NYT Analysis: Married Households In the Minority

NYT October 15, 2006, "It's Official: To Be Married Means to Be Outnumbered," (If you are a household anyway):

". . .The American Community Survey, released this month by the Census Bureau, found that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier.

The numbers by no means suggests marriage is dead or necessarily that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry. But marriage has been facing more competition. A growing number of adults are spending more of their lives single or living unmarried with partners, and the potential social and economic implications are profound.

The census survey estimated that 5.2 million couples, a little more than 5 percent of households, were unmarried opposite-sex partners. An additional 413,000 households were male couples, and 363,000 were female couples. In all, nearly one in 10 couples were unmarried. (One in 20 households consisted of people living alone). .

And the numbers of unmarried couples are growing. Since 2000, those identifying themselves as unmarried opposite-sex couples rose by about 14 percent, male couples by 24 percent and female couples by 12 percent.

. . .The survey did not ask about sexual orientation, but its questionnaire was designed to distinguish partners from roommates. A partner was defined as “an adult who is unrelated to the householder, but shares living quarters and has a close personal relationship with the householder.”

. . .The survey revealed wide disparities in household composition by place. The proportion of married couples ranged from more than 69 percent in Utah County, Utah, which includes Provo, to 26 percent in Manhattan, which has a smaller share of married couples than almost anyplace in the country. But Manhattan registered a 1.2 percent increase in married couples since 2000, in contrast to the rest of New York City and many other places.

. . .But Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center, said her research — unaffiliated with the Census Bureau — found that the desire for strong family bonds, and especially marriage, was constant.

“Even cohabiting young adults tell us that they are doing so because it would be unwise to marry without first living together in a society marked by high levels of divorce,” Ms. Smock said.

A number of couples interviewed agreed that cohabiting was akin to taking a test drive and, given the scarcity of affordable apartments and homes, also a matter of convenience. Some said that pregnancy was the only thing that would prompt them to make a legal commitment soon. Others said they never intended to marry. A few of those couples said they were inspired by solidarity with gay and lesbian couples who cannot legally marry in most states.

Jennifer Lynch, a 28-year-old stage manager in New York, said she had lived on the Lower East Side with her boyfriend, who is 37 and divorced, for most of the five years they have been a couple.

“Cohabitating is our choice, and we have no intention to be married,” Ms. Lynch said. “There is little difference between what we do and what married people do. We love each other, exist together, all of our decisions are based upon each other. Everyone we care about knows this.” . . "

posted by maggie at 11:31 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: Childfree U.S. Women

A study in the November 2006 Journal of Marriage and Family, "Childlessness Among Older Women in the United States: Trends and Profiles," Joyce C. Abma and Gladys M. Martinez. Voluntary childlessness among women in the late thirties and early forties increased from 5 percent to 9 percent in 1995, and fell slightly in 2002 to 7 percent. "Voluntarily childless women have the highest income, prior work experience, and lowest religiosity compared to other women."
posted by maggie at 5:59 PM | Link | 0 comments

What Sort of Creature is the EU?

"Government without statehood"? Or "Statehood without government"? European legal scholars ponder here.
posted by maggie at 4:58 PM | Link | 1 comments

Update: 8 States to Vote on Marriage Amendments

An excellent roundup on the state marriage amendment battles in the Oct. 13 Washington Blade:

"With the mid-term elections just weeks away, experts are predicting at least five proposed state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage will pass.

But fights in three other states — Arizona, South Dakota and Wisconsin — are competitive and too close to call, sources said.

Political experts said voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia were likely to approve the constitutional bans next month.

"If there's going to be a victory for the LGBT community, it’s going to be in Wisconsin," said Dan Pinello, a City University of New York government professor and author of 'America's Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.'

Pinello, who is gay, said activists chose Wisconsin as a key battleground partly because of the state's symbolic value. In 1982, it became the first state to bar workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation."

But as this story notes, recent polls suggest Wisconsin voters will approve a state mariage amendment. Meanwhile, what is happening in Arizona?:

"And in Arizona, opposition to the amendment has increased in recent months.

Earlier this year, a poll showed 52 percent of voters supported the amendment while 40 percent opposed it. More recent polls show 38 percent support the proposal and 51 percent oppose it.

The earlier poll, conducted in March by Northern Arizona University, had a 4.3 percent margin of error. A more recent poll, conducted in August by Arizona State University, has a 3.3 percent margin of error.

Another poll conducted last weekend by Harstad Strategic Research showed that 48 percent of voters oppose the amendment effort, with 11 percent still undecided.

Pinello said the increased opposition among Arizonans is attributable to Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe, the state’s retiring gay congressman, a vocal opponent of the amendment.

"If Arizona is close, I'd be willing to bet it's because of his presence,” Pinello said. “Without him, I would suggest it would not be close at all.". . ."

An interesting discussion of how various GLBT leaders are framing the debat ein different states e.g.:

"Asha Leong, leader of the South Carolina Equality Coalition’s campaign against the amendment, said her group depicts the vote as a civil rights battle.

"We know we have a challenge on our hands doing this in the buckle of the Bible Belt," she said. "We're talking about this in terms of social justice."

Randy Tarkington of "Vote No on 1" said his group is portraying the Tennessee measure as redundant and unnecessary.

"We already have a law," he said. "Should we really be worried about activist judges in Tennessee? Let's be honest."

On the other side of the country, Andrew Yoder of “Idaho Votes No” said his organization has worked to educate voters.

"Very few people we talk to around the state realize that the amendment goes well beyond reaffirming the state’s definition of marriage," he said. "They don't realize that the amendment also seeks to eliminate any possibility of civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other form of relationship recognition.

"When they find this out, their attitude toward the amendment dramatically shifts to one of opposition. They recognize that it is simply unfair." . . ."

The Colorado situation is unique:

"Despite the expected losses, activists could win an important victory in Colorado.

Voters there are considering a domestic partnership measure that would extend new rights to gay couples. A recent poll by Public Opinion Strategies shows the measure, called Referendum I, is supported by an estimated 58 percent of voters.

"Referendum I is helping stake out the middle ground on this issue,” said Pat Steadman of Coloradans for Fairness and Equality, "and Colorado voters, I think, are flocking there." . . .

Rouse said the measure’s untried approach could nonetheless be a milestone in the fight for gay civil rights.

"Colorado is doing something that is unique,” he said, “and people will either consider it brilliant or horrific.".. ."

UPDATE: Roundups on the state marriage amendment battles in USA Today and the New York Times. But the Washington Blade's coverage is much more informative and less triumphalist.
posted by maggie at 9:36 AM | Link | 3 comments

New Poll: AZ Marriage Amendment Trailing

We've been unable to get the exact wording of the new poll, but this anti-marriage amendment Arizona website claims it was the exact language of the amendment. Will Arizona be the first state to reject a marriage amendment?

One Arizona columnist has trouble making up his mind.

Update: Here's a link to the question asked in the August Arizona State University poll that showed Arizonans opposed the amendment 38 percent to 51 percent:

"10. Finally, Proposition 107 would amend the Arizona constitution to ban same-sex marriages and would bar governmental entities such as cities, counties, school districts and universities from providing employee benefits to unmarried partners. Will you probably support or oppose this proposition?"

In 2004, polls that used the "ban same-sex marriage" language were very bad predictors of actual votes in state marriage amendments (my best recollection is that polls using this language were off by about ten points, compared to other phrasings. (Perhaps because some voters associate "ban same-sx marriage" with criminalizing gay unions?)
posted by maggie at 9:29 AM | Link | 2 comments

Babes Without Babes

Oh the horrors of being a childfree woman in our baby-obsessed culture! But now at last this oppressed minority has gained sufficient numbers (see "Demographic Time Bomb" below) and confidence(!) to speak out, in Canada.
posted by maggie at 9:27 AM | Link | 2 comments

EU: Demographic Time Bomb

Here is the latest from the EU Commission, "Five Ways to Defuse the Demographic Time Bomb" . Also an Oct. 10 story on same in Deutsche Welle:

"The European Union Commission on Thursday agreed on a strategy paper to address demographic change in the 25-member bloc, including support for balancing the demands of both family and career.

According to EU Social Affairs Commissioner Vladimir Spidla, the first point of the strategy is to put in place policies and support systems that would allow EU citizens to "have as many children as they wish."

In addition, older persons should be able to work longer, said Spidla.

According to estimates provided by the commissioner, the number of Europeans of working age (between 15 and 64 years old) will shrink by 20 million by the year 2030, even taking into account 1.8 million immigrating into the EU every year.

By 2050, the loss of workers is estimated to come to as many as 48 million. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:50 PM | Link | 0 comments

Cato Analysis of Libertarian Voters

It's here. No particular comment on the central thesis, but one question: How did support for gay marriage become (theoretically and conceptually I mean) in the author's minds a defining characteristic of libertarianism? Gay marriage expands government benefits to cover more people, no? . . (And yes, I understand why some or many libertarians support gay marriage. But why imagine it defines the libertarian/nonlibertarian boundary, philisophically speaking?)
posted by maggie at 9:08 PM | Link | 4 comments

California is Weird

An Oct. 12 San Francisco Chronicle story about California talk show host who supports gay marriage, but is in trouble for criticizing a gay man and lesbian woman who had a child together without being in a romantic relationship. This strikes me as an extremely odd line to draw (having babies without romance is hardly untraditional, for married folks), but goes to show a. the felt need for drawing some limits somewhere, b. the moral indignation among some folks when you do and c. California is. . .different:

"San Francisco public officials and leaders of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community are demanding that a prominent radio host and television news anchor apologize for comments he made on the air about nontraditional families.
Pete Wilson, the anchor of ABC's local evening news and host of a radio show on KGO 810 AM, criticized Supervisor Bevan Dufty and his friend Rebecca Goldfader, who are sharing a home and co-parenting a newborn, during a radio broadcast Tuesday.
Their daughter, Sydney, was born last week. Wilson, who said he supports same-sex marriage and lesbian and gay couples raising children, referred to her as an "experiment" because they're not in a romantic relationship.

"The Dufty-Goldfader baby is, in my mind, a travesty," Wilson said during an hour he devoted to the topic on air. "Or a potential travesty. Perhaps that's a better way of saying it."

Later in his show, Wilson said, "At some point there is a limit to how far we stretch the self-indulgent search for the alternative that we have been involved in the last 30 or 40 years in this country." . . ."

UPDATE: Californians are talking about it, here.
posted by maggie at 10:35 AM | Link | 1 comments

BIBLE STUDIES FOR DIVORCED FAMILIES

from Christianity Today; via Child of Divorce/Child of God; and addressing a wide range of different family roles and situations.
posted by Eve at 11:04 PM | Link | 0 comments

FAMILIES, PROPERTY, AND STATE RECOGNITION OF RELATIONSHIPS: Ryan T. Anderson

Last month, Britain's Telegraph ran stories telling of two elderly sisters who brought the British government before the European Court of Human Rights. The sisters, both in their eighties, lived and worked on their family farm all their lives, caring for their parents and aunts as they grew older. When their parents passed away, the sisters inherited the property. And now, as the sisters look toward their own passing, they know that when one sister passes away, the other sister will inherit the property, and a resulting tax. The problem? The house, which was built at a price tag of £7,000 in 1965, is now valued at £875,000, which means there will be an estimated £236,000 inheritance tax levied upon the surviving sister. Neither sister has that kind of money. To pay the tax, the surviving sister will be forced to sell the entire property.

According to the Telegraph, the sisters have feared this result for some time now and for the past thirty-one years have been fighting to change the law so that it excludes family members from the inheritance tax (or death tax, as it is often called). This tax is not paid by spouses or civil union partners, but is paid by siblings and other familial descendants. And as the sisters note, other women who live in stable, loving, committed relationships--as the sisters have for all of their lives--are now granted civil partnerships by the state. ...

...With respect to both the inheritance tax and laws regarding civil unions, the government has simply forgotten that the human family stands prior to, and independent of, the state. The state does not create marriage or the family; it merely recognizes and--where sound law and policy are in place--respects and supports this natural and indispensable human institution. This has profound implications for both the inheritance tax and civil partnerships.

If the family is a pre-political, basic institution of civil society, then the goods of the family, including material possessions, should be recognized by the state as residing in the family and not narrowly, or exclusively, in either the individuals who comprise the family nor the state to which the family belongs. Hence, upon the death of an individual, his property should be allowed to remain with his family, with his wife, children, and any other designated relatives. The family enterprise that labored to generate the wealth should be allowed to be the institution that retains the wealth. On the current scheme, however, things appear exactly backwards: The state stands as the prime organ of civil society, and upon one's death, one's possessions are returned to the state, to be divvied up as the state sees fit. In this case, one sister's property will be returned to the government upon her death, to be bought back by the other sister at the price of the current death tax. ...

If the government deems it necessary to recognize other adult relationships besides marriage, then it cannot discriminate against competing relationships on the basis of sexual activity. For in venturing beyond marriage--with its contours based precisely on complementary sexual union--the state has no available reasons for citing sexual activity as the defining attribute of other adult relationships. In other words, civil domestic partnerships must be open to all adult domestic partners whether or not they are (or are willing to say they are) sexual partners.

more
posted by Eve at 10:59 PM | Link | 0 comments

ACLU Targets Anti-Cohabitation Laws in 7 states/Wash.Times

An Oct. 10 Washington Times piece on the ACLU's campaign to get state anticohabitation laws declared unconstitutional after Lawrence. I think having a lot of law on the books you don't really enforce is a bad idea (and unjust to the occasional person punished by them). It seems to me ACLU has spotted a golden opportunity to widen the reach of Lawrence. Another example of why we need to import a doctrine of desuetude. The only way for courts to strike down these old laws is by coming up with new constitutional theories:

"Decades ago, it was illegal in every state for adult lovers to live together without being married. Today, just seven states still criminalize cohabitation and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is eager to reduce that number to zero.
For instance:
• In North Carolina, the ACLU has sued the state on behalf of emergency dispatcher Debora Hobbs, who was told by her boss that she was breaking the law by living with her boyfriend and she should get married, get separate addresses or get a new job.
• In West Virginia, the ACLU has sued the state on behalf of convicted forger William Stanley, who was granted parole last summer but had to wait in jail for four more months because his plan to live with his fiancee was illegal under state law.
• In Michigan, the ACLU took up the case of divorced father Christian Muller. A judge told Mr. Muller he couldn't have his children visit him overnight if his live-in girlfriend was in the house.
These states and four others -- Florida, Mississippi, North Dakota and Virginia -- have laws outlawing "lewd and lascivious" cohabitation, said ACLU attorneys, who urge an end to such "antiquated" laws.
"We understand that there is a debate over the morality of whether it's good for people to live together out of wedlock," said Jennifer Rudinger of ACLU of North Carolina. "The problem we have is that it's not the role of government to make that decision a crime, particularly when you're talking about two consenting adults."

posted by maggie at 7:43 PM | Link | 4 comments

Separation of Church and State/NYT

The NYT reporter in the four part series this week spoke with a number of good people (today's installment features extensive comments from the Becket Fund's Anthony Picarello, for example). But I was very struck by this comment from Prof. John Witte:

"What's happening with all these tax breaks and exemptions is a soft, subconstitutional establishment of religion returning to the country," said John Witte Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at the Emory University law school. That increasing level of indirect support and patronage, he said, "breeds a level of dependency that I think is dangerous for both religion and government."

Prof. Witte is a brilliant, influential legal scholar, as well as a historian of religion. If he says it, you have to consider it seriously.
posted by maggie at 1:13 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: Pre-Nups on the Rise/NY Post

An Oct. 11, NY Post-style story reporting on trends in prenuptial agreements based on a survey of lawyers from the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers:

"A shocking new survey of divorce lawyers shows that not only are more baby boomers saying "I do" to prenuptial arrangements, the items they're targeting for high-stakes negotiation are wackier than ever.

In some cases, husbands spell out how much sex they want, how much weight their wives are allowed to gain and how clean the house should be. Meanwhile, some wives demand harsh penalties for cheating.

Also at stake for a growing number of couples are their beloved pets: almost a third of the lawyers surveyed noted that couples are now making their dogs, cats - and even reptiles - part of the prenup process.

A whopping 80 percent of matrimonial lawyers reported prenups on the rise in the past five years, according to the survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

The increase in premarital pacts is mainly driven by middle-aged divorcées who are trying to avoid the hell of their first splits, the lawyers said.

posted by maggie at 1:00 PM | Link | 0 comments

The Revolution In Parenthood in Canada

A column by Margaret Wendt on the new report "The Revolution in Parenthood":

"The first generation of sperm-donor babies can now speak for themselves, and what they have to say about biology and family is disconcerting. . ."

posted by maggie at 5:22 PM | Link | 1 comments

Top 100 Irish Girls Names 2005

nary a Colleen (or a Mary) on the list.
posted by maggie at 3:58 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: Women Dress to Reveal. . .

Ovulation cues:

"Women dress to impress when they are at their most fertile, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday in a study they say shows that signs of human ovulation may not be as mysterious as some scientists believe. . ."

posted by maggie at 1:42 PM | Link | 0 comments

Supremes Decline to Hear DOMA challenge

Liberty Counsel press release here.
posted by maggie at 1:18 PM | Link | 0 comments

And The Doctors' Orders Are. . .

A new prescription from the American Academy of Pediatrics for parents: Let your kids play.
posted by maggie at 10:57 AM | Link | 0 comments

New Website for Adult Children of Gays/National Catholic Register

The Website is www.dawnstefanowicz.com. Excerpts of the (perhaps understandably rather one-sided) story on Dawn and her website for adult children of gay parents in NCR here:

". . .Now in her 40s, Dawn Stefanowicz knows there are others like her — others who as children ached with silent hunger for that missing connection. To help them, she has set up the first website that specifically addresses the impact of homosexual parenting from the adult child’s perspective.

'It pierces the inside of you when you know the truth. Men who struggle with their own masculinity cannot affirm femininity,' she said. 'Six-year-olds cannot tell you how they’re being impacted. We can't comprehend what we went through until we're adults.'

. . .Her website, http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com, went online in early September. It outlines her childhood story, which includes being exposed to nude beaches, 'gay cruising' sites and sexually transmitted diseases. The website lists scientific studies and news articles, secular and religious support groups, and confidential contact information.

Her Christian faith and counseling helped Stefanowicz come to terms with her past and with the biological father whom she loved but lost to AIDS. . .

Reaction to Stefanowicz’s website has been positive so far. She now knows of more than 30 other adult children of homosexual parents. . .

Even adult children hesitate to discuss their pain for fear of hurting their parents, Stefanowicz said. . .She hopes her website will be a vehicle for mutual support and healing, and a resource to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman for the sake of all children. . ."

posted by maggie at 10:51 AM | Link | 0 comments

Mass. Episcopalians consider Refusing to Perform Any Marriages

On the "separation of marriage and state" watch, Episcopalian priests in Massachusetts consider performing religious "blessings" but not marriage. (I don't see how this resolves the Episcopalian split over the nature of marriage according to their religion though. Unitarians are refusing to perform any marriages because the state recognize only opposite sex ones. Episcopalians are proposing to refuse to perform any marriages because their own church does not recognize same-sex marriages):

"(Boston, Massachusetts) Episcopal priests in Massachusetts, divided over the issue of same-sex marriage, are considering a proposal that would see the church stop performing all marriages.

The issue of whether to bless same-sex relationships has roiled Episcopal priests since same-sex marriage became legal in the state, and has threatened to sweep the Massachusetts diocese up in the controversy involving gays in the church that has engulfed the worldwide Anglican faith. . .

Recently a number of Unitarian pastors have refused to perform marriages as a protest against laws barring marriage to same-sex couples. The Episcopal Church does not allow priests to perform marriages for gay and lesbian couples.

To avoid a looming crisis over the issue a group of Boston priests is urging the diocese to leave marriage to civil authorities, questioning whether the church should continue to be "an agent of the state."

"I feel this is a way to equalize an inequity in what Episcopal clergy can do for gay folks and straight folks," the Rev. Margaret E. Lloyd , rector of Christ Church in Plymouth told the Boston Globe. Lloyd is one of five Episcopal priests sponsoring the resolution which will go to a vote later this month.

The Synod also will vote on a resolution calling on the legislature to reject a proposed amendment to the state constitution to bar gay marriage in the only state where it is currently legal. A third motion would ask the national church to allow the same blessing rites as used for opposite-sex couples to be used for gay blessings.

posted by maggie at 10:35 AM | Link | 0 comments

Irish SSM Update: Expert testifies Mom/Dad Don't Matter

From an Oct 9 story in the ever useful news service 365gay.com:

"Ireland's Supreme Court has been told that there is no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and those brought up by opposite-sex couples.
The High Court is hearing a challenge to Irish law that denies gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

Testifying by a video link, UCLA professor Richard Green said decades of studies of children brought up by same-sex couples has found the children are equally well adjusted, in terms of gender identity, self-esteem, peer relationships and academic success as those children reared in traditional families. . ."

According to this story the plaintiffs (a lesbian couple married in British Columbia)plan to appeal to the European court if they lose.
posted by maggie at 10:28 AM | Link | 1 comments

Trend towards Larger Families?

This AP story calls it "barely a blip on the nation’s demographic radar," but I think the reporter is also correct in thinking the increase in births to larger families, while slight, is notable:

". . .11 percent of U.S. births in 2004 were to women who already had three children, up from 10 percent in 1995.. ."

Anecdotally the story suggests two profamily policies of the last two decades-homeschooling and the child tax credit-may have worked.
posted by maggie at 7:04 PM | Link | 0 comments

If Your Ex-Wife Has a Sex Change Operation. . .

And becomes a man, are you still obligated to pay alimony? Under current law, the answer is most probably "yes" but a Florida man objects:

"If you can't be married to a man legally, how can you legally pay alimony to a man?" Roach said. "This isn't right. It's humiliating to me and degrading. You know, I'm a man, and I don't want to be paying alimony to a man." . . ."

posted by maggie at 6:46 PM | Link | 0 comments

Canadian Religious Liberty Debate/National Post

I posted below a youthful response from a college student editor to Michael Coren's column arguing for the Defense of Religion Act. Thanks to Margaret Nell, I just recieved the actual response published the same day by John Moore, who calls the bill "Orwellian, populist nonsense":

"If Ernst Zundel and David Ahenekew are going to be hauled before Human Rights Tribunals for denouncing Jews then why are we creating a law that acts as a pass for people who hate gays? . . .

Those who fought and lost the battle against same-sex marriage argued that they didn't want the state, on their behalf, to offer their sanction to something they believe is wrong. The Defence of Religions Act does the very same thing. On behalf of all those who believe in inclusion, tolerance and equality, it offers government sanction and protection to those who don't like gay people to say and do whatever they want.

I'm all for freedom of speech. But if we are to be truly free to denounce and denigrate our fellow citizens based on personal convictions, then forget DORA. Abolish all hate speech legislation and let's have at it."

posted by maggie at 10:23 AM | Link | 2 comments

U.K. Fertility Clinic Biz Booms

"LONDON, Oct. 8 (UPI) -- . . ."Many are suddenly realizing that this commitment-phobic man they are living with, who says he wants children 'at some point', cannot hear their biological clocks ticking," said the head of the British Fertility Society ethics committee, Dr. Gillian Lockwood. "These are wonderful, educated, professional women who are making a definite choice about motherhood."

While the number of single women forgoing relationships for motherhood has been increasing across Britain, recent figures have shown that the number of lesbian couples undergoing in vitro fertilization has also risen by nearly four times since 2001.

Altogether 536 single women in Britain underwent in vitro fertilization during the last year in comparison to 156 lesbians who attempted to become pregnant in the same way, the newspaper said."
posted by maggie at 10:18 AM | Link | 2 comments

First Rhode Island SS Couples Marries

"ATTLEBORO, Mass. — A lesbian couple from Rhode Island who won the right to marry in Massachusetts held their ceremony Sunday. . ."
posted by maggie at 10:16 AM | Link | 0 comments

Separation of Church and State?

You've probably already noticed that enormous number of pages the NYT is devoting to the question of "special favors" for religious groups: big stories "Religion Outweighs Regulation" on Sunday and "Employees Have Few Rights" on Monday. (Are we done or can we expect front page stories all week?)

Is this a declaration of war against conscience exemptions in law? (and gee, could it have anything to do with the gay marriage debate?) The most striking new "framing" development in this piece is the attempt to describe religious exemptions as part of a general collapse of "separation of church and state." Whereas, for most of our history, they were understood to be necessary parts of keeping the government from becoming too involved in regulating church affairs. Keep watching.
posted by maggie at 10:10 AM | Link | 0 comments

New Tenn Poll: Support for Gay Marriage Dwindles

A new poll just out from Middle Tennessee State University, reporting that as the vote on the constitutional amendment defining marriage nears, opposition to gay marriage has grown:

"As Tennessee nears a probable constitutional ban on gay marriage, support for gay marriage appears to have weakened, while support for gay civil unions, which carry many of the rights of marriage, appears unchanged.

In our current poll, nearly three-quarters (74%) say that the law should not recognize gay marriage, while 21% disagree. Before the recent flurry of political activity, support for gay marriage had remained virtually unchanged. In last spring’s poll, 69% did not support legal gay marriage. In our spring 2005 poll, the figure was 70%, while in spring 2004, it was 69%.

In the current poll, political rather than religious orientation best predicts opposing legal gay marriage. Fully 92% of those identifying themselves as conservatives or on the far right oppose legalization, compared to 61% of all others.

However, support for gay civil unions has not eroded. Nearly one-third (33%) of Tennesseans would support gay civil unions, although, again, an overwhelming 59% oppose unions. Political orientation again proved the strongest predictor, with nearly one half (48%) of liberals and middle-of-the-roaders supporting civil unions, compared with only 21% of all others. . ".

posted by maggie at 9:58 AM | Link | 0 comments

Canadian Religious Liberty Debate/National Post

column on DORA by Michael Coren in the Oct. 6 National Post:

". . .The fact is that no priest, rabbi or imam is going to be forced at bayonet-point to perform a Gay wedding. That, however, has never really been the issue. As one of the leaders of the Gay community said to me on television, "We'd never demand that someone conduct a ceremony, but if they oppose the law I do think we should question their charitable status."

The campaign to challenge the tax exemption of faith groups is already underway. It may fail but it will cost a huge amount of money for religious groups to defend their position. Money that would otherwise be directed towards charity. All people of faith are requesting, in a Defence of Religion Act or something similar, is a shadow of the protection for their beliefs that Canadian homosexuals currently enjoy for their lifestyle. . ."

posted by maggie at 4:19 PM | Link | 2 comments