Would the Virginia Marriage Amendment Ban Wills and Private Contracts?

This is the kind of concerns raised to which the State Attorney General was responding, from the Commonwealth Coalition website:

"More than 100 attorneys and legal scholars from around Virginia have joined the Virginia Legal Review Committee to express concern about the "significant and largely unpredictable legal consequences" of Ballot Question #1, the proposed amendment to the Virginia Bill of Rights that will be before the voters on NOvember 7th.

Among the attorneys and legal scholars, who, as of September 7, 2006, have given permission for their names to be included on a growing list of those concerned about the legal consequences of the so-called marriage amendment, are former Attorneys General Stephen D. Rosenthal and Anthony F. Troy and former Republican candidate for Attorney General Wyatt B. Durette.

. . .Arnold and Porter, a prestigious Washington law firm, was asked to prepare a memo outlining the potential legal consequences of the proposed Marshall/Newman amendment. . . .and concluded that:

the [proposed Virginia] Amendment could be interpreted by Virginia courts to have the following effects:

Invalidate rights and protections currently provided to unmarried couples under Virginia's domestic violence laws;
Undermine private employers' efforts to attract top employees to Virginia by providing employee benefits to domestic partners, as the courts and public medical facilities may not be permitted to recognize those benefits; and
Prevent the court's from enforcing --
-- private agreements between unmarried couples,
-- child custody and visitation rights, and
-- end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts and advance medical directives, executed by unmarried couples.

posted by maggie at 3:20 PM | Link |

Virginia AG Legal Opinion on Marriage Amendment

Concerns (sparked in part by a private legal memo) have been raised that the language of the Virginia State Marriage Amendment may have unintended consequences. On September 14 Virginia's attorney general issued a formal opinion:

Statement of Attorney General Bob McDonnell on Marriage Amendment Opinion

"I have received requests from several members of the General Assembly to review the proposed constitutional amendment defining traditional marriage and answer specific questions concerning its potential applications upon passage. Today, I issued a formal opinion as Attorney General that the passage of the Marriage Amendment will not affect current legal rights and obligations of unmarried persons involving contracts, wills, advance medical directives, shared equity agreements, employer accident and sickness insurance policies, or protection under domestic violence laws. This opinion is based on our legal analysis of the proposed amendment read together with the current law."

"The intent of the amendment is clear. The first sentence defines marriage as solely the union between one man and one woman. The second and third sentences collectively prevent attempts to establish same-sex marriage, or similar relationships that attempt to create marriage-like unions by any other name. The General Assembly's own official explanation of the Marriage Amendment, passed on May 12th of this year, clearly states that all other legal rights, benefits and obligations continue to be available to unmarried persons. I can find no legal basis for the proposition that passage of the marriage amendment will limit or infringe upon the ordinary civil and legal rights of unmarried Virginians.". . .

posted by maggie at 2:38 PM | Link |

BMJ: Emergency Contraception Overrated

A press release describing the British Medical Journal's editorial saying even giving women a personal supply of emergency contraception (which some critics describe as an abortifacient, not contraception) for use in the home seems to have little effect on pregnancy or abortion rates. Perhaps this is because women not focussed enough to use contraception appropriately, aren't focussed enough to think about using their emergency contraception, either:

". . .The usefulness of emergency contraception is questioned by Professor Anna Glasier, director of family planning and well woman services of Lothian Primary Care NHS Trust. . .

Ten different studies carried out in different countries showed that giving women a supply of emergency contraception to keep at home increased its use by twofold or threefold, but had no measurable effect on rates of pregnancy or abortion.

Most women who did not use their supply, said they did not realise they had put themselves at risk of pregnancy.

Professor Glasier writes: "If you are looking for an intervention that will reduce abortion rates, emergency contraception may not be the solution and perhaps you should concentrate most on encouraging people to use contraception before or during sex, not after it."

Click here to view paper: presspsprings.co.uk/bmj/september/edit560.pdf
posted by maggie at 9:57 AM | Link |

Dutch Song: "Two Fathers"

From a Dutch group called "Children for Children," here. And here, through the wonders of youtube, is Dutch preschoolers on TV talking about gay and lesbian parents.
posted by maggie at 12:08 AM | Link |

Sen. Harry Reid Calls For Polygamy Task Force

A federal task force investigating polygamists, naturally, according to this Sept 12, AP story:

"The U.S. Senate's top Democrat called Tuesday for a federal investigation into the activities of polygamists in Western states.

Harry Reid of Nevada said in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that a task force should be formed to look into interstate activities of polygamists. He also asked the Justice Department to help state prosecutors dealing with polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs.

"For too long, this outrageous activity has been disguised in the mask of religious freedom," Reid said. "But child abuse and human servitude have nothing to do with religious freedom and must not be tolerated.". . ."

posted by maggie at 11:41 AM | Link |

Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Conference

"Mating, Marriage and Money" discussion here.
posted by maggie at 11:26 AM | Link |

The Conversion of Fay Weldon

Remember Fay Weldon? The woman wrote all those witty and cruel female chauvinist novels? According to the Guardian (Thanks Eve for sending this to me), "After seven decades as an atheist, Fay Weldon has found God. But has she stopped believing in women? She tells Stuart Jeffries why they should stop complaining, be nicer to men and forget about orgasms." Her take on modern marriage and morals. . .and er priests:

"What strikes me about the book is that she really lets her women, erm ... Weldon interrupts, giggling: "down." No, what I meant to say was "let your women get away with one quick, furtive shag." "Yes, that's right," she replies. "The moral core to the book is once you can't resist temptation or overcome the Darwinian necessity thing, then don't. But the point is don't do it again. It's quite a forgiving attitude." In one of the short story parables that thread through the book, Henry and Letty (her character names are often nelly, but hardly as incessantly hoot-worthy as Iris Murdoch's) have a quick one when their spouses are conveniently called away from a dinner-party foursome.

But isn't adultery wrong for Christians? "It depends on circumstances." I thought it didn't. "Well, if you're going to keep your family together because you know you're not capable of not [having a quickie] you'd better go and do it. Or if you want to have a family but you can't have a family and the only way is by going and shagging somebody else and getting pregnant because your husband can't, then you do it but don't tell him. He probably knows and doesn't mind and you all get on with your lives.

"What happens now is that if some unfortunate man goes to bed with some woman, overnight there's a divorce. He thinks and feels about the authenticity of his being, then they have to get married. So they just end up having serial marriages, which is distressing for the children. It would be much better if people just put up with the guilt of having erred and shut up."

How do you square your conclusions with your priest? "I wouldn't consult him. Would you consult a priest on moral matters? They're all therapy and touchy-feely. They're not actually engaged in moral debate. It's my problem with the church - I am a Christian, but I am afraid they have failed their flock in their inability to confront moral issues." . ."

posted by maggie at 4:33 PM | Link |

A Question

When Andrew Sullivan advocates for legal changes that would treat nonbiological families (aka gay couples with kids) equally, is he being a Christianist?
posted by maggie at 2:52 PM | Link |

Response to AAP on SSM

I was going to post a link to a report prepared by Glen Stanton and a colleague of Focus on the Family, responding to the American Academy of Pediatric's report endorsing SSM (This is in addition to their report, several years back, approving of second-parent adoptions for gay couples)--But Elizabeth Marquardt beat me to it. A link to FOTF's response and to the original Pediatrics report are here.
posted by maggie at 2:36 PM | Link |

Oh the Studies I Read!

Two new promising weight loss strategies: Brown seaweed and Alzheimer's.
posted by maggie at 10:57 AM | Link |

Does Tolerance Require Eliminating the Idea of "Moms and Dads"?

A Sept 12, Seattle Times story about some gay parents' search for inclusive public schools. Is there a path to tolerance that does not involve rigrously censoring the idea that moms and dads matter? Apparently not:

". . .Achtmeyer, a nurse and public-health researcher, said when she toured Seattle elementary schools this summer looking for one that would be a fit for her daughter, she listened carefully to how educators talked about their schools.

"If they keep saying, 'mom and dad,' 'mom and dad,' you can conclude that the school is oriented toward moms and dads," and may not be a welcoming place for her daughter, she said. . .

"I tell teachers that it's not about being super politically correct," said Lisa Love, health-education specialist for the Seattle School District who helps provide that training to schools that ask for it.

"It's about being open to the idea that families can look different from what they might imagine. Whether it's mom and momma, who cares?". . .

Jim Rose said he and his partner, Eric Gutierrez, feel they won't need to prepare their 4-year-old adopted son, Isaac, for similar questions just yet.

Last year they enrolled him at Giddens school, an independent elementary school in the Central Area. "There are so many different family structures there — single parents, two moms, two dads," Rose said. "Our son never has to feel like he's the odd man out."

Rose said for now the diversity at Giddens relieves them from having to tell their son about society's sometimes negative perception of families like theirs.
"Our son understands that some kids have a mom and dad and some have one parent," Rose said. "He doesn't understand the social ramification of it in some circles. We want to keep him as untainted as long as we can.". . .

A phrase such as "don't forget to tell your parents about the field trip" rather than "your mom and dad" can go a long way in making a kid, especially a small child, feel included, parents and teachers say.

"You can't try to squeeze all families into a mommy-and-daddy role," Smith-Mosel said. "It's not the role of a school to teach a child shame.". . ."

posted by maggie at 10:50 AM | Link |

Wisconsin State Marriage Amendment Update

A Sept. 11 365gay.com story mostly on Focus on the Family's contributions to passing a marriage amendment in Wisconsin,:

"With polls showing that Wisconsin could become the first state in the nation where voters reject a proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage Focus on the Family, one of the country's most anti-gay organizations, has entered that battleground.

The proposed amendment to the state constitution would bar same-sex marriage, civil unions and possibly be used to deny partner benefits. . .

A growing list of prominent citizens and business groups have voiced their opposition to the proposed amendment.

Last week seventeen former presidents of the Wisconsin Bar Association on Wednesday announced their opposition.

"Our founding fathers drafted our Constitution to embrace rights and freedoms which were to stand firm through all time and through all political changes. Wisconsin’s Constitution, like the United States Constitution, is a document which grants rights to citizens. It is not, has not been, and should not be used as a political means to restrict the rights of any citizens," the lawyers said.

In June four former Wisconsin governors - three Democrats and one Republican - issued an open call to reject the measure. The state's biggest unions also oppose the amendment. Wisconsin's travel industry - one of the state's biggest businesses - said fears it could suffer millions of dollars in losses if the amendment is passed."

posted by maggie at 10:39 AM | Link |

Poll: Virginia State Marriage Amendment Leads

A recent Mason-Dixon poll in the Sept. 12 Richmond Daily Press:

"Supporters of a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Virginia continue to hold a double-digit lead with Election Day nine weeks away, a new survey shows.

However, a spokeswoman for the opposition said she was encouraged because the lead has shrunk by 2 percentage points from a July poll.

Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would vote in favor of the amendment while 40 percent said they would vote no, according to Mason-Dixon Polling and Research. . ."
posted by maggie at 10:35 AM | Link |

South Africans Call for Free Vote on SSM

After a South African court decision ordering SSM, the ruling party in South Africa is prepared to pass new legislation, and trying to force a party line vote:

". . .ANC MPs opposed to the contentious same-sex marriage bill have called for a "conscience vote", a call last made in the ruling party more than a decade ago over an equally divisive issue.

When the ANC adopted the Termination of Pregnancy Bill in 1996 it did not allow its MPs a conscience vote, despite a 1995 position paper written by Reverend Frank Chikane and two others, arguing for one.

At the time the party argued that the abortion law was not a moral, but a health issue and expected all its MPs to vote in line with the party's position on the matter.

At the ANC caucus meeting this week, ruling party MPs made clear their opposition to the Civil Union Bill, which will legalise same-sex marriages and also resurrected the need for a "free vote".

ANC and government officials acknowledged that more ANC MPs were opposed to same-sex marriages than in favour and that the ruling party had a mountain to cross.

But those championing the country's constitutional democracy and who believe the rights of the country's gay minority must be protected, believe that once the prejudice and misconceptions are cleared up, tthe question of a free vote in the ANC will not be necessary. . .

The constitutional court last year ruled that the Marriage Act was unconstitutional as it did not afford gay couples the same rights as heterosexual ones.

It gave parliament until December 1 this year to adopt a law on same-sex marriages, failing which the formula in the Marriage Act would automatically be read to include the word "spouse".

The government opted for the Civil Union Bill, rather than an amendment to the Marriage Act, in a bid to manage some of the fallout. This includes allowing ministers of religion who are marriage officers to choose whether they wish to solemnise same-sex marriages or not.

It also gives gay couples the option to have their union solemnised as a marriage or a civil partnership.

posted by maggie at 10:32 AM | Link |

Sex is Serious Ethical Business!

So why do I find this so funny?:

"At first glance, the posting looked like any number of Internet classified ads explicitly seeking sex. But instead of the 27-year-old woman with long brown hair advertised, a male, Seattle-area graphic designer collected the replies and posted them online — with photos, names and contact information. Privacy experts say the case treads the line legally but crosses it morally.

"It's a sad commentary overall," said Lauren Weinstein, a veteran computer scientist and privacy advocate. "It's one of those situations where both sides look bad. ... From an ethical standpoint, this isn't brain surgery."

It all began with Jason Fortuny's posting on the online community Craigslist. According to his Web journal, Fortuny took a real ad and reposted it so that responses went straight to him. Among the 178 responses were 145 photos of men "in various states of undress." The replies included e-mail addresses, names and in some cases, instant-messaging accounts and phone numbers.

Fortuny then posted all the replies on a Web site devoted to parodies and satires online.

It's by no means the first time information thought private gets posted online.

Internet vigilantes have engaged spammers and scam artists and posted results of their conversations online. Others expose sexual predators they purposely seek out in chat rooms.

In this case, however, the men who replied to Fortuny's posting did not appear to be doing anything illegal, so the outing has no social value other than to prove that someone could ruin lives online, said Jonathan Zittrain, a law professor at Oxford and Harvard universities. . ."

posted by maggie at 7:58 AM | Link |

Michigan Dems Call for Repeal of State Marriage Amendment

Apparently, the Michigan Democratic Party officially adopted a plank calling for the repeal of the state marriage amendment passed by 59 percent of Michigan voters in November 2004. Profile in political courage, or?
posted by maggie at 5:50 PM | Link |

New Study: Americans Even More Religious Than Suspected

From Associated Press, a report on Byron Johnson's new religion survey data showing there even are more Christians than we thought and fewer atheists:

September 11, 2006

"More Americans are active in religious groups than previously thought and many others without ties to congregations still believe in God or a higher power, according to a broad survey of faith in America released Monday.

The study also found that most traditional Christians reject the label "evangelical," preferring to describe themselves as "Bible-believing" or "born again."

The survey was conducted by the Baylor University Sociology Department and the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion as the first in a series on the spiritual life of Americans.

Researchers found that only 10.8% of Americans have no ties to a congregation, denomination or faith group. Previous surveys had put that figure at 14%, overlooking about 10 million people involved in some form of organized religion, the Baylor report said.

Other surveys have also overlooked millions of evangelicals, because respondents who belonged to non-denominational groups or megachurches would often report that they had no denomination and were wrongly counted as unaffiliated, the study's authors say.

Baylor researchers found that one-third of Americans are evangelical Protestant, just under one-quarter are mainline Protestant, one-fifth are Roman Catholic and 5% are black Protestant. Jews compromise 2.5% of the population, while 5% of Americans belong to other faiths.

The rest, who are not involved in religious groups, are not fully secular, researchers said. More than 60% of the unaffiliated say they believe in God or a higher power, and nearly one-third say they pray at least occasionally. Eleven percent believe Jesus is the son of God. . ."

posted by maggie at 11:35 AM | Link |

A Child's Right to Know?

A Michigan 17 year old is suing his mother, saying he has a right to know who his biological father is. The National Law Journal story reveals some of the ugly biases of family law as a discipline, in which administrative ease, and a low opinion of fathers, hide behind apparent concern for children.

My own off the cuff opinion is that minor children should generally not have a right to sue their parents (unless abuse is involved). So the teen should have to wait until he's 18 to legally demand access to this basic human right:

The National Law Journal
August 11, 2006

In a case that family law experts fear could set a dangerous precedent, a Michigan teenager is suing his mother to learn the identity of his father.
Family law attorneys say the issue of compelling a mother to reveal the identity of the biological father is a new area of law. And depending on how the Michigan judge rules in the case, they say, courts nationally could see a new flood of lawsuits of children suing their parents.

"You are opening the floodgates of litigation," said Richard Crouch of Crouch & Crouch in Arlington, Va., who has been practicing family law for more than 30 years and has sat on several American Bar Association and Virginia State Bar family law committees. "The courts haven't got any business concerning themselves with this area, even if there are health concerns. You're opening up too large an area where a lot of the litigation would be useless and frivolous."

Family law practitioner Laura Morgan of Family Law Consulting in Charlottesville, Va., cited similar concerns, saying that the Michigan case could trigger lawsuits by angry ex-husbands who will convince kids to sue to find out who their biological fathers are.

"The concern is that children will be manipulated by their legal fathers into suing their mothers for this kind of information," Morgan said. "Too few future cases would be about legitimate health concerns, and too many would be an unhappy ex-husband manipulating a child."

posted by maggie at 10:09 AM | Link |

It's National Single and Unmarried Week!

Or so the Census Bureau says:

August 10, 2006

*Special Edition*
Unmarried and Single Americans Week
Sept. 17-23, 2006

"'National Singles Week' was started by the Buckeye Singles Council in Ohio
in the 1980s to celebrate single life and recognize singles and their
contributions to society. The week is now widely observed (emphasis added) during the third full week of September (Sept. 17-23 in 2006) as 'Unmarried and Single Americans Week,' an acknowledgment that many unmarried Americans do not identify with the word 'single' because they are parents, have partners orare widowed.

Single Life
89.8 million
Number of unmarried and single Americans in 2005. This group comprised 41
percent of all U.S. residents age 18 and older. . ."

I want to know who got the Census Bureau to issue a special data pronouncement on this widely observed American week, when family scholars cannot get the Census Bureau, after endless importuning, to release data on what proportion of children are being raised in home with their own two married parents. Anyone have a clue?
posted by maggie at 9:54 AM | Link |

A "Conservative Progressive" Family Agenda/David Brooks

In an op ed in the NYT (so no point in linking), David Brooks lays out what he consider a new agenda that is "socially conservative and economically progressive," because "when it comes to building human capital, the two go hand in hand.":

"Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review points out that investments in human capital are overtaxed. He suggests raising the child tax credit to $5,000. That woiuld be part of a plan to lighten the tax burden on families while they are raising kids and shift it to when they are done. . .

Second, it means strengthening marriage. Only half of American kids can expect to live with both biolgoical parents at age 15. . .That has calamitous effects on education and development. There are many cultural ways to strengthen marriage, but financially, the government could extend the earned income tax credit to single males. That would not only induce more young men to enter the labor force, it would also make them more marriageable. . ."

He goes on to suggest giving every child a $1000 savings account at birth, high quality preschools for poor kids, and some rather unspecified school reforms.

Kudos to David. One caveat: the research does not suggest giving single men more money is a very effective marriage strategy.(The retreat from marriage among African Americans has occurred across all income levels). Nor is it likely to be politically or constitutionally possible to extend the Earned Income Tax Credit to ONLY single males, without including single, childless females too. If the goal is strengthening marriage to improve children's human capital, this is going to prove very expensive for relatively little return.

A better strategy is to reduce the marriage penalties in the Earned Income Tax Credit (thus subsidizing lower earning husbands' wages. . .).

Is Hillary Clinton is listening?. . . .Because republicans have show little interest in profamily tax cuts in recent years.
posted by maggie at 11:09 AM | Link |