NJ Gay Groups: Marriage or Bust

From the NJ Star Ledger:

Assemblyman Brian Stack, the mayor of Union City, will introduce a bill legalizing gay marriage, according to Garden State Equality, a gay rights group. . .

"Those who would view today's Supreme Court ruling as a victory for same-sex couples are dead wrong. So help us God, New Jersey's LGBTI community and our millions of straight allies will settle for nothing less than 100% marriage equality" Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, said in a written statement. "Thousands of us will now hit the streets, the phones and the hallways to get this legislation passed."

posted by maggie at 10:27 PM | Link | 12 comments

SPOUSEBUZZ: Blog-ish-thing aimed at military spouses

here
posted by Eve at 8:39 PM | Link | 0 comments

WAS NJ DECISION "ACTIVIST"?

Andrew Sullivan: "...My own position, of course, is that full civil marriage rights, with the m-word, is the only just solution. But in a democracy, there is not a majority for that yet. The court, by the way, is not being activist. It had no logical option but to apply its equal protection clause to everybody. Gay people are citizens, entitled to the same civil treatment by the government as anyone else. But the court has now left it to the legislature to decide on the name.

"Checks and balances; state's rights; and fostering of both equality and responsibility. DOMA means it won't apply to any other state. Massachusetts has already shown that civil marriage can be kept within one's state's borders. The conservative soul just revived a little. May it grow stronger."

Jack Balkin: "...In addition, one should not confuse what the Vermont court did with judicial 'minimalism.' The Court made very strong substantive claims about what rights same-sex couples had and what it would take for the Vermont legislature to produce a constitutional bill. That substantive discussion was quite important. If courts simply hide the ball in a minimalist opinion and strike down laws without explaining what constitutional principles are at stake and how they can be vindicated, legislatures will not be able to respond effectively. If courts then strike down a series of legislative responses, that will be far more likely to anger the public and cause backlash. For the strategy to work, courts have to be upfront about what the constitutional concerns are but they also need to give legislatures room to debate the issues. In doing so, they invite legislatures to be partners in constitutional interpretation and implementation."

Mickey Kaus: "...the breathtaking speed with which this sort of radical cultural change has gone from being unmentioned to being a litmus test for all 'logical' people is one of the things that worries ordinary voters...."

and "...Unlike Massachusetts, AP's Mulvihill notes, New Jersey doesn't have a 'law barring out-of-state couples from wedding there if their marriages would not be recognized in their home states.' In other words, had the New Jersey Court gone all the way and required gay marriage, the next two weeks might have been filled with stories of happy gay couples from across the nation buying plane tickets to Atlantic City for their expected weddings. Only a Liberal Media Conspiracy of unprecedented self-repressive power could have kept the hype from driving cultural conservatives to the polls. But now court's decision will slide from national consciousness almost immediately, no?"
posted by Eve at 8:04 PM | Link | 1 comments

New Jersey Decision

The decision's available here. The quick read shows the court ruled 4-3 that any scheme that does not give same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage is unconstitutional BUT stopped short of saying that the definition of marriage must be changed. The bottom line is that the court ordered the legislature to either (1) change the definition of marriage or (2) "enact an appropriate statutory structure" that is "parallel" to marriage and that would allow same-sex couples to "enjoy the rights and benefits" and "bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage."

The three justices felt the court should have gone further and just changed the definition of marriage. This suggests that we had a court very hostile to the current marriage law and, thus, this decision may be the best that could have been hoped for.

It still constitutes significant overreaching and underscores the reason that so many states have addressed marriage equivalents in their state marriage amendments. Those arguing that these kinds of provisions in the pending amendments are unecessary have been effectively rebutted by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
posted by William Duncan at 3:36 PM | Link | 14 comments

Maggie Gallagher on State Marriage Amendment Votes

From my syndicated column this week:

"What do we make of the political situation? Let me begin with the bad news for gay marriage advocates: I predict all eight state marriage amendments will pass.

Nonetheless, the margin of victory in the states that gay marriage advocates have chosen to contest will be narrower than in the past. The good news from their perspective (and expect to hear it trumpeted loudly) is that gay marriage advocates have hit upon a political formula that influences voters at least somewhat.

Here's more pesky bad news: That strategy has almost nothing to do with increasing support for gay marriage. Campaigns in Arizona, Wisconsin and Virginia have largely abandoned marriage itself, and focused instead on generating opposition to domestic partnership provisions. "Why Take Away Health Care?" is the slogan of choice in Arizona, while in Virginia, opponents have marshaled an impressive array of highly credentialed legal experts to advance the improbable argument that the state marriage amendment will prevent unmarried opposite-sex couples from executing private contracts, receiving domestic violence protections or receiving visitation rights. . .

I predict another piece of good news for gay rights groups: Colorado will pass domestic partnership legislation. That victory in Colorado suggests a possible new strategy for gay rights groups: Stop promoting gay marriage and start vigorously advocating for civil unions.

Doing so would create a powerful new wedge issue on their side, substantially separating Catholics from evangelicals, and moderates from harder-core religious conservatives. It's an obvious winning political strategy.

But here's the problem for gay rights groups. Civil union initiatives substantially undercut public support for gay marriage. The Human Rights Campaign's own latest poll shows that, when offered a choice of civil unions, only 21 percent of Americans continue to support gay marriage.

After vigorously denouncing civil unions as a despised "separate but equal" insult, can gay rights groups switch course and invest their time and resources in passing civil union laws that offer their people "second-class citizenship"? . . ."

posted by maggie at 11:59 AM | Link | 5 comments

New Study: Canadian Single Moms Face Economic Swings

"Young single mothers experienced more volatility in earnings than two-parent families over the past two decades, according to a study that also said social assistance is the most important factor in reducing swings in income.
The Statistics Canada study, part of the agency's Perspectives on Labour and Income, said that although earnings instability is greater among lone parents than among any other family category, the largest money woes were among poor lone mothers, those aged 25 to 29 who were in the bottom third of earners. . .

"Without a second adult earner, lone mothers have a limited ability to smooth the flow of earnings," said Rene Morissette and Yuri Ostrovsky, the authors of the study. "As well, employment and earnings increases for young lone mothers have not kept pace with their older counterparts or married mothers."

The study found that single parents of both sexes, and unattached Canadians, were more likely to struggle with greater financial insecurity than families that brought in two paycheques.
posted by maggie at 11:55 AM | Link | 0 comments

Canadian SSM Critics Shift Course, Ask for Study

Oct 25 story in The Globe and Mail

"Facing likely defeat in a coming parliamentary vote on whether to reopen the divisive issue of same-sex marriage, groups that oppose the unions say they are no longer pressing for an immediate return to the traditional definition of one man and one woman.

Instead, they arrived at the House of Commons yesterday to say they would be happy if politicians would merely study the impact that expanding the institution to gay and lesbian couples has had on Canadian society -- a move they hope will keep the debate in the public domain.

"We wish that they would study it, we wish that they would have proper hearings," Dr. Charles McVety, a senior director of Defend Marriage Canada, said at a news conference.

The act that introduced same-sex marriage "went through without the proper studies and it's impacting our lives. It's impacting people."

He and five other opponents of homosexual marriage complained that the new law is forcing acceptance of homosexuality to be taught in schools and requires commissioners who perform civil marriages to marry gays and lesbians even if the unions are counter to their own religious beliefs.

Louis DeSerres of Preserve Marriage Canada said the redefinition of marriage did not take into account the rights of children.

"With same-sex marriage, we are basically saying it is legal and acceptable to take away the natural parent of a child and to put him in a new family," Mr. DeSerres said. "This is without any regard to the best interests of the child. We ask all members of Parliament to at least study these issues before they decide to say no.". . ."

posted by maggie at 11:52 AM | Link | 3 comments

NJ Supreme Court Ruling Today, 3 p.m.

It will be posted here.
posted by maggie at 11:48 AM | Link | 0 comments

A FAITH-BASED RESOURCE ON DIVORCE: Kristine Steakley

One of the things I discovered when I started on this journey of writing about divorce, God, and kids several years back was that there were precious few materials for practitioners who wanted to help kids deal with divorce, and even fewer that approached the topic from a biblical viewpoint. Slowly, but surely, resources are coming available. Here's one that has been around for a couple of years, but which I've just discovered. Faith Journeys, based in Maryland, offers two curricula for teens, one focused on 9-15 year olds and the other geared for teens 16 and older. Check out their website and click on over to Resources for ordering info.

link (Eve says: I have not checked this out, but K.S. is generally reliable, and all those interested in marriage issues should make her Child of Divorce/Child of God blog a regular stop....)
posted by Eve at 11:34 PM | Link | 0 comments

The Conservative Case Against "Subsidized Childbirth"

In the Oct 24 National Review online. There is a case, of course, against pronatalist policies, but this particular one is riddled with nonsequiturs such as, "Childbirth will take care of itself, on an as-needed basis." Why, exactly? The market will reward mothers (and fathers) for investing in children, how?. The "market failure" we face is that large institutional structures (the market economy, social welfare programs like social security and pensions) have socialized the benefits of children while the costs remain extremely heavy and personal.

And of course the author is right that higher birthrates do not, in themselves mean more economic growth. But that is not the question. The question is: can countries with very low birthrates sustain their economies (or anything else really)? I myself am not a big fan of childbirth subsidies. But this author doesn't even acknowledge the possible significance or existence of the much better American equivalent: tax protection for childbearing families

:". . .According to an article in last Friday's Wall Street Journal, countries with birthrates lower than ours face 'a critical shortfall of children' that 'will undermine economic growth and public finances as a dwindling work force struggles to support a growing pool of retirees who are living longer.'

In response to the alleged economic crisis that will result from low birthrates, governments around the world are offering up subsidies to reverse the shortfall. Mothers in Estonia are paid the equivalent of $1,560 per month for a more-than-one-year period as an incentive to have more children. Other countries in Europe, including the Nordic nations and France, have for years subsidized childbirth to maintain stable populations, while in 2004 Australia introduced legislation offering families $3,000 per newborn.

. . .Still, the economic story of the U.S. suggests that world governments are overreaching once again. If rising birthrates were essential for economic growth, there would be no need for taxpayer-financed handouts to maintain rising birthrates. More realistically, citizens of the world possess an acute understanding of the infant-replacement rates necessary to achieve increasing standards of living.

. . .Government subsidization of childbirth is the equivalent of the State of Illinois putting books in homes in an effort to improve educational outcomes. In truth, books in homes are merely an indicator of positive educational outcomes, as opposed to the cause. Similarly, while higher birthrates can correlate with strong economic growth, technological advances indicate that we’ll continue to do and create more with much less.

Instead of subsidizing childbirth, governments should actively seek to lower trade barriers to insure that local advances become worldwide innovations. Childbirth will take care of itself, on an as-needed basis."

posted by maggie at 10:44 AM | Link | 5 comments

South Africa SSM Update: Opposition Grows

On both sides, according to an Oct. 23 story in 365gay.com to a "civil unions" (civil marriage???) compromise:

"South African legislation that would give same-sex couples all of the privileges and responsibilities of marriage is drawing increasing opposition from both gay rights groups and religious conservatives.
The Civil Unions bill is the government's response to the Constitutional Court's ruling last December that it is unconstitutional to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

Rather than rewriting the existing marriage law to make it gender neutral the government opted to leave the law alone, maintaining its definition of the institution as a union between a man and a woman, and creating a new law to permit same-sex civil marriage.

That, say LGBT rights groups, creates two classes of South Africans.

. . .The Human Rights Commission is warning that the legislation is unconstitutional and does not meet the court order.

Meanwhile, conservative Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church also are opposing the bill. . .

The Constitutional Court ordered Parliament to amend marriage laws within 12 months. If it fails to act within that timeframe, the court said the ruling would automatically change the law to include same-sex unions. But, it gave no specific direction on how the law should be changed. . .

posted by maggie at 10:39 AM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: Religious Elders Happier, Less Afraid of Death

Breaking news from those scientists:

"Older individuals who are religious have a significantly enhanced quality of life in old age than nonreligious older Americans, and are more generous and less afraid of death than their less religious peers, according to new research by Michele Dillon, professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire.

. . .When it comes to social responsibility and civic engagement, religious seniors are more giving and generous toward others, more aware of and sympathetic to the needs of others, and more involved in social activism (e.g. on behalf of homelessness, the environment), according to Dillon.

On the health front, the researchers found religious seniors in poor health were buffered against depression because of their religious involvement.

". . . Religious individuals also were more satisfied with life and had a stronger sense of having control over their lives than their nonreligious peers," Dillon says.

Finally, those who were highly religious were the least afraid of dying; those who were moderately religious were the most afraid. Secular seniors had a similarly low fear of death.

'Religious individuals who believe in an afterlife and who attend church on a frequent basis are less afraid of death than those who believe in an afterlife but who don't attend church,' Dillon says. . . .

Dillon and Wink's research is based on an unprecedented long-term study that has followed the lives of close to 200 men and women who were born in Northern California in the 1920s. Participants were interviewed in depth during adolescence and four times in adulthood: 1958 in their 30s, 1970 in their 40s, 1982 in their 50s, and 1997-2000 when they were in their late 60s and mid-70s.

Most of the participants came from mainline Protestant families (73 percent), though the sample includes a sizeable number of Catholics and conservative Protestants. Almost all are white and middle class. In old age, most were happily married, in good health, well satisfied with their lives and engaged in a wide range of personal hobbies and social activities."

posted by maggie at 10:08 AM | Link | 1 comments

Welfare Reform Isn't Working/Amy Wax

University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax, in the Oct. 22 LA Times:

"THIS FALL marks the 10th anniversary of Clinton-era welfare reform, which imposed strict work requirements and time limits for receiving some forms of federal relief.

Have the rules been a success? If the goal is employment, reform has unquestionably triumphed. Many single mothers — the prime recipients under the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program — have dropped off the rolls entirely. Some states have seen welfare caseloads cut in half, and significant declines have occurred in virtually every state. . .

But although work requirements were the centerpiece of the 1996 statute, its chief declared goal, as revealed by its preamble, was to reverse the decades-long decline in the nuclear family. If judged by this objective, welfare reform has been an abysmal failure. . ."

posted by maggie at 3:49 PM | Link | 0 comments

Are Human Beings a Burden or a Resource?

(Are those the only options?) In any case the WSJ weighs in on the Depopulation debate.
posted by maggie at 2:41 PM | Link | 0 comments

Mom, I'm going to major in "Sexual Diversity"

What's truly amusing about this WaPo article is the strenuous efforts to assure everyone that no-one will have any fun at all studying sex. And they say Puritanism is dead!
posted by maggie at 2:36 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Study: Ethnic Pride Boosts Teens' Happiness

The latest social science on ethnic pride. Most likely, so does any strong, positive attachment to a larger group, if you believe Durkheim. It would be interesting to find out empirically: Are patriotic teens happier than those more skeptical about their nation? Are people with strong attachment to and positive feelings about their religion happier? What about white racists? Are they happier too? Do we care?
posted by maggie at 11:24 AM | Link | 0 comments

Honor Thy Mother and Stepfather?

Not necessarily, according to a new study in the Journal of Aging Studies:

". . . Larry Ganong, professor and co-chair of the MU College of Human Environmental Sciences Department of Human Development and Family Studies [said]: 'There is a cultural norm that states if you are family then you help each other. In step relationships people have to decide; there is not an automatic conclusion that help should be provided.'

Ganong found that four factors generally apply when individuals are asked about whether or not an adult stepchild should help an aging stepparent: is there a close emotional relationship, what has the stepparent done for the child in the past, how many demands are there on the child’s resources, and how much is the stepparent 'in need'?

"If you don't have the automatic kinship norm to fall back on, intergenerational aid between step-kin has to be 'earned.' In genetic relationships, the process is just the opposite. An older parent has the kinship obligation norm to fall back on unless they lose it," Ganong said. "For instance, this can happen to divorced parents who sever ties with their children. Perhaps, 20 years later they need some help, and those children are not going to come through for them because the parents' behavior violated kinship norms and the children therefore feel no obligation to assist."

. . .One surprising finding, according to Ganong, was that in the national sample, race and ethnicity were rarely related to how study participants felt about the topic of helping older parents and stepparents.. ."

posted by maggie at 11:14 AM | Link | 0 comments

NJ Supreme Court Expected to Rule on SSM this Week

On the other hand, as this NYT piece points out, nobody really knows when.
posted by maggie at 9:59 AM | Link | 0 comments