|
 |
 |
 Friday, August 04, 2006
MORE ON "BEYOND MARRIAGE" THING--CANADIAN COMPARISON: From the Washington Blade
[I thought this bit was interesting. --Eve] ...Polikoff said Americans should look to other Western countries like Canada as an alternative model for marriage in the United States. "In Canada, the law virtually equalized the status of married and unmarried couples," she said. "Then they allowed same-sex couples to marry. If you're a same-sex couple in Canada you can choose to marry because of emotional or spiritual reasons, but you don't have to marry for legal reasons. [In the United States] the argument for legal marriage is about depriving us of legal benefits, but other countries know how to fairly treat couples under the law regardless of whether or not they are married." Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a group working for full marriage rights for gays and lesbians, disagrees with the need for a marriage alternative. He said the Canada model of marriage would not work for the United States. "The United States is not Canada," he said. "There are legal and cultural differences we have to deal with in our work here. We have much more of an organized right-wing infrastructure that opposes gay people's equality, as well as other things we care about. The battle is much harder here. Canada also has universal health care that the U.S. doesn't, but should have." more
New Pew poll on same-sex marriage / Jon Rauch
Findings include: * By a 56%-35% margin, a majority of Americans continues to oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. These figures are largely unchanged over the past several years. [The chart shows remarkable stability in public opinion. People just are not changing their minds.] * While a majority opposes gay marriage, opponents are divided on whether it would be a good idea to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban it. The result is that just three-in-ten Americans (30%) currently oppose gay marriage and think a constitutional amendment would be a good idea. Even among groups most strongly opposed to gay marriage (white evangelicals, Republicans, conservatives and senior citizens), less than a majority favor an amendment. [Italics added] * While only one-in-three Americans (35%) oppose gay marriage, majorities do express support for civil unions. The poll finds that 54% of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements giving them many of the same rights as married couples. This figure, too, is largely unchanged compared with one year ago but it is nine percentage points higher than it was in October 2003. * By a 52%-42% margin, a majority of the public opposes allowing gays and lesbians to adopt.
Vermont high court rules in same-sex custody battle / Jon Rauch
Court unanimously upholds its jurisdiction and reaffirms its contempt finding against mom who fled, with child, to Virginia and refused (with Virginia court's support) to recognize Vermont's custody order: http://dol.state.vt.us/gopher_root3/supct/current/2004-443.op
British Study: Impact of Gay Civil Unions/365gay.com
August 3, 2006 - 9:00 pm ET "The first major UK research into attitudes to same sex civil partnerships since they were legalized in December 2005 has shown general acceptance from families and friends, but with some exceptions. The study, carried out by sociologists at The University of Manchester, was based on interviews and focus groups with 91 gay men and lesbians who are either planning or have had a civil partnership. "We found that the reasons couples enter into a Civil Partnership can vary according to their age, whether they have children, their need to access certain legal rights and their views on the institution of marriage itself," said Prof. Carol Smart, who led the research. But Smart said that little attention has been paid to what tying the knot means for the couple's relationships with their family of origin or with their friends. "We found an overall level of acceptance of Civil Partnerships from families. The new in-law was welcomed as a member of the family and this was a cause for celebration. Smart said that most families regard the unions as full marriages. She also said that of those taking part in the survey about half hoped that legally recognized religious marriage would one day be available to same-sex couples. But, while most families were supporting some were not. "Some gay men and lesbians experienced telling their families of their plans was like 'coming out' again. She added: "The reaction of friends could also pose problems. While some could be entirely supportive, others saw it as a capitulation to heterosexual norms and to straight society. "And for some parents it meant that they could no longer assume that their son or daughter was going through a 'phase' that they would grow out of." Twenty-two percent of those surveyed decided against inviting family members even though it was important for most of them. Additionally Smart and her team found that while couples welcomed the Civil Partnership's legal protections but 80 per cent had already made wills to safeguard their partner. . ." Thursday, August 03, 2006
UK KIDS ARRESTED FOR PLAYING IN A TREE: From the Daily Mail
'West Midlands Police deals robustly with anti-social behaviour. By targeting what may seem relatively low-level crime we aim to prevent it developing into more serious matters.' yeah
TV Spots Supporting Gay Marriage/Maggie Gallagher
I wonder if anyone knows whether these have actually run on TV? Or whether they would be more accurately labelled "internet ads we are pretending might run on TV?" I actually agree with the donor on Independent Gay Forum. The "permissions" ad is clever, but most of the rest suffer from a grossness factor. . .But who cares what I think? Maggie
TV SPOTS SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE
here with some discussion (quickly devolving into the usual comments-boxing Internet silliness) here, which is how I found the ads--Eve
New Study: Marital Therapy More Effective at Treating Women Alcoholics than Other Methods
[More research from William Fals-Stewart. Earlier studies on the effects of behavioral couples therapy on alcoholic men showed dramatic reductions in domestic violence, as well as better outcomes for alchol treatment. For me, this is more evidence that "marriage education" may even be more effective with more distressed couples than with the average middle class couple. . .Maggie] ". . .The study, published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, looked at more than 120 female alcoholic patients and their male partners who were not substance abusers. Researchers found that women alcoholics treated with behavior couples therapy combined with individual alcoholism treatment reported greater reductions in drinking and higher levels of satisfaction in their relationships during the year following treatment compared to women alcoholics who received traditional one-on-one counseling only or those who participated in educational lectures with their partners. . ."
Debating "Beyond SSM" (and Chris Crain)/Richard Kim, The Nation
". . .Over on his blog at the Washington Blade, editor Chris Crain overheats until his brain explodes. . . .Crain's beef boils down to the argument that "by diverting attention from the inherent inequality of marriage for heterosexual couples but not gay couples, the anti-conjugalists rob the gay rights movement of the fairness claim that resonates with more Americans." As evidence, he points out that "95 percent" of all Americans "want someday to marry." (What does this statistic mean? Do 95 percent of married Americans want "someday to marry"? Again?! If so, kudos to them for thinking ahead.) Even if such a statistic were true, so what? Whatever it is they aspire to (marriage, fabulous wealth, a perfect body, fame) most Americans don't live in marital households (or have wealth, health and Page Six gravitas). As we point out in our statement, meeting the needs of the majority of American households, whether gay or straight, calls for something more than the elusive, fragile bonds of matrimony. Arguing that benefits like healthcare and pensions shouldn't be tied to marriage is, in fact, "the fairness claim that resonates with more Americans." . . .For example, he sweepingly dismisses progressive domestic partnership statutes like Washington, DC's (which allows any two unmarried adults to register and receive rights and benefits) as "the realization of the Right's worst fears and the last thing our movement needs to do at this critical juncture." So yes Chris, let's revoke that law because it might piss off Concerned Women of America. Screw single mothers. Heck, screw single people, the elderly, the poor -- as long as we get gay marriage, right? If Crain's strategy is to cling to the marriage-only-until-death line and paint us as utopian liberationists, then the marriage equality folks have taken the opposite tact. One imagines our vision as impossible, the other as fait accompli. Reached for comment by gay journos (see here and here), as well as the SF Chronicle and the NYT, representatives from Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) all attempted to co-opt and/or de-fang the statement. For example, Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda, said "there's a lot in the statement that we totally agree with" and that "even organizations that do focus mostly on marriage say that marriage is not the only important thing." Brad Luna and Jay Smith Brown of HRC and Shannon Minter of NCLR agreed. Minter said "gay legal groups already agree with them and are doing the things they recommend for the most part." If that's true, then I invite these people and organizations to sign the statement themselves. Just go to www.beyondmarriage.org and add your name. I suspect, however, that they won't because there are crucial ideological and strategic differences between Beyond Marriage and those gay marriage advocates. First, I find it utterly disingenuous for these folks to suggest that they vigorously advocate for alternatives to marriage. Last week national gay organizations spent $250,000 on full-page ads in major daily newspapers declaring that they won't retreat on the marriage front. I can't imagine them ever going to town like that for, say, domestic partnerships for all. It's abundantly clear that most marriage equality advocates see domestic partnerships and reciprocal beneficiary statuses as disagreeable pit-stops on the way to gay marriage -- not as valuable ends in and of themselves. Minter, for one, clearly says that marriage equality should happen first, and then we'll worry about the other stuff later. From my perspective, this is a tragic miscalculation; as Lisa Duggan and I have argued, the push for same-sex marriage has, in fact, eliminated these statuses in places like Vermont and Massachusetts. . ."
San Francisco Catholic Charities Gets out of Adoption Biz/SF Chronicle
August 3, 2006 "After spending nearly 100 years finding homes for children awaiting adoption, Catholic Charities announced that it will no longer provide full adoption services. Instead, the branch of the Archdiocese of San Francisco says it put efforts into providing referrals to the state Department of Social Services and California Kids Connection, a statewide adoption exchange that matches foster children with families. The decision to end adoptions comes five months after the archdiocese said it no longer would allow same-sex couples to adopt children through its Catholic Charities agency. Earlier this year, Catholic Charities said it had placed five of 136 children with same-sex couples since 2000. A 2003 Vatican edict said placing children into same-sex households was "gravely immoral" and "would actually mean doing violence to these children." Catholic Charities plans to collaborate with both California Kids Connection, a network provided by the nonprofit Oakland-based Family Builders by Adoption, and the state Social Services department, which oversees the welfare of 82,000 foster children. Archbishop George Niederauer said that the new partnership would still allow children to be placed with gay and lesbian couples. "That would be a decision that would be made by the adoption agency," Niederauer said. "We can no longer run an agency that makes those decisions." . . . "I told the board of Catholic Charities that we would continue to serve the adoption community -- children and parents looking to adopt," Niederauer said. "We have to be consistent with Catholic teachings, which requires us to place children in homes with a mother and a father. ... We feel that by withdrawing from direct placement, we would be consistent with the church's teachings." . . .
Gay Men who Marry Women/NYT
[Striking how much expert disapproval seems to be directed at gay men who do not want to leave their wives and children. . .Not because they are unfaithful to their wives or their vows but because they are unfaithful to their sexual desires. . .Maggie] August 3, 2006 When the Beard Is Too Painful to Remove By JANE GROSS ". . .For gay men in heterosexual marriages, even after the status quo becomes unbearable, the pull of domestic life remains powerful. Many are desperate to preserve their marriages — to continue reaping the emotional and financial support of wives, and domestic pleasures like tucking children in at night. The demand for support groups for gay, married men, as well as traffic in Internet chat rooms, shows that so-called 'Brokeback; marriages have hardly disappeared, as many experts assumed they would, even in an age when gay couples, in certain parts of the country, live openly and raise children just like any family. Leaving a marriage and setting up housekeeping with a gay partner is not what most married gay men have in mind when they join a support group, according to Stephen McFadden, a clinical social worker, who runs such groups in Manhattan. Instead, Mr. McFadden and others in the field say, their clients generally start out committed to the opposite goal. Even after a pained awakening or acknowledgment of their sexual orientation, these men want to save their marriages, Mr. McFadden and others say, either by lying, promising their wives they will not have sex with men or persuading them to accept their double lives. Yet, such arrangements succeed for only 'a small percentage' of couples, Mr. McFadden and other therapists said, but the stubborn attempt often makes these men unwelcome or uncomfortable in support groups for gay fathers, which are easy to find but largely the province of men who are long divorced. One support group member, Steve T., is a Long Island doctor, married to his high school sweetheart and the father of three school-age sons. He said he felt the sting of judgment when he tried a group for gay fathers. 'They thought my desire to stay married was part of my denial,' said Dr. T., who would do almost anything to keep his family together and his suburban lifestyle intact, even after telling his wife that he is gay. She is his 'best friend' and the 'perfect co-parent,' said the 44-year-old doctor, who agreed to be interviewed on condition he not be fully identified and his secrets thus revealed to relatives, neighbors and patients. He enjoys the social life of a popular suburban couple, adores his in-laws and wants to live in the same home as his children. . . "I love her, but she wants me to be in love with her," Dr. T. said. "She wants to be my one and only. Everything we have will be at risk if, God forbid, we divorce." Data on these marriages is scarce and unreliable because of the various ways of defining 'gay' in demographic research. Studies in the 1970's and 80's, using inconsistent methodology, found anywhere from one-fifth to one-third of gay men were or had at one time been married. All the therapists and gay men interviewed for this article assumed that percentage would be far lower in today’s more accepting society. But Gary J. Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute, a research group that studies gay issues at U.C.L.A., blended data for The New York Times from the 2000 Census and a 2002 federal survey of family configurations, and found that the percentage of gay men who had ever been married could be as high as 38 percent — or as low as 9 percent — depending on whether respondents were asked their sexual orientation, whom they had sex with or whom they found attractive. Of the 27 million American men currently married, Mr. Gates found, 1.6 percent, or 436,000, identify themselves as gay or bisexual. Of the 75 million men who have ever been married, 1.8 percent, or 1.3 million, identify themselves that way. But, in both cases, when the men are asked about behavior if they have ever had sex with men, not what they consider their sexual orientation, the number of men who have ever been married doubles. . ." . . .Scott W., 64, a retired school teacher and real estate agent, relieved his occasional need for homosexual sex with anonymous encounters on East Hampton Beach without quite labeling himself as gay or bisexual. Only when he fell for someone, who rejected him because he was married, did Scott conclude he had to divorce a woman he loved and had been with for 24 years. That process, as these things go, was without acrimony, said Scott, a former member of Mr. McFadden’s support group, and he remains close to her and his two grown sons. But looking for love in late middle age, Scott said, is a frustrating ordeal. After a brief 'slut phase,' he had "the naïve idea I'd find someone right away." Instead, he has learned he is ill-suited, or too old, for gay night life. "They want to go out at 11 o'clock," Scott said, "and I want to go to sleep at 11 o’clock. Plus, in those places, there's too much noise and confusion." He eats dinner most nights at the bar of an East Side restaurant that attracts an older gay clientele. The conversation is lively, Scott said, but he hasn't found anyone to date. Recently, a married gay man left his business card but Scott threw it away. He is not looking for a one-night stand. Scott's loneliness after divorce is common among middle-aged men, according to Dr. Richard A. Isay, 69, the first openly gay member of the American Psychoanalytic Association who himself left a heterosexual marriage about 20 years ago, when he was already in a gay relationship that he remains in today. Dr. Isay said he came slowly to understand his patients' sense of isolation during three decades of practice, and therefore has modified his advice to gay married men. "I beg them to take it slow because it's difficult to find the substitute for the love and companionship of a longtime spouse," said Dr. Isay, author of 'Commitment and Healing: Gay Men and the Need for Romantic Love' (Wiley, 2006). "They must take that loss into consideration.". . . Even in the security of a six-year relationship with a man, John. J., 53, resists divorcing his wife of 30 years. 'I am still so in love with her," he said, speaking on the condition he not be fully identified because his parents, in-laws and colleagues do not know the details of his separation. "And there's nobody else I'd use that word for.". . ."
"Not So Fast, Mr. George" / Jon Rauch
[From Independent Gay Forum] Robert George gloats that gay-marriage supporters, in this statement, have finally dropped the veil and blurted out what they really want: plural marriage and other forms of legal recognition for "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner." Well, the statement is wrongheaded, and it's poorly drafted to boot (don't they mean more than two conjugal partners?), but George nonetheless gets it wrong. First, there's nothing new here. Left-wing family radicals have been saying all this stuff for years. Second, what they're saying has no particular link to same-sex marriage. Few if any of the signers have been leaders of the gay-marriage movement. In fact, many of them (Judith Stacey and Michael Warner, for instance) have expressed ambivalence or outright hostility toward same-sex marriage. That's because, third, they're not particularly interested in including either plural relationships or same-sex couples in marriage; their agenda is to deinstitutionalize marriage by extending legal recognition to everything else—"conjugal" and otherwise. In other words, they don't want to put gays or polygamists on the marriage pedestal; they want to knock the pedestal over. They'd like to see a world where there'd be little legal or social difference between same-sex marriage and same-sex cohabitation. Fourth, the likeliest way to get where these folks want to go is by not having gay marriage. The result, over time, will be to create and legitimize alternative family structures, including cohabitation benefits. Not by coincidence, "Beyond Marriage" folks are pointing to the recent string of judicial defeats for SSM as evidence that gay-rights supporters should "rethink and redirect" their energies away from marriage, and toward creating a host of marriage substitutes.Finally, George claims that gay-marriage advocates "have made no serious effort to answer" the argument that there's no logical way to favor same-sex marriage and hold out against polygamy. On what planet? Here on earth, we have answered early and often—and we're still waiting for a substantive reply. If George wants to bone up, he can start here, here, here, here, and here (where he'll find a whole chapter on the subject). Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Elizabeth Marquardt on "The Future of Polygamy":
In the July 25 Christian Century: "A pro-poly Web site despairs: "One challenge that faces poly families is the lack of examples of poly relationships in literature and media." A sister site offers the "PolyKids Zine." This publication for kids "supports the principles and mission of the Polyamory Society." It contains "fun, games, uplifting PolyFamily stories and lessons about PolyFamily ethical living." Its book series includes The Magical Power of Mark's Many Parents and Heather Has Two Moms and Three Dads. . ."
After Washington: What's Next?/Newsweek
"August 7, 2006 issue - For Seattle-area pastor and gay-marriage opponent Joseph Fuiten, there was little time to savor the good news. Within hours after the Washington Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, to uphold the state's ban on same-sex marriage, Fuiten—who leads a 2,000-member congregation—was drafting a missive about the ruling to send to 30,000 conservative Christian voters. His goal was not to cheer the victory but rather to punish the justices who didn't join the winning side. Two of them are up for re-election this fall. "They've developed themselves a little track record on family issues," Fuiten says of the dissenting justices. "We need to give them the heave-ho." Not long ago, Fuiten imagined he'd be in a far different position. The left-leaning Washington Supreme Court had been widely expected to legalize same-sex marriage. Gay-rights advocates hoped a win would shift the debate in their favor, proving to the nation that gay marriage could exist outside staunchly liberal Massachusetts. Privately, some conservatives figured that images of gay couples flocking to Seattle would galvanize the right and boost prospects for a federal constitutional amendment. But last week's ruling, which stated that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children," left both sides retooling their strategies. For gay-rights advocates, the Washington decision was the latest in a wrenching string of legal defeats—judges also ruled against gay marriage in New York and Nebraska last month. "There's no question this has been a brutal few weeks," says Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry. Though the court fights will go on—cases are still pending in six states—gay advocates are trying to broaden their approach. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, says HRC plans to increase its focus on state and local races. "It puts a pipeline of people in place who could go to Washington, D.C.," he says. Last week 250 supporters—including Cornel West and Gloria Steinem—released a statement calling for government benefits and legal recognition for a wide range of "families"—including groups of senior citizens living together, extended families and "households with more than one conjugal partner." The hope was to get leaders of the gay-marriage movement to "rethink and redirect what we're doing," says Joseph DeFilippis, one of the statement's authors. Though the Washington ruling was a clear win for gay-marriage foes, it may make their ultimate goal—amending the U.S. Constitution—moot. "If [gay-rights groups] lose all those lawsuits and don't file any more, we don't need the amendment," says Matt Daniels, president of Alliance for Marriage. Back in Washington state, Fuiten hopes to affect the outcome in September's judicial elections. "You have to think of the audacity it takes to redefine parenthood, redefine marriage," says Fuiten. "Nothing beats people being ticked off." True, but anger cuts both ways."
British Anglican Priests "marry"/Reuters
Aug 1, 2006 "A priest who was at the centre of a furore over homosexuality in the Church of England has entered a civil partnership with his long term partner, another male priest, gay activists said on Tuesday. Conservatives in the Church of England reacted to the news with dismay and said it would aggravate the row over homosexuality in the Anglican Communion, the loose federation of Anglican churches worldwide. Jeffrey John, dean of St Albans, entered into the civil partnership with Grant Hollings, a Church of England chaplain, in a ceremony at a register office in southern England last week, the activists told Reuters. Britain introduced the partnerships for same-sex couples last December, with the same legal rights as heterosexual marriage. They are widely referred to as "gay marriages" although the law does not call them that. . ." Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Polls: Gay People Who Oppose Gay Marriage/Maggie Gallagher
There may not be a lot of them, but they do too exist. The New York Times story on the Gay left's rejection of marriage equality as a main goal (below), reminded us of these polls we found (Josh Baker gets the credit). Harris Interactive, April 14, 2004 www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=454 Do you think same-sex couples should be . . . a) Allowed to marry (71% of gays and lesbians) b) Allowed to have civil unions with all the same rights of a married couple but not call it marriage (25%) c) Neither of these (4%) d) Not sure (1%) www.quinnipiac.edu/x11370.xml?ReleaseID=658 NYC Voters, Feb 22-March 1, 2005 1,435 voters, MoE +/- 2.6% 112 G/Lesbian Voters, MoE +/- 9.3% 20. Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married? Gay/Lesbian voters: 77 percent support legalizing gay marriage, 19 percent oppose legalizing gay marriage, and 4 percent don't know or won't say.
Wisconsin Unions Fight State Marriage Amendment/AP
July 31, 2006 "MADISON, Wis. -- Labor unions are joining forces to fight a proposed ban on gay marriage and civil unions in what could become a powerful force in the Nov. 7 referendum. The groups, representing employees ranging from teachers to prison workers, say they are worried the amendment will take away their ability to bargain for benefits such as health insurance for the domestic partners of gay and straight employees. They are making donations, organizing volunteers and educating their members as part of their attempts to make Wisconsin the first state to defeat a constitutional ban on gay marriage. AFSCME, which represents 44,000 public service and health care workers in Wisconsin, became the latest to join the cause on Monday with a strong denunciation of the ban from its political arm and a vow to get its message out. The unions are underscoring the main argument made by the ban's critics: that it is not about gay marriage, which is already illegal in Wisconsin, but that it threatens a range of legal protections for all unmarried couples. Others say those fears are overblown. . ."
Virgina State Marriage Amendment Poll
July 30, 2006 "A majority of Virginia voters say they plan to support the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Virginia, according to the latest Mason-Dixon Virginia Poll. Statewide, 56 percent of likely voters said they will vote 'yes' to amending the state constitution, while 38 percent of voters said they will vote 'no' to the proposed changes. The poll found six percent of likely voters remain undecided. "Strong majorities support the amendment in every region of the commonwealth, except for in Northern Virginia where a plurality (48 percent to 44 percent) is against it," J. Bradford Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. . ." Monday, July 31, 2006
British Court Upholds Marriage: Excerpt
". . .it is complained by the Petitioner that, in denying her and the first Respondent the name and formal status of marriage and "downgrading" her Canadian marriage to the status of civil partnership, the impact of the measure upon her is one of hurt, humiliation, frustration and outrage. I can understand her feelings in that respect. At the same time, it is certainly not clear that those feelings are shared by a substantial number of same-sex couples content with the status of same-sex partnership. Regrettable as the adverse effects have been upon the Petitioner and those in her situation who share her feelings, they do not persuade me that, as a matter of legislative choice and method, the provisions of the CPA represent an unjustifiable exercise in differentiation in the light of its aims. It is apparent that the majority of people, or at least of governments, not only in England but Europe-wide, regard marriage as an age-old institution, valued and valuable, respectable and respected, as a means not only of encouraging monogamy but also the procreation of children and their development and nurture in a family unit (or "nuclear family") in which both maternal and paternal influences are available in respect of their nurture and upbringing. The belief that this form of relationship is the one which best encourages stability in a well regulated society is not a disreputable or outmoded notion based upon ideas of exclusivity, marginalisation, disapproval or discrimination against homosexuals or any other persons who by reason of their sexual orientation or for other reasons prefer to form a same-sex union. If marriage, is by longstanding definition and acceptance, a formal relationship between a man and a woman, primarily (though not exclusively) with the aim of producing and rearing children as I have described it, and if that is the institution contemplated and safeguarded by Article 12, then to accord a same-sex relationship the title and status of marriage would be to fly in the face of the Convention as well as to fail to recognise physical reality. Abiding single sex relationships are in no way inferior, nor does English law suggest that they are by according them recognition under the name of civil partnership. By passage of the CPA, United Kingdom law has moved to recognise the rights of individuals who wish to make a same sex commitment to one another. Parliament has not called partnerships between persons of the same-sex marriage, not because they are considered inferior to the institution of marriage but because, as a matter of objective fact and common understanding, as well as under the present definition of marriage in English law, and by recognition in European jurisprudence, they are indeed different. The position is as follows. With a view (1) to according formal recognition to relationships between same sex couples which have all the features and characteristics of marriage save for the ability to procreate children, and (2) preserving and supporting the concept and institution of marriage as a union between persons of opposite sex or gender, Parliament has taken steps by enacting the CPA to accord to same-sex relationships effectively all the rights, responsibilities, benefits and advantages of civil marriage save the name, and thereby to remove the legal, social and economic disadvantages suffered by homosexuals who wish to join stable long-term relationships. To the extent that by reason of that distinction it discriminates against same-sex partners, such discrimination has a legitimate aim, is reasonable and proportionate, and falls within the margin of appreciation accorded to Convention States. . ."
British Court Refuses to Recognize Canadian SSM/AP
"LONDON Jul 31, 2006 (AP)— A British court refused to recognize the same-sex marriage of two university professors Monday, ruling that marriage has long been accepted in Britain as a union between a man and a woman. Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger wed in Vancouver, Canada, in 2003, and had asked London's High Court for legal recognition of the marriage. They argued that their relationship was like that of any other married couple and that by calling it a civil partnership, Britain had violated their human rights. Mark Potter, president of the High Court's Family Division, ruled there was a "long-standing definition and acceptance" that marriage refers to a relationship between a man and a woman, primarily designed to raise children. "To accord a same-sex relationship the title and status of marriage would be to fly in the face of the (European) Convention (on Human Rights) as well as to fail to recognize physical reality," Potter said. However, Potter said lasting single-sex relationships were "in no way inferior" to relationships between a man and women. Potter said that he believed people across England and Europe respected the concept of marriage and believed it was an important means of protecting the traditional family unit. "The belief that this form of relationship is the one which best encourages stability in a well-regulated society is not a disreputable or outmoded notion based upon ideas of exclusivity, marginalization, disapproval or discrimination against homosexuals," Potter said."
Gender Divide: Men Not Working, and Not Looking for Work/NYT
[Answer: They are living off savings, their wives, the equity in their homes, and social security disability. . ..Maggie] ". . .The missing men are also more likely to live alone. Nearly 60 percent are divorced, separated, widowed or never married, up from 50 percent a decade earlier, the Census Bureau reports. Sometimes women who are working throw out men who are not, says Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania. In any case, without a household to support, there is less pressure to work, and for men who fall behind on support payments, an incentive exists to work off the books — hiding employment — so that wages cannot be garnisheed. 'What happens to a lot of guys who become unmoored from family life, they become unmoored from everything,' Ms. Edin said. 'They are just living without attachments and by the time they are 40 or 50 years old, the things that kept these men from falling away — family and community life — are gone. . .'
Beyond SSM: Not All Gays Want Same-Sex Marriage/NYT
July 30, 2006 "WHEN Bill Dobbs sees the heartwarming photographs of gay couples cuddling, grinning and holding dogs and children, accompanied by pious remarks about how many years they have been a couple — 'five years,' 'eight years,' '24 years!' — in news releases and newspaper and television reports about the fight for gay marriage, it turns his stomach. Mr. Dobbs’s reaction is, he admits, probably not that different from the one he imagines that the anti-gay forces feel. But Mr. Dobbs is gay, part of an intense strain of gay activists who have fought against the idea of gay marriage from the beginning and who think that the escalating pursuit of it is a mistake, especially in light of legal setbacks like the decision on Wednesday by the Washington Supreme Court that lawmakers may restrict marriage to a man and a woman. To these activists, the fight for gay marriage is the mirror image of the right-wing conservative Christian lobby for family values and feeds into the same drive for a homogeneous, orthodox American culture. The Stonewall confrontation and early gay rights movement, after all, was about the right to live an unconventional life, and to Mr. Dobbs and others like him, marriage is the epitome of convention. He said that he does, however, support civil unions for all as a replacement for civil marriage. . . .Mr. Dobbs said that even on Fire Island, where cohabitating with 12 other men was once a time-honored tradition, a friend who is an utterly bourgeois gay homeowner complains that he gets the gimlet eye from gay and lesbian parents because he is not in a relationship. Another friend scolded Mr. Dobbs that if he had never wanted to marry, there must be something wrong with him. But as the fight for same-sex marriage rages across the country — this month being defeated in the highest court in New York State as well as Washington — the anti-marriage gay men and lesbians say they are feeling emboldened to speak out against what they view as the hijacking of gay civil rights by a distressingly conservative, politically correct part of the gay establishment. They say the gay marriage movement, backed by major well-funded organizations like Lambda Legal, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, has drained resources and psychic energy from other causes like AIDS research, universal health insurance and poverty among gay people. . . 'I think the discussion was foreclosed because nobody wanted to speak up against our brothers and sisters,' who wanted marriage, said Jim Eigo, editor of two gay sex magazines, Playguy and Inches. 'These are people they've worked with, people they knew they would hurt.' But he and others in the opposition say they increasingly feel that they have nothing to lose given that "there has been political defeat after political defeat" for the gay marriage lobby, while Massachusetts remains the only state that has legalized same-sex marriage and voters in dozens of other states have passed “defense of marriage” acts. They question whether monogamy is normal. They wonder why gay men and lesbians are buying into an institution that they see as rooted in oppression. They worry that adapting to conventional 'family values' will destroy the cohesion that has made gay men and lesbians a force to be reckoned with, politically and culturally. In the 70’s, many gay people saw themselves as 'an army of lovers,' to borrow the title of a German documentary of the time, Mr. Eigo said. 'I still hold the candle for a gay community like that, in which every man is linked to every other by at least the potential of being his lover.' . . .And some see the insistence on defining homosexuality as strictly a matter of biology — rather than a matter of choice and sensibility as well as biology — as part of the same conformist impulse. . . Minutes after the Washington state court ruled on Wednesday, some 250 academics, celebrities, writers and others, including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun magazine, Armistead Maupin, Terrence McNally, Holly Near and Cornel West, signed a manifesto called 'Beyond Same-Sex Marriage, A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships.' It calls for the legal rights and privileges of marriage to be extended to arrangements like extended families living under one roof, and close friends in long-term caregiving relationships. . . .Florent Morellet, the French-born owner of Restaurant Florent in the once-raunchy meatpacking district of Manhattan, had a commitment ceremony in 1988 with his partner, Daniel Platten. Mr. Platten died in 1994 and Mr. Morellet says he is at a stage in his life when he is looking for a monogamous relationship. Yet, influenced by French attitudes toward erotic life, he does not subscribe to the American ideal of marriage as a narrowing of sexual opportunity. "In France, which is nominally a Catholic country, adultery is actually an equal opportunity," he says. "Women have almost as much adultery relationships as men."
After Washington: Prospects for Court Victories Reduced/Seattle Times
". . .But a string of recent court decisions, including last week's 5-4 Washington Supreme Court ruling that upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriages, suggests the judicial path may have failed them and that justices who have found themselves pilloried as activists will not deliver full salvation for gays after all. Taken together, the decisions represent a body of case law that might make following Massachusetts' lead in allowing same-sex marriage that much more difficult for the handful of states still weighing the question. . ."
8th Circuit Ruling Upholding Nebraska State Marriage Amendment Appealed
"In legal papers filed today, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union will ask a federal appeals court to reconsider its July 14th ruling upholding an extreme Nebraska law that bans all protections for same-sex couples. . . 'This case has never been about marriage. It is about whether a state can completely block gay people from the political process. It basically put a sign of the door of the Nebraska legislature telling gay people to stay away, ' said Jon W. Davidson, Legal Director at Lambda Legal. 'If our constitutional guarantees of equality have any meaning, this law has to go.'. . ." |
||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|