COMPLICATING THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE: Feministe

(probably more interesting for the comments-boxing than for the original post)
posted by Eve at 9:53 PM | Link |  

SSM Update: Pennsylvania Road Trip for Marriage

You tube here.
posted by maggie at 6:10 PM | Link |  

Sicilian Family Values

From Aug 2, 2007 Reuters:

"Sicilian mother cuts off 61-yr-old son's allowance

A Sicilian mother took away her 61-year-old son's house keys, cut off his allowance and hauled him to the police station because he stayed out late.

Tired of her son's misbehaviour, the pensioner in the central Sicilian city of Caltagirone turned to the police to "convince this blockhead" to behave properly, La Sicilia, one of Sicily's leading newspapers, reported on Thursday.

The son responded by saying his mother did not give him a big enough weekly allowance and did not know how to cook. . ."

posted by maggie at 10:58 AM | Link |  

Elizabeth Powers on Peggy Ornstein

In First Things, a review Powers of Ornstein's book documenting her "descent into infertility". Not quite random excerpt:

". . .Here she is, for instance, writing about throwing away the Pill and the diaphragm: “There is the first time you have sex, and then there is the first time you have sex without birth control. On purpose. To make a baby. There was something both sacred and carnal, . . . an erotic thrill in breaking the taboo against unprotected sex, along with a startling intimacy.” . . ."

posted by maggie at 10:35 AM | Link |  

SSM Update: Briefs Filed in Rhode Island "Divorce" Case

"Officials: R.I. can grant gay divorce
01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, August 2, 2007
By Edward Fitzpatrick
Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE — A state court can grant two Providence women a divorce without answering the highly charged question of whether a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts should be recognized in Rhode Island, Governor Carcieri and Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch agreed in legal briefs filed with the state Supreme Court yesterday.
But Carcieri and Lynch differed sharply over what the outcome of the case should be if the high court does take up the larger issue. . .

In December, Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. asked the Supreme Court whether his court had jurisdiction to hear the divorce case. The Supreme Court sent the matter back to Family Court to answer factual questions and to clarify the question of law, which is now worded this way: “May the Family Court properly recognize, for the purpose of entertaining a divorce petition, the marriage of two persons of the same sex who were purportedly married in another state?”
Carcieri and Lynch say the divorce case can be handled without answering that question.

Carcieri’s brief — signed by Indiana lawyer James Bopp Jr. and local lawyer Joseph S. Larisa Jr., former Republican Gov. Lincoln C. Almond’s chief of staff — noted state law says divorces can be granted even when marriages are “void or voidable by law.”

“The Family Court can thus proceed with the divorce petition without a response from this court addressing the legality or the validity of the marriage,” the brief said. “Indeed, because of the significance of this issue and the lack of necessity for this court to consider it, the policy of the State of Rhode Island on the issue of same-sex marriage is most properly left to the people to establish through referendum or, at minimum, through the legislative process.”

Lynch’s brief — signed by Assistant Attorney General James R. Lee and Special Assistant Attorney General Christopher R. Bush — said Family Court can grant a divorce no matter whether the marriage is “valid, void or voidable.”

“This court need not and should not answer this question because it is based on a faulty premise — that a review of a marriage’s ‘validity’ is a prerequisite to granting a divorce in Rhode Island. It is not,” the brief said. So answering the question “would amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion.”

But the Marriage Law Foundation, based in Orem, Utah, filed on behalf of three groups, saying, “Rhode Island will grant a divorce only to a couple in a valid marriage.” The Supreme Court “understood, we believe, that jurisdiction is not the truly fundamental issue here; the truly fundamental issue is the validity in Rhode Island’s eyes of the Chambers-Ormiston marriage,” the brief said. “Hence, this court ordered a reworking of the certified question to its present form, with its emphasis on judicial recognition or not of such a marriage.”

The Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin, bishop of Providence, filed a legal brief, saying, “The recognition of same sex relationships as ‘marriages’ would have profound, radical consequences. This issue is too important to be debated only in legal briefs, only by those sufficiently aware of the issue to know about this case and with sufficient resources to enlist counsel. The issue deserves the robust, full ranging debate available in the media and the legislative process.”

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, based in Boston, filed a brief, citing a 1904 Supreme Court case that says Rhode Island considers a marriage performed in another state valid unless it’s “odious by the common consent of nations” or “dangerous to the fabric of society.” GLAD said, “Rhode Island has taken actions that indicate a belief that it is actually beneficial to the fabric of society to protect and support Rhode Island gay and lesbian citizens and their relationships.” For example, “Rhode Island law extends insurance benefits to the dependents of state employees, and ‘dependents’ is ” defined to include a ‘domestic partner.’ . . .


The American Civil Liberties Union, based in New York, and its Rhode Island affiliate filed a brief, saying Chambers and Ormiston cannot get divorced in another state because they live in Rhode Island. . ."
posted by maggie at 10:28 AM | Link |  

Decision on Probation Condition for Same-Sex Couple

A federal court in Pennsylvania issued a decision Tuesday ending a probation condition that separated a same-sex couple who had lived together before they were arrested for drug trafficking. The court described the defendants’ relationship as a “committed relationship” of 18 years where the partners “made a home together and built a life together. They supported one another financially, sharing a joint bank account. They also supported one another emotionally, each caring for the other when he was sick, celebrating successes and sharing sorrows. They considered, and still consider, themselves to be spouses. Defendants were in every way a family.” After their release from prison, the partners were prohibited from any contact with one another because of a condition of each one’s supervised release that they not have association with a convicted felon. The trial court initially denied their request that they be allowed contact but the court of appeals reversed saying the trial court had authority to modify the conditions of the defendants’ supervised release.

In Tuesday’s decision, the trial court ordered the government to allow the defendants to associate based on two legal conclusions.

First, under the statute governing probation conditions, the court held there was no evidence that a “supervisory need” existed for their continued separation. The court based this conclusion on (1) the lack of “risk that defendants will engage in any criminal or otherwise harmful conduct” if they were allowed to associate, (2) the fact that one defendant “has AIDS, and that his physical and emotional well-being would improve if he were allowed to rebuild his relationship with his life partner” and (3) since the defendants have turned their lives around, there doesn’t appear to be any more need to deter them from future criminal activity.

The court’s second conclusion was that the probation condition was unconstitutional. The court held the constitution protects “the right to intimate association” and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas extends this protection to same-sex couples. The court said that given the couple’s long-term relationship and continued devotion to one another they “have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their intimate relationship with each other.” The court also held there was no “supervisory need” for the separation that would justify the infringement of the right.

The court also held the separation violated the federal constitution’s equal protection provision because the defendants are denied permission to associate while other “similarly situated individuals in other kinds of family relationships” are granted such permission. The court concluded that since “there is no evidence that association between committed same-sex partners will pose any greater supervisory concern that association between similarly situated family members, this unequal treatment fails any level of constitutional scrutiny.”
posted by William Duncan at 6:34 PM | Link |  

Canadian Prosecutor Urges Review of Consitutionality of Polygamy Ban

Reuters, Aug 1, 2007:

"Canada Urged to Review Legality Of Polygamy Ban

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - A special prosecutor has recommended Canadian courts be asked to rule on the constitutionality of the country's long-standing laws against polygamy, officials said on Wednesday.

But the independent prosecutor, prominent Canadian criminal attorney Richard Peck, has recommended that criminal charges not be filed against a U.S.-linked religious community that has openly practiced polygamy in Western Canada for years.

Peck said pursuing the charges related to sex with underage girls would not likely results in convictions on the "available evidence," but the case left unanswered the broader issue of how Canada should handle the issue of plural marriage.

"The legality of polygamy in Canada has for too long been characterized by uncertainty," Peck wrote in a report to British Columbia's attorney general that was released to the media on Wednesday.

"Polygamy is the underlying phenomenon from which all the other alleged harms flow, and the public interest would best be served by addressing it directly," Peck wrote, saying the province should put the issue to the courts in the form of a specific question rather than a criminal case. . ."

posted by maggie at 5:07 PM | Link |  

Oregon Marriage and Parenting Decision

Earlier this month, a Multnomah County, Oregon trial court issued a decision (I couldn’t find a link to the opinion online) in a case where a same-sex couple challenged the state’s laws creating a presumption that a child born to a married woman is the child of the woman’s husband. They claimed this law discriminated on the basis of sex and sexual orientation because same-sex couples cannot marry, and presumably they cannot take advantage of this presumption.

In its decision, the court followed a previous decision, Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, which had held that a state university’s failure to give marital benefits to same-sex couples violated the state constitution. This court said that the Tanner decision established the following legal principles: (1) “gay and lesbian domestic partners” are a class for purposes of state constitutional analysis, (2) they are a suspect class and classifications affecting them are subject to strict scrutiny, (3) laws that condition benefits on marriage can violate the state constitution because same-sex couples can’t marry, and (4) a law creating differential treatment of married and same-sex couples must have a “biological justification.”

The court then held that the challenged statutes, since they “do not apply to a child and the lesbian domestic partner of the child’s mother, cannot be justified by biological differences existing between married, heterosexual couples and lesbian domestic partners, as the rights and responsibilities of parenthood awarded to the husband under these statutes are not at all conditioned on the biological ability of the male partner to be the father of the mother’s child.”

Since the Oregon legislature had just created a domestic partnership status for same-sex couples that would allow them the parental rights sought in this case, the judge held that the new law, when it goes into effect, would be a sufficient remedy for the constitutional violation the court identified.
posted by William Duncan at 5:01 PM | Link |  

Desperate (gay, male) Housewives

A gay couple moves next door on Wisteria lane.
posted by maggie at 10:38 AM | Link |  

Second Catholic Adoption Agency to Close (Scotland)

www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07073003.html

Catholic Adoption Agency Will Close Before Giving Children to Homosexual Parents, Bishop States

By Elizabeth O'Brien

MOTHERWELL, Scotland, July 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Bishop of Motherwell, Scotland, Reverend Joseph Devine, stated that a Catholic adoption agency would close rather than comply with the recent UK Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR) and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

Commenting on the possible closing of the Glasgow-based St. Margaret's Children and Family Care Society, Bishop Devine commented in the Daily Express, "It would be a great loss because Catholic family care agencies have done such wonderful work." According to the Scotsman, St. Margaret's presently places 15 to 20 children in new homes each year, provides counseling for pregnant women and helps families get through the emotional and practical difficulties involved in adoption.

The highly controversial SOR's, which became law in the United Kingdom this March, are supposed to protect homosexuals from discrimination and give them equal access to goods and services, including adoption. Nevertheless, many people have expressed their fear that the SOR's will in effect be a means of trampling on people's freedom of speech and religion.

For a brief period of time the government considered allowing a conscience clause in the new regulations that would give Catholic adoption agencies the ability to refrain from serving homosexual couples. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Tony Blair eventually rejected the notion on the basis that "there is no place in our society for discrimination."

Last year when the Scottish government was discussing the possibility of homosexual adoption, Bishop Devine vehemently came down against the proposal as "yet another violation of family life."

"What started as a tolerance and compassion for gays had developed into the suppression of the majority heterosexual lifestyle," he continued. "Traditional family values are in the dock and the judge and jury are composed of politically correct extremists."

The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, challenged the new Equality Act's SOR's in a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair this January. He stated, "Catholic teaching about the foundations of family life … means that Catholic adoption agencies would not be able to recruit and consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents."

At the same time, certain Catholic adoption agencies said that they would become "gay rights martyrs," by remaining open and refusing to allow homosexual couples to adopt children. They hoped to then use any ensuing court battle to argue (based on Article 9 of the Human Rights Act) that all people have the right to freedom of religious expression.

Read previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Oppressive Sexual Orientation Regs Pass in UK Parliament; House of Lords Tomorrow
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07032004.html

Scotland Bishop Says Homosexual Adoption Being Pushed by "Politically Correct Zealots"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06040607.html

Scotland Bishop Blasts Parliament Decision to Allow Gay Adoption
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022703.html

British PM ~ No Religious Exemption to Law Forcing Provision of Goods and Services to Gays
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07012904.html

UK Catholic Church Agency to Cease Adoption Work As Government Forces Homosexual Adoption
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07072706.html
posted by maggie at 9:15 AM | Link |  

Sperm Donor speaks

In the July 29, NYT "Modern Love" column, a sperm donor meets one of his "30 or 40" children:

"By THOMAS ANTHONY DONAHOE

LAST December I got a call from a health and fertility clinic in Cambridge, Mass., asking if I would be willing to respond to a male teenager inquiring about his sperm donor. I donated there in the late 80s, and it seemed any children I had helped create were just now becoming of legal age to contact me if I would allow it.

At 50, I have never married, never raised any children. And about a month before the call, I had reached a point where I was feeling anxious and socially disconnected, no longer relaxed with my friends and sensing there had to be something more meaningful in my life. Perhaps this predisposed me to say yes, the boy could call me, and shortly thereafter I received the following message on my answering machine:
“Hello, Anthony. I know this may come as ... a surprise. But I knew you might be waiting for it. But uh ... I, uh ... guess you’re my ... sperm donor.”

. . .
I reached out for him, thinking I should embrace my child, and we hugged. Struck by his height (I’m only 5-foot-8), I asked him how tall he is.

“Six-three,” he said.

With his scraggly beard and dark features, he looked somewhat Russian-Jewish, but I could also see some of me in him, a dab of Irish in his light, reddish complexion. I had the same scraggly beard at his age — now a goatee. . .


“Do you know many lesbian couples?” he asked, and then: “What made you donate?”
“People wanted children,” I said. “I was available at the time.” I took a sip, then elaborated, since he seemed to want more. “An ex-girlfriend called and said a nurse friend of hers was looking for a donor for her clinic. I thought about it and even went to a counselor. She told me to go for it and to think of it as sharing light.”

. . .I told him about my more glamorous accidents from when I was closer to his age, bumps and broken bones from parachuting and hang gliding. What I didn’t bring up was an accident I’d had just before I started donating sperm; I’d been painting a house with a friend when a platform collapsed, crushing my right leg. It took a few years to learn to walk again, and during this time I donated sperm because I needed extra income.

Not that it was very much: $40 a visit. I donated probably 30 to 40 times over a couple of years.

As soon as we left the restaurant, his cellphone rang: it was his mother, asking where he was. He answered by saying he would be home in an hour.
After he hung up, I asked, “Did you tell your mothers we were meeting?”
He shook his head no. “Just wanted to do it.”
. . . .
I don’t know why I thought to give him some money that day, especially in such an awkward and insufficient way, but a couple of days later, while sharing the story of my meeting with a friend, I remembered that $40 is what I was paid each visit to the sperm bank. I already felt sheepish that my gesture had seemed a bit too transactional, rushed, inept and definitely cheap. Part of me, perhaps, wanted to get business out of the way. Give back what I was paid, for my part in him. Start fresh. But $40? What must he have thought?

I hope to find out when he returns in the summer. If he wants to meet again, that is. Making contact seemed like a big step for him and maybe all he wants for now, to calm his curiosity.
But it was good for my curiosity, too, and for me in general at this point in my life. Later I called the donation center to approve any future contact from other children.

A little more than a week after placing that call, I came home to the voice of a nervous-sounding girl on my answering machine, who introduced herself and then said:
“Uh, calling you, and, uh, looking forward to talking to you about being my donor, and I guess ... I’ll try again later.
“Bye.”

Thomas Anthony Donahoe, a family therapist, lives in West Roxbury, Mass.

posted by maggie at 8:54 PM | Link |  

Will SSM Hurt Dems in Vermont?

A story in the Vermont press:

"Experts say gay marriage may cost Dems
July 27, 2007
By DANIEL BARLOW Vermont Press Bureau

MONTPELIER — The last time the Vermont Legislature tackled legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, Democrats and moderate Republicans who voted for civil unions felt an election backlash at the polls.

Months after the historic legislation was signed into law, state Democrats saw their control of the Vermont House slip back into the hands of Republicans, a defeat that it took the party four years to recover from.

Several civil union-supporting Republicans were defeated by conservative challengers in the primary election. And the opposition party also picked up one extra seat in the divided Vermont Senate and other margins of victory in that body were close that year.

Nearly seven years after that political upheaval — which was preceded by social and communal upheaval among Vermonters during the legislative debate on gay and lesbian rights — Democratic lawmakers in Montpelier have proposed taking the next step in legal recognition.

And while many supporters of gay marriage believe there has been a shift in public thinking on the issue, others think that turn has not been as defined as they hoped.

"Civil unions were divisive back in 1999 just as gay marriage will probably be next year," said Eric Davis, a professor of political science at Middlebury College and a close observer of state politics. "Lots of Vermonters have come to accept civil unions, but it's not clear right now how they feel about gay marriage." . . ."

posted by maggie at 8:38 PM | Link |  

Rhode Island Update

There is an interesting exchange going on in Rhode Island about whether the state should recognize a same-sex marriage contracted in Massachusetts. After the Rhode Island Attorney General suggested that the marriages should be recognized, this op-ed taking strong exception was published in the Providence Journal. The attorney general struck back in an op-ed published in June. Today, blogger Justin Katz weighs in on the attorney general’s justification in this op-ed. All well worth reading.
posted by William Duncan at 3:03 PM | Link |  

New Study: Health Risks from IVF for Babies/Moms

A review of the liaterature by a British and German scientistm, as reported on Lifestie news, concludes we don't really know how big the health risks are:

"More Health Risks Found in IVF Babies - Scientist Suggests IVF Children Should be Monitored into Adulthood
By Hilary White


LONDON, July 27, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A study of 3,980 articles in medical and scientific journals between 1980 and 2005 has shown significantly higher risks of long-term medical problems for children conceived through artificial procreation such as in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, a method in which a selected sperm is injected into the ovum.

Dr. Alastair Sutcliffe, of the Institute of Child Health at University College London and Dr. Michael Ludwig, of the Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecologic Endocrinology in Hamburg, examined the data and have concluded that babies conceived through artificial means should be monitored well into adulthood.

The study showed the risk of miscarriage is between 20 and 34 per cent higher than naturally conceived children. It showed 55 per cent increase in the risk of pre-eclampsia, or hypertension in pregnancy; an increased risk of stillbirth at 155 per cent; low birth weight at 70 to 77 per cent and very low birth weight at 170 to 200 per cent.

Major malformations and cerebral palsy are also significantly more likely with artificially conceived children.

Dr Sutcliffe commented, “In-vitro fertilisation has been done for nearly 30 years; in developed countries at least 1% of births are from ARTs [assisted reproduction techniques]. These children now represent a substantial portion of the population but little is known about their health.” . . ."

posted by maggie at 1:19 PM | Link |