NOCK NOCK, WHO'S THERE?

Eve notes that nobody seems to have suited up to critique Steven Nock's affidavit (available here in PDF form) yet. (Barry Deutsch did say that the study had not been subjected to peer review, but didn't offer any other criticism.) I'm just sayin'.
posted by Eve at 10:38 PM VOTE 0 comments

CANADIAN SSM POLL DECEPTIVE: From Michael Sellitto

[Michael Sellitto is a strategy consultant in New York, NY.]

This poll which finds that SSM support has "dropped" from about 50% to 31% is highly misleading.

It is the first time the poll question offered three options: (1) Same sex couples get nothing (2) Same sex couples get civil unions, and (3) Same sex couples get marriage equality.

The previous polls only offered two options: (1)
Nothing or (2) Full equality.

It's dishonest for opponents of homosexual families to keep spreading this misleading information about a supposed "drop" in support--we have no similar study to compare this data to, hence there cannot be a drop.
That is, if we want to look at this honestly.
posted by Eve at 10:31 PM VOTE 0 comments

SLIPPERY SLOPERY: From Bill Dillinger

[Bill Dillinger is a teacher and computer scientist in Kansas City, MO.]

Gabriel Rosenberg hits the nail on the head when he says in Goodridge "a woman was asking to be treated the same as if
she were a man." The Courts have ruled people already have the right to procreate; that right coupled with "as if she were a man" would lead to the argument that women are
entitled to penises and men are entitled to wombs. In some areas, gender makes no difference, like in political office. In other areas, gender is the essential characteristic. It's illogical to argue that since gender doesn't matter in some situation, it doesn't matter in any situation.

The fundamental problem with Goodridge is that it removes gender and implicitly replaces it with "sexual orientation." A well known quality is replaced with an unknown quality in the equation that is essential to the fabric of society. I don't see how that could advance the interests of the State or society.
posted by Eve at 10:27 PM VOTE 0 comments

GABRIEL ROSENBERG'S LIVEJOURNAL!

Discussion of SSM and other things, from a frequent contributor to this site.
posted by Eve at 10:23 PM VOTE 0 comments

STUDIES STUDIES STUDIES: From Michael Triplett's blog

Marriage Debate posts Lerner and Nagai's study faulting the research supporting the proposition that studies on same-sex parenting are flawed and therefore bad social science. The research is interesting and demonstrates the flaws of researching family structure and especially same-sex families, which have not been prevalent and therefore lack randomization and large amounts of data.

It is important, however, to also critique the critics. The research was commissioned by the Marriage Law Project, an organization with the goal of reaffirming "the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman through scholarly, legal and educational work." If the people who fund and sponsor your research have this clear a bias, what are the chances that the research is going to come to an opposite conclusion? Just as you would expect research sponsored by toothpaste manufacturers to criticize the non-use of toothpaste, so to should you expect research sponsored by an organization focused on "the legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman" to be critical same-sex marriages and parenting.

Lerner and Nagai also have a history of doing research backed by, or favoring, a conservative ideology. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but the bias of the researchers is something that always needs to be considered. Lerner and Nagai's past research has criticized race-based admissions and "revisionist" textbook content. If a researcher's results always reach a conclusion favoring one ideology over another, even when it crosses academic disciplines, the research becomes very suspect.

I would also point out that the research that showed girls raised by lesbians found that girles were less chaste and more sexually adventorous also showed the boys to be less seuxally active. In a world where boys coerce girls to have sex, this seems like a fairly significant outcome and does strengthen the outcome that being raised without sex-role expectations also has pay-offs.
posted by Eve at 10:22 PM VOTE 0 comments

LAURENCE TRIBE SAYS CIVIL UNIONS MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO MASS COURT: From the Boston Herald

[Eve notes: This is interesting because Prof. Tribe has said previously--here, for example--that civil unions would not pass the court's muster.]

Lawmakers' latest effort to avoid gay marriage by passing lesser civil unions might well meet constitutional muster with the state's sharply
divided Supreme Judicial Court, a leading constitutional scholar said yesterday.

Harvard professor Laurence H. Tribe's remarks came just hours after the state Senate passed a civil union bill and voted to ask the high court
whether the creation of civil unions with rights equivalent to marriage--but not the title--would satisfy the landmark Nov. 18 ruling
legalizing gay marriage.

While cautioning that nobody has a "crystal ball,'' Tribe pointed to the long-agonized, 4-3 nature of the SJC decision and said civil unions
might be enough to flip one of the justices in the majority, in the wake of political leaders' outcry against full-blown gay marriage.

more
posted by Eve at 1:16 PM VOTE 0 comments

WHAT DO THE STUDIES SAY ABOUT SAME-SEX PARENTING? David Barnes replies to a site suggested by Gabriel Rosenberg

[David Barnes is a policy analyst for the Institute on Marriage and Public Policy, a.k.a. the people who bring you this weblog.]

"What do the studies say about same-sex parenting?"

Nothing, actually. To quote the post...

"This site contains an overview of what social science says about same-sex parenting. It includes summaries of 22 studies..."

20 of the 22 studies mentioned are attacked in detailed analysis in "No Basis" by Lerner and Nagai as being fundamentally flawed and unrigorous. The other two focus primarily on the extent to which lesbian parents share parenting responsibilities in an egalitarian manner, one of which does not even have a non-lesbian control group.

"...and a conversation with Dr. Stacey, a professor of sociology at USC, in which she responds to the criticisms of Nock and Lerner & Nagai."

The only "response" is to call Lerner and Nagai right-wing statisticians-for-hire. I would prefer an argument about why their study is wrong to an ad hominem attack, since the "No Basis" study is fairly persuasive. She does not refer to Nock, Lerner or Nagai by name. The only identifiable individual is Paul Cameron, who was thoroughly discredited and kicked out of various professional organizations. His research aimed toward proving that gays were positively harmful as parents and he apparently stated in public that the government should exterminate homosexuals. However, that has nothing to do with the "No Basis" study, which demonstrates why the pro-gay parenting studies are strongly flawed from a purely sociological perspective.

Lerner and Nagai attack pro-gay parenting studies based on their sampling sizes and the way the hypotheses are designed. They don't argue that the studies are wrong because gays are evil. The only criticism of any substance from Stacey is that if you accept the Lerner and Nagai critique from "No Basis" you would also be discrediting the entirety of social science research. I am very skeptical of this claim, but if all of social science research is as poorly done as the studies linked to on the "Let Him Stay" site, then that fate would be well deserved.

If you go to the University of Southern California's Sociology site and look at Dr. Stacey’s recent research you'll find this article (PDF), which criticizes pro-gay parenting researchers for downplaying differences between children of gay and straight parents for fear of their research being turned against them. For example, "[I]n some studies, lesbian mothers were less concerned than hetero sexual mothers that their children engage in gender 'appropriate' activities and play, a plausible difference most researchers curiously downplay." Stacey believes that such examples of the breakdown of hetero-normativity should be touted as an interesting benefit of gay parenting.

Furthermore, she writes in summarizing another study, "Relative to their counterparts with heterosexual parents, the adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste... In other words, children (especially girls) raised by lesbians appear to depart from traditional gender-based norms, while children raised by heterosexual mothers appear to conform to them." Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I think the extent to which a young adult is sexually adventurous is a very important indicator of his or her well-being.
posted by Eve at 1:01 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARRIAGE AND PARENTING: Mark Miller replies to Michael Brazier

[Brazier is in bold, Miller is in plain text.]

Brazier: How is it possible for institutionalized criminals to have a "relationship"--of, that is, the kind you would maintain legal marriage exists to acknowledge? The point of prison is to cut off the prisoners from social relations, except as permitted by the authorities. Surely, under these conditions, prisoners cannot form intimate bonds, nor make or accept promises of fidelity and mutual support. How then would you justify the right of prisoners to marry?

Miller: This IS my point. It is unlikely for institutionalized criminals to have a "relationship" that you would maintain legal marriage exists to acknowledge--yet they do indeed have the right to marry. Unlike same-sex couples.

Brazier: Adoption is a backup. It's meant for children who for some reason cannot be raised by their true parents. The idea that, because the adoption bureau treats homosexuals just like heterosexuals, therefore the marriage bureau should too, is spurious; the adoption bureau is not dealing with normal situations, while the marriage bureau is.

Miller: Adoptive parents have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as biological parents. This is regardless of the differences between a biological relationship and an adoptive relationship between parent and child. As far as the government is concerned, an adopted child is no different from a biological child. The point is not whether the situation is "normal." The question is whether there should be legal differences between them.

Brazier: Then what is the institution that exists to serve that purpose? If there is none, what should exist to serve that purpose, if anything? That marriage does so in fact, nobody would deny; that it does so by accident, many would find hard to believe.

Miller: I'll concede that ONE of the purposes of marriage is to link the biological parents to their offspring. Yet if that was the only purpose, marriage could be based solely on having children. But that is not the case (and I've heard no one suggest that). There are numerous characteristics/purposes of marriage. Same-sex relationships cannot support all of them, but they can support some of them.
posted by Eve at 12:18 PM VOTE 0 comments

SLIPPERY SLOPERY: Mark Tardiff replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

I begin with a correction. Contrary to what Gabriel Rosenberg wrote, I did not ask "why the laws could not similarly change to make marital status obsolete," which would be self-contradictory apart from an abolition of marriage. I asked why the binary requirement could not similarly become arbitrary, seeing that the gender difference requirement supposedly became arbitrary in the last thirty years.

The reasoning about a hypothetical "group marriage" case misses the significance of the principle set out by the court in Goodridge. As Justice Spina (dissenting) pointed out, the Massachusetts marriage statues do not discriminate on the basis of gender nor on the basis of sexual orientation precisely because "constitutional protections are extended to individuals, not couples" and the same conditions apply to all persons regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The response of Justice Marshall, (writing for the majority) to this difficulty is to interpret the right to marry as a right to marry absolutely anyone one chooses, a "right" that the court affirms as granting it the authority to change the definition of marriage. The court gives no principled reason why a future court could not change the definition of marriage still further. Basically "the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions" (as Justice Marshall refers to them) remain because they have not yet been challenged.

I return to the hypothetical case of a man marrying two women. Each of the women could appeal to a "right" to marry the same man. The man, for his part, would not ask the court to treat the two women as an individual but to recognize that the right to marry would be hollow (to use Justice Marshall's phrase) if it did not include the right to marry the persons of one's choice. The argument could be strengthened by having the three persons involved be Moslems and appeal also to their right to freely exercise their religion. The idea may seem strange, but no less than the idea of SSM was even 15 years ago. All the tactics of the pro SSM movement are there for the imitation: presentation of ideal cases that evoke sympathy, appeal to rights language, perhaps even the invention of a pejorative term ("binarism"?) in order to stigmatize the views of opponents as the expression of mere prejudice.
posted by Eve at 12:13 PM VOTE 0 comments

MASS. SENATE ASKS COURT: ARE CIVIL UNIONS ENOUGH? From the Washington Post

The Massachusetts state Senate voted Wednesday to ask the state's highest court whether a bill authorizing civil unions would meet the court's recent ruling that Massachusetts cannot prohibit gay marriages. ...

Senate leaders said it is unclear when the court will reply to their request. The court took several months longer than expected to make its initial ruling on gay marriage last month. ...

The legislature will reconvene in early January, and a constitutional convention is scheduled for Feb. 11, at which time lawmakers are scheduled to vote on an amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman and would also ban civil unions.

Finneran has said the amendment would be unlikely to pass unless the language outlawing civil unions is dropped.

To be placed on the ballot, under Massachusetts law, a constitutional amendment must pass in two consecutive legislative sessions, meaning that the earliest voters could consider it would be November 2006. Romney has said he favors the amendment. A series of public opinion polls since the court decision have shown that a majority of state residents favor legalizing gay unions.

A previous attempt to initiate a amendment that would bar same-sex marriage was derailed in July 2002, when then-Senate president Thomas F. Birmingham (D) led an effort to adjourn the constitutional convention without a vote.

more
posted by Eve at 12:10 PM VOTE 0 comments

STRAIGHT COUPLES WHO REFUSE TO MARRY BECAUSE GAY COUPLES CAN'T: From the Village Voice

...Reverend Andrea Ayvazian, dean of religious life at Mount Holyoke College, chose her side of that war back in 1985, when she began her relationship with her partner, Michael Klare, a professor and a writer for The Nation. "It's important to step up. We don't want to be part of an institution that's actively discriminatory," says the United Church of Christ minister, who's also a folksinger. "It's like the days before the Civil Rights movement. If you got on the bus, there were white people in the front and black people in the back. This is just as clear--heterosexuals get married and gays and lesbians don't." ...

Ayvazian, who has a 15-year-old son with Klare, says, "I want to have a real wedding, even if we're 80. I'm holding out for that." ...

But another race parallel undermines the choice to refrain from marriage: Much like the white-skin privilege, the heterosexual-marriage privilege is extended even to those who object to it. Cohabiting straight couples are automatically recognized as married by "common law" in several states without signing a single dotted line, notes J. Smith, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign.

more
posted by Eve at 10:48 AM VOTE 0 comments

ADOPTION AND THE PRIVILEGE OF PARENTS: Elizabeth Marquardt replies to Gabriel Rosenberg

[Eve adds: I should really have said "norm" rather than "ideal," you know. Seduced by rhyme yet again. Anyway...]

However, I persist in the feeling that comparing the "ideal" of children being raised by their own parents with the "ideal" of children being raised by educated, well-off parents suggests that one sees children being raised by their own parents as a privilege largely out of adult control (in much the same way that we'd all like to be rich but most of us will never be), rather than as a birthright available to practically all children if only the adults did not choose otherwise.

more

Plus: SSM isn't that much like no-fault divorce: "I do think this analogy to no-fault divorce is apt regarding the unknown impact on children. But one major difference is that no-fault divorce did not expand civil rights to a class of persons who have been systematically stigmatized and discriminated against. So while it's unclear if same-sex marriage would help, hurt, or have no effect on children, same-sex marriage would represent an unqualified step forward for equality."

Yes it is: "When it comes to family structure, adult rights language only gets us so far..."
posted by Eve at 1:34 AM VOTE 0 comments

MORAL ARGUMENTS AREN'T ENOUGH: From Reason's blog

Conservatives who [oppose SSM] have to do more than argue that homosexuality is immoral. Unless they believe the government should prohibit every sin, they have to explain how same-sex unions threaten the rest of us. That's why they've been emphasizing the lame arguments about "supposedly deleterious social effects" that Lindberg and NR see as a weak substitute for a straightforward condemnation of homosexuality.

more
posted by Eve at 1:31 AM VOTE 0 comments

REAL/IDEAL, RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES: Gabriel Rosenberg replies to Elizabeth Marquardt

Elizabeth Marquardt claims that I apparently think that being raised by your two biological parents is a privilege; otherwise I could not compare it to being raised by well-off, educated parents. She says that being
raised by your biological parents used to be considered a birthright not a privilege.

I've been trying for days to understand this. Eve had argued that we must withhold the societal honor of marriage from same-sex couples because it was not the ideal parenting arrangement. Without agreeing with her on the merits of same-sex parenting, I had pointed out that we allow--even encourage--other couples to marry without achieving the ideal. Ms. Marquardt never argues that the other couples do achieve the ideal. Instead she argues that they achieve something different. They provide a setting where a child's basic rights could theoretically be
granted. She has changed Eve's argument into a claim that we must withhold the societal honor of marriage from same-sex couples because it denies children their right to be raised by their biological parents.

Let us assume that a child has a right to be raised by his biological parents. When a same-sex couple adopts a child, it is not the couple that has denied this right. The child's link to his biological parents had already been separated. By withholding marriage, we are then punishing the couple (and the child) for something they did not do.

Ms. Marquardt's argument is troubling for another reason. Many opposite-sex couples marry and raise children that are not the biological offspring of the union. She seems to think that such relationships should not be called "marriage". They should be called something else for fear that we would assume that such arrangements were just as good as a couple raising children biologically connected to both parents. She elaborates this view in a recent op-ed in the Chicago Tribune in which she informs us of her fear that children are left confused when adoptive parents are considered the same as biological parents.

I strongly disagree that parents should have some other labels attached if the children are adopted. The reason I feel this way is that adoptive parents have the same legal and moral responsibilities for their children as biological parents. I find this responsibility-based view a better approach to our problems than Ms. Marquardt's rights-based view. When a person becomes a parent, be it through sexual conduct or adoption, that
person bears certain obligations to care for the child. The government enforces these responsibilities and does what it can to help people fulfill them. As a society we also do what we can to help and honor those that
sacrifice to meet their parental obligations. The same goes for marriage. The responsibilities entailed in being a parent and those entailed in being a spouse differ in their details. In both cases, though, we enforce, honor, and ease the burden of those obligations. Therefore, if one person takes on the exact same responsibilities in marriage as another I see no reason why it should be treated any differently or go by any other
name.
posted by Eve at 6:31 PM VOTE 0 comments

RACE AND SSM: Josh Baker

The Washington Post had an article this morning describing yesterday's press conference held by the newly-formed National Black Justice Coalition. I had a chance to sit in on the event, and thought I'd share a few
thoughts.

Pulled together in response to Jay Lindsay's recent article describing resentment in the black community over frequent comparisons between the fight for SSM and the civil rights movement, the event seemed to have two
conflicting themes: (1) the press has misrepresented black opinion on gay marriage/SSM is not a divisive issue in the black community; and (2) we need to educate the black community in order to combat widespread homophobia.

A handful of random observations from my notes: (1) The goal of the coalition is to oppose the FMA and educate about SSM in the black community by raising $100K for marketing to the black community through primarily black TV and print media; (2) the speakers disputed, but made no effort to rebut, the polling data showing African-Americans opposed to SSM by a 2-1 margin; (3) the coalition will be launching a website and hosting additional events early in 2004; (4) speakers acknowledged significant racism in the gay community, and didn't really respond directly to a question about whether the national gay rights groups would ignore
the black community; (5) the coalition will be pressuring the NAACP, SCLC, and other national civil rights groups to support SSM and oppose the FMA; (6) their organizers/spokespeople (Keith Boykin and Donna Payne) are young and articulate; (7) Ken Reeves, a city councilor from Cambridge, MA had intended to attend, but was stuck in Boston due to snow; (8) In response to a question from a reporter (WashBlade?) about how
transsexuals fit into the SSM debate, Mandy Carter of Freedom to Marry initiated a discussion of how "sexual orientation" isn't a broad enough term, suggesting "identity" as a replacement; (9) the debate continues to
focus on benefits, with reference to the GAO report as well as "having to pay two deductibles on insurance policies."
posted by Eve at 6:28 PM VOTE 0 comments

FOUR-PARENT FAMILIES: From the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Pioneer Press

Each Tuesday, the family headed by Deb Leavitt, Anne Phibbs, Gerry Tyrell and Kevin Reuther eats together. Gathering this week are, from left, Dylan, 12; Tyrell; Reuther; Leavitt; Ada, 8; and Phibbs.

Anne Phibbs is aware that some churchgoing folks might have moral qualms about her domestic arrangements.

She doesn't like it, but she and her four-parent, two-child family can live with that.

What Phibbs can't abide is extending that private moral judgment to the public realm and denying her the chance to marry her lifelong partner, Deb Leavitt. Phibbs "co-parents" two children with Leavitt, as well as the children's father and his gay partner. ...

Phibbs, 41, and Leavitt, 43, have been together for 20 years. Leavitt gave birth, via artificial insemination, to Dylan and Ada. The children's father is gay. "Initially, what we wanted was to have the father involved,'' Phibbs said. "Then it became two fathers.'' The father and his partner are "co-parents'' with Leavitt and Phibbs. (Phibbs prefers not to say which of the men is the biological father.)

The children spend five nights a week with the women and two nights with the men, whose home is eight blocks away. "We are all parents,'' Phibbs said. "We don't say 'the father.' We say, 'We're both mothers and both fathers.' '' Laundry and lunches and homework and early teenage angst fall on four, rather than two.

Phibbs and Tyrrell said they would marry their respective partners if they could. Leavitt recently lost her job with Hennepin County and soon will lose her health insurance. Phibbs works at Metropolitan State University in St. Paul and tried to put Leavitt on her state plan. That looked promising until the Legislature scuttled former Gov. Jesse Ventura's attempt to extend benefits to employees' same-sex partners.

Phibbs and Leavitt have registered as domestic partners in Minneapolis--the only Minnesota city offering such a service--but believe that is mainly symbolic. Phibbs has legally adopted the children. The women own their house and car together. Like many long-term, same-sex couples, they can write wills, power-of-attorney agreements and medical directives that mimic the protections of a marriage contract.

more
posted by Eve at 6:20 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARC GELLMAN REPLIES TO ANDREW SULLIVAN: part one

Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at TNR.

Rabbi Marc Gellman is the past President of the New York Board of Rabbis.

Gellman writes: My annotations of Andrew Sullivan's recent piece in The New Republic. I consider Andrew Sullivan to be by far the most important defender of gay rights today. His mistakes are common, but influential. I hope my notes respond adequately to his accusations.

[From here on in, Sullivan will be in plain text and Gellman will be in bold text.]

Faith Heelers
by Andrew Sullivan
Post date: 11.25.03

We may be on the verge of a divisive and bitter struggle over the Constitution of the United States. Alarmed that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the equal dignity of homosexual citizens and struck down laws barring gays from private consensual sex, and appalled that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that the right to marry cannot be denied to gays any longer in that state, the religious right has a constitutional amendment within its sights. The president hasn't yet endorsed such an amendment; and would be extremely wise not to. But it's now floating out there, subject to several changes demanded by various factions on the far right.

Here's the proposed text:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

This sounds simple enough. But the word "marriage" is extremely broad. Its main problem is that it conflates both civil marriage and religious marriage. By not being specific that it refers to civil marriage and civil marriage alone, the wording of this first sentence could be subject to considerable doubt. Could this mean that a church that decided to marry two people of the same gender would be violating the Constitution? Isn't civil regulation of religious marriage against the First Amendment? Take one large church in the United States: the Metropolitan Community Church. MCC performs weddings and marriages on a regular basis for gay couples. Episcopalians are increasingly blessing same-sex unions and calling them marriages. Ditto reform Jews, and many other denominations. Are they now going to be prevented from doing so? Is their right to do so somehow in doubt? To make clear what's going on here, the amendment should surely be corrected to say "civil marriage." The government has absolutely no right to interfere with anything else.

Gellman: AS misses the most essential point of the FMA at the very outset of his critique. It is precisely the fact that only marriage is restricted to opposite-sex unions that enables states, against the desires of the far right, to enact legislation providing for civil unions which will guarantee the rights of homosexual couples while also preserving marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Furthermore, no clergy I know have the temerity (read chutzpah) to call the same-sex ceremonies they perform marriages. As agents of the state (like notary publics and lawyers) clergy are legally forbidden (except now in Mass.) from registering the same sex marriages they officiate at as marriages. They are or are not religiously entitled to perform a religious ceremony but they are not entitled to call it a marriage as an agent of the state. This is not a violation of church state separation but rather an explicit and legally binding agreement by the clergy to conform to the laws of the state where they have registered their credentials with a state agency when they are performing marriages. I am often asked to perform "social security marriages" in which the couple wants a religious ceremony that they want me not to register with the state. This is fraud. It is similarly illegal for clergy to call these same-sex rituals marriages. Most clergy who do them in fact refer to them as commitment ceremonies or something of the sort, but not marriages, and if they do refer to them as such it is only in a colloquial way, not in a legally binding way. These commitment ceremonies will no doubt continue for all clergy who feel that same sex unions deserve sanctification as a valid act of committed love.

The fundamental and incontrovertible reason to support the FMA and constitutionally limit marriage to opposite sex unions is the realistic legal fear that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will require all states to recognize the same sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. This will deprive citizens of this country of the right to discuss and debate and decide through their representatives in their own states whether or not to create in addition to marriage other forms of state sponsored unions with the same or similar rights granted to married couples. The notion that this morally and politically divisive issue ought to be settled by the Massachusetts judiciary (and in a close and divided decision at that) is unfair, presumptuous, and elitist. In any event the rights of clergy to perform any non-state recognized union and call it whatever they want, except marriage, will remain unaffected and untrammeled).
posted by Eve at 6:04 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARC GELLMAN REPLIES TO ANDREW SULLIVAN: part two

AS: "Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Why this provision, one might ask? Isn't the first sentence clear enough? Ah, but the fundamentalist right is not content merely to ban civil marriage for gay couples in the United States. They want to ensure that gay couples get no civil recognition at all. So you have a sentence that also bans all "the legal incidents thereof." That could presumably mean everything that civil marriage includes--from the right to visit a dying spouse in hospital to the right to inherit each others' property, share taxes, and so on. It means that every civil union or domestic partnership that now exists in the United States would be void. It invalidates Vermont and California's civil unions. It gets rid of Massachusetts's marriages. It voids even city and locality ordinances that provide some measure of protection to gay couples.

Gellman: The only true thing AS says here is that Massachusetts same sex marriages would indeed be voided because they are marriages between same sex partners, but the FMA does not prohibit, and indeed was created to enable a new category of union (civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) to be created by state legislatures if they decide that it is the will of the people to do this. All these ancillary rights referred to by AS could and most obviously would be included in these--all but the title "marriages."

The other reason the FMA is needed is that President Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted to protect states from having to recognize SSM, is widely seen as constitutionally weak and likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court the first time a gay couple married in Massachusetts sues to have their marriage accepted in another state that does not recognize marriage. If DOMA could pass constitutional muster, the FMA would not be needed, but it can't so it is. Perhaps this is the reason AS never even mentions DOMA in his critique of the FMA. And just one word about the McCarthyite tactics of labeling opposition to SSM as a hateful product of the fundamentalist right; in fact every single major candidate for the Democratic nomination in response to the news of the Massachusetts ruling made it clear that they all oppose same-sex marriages, and rather favor some form of state authorized, not court mandated, civil union status for gay couples as did President Clinton when he introduced DOMA. For one so attuned to the nuances of prejudice, it is deeply unfortunate that AS, a brilliant writer and critic, stoops to employ the dirty bigotry against those who take their faith seriously. It does seem that this compromise whereby marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples while granting gay couples substantial rights in a civil union will in the end reluctantly satisfy the vast majority of the fair minded American populace that nevertheless has an overwhelming agreement with the proposition that marriage is and ought to remain the description of the union of a man and a woman.

AS: Some have argued that it only prevents state or federal courts from imposing marriage rights on unwilling populations. But the wording is clear enough. It doesn't simply ban courts from construing state constitutions or the federal constitution to exclude gay couples. It includes state and federal law as well. And it doesn't say, "judicially construe." It says simply, "construe." The intent is clear: to stop any state variation on the subject of marital or couple rights, to impose on the country one single model for civil relationships--heterosexual marriage to the exclusion and abolition of all others. That, of course, means civil unions for heterosexuals as well.

Gellman: Not true. Precisely the opposite is the truth. The FMA is the only vehicle that will prevent a culture war over same sex marriages by protecting the vast cultural consensus that marriage is between a man and a woman while also reserving for the states the right to carve out new forms of state recognized unions for other forms of committed and loving relationships. The proof that this is so is obvious. The entire thrust to create a FMA happened only in response to the judicial end run of those who wanted to see same sex marriages legalized but knew that they could never get any state legislature to support their claim. Their successes in the courts provoked the FMA. Out side of that there was no move to strike down domestic partnerships or civil unions from those with more traditional views.
posted by Eve at 6:02 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARC GELLMAN REPLIES TO ANDREW SULLIVAN: part three

AS: "Neither the federal government nor any state shall predicate benefits, privileges, rights, or immunities on the existence, recognition, or presumption of sexual conduct or relationships."

This final clause was inserted by evangelical activist, Charles Colson, according to several reports. It would be the first time that the word "sexual" is inserted into the Constitution of the United States. And what it is apparently designed to do is to reassure people that the second sentence of the amendment does not indeed do what it seems to do, i.e. ban all forms of civil union or domestic partnership. The religious right would, it appears, be willing to allow civil unions between brothers, or an aunt and uncle, or a son and mother, or two college roommates--as long as it was assumed that no sexual activity was implied in the relationship. By this deft move, the amendment would apparently allow gay couples to get civil unions--but only if they pretended that they were not gay couples. Call it the Bert and Ernie amendment.

What it amounts to, however, is a constitutional acceptance of any number of social arrangements short of marriage, as long as those relationships are asexual. How would a state legislature or the official granting civil union licenses know that? Short of putting videocams in people's bedrooms, they surely couldn't. So this is a kind of veil of ignorance, a pretense, that affirms the public appearance of a non-sexual relationship, while allowing it in reality. It's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" applied to the Constitution. It seems, on the face of it, to contradict the second sentence. But it doesn't. It merely underlines the fact that no sexual activity between two people can be a basis for a civilly recognized relationship except heterosexual marriage. It would make civil unions for straight people void as well, if those straight couples had the temerity to be in love or want to have sex.

But it reveals something else about the real motives of those pushing this amendment. They claim to be defending marriage. But in fact the upshot of their Bert and Ernie provision would be effectively condoning all sorts of marriage-lite alternatives (under the pretense that they're not sexual) and expanding their reach and number to an extraordinary degree. If the fundamentalist right actually cared about marriage as such, they wouldn't want to open up any number of alternatives to marriage to heterosexuals. Multiplying "asexual" civil unions is exactly what marriage advocates have feared for years--an easy alternative to marriage that will, in fact, undermine the institution.

But the beauty--indeed the only rationale--of this contraption is that it alone ensures that gay couples get no recognition as gay couples. It's an attempt to push gay people back into civic nothingness, a place where they are invisible, where their emotional and sexual needs are deemed as worthy as the financial arrangements of two asexual roommates. It's a desire to recreate the fantasy that gay people do not exist--in the Constitution itself.

In this sense, it's a perfect product from the religious right. They do indeed want gay people to disappear. They cannot achieve this in reality in a free society. But they can in their own words. Theirs is an America where gay citizens are actually straight citizens in need of either jail or therapy, where gay citizens' loves are a form of sickness, and their relationships a threat. And they want to assert this image of an ideal 1950s-style society up by rewriting the Constitution to reflect it.

Gellman: Here is some really big news for AS. Bert and Ernie are not real and neither is this third sentence of the FMA. This was a proposed third sentence by a group of 29 conservative groups called the Arlington Group that wanted the FMA to be more conservative than it is and to in fact prohibit civil unions and domestic partnerships as AS correctly intuits. However, the FMA is a centrist and moderate and wise compromise only created to blunt the effect of judicial activism and the weakness of DOMA. Therefore this sentence was rejected! It does not appear in the version of the FMA introduced in the Senate which just has within it the first two sentences of the original formulation of the FMA. The rejection of this addition, suggested by powerful Christian conservatives, by the leadership of the FMA, more than any other single fact, ought to make it clear that the FMA is not some bigoted putsch but a sober and reasoned defense of marriage as well as the rights of the people to enact any other legislation that opens the protections and the dialogue with the gay community that will not be settled or ended either by the Massachusetts Supreme court nor the Federal Marriage Amendment. That dialogue will continue to challenge both sides of our divided souls.

AS: This amendment has therefore very little to do with marriage as such; and everything to do with homosexuality. If the social right wanted to shore up marriage, they could propose an amendment tightening divorce laws. They could unveil any number of proposals for ensuring that children have stable two-parent homes, that marriage-lite versions of marriage are prevented or discouraged. But they haven't. The amendment is simply--and baldly--an attempt to ostracize a minority of Americans for good. It is an attempt to write them out of their own country. It is an attempt to say that the meaning of America is heterosexual and heterosexual only. It is one of the most divisive amendments ever proposed--an attempt to bring the culture war into the fabric of the very founding document, to create division where we need unity, exclusion where we need inclusion, rigidity where we need flexibility. And you only have to read it to see why.

Gellman: You only have to read it to see why not. The notion that gay couples cannot visit in the hospitals or inherit property or sue for child support is morally wrong and can, and has been, addressed by the laws of over forty states already. However, the notion that the traditional definition of marriage must be altered to address problems that for the most part have already been solved is obviously an act of bad faith. The real intent is to gain legal sanction for gay marriage that neither the people of America nor the state legislatures of America will support. Given the Constitutional weakness of DOMA and the aggressive legal activism of those seeking to legalize same sex marriages, the FMA is the only defense available to both prohibit and permit what the public wants prohibited and what many also want permitted.
posted by Eve at 6:01 PM VOTE 0 comments

GAY 'MARRIAGES' TANGLE EUROPEAN LAWS: From the Washington Times, hence the constant quote marks

If you're married in Holland, are you still married when you move to Austria? Not if it's a homosexual union.

More than two years after the Netherlands became the first nation to permit same-sex "marriage," Europe is mired in a confusing tangle of laws complicating legal and family issues for homosexual couples.

"Married" homosexuals in the Netherlands enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, including custody of children, inheritance of property and hospital visitation rights should their partners fall ill.

Yet, as they move around within an enlarging European Union which will have 10 more nations after next year many find themselves losing some of those rights, even in member states that recognize same-sex unions.

more
posted by Eve at 5:50 PM VOTE 0 comments

THE REAL AND THE IDEAL: Mark Miller replies to Ben Bateman

Actually, I agree with most of your post about the difference between "law" and "criminal law".

But, playing your logic out would result in something like gay-couples paying more to get a marriage license than opposite-sex couples since they are not the 'ideal'. Or another example could be that single-parents get less of a tax break for children than married-couples.

But that is not the scenario here.

This is about the denying of a basic right based solely on the gender of the participants. I have no problem with the government encouraging children to be raised by married-opposite-sex parents. As long as single parents would be treated the same as gay-parents. (actually, I could argue that gay-parents is closer to the ideal than single-parents).

There must be proof of a societal interest in not giving the same recognition to same-sex couples as given to heterosexual couples.
posted by Eve at 5:43 PM VOTE 0 comments

SLIPPERY SLOPERY: Gabriel Rosenberg replies to Mark Tardiff

One reason the Goodridge suit was successful was that the laws of marriage (other than who may enter into it) had already changed to rid themselves of sex-based classifications. Mark Tardiff asks why the laws could not similarly change to make marital status obsolete. All of the laws of marriage, though, must inherently deal with marital status.

Let us examine precisely what a person denied entry into such a "group marriage" would be arguing before the court. Unlike Goodridge, where a woman was asking to be treated the same as if she were a man, this new hypothetical would ask the court to treat a group of two (or more) people as if they were an individual. The suit would fail because, as all seven justices in Massachusetts noted, "constitutional protections are extended to individuals, not couples."

Consider the following example. Ella wants to run for governor, but the state refuses to allow her on the ballot because she is a woman. She sues on equal protection grounds. The state argues that "governor" is by definition a male (a female would be "governess"). The state points out that the governor has always been a man and there are numerous statutes like "he shall be elected..." The court rules for Ella and changes the definition of governor to be gender neutral. Sometime later Ben and Jerry seek to run for governor jointly as one candidate. Like Ella they are refused and sue to gain ballot access. Did the Ella decision lead us on a slippery slope to co-governors?
posted by Eve at 5:42 PM VOTE 0 comments

WHAT DO THE STUDIES SAY ABOUT SAME-SEX PARENTING?

[Gabriel Rosenberg sends the following:]

This site contains an overview of what social science says about same-sex
parenting. It includes summaries of 22 studies and a conversation with Dr. Stacey, a
professor of sociology at USC, in which she responds to the criticisms of Nock and Lerner & Nagai.
posted by Eve at 5:38 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARRIAGE AND PARENTING: Michael Brazier replies to Mark Miller

[Anything said by Miller is in bold; anything said by Brazier is in plain text.]

Brazier: To point out the obvious: Marriage is not, and never was, reducible to having "your relationship acknowledged." The civil rights argument for SSM works only if marriage can be so reduced.

Miller: That seems to be the main argument against SSM, that it reduces marriage to a "right." But that doesn't work, certainly from a legal point of view. How else do you explain that institutionalized criminals have a right to marry?

Brazier: How is it possible for institutionalized criminals to have a "relationship"--of, that is, the kind you would maintain legal marriage exists to acknowledge? The point of prison is to cut off the prisoners from social relations, except as permitted by the authorities. Surely, under these conditions, prisoners cannot form intimate bonds, nor make or accept promises of fidelity and mutual support. How then would you justify the right of prisoners to marry?

Miller: But your argument is that adoption policies should not apply to marriage policies--which makes no sense, since your argument against acknowledging same-sex relationships is based on the "biological" fact that same-sex couple cannot be parents.

Brazier: Adoption is a backup. It's meant for children who for some reason cannot be raised by their true parents. The idea that, because the adoption bureau treats homosexuals just like heterosexuals, therefore the marriage bureau should too, is spurious; the adoption bureau is not dealing with normal situations, while the marriage bureau is.

Miller: To point out the obvious, marriage is not, never was about encouraging natural parents to discharge their duties to the person they brought into the world.

Brazier: Then what is the institution that exists to serve that purpose? If there is none, what should exist to serve that purpose, if anything? That marriage does so in fact, nobody would deny; that it does so by accident, many would find hard to believe.
posted by Eve at 5:35 PM VOTE 0 comments

I AM A WIDOW: Powerful essay from a blogger

I am a widow. The law doesn't say so. My tax form doesn't say so; neither do any of the countless forms that I fill out that include marital status say so. But every time I check off the box that says single I want to scream and white it out and write, "widow". But I am a Lesbian who has lost her female partner so in most places I am not accorded the status of "widow". When it came time to settle my partner’s estate, I was a class D beneficiary -- no relationship whatsoever--a roommate, a friend, the lady next door.

It does not seem to matter that we lived in a monogamous loving relationship for 31 years or that we co-parented 3 wonderful children. It does not seem to matter that those children have severe developmental disabilities and although they are now legally adults I continue to be a single parent -- what am I thinking--we were each always single parents!!! Our home, our cars, our belongings-the law said that they legally are separately hers and mine so I will pay taxes on half of all we owned.-- after all I am not a legal widow anymore than I was a legal wife or a legal co-parent.

Backing up a few years: You shouldn’t have to lie when you are in a committed relationship, but when the law doesn't legalize or even recognize your union, sometimes you are forced to do so. While the courts here in New Jersey now allow second parent adoption of children of partners in same-sex relationships, it was not always so. We had to adopt our sons as single parents, making us in effect 2 distinct households. I will never forget the day one of our sons needed to be hospitalized--the one who bears my partner's surname. I was at home alone with him. Good thing Pat and I looked somewhat alike in a poor photograph--I wound up taking one of her employee IDs with me, said I had forgotten my license in the rush as a friend had driven us up, and was very glad for once for his limited speech and that he called me "Ma"!

more--do read the whole thing
posted by Eve at 5:15 PM VOTE 0 comments

LAWFULLYWEDDED.COM

Site for conservatives who oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment
posted by Eve at 5:07 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARRIAGEMOVEMENT.ORG: I'm going to put a permanent link to them on this site, so that I don't have to keep doing these updates! There's a passel of good stuff as always--if you have any interest in this debate, MM.org is the (other!) place to be.

What's new: Elizabeth Marquardt op-ed on children and SSM

What kinds of current marriages should we compare same-sex marriages to? Discusses stepfamilies, infertile or childless-by-choice couples, and elderly couples. I'd like to write a bit (not much) more about this later in the week, but for the moment, I'll just say that I'd be interested in hearing from any of our readers who support SSM but think same-sex parenting should be discouraged. If you're out there, let me know why you hold this position and whether/how you think SSM and same-sex parenting can be separated.

And a discussion between Barry Deutsch of Amptoons and Elizabeth Marquardt, on how to protect children.

A key snippet of his piece: "Elizabeth wants us to oppose equal legal rights for gays, in order to maintain a society in which same-sex families are understood to be inferior to 'the norm.' Both of these things--opposing equality and maintaining an anti-gay stigma--are very harmful, and also opposed to bedrock American ideals of equality and fairness. They would be particularly harmful, in my opinion, to gay children and to children of same-sex families."

A key snippet of hers: "My point, and he's heard it before, is this: Marriage is, at its heart, society's attempt to secure for children their mothers and fathers. Many social changes in recent years have weakened this norm. I view all of these as serious problems and spend most of my time studying and writing about one of them, divorce. However, admitting that heterosexuals have done an awful lot to screw up marriage in recent decades (along with a few good things, such as greater insistence on gender equality, emotional connection, etc.), legalizing gay marriage as MA has done is the first time we have changed the norm itself. Making the definition of marriage gender-neutral allows us only to say that children need 'parents' but not the two people whose physical sex act created the child. Very often, though, children when they are grown tell us something more nuanced and distressing--while they love the parents who raised them, the lost relationship with one or both biological parents was a source of serious emotional pain as they came of age."

Eve's question for Elizabeth: Why not support civil unions only for same-sex couples?
posted by Eve at 5:05 PM VOTE 0 comments

A MARRIAGE PATCHWORK IS COMING: From Time

[Eve says: Very basic article, not sure this is worth your time, though I hadn't heard of the Louisiana case before.]

...But the issue is not going away; both sides are fighting it out in the courts, and neither Congress nor the President is going to take decisive action. Every state will have to come up with its own solution, which means a patchwork of conflicting laws until the nation comes to terms with the subject.

Despite angry Republican denunciations of the Massachusetts court's decision, federal intervention to stop gay marriages is not likely. ...

The Louisiana legislature is not even contemplating gay marriage. ...But the issue has come up in New Orleans. Ten years ago, the city council established a registry for homosexual domestic partners. By registering, couples could receive benefits from any employers offering them. Across the country, more than 50 cities and counties offer such registries. In 1997, New Orleans also began offering benefits to domestic partners of municipal employees. Now six city residents--five members of the Vieux Carre Assembly of God Church in the French Quarter and their pastor, the Rev. Gregory Pembo--are suing the city to abolish the registry and benefits, angry that their tax dollars are providing benefits to homosexual partners. A decision in the case is expected in the next six months.

more
posted by Eve at 4:47 PM VOTE 0 comments

IF SSM IS THE ANSWER, WHAT IS THE QUESTION?: From the Washington Times

...The question is not whether gays should get married. It is: On what basis do you oppose marriage between two people of the same sex who desire it? ...

There are, it seems to me, two apparent kinds of answer to that question, but in actuality only one. The first to present itself in the elite discussion of the subject today is a social/cultural objection to gay marriage. It is that gay marriage would (at least potentially) have adverse consequences for the institution of marriage, which remains of vital social importance and is already embattled as a result of a variety of influences such as no-fault divorce. ...

We are now squarely embarked on a debate about those consequences that inevitably comes down to this: Will the union of Mr. X and Mr. Y in particular, who want only to be married, be any worse for the "institution of marriage" than any number of existing unions that fall far short of the social ideal, or for that matter fail altogether? This is an impossible contention. ...

I think that once you grant the essential premise, namely, the presumption of equality, there is only one basis for saying "no" to Mr. X and Mr. Y, and that is that what they are doing is wrong. The only serious basis for claiming that gay marriage undermines marriage (the union of a man and woman) is that the problem lies not with the "marriage" part of gay marriage but with the "gay" part. Thus, one denies the status of marriage to those whose union, being sinful or immoral, is precisely not that of holy matrimony.

...In the public square these days, we find very few moralists and a great many sociologists, the latter articulating their opposition to gay marriage (even if it is ultimately moral opposition) in terms of its supposedly deleterious social effects. The weakness of this argument is becoming obvious.

more
posted by Eve at 4:42 PM VOTE 0 comments

GAY BLACK GROUP LAUNCHES SSM CAMPAIGN: From the Washington Post

A coalition of gay and transgender African Americans announced yesterday that it will use a nationwide advertising campaign to reach out to a group that some say seems to dislike them most: the broader African
American community.

Representatives of the National Black Justice Coalition said their goal is to inform black Americans about marriage equality for same-sex couples and drum up black community opposition to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which has been proposed by some conservatives. ...

[Keith] Boykin, who served as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton, said the coalition plans to spend $100,000 to place advertisements in black magazines, such as Ebony, Essence and Jet, and black newspapers, such as the Michigan Chronicle in Detroit and the Baltimore/Washington Afro-American.

Mandy Carter, another member of the coalition, said the group would meet to determine what the ads should say. But their intent is to convince black people that discrimination against committed couples on the basis
of sexual orientation is a form of social injustice.
"We can't get family health insurance, so we have to pay two deductibles instead of one," Alicia Heath-Toby and Saundra Heath-Toby, a same-sex couple, said in a joint statement. "We are your neighbors next door. We
ride the bus and subway with you. We sit next to you at lunch."

Civil rights organizations that sponsored sit-ins at lunch counters in the 1950s and '60s -- the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference -- have been silent on marriage equality, as has the National
Urban League. "We haven't formally taken a position," said Sheriee Bowman, director of information and public relations for the SCLC. "We would definitely be open to a dialogue, but we don't know enough about what their issue is."

more
posted by Eve at 4:37 PM VOTE 0 comments

MAGGIE GALLAGHER ON MARRIAGE AND FEDERALISM: From the Weekly Standard

...With the recent Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, [activist judges] are already opening the door to gay marriage. Why, then, do so many conservative voices reject the only possible effective political response?

One reason may be that many on the right view marriage as fundamentally a "values" issue. Marriage gets classified as "culture," which means private, not public; at best as "social policy," in George Will's term. If marriage is conceptualized in this way, many conservative intellectuals are led by their commitment to federalism to reject the idea of defining marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Let states experiment with different social policies and find out what works best. This view of marriage as a values question is shared by many on the left. ...

So from right to left, many express disapproval of changing our sacred Constitution on behalf of marriage. They're happy to concede that economic matters belong in the Constitution. The right to bear arms? Sacred (at least on the right). Excise taxes and the inviolability of contract? Naturally. Yet many seem to believe that a Constitution filled with such things will be somehow tainted by the mention of a girlish issue like making sure that "marriage in the United States shall consist of the union of a man and a woman."

Until quite recently, most educated Americans had a different view. ...Shared family norms enshrined in law were at least as vital to the republic as norms about property rights and democratic government.

This raises two questions: First, why did so many educated Americans believe this about marriage until quite recently? Second, why do so few public intellectuals now conceive of marriage in this fashion? ...

The practical result of the retreat from marriage as a social norm has been a vast expansion of the welfare state. What conservatives call welfare is only a drop in the bucket: High rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing are a driving force behind virtually every category of social spending. ...

THE SOCIAL NORM that needs reinforcing, in the law and in the culture, is not: Soul mates should marry. It is: Children need fathers and mothers.

more
posted by Eve at 3:57 PM VOTE 0 comments

MAGGIE GALLAGHER ON GOP POLITICS OF SSM: From National Review Online

...Last summer, after the Lawrence decision put a big media spotlight on gay marriage, American support for civil unions dropped 12 percentage points. A Pew poll released last month confirmed the same development: rising opposition to gay marriage (from 53 percent in July to 59 percent in October). Perhaps most strikingly, in Canada (a more liberal and less religious society than the U.S.), a just-released poll shows that only 31 percent of Canadians now support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

When it comes to intensity of opinion, the politics of gay marriage favors its opponents even more heavily. ...

But for the Democrats there is even worse news: The emergence of gay marriage splits the Democratic base. According to the October Pew poll, voters who say they are inclined to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate over Bush (the so-called "generic" presidential poll) split evenly over the gay-marriage issue, with 48 percent opposing and 46 percent favoring. When it comes to intensity, the gap is even wider: Just 14 percent of likely Democratic voters strongly favor same-sex marriage, while 25 percent are strongly opposed.

Meanwhile, at least 60 percent of African Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Many say they feel viscerally betrayed at the transfer of the civil-rights mantle to further this cause. ...

Almost all Democratic presidential candidates say they oppose gay marriage. But most say they are against any effort to stop courts from imposing gay marriage as well. ...

more
posted by Eve at 3:39 PM VOTE 0 comments

ANDREW SULLIVAN ON GOP POLITICS OF SSM: From the Washington Post

It has become almost a cliche that the issue of marriage rights for gays is a wedge issue for Republicans. ...

There's some truth to this, but it's a largely dated analysis. ...

...What chance is there for [a marriage amendment] to succeed with a mere 20 percent?

Worse, many leading conservatives oppose the amendment. ...

And even among the hard right that supports an amendment, there is no consensus about what should actually be in it. Some have argued that a simple statement reserving marriage for a man and woman is enough. But others are concerned that this simply protects the word "marriage" while allowing civil unions -- which give many but not all the benefits of civil marriage -- to be enacted. That's why the most-cited version of the amendment would ban not just gay marriages but all "the legal incidents thereof," i.e. even civil unions or domestic partnerships. Yet another faction wants to allow civil unions -- but only if they don't explicitly involve sex. One version of the amendment puts the word "sexual" in the Constitution for the first time -- and not in a good way.

These are just some of the many rifts within the Republican coalition. On the Democratic side, there are no such rifts. Every single candidate opposes the constitutional amendment. And most leading candidates oppose gay marriage but endorse civil unions. So raising the amendment issue actually divides Republicans while uniting Democrats. And the Democratic position is more appealing to most of the country, which is not anti-gay and has few qualms about civil unions but still gets queasy about full marriage rights.

more
posted by Eve at 3:37 PM VOTE 0 comments

IS CANADIAN GOVT TRYING TO UNDO SSM?: From 365Gay.com

There are mounting fears that the federal government is
attempting to renege on a commitment to legalize same-sex marriage across the country.

After courts in Ontario and British Columbia ruled last summer that it was unconstitutional to prevent gays from marrying, the government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien said it would pass legislation to extend
same-sex marriage throughout the country.

The decision sparked a mini-revolt within the ranks of the ruling Liberals, was opposed by the opposition Canadian Alliance, and condemned by conservative religious groups.

To placate those opposed to gay marriage, the government took the unusual step of submitting the draft legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on its constitutionality. The government specifically
asked the court for a legal opinion on whether it sufficiently protected gays and at the same time churches which were opposed to same-sex marriage.

The hearing before the court is scheduled for early spring.

But Chretien retires in a matter of days, to be replaced as Liberal leader and Prime Minister by Paul Martin, and a spring court battle over gay marriage is not on his agenda. Martin is said to be planning an election for early spring, and the last thing he wants is a divisive
battle over gay marriage which could cost the party votes.

This week the party caucus will meet to plan for the winter session of Parliament and high on the agenda is what to do about gay marriage. And already the term "Civil Unions" is cropping up more and more frequently.

more
posted by Eve at 2:48 PM VOTE 0 comments

IOWA JUDGE GRANTS CIVIL UNION DIVORCE: From the Sioux City Journal

The recent divorce granted in Woodbury County to two women in a civil union is unlikely to be a landmark decision, a civil rights lawyer said.

Iowa does not recognize the civil unions of same-sex partners and also does not permit the marriage of gay and lesbian couples. The two women who divorced in Woodbury County District Court were partners in a civil
union, which was granted in Vermont, where such unions are legal.

The divorce does not mean that the couple's civil union had achieved legal recognition in Iowa, said David Buckel, a lawyer with Lambda Legal in New York, a national civil rights firm for gay people.

"I have not seen any example anywhere where a dissolution was considered a recognition. It hasn't happened," Buckel said.

What the dissolution does do, is show that Iowa lawmakers, like those in other states, probably will have to address the growing issues that surround civil unions and same-sex marriages, which in a recent court decision became legal in Massachusetts, the first state to grant that privilege.

more
posted by Eve at 2:46 PM VOTE 0 comments

DO GAYS REALLY WANT MARRIAGE?: From the Washington Blade

...So it came as an unpleasant shock to many in her legions of gay fans when Bette Midler, asked by Larry King this week her views on gay marriage, didn't offer up a politically correct answer about equal rights long overdue.

Instead, Bathhouse Betty thought about the flesh-and-blood gay guys she knows and loves, and questioned whether marriage was such a good idea.

"Many of the homosexual men that I know--you know, they like to move around," said Midler. "They like to have--you know, they're--that's part of it. That's part of the fun of being a gay man. I'm really wondering how--what that commitment is going to be about. Does that mean they're not going to cheat, they're only going to be with one?" ...

Some of the attacks on "gay marriage" have been over-the-top alarmist, like suggesting it could lead to the end of civilization. Others have been heterosexist, as if there were something innately superior about the "complementarity" of heterosexual love between people of opposite genders.

Superior? No. But different? Maybe. ...

For many gay couples, especially the men, long-term relationships aren't necessarily exclusive sexually. In fact, as Bette put it so--you know--eloquently, many of us have found that's part of the fun of being gay. We write our own rules.

more
posted by Eve at 2:43 PM VOTE 0 comments

MA HOUSE SPEAKER SAYS COURT DIDN'T FORCE SSM: From the Boston Globe

House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said yesterday that the Supreme Judicial Court did not force the Legislature to enact gay marriage immediately, but instead sent the divisive issue into the political arena, where lawmakers will face "heartfelt" decisions based on their beliefs as
much as the law.

Finneran, who until yesterday had not spoken publicly on the historic Nov. 18 ruling, said he sees three options for the Legislature: a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a civil unions bill for same-sex couples, or doing nothing and letting the ruling stand. He has not
decided which approach he prefers. ...

Several constitutional scholars disagree, however, that the Legislature can pass a bill to get around the SJC's ruling.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and constitutional specialist who has followed the SJC's ruling closely, said he concurs with Finneran's assertion that the Legislature has the option of amending the
constitution, a process that will take until at least 2006, or of doing nothing. Inaction, he said, would result in same-sex couples marrying next spring, when the court's 180-day stay on the decision is up.

But passing a civil union alternative to marriage for same-sex couples or merely defining marriage as a heterosexual institution by statute would not suffice, Tribe said. The ruling, he noted, was explicit in discussing marriage as a unique institution that confers a desired status in society.

more
posted by Eve at 2:35 PM VOTE 0 comments