DEMOGRAPHICS OF UK CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS: From the Times

here
posted by Eve at 11:23 PM | Link | 0 comments

Please, Leave it to Beaver

A new book with every cliche in the book:

The face of the classic American family is changing, and it sure doesn’t look like the families depicted on TV. That’s according to a new book by Iowa State University sociologist Susan Stewart.

"We hold up 'Leave It to Beaver' as our concept of the classic American family, but it never existed," said Stewart, an assistant professor. "As a society, we latched onto that model as what an ideal family could be. But the truth is that most families fall outside of that model."

Can't you guys come up with some new cliches? (Sorry I know that's an oxymoron).
posted by maggie at 9:39 AM | Link | 9 comments

New NJ Poll

www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=996

20. Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to form civil unions, giving them many of the legal rights of married couples?

Dec 7 Nov 8
2006 2006

Support 60 56
Oppose 35 34
DK/NA 5 10

21. Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?

Dec 7 Nov 8
2006 2006

Support 44 41
Oppose 50 50
DK/NA 5 9

22. The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones and that state legislators must rewrite the laws to make this happen. If you had to choose, which would you prefer: allowing same sex couples to form civil unions or allowing same sex couples to get married?

Dec 7 Nov 8
2006 2006

Civil unions 55 51
Get married 29 28
DK/NA 16 21




23. Some say it is possible to pass laws giving same sex couples equal legal rights without legalizing civil unions specifically. Would you support or oppose giving same sex couples equal rights under the law without legalizing civil unions?


Tot
Support 51%
Oppose 42
DK/NA 7

24. Would you support or oppose an amendment to the New Jersey state constitution to ban same sex-marriage?

Tot
Support 37%
Oppose 58
DK/NA 4
posted by maggie at 10:09 PM | Link | 0 comments

New Canada Poll

Some serious conceptual frameworking going on up north. This is the press release from PreserveMarriage, with a link to the poll:

Montréal, Wednesday, December 6, 2006 – Just hours before a vote on a motion to review Canada's current marriage law, a national survey reveals that a large majority of Canadians are asking that the rights of children be given proper consideration on any marriage legislation.

Conducted between December 1-5, 2006 by the Montréal firm MBA Research, the poll interviewed 1009 Canadians aged 18 and over (plus an over sampling of 263 additional Quebecers). The poll was meant to evaluate the importance that Canadians and Quebecers assign to children's rights, particularly when these rights are in conflict with the rights of adults to form same-sex households.

According to these results, 89% of Canadians agree « strongly » or « very strongly » with the U.N position of equality for all but also that, « as far as possible, children have the right to know and be cared for by their parents ».

73% of Canadians and 83% of Quebecers interviewed want the government to defend « strongly » or « very strongly » « the rights of children to be raised by a mother and a father, whenever possible », rights that are being jeopardized by Canada's current marriage law allowing same sex marriages.

While 76% of Canadians are generally supportive of forms of unions that allow same sex couples to commit to each other (civil unions and marriage), only 22% of Quebecers and 30% of Canadians favor marriage AND unrestricted adoption by same sex couples. When restrictions on adoption are introduced, limiting adoption only to cases where no married heterosexual couple is available to adopt a child, then support for same-sex marriage rises to 34% for Quebecers and 39% for Canadians.

This information, unavailable when C-38 was adopted, suggests strongly that a large majority of Canadians want children's rights to be taken into consideration in discussions about same-sex marriage.

Finally, 31% of Canadians would have a « worse » or « much worse » opinion of their MP if he/she votes to reject a review of the current marriage law in order « to review its consequences on children's rights and improve it if applicable ».

For access to table of results and poll methodology, see http://www.preservemariage.ca/eng/press.htm

posted by maggie at 8:32 PM | Link | 2 comments

Canada Vote Update

The Globe & Mail is reporting that Canada’s Parliament has rejected the effort to reopen the question of the legal definition of marriage in Canada in a 175-123 vote.
posted by William Duncan at 3:36 PM | Link | 11 comments

New Jersey Civil Unions Update

The Associated Press is reporting that the Assembly Judiciary Committee of the New Jersey legislature has approved a proposed civil unions bill by a 4-2 vote. The bill as introduced is here but the report suggests there were some minor amendments.
posted by William Duncan at 3:25 PM | Link | 1 comments

Kansas Sperm Donor Case

On Monday, the Kansas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the provision in state’s paternity law that a sperm donor is presumed not to be the father of a child conceived by artificial insemination unless his paternity is affirmed in writing (Kansas Statutes Annotated § 38-1114). There is no reported decision by the lower court, but this news article on the oral argument describes the suit in some detail.

Evidently, the mother was inseminated using the sperm of a male friend and the father alleges that the mother had agreed he would get shared custody of the resulting twins. After the birth of the children, the mother filed an action to disqualify the father as “unfit” and the father filed a paternity action. The news report is unclear about the trial court’s ruling but since the father has appealed, we can assume he was denied custody.

A pre-argument news report mentions competing arguments made by family law professors who filed amicus briefs in the case. The docket sheet on the case lists two such briefs: one filed on behalf of the Washburn University’s Children and Family Law Center (directed by Linda Elrod who’s mentioned in the story) in support of the father; and the other on behalf of 21 professors from around the country filed in support of the mother. The article singles out Professor Nancy Polikoff, who readers of this blog may remember as one of the authors of the recent “Beyond Marriage” statement, as one of the professors joining that brief.

The case is called In the Interest of K.M.H. and K.C.H.
posted by William Duncan at 3:19 PM | Link | 0 comments

Are Judges Dressed Like Santa Claus More or Less Likely to Redefine Marriage?

Maggie reminds me that I forgot to point out the very festive red robes worn by the judges on the Maryland Court of Appeals. There's an interesting brief discussion about the robes here. A more detailed article on judicial robes and colors is here.

If the color of judicial attire is any indication, those opposed to redefining marriage may be dismayed to see that the Canadian Supreme Court also wears red robes (although significantly more ornate than those the Maryland judges wear).
posted by William Duncan at 11:38 AM | Link | 0 comments

SSM Updates: Canada, Israel, Rhode Island

Canada appears ready to vote not to reconsider SSM:

"More than 170 MPs of all stripes, including six Conservative cabinet ministers, appear ready Thursday to vote against a motion to revisit the controversial issue of same-sex marriage. . ."

(FRottles Opines).

A Rhode Island family court judge asks the Rhode Island Supreme Court whether he can divorce a Rhode Island same-sex couple married under Massachussetts' law.

Legislation to overturn the Isreali Supreme Court decision permitting registration of foriegn SSMs as marriages in Isreal makes progress in the Isreali Knesset.
posted by maggie at 10:33 AM | Link | 3 comments

Maryland and Marital Benefits

One final thought raised by yesterday’s oral argument. At one point, the ACLU’s attorney was challenged on his assertion that the current marriage laws have caused people to lose their homes. The judge seemed to be getting at the fact that the situation referred to was not necessarily attributable to the marriage laws because a contractual remedy would have prevented the loss of the home. I think it would be very helpful for courts to make this distinction more often.

Plaintiffs in marriage cases have made tangible difficulties (i.e. failure to secure hospital visitation) a center of their public case for redefining marriage. These difficulties could, however, be eliminated in a number of ways short of redefining marriage. This would not end the marriage cases since they are brought even in states where all or nearly all the benefits of marriage are easily available through alternative arrangements, but it would allow some perspective on the nature of the constitutional claims involved. Specifically, that they have more to do with the perception that same-sex couples are being personally slighted when the state refuses to treat all adult relationships precisely the same than with the need to make marital benefits more widely available.
posted by William Duncan at 1:15 PM | Link | 5 comments

Maryland and the Procreation Argument

One difference between Maryland (where the state was willing to make the case for marriage) and some of the other states with recent marriage cases (where the attorneys only argued for judicial deference to the legislature) is that Maryland has not created any kind of marriage equivalent status. Attorneys in New Jersey and California, for instance, said that the legislative creation of such statuses in those states prevented them from arguing that the state believes marriage is uniquely beneficial to children. This is a highly debatable argument but one that was not available to the attorneys in Maryland where a recent attempt to create a limited domestic partnership status was vetoed.

Another reason the state might have been willing to talk about marriage is that a number of the recent marriage cases, notably the decisions of the New York Court of Appeals and Washington Supreme Court, have taken arguments for marriage seriously and upheld the state marriage laws based on the interests that Maryland advanced.
posted by William Duncan at 12:56 PM | Link | 1 comments

Maryland Oral Argument

I watched the Maryland marriage case oral argument online yesterday. The most striking feature initially was how few questions the judges asked. I have not seen other arguments in the Maryland Court of Appeals but compared to similar arguments in other courts, there was much more opportunity for the attorneys to talk without being interrupted with questions or challenges. Even when there was questioning, it seemed not to last very long.

The other striking, and to my mind positive, aspect of the argument was the willingness of the State to make substantive arguments in favor of marriage. Recent arguments by state attorneys in New York, New Jersey and California have typically been confined to arguing that defining marriage is the business of the legislature and that the legal theories relied on by the plaintiffs are flawed. In yesterday’ argument, however, the state made a more robust case for the state’s interest in channeling potentially procreative behavior into marriage.

The ACLU attorney (and one judge’s question) seemed to challenge this argument by suggesting that allowing same-sex couples (to whom this child well-being rationale for marriage does not apply) to marry would not detract from the state’s interest. Perhaps the state’s attorney could have pointed out that redefining marriage would require the state to speak out of both sides of its mouth saying, at the same time, that marriage is a child-centered institution and that it is solely defined by adult choice.

I was somewhat surprised that there was not more discussion of the idea that marriage is a form of sex discrimination under Maryland’s equal rights amendment. This was the sole basis for the trial court’s decision. The logical and historical evidence against this argument is strong, so the plaintiffs may have felt the need to urge alternative grounds for striking down the marriage law.
posted by William Duncan at 12:50 PM | Link | 0 comments

Sexual Consent

Watch it here. (WARNING: vulgarity quotient high)>
posted by maggie at 11:05 AM | Link | 0 comments

SSM Updates: Maryland, Canada, U.K

Maryland state supreme court heard oral arguments. Baltimore Sun reports as does the Washington Post.

The Canadians debate SSM, with a poll showing majority of Canadians prefer to leave the law as it is, story in the Globe and Mail.

BBC reports that after one year, about 15,500 same-sex couples have entered civil uions, the majority of them men. (This is also true in Scandinavia. . .immigration effect maybe?)
posted by maggie at 10:46 AM | Link | 6 comments

The Revolution in Parenthood/Claudia Anderson

The Weekly Standard reports on The Revolution in Parenthood. Story below, download the report, here.

NEWSWEEK some weeks back had an arresting picture on its cover. The famous photographer Annie Leibovitz--tall, blonde, and 57, dressed in black trousers and a black V-neck top--stands with her three young daughters: a radiant, curly haired 5-year-old and adorable blonde toddler twins. Leibovitz is holding one of the chubby twins on her hip. All four are gently smiling.

Inside the magazine, in the middle of the cover story, there appear, without further explanation, these two sentences about Leibovitz's family: "She gave birth as a single mother to her daughter Sarah just after 9/11. Then, a few months after [her friend Susan] Sontag and Leibovitz's father died, her twin girls were born, via a surrogate mother."

The same week that Newsweek ran this subtly edgy photograph, a report was unveiled in New York on "The Revolution in Parenthood," the growing phenomenon of the deliberate creation of children without a mother and a father. The juxtaposition was a nice instance of what film and TV editors call "random sync."

But random sync with a difference. For while Leibovitz is apparently in the vanguard of this revolution, and Newsweek is eagerly mainstreaming it, the report is skeptical. Its subtitle warns of "The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs" (see the full text at americanvalues.org).

"Around the world, the two-person, mother-father model of parenthood is being fundamentally challenged," begins the report. Produced by the Commission on Parenthood's Future, an independent, nonpartisan group of scholars and leaders, and written by Elizabeth Marquardt, the document is an appeal for "reflection, debate, and research about the policies and practices that will serve the best interests of children" at a time when a redefinition of parenthood is taking place "at breakneck speed around the world."

posted by maggie at 10:02 AM | Link | 0 comments

California Bill To Expand DPs to Straight Couples

A California lawmaker is making the "conservative case" for creating civil unions for straight people, too:

Responding to the growing trend of couples raising children out of wedlock, a San Francisco lawmaker plans to introduce a bill today that would give young and middle-age heterosexual couples who are not married the right to register as domestic partners.

The new bill and the expected reintroduction of legislation that would grant same-sex partners the right to marry are already drawing the ire of social conservatives and may once again put Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in the difficult position of taking sides on the politically divisive issue of defining marriage.

State Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, said she decided to pursue legislation allowing heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners when she saw that so many more children are being born to unmarried women, many of whom live with the fathers.

"This is a very practical expansion that absolutely reflects the new family unit today," Migden said. "We're trying to provide the proper benefits for the families that exist today." . . ."

posted by maggie at 10:45 PM | Link | 6 comments

Eve Tushnet in The Washington Blade

Reviewing a novel by Christopher Bram.
posted by maggie at 6:19 PM | Link | 1 comments

SSM Update: Maryland Oral Arguments Today

View them here.
posted by maggie at 9:02 AM | Link | 0 comments