GaysDefendMarriage.com

David Benkof launches a new blog, GaysDefendMarriage.com. I believe he will permit comments so I expected some of you marriagedebate.com folks who used to like to comment may enjoy his new venture.
posted by maggie at 8:38 PM | link

"Marriage Equality"?

The Gay Patriot weighs in on his trouble with the term:

The noun “equality” (as opposed to the adjective “equal” in the expressions “equal opportunity” or “equal right”) has socialist overtones, while liberty is more fitting with the American tradition. But, if the goal here were liberty, it would have already been reached. For gay people are free to marry, it’s just that only two states recognize their unions as such (and grant them the privileges of the institution).

Perhaps, what bothers me the most about the term “marriage equality” is its abstraction. The California Supreme Court did little to clarify this, indeed, seemed to further muddy the waters when it defined marriage as “the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own.”

Does that mean that all unions of two adults are equal? Is a monogamous union equal to a nonmonogamous one?

It’s not just the ambiguity of the term that bothers me, it’s that it serves to erase the difference between the sexes. Men and women are different. Men relate to each other differently than women relate to each other and differently than they relate to women in intimate relationships. To adopt the term “marriage equality” seems to erase the difference between the genders.

More on his website.
posted by Imapp Staff at 9:26 AM | link

Canadian Polygamist Sect Under Pressure

From the Associated Press:

When authorities raided a thickly walled polygamist compound and took custody of 463 children in Texas last month, child welfare officials said the beliefs practiced there left girls at risk of sexual abuse and encouraged boys to become sexual perpetrators.

Many residents in this parallel community, which includes about 500 American citizens, share those same beliefs _ that you take many wives and live a communal lifestyle _ but prosecutors have not moved in to take action.

Yet.

British Columbia's Attorney General Wally Oppal told The Associated Press he plans to arrest someone on a polygamy charge or ask the courts to weigh in on Bountiful's legal standing within the month.

Read the whole thing here.
posted by Imapp Staff at 9:23 AM | link

Canadian Lutherans to Ordain Married Gay Man

From the Toronto Star
posted by Imapp Staff at 9:22 AM | link

N.C. Appeals Ruling Limits Extent of Partner's Parenting Rights

Arthur S. Leonard offers an analysis of a recent NC case on his blog. A snippet:

In this case, the two women, rather far apart in age, met when one was the professor teaching a course in which the other was enrolled. They are 13 years apart in age. Several years into their relationship, the younger decided to have children. The older was not an active participant with respect to this decision; the opinion suggests that she agreed that the younger could have and raise children in the context of their relationship, but there was no express understanding that the older woman would be considered a parent. In the event, the older woman did perform the insemination with donated sperm, and was present at the hospital for the delivery (of twins). But during the pregnancy, which was difficult, bio-mom's mother actually came to live with her and was the primary caregiver through the pregnancy -- and was also present at the delivery. According to the trial record (the trial court denied a pretrial dismissal motion, finding the need for a trial on the question of waiver of constitutional rights), when a nurse at the hospital addressed the older partner as "mom" she was sharply corrected by bio-mom.

There was no written parenting agreement or express agreement between the women that the older partner be considered a parent to the twins. She did participate in raising them for the time the relationship continued, but the hearing record, as summarized by Judge Geer, suggests that bio-mom actively resisted the idea of older partner being a "mother" to the children and was uncomfortable with occasional suggestions that was the case. When she decided to end the relationship and move out, she voluntarily allowed considerable visitation at the beginning with the idea that she would cut it down as the children became established in their new home. When she started cutting down the visitation time, the former partner sued for custody and visitation rights.

Based on this record, the trial judge found that bio-mom had not waived her primary constitutional rights, and thus the court would not make a custody determination using a best interest standard to evaluate the older woman's claim.

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:18 AM | link

Pope Does it Again

Pope Benedict speaks up for marriage as the union of husband and wife "cradle of life and love." I believe this is the 115th time he has done so since he became Pope, but the California decision makes Reuters take notice:

"Pope restates gay marriage ban after California vote
Fri May 16, 2008 1:24pm EDT
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church's position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.

Benedict made no mention of the California decision in his speech to family groups from throughout Europe, but stressed the Church's position several times.

"The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions," he said.

The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, "founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life".

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages in a major victory for gay rights advocates that will allow homosexual couples to marry in the most populous U.S. state.

Last year, Italy's powerful Catholic Church successfully campaigned against a law proposed by the previous centre-left government that would have given more rights to gay and unmarried couples.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is not sinful but homosexual acts are, and is opposed to gays being allowed to adopt children.

The California court found laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are at odds with rights guaranteed by the state's constitution.

U.S. President George W. Bush, who is opposed to gay marriage, prayed "for the family" with the pope at the White House last month during the pontiff's visit there."

posted by maggie at 8:48 PM | link

California Court Redefines Marriage

In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s constitution mandates redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. The decision arose from a lawsuit challenging the state’s definition of marriage following the mayor of San Francisco’s decision to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004.

The court thus said the question it would address was whether the state could “officially designate” the relationship between opposite-sex couples a marriage and the union of same-sex couples a domestic partnership. The court said the right to marry guaranteed by the California Constitution means “the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as a marriage.” The right includes, for the court, “a ‘positive’ right to have the state take at least some affirmative action to acknowledge and support the family unit.”

The court rejected the idea that procreation was central to marriage because people who cannot have children are allowed to marry and the right to marry is as important “to responsible individuals who can be counted upon to take appropriate precautions in planning for parenthood” as to those who might have children without specifically intending to do so. In addition, the court said marriage was important because of the “personal enrichment” it offers to those who marry. The court said “a stable two-parent family relationship, supported by the state’s official recognition and protection” would benefit children raised by same-sex couples.

The crux of the court’s decision was the entirely novel proposition that “sexual orientation” is a special category requiring the highest level of constitutional protection. The court believed a separate status for same-sex couples constitutes “significantly unequal treatment,” and could be understood “as a mark of second-class citizenship” and the state had no compelling interest “in retaining a tradition that excludes an historically disfavored minority group from a status that is extended to all others—even when the tradition is widely shared.”

Three justices dissented in two opinions. The first argued the court does not have the right “to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.”
posted by William Duncan at 5:05 PM | link

Calif Supreme Court Rules Fundamental Right to Same-Sex Marriage

AP story here.
posted by maggie at 1:40 PM | link

California Supreme Court Opinion Today

The California case is titled In re Marriage Cases, S147999. The ruling will be available at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions.
posted by maggie at 10:28 AM | link

"JOINT CUSTODY," memoir by Elizabeth Rollins,

here:
STERLING AVE., E. BELLAFONTE, W. WALNUT ST., W. MASONIC VIEW, ETC.

In the beginning, I had a small brown pleather suitcase. It had red and blue racing stripes on the side. When I came home to my mother’s, after two weeks at my father’s, my dog would climb into it, with my clothes, and fall immediately asleep, as if he was the one returning.

Eventually, the zipper on that suitcase broke. I used it anyway, carrying it with two arms, one to hold the flap shut. Things fell out in the car on the way to or from one of their houses. I was always dropping things. They got annoyed.

Then I had a plastic KLM bag from our trip to Europe with Mom. They gave it to us on the Dutch airplane, for things we might bring home from the trip. It was a cheap, bright blue with white lettering. It was only a square gym bag, not meant for heavy use. It didn’t last long.

After that, I used garbage bags. At my mother’s house they were the cheap white kind that sagged and tore easily. My father had sturdy black ones, so I tried to stash a couple each time I was at his house. With trash bags, you just tossed everything in each time. Lotion, clothes, books, Raggedy Ann, shoes, towel, toothbrush, shampoo.

When I departed for college, where I would live in the same room for a year, my father and stepmother bought me a set of luggage. There was even a garment bag, with little gold hooks for hangers at the top of it.

These are some of the stories that I know. Other stories than the ones I usually tell. The first stories, I guess. Stories of my first people, my intimates. I am tracing the thread connecting us all. It has become unclear to me whether or not the thread should be cut altogether.
more
posted by Eve at 8:34 PM | link

California Supreme Court Ruling Tomorrow 1 p.m. Eastern

Reuters report here.
posted by maggie at 4:27 PM | link

Demographic Collapse of Europe

The Times of London reports on this massive EU study of the family. Highlights:

It said that almost one million fewer babies were born in the 27 EU countries last year than in 1980. There were six million more over65s than under14s in Europe last year, against 36 million more children than pensioners in 1980.

The institute said: “Europe is now an elderly continent.” Almost one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion. The marriage rate fell by 24 per cent between 1980 and 2006. Two out of three households have no children, and nearly 28 per cent of households contain only one person.

The EU suggested solution? I'm not making this up:

The report urges national governments to set up a ministry for the family.

You might think they would ask themselves whether setting up yet another government ministry could be part of the problem, rather than the solution.

Cross-posted at my blog.

Labels: demographics

posted by Jennifer Roback Morse at 7:44 PM | link

End the Marriage Welfare Penalty

Senator Sam Brownback and David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values jointly penned an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, calling for a change in a tax system that, for couples on welfare, according to the article, penalizes poor couples by 10-20% of their total income:

Knowledge of the marriage penalty in poor neighborhoods is typically spread by word of mouth. This informal learning might actually increase the antimarriage impact of the penalty, by convincing nearly all poor couples that they will lose income if they marry, even though some (due to the complexity of the regulations) would not.

In recent years, Congress has made substantial progress in reducing the marriage penalties paid by middle and upper income couples because of the tax system. But lawmakers have done little to address marriage penalties facing the poor through the benefit system.

Why should we care about this issue? For starters, consider the children. A wide range of studies have found that children whose parents are married are significantly less likely to use drugs, have emotional problems, drop out of school, or get into trouble with the law. Studies also consistently find that married adults tend to be happier, healthier and ultimately wealthier than their unmarried but otherwise similarly situated peers.

So when we penalize poor couples for getting married, we are giving them a strong incentive not to take advantage of an institution that would likely help them lift themselves out of poverty over time. Being married gives couples a greater capacity to build assets and economic stability, which could help get them off of welfare for good.

Read it all here.
posted by Imapp Staff at 9:26 AM | link

Ormiston (Rhode Island SS Divorce Plaintiff) Moves to Massachussetts

Providence Journal, May 9, 2008:

Judge puts off same-sex divorce ruling

PROVIDENCE — A judge yesterday said she needs to know more before deciding whether to ask the state Supreme Court if the Superior Court may grant Rhode Island’s first same-sex divorce.

In December, the Supreme Court ruled that Family Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a divorce to two Providence women — Margaret R. Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston — who married in Fall River in 2004, shortly after Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Now, Chambers wants the high court to determine whether Superior Court, the state’s main trial court, can dissolve the marriage.

During a hearing yesterday, Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Hurst asked both sides to submit legal memos and she scheduled another hearing for June 12. “You have caught me off guard with a one-page motion with no supporting memoranda, no analysis,” Hurst told Chambers’ lawyer, Louis M. Pulner.

But the judge did make some initial comments about Pulner’s motion, which seeks to certify the jurisdictional question to the Supreme Court.

“Superior Court does not have jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, so the question is whether Superior Court has jurisdiction over proceedings that resolve marital rights without calling it a divorce proceeding,” Hurst said. “Does the court have jurisdiction over two people who want to resolve property interests? That happens every day.”

But Pulner said Chambers and Cassandra B. Ormiston already have a Superior Court case over property interests.

What they want is a divorce and he argued that Superior Court does have jurisdiction to grant them a divorce.


. . .Earlier in the hearing, the judge allowed Providence lawyer Nancy M. Palmisciano to withdraw as Ormiston’s lawyer.

Ormiston then stepped to the podium, representing herself. She told the judge she has moved to Massachusetts, where she will be able to get a divorce after living there for a year. She noted a Fall River lawyer, Julie A. Lynch, had accompanied her to court to underscore her plans to eventually file for divorce in Massachusetts.

“Over the last one-and-a-half years, despite the best efforts on either side, we have had no forum for this divorce to be granted,” Ormiston told the judge. “It’s my understanding Superior Court cases take longer to be scheduled in contested cases, and it leads me to the decision that one-and-a-half years is long enough.”

Hurst told Ormiston, “This is not a forum for you to make statements of this sort. I have no control over you and whether you could or could not move to Massachusetts. I can’t say how that would affect this case. You have a constitutional right to move anywhere you want.”

“But not to be divorced anywhere, your honor,” Ormiston said.

Hurst urged Ormiston to talk to her lawyer about the rules of the court “and how to conduct yourself,” saying, “This is not a forum for communicating information without some context.” For example, it would be appropriate to comment on a pending motion, she said.

After the hearing, Ormiston said she is now living in Attleboro and is planning to rent out her house in Providence. “My spouse, ‘Bobbie’ Chambers, and I have the same goal — to be divorced,” she said. “And I admire Mr. Pulner’s tenacity in trying to get the courts of Rhode Island to provide a forum for the divorce.”

But Ormiston said she doubts the couple will be allowed to divorce in Rhode Island. “When I started out, I was optimistic,” she said. “But now I’d be naïve to believe any court — Family Court, Superior Court or the Supreme Court — will recognize my valid marriage contract” for the purpose of granting a divorce.

Ormiston said her request for a divorce should not be viewed as an exception to a rule. “I am not an exception. I am a citizen who is being discriminated against by the courts,” she said. “A bigamist can get divorced. A criminal can get divorced. But this good citizen — who pays her taxes, votes and is a good neighbor — has no access to justice in the courts of Rhode Island.”

posted by maggie at 1:01 PM | link

Exposing MA-rital fraud

By David Benkof
DavidBenkof@aol.com

I do not believe that in our democracy, anything goes. There are certain maneuvers that while legal, are contrary to the spirit of fair play in a democratic republic. Advocates of "marriage equality" have repeatedly shown that they will try any strategy, no matter how sneaky or dishonest, to achieve their goal of redefining marriage.

I'll give just one example. During the campaign for the nation's second-ever statewide non-discrimination law based on sexual orientation, in Massachusetts in 1989, gay and lesbian activists told everyone who asked that the proposed law would never lead to same-sex marriage. In fact, they tried to prove how serious they were by writing into the law the following sentence: "Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to legitimize or validate a ‘homosexual marriage.’" Massachusetts voters and legislators assumed the gay and lesbian community was acting in good faith, and in the interest of fairness, the non-discrimination law passed.

One of the major reasons Massachusetts defenders of traditional marriage gave to oppose a redefinition of marriage in their state is that people in Massachusetts believe homosexuality is immoral. What is the Goodridge v. Massachusetts decision's explanation of why they rejected that reasonable rationale? They offered only a single sentence, which I'm quoting directly from the decision: "Massachusetts has a strong affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." That's the only reason the court gave, and the most prominent piece of evidence they cited was the non-discrimination law mentioned above that the voters of Massachusetts were disingenuously told would never lead to same-sex marriage.

Come to think of it, I do not see why the four justices who approved the Goodridge decision should not be arrested and put on trial for violating Massachusetts law, which clearly states "Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to legitimize or validate" same-sex marriage. Chief Justice Margaret Hilary Marshall and three other Massachusetts jurists unmistakably construed that very act so as to legitimize and validate same-sex marriage. That was kind of their whole point. Doesn't it undermine our legal system when we fail to punish people who flagrantly violate the law just because they wear robes? I thought the whole point of Watergate was that no one is above the law.

Any fair-minded Massachusetts proponent of same-sex marriage who believes in open democracy should reject the Goodridge decision as fundamentally fraudulent, and advocate for a statewide vote on "marriage equality," or at least a brand-new decision. Any new decision must not use as evidence a law everyone agrees was passed with the assurance that it would never lead to same-sex marriage in order to argue that the people of the Bay State support same-sex marriage. If a court had outlawed same-sex marriage with a similarly outrageous and anti-democratic argument, I would be the first to condemn it as illegitimate. To my knowledge not a single gay or lesbian activist (besides me) has ever expressed a similar opinion about Goodridge. Are "marriage equality" advocates so selfish that they feel winning is more important than playing fair?

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) pending before Congress similarly contains a provision supported by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) which says ENDA won't undermine the male-female federal definition of marriage. Could someone please explain to me why an American citizen who opposes discrimination based on sexual orientation but does not want to see the longstanding definition of marriage change should trust Congressman Frank, who has trumpeted Goodridge, when he says ENDA will not lead to same-sex marriage? If Frank and other marriage equality advocates feel the Massachusetts bait-and-switch was a perfectly acceptable means of achieving their goals (and I see no evidence any of them ever rejected Goodridge), don't people who favor honest lawmaking have no choice but to start rejecting all future measures proposed by such people?

Am I missing something? I really want to know. Anyone who can show me flaws in my logic is invited to send a respectful message to my E-mail address listed above.

Labels: Goodridge, Marriage

posted by David Benkof at 1:41 AM | link

Eve Tushnet on Abelard and Heloise's "Tainted Love"

Yes, I know Eve also posted a link. She just beat me to it:

". . .Heloise is consistent. She is also deeply willful, the least submissive self-proclaimed doormat in human history. Her abnegation is its own form of self-aggrandizement, a serpentine Mobius strip of pride. Even Etienne Gilson, whose sympathy for both lovers comes through on every page of his terrific study Heloise and Abelard, finds himself forced to note, "One hesitates to say this, but the passion for spiritual grandeur which is the secret source of their life story seems never to have been completely pure." Gilson portrays her, believably, as a woman whose thirst for heroism was her tragic flaw. Better to serve Abelard in Hell -- where she can find no reward, and thus face no accusation of self-interest, her heroism shining brightly and alone -- than to serve God in Heaven.


When I first read the Letters, I found it hard to sympathize with the lovers. I was an undergraduate, so I was very hard on Heloise's melodrama -- people enmeshed in melodrama themselves tend to judge other players very harshly. Abelard came across as creepily detached and self-absorbed: She pours out her anguish, he replies with the gas bill and the grocery list.

This time around, I approached them more tenderly. Heloise is shockingly lonely, having followed her love for Abelard -- the one piece of herself she clings to -- into a desolate plain where neither lover nor God can be found. Meanwhile, Abelard fumbles through his responses and attempts to efface himself from their correspondence as completely as possible. He throws himself away with both hands. She never surrenders; he never does anything else. He was prepared to love God by his prior love for Heloise, his superior in so many ways. She had no similar preparation, since idolatry, devotion to what is less than oneself, is the opposite of love of God. . ."

posted by maggie at 3:28 PM | link

"TAINTED LOVE": Eve's Inside Catholic column

Hello all--I just realized that my most recent book column for Inside Catholic might be relevant to readers of this site. It's a look at Heloise and Abelard, in that order:

The name of wife may seem more sacred or more binding, but sweeter for me will always be the word mistress, or, if you will permit me, that of concubine or whore.

more
posted by Eve at 12:17 AM | link