|
 |
 |
 Friday, May 23, 2008
MD HIGH COURT ENDS CHILD VISITATION FOR LESBIAN: Washington Blade
Eight months after it ruled against same-sex marriage, Maryland’s high court has dealt gay residents another blow. In an opinion released Monday, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that gays who partner with a parent are not automatically entitled to child visitation rights after the couple splits. The 6-1 opinion overturns lower court rulings that two years ago granted a Baltimore County lesbian some visitation rights after she left her partner, the parent of a now 9-year-old girl. “This is a disastrous opinion that will very negatively impact non-biological, non-legal parents, especially many who are in same-sex couples,” said Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland. In its opinion, the high court acknowledges the lesbian, identified in court records as Margaret K., is a “de facto” parent because she helped raise the child during the time she was partnered with Janice M. However, the judges say the Baltimore County Circuit Court “erred in granting visitation” to Margaret on the grounds that she was a “de facto” parent without first finding that Janice was an “unfit parent” or that other “exceptional circumstances” existed to justify the decision. more posted by Eve at 8:03 PM | link 
GAY MARRIAGE AROUND THE STATES: Various
WYOMING: Last week's decision by the California Supreme Court declaring that laws banning same-sex marriages in that state are unconstitutional may prompt another attempt to ban the recognition of such marriages in Wyoming. (more) MINNESOTA: The Marriage and Family Protection Act was introduced by Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, and Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, on Friday. The bill would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry. It would also protect religious institutions that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from being compelled to perform such ceremonies. (more) IOWA: Polk County files response in same-sex marriage case (more) OREGON: The Oregon Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage approved by voters in 2004. (more) posted by Eve at 7:51 PM | link
OBAMA'S COWARDICE ON MARRIAGE: Andrew Sullivan
...I should add that Obama's position strikes me as transparently flimsy. His only defense of his support for full marriage rights without the m-word is a function, in his description, of comfort and religion. But he is very comfortable around gay people, gay couples and our families. And his own church actually favors equal marriage rights for gay couples -- and its inclusion of gay people was obviously a reason why TUCC was attractive to Obama. Marriage is the one issue where Obama is still politically afraid, intellectually vacuous, and a moral coward. This is the civil rights movement of our time. Whatever happened to the fierce urgency of now? more posted by Eve at 7:50 PM | link
EMBRYO BILL DEBATE: DO FAMILIES NEED FATHERS?: The Guardian (UK)
Single women and lesbians hoping to be able to conceive can be excused if they felt slightly betrayed by a report in the Times yesterday that in the protracted flushing-out of principles that is the human fertilisation and embryos bill Gordon Brown might consider ceding the ground that matters most to them: being eligible for IVF without necessarily having to produce a father figure. The bill currently being debated in parliament retains the requirement in the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act that fertility clinics take account of the "welfare of the [potential] child", but replaces the requirement that they also consider a child's "need for a father" with the phrase "supportive parenting". The Conservative front bench is up in arms; the wording they would prefer, according to Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, would be "supportive parenting and a father or a male role model". In the interests of preserving the bulk of the bill, and, in particular, the use of human-animal hybrid embryos -- which, Brown argued in the Observer over the weekend, have the potential to "save and improve the lives of thousands and, over time, millions of people" -- the Times report suggested that the prime minister may have already accepted defeat on this point. Leaving aside, for the moment, whether or not Brown has, in fact, done this (sources close to the debate urge against jumping to conclusions, and it would be a surprising U-turn if he had), it is worth looking again at exactly what it would mean for single women and lesbians if the free vote went against the government today. At its most basic, the rewording is simply a tidying-up exercise: recent anti-discrimination and human rights laws, and the Civil Partnership Act, make the wording of the 1990 act illegal, something that the current bill would rectify. "The difference between these two phrases is crucial," fertility law expert Natalie Gamble of law firm Lester Aldridge told the Observer last week. "The words 'supportive parenting' do not discriminate against single and lesbian women, but 'the need for a father' clearly does." Rewording would simply make the embryology bill consistent with all these advances. more posted by Eve at 7:35 PM | link
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WORKERS MAY BE EXCUSED FROM OFFICIATING AT GAY WEDDINGS: AP
Workers in the San Diego County clerk's office who object to same-sex marriages may be excused from officiating at gay weddings. County Clerk Gregory Smith says he is considering allowing his employees to opt out of the ceremonies for religious or moral reasons. more posted by Eve at 7:33 PM | link
LA TIMES POLL: CALIFORNIANS NARROWLY REJECT GAY MARRIAGE
...More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender. Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage. ... Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level. (my emphasis) more (Mollie Hemingway has a quick, wry growl at the language of the story, here) posted by Eve at 7:08 PM | link
NEW STUDY PINPOINTS BIG GAPS IN FOSTER VS. NON-FOSTER HOMES: USA Today
Children in foster care live in poorer, more crowded and less educated homes than kids in other families, often taking them from one disadvantaged environment into another, new research shows. The Annie E. Casey Foundation study is the first to analyze 2006 Census Bureau data, the most recent available, for a detailed look at foster parents. "The gaps were so pervasive," says demographer William O'Hare, a senior fellow at the foundation. O'Hare finds foster households have a lower average income, $56,364, than do all households with children, $74,301, even though they care for more kids. Half of foster households have three or more children compared with 21% of all other households with that many. The study also finds foster parents are more likely than others to be unemployed and lack a high school diploma. "Too often the foster care experience adds to the disadvantages these children" have already endured, says O'Hare, noting that most kids are placed in the foster system because of abuse or neglect. more posted by Eve at 12:36 AM | link
FUN WITH STUDIES WITH OBSCURE METHODOLOGY!: The Christian Post
[I think this is an interesting and important story, and resonates with findings from the Barna Group; but yeah, I know nothing about this study and haven't read it, hence the disclaimer. --ELT] A majority of people surveyed in Britain believe religion is sexist and discriminates against homosexuals, according to a recent poll. Six out of 10 people believe that all religion is fundamentally sexist and 56 percent say all religions fundamentally discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. The poll, which was commissioned by the Movement for Reform Judaism, has driven the liberal religious denomination – known for its support for homosexuality – to highlight the importance of its new gender-neutral prayer book. more posted by Eve at 12:33 AM | link
NEW BOOKS ABOUT MISSING BLACK FATHERS: Newsweek
Ta-Nehisi Coates grew up in the type of family unit that causes census takers to develop stomach ulcers. His father, Paul, was a bit of a free spirit, which is how it came to be that he fathered Coates and his six siblings with four different women. Despite this peculiar scenario, Paul was an active, present father in all his kids' lives. Coates certainly had his share of issues growing up in a tumultuous corner of Baltimore, but as he writes in his new memoir, "The Beautiful Struggle," his father was a source of security and stability in a neighborhood subject to rampant, random violence. "I don't know if there's an environmental explanation for why my father was the way he was," says Coates, 33. "For some reason, he just took being a father really seriously." The engaged black father is an elusive character in popular culture. The percentage of black children living in fatherless homes—roughly 50 percent—has perpetuated an orthodoxy that black men are irresponsible and indifferent to fatherhood. Authors such as Coates are in a position to change that. In addition to "Struggle," last year saw the release of two photo-essay books, Carol Ross's "Pop" and Rachel Vassel's "Daughters of Men," which aimed to show black men celebrating their love for their children. There's much damage to undo. From "Papa Was a Rolling Stone" to the men who appear on "The Maury Show" and nervously await the results of paternity tests, we're bombarded with the image of black men as deadbeats. That image has given rise to pessimism within the black community: according to a Pew Research study conducted last year, more than two thirds of blacks say that today's fathers are doing a worse job than fathers did 20 or 30 years ago. Of the whites polled for the study, only 44 percent said the same. It is this fear of the rapid extinction of black fathers that provides Bill Cosby, the vanilla comedian turned culture warrior, his raison d'être: correcting the ills of the black community with up-by-the-bootstraps straight talk. Cosby has spent years traveling the country, exhorting packed crowds of black men to be better fathers, fathers not unlike Cliff Huxtable, the upper-class patriarch he played on his '80s sitcom. But images of the Huxtable archetype can be psychologically deleterious. As uplifting a story as is, say, "The Pursuit of Happyness"—the memoir of single father Chris Gardner (and, later, a Will Smith movie)—its primary focus is on Gardner's struggle to provide his son financial security. This reinforces the notion that a man's value as a father only goes as far as his ability to earn money. "What's important to black men in a society that has a fair amount of racism is a notion of manhood," says Mark Anthony Neal, an associate professor of black popular culture at Duke University. "Manhood is all they have, and what that usually means in our culture is the ability to provide for your family financially." .... "The Beautiful Struggle" could certainly lend to this cultural shift, but it'll be a hard-fought battle. When Coates, a freelance writer by trade, wrote a critical piece on Cosby's crusade, his dad called and read him the riot act for attacking Cosby's message. "We disagreed, but it's cool," says Coates. "He raised us to be critical thinkers." In order to change those alarming statistics, father and son—along with the rest of us—will have to come to a consensus on what constitutes a good father. For now, what matters is that when Paul's son writes a piece, he reads it, then calls to give the kind of lecture that only a father can give his son. more posted by Eve at 12:29 AM | link
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
POLYGAMY: Dale Carpenter, Megan McArdle
Carpenter writes here on why polygamy isn't "next"; McArdle disputes. posted by Eve at 8:13 PM | link
POLYGAMY CAFE: All Things Considered
It's a long and lonely drive between Fredonia, Ariz., and Hurricane, Utah, for tourists visiting the Grand Canyon, Zion National Park and the Glen Canyon National Recreation area. That 55-mile, two-lane stretch of U.S. Highway 89 has just one sit-down restaurant, and it's like no other cafe in America. The Merry Wives Cafe, located in Hilldale, Utah, is owned and operated by polygamist group members with a sense of business, humor and public relations. The cafe opened last year to give locals and travelers a place to eat. The owners also opened it as a way to gently confront polygamy's battered image. It is not immediately obvious that the cafe has any connection to polygamy, though to sharp diners, there are clues. more posted by Eve at 3:23 PM | link
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
OLDER EVE PIECES ON MARRIAGE: Eve
Hi all. Maggie suggested I post a link to an old piece I did for the National Catholic Register on gay marriage. I'm not 100% thrilled with it (and especially its title!--which I think I didn't choose) so I will also give you a couple other links at the end of this post. Anyway, some relevant excerpts from that 2003 NCR piece:
more So, for newer stuff, you can read a long-winded series from me on MarriageDebate in 2005--(one) (two) (three) (four) (five)--which makes some good points but is long and a bit defensive. Or the second half of this article, which makes similar points much more punchily. posted by Eve at 9:55 PM | link
Meddling in Gay Marriage: Washington Post editorial
BESTOWING THE full rights and obligations of marriage on all loving, committed relationships -- whether heterosexual or homosexual -- is a matter of social and political justice. There should be no room in this country for the kind of discrimination that would relegate same-sex couples to second-class status. The California Supreme Court, which last week struck down that state's prohibition against same-sex marriage, correctly recognized that government bears the highest burden if it decides to treat differently the relationships between opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Yet the flawed court decision could trigger serious political backlash because the outcome was produced not by the state's voters but by a 4 to 3 majority of judges. more posted by Imapp Staff at 3:50 PM | link
Calif. Decision Will Radically Change Society: Dennis Prager
...And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision -- let alone the four compassionate justices -- acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it's no big deal. Hey, it doesn't affect any heterosexuals' marriage, so what's the problem? This lack of acknowledgment -- or even awareness -- of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones -- and their millions of compassionate supporters -- allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays. Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system -- East or West -- since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex. more posted by Imapp Staff at 3:39 PM | link
Same-sex Ruling Good for No One: David Benkof
CHAMPAGNE corks are popping wherever gays and lesbians gather throughout the Golden State after the California Supreme Court's ruling in In Re Marriage Cases, which opens the way for same-sex couples to legally wed beginning next month. But my fellow members of the LGBT community shouldn't be celebrating. This decision does next to nothing for California gays and lesbians, and causes real harm to people who believe in the "old" definition of marriage. It's nothing to be proud of. The June weddings that can now be expected for same-sex couples all over California will actually provide little tangible advantage to anyone. California already has a domestic-partnership law providing all the state benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act denies all the federal benefits. Sure, gays and lesbians may get a lift in self-esteem from having their relationships declared "equal" by four jurists, but does an ego boost really outweigh the real harms caused by Thursday's decision? Because there certainly are harms -- to religious liberty and to children, for example. For the last two weeks, I have been contacting "marriage equality" leaders from San Diego to Sacramento to ask about the impact of redefining marriage on religious freedom. more posted by Imapp Staff at 3:31 PM | link
Monday, May 19, 2008
NOT COSTUMED VIGILANTES?: Noli Irritare Leones
So, the California Supreme Court yesterday struck down the ban on same-sex marriage. To those of you who may be tempted at this point to start lamenting the actions of our “black robed masters,” there are a few things to bear in mind.... more posted by Eve at 11:57 PM | link
Gay marriage decision came from a tyrannical court: Dennis Byrne
...The answer, of course, is that we can overrule any of the three branches of government by amending the Constitution because it is, after all, the people's Constitution, not the court's. It is the people's ultimate check on the imbalance of power. Thankfully, such a move is under way in California where hundreds of thousands of citizens have petitioned for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, thus putting it out of reach of an autocratic court. Now comes the scariest part: One of the many supporters (I didn't get his name) of the court decision interviewed on television was asked what would happen if the people approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. Would the court go so far as to overturn a provision of the Constitution itself? "I don't know. I hope so," he said. more posted by Imapp Staff at 11:48 PM | link
Calif.'s Gift to McCain?: J. McCormack, Weekly Standard
... "It looks like a fairly conventional liberal judicial activist decision," says Princeton professor of jurisprudence Robert P. George. "These guys had the votes, and they rammed it through. They don't regard the will of the people of California as worthy of their particular concern." ... By supporting the court's decision, Obama exposed a number of vulnerabilities. McCain might ask, What exactly would preclude the U.S. Supreme Court, refreshed with a couple of Obama appointees, from declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right in all 50 states? And if laws against same-sex marriage are just like laws against interracial marriage, as the California court declared, then what would stop the government from treating those who oppose same-sex marriage like racists? Indeed, says Professor George, the next logical step will be to use "antidiscrimination laws as weapons" primarily against religious institutions and individuals who refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. In the eyes of the law, George says, they'll be "treated as bigots." For example, after the Massachusetts same-sex marriage decision in 2004, Catholic Charities shut down its adoption services rather than comply with a government order to place children with same-sex couples. In California, conflicts between religious liberty and gay rights have already reached the courts. more posted by Imapp Staff at 9:26 AM | link
Is Calif. Marriage Ballot Initiative Too Late?: Kevin Norte, Log Cabin Californians blog
The recent California Constitutional Right to Marry case, according to my analysis, calls into question the currently proposed "Limit to Marry" Voter Initiative Constitutional Initiative. If Secretary of State Debra Bowen places it on the ballot, she would be wise to have the Legislative Analysts' opinion consider the following cited cases and also discuss the issue with Attorney General Jerry Brown to inquire whether or not the proposed initiative can even be legally placed on the ballot. ... The proposed initiative originally sought to limit the Constitutional right to marry to opposite sex couples and, thus as originally drafted, it was intended to limit the right to marry to a man and a woman. But an amendment can no longer accomplish this. The Right to Marry exists and in light of the recent ruling, the initiative's unintended consequence is an attempt to revise (as opposed to amend) the Constitution which, as explained in In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892, is a fundamental Constructional right to "all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation." more posted by Imapp Staff at 9:22 AM | link
Two Roads to Gay Marriage: EJ Dionne Jr.
...And, as a New York Court of Appeals judge cited by the California court majority noted, fundamental rights "cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights." If history and tradition had constrained us, equal rights for African Americans would never have become law. But to find a constitutional right to gay marriage, the California majority chose to argue that the state's very progressive law endorsing domestic partnerships for homosexuals -- it grants all the rights of marriage except the name -- was itself a form of discrimination. This is odd and potentially destructive. As Justice Carol Corrigan argued in her dissent, "to make its case for a constitutional violation, the majority distorts and diminishes the historic achievements" of the state's Domestic Partnership Act. That's true, and in many states, it will take years for a political and legal consensus in favor of gay marriage to develop. In the interim, civil unions and domestic partnerships are the best hope homosexuals in these states have for some form of legal recognition of their relationships. The danger is that foes of civil unions will use this court's own logic to argue that such arrangements are not a political halfway house but lead inexorably to gay marriage. It would be unfortunate if California's breakthrough were used to stall significant if more modest progress elsewhere. more posted by Imapp Staff at 9:19 AM | link
Calif. Ruling Fuels Arizona Amendment: AZ Daily Star
A California Supreme Court decision Thursday that gay couples have a right to marry has intensified Arizona 's debate over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban such unions. And the group pushing that election-year effort pointed the finger at state Senate President Tim Bee, a Tucson Republican, as the person stalling the issue. If the state Senate gives the OK, Arizona voters will face a ballot question in November on whether to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. more posted by Imapp Staff at 9:16 AM | link
Bad "Faith" Marriage Arguments
By David Benkof DavidBenkof@aol.com GaysDefendMarriage.com When confronted about the real religious-freedom dangers posed by "marriage equality," proponents of same-sex marriage have frequently spouted a very specific kind of nonsense. "Comments" sections all over the Web are full of examples, but people who should know better have made the same argument. For example, Democratic Pennsylvania Representative Daylin Leach said in a press release about same-sex marriage, "no church or synagogue will be forced to perform or recognize a marriage that goes against their beliefs." Religioustolerance.org promises that under marriage equality, "churches will continue to be able to discriminate, on any basis that they feel justified, against couples who seek a same-sex marriage or civil union." Even California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George reassured people in his decision that "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." How stupid do these people think we are? No intelligent defender of the traditional definition of marriage is going around scaring people into believing that churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples. Anyone with even a tiny bit of knowledge of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment knows such a move would be grossly unconstitutional. Even the Human Rights Campaign's top attorney, Lara Schwartz, told me "the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses would prevent the government from requiring a congregation to solemnize a marriage that did not meet with the congregation's requirements." So why have the marriage-redefining legislators in Maryland and California named their bills the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act"? Even Illinois's civil unions bill is called the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act." All these bills - plus the New York, Vermont, and Rhode Island same-sex marriage bills and the New Mexico domestic-partners bill - contain "religious freedom" provisions that prohibit nothing that isn't already clearly unconstitutional. Clearly, the religious-freedom language and the misleading titles of these bills are meant to fool people into thinking redefining marriage poses no threat to traditionally religious people. Whereas the real dangers to the freedom of traditionally religious people if we redefine marriage are ignored. For example, HRC's Schwartz has repeatedly refused to say whether "marriage equality" means a traditionally religious public school teacher should fear being fired for telling her students that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. She also won't say whether a business owner should be able to use G-d's definition of marriage instead of the gay community's definition in deciding who gets a "marital discount." If the other side can get away with this "bad faith" approach, I propose we rename the California Marriage Protection Act the "California Wedding Diversity and Marriage Protection Act." We can add a line about how no person's wedding will be prevented, postponed, canceled, or shut down by the government on the basis of the number and gender of the celebrants. Then, when gay-marriage defenders accuse us of trying to discriminate on the basis of gender in who can marry, we can say "Under this act, no person's wedding is ever in danger. People will have the right to have wedding ceremonies for people in any combination they desire." Who cares that no gay-marriage advocate has been warning that the act would ban gay weddings, and that such a ban would be unconstitutional? What matters is scoring rhetorical points, right? Labels: Marriage posted by David Benkof at 12:59 AM | link
Sunday, May 18, 2008 |
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|