serious 'fractures' within the Anglican church. "The church's US and Canadian branches have been told to leave a key council for supporting gay bishops and blessing same-sex relationships. "In a BBC interview, Dr Williams called on them to repent." From the Washington Post: "Episcopal leaders in North America declined yesterday to apologize for endorsing the ordination of homosexual bishops and same-sex unions despite growing threats of a schism with other branches Anglican church, which has 77 million members worldwide." "Bishop Ingham says the next battle in Anglicanism will be over the uniqueness of Christ" posted by Eve at 8:22 PM | link 0 comments
MEN, WOMEN, AND MARRIAGE: Andrew Sullivan replies to David Frum
David Frum frets that equal marriage rights spell the "overthrow" of marriage because it undermines traditional gender roles. But I think that conflates two issues. A civil marriage is between two citizens and the state should not distinguish between sexual orientations any more than it should distinguish between other immutable characteristics, like race, or even mutable ones, like religion. I believe that government should be as neutral as possible and as restrained as possible in determining divisive and private issues like how a husband relates to his wife and vice versa. Different couples, in my view, should be free to create whatever relations they want in their own marital relationships -- and that goes for evangelical couples with Tammy Wynette values or arranged Muslim marriages or very modern partnership models. Let a thousand flowers bloom, I say. Marriage has always been a dynamic institution and free people will develop it in the future as in the past. May the state be neutral in this social change, except in as much as it encourages social support for relationships as such. It seems to me to be hyperbole to argue, as David does, that the state's neutrality means that it makes "forever unthinkable the idea that husbands and wives each have special duties to one another, and that a husband's duties to his wife -- while equally binding and equally supreme -- are not the same as a wife's duties to her husband." Unthinkable? I'm sure David will be able to think for himself in a world where everyone has the right to marry the person he or she loves. But the gender role argument against equal marriage rights has always been to my mind the most coherent of those on offer. If you believe that women should be subservient to men in marriage -- and men should take proportionate responsibility to take care of and lead their wives -- then indeed the idea of complete equality and interchangeability in the marriage compact is threatening. So let David and the right make that argument: we want to keep traditional gender roles in civil marriage and letting gays marry hurts that effort. Let them spell out a wife's duties and a husband's responsibilities. And let them make that case openly to the public. Support for same-sex marriage -- especially among women -- will soar. Because they will see it for what it is: a big advance for the civil equality of women. link posted by Eve at 7:49 PM | link 0 comments
UNDERESTIMATE: David Frum
Seven years ago, Andrew Sullivan and I conducted a fierce debate in Slate about same-sex marriage. Along the way, I hazarded this prediction: "Andrew, three years after we permit gay marriage, it will be illegal for schools to send home printed forms with one blank for the mother's name and one blank for the father's." Did I say three years? In Canada, it's taken barely one. In the province of Ontario, the words "wife," "husband," "widow," and "widower" are now all to be stricken from the law. The words "mother" and "father" cannot be far behind. Ontario's action is a reminder that same-sex marriage is not just the extension of an existing legal status to previously excluded persons. Same-sex marriage is a revolution in the definition of marriage for everyone -- a revolution not just in law, but in consciousnessness. And one effect of this revolution -- and for many proponents, one of the revolution's aims -- is to make forever unthinkable the idea that husbands and wives each have special duties to one another, and that a husband's duties to his wife -- while equally binding and equally supreme -- are not the same as a wife's duties to her husband. Once we lose that knowledge, we lose the basic grammar of marriage. It is one more reminder that in the same-sex marriage debate, we are debating not marriage's change -- but marriage's overthrow. link posted by Eve at 7:42 PM | link 0 comments
DISCRIMINATION AND INTENT: Gabriel Rosenberg
[This is a very long post, which I'm excerpting. --Eve] I, as well as many others, have long argued that prohibiting same-sex marriage is a blatant act of sex discrimination that has not been remotely justified. One common response is that it cannot possibly be sex discrimination since both women and men are equally prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. We then point out that such reasoning was rejected in cases striking down interracial marriage laws. The responders generally then illustrate several ways that situation is different. Two of the reasons most often mentioned are (1) whereas the prohibitions on interracial marriage were based on notion of white supremacy, the prohibition on same-sex marriage is not based on any similar notion of male dominance, and (2) whereas racial differences are superficial, sex differences are real and fundamental. I will try to address a few other suggested differences at the end, but for now I want to focus on these two using this week's Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. California as a springboard for my analysis. ... There can be no doubt that our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination. Traditionally, such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of "romantic paternalism" which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage. Indeed, this paternalistic attitude became so firmly rooted in our national consciousness that, 100 years ago, a distinguished Member of this Court was able to proclaim: "Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interests and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. . . .... Although the burden rests with those using the gender classification to justify it, I should point out that many of its defenders do indeed resort to stereotypical notions about the proper roles of men and women. This is seen quite often with those that defend the policy by claiming children need a mother and a father. Putting aside for the moment the fact that allowing same-sex marriage does not seem to in any way to cause less children to have mothers and fathers, the arguments about why a parent of each gender is necessary are generally based on stereotypical assumptions about gender roles. These notions can even be seen in the legal briefs of those defending the policy. In addition to the direct appeal to traditional marriage, we also have one brief (pdf) in Washington using the following quote from David Popenoe's Life Without Father: Through their play, as well in their other child-rearing activities, fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative, risk taking, and independence. Mothers in their care-taking roles, in contrast, stress emotional security and personal safety...While mothers provide an important flexibility and sympathy in their discipline, fathers provide ultimate predictability and consistency. Both dimensions are critical for an efficient, balanced, and human child-rearing regime. more posted by Eve at 7:32 PM | link 0 comments
GET CLERGY OUT OF "MARRIAGE BUSINESS": Cody Lowe
Maybe clergy should just get out of the marriage business. Sounds shocking to you? Well, listen to this: "Many members of the clergy say they would much rather do a funeral than a marriage." The reason, said Episcopal priest Deborah Hentz Hunley, is that weddings "tend not to be about the faith issues that are so critical for Christian marriage. "People want to come in and have a big party," she said, often with hardly a thought about the religious implications of the ceremony. Clergy, on the other hand, "try to focus on spirituality, what we know will get them [the couple] through the marriage." But many people aren't listening, apparently, based on divorce rates that are as high among churchgoers as in the general population. So, Hunley -- and many others -- hope that the current debate over gay marriages can be expanded to "looking at Christian marriage and what we think it means." For her, that includes the possibility of separating the governmental recognition of a marriage -- deciding who is eligible for the legal benefits and obligations that entails -- from the religious blessing of the union. ... Everyone would then have a civil union -- whose rules the state could decide outside of religious considerations. Then, couples who wanted a religious ceremony to solemnize that union could find a willing priest/minister/rabbi/imam/shaman or whoever to bless them. more posted by Eve at 7:28 PM | link 0 comments
THE PAPER ANNIVERSARY: Editorial from The Oregonian
The 50th wedding anniversary is golden, the 25th is silver but the first, we tend to forget, is not symbolized by metal. The traditional gift material is thin and flimsy, easily torn, crumpled or thrown away: Paper. Sadly, it fits, almost too perfectly, the first anniversary that 3,000 gay and lesbian couples will mark this week. One year ago, they began lining up for a precious piece of paper -- a marriage license -- handed out by Multnomah County even though the county had no right to give it out. In the year since, Oregonians have rejected gay marriage. But our state can still respect gay commitment. ... Critics say civil unions exemplify the separate but equal doctrine used to justify segregation in the South, but it's a "facile and deeply wrong" comparison, suggests Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr., an expert on civil unions. The difference? As both Eskridge and Moats have argued, "separate but equal" was a legal doctrine used to mask inequality. Vermont used the term "civil union" to mask equality. more posted by Eve at 7:26 PM | link 0 comments
A PLAN TO STRENGTHEN MARRIAGE: Russ Pulliam
...Yet, state Sen. Dennis Kruse has been talking about marriage of a different sort -- covenant marriage, an upfront agreement between a couple that would make dissolving their union more difficult. Although it's been low on the list of priorities in the General Assembly, Kruse plans to keep the subject before the legislature because stronger families ultimately will build a stronger state economy. Kruse hoped that the Republican victory last fall might open the door to a healthy debate on covenant marriage. His proposal would set up a two-tiered system for marriage licenses. One license would allow a stronger commitment, making divorce harder to obtain legally. Or, two people could still opt for the state's traditional license, which makes divorce much easier. Though the covenant license would be optional, it would point to the seriousness of commitment in marriage. If one person wants a covenant license, but the other wants the easier divorce option, the couple would have a warning signal that the proposed marriage could be headed for trouble. ... Coming from a family of divorced parents, Kruse wants to see the law lean toward the preservation of the two-parent family instead of making divorce easy. "A child has fewer problems in his life when he comes from a home with a stable mother and father," he said. "It helps the children feel more secure, and they're more stable, better adjusted. They become better citizens when they get older and cause less problems." more posted by Eve at 7:10 PM | link 0 comments
GROUP WOULD BAR JUDGES FROM JOINING "DISCRIMINATORY GROUPS": From the Saint Paul Pioneer Press
Judges' affiliations outside the courthouse can color the public's perception of justice as much as their rulings in the courtroom. So when a group of gay and lesbian lawyers discovered that the state's judicial canons that spell out ethical standards didn't forbid judges' memberships in organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation or disability, the group's members knew they needed to act. Leaders of the Minnesota Lavender Bar Association say there's no epidemic of judges joining hate or anti-gay groups. But gay and lesbian lawyers say the canon needs to be clear so all groups that are afforded equal protection under Minnesota's Human Rights Act can take cases of discrimination to court and trust that judges are neutral in both their personal and professional lives. Now the state Supreme Court is considering a petition drafted by the Minnesota State Bar Association based on a proposal by the Lavender group that would clarify the canon to include sexual orientation, disability and protected groups listed under Minnesota law, which bars discrimination on sexual orientation. But the draft language doesn't add "sexual orientation" to the canon. Rather, it takes out the current list barring judges from joining groups that discriminate on race, sex, religion or national origin and replaces it with general language that forbids affiliations with any group that practices unlawful discrimination. Despite the national fervor over gay rights, St. Paul attorney and Lavender co-chairwoman Celeste Culberth said the canon change has sparked no controversy among Minnesota's legal community because it's about fairness, not special rights or protections. more posted by Eve at 7:06 PM | link 0 comments
BETWEEN TWO MOMMIES: Naomi Cahn
...The intersection between these statutes and the realities of gay parenting creates complicated legal issues. The problem arises most acutely when a couple, joined in a legal relationship through one state's law, asks another state to intercede in a custody dispute. Not only are the first state's laws frequently pitted against the laws of the other state, but also the constitutionality of federal and state defense-of-marriage statutes are called into question under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution. Matters are complicated further with the question of how a child's best interest can be served in this intersection of constitutional issues. ... First, is the partner of the biological mother a "legal parent" or parent by estoppel who is entitled to seek custody and visitation? Custody disputes typically occur between the two legal parents, and the general standard that courts apply is "the best interest of the child." If there is a dispute over a child between a parent and a third party, then the parent must typically be proved unfit before custody can be awarded to a nonparent -- although this distinction is starting to blur as lesbian and gay partners seek to establish parental rights even without legal parenting status. The Vermont civil union statute, which is implicated in both cases, provides that the "rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child of whom either becomes the natural parent during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child of whom either spouse becomes the natural parent during the marriage." ... Regardless of where they live, however, gay and lesbian couples who have children together have a variety of options to ensure that each of them will continue to have custody or visitation rights with respect to their children. These rights can be protected even if they move to another state, if their relationship ends, or if one or both of them is incapacitated. One option in many states is second-parent adoptions, whereby a child born to one parent is adopted by the nonbiological or nonlegal other parent. The legal parent, who does not lose any of her rights and responsibilities, must give consent. ... In jurisdictions where second-parent or joint adoption is not available, lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents can attempt to protect their relationship with their children through a variety of privately executed documents: parenting agreements, wills, guardianship agreements, authorizations to consent to emergency medical treatments, and similar documents. ... In Rhode Island, a family court decided that there was a de facto parent relationship between a woman and her nonbiological child, and thus enforced a written agreement between the biological mother and her ex-partner that allowed the former partner to visit the child. And the American Law Institute's Principles of Family Dissolution recognize the status of a "parent by estoppel." Individuals who have entered into a co-parenting agreement with the legal parent and have acted as a parent since the child's birth, can be recognized as parents by estoppel, where such designation is in the child's best interests. A parent by estoppel has the same rights to custody and visitation as a legal parent. ... One statutory reform might mandate the automatic issuance of birth certificates with both same-sex parents' names. A second reform could require the automatic issuance of a certificate of adoption when a child is born into a same-sex relationship or an automatic declaration of parentage. more posted by Eve at 6:58 PM | link 0 comments
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|