|
 |
 |
 Saturday, May 28, 2005
IS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE GOOD FOR KIDS?: Elizabeth Marquardt replies to Jonathan Rauch
[Argh! If you subscribe to the New Republic, you can get Rauch's piece here. I don't, and it's not on Nexis yet, so I will be shuffling off to the ol' newsstand ASAP, and will post excerpts as soon as I can. Sorry --Eve] ...But, as his main point, when he writes about a hypothetical child living in a neighborhood between a married straight couple and a married same-sex couple, as he does here: If a child sees that Mr and Mrs Smith, the neighbors to the left, are married, and that Mrs and Mrs Jones, the neighbors to the right, are married –- that sends a positive and reassuring message to children about the importance of marriage... I have to beg to disagree. The marriage of Mr and Mrs Smith tells the child that it's important for a mom and a dad to stick together when they have a child (and yes, a stepfamily created by remarriage weakens that message, but it does not neutralize it*). By contrast, the marriage of Mrs and Mrs Jones tells the child that fathers are expendable. The state and society affirm that the partnership of two women raising a child is exactly the same as the partnership of a man and a woman –- even though the two women's partnership will always be leaving the child's dad somewhere on the margins (because every same-sex couple, if they do not adopt, must involve or must have involved an opposite-sex person, the child's dad or mom, to conceive a child). From the hetero-Smith marriage the child learns that when he or she grows up someday it's important to try and marry, and stay married to, the person they have a child with. From the same-sex-Jones marriage the child learns, what? That babies arrive in all sorts of ways. That the adults who conceive the baby might just be paid agents, or might disappear, or might be consigned to the margins, or might stay involved and visit on weekends, or might form any other number of weak, transitory relationships to a child, or might form none at all. ... Society should not be in the business of actively and forcefully denying those losses. If it does, it will raise a new generation of kids whose attachments to fatherhood and motherhood are even weaker than our own. more posted by Eve at 10:44 PM | link 0 comments 
SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD AND SAME-SEX PARENTING: Elizabeth Marquardt
Anyone concerned about gender equity and children's rights should be disturbed when increasing numbers of wealthy men hire working class women for a pittance (given the risks involved) to bear children who will grow up motherless. Nowadays, many of these wealthy couples –- gay and straight -– also bring an egg donor into the picture, typically a college student with high SAT scores. Apparently the working class surrogate is good enough to carry the baby but not good enough to contribute her genes to it. Those who support this industry insist that biology doesn't matter, that all kids need is a loving family. Yet apparently biology matters very much to the couples who go to extreme lengths to conceive a child genetically related to one of them. We should seriously question an industry that exploits young and poor women and very intentionally creates children who will never have the chance to grow up with their own mother and father. more posted by Eve at 10:39 PM | link 0 comments
SONGS ABOUT MARRIAGE: Angus Dwyer
[For explanation of this string of posts, see here. --Eve] WE'RE GONNA MAKE IT Little Milton We may not have a cent to pay the rent But we're gonna make it, I know we will We may have to eat beans every day But we're gonna make it, I know we will And if a job is hard to find And we have to stand in the welfare line I've got your love and you know you got mine So we're gonna make it, I know we will We may not have a home to call our own But we're gonna make it, I know we will We may have to fight hardships alone But we're gonna make it, I know we will 'Cause togetherness brings peace of mind We can't stay down all the time I've got your love and you know you got mine So we're gonna make it, I know we will FAMOUS BLUE RAINCOAT Leonard Cohen And you treated my woman to a flake of your life And when she came back she was nobody’s wife. Well I see you there with the rose in your teeth One more thin gypsy thief Well I see Jane's awake -- She sends her regards. And what can I tell you my brother, my killer What can I possibly say? I guess that I miss you, I guess I forgive you I'm glad you stood in my way. If you ever come by here, for Jane or for me Your enemy is sleeping, and his woman is free. Yes, and thanks, for the trouble you took from her eyes I thought it was there for good so I never tried. posted by Eve at 10:35 PM | link 0 comments
SONGS ABOUT MARRIAGE: Kathy Hutchins
One of my favorite songs about marriage is "Two Sleepy People" by Hoagy Carmichael. Here we are Out of cigarettes Holding hands and yawning Look how late it gets Two sleepy people by dawn's early light And too much in love to say goodnight Here we are In the cozy chair Pickin' on a wishbone From the Frigidaire Two sleepy people with nothing to say And too much in love to break away Do you remember The nights we used to linger in the hall? Your father didn't like me at all Do you remember The reason why we married in the fall? To rent this little nest And get a bit of rest Well, here we are Just about the same Foggy little fella Drowsy little dame Two sleepy people by dawn's early light And too much in love to say goodnight posted by Eve at 10:16 PM | link 0 comments
SONGS ABOUT MARRIAGE: Jendi Reiter
"Danny's Song" "You Were Wonderful Tonight" (Eric Clapton) And on a darker note - this is one of my favorite songs (sick huh): "Lights of LA County" (Lyle Lovett) A Victorian ballad on the same theme: "Those Wedding Bells Shall Not Ring Out" posted by Eve at 10:14 PM | link 0 comments
SONGS ABOUT MARRIAGE: Lots from Lynn Gazis-Sax
[I've excerpted from her emails, mostly cutting songs that are more "high-romantic." Not because they were bad choices, just because otherwise this post would be even longer, and I really liked some of her choices and wanted to showcase them. (The last folksong reminds me of "As I Roved Out," a fierce little song.) --Eve] Let's see. There's a couple about arranged marriages between people of widely different ages. First we have: He's My Bonnie, Bonnie Boy And He's Growing Father, dear father, pray what is this you've done? You've wed me tae a college lad, a boy who's far too young, For he is only sixteen years and I am twenty-one. He's my bonnie, bonnie boy, and he's growing. (And it continues through their having a child, and the husband dying young, "And death has put an end to his growing.") Then, the older man (probably, though I suppose not certainly, arranged): Maids, When You're Young, Never Wed an Old Man An old man came courting me, Hey ding doorum! An old man came courting me, Me being young. And old man came courting me, Fain would he marry me. Maids when you're young, Never wed an old man. For he's got no faloorum, Faliddle-i-oorum. He's got no faloorum, Faliddle-i-ay! He's got no faloorum, He's lost his ding doorum. So, maids, when you're young, Never wed an old man. Then there are the people trying to escape arranged marriages: Why weep ye by the tide, lady? Why weep ye by the tide? I'll wed ye tae my youngest son, And ye shall be his bride. And ye shall be his bride, lady, Sae comely tae be seen. But ay, she loot the tears doon fa, For Jock o' Hazeldean. ... And then there are the songs of older couples looking back on their marriages: They say you've become old and grey, Maggie, And your step is less sprightly than then. And your face is a well-written page, Maggie, But time, time alone was the pen. (I think "your face is a well-written page" is one of my favorite lines in a song.) ... And there's the nagging wife who gets given to the devil in "The Devil and the Farmer's Wife": "But you can have my nagging wife. By God, she's the curse of my life." And I don't remember the lyrics, but she makes herself such a pain that the devil sends her back. And I suppose you could sort of count, "My mother-in-law has long been dead. She got caught in the folding bed" since without a marriage, there wouldn't be a mother-in-law. And finally, there's this unfortunate young woman in pursuit of a husband: Soldier boy Soldier boy, will you marry me, With your musket, fife, and drum? How can I marry such a pretty girl as you, When I've got no boots to put on. So off to the shoe shop she did go, As fast as she could run, And so on, as the soldier talks her into buying him a whole wardrobe, before finally admitting: How can I marry such a pretty girl as you, With a wife and twelve children at home? Broadway: Possibly my favorite Broadway song about marriage: "Don't Marry Me," from Flower Drum Song: If you want to have a rosy future, And be happy as a honey bee, With a husband who will always love you, Baby, don't marry me. If you want a man you can depend on, I can absolutely guarantee, I will never fail to disappoint you, Cookie, don't marry me. I eat lychee nuts and crackers in bed, And I fill the bed with nutshells and crumbs. I have irritating habits you'll dread, Like the way I have of cracking my thumbs. ... (Woman sings) I would always like to know where you are. I don't like a man to leave me in doubt. (Man sings) Honey, that's a thing that's easy to say. You will always know where I am. I'm out! I'm devoted to my dear old mama, And if you and mama disagree, I will always side with her against you. Baby, don't marry me. Then there is, of course, I Do! I Do!, which is a whole musical *entirely* of songs about marriage, from the couple's blissful wedding, through the birth of their children, their arguments ("You Chew In Your Sleep"), their near divorce ("It's a Well-Known Fact" and "Flaming Agnes"), to the point where they see their children marry ("When the Kids Get Married" and "My Daughter Is Marrying an Idiot"), and finally are anticipating old age together. And the obvious, Fiddler on a Roof, with songs like that one where Tevye asks Golde if she loves him and "Sunrise, Sunset." ...All of these songs, in musicals (I Do! I Do!, Carousel, and Shenandoah) are terribly sexist, singing first the expectations for a boy and then the totally different expectations for a girl. What I liked in Shenandoah was the way it was done, by first having the grandfather bursting with joy about what he's sure will be a new grandson, and then, as soon as he learns it's a girl, pausing just a moment before singing an equally happy welcome to a new granddaughter. ... Endlessly forgiving women (one married and one soon-to-be): "Adelaide" in the movie version of Guys and Dolls ("Adelaide, Adelaide, ever-loving Adelaide, is taking a chance on me. Taking a chance I'll be respectable and nice, give up cards and dice, take up shoes and rice.") and "Can't Help Loving that Man" in Showboat ("He can come home as late as can be, home without him ain't no home for me.") On the gay side, there is, on the one hand, Cage aux Folles, in which we get gay pride ("I am what I am, and what I am needs no excuses"), longterm same-sex marriage (the men's version of "Life is a Celebration," neatly paralleling a song sung early by their son of his bride-to-be), and the self-sacrificing gay "mother" (or should I say the more femmy of the two fathers), "who puts himself last, so that you can be first." Or, alternatively, the thoroughly confused and neurotic Marvin, of March of the Falsettos, a chronicle of his divorce (favorite song: "I Want a Tight-Knit Family," where Marvin hopes for himself, his new lover, the wife he's left for the new lover, and his son to all live together in harmony). posted by Eve at 10:01 PM | link 0 comments
A BLOG
Reader, I Married Him: "how one man grew up and married the man he loved: a narrative of Ignatian discernment and southern remembering and same-sex marriage -- diaries and journals, retreat notes and love letters best read to the music of arvo part with occasional interludes by the boswell sisters" posted by Eve at 9:57 PM | link 0 comments
Friday, May 27, 2005
MARRIAGE SONGS: Nina Simone
[See here for explanation. --Eve] PLAIN GOLD RING Plain gold ring on his finger he wore It was where everyone could see He belonged to someone, but not me On his hand was a plain gold band Plain gold ring has a story to tell It was one that I knew too well In my heart it will never be spring Long as he wears a plain gold ring more posted by Eve at 8:21 PM | link 0 comments
MORE MARRIAGE SONGS: Anonymous reader
Here are three of my favorite songs about marriage. Don't attribute to me if you post them, please. KISSES SWEETER THAN WINE Jackson Browne and Bonnie Raitt on Pete Seeger tribute album He: When I was a young man I'd never been kissed; I got to thinking about what I had missed. I found a girl. I kissed her and then... Oh lord, I kissed her again. Together: Oooooh, kisses sweeter than wine. Oooooh, kisses sweeter than wine. She: He asked me to marry and be his sweet wife; We would be happy -- all of our life. He begged and he pleaded like a natural man, and then... Oh lord, I gave him my hand. Together: Oooooh, kisses sweeter than wine. Oooooh, kisses... He: I worked mighty hard and so did my wife; Working hand in hand to make a good life. Corn in the field and wheat in the bins, and then... Oh lord, I was the father of twins. Together: Oooooh, kisses sweeter than wine. Oooooh, kisses... She: Our children numbered just about four And they all had sweethearts knocking on the door. They all got married and they didn't wait, I was... Oh lord! a grandmother of eight! Together: Oooooh, kisses sweeter than wine. Oooooh, kisses... He: Now we are old and ready to go Thinking about what happened a long time ago. She: We had lots of kids and trouble and pain, but... Oh lord, we'd do it again. Together: Oooooh, kisses sweeter than wine. Oooooh, kisses... Oooooh, kisses sweeter than wine. Oooooh, kisses... THE RIVER Bruce Springsteen I come from down in the valley where mister when you're young They bring you up to do like your daddy done Me and Mary we met in high school when she was just seventeen We'd ride out of that valley down to where the fields were green We'd go down to the river And into the river we'd dive Oh down to the river we'd ride Then I got Mary pregnant and man that was all she wrote And for my nineteenth birthday I got a union card and a wedding coat We went down to the courthouse and the judge put it all to rest No wedding day smiles, no walk down the aisle No flowers, no wedding dress That night we went down to the river And into the river we'd dive Oh down to the river we did ride I got a job working construction for the Johnstown Company But lately there ain't been much work on account of the economy Now all them things that seemed so important Well mister they vanished right into the air Now I just act like I don't remember Mary acts like she don't care But I remember us riding in my brother's car Her body tan and wet down at the reservoir At night on them banks I'd lie awake And pull her close just to feel each breath she'd take Now those memories come back to haunt me they haunt me like a curse Is a dream a lie if it don't come true Or is it something worse that sends me down to the river though I know the river is dry That sends me down to the river tonight Down to the river my baby and I Oh down to the river we ride DANCE ME TO THE END OF LOVE Leonard Cohen Dance me to your beauty with a burning violin Dance me through the panic 'til I'm gathered safely in Lift me like an olive branch and be my homeward dove Dance me to the end of love Dance me to the end of love Oh let me see your beauty when the witnesses are gone Let me feel you moving like they do in Babylon Show me slowly what I only know the limits of Dance me to the end of love Dance me to the end of love Dance me to the wedding now, dance me on and on Dance me very tenderly and dance me very long We're both of us beneath our love, we're both of us above Dance me to the end of love Dance me to the end of love Dance me to the children who are asking to be born Dance me through the curtains that our kisses have outworn Raise a tent of shelter now, though every thread is torn Dance me to the end of love posted by Eve at 8:18 PM | link 0 comments
SEND ME SONGS ABOUT MARRIAGE!: Eve
So I got "In My Liverpool Home" (see post immediately below) stuck in my head on Wednesday, and COULD NOT get it out. I started thinking about the view of marriage the song relies on, and about how marriage is depicted in other songs, and how these songs shape our views of what marriage is and why it matters. So much of the mystique and power of marriage come from its symbolic richness and its millennia of human tradition, of which these songs are a part. I've posted a few of my favorite marriage-related songs below, and I'd love it if you all would send me yours. I'm, personally, most interested in songs that take a somewhat ambiguous view of marriage--it's often easier to see the underlying cultural assumptions in those songs than in more high-romantic ones, IMO. So--send me songs about marriage. posted by Eve at 7:19 PM | link 0 comments
MARRIAGE SONGS: "In My Liverpool Home"
[Best proposal ever. --Eve] ...When I grew up I met Bridget McGann she said "You're not much but I'm needin' a man" "Well a want sixteen kids and an 'ouse out in Speke" Well the spirit was willing but the flesh it was weak much more--the version I got stuck in my head is the Scaffold one, which I adore, and which is different from the one at that link. posted by Eve at 7:13 PM | link 0 comments
MARRIAGE SONGS: "Cold and Raw"
Cold and raw the North did blow, bleak in a morning early; All the trees were hid with snow, cover'd with winter fearly: As I came riding o'er the slough, I met with a Farmer's Daughter; Rosie cheeks, and bonny brow, geud faith, made my mouth to water. Down I vail'd my bonnet low, meaning to show my breeding, She return'd a graceful bow, her visage far exceeding: I ask'd her where she went so soon, and long'd to begin a parley: She told me to the next market town, a purpose to sell her Barley. "In this purse, sweet soul!" said I, "twenty pound lies fairly, Seek no farther one to buy, for I'se take all thy Barley: Twenty more shall purchase delight, thy person I love so dearly, If thou wilt lig by me all night, and gang home in the morning early." "If forty pound would buy the Globe, this thing I's not do, Sir; Or were my friends as poor as Job, I'd never raise'em so, Sir: For shou'd you prove to-night my friend, we'se get a young kid together, And you'd be gone e'r nine months end, & where shall I find the father? "Pray what would my parents say, if I should be so silly, To give my maidenhead away, and lose my true love Billy! Oh this would bring me to disgrace, and therefore I say you nay, Sir; And if that you would me embrace, first marry, & then you may, Sir!" I told her I had wedded been, fourteen years and longer, Else I'd chuse her for my Queen, and tye the knot yet stronger. She bid me then no farther roame, but manage my wedlock fairly, And keep my purse for poor Spouse at home, for some other should have her barley. Then as swift as any roe, she rode away and left me; After her I could not go, of joy she quite bereft me: Thus I my self did disappoint, for she did leave me fairly, My words knock'd all things out of joint, I lost both the maid & the barley. here posted by Eve at 7:05 PM | link 0 comments
MARRIAGE SONGS: Hamlet
[Sung by Ophelia in her madness.] By Gis and by Saint Charity, Alack, and fie for shame! Young men will do't, if they come to't; By cock, they are to blame. Quoth she, before you tumbled me, You promised me to wed. So would I ha' done, by yonder sun, An thou hadst not come to my bed. here posted by Eve at 6:59 PM | link 0 comments
"BIOLOGICAL" AND "EMOTIONAL" PARENTING: three bits from Reason magazine comment thread
1. Vache Folle: The concept of "parental rights" has been eroding steadily for several decades and is giving way to the concept of "best interests of the child". Formerly, children were analogous to property in which parents had rights, and now children are seen as having their own rights and interests to which the parents' rights are subservient. In a way, the state is becoming the parent of every child, and the biological or adoptive parents are simply permitted to care for the child by sufferance. If this trend continues, it may be possible for anyone to seek custody of or visitation with any child where it can be argued that the child's interests are at stake. The problematic aspect of this trend is the increased power of the state to intervene in the parent child relationship and what were traditionally private domestic affairs. The cost of doing justice to this woman and this child in cases like the one cited may be too high in terms of the erosion of privacy and individual liberty. 2. joe: The need to have bright line between a non-biological parent, and everyone else, is yet another reason why the states need to recognize some kind of legal status for gay couples. 3. RC Dean [excerpt]: ... [quoting the original post:] We know that "being a parent" isn't about the biological relationship, but the emotional relationship. Tell that to all the fathers out there who are being stuck with child support for children who they have no contact with, many times because the court prohibits them from having any contact. Of course, this is the mirror image of the above situation, because the man is charged with parental responsibilities without having parental rights. thread is here posted by Eve at 6:36 PM | link 0 comments
CALIF SSM BILL HEADS TO HISTORIC ASSEMBLY VOTE: From 365Gay.com
Sacramento, California) Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in California will go to a full vote in the Assembly next week. The measure was approved Wednesday night by the Appropriations Committee, the final step in getting to the floor for a vote. The legislation was one of a handful of bills earmarked for the lower house. The committee shelved 506 other bills. ... The legislation is called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, and was authored by openly gay Assemblymember Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco). The bill would require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings. more posted by Eve at 6:13 PM | link 0 comments
SURROGATE MOTHERS' NEW NICHE: BEARING BABIES FOR GAY COUPLES: From the New York Times
...In December, Ms. Stiller gave birth to the baby, named Samantha, for Dr. Friedman and Dr. Wellisch, conceived with a donor egg and the sperm from one of the partners. (They chose not to know which.) In her decision to work with them Ms. Stiller is part of a small but growing movement of surrogate mothers choosing gay couples over traditional families. As legislatures debate giving gay couples the right to marry -- 14 states have amended their constitutions to prevent it -- hundreds of couples are finding ways to create families with or without marriage through surrogates like Ms. Stiller, who are willing to help them have children genetically linked to them and to bypass the often difficult legal challenges gay men face in adoption. ... Many surrogates who choose to work for gay couples say they feel ill equipped or reluctant to deal with the sense of hopelessness and failure expressed by married women and men who have struggled unsuccessfully for years to bear children. Still others are drawn to men as clients because they fear the possible resentments and jealousies in working so closely with other women. ... In the last 13 years, Ms. Stiller has had five children: one with her first husband, two with her current husband and two more as a surrogate. Her first excursion into the world of surrogacy, for a Florida husband and wife, left her feeling unappreciated and depleted, she said. Though the couple visited her in her 18th week of pregnancy and brought gifts for her children, Ms. Stiller sought a deeper relationship with the intended mother, a 40-year-old doctor. ... "She was here for two and half weeks, and she never made an opportunity to share in my family," Ms. Stiller said. "It was very important for me to have my children see that we were helping to create a family, that Mommy wasn't giving away a brother or a sister." ... And Ms. Buras remains committed, and plans to return for another attempt in June, despite the limitations their efforts have placed on her intimate life. According to her contract, Ms. Buras cannot have sex with her husband from one month before the transfer to one month after. Though her husband has been very supportive, she explained, "I can't say that it doesn't bother him, because it does." ... The typical surrogate, according to the Center for Surrogate Parenting, is a woman of 21 to 37, who has had two children and 13 years of formal education. In many cases, she is motivated by a desire to be pregnant, as well as by a desire for attention. Working with gay couples, psychologists say, minimizes the need for a certain kind of emotional vigilance that can displace the surrogate's own needs from center stage. "Surrogate mothers who work with heterosexual couples need to be incredibly sensitive to the loss and trauma that the infertile woman has suffered," Dr. Hanafin said. Some surrogates also say they find the sense of defiance in providing gay couples with children meaningful. more posted by Eve at 6:04 PM | link 0 comments
CALIF SUPREME COURT HEARS COUNTRY-CLUB MARITAL-STATUS DISCRIMINATION CASE: From the San Francisco Chronicle
[I've bolded the bit that is most interesting to me. --Eve] The California Supreme Court cautiously considered a lesbian couple's claim Thursday that a golf club discriminated against them by charging them higher fees than spouses pay. By granting family memberships only to married couples, the San Diego country club "chose criteria that same-sex couples could not possibly meet," said Jon Davidson, the couple's lawyer and legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. His argument -- that a spouses-only policy amounts to discrimination against gays and lesbians -- parallels a central claim in the pending suit over the state's same-sex marriage ban, which is likely to reach the state's high court next year. A San Francisco judge ruled in March in that case that California's marriage law discriminates based on sex and violates the right to marry a partner of one's choice, a ruling that has been suspended while it is being appealed. ... In granting review of the country club case, the court said it would consider whether businesses could legally discriminate against any unmarried couples, gay or straight. But justices at Thursday's hearing in San Francisco seemed more interested in the narrower issue of whether treating spouses favorably discriminates against domestic partners. A state law that took effect this year gives domestic partners most of the rights of married couples. ... Justice Carlos Moreno took issue with Davidson's argument that equal treatment shouldn't be limited to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners, but should also be available to same-sex couples who provided evidence that they were more than just friends -- for example, by showing that they owned property together or had named each other in their wills. That's too subjective and intrusive, Moreno said, compared with the "clear bright line, registration with the secretary of state," required for domestic partners. A decision that businesses must treat domestic partners the same as spouses would be a victory for the 27,000 couples on the state's domestic partner registry and for Lockyer, whose office filed arguments to that effect. But it would fall short of the result sought by gay-rights groups: that discrimination based on marital status, already banned by state law in housing and employment, is forbidden when businesses deal with their customers. The Unruh Act, which regulates how businesses treat their customers, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation but does not mention marital status. more posted by Eve at 6:00 PM | link 0 comments
DIVORCE AND MARRIAGE AFFECT BLACK CHILDREN MORE: UC Davis press release
Divorce and marriage play much bigger economic roles for black children than white children in the United States, according to a new study by two UC Davis economists. Marianne Page and Ann Huff Stevens find that in the first two years following a divorce, family income among white children falls about 30 percent, while it falls by 53 percent among black children. "This difference increases dramatically in the long run," Page and Stevens write. "Three or more years after the divorce, about a third of the loss in whites' household income is recouped, but the income of black families barely improves." In fact, three or more years after the divorce, the black families' income remains 47 percent lower than if the parents had remained together. Marriage appears to have even greater benefits for black children whose single mothers marry than for their white counterparts, according to the study. Page and Stevens estimate that while the family income of white children rises by 45 percent when their single parent marries, the family income of black children rises by 81 percent with marriage. One reason for the difference in improvement is that married black mothers are more likely to work than married white mothers. On the other hand, when divorce occurs, the probability of black mothers working does not change, while recently divorced white women have an 18 percent greater probability of working. The study, published in the February 2005 issue of Demography, followed a nationally representative, longitudinal survey of Americans conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. link posted by Eve at 5:57 PM | link 0 comments
KY JUDGE UPHOLDS MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: From the Associated Press
A Franklin Circuit judge upheld the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages on Thursday. As required by the state constitution, the amendment both dealt with a single subject and properly informed voters what it meant, Franklin County Circuit Judge Roger Crittenden wrote in a 15-page opinion dismissing the case. "The need, wisdom and economic and social desirability of the amendment are not before this court," Crittenden wrote. "It would be overstepping judicial bounds to pass judgment on the value and worthiness of the legislative purpose." Kentuckians voted nearly 3-to-1 in favor of the amendment last fall. There were 1,222,125 votes in favor, to 417,097 against the amendment. Kentucky was one of 11 states last fall that changed their constitutions to outlaw same-sex marriages. The amendment defined marriage in Kentucky as being something limited to one man and one woman. It also prohibited unmarried people from ever obtaining "legal status identical to or similar to marriage." more posted by Eve at 12:07 PM | link 0 comments
Thursday, May 26, 2005
OPTION FOUR: Ramesh Ponnuru
[I haven't read the whole piece, since only a chunk is online, and the newsstand I visited didn't have the new issue yet. Maybe more once I've read it. --Eve] The debate over marriage does not seem to be amenable to compromise. It is one of those debates in which the contending parties disagree not only about what answer we should reach, but also about what the question is in the first place. As in the debate over abortion, the very terminology of this debate is contested. Advocates of "gay marriage" use that phrase to suggest that what they want is an end to the exclusion of a class of people from an institution. Opponents of "same-sex marriage" use that phrase to suggest that what is at stake is a redefinition of the institution: The law they defend does not examine the sexual preferences of the parties to a marriage, but merely requires that they be of opposite sexes. But perhaps a limited compromise can be reached, if we can separate the two fundamental issues in the debate: recognition and benefits. Whenever the debate has been at its most abstract and ideological, it has concerned the politics of recognition. Proponents of gay marriage want the government to recognize long-term homosexual relationships as morally equivalent, at least for public purposes, to marriage. Many proponents undoubtedly want more than this kind of formal legal equality: They hope that insisting on governmental evenhandedness between homosexual and heterosexual couples will change people's attitudes so that society, and not just the government, will see them as equally worthy and morally indistinguishable. Opponents warn that if the demand for same-sex marriages is granted, it will be followed by demands for state penalties on people and churches that refuse to recognize them. But for now, what is being debated is the legal recognition of committed homosexual relationships as on a par with marriage. ...But the issue of benefits can, to a large extent, be separated from the issue of the legal recognition of relationships. slightly more posted by Eve at 4:04 PM | link 0 comments
LOVE IN THE TIME OF CLONING: Maggie Gallagher
I can't add much to Elizabeth's critique. Except to say that, far as I can tell, cloning will not help childless couples biologically have their own children but their own siblings--i.e. one of the couple will now have an identical twin. A casual casualty of love in the age of cloning: the idea of becoming one flesh. posted by Eve at 3:52 PM | link 0 comments
UNEXPECTED BABY BOOM: From Newsweek's international edition
Here's a little test. Which European country will have the largest population in the middle of the 21st century? (And remember, this is likely to give the nation added political heft in the European Union.) Could it be Britain? A dynamic economy, low unemployment and sturdy consumer confidence seem likely to spur the optimism that often accompanies childbearing in wealthy nations. How about Germany? Unification was akin to a couple's making a baby--and it inspired hope, at least initially, for a better future. What about Italy, the land of the beloved bambino, regardless of the nation's periodic booms or busts? No, the most populated nation in Western Europe in 2050 is expected to be... France. Old Europe? Yes, indeed. France, with the second largest population in the EU, is engaged in what, by European standards, registers as a remarkable population boom. The nation leads in the number of newborns and has the second highest birthrate, after much smaller (and more Roman Catholic) Ireland. The results of France's 2004 Census are out—and fresh forecasts based on the numbers paint some 75 million people into the French landscape by midcentury, compared with 62.5 million today. That's at least 10 percent higher than the last round of forecasts, based on the 1999 Census. By contrast, Britain is stagnating, Germany is expected to lose 11 million people by midcentury and the number of Italians may cascade from 57.5 million to a Poland-esque 43 million. In fact, nearly all the EU's population growth in 2003 came from France--211,000 out of 216,000. ... And what is going on? Like Italians, the French live in a family-friendly society. So why a French baby boom and an Italian bust? The difference apparently comes from policy and social supports that lessen pressure on would-be parents. Those who work fewer hours, have more job security, free day care and medical coverage are less likely to feel anguish over their children's basic needs. And more than most European countries, France offers all that, not to mention generous parental leave. Compared with elsewhere, says Dumont, France "allows families to better reconcile their professional and private lives." It's no coincidence, he adds, that countries with the fewest familial supports, like Italy and Spain, also have the lowest birthrates. more posted by Eve at 3:45 PM | link 0 comments
SWISS TO VOTE ON CIVIL UNIONS: From 365Gay.com
Swiss voters will go to the polls June 5 in the first European election on same-sex unions. Elsewhere in Europe the decision of how to recognize gay and lesbian relationships has been decided by governments. ... The FDU claims that granting any rights to same-sex couples would undermine traditional marriage. But Justice Minister Christoph Blocher disagrees, pointing out that the domestic partner registry would not have the same status as traditional marriages and that same-sex couples would not be allowed to adopt children or have access to fertility treatment. Registered gay partnerships already exist in Geneva, Zurich and Neuchâtel. In Zurich 483 gay and lesbian couples have registered since the cantonal law came into effect in July 2003. more posted by Eve at 2:52 PM | link 0 comments
NJ COURT ORDERS BIRTH CERTIFICATE MUST LIST LESBIAN COUPLE AS PARENTS: From 365Gay.com
A Newark judge has granted a lesbian couple the right to have both of their names listed on their child's birth certificate. The ruling is the first of its kind in New Jersey and guarantees both women full parental rights to the child. Superior Court Judge Patricia Medina Talbert said she based her decision on New Jersey's artificial insemination statute. The law protects a child's relationship to a non-biological parent who consents to his spouse's artificial insemination. The case involved Kimberly Robinson and her partner Jeanne LoCicero who are registered under the state's domestic partner law. The couple also married in Canada last summer. When they decided to have a baby, Robinson used artificial insemination through an anonymous donor. She gave birth to a girl, Vivian on April 30, 2005. Although LoCicero could have become an adoptive parent to Vivian the couple believed it was in the child's best interests for both parents to be listed as birth parents. more posted by Eve at 11:23 AM | link 0 comments
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
LOVE IN THE TIME OF CLONING: Eve
So there's this story (via Family Scholars): Human cloning will lead to huge benefits for childless couples, according to leaders in the field of reproductive science. more The article reminded me of a piece I did several years ago, on reproductive cloning and family structure. It's here. posted by Eve at 7:04 PM | link 0 comments
JOURNALISTS, PUBLIC ON DIFFERENT PAGES: From USA Today
A national survey of 673 journalists and 1,500 adults finds a wide gap between journalists and the public -- both in their views of journalism and in their personal views. At a time when journalism missteps have become almost routine, the survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania also reveals a large gap between how well journalists and the public think news organizations do in admitting mistakes: 74% of journalists said outlets quickly report serious errors, while only 30% of the public does. ... The study also highlights a social divide: On same-sex marriages, 59% of journalists favor them, compared with 28% for the public; 17% of journalists said they attend religious services weekly, compared with 40% for the public. And 9% of journalists consider themselves conservative, compared with 38% of the public. Other findings: 80% of journalists said it was a "bad thing" for a news organization to have a strong political view in news coverage, compared with the public's 53%. Asked if the government has the right to limit the press to report a story, 44% of journalists said never, compared with 29% of the public. more posted by Eve at 4:31 PM | link 0 comments
WHO IS A PARENT?: Comments thread at Reason magazine's blog
Ben Falk posts: The California Supreme Court is hearing cases regarding whether or not a lesbian mother who has no biological connection to her child can receive joint or partial custody. Opponents of granting such rights argue that since one parent has no biological connection to the child, anyone who had a hand in raising the child or even planning the pregnancy could claim parental rights. In this era of advanced reproductive technologies, the only person harmed by such ambiguity in the law is the newborn child that everyone says they want to protect. We know that "being a parent" isn't about the biological relationship, but the emotional relationship. Why remove that distinction when it comes to homosexual couples? comments here posted by Eve at 2:14 PM | link 0 comments
A CANADIAN RABBI SPEAKS OUT: Eliezer Ben-Porat
...The sages of the Talmud recognized the special character of marriage by defining it as kiddushin, sanctification. All traditional religious people subscribe to this fundamental principle of the sanctity of the union between man and woman, and see it as a divinely given moral estate not subject to human modification. Indeed, the exclusivity of this relationship as a moral principle is endorsed by many, perhaps most, Canadians. Yet people are now led to believe that if they stick to this moral principle they are intolerant. The debate does not revolve around the monetary rights or social benefits of same-sex partners. These have already been granted. What we are witnessing here is not progress and liberalism but rather the imposition of the philosophy of moral relativism on all of us. We are all called, nay coerced, to label some unions marriage that we simply cannot. The promise by the Prime Minister that the clergy will not be forced to administer same-sex marriage does not give us any comfort. What about those who are not members of the clergy? Why should they be compelled to call this marriage? ... Some suggest that the purpose of marriage is solely to produce progeny. However, while procreation is certainly an important component in marriage, it is not essential for its meaningfulness. The reason that marriage is specifically restricted to a man and a woman is because man and woman, each one on their own incomplete, through their union complete each other and create a wholesome togetherness. In The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm writes: "The male-female polarity is ... the basis for interpersonal creativity. This is obvious biologically in the fact that the union of sperm and ovum is the basis for the birth of a child. But in the purely psychic realm it is not different; in the love between man and woman each of them is reborn... The same polarity of the male and female principle exists in nature ... It is the polarity of the earth and rain, of the river and the ocean, of night and day, of darkness and light, of matter and spirit." ... The 15th-century Jewish Spanish philosopher Rabbi Isaac Arama points that, as far as morality is concerned, there is a difference between the private domain of the individual and the public arena of the judiciary. It is one thing what one does in the privacy of his own quarters, but it is entirely another matter if the law of the country sanctions it, and defines it as an ideal. more posted by Eve at 1:52 PM | link 0 comments
CALIF. JUSTICES HEAR GAY PARENT RIGHTS CASES: From the Los Angelese Times
Several members of the California Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Tuesday to arguments that gay men and lesbians who rear their partners' children as their own without adopting them should have parental rights and obligations. In a crowded, televised hearing, the court considered three cases involving disputes between estranged lesbian mates over children. The cases are likely to set the rules on child support, custody and visitation rights for thousands of gay couples who split up after having children. A new state domestic partnership law that took effect this year gave parental rights to both partners in same-sex couples who are registered with the state. But that law does not cover the children of couples who split up before this year. Neither does it cover the children of couples who fail to register. Only a third of the roughly 100,000 gay and lesbian couples in California are registered with the state, according to the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Without clearly indicating how they would vote on the cases, the justices observed repeatedly that official state policy favored two-parent families. Justice Ming W. Chin, one of the more conservative members of the court, said the lesbians who were seeking parental rights in two cases, and the woman who had refused to pay child support in the other, were parents in almost every way before the couples broke up. In the child support case, Chin said, both women breast-fed each other's babies, and one declared her partner's twins as well as her own birth child as dependents on tax forms and beneficiaries of her life insurance. ... After listening to K.M.'s case, the justices considered a dispute in Los Angeles County between two lesbians who went to court before their daughter was born to declare the non-biological mother the other parent. The women split up when the child was 2, and the birth mother successfully challenged the pre-birth agreement in court. Honey Kessler Amado, the lawyer for the birth mother, said such agreements should not take the place of adoptions. She said the agreement legally would not have prevented the semen donor from claiming paternity, because he did not donate his semen in a clinical setting where a formal waiver was required. "It's beyond debate that his rights could not have been cut off by this agreement," Amado said. Baxter, who has long expressed concern about arrangements that allow for multiple legal parents, wanted to know what would happen if the court determined that both women were the parents and the sperm donor later claimed paternity. "There is a biological male involved in this case," he said. more posted by Eve at 1:46 PM | link 0 comments
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
CALL TO REFORM AUSTRALIAN IVF LAW: From the Herald Sun
[Elizabeth Marquardt comments here. --Eve] ...In an interim report on assisted reproduction, Victoria's Law Reform Commission said the rule that IVF treatment was only available to de facto or married couples should go. Ending discrimination would allow lesbian couples and single women to receive medical assistance to have children. Commission chairwoman Prof Marcia Neave said the High Court had found limiting IVF treatment to de facto and married couples to be discriminatory. The commission said all discrimination based on race, sexuality, or marital status should be removed. "There is no evidence that marital status affects the wellbeing of children and we have proposed a way of dealing with issues which have a direct impact on children's welfare," Prof Neave said. more posted by Eve at 5:34 PM | link 0 comments
WHAT WOMEN WANT: John Tierney
Suppose you could eliminate the factors often blamed for the shortage of women in high-paying jobs. Suppose that promotions and raises did not depend on pleasing sexist male bosses or putting in long nights and weekends away from home. Would women make as much as men? Economists recently tried to find out in an experiment in Pittsburgh by paying men and women to add up five numbers in their heads. At first they worked individually, doing as many sums as they could in five minutes and receiving 50 cents for each correct answer. Then they competed in four-person tournaments, with the winner getting $2 per correct answer and the losers getting nothing. On average, the women made as much as the men under either system. But when they were offered a choice for the next round -- take the piece rate or compete in a tournament -- most women declined to compete, even the ones who had done the best in the earlier rounds. Most men chose the tournament, even the ones who had done the worst. The men's eagerness partly stemmed from overconfidence, because on average men rated their ability more highly than the women rated theirs. But interviews and further experiments convinced the researchers, Muriel Niederle of Stanford and Lise Vesterlund of the University of Pittsburgh, that the gender gap wasn't due mainly to women's insecurities about their abilities. It was due to different appetites for competition. more posted by Eve at 2:46 PM | link 0 comments
MARRIAGE POLICY HURTS GAYS: From the Denver Post
A Thornton woman has filed a complaint with the Social Security Administration, where her lesbian partner works, claiming she was denied a job because the agency considers her married to her partner. Fay McCall's partner, Karen Muller, works as a Social Security claims representative. Muller said she was told by an office manager that McCall couldn't have the job because a regional manager placed a prohibition on hiring married couples. Gay couples cannot marry under state or federal law. Muller cannot list McCall as a beneficiary on her federal health plan. And, in what the two women see as the greatest of ironies, neither could receive the other's Social Security death benefits if one died. more posted by Eve at 1:46 PM | link 0 comments
EVANGELICAL SCHOLAR SUPPORTS SSM: From the Detroit Free Press
Out of western Michigan's evangelical Republican heartland, gay rights activists are expecting to hear a prophetic voice arise next week, calling on conservative Christians to reverse their opposition to homosexuality and welcome same-sex marriage. That voice will take the form of a new book, "What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage." Its lead author, David Myers, is a psychologist, elder in the Reformed Church in America and one of the most respected scholars at Hope College in Holland. ... In the book, Myers and coauthor Letha Dawson Scanzoni, take on Dobson in a step-by-step analysis of science, history and the Bible. They argue that attitudes toward gay people are changing, especially among those under age 30. "The definition of marriage already has changed many times over the years," Myers said. "Back in Old Testament times, how many concubines and spouses did some of the men have? So, we've changed from polygamy to monogamy. We've changed from arranged marriages to marriages based on romantic choice. ... We've changed from the church rejecting people of divorce, to welcoming these people. "And, people who first encountered interracial marriages said many of the same things we're now hearing about gay marriage." more posted by Eve at 1:23 PM | link 0 comments
FAITHS UNITE VS SSM IN CANADA: From the National Post
Christians, Muslims and Jews shared a stage at Queen's Park yesterday as thousands rallied to support defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They came to downtown Toronto, not far from the city's gay village, to fight the Liberals' Bill C-38, which would legalize same-sex marriage across the country. Speaker after speaker vowed to stop the legislation or, if it passes, to target MPs to ensure the next federal government is "pro-marriage." more posted by Eve at 1:19 PM | link 0 comments
Monday, May 23, 2005
MY BEST WISHES: Jeff Jacoby
...But I am an opponent of same-sex marriage. That being the case, my message to the couples is: Congratulations on your anniversary, and may you enjoy continued happiness. I mention my sincere good wishes only because so many supporters of same-sex marriage think that anyone who disagrees with them must be an ignorant bigot. Time and again, I have been told that my views on marriage are morally equivalent to the views of a segregationist on race, or a Nazi on Jews. It is remarkable: Express the conviction that marriage should mean the union of male and female, and you are told that you are peddling hate. Of all the motifs that get played and replayed in the marriage debate, this one is the worst. For two reasons: First, because it is untrue. Marriage was not created to hurt homosexuals or enshrine bigotry in law. It did not became a universal human institution as an expression of animus. The core of marriage has always and everywhere been the pairing of a man and a woman because no other arrangement can do what marriage does: produce the next generation, bind men to the women who bear their children, and give boys and girls the mothers and fathers they need. The second reason that the "only-a-hater-could-oppose-gay-marriage" theme is so objectionable is its destructiveness. It breeds resentment between parties who should be seeking common ground. It causes pain to gays and lesbians by encouraging them to believe that they are hated by most of their fellow citizens. And it promotes the idea that those who defend the traditional definition of marriage are moral cripples. ... I think same-sex marriage is bad public policy, especially when it is imposed by judicial decree. But at the level of ordinary human feeling, I can understand the yearning for acceptance that drives the gay marriage movement. more posted by Eve at 2:13 PM | link 0 comments
AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION VOTES TO SUPPORT SSM: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The country's leading mental health organization voted Sunday in Atlanta to support marriage for same-sex couples, the first major medical association to do so in the polarizing debate. Representatives from the American Psychiatric Association took up gay marriage as an issue at their 158th annual convention this week and approved a proclamation to support legalizing such marriage. "The American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of same sex civil marriage," according to the approved statement. "Heterosexual relationships have a legal framework for their existence through civil marriage. Same sex couples therefore experience several kinds of state-sanctioned discrimination that can adversely affect the stability of their relationships and mental health." The vote was taken by the association's Assembly, an advisory group made up of 250 representatives from each state and region. A clear majority said yes to supporting gay marriage. The psychiatric organization's board of trustees is expected to adopt the measure in July. ... The psychiatrists said discrimination is toxic to mental health, and as medical professionals, condoning it collides with the ethics of their profession. more posted by Eve at 2:10 PM | link 0 comments
TOP CALIF. COURT TO HEAR LESBIAN CUSTODY DISPUTE: From the San Francisco Chronicle
Battles between estranged lesbian partners over child custody, visitation and financial support will reach the California Supreme Court on Tuesday in a hearing to determine the ground rules for parental disputes between same-sex couples. Later this week, the court will hear another lesbian pair's discrimination case with possible implications for the looming legal war over same-sex marriage. Tuesday's three-hour hearing in San Francisco combines three lawsuits from different counties with one central issue: whether a member of a same-sex couple who helped to plan a childbirth and raise the child should be considered a legal parent, regardless of biological ties or marital status. A majority of lower courts have said no, limiting parental rights to the birth mother unless her partner has formally adopted the child. The state's high court is due to decide the issue within 90 days. "What's at stake is whether children of same-sex parents will receive the same protection of their emotional needs as children of heterosexual parents," said Jill Hersh, lawyer for a Marin County woman who is seeking to become a legal parent of twin girls she helped raise with her now-estranged partner. "Are we going to treat children differently based upon the status of their parents?" But attorney Matthew Staver of Liberty Counsel, a conservative Florida- based organization that has filed arguments in all three cases opposing expansion of parental status beyond the birth mother, said courts should not redefine parenthood. "I think what's at stake is the definition of family," he said. "If somebody can cohabitate and, by virtue of that, develop parental bonds, and thus parental rights, I think that undermines the biological parent's parental authority. If you start defining family by mere emotions, I think that undermines the core of the family itself." more posted by Eve at 10:16 AM | link 0 comments
YOUNG GAYS LOOK BEYOND MARRIAGE: Michael Amico
[Might be interesting if this guy had presented what one might call "evidence." Still, here you go. --Eve] ...My gay peers and I support equal rights for all. But marriage equality has monopolized the gay and straight mainstream media's coverage of gay issues and effectively sidelined other issues in gay culture. As a gay college sophomore, I see many gay cultural and political issues that need to be addressed; issues that are vital to the entire movement, not just to gay youth. WHAT ARE THESE issues? Rather than planning to get married, most gay youth, like our peers, are focusing on careers and jobs after college. Many of us would find it beneficial to discuss how being out and gay in work environments affects their sexual identity. We need to learn better ways to come out, how to deal with parents, how to deal with sexual anxiety. We need to hear about how to negotiate safe sex and how older people deal with sexual issues and problems. more posted by Eve at 12:27 AM | link 0 comments
Sunday, May 22, 2005
THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW?: Christopher Caldwell
...Britons have long managed to balance a need for order with a tendency toward eccentricity. With astonishing speed, the state has gone into the business of micromanaging morality. But there is nothing particularly British about this reassessment. In the United States, and indeed all over the West, citizens are demanding that politicians consider imposing sanctions on behavior that has heretofore been considered annoying but not criminal. Rolled eyes and tut-tutting have proved insufficient to restrain spitters, swearers, talkers-in-class, bad neighbors, slobs, loud-music/players and wearers of skimpy clothing. Increasingly the police are called, and society has not figured out what it expects the cops to do when they get there. ... Citizens support this awkward mix of "hard" law and "soft" community-building not because they are hypocrites but because they are of two minds. They seem to hope that government can give a "helping hand" to natural processes of community formation, and that once people have relearned neighborly habits, the straitjacket of law will fall away and leave us once more in the comfy old cardigan of custom. Until people do that relearning, though, there is a risk that such laws will grow unreasonably broad and unreasonably tough (to the point where you risk jail by lighting a cigarette or jumping in the Avon). Laws, after all, are created and enforced by individuals. And a society made up of individuals who are no longer restrained by families and communities and who have never learned to restrain themselves is unlikely to be any more judicious about administering laws than it is about turning that damn stereo down. more posted by Eve at 10:05 PM | link 0 comments
EHRLICH MIGHT OFFER BILL GIVING GAY COUPLES RIGHTS: From the Washington Post
Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said yesterday that he might introduce a bill next year that would seek to accomplish some of the same aims as legislation he vetoed Friday that would have granted certain rights to unmarried partners, including gay couples. ... Gov. Ehrlich, shown at a news conference, says his main objection to the bill he vetoed was that couples would have registered as "life partners." The legislation, approved by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, would have granted nearly a dozen rights to couples that register with the state, including authority over certain medical and funeral-related decisions for one another. He suggested that his approach would build upon existing legal tools such as advance medical directives, which allow residents to designate someone to make medical decisions for them. Gay rights activists who pushed for the bill argued that it included several rights not available through existing law. Ehrlich stressed that his primary objection to the bill was a requirement that couples register with the state as "life partners." more posted by Eve at 9:54 PM | link 0 comments
OVERRIDE THIS VETO: Washington Post editorial
WHETHER TO SIGN the Medical Decision Making Act of 2005 shouldn't have been a tough call on the merits for Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). The bill, passed by the General Assembly this year, is the kind of gay rights measure that even opponents of gay marriage ought to welcome -- a recognition that unmarried couples exist, love one another and make key decisions during illness and death. Mr. Ehrlich had expressed sympathy with the bill's purpose. Yet the politics that surround gay rights are fierce, and Mr. Ehrlich's conservative base opposes the bill aggressively. Earlier last week, Mr. Ehrlich's aides were talking about problems with the bill. By Friday, he had caved and vetoed it, saying it would "open the door to undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage." The bill would allow unmarried couples -- same-sex and straight -- to register with the state health department as life partners. It would guarantee registered partners basic rights when one is ill, dying or dead. They would have the ability to visit one another in hospitals, to make medical decisions when the other is unable to do so (and has not separately designated a decision maker), to authorize autopsies and to make funeral arrangements. In emergency situations, the bill would also ensure visitation rights to unregistered life partners. more posted by Eve at 9:45 PM | link 0 comments
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|