SSM Updates

Michigan supreme court will consider whether that state's marriage amendment blocks governments from granting domestic partner benefits, story here.
posted by maggie at 9:41 AM | Link | 0 comments

The Rockway Institute on Lesbigay Parenting

A new one to me, from a press release:

"The Rockway Institute at Alliant International University stands ready to make available several social science researchers and mental health professionals from across the nation to comment on the significant aspects of lesbian parenting and the experience of children raised in families with same-sex parents.

The Rockway Institute's Executive Director Dr. Robert-Jay Green and a number of other nationally known experts on lesbian/gay parenting can discuss:

* Research data on developmental outcomes for children raised by lesbian parents, including the children’s mental health, peer relations, gender identity, and sexual orientation in childhood and in adolescence.
* Differences in parenting styles between lesbian co-parents and heterosexual co-parents, such as division of housework and child care duties.
* The impact of the couple’s relationship on the child’s well-being.
* Changes in the relationships of same-sex partners with each partner’s family-of-origin as a result of these grandchildren being born.
* Clinical/psychotherapy experience treating same-sex couples going through the transition to parenthood. How becoming a parent affects their relationships with each other, with their parents, siblings, friends, co-workers, and in other areas of their lives.
* The psychological impact of the legal issues for same-sex couples who are parents.

The Rockway Institute is a national think tank for public policy on issues affecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. It is affiliated with the California School of Professional Psychology, a graduate program of Alliant International University in San Francisco. More information is available at http://www.rockwayinstitute.org.

posted by maggie at 9:36 AM | Link | 0 comments

Those 'gay' Flamingos

From the BBC:

"Flamingo pair adopt jilted chick

. . .The egg had been whisked off to an incubator where it was warmed up and monitored. Hours later the healthy chick hatched, but staff were concerned the duo would not bond with the newborn because the process normally begins when the chicks are "calling" them from inside the egg.

So the chick was carefully placed in an old eggshell, which was taped up and returned to the unsuspecting couple's empty nest.

WWT spokeswoman Jane Waghorn said: "Fernando and Carlos are a same sex couple who have been known to steal other flamingos' eggs by chasing them off their nest because they wanted to rear them themselves.

"They were rather good at sitting on eggs and hatching them, so last week when a nest was abandoned, it seemed like a good idea to make them surrogate parents."

Milk production

The pair, who have been together for about six years, can feed their chick without any female help - by producing milk in their throat.

Ms Waghorn added that flamingo same sex couples were not particularly rare. "If there aren't enough females or they don't hit it off with them, they will pair off with other males," she said. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:26 AM | Link | 0 comments

Dale Carpenter: How blocking SSM hurts marriage

Conservative opposition to gay marriage is having unconservative effects, helping to push the boundaries of family law into new territory that challenges the primacy of marriage itself. By opposing gay marriage, conservatives are forcing gay families to seek refuge through untraditional means that could undermine marriage or destabilize family concepts in ways that gay marriage itself would not.

Here are four examples...

posted by Jon at 10:22 PM | Link | 25 comments

SSM Update: NC Dem Leader Blocks State Marriage Amendment

North Carolina Charlotte Observor:

"An attempt to amend the N.C. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage fizzled Tuesday, an hour after its supporters celebrated a small win.

The proposal, first introduced in 2004, had never received a hearing until Tuesday, when Republicans forced a hearing in the House Rules Committee. Committee members unanimously decided that the proposal should go before the full House of Representatives.

Opponents of the amendment expressed dismay. Supporters were optimistic.
"... This is the most action we've seen," said John Rustin, who lobbies with the N.C. Family Policy Council.

Then, Speaker Joe Hackney said he would send the proposal to a second committee. The move kills it for the year because most bills must pass either the House or the Senate by Thursday. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:48 AM | Link | 0 comments

New Study StatsCanada: Divorce Hurts Mental Health

This being Canada, this study probably includes cohabitors with married couples, just fyi:

Divorce hits men harder: StatsCan . . . .While both men and women whose marriages have dissolved have a higher risk of being depressed than people who remained with their spouses, a Statistics Canada study found that men who had divorced or separated were six times more likely to report an episode of depression compared with men who remained married.

Women who had undergone marital breakups were 3.5 times more likely to have had bouts of depression than their counterparts who were still in relationships.
The survey found that 12 per cent of people who were no longer in a relationship reported a new episode of depression, while just three per cent of those who remained in a relationship had suffered new depression. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:24 AM | Link | 0 comments

Link to Court Decision in Adoption Case

The March 30 court decision in the case involving an online adoption service that was recently settled is here. One aspect of the decision not noted in the news story below is the court’s finding that even if the application of the discrimination law to the website could be considered speech implicating the First Amendment, potentially infringing such speech would be justified because California’s “interest in combating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is compelling.”
posted by William Duncan at 11:45 AM | Link | 0 comments

Kiergegaard: How to Debate One's Wife

My husband just sent this to me. Make of that what you will! via Marginal Revolution by Tyler Cowen on May 22, 2007:

". . .Even if I can debate with the devil himself, I cannot debate with my wife. She has, namely, only one syllogism, or rather none at all...The consequence of this is that all my skill in debating becomes a luxury item for which there is no demand at all in my domestic life. If I, the experienced dialectician, fairly well exemplify this course of justice, which according to the poet's dictum is so very long, my wife is like the royal Danish chancery, kurz and bündig [short and to the point], except that she is very different from that august body in being very lovable.. ."

Kierkegaard, from Prefaces.
posted by maggie at 9:58 AM | Link | 0 comments

Arizona Adoption Biz Settles with California SS Couple

An Arizona adoption business that posts profiles of couples who wish to adopt has settled after a federal court agreed that California's discrimination laws applied. Story in the May 22, SF Chronicle:

"A gay couple from San Jose have settled their lawsuit against an out-of-state Internet adoption service that they accused of violating California discrimination laws by refusing to post the men's profiles on a Web site where prospective birth mothers could see them.

Michael and Rich Butler, domestic partners since 2000, filed a federal civil rights suit against Adoption.com of Arizona in 2004 after the company told the men it posted profiles only of married, opposite-sex couples.

The adoption company had argued that it was governed by Arizona law, which does not prohibit discrimination against people on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. It said requiring it to post profiles of same-sex couples would violate its freedom of speech.

But in a March ruling, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in San Francisco said California law applies to the defendants and allowed the suit to go forward.
Under the terms of a settlement announced today, ParentProfiles.com, a sister company to Adoption.com, cannot post profiles of California residents "unless the service is made equally available to all California residents qualified to adopt in California."

That means the defendants have a choice: to either "treat everyone in California equally or don't benefit from the state's economy," said Neel Chatterjee, an attorney for the Butlers.

Glen Lavy, an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer representing the company, said today that ParentProfiles.com will no longer accept profiles from California and will phase out all profiles from California within six months.

"The managers of the adoption profiles believe that it's in the best interests of children to be placed with a married mom and dad," Lavy said. "They believe that when there's an option, children are better off having a married mom and dad than any other circumstance."

There is no monetary payout as part of the settlement, as the Butlers were never after money, Chatterjee said.

The couple sued under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits businesses from discriminating against their customers on a variety of grounds. For at least 20 years, state courts have interpreted the law to require equal treatment of lesbians and gays. Bias based on marital status was the subject of conflicting rulings until the Legislature outlawed such discrimination, effective in 2006.
The Butlers adopted a baby girl in 2004 through a California adoption agency.

"We think it's a great agreement for us because it really ends the discriminatory practice of Adoption.com in the state of California," Rich Butler, 35, said today. "We hope that they continue doing business in the state, but if they can't comply with the nondiscriminatory policy and they stop doing business in the state, it's still a victory for Californians. We're not allowing them to profit on the back of Californians. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:51 AM | Link | 3 comments

SSM Updates: Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey

Rhode Island Supreme Court to hear SS divorce case:

"PROVIDENCE — Faced with the question of how a lower court should proceed with a divorce case, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about whether a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts should be recognized in Rhode Island. . ."

New Jersey counts 852 civil union applications:

"The state Department of Health and Senior Services announced yesterday 852 same-sex couple have applied to form civil unions since the law creating them went into effect three months ago.

The latest statistics submitted to the department by local registrars show 512 female couples and 340 male couples have filed the paperwork needed to form a civil union. Another 35 couples have reaffirmed civil unions they already had formed in other jurisdictions. . ."

A new SSM bill is introduced in New York:

"New York State assembly member Daniel O'Donnell, one of three gay assembly members, officially introduced Gov. Eliot Spitzer's marriage bill in the chamber Monday with a record number of 53 cosponsors, up from 24 the year before.
A marriage bill has been introduced in both houses of the New York legislature for five years running now, but it has never been allowed to come up for a vote in either the Democrat-controlled assembly or the Republican-controlled senate.

The marriage bill needs 76 votes to pass in the assembly, where 69 members have indicated some support for the bill; 48 remain undecided, and 33 have voiced their opposition, according to a legislative scorecard being kept by the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York's LGBT civil rights organization. . ."

posted by maggie at 9:40 AM | Link | 0 comments

Polyamory in Space

One more thing for NASA to consider.
posted by maggie at 8:05 PM | Link | 1 comments

ARRANGED PARENTING: Stanley Kurtz

Earlier this month, in "Scary Book," I wrote about Everything Conceivable, Liza Mundy’s powerful account of the ways in which assisted reproduction is transforming the family. "Mummy, Daddy, donor," an edited extract from the book, is now available online. (There’s also this new, critical, and helpful review of Everything Conceivable.) While the book is filled with more spectacular stuff than you’ll find in the extract, "Mummy, Daddy, donor" does give you a feel for the larger account.

...The most unusual family form described in Mundy’s extract is "arranged parenting," where a man or woman advertise for a partner to have children with using IVF. Arranged parenting involves a shared custody arrangement from birth, "without the dating, the marriage, the sex or the divorce." ...Mundy’s extract briefly describes a quadruple parenting arrangement that eventually morphs into a sextuple parenting arrangement.

more
posted by Eve at 7:25 PM | Link | 0 comments

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING FATHER: Kay S. Hymowitz

Here’s a Delphic riddle for our times: When is your father not your father? Answer: when he’s a sperm donor. Consider a case now before the Kansas Supreme Court. An unmarried woman in her early thirties decided that she wanted a child and asked a friend to be a sperm donor. He agreed, one thing led to another, which led to a syringe of his sperm, which led to the birth of twins. The mother says that she always intended to raise the kids alone and never wanted the friend involved in their lives. The donor says that he planned to be the twins’ father in name and practice. There is no written contract. What does the contemporary Solomon do?

Well, in a Kansas trial court, Solomon rules that without a contract the twins have no father. The man who provided half of the children’s genetic material has no more relationship to them than does the taxi driver who rushed their mother to the hospital when she went into labor.

more
posted by Eve at 7:23 PM | Link | 0 comments

Separation of Marriage and State Watch: NYT

An op ed this Sunday (May 20) from Dalton Conley, the head of NYU's sociology department:

"Spread the Wealth of Spousal Rights

. . . As of 2005, the Government Accounting Office had identified more than 1,000 legal rights and responsibilities attendant to marriage. The era of big government is clearly not over when it comes to family policy.

These range from the continuation of water rights upon the death of a spouse to the ability to take funeral leave. And that’s just the federal government. States and localities have their own marriage provisions. New York State, for example, grants a spouse the right to inherit a military veteran’s peddler’s license. Hawaii extends to spouses of residents its lower in-state fees for hunting licenses.

No wonder gay and lesbian activists put such a premium on access to marriage rights. Some gay marriage advocates want all spousal rights immediately and will settle for nothing less. Others take an incremental approach, aiming to secure first the most significant domestic partner rights, like employer benefits.

But rather than argue about whether gay or lesbian couples should be allowed to tie the knot, or be granted any marital rights at all, perhaps it is time to do an end run around the culture wars by unbundling the marriage contract into its constituent parts. Then, applying free-market principles, we could allow each citizen to assign the various rights and responsibilities now connected to marriage as he or she sees fit.

In addition to employer benefits, some of the key marital rights include the ability to pass property and income back and forth tax-free, spousal privilege (that is, the right not to testify against one’s husband or wife), medical decision-making power and the right to confer permanent residency to a foreigner, just to name a few.
The mutual responsibilities of marriage include parenthood — a husband is the legal father of any child born to his wife regardless of biological paternity — and shared tort liability. Why not allow people to parcel out these marital privileges?

Take my own marriage as case in point: My wife is a foreigner who is applying for citizenship, and her marriage to me will make that possible. But as the law stands, I, as a straight American man, theoretically could become a green card machine. As long as I can convince the overstretched Department of Homeland Security that my penchant for falling in love with foreign women is genuine, I can divorce and remarry as many times as I like, obtaining permanent residency for each of my failed loves along the way.

Is that really fair to the gay man who falls in love with a foreigner he can’t sponsor? For that matter, is it fair to the many Americans who can’t sponsor aging grandparents or, in some cases, even parents? Or even to straight Americans who are happy marrying their own kind, but don’t want to see the country fill up with my romantic baggage?

Why not instead give all Americans the right to sponsor one person in their lifetime — a right that they could sell, if they so desire? This would mean that if I wanted to marry a Kenyan after divorcing an Australian, I could, but I would need to purchase — perhaps on e-Bay — the right to confer citizenship from someone else who didn’t need it.

Likewise, why not let all Americans name one person (other than their lawyer, priest or therapist) who can’t be forced to testify against them in court? This zone of privacy could be transferred over the course of a lifetime, perhaps limiting such changes to once in each five-year period.

While we are at it, how about allowing each of us to choose someone with whom our property is shared, with all the tax (and liability) implications that choice would imply? We might even allow parenthood to become contractual, by letting people name the people they want to be stepparents to their biological children.

We could go down the list of rights and responsibilities embedded in the marriage contract. Ideally, most people would choose one person in whom to vest all the rights, but everyone would have the freedom to decide how to configure his domestic, business, legal and intimate relationships in the eyes of the law. . .

It might also take some of the vitriol out of the marriage debate. Marriage itself could stay in church (or in Las Vegas, as the case may be). And each couple could count their own ways to love."

posted by maggie at 9:28 AM | Link | 1 comments

SSM Update: Massachusetts SSMs Drop Sharply

A NewsHouse News Service story in the Seattle Times(Only 87 isn the first four months of 2007. . .):

"After initial flurry in '04, fewer gays marrying

BOSTON — As people marked the third anniversary of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts last week, the state released statistics showing the number of gay weddings has dropped sharply since 2004.

According to the state Department of Public Health, 6,121 gay couples married in the first seven months after gay marriage became legal on May 17, 2004.

In 2005, 2,060 gay couples married, and in 2006, the number declined to 1,427, down 31 percent from 2005.

This year through April 26, 87 gay couples tied the knot.

Patricia Griffin, of Belchertown, Mass., a retired professor from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who married her longtime partner on July 10, 2004, said it makes sense that more gay people would marry in the first year. When a right is denied and suddenly granted, people tend to take advantage of it, she said.

"People are now getting married at a more normal rate," said Griffin, who is married to Kathleen Neal, a public schoolteacher in Amherst. "It's kind of settled down."

posted by maggie at 9:23 AM | Link | 1 comments

"SuperSistas" video contest

Alternatives to degrading images of black women sought, by talented amateur videographers. It's Youtube nation. Details here.
posted by maggie at 4:00 PM | Link | 0 comments