"SESAME STREET" DEVELOPER ON AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC TELEVISION "TWO MUMS" KIDS' EPISODE: From The Age

...In 1968, when I was directing the research and evaluation of a proposed preschool TV show that was to become Sesame Street, we made a major effort to develop a values orientation.

We decided that the values that we presented on mass media for preschoolers should be supported by a strong parental consensus. After all, it is not the job of TV to usurp or to denigrate parental values.

Certainly, the TV channel should respect that there is a range of views out there. It is arrogant of the ABC to be so disingenuous as to feign surprise at the reaction to the two mums on Play School.

Sesame Street decided to show children of different backgrounds playing together. It also decided to show preschoolers that it was OK to make mistakes when you are learning. Think Big Bird.

But these kinds of decisions were based on the views of parents and not just the whim of the writers or producers. ...

Sexual identification is one of the many confusing tasks of childhood. Raising issues on TV for preschool children without thought to the lone viewer's reactions is a disgraceful decision. Not every child watches Play School with a parent to explain the variations dear to the ABC producers.

Play School has made a political as well as a values statement. Whatever we think of that statement, it is proper that it be debated. It is infuriating that there is now the charge that those who oppose the ABC decision on two mums are making it a political football. How do you spell hypocrisy?

more
posted by Eve at 8:57 PM VOTE 0 comments

CA STATE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR CASE ABOUT LESBIAN COUPLE VS. COUNTRY CLUB: From the San Francisco Chronicle

The state Supreme Court took on another major gay-rights case Wednesday, agreeing to decide whether California businesses can discriminate legally against same-sex couples, like the lesbian pair who were denied a family membership by a San Diego country club.

All seven justices voted to grant a hearing to plaintiffs B. Birgit Koebke and Kendall French, who appealed a lower-court ruling that said state civil rights law doesn't require businesses to treat married and unmarried customers equally. The club's policy was to grant family memberships only to married couples.

The women are challenging the ruling on two grounds: that the court interpreted the law too narrowly and that it denied equal protection to lesbians and gays, who can't marry legally in California. No hearing date has been scheduled. ...

California law prohibits discrimination based on marital status in some areas, like employment, housing and insurance. But the state's Unruh Act, which requires all businesses to treat their customers equally, does not list marital status as a protected category, although it does forbid discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.

Two appellate courts, including the one that heard this case, have ruled that the Unruh Act does not cover marital status, but the state's high court has never ruled on the issue. ...

The policy "treats all unmarried individuals, male or female, and regardless of sexual orientation, the same,'' the appellate court said in a 3- 0 ruling. Requiring the club to treat same-sex domestic partners like spouses "would run contrary to the policy, as engrained in state statutes, supporting the institution of marriage," the court said.

more
posted by Eve at 8:55 PM VOTE 0 comments

THE EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: Maggie Gallagher replies to Jari Koskisuu

Jari Koskisuu writes: "The same kind of phenomenon has happened in deeply Catholic Italy, where gay unions have no recogntition whatsoever."

Maggie replies: Actually Italy has a very different marriage problem, not the "same kind of problem" at all. Italy has very low rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing, fairly high rates of marriage. But Italian women have pretty much stopped having more than one child, leading to massive depopulation.

Jari writes: "Personally I think that if marriage as a concept is so weak that it does not stand the existence of legal recognition of gay unions, maybe it is time for that institution to go."

Maggie: In my experience most advocates of same-sex marriage take a very similar position: what's important is formal equality. Marriage is not very important as a social institution. If necessary, it can go.

But what if marriage really is necessary, in the sense that cultures that lose their commitment to the marriage idea have an extremely difficult time perpetuating themselves? What if we really do need marriage?
posted by Eve at 9:42 AM VOTE 0 comments

EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: Jari Koskisuu replies to Maggie Gallagher and Stanley Kurtz

The basic question still remains unanswered: If gay marriage or other kinds of legal recognition (civil unions, registered partnerships) destroyed marriage in Scandinavia, as Stanley Kurtz says, how can we explain that precisely the same changes in terms of marriage happened in Finland, where gay unions were recognized as late as 2002? Gay marriage somehow trickled over the border and destroyed marriage by contamination from Swedes? If this is not proof enough that there is no correlation whatsoever between the changing attitudes towards marriage in straight population and gay marriage, what is?

The same kind of phenomenon has happened in deeply Catholic Italy, where gay unions have no recogntition whatsoever.

Or are you really saying that any kind of recognition of the existence of gays destroys marriage? That the only way to save marriage is to discriminate against gays in all aspects of life? Personally I think that if marriage as a concept is so weak that it does not stand the existence of legal recognition of gay unions, maybe it is time for that institution to go.

I live in Finland and I cannot see how gay registred partnerships have had any kind of effect on how straight people view marriage. None. There is not enough evidence to say to what extent gay civil unions strenghten the concept of marriage, but there is enough evidence that the reasons for changes in the institution of marriage stem from somewhere else.
posted by Eve at 9:38 AM VOTE 0 comments

THE EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: Mark Barton replies to Maggie Gallagher

Maggie Gallagher: To me, the most persuasive part of Stanley Kurtz's argument is this: If you go around telling people that marriage has nothing in particular to do with making and raising children, people
just might believe you.

Mark B.: So? Whether that's a problem or not depends entirely on what they come to believe marriage does have to do with, which in turn depends partly on what else you tell them. The natural alternative belief is that that marriage is about recognizing and facilitating stable relationships. That's not in any necessary conflict with the proposition that "Children need mothers and fathers," which appears to be the end goal in Maggie's slogan. If it's really true that children need both a mother and a father, then then that imposes an obvious moral imperative on biological parents: that they ought to put a high (not infinite but still high) priority on sticking together long enough to raise the children they've had or are planning to have. That's all Maggie needs. She doesn't need the word "marriage" or the legal framework of civil marriage to make this sermon and she doesn't need marriage to be opposite-sex only. In fact I suggest she might well be more effective than she's being now, because the second part of her slogan "and marriage is how you get that for people" won't come across as an offensive slap at childless opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples.

Maggie Gallagher: [...] The core idea of SSM, as many recent posts from its advocates suggest, is that no one family form is any better than another.

Mark B.: Not at all. Of course, as it happens, I do indeed believe that the above idea is true, at least to the extent that the choices are opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Indeed, I know that it's true, at least to quite a good enough approximation to be getting on with. But the above is not the core idea of SSM. The core idea of SSM is that both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are equally worthy of recognition and facilitation. Even if traditional marriage were a uniquely wonderful environment for childrearing, SSM would still be the right thing to do.
posted by Eve at 9:34 AM VOTE 0 comments

THE EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: Michael Sellitto replies to Maggie Gallagher

Maggie writes: "But at a meta-level people who insist SSM has no effect on marriage are making a fundamentally unserious argument. 'How can my marriage affect anyone else?' may be a good pop response, but anyone who studies marriage will tell you that ideas about marriage prevalent in a culture have an effect on how people behave. That's what it means to be a social institution or a social norm."

I agree with Maggie that same-sex marriages have an effect on how other people behave, but I disagree with her claim of what that effect is. She believes it hurts "marriage," I believe the opposite.

As has been posted here before (I believe), and the media covered, there is a small, but growing, group of heterosexual couples who choose to not get married because their gay and lesbian friends cannot marry. They feel that getting married would be uncomfortable and distasteful, given the lack of equality for their friends and family.

At the same time, the "gays don't need marriage" crowd are doing a great job convincing straight couples--who automatically get more common-law protection than same-sex couples--that they (opposite-sex couples) don't need marriage either. Why should opposite sex couples feel the need to marry when they see their gay and lesbian friends told that they do not need marriage to protect them or their children?

Both of these trends are likely to increase in the future, if we maintain the status quo of anti-same-sex marriage groups spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year to push their "gays don't need
marriage" position, while, at the same time, the younger generation continues to grow more comfortable with gays and the idea of same-sex marriage. A majority of younger people already support same-sex
marriage, and as the stigma against homosexuality continues to erode, the support will continue to increase. Heterosexual young adults are less and less to see distinctions between themselves and their gay and lesbian friends; their empathy for gays regarding the ban on same-sex marriage will continue to grow.

A federal marriage amendment would only exacerbate these issues. Straight couples who were iffy before the FMA would be pushed over the top to being completely uncomfortable taking part in "marriage" when their friends and family are written out of the US Constitution.

At the same time, we should think about what the counter-movement would be if the FMA were passed. Professor Gerard Bradley, co-author of the FMA, said in a debate at the Pew Forum that the FMA doesn't
necessarily have to stop gay and lesbian couples from getting any protections at all, aside from the word "marriage" itself. He explained that the FMA only stopped families headed by same-sex couples from getting the protections that are "incidents" of marriage. Therefore, he suggested that same-sex couples could get all of the protections that are currently "incidents" of marriage by simply
de-coupling these incidents from marriage. If "marriage" were stripped of all of the incidents--the rights and responsibilities that presently come with it--then same-sex couples would be eligible for all of them. What effect will that have on the "institution" of marriage? Not one that the "pro-family" groups would probably be happy with.

The result would be that (1) there would be a negative stigma on "marriage," as far as empathetic heterosexuals are concerned, and (2) marriage would lose the legal benefits/incidents.

Who's going to marry then?

The FMA will be the "end of marriage" in the US.
posted by Eve at 9:13 AM VOTE 0 comments

LOUISIANA SENATE APPROVES SSM BAN PLAN: From the Associated Press

The Louisiana Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but still in question is when the issue will go before voters.

The Senate measure, approved by a 31-6 vote, calls for an election Sept. 18, while GOP Rep. Steve Scalise, the sponsor of the House proposal has said he wanted it decided during the November election.

Both houses passed similar versions of the bill with well more than the required two-thirds vote, and the election date has been the only major subject of disagreement.

Some lawmakers have argued that the the measure was a political ploy to help churn up conservative turnout in the general election for President Bush and Republican candidates such as Scalise, who is running for Congress.

link
posted by Eve at 9:08 AM VOTE 0 comments

ETHNIC COMMUNITIES SPEAK OUT AGAINST SSM: From the Pacific News Service

[Interesting piece, despite use of "ethnic" as code for "non-white." --Eve]

...Ethnic Christian coalitions are at the forefront of the movement against same-sex marriage.

On May 18, 100 people gathered in Los Angeles to voice their opposition to same-sex marriage. Among the speakers were Latino activists Luis Galdamez, spokesperson for the Campaign for California Families, and Vicente Martin, president of the organization Familia Hispana, which represents 1,900 Christian churches in California, reports Marilu Meza in the May 19 issue of Spanish-language daily La Opinion. ...

On April 25, some 7,000 people in San Francisco's Sunset district -- primarily Chinese Americans and Christians from 180 Bay Area churches -- protested same-sex marriage, reports Julie D. Soo in the May 21 edition of San Francisco's English-language weekly AsianWeek. Gay marriage "could lead to the extinction of the entire human race," said event spokesman Rev. Thomas Wang, as reported in the Chinese newspaper Sing Tao. "There will be no future if the United States does not repent."

Marcos Gutierrez, host of a Bay Area Spanish-language talk show on La Grande 1010-AM, estimates that 65 percent of the people who call in to his show are against same-sex marriage. Most of these defend their beliefs by quoting the Bible.

Religion is the backbone of politics opposing gay marriage, according to a national survey of 1,515 adults of every ethnicity conducted Oct. 15-19, 2003, by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center. More than eight in 10 opponents of gay marriage said it ran counter to their religious beliefs.

Ethnic groups in San Francisco are far less supportive of the city's decision to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians than the city's white population, according to a citywide poll of 1,034 people conducted on March 2, 2004, by the Chinese American Voters Education Committee. While 76 percent of Caucasians said they supported the decision to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, only 62 percent of Latinos, 49 percent of African Americans and 38 percent of Asians agreed. ...

Chinese Americans value family and community over the individual, adds Rev. Cal Chin, a senior pastor at the Presbyterian Church in Chinatown. "I wouldn't use 'conservative' to describe Chinese American views," Chin says in the same article. "I would say that Chinese Americans are more corporate in their thinking; they think about how an individual and an individual's actions impact the community. You can't act in isolation." ...

Detria Thompson, in the March 19 edition of the black newspaper San Francisco Bay View, writes that many African Americans believe that race "easily trumps sexual orientation in the now crowded different-discrimination sweepstakes." But this "assumes that lesbians and gays have the option, if not a duty, to mute their behavior so as not to alarm straight people." Yet, "all gays and lesbians can't 'pass' for straight, and even if it was possible to do so, being able to 'pass' misses the point."

White gays and lesbians may experience less discrimination than African Americans, but they still experience discrimination, just as educated middle-class African Americans still experience racism, Thompson writes. "Quantifying discrimination by demographics is necessary, but is usually futile and counter-productive precisely because your pain never quite measures up to mine."

more
posted by Eve at 8:07 PM VOTE 0 comments

HRC STATS ON NUMBER OF COUPLES GETTING SSM LICENSES IN WORLD

Massachusetts: 1,000 since May 25, 2004
New Paltz, N.Y.: 21 since Feb. 27, 2004
San Francisco, Calif.: 3,955 since March 21, 2004
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: 14,700 since Feb. 14, 2004
British Columbia, Canada: 1,400 since Feb. 14, 2004
Quebec, Canada: 8 since March 24, 2004
The Netherlands: 5,665 since 2001-2003
Multnomah County, Ore.: 3,000 since April 20, 2004
Asbury Park, N.J.: 1 since March 8, 2004
Sandoval County, N.M.: 66 since March 30, 2004
Belgium: 139 since 2003

Total: 29,955

here
posted by Eve at 8:01 PM VOTE 0 comments

SUIT CONTENDS CAMPAIGN LAWS STIFLE CHURCH'S FREE SPEECH: From the Billings Gazette

The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative religious legal group, filed a lawsuit in federal court against state Political Practices Commissioner Linda Vaughey late Monday on behalf of a Helena church, claiming that some of the election laws she enforces are unconstitutional.

The lawsuit came in response to the investigation that Vaughey will launch into the activities of the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church in East Helena. Gay rights advocates filed a complaint against the church with Vaughey two weeks ago, saying the church inappropriately held an event to support a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage in Montana.

Petitions supporting the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage--Constitutional Initiative 96--were circulated at a church event May 23, where the Rev. B.G. Stumberg encouraged parishioners to sign them. The initiative will be placed on the November ballot if about 41,000 voters sign petitions.

While the gay rights advocates say the church should have filed with the commissioner before holding such an event, the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz., said the church's rights to free speech and religious expression are being trampled by "vague" and "ambiguous" election laws. ...

The law in question requires any organization not specifically organized for the purpose of influencing elections to register with the state and file an organizational statement within five days after it makes an expenditure on behalf of a ballot initiative.

While the gay rights advocates say the church donated in-kind services to the measure, the lawsuit says that the church made no expense on behalf of the initiative. The suit says the multimedia presentation that televised a broadcast by James Dobson of Focus on the Family and other evangelical leaders during the May 23 event was paid for by the Christian Communication Network.

The suit also states the church did not pay to advertise the event.

Vaughey said Monday that she cannot comment on the lawsuit, but did confirm that she is planning to investigate the activities of the church. She said the investigation probably won't begin for several weeks because eight or nine complaints have come in ahead of this one.

more
posted by Eve at 7:54 PM VOTE 0 comments

MASSACHUSETTS SSM LICENSE DELUGE SLOWS TO TRICKLE: From the Lowell Sun

After an initial wave of same-sex applications since gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts three weeks ago, the number has slowed to a trickle, area clerks say.

According to a survey of 20 clerks offices in Greater Lowell, 53 percent of all license applications since May 17 have been filed by gay couples. But an overwhelming majority of those same-sex applications were done in the first week gays were allowed to marry.

In Ayer, the town clerk has handled six marriage applications since May 17, and five of them were from gay couples in that first week. In Bedford, all three same-sex couples who requested licenses applied in the first few days. ...

After the first week, however, the stream of gay couples seeking licenses has slowed considerably. Lowell City Clerk Richard Johnson said as many as 25 of the 30 applications from same-sex couples came in the first week. In Burlington, six of the nine applications from same-sex couples came on the first day.

In some communities such as Carlisle and Townsend every marriage application filed since May 17 has been for a gay couple. In some cases, nearly all have been for same-sex couples, as in Concord, where 15 of 19 applications were for homosexual couples.

In other communities, the ratio has been far lower. In Tyngsboro, three of 13 licenses were for gay couples. In Billerica, four of 14 were for gays. Chelmsford officials would not provide a breakdown between same-sex and heterosexual applications. ...

More than half of the marriage license applications filed in the Lowell area since May 17 has been for a gay couple, according to local town clerks. Below is a list of local communities, how many same-sex couples have applied for a licence, and how many total marriage licenses have been applied for since gay marriage became legal in the state on May 17. Chelmsford officials refuse to discern between heterosexual and homosexual license applications.

more
posted by Eve at 7:49 PM VOTE 0 comments

JUDGE BARS NEW PALTZ MAYOR FROM PERFORMING MORE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES: From Law.com

A Supreme Court judge Monday issued a permanent injunction that bars the mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., from marrying gay couples.

Ulster County Supreme Court Justice E. Michael Kavanagh said Mayor Jason West had reached beyond the scope of his authority by marrying same-sex couples who had not been issued valid marriage licenses.

West performed numerous weddings in February and has argued that state laws that prevent same-sex couples from receiving marriage licenses are unconstitutional. He has since been charged criminally and sued by Liberty Counsel, a Florida organization that has challenged same-sex marriages in other states.

Monday Justice Kavanagh said that although a law against same-sex marriage might be unconstitutional, that was not the issue in the suit. The mayor, the judge said, cannot usurp the power of the town clerk and perform a marriage without a proper license.

"It is for the clerk to decide, not the Mayor, whether an applicant has satisfied the licensing provisions of the Domestic Relations Law," Kavanagh wrote.

The judge noted that Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has concluded that same-sex couples cannot be granted marriage licenses under New York law. If a mayor could act against a law when he believed the law was unconstitutional, the judge wrote, it would have "profound and unsettling implications."

"This view, if accepted, would mean that the Mayor is a law unto himself and would in certain circumstances have power that is simply incompatible with a democratic form of government based on the rule of law," the judge wrote.

Kavanagh said the state Legislature or a court of competent jurisdiction had to decide whether a ban on same-sex marriages violates the state Constitution.

E. Joshua Rosenkranz of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, who represents West, said the ruling would be appealed.

"We disagree with Judge Kavanagh's view that this case is only about a technical licensing provision," he said in a statement. "The only reason any couple in this case was denied a marriage license was because they were of the same sex, and the only reason Mayor West acted was because the denial is unconstitutional."

Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of the Liberty Counsel, said in a statement: "All mayors throughout the United States should be on notice. An attempt to disregard the plain law of the land by elected officials should be viewed for what it is -- illegal activity that must be brought to justice."

more
posted by Eve at 5:15 PM VOTE 0 comments

FOES OF SSM WAGE UNTRADITIONAL FIGHT IN OREGON: From The Oregonian

With four weeks left, supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage are relying on churches and mailed-in petitions to gather the 100,840 valid signatures they need to make the November ballot.

The mostly behind-doors campaign is taking place after Sunday church services and in the homes, workplaces and neighborhoods of supporters. It's a departure from the traditional approach of collecting signatures in heavily trafficked public places.

And that makes it harder for opponents to be there to persuade people not to sign. That's significant, because it's easier and cheaper for opponents to attack a measure before it gets on the ballot than it is to defeat it at the polls.

There have been no reports of violations of signature-gathering rules, but opponents say they are working on filing complaints.

The campaign also has raised questions about how far churches can go to promote ballot measures without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, which carries some limits on political activity. The issue also could affect the presidential election in Oregon, given President Bush's faith-based campaign. ...

Kassell said her group is monitoring the political activity of the churches working to get the initiative on the ballot.

"Talking about the issue is one thing," she said. "Actively collecting signatures, launching a political organization and gathering funds to defeat or support a ballot measure, that's something else."

The risk for churches is the loss of their federal tax-exempt status as nonprofits.

Federal laws prohibit tax-exempt churches from supporting or opposing candidates for office. In 1995, a church in New York became the only house of worship to lose its tax-exempt status after it ran a newspaper ad in 1992 critical of Bill Clinton.

The laws do allow some lobbying on legislative matters, which include ballot measure signature drives.

Lobbying cannot exceed an "insubstantial" share of the church's overall activities. The law doesn't define the term. One court said churches can devote less than 5 percent of their activities to lobbying without jeopardizing their status, though another court said more than 20 percent would endanger it.

Running ballot measure campaigns in Oregon through churches is not new. The Oregon Citizens Alliance used churches extensively in the late 1980s and early 1990s to qualify anti-gay rights and anti-abortion initiatives, said Bill Lunch, an Oregon State University political scientist who has studied the religious right in Oregon. ...

Critics of Bush are complaining about his campaign's efforts in Ohio to set up a network of "friendly churches."

more
posted by Eve at 12:07 AM VOTE 0 comments

NEW MEXICO CLERK MAY START ISSUING SSM LICENSES AGAIN: From the Associated Press

Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap may start issuing same-sex marriage licenses again this week, disregarding a court order that her attorney says is illegal and invalid.

Dunlap’s attorney, Paul Livingston, says he advised his client there is no valid order in place, and the order that was in place was illegally gotten, improper and inappropriate.

Livingston said the temporary restraining order is no longer in effect because the case has been heard by Judge Louis McDonald, fulfilling a Supreme Court requirement.

He said temporary restraining orders cannot be extended indefinitely; there is a process by which they must expire or be converted into preliminary injunctions, which was not done in this case.

Deputy Attorney General Chris Coppin insists the order remains in effect until the state’s claims are addressed.

link
posted by Eve at 12:05 AM VOTE 0 comments

NORTH DAKOTA DOMA APPROVED FOR CIRCULATION: From the Associated Press

Supporters of a constitutional amendment that would bar same-sex marriages may begin gathering petition signatures to put the idea to a statewide vote, Secretary of State Al Jaeger said.

The amendment seeks to define marriage as the union of a man and woman, and prohibits any other domestic arrangement from being given the same legal status as marriage.

Its backers need to obtain petition signatures from at least 25,688 North Dakota voters to put the amendment on the statewide ballot. They have a year to complete the task. To put the question on the November general election ballot, the amendment's supporters must turn in the required number of signatures by Aug. 3.

The secretary of state must review proposed initiative petitions before they are approved for circulation. Jaeger was given the petition May 26.

The amendment would add these two sentences to Article 11 of the North Dakota Constitution: "Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Massachusetts began licensing same-sex marriages last month, following a ruling by that state's highest appeals court. Vermont and California allow civil unions of homosexual couples, which give them many of the same rights as married heterosexual couples.

North Dakota already has a law, approved in 1997, which bars recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside the state.

link
posted by Eve at 12:03 AM VOTE 0 comments

LESBIAN COUPLE SEEKS SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES AT COUNTRY CLUB: From the Associated Press

Late in the day, when most others have cleared the course of rolling hills and serene lakes, B. Birgit Koebke, golfs alone at her country club. If a group happens to be ahead of her, they no longer allow her to play through.

"I just sit there and wait," she says. "They've made it impossible for me to enjoy the club."

Koebke, a 47-year-old television sales executive, is a longtime member of the Bernardo Heights Country Club. She is also lesbian, and her extended drive to win club golfing privileges for her partner of 12 years, Kendall French, has left few members willing to play with her.

Koebke hopes the California Supreme Court will hear her argument that the state's civil rights laws should require the club to give French, her state-registered domestic partner, the same benefits given to spouses.

Bernardo Heights maintains that state law allows it to limit such privileges to legally married couples.

John Shiner, a Los Angeles attorney representing Bernardo Heights, says the club simply wishes "to make a distinction between those who are legally married and those who are not married. ... I should add that this has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation." ...

The club rejected suggested compromises, such as issuing free guest passes for French. Koebke suggested it create a "significant others" category, which also could benefit widows who didn't wish to remarry for financial or other reasons. In 1996, the club's board of directors agreed to consider the idea, but first restricted that significant others would have to be of the opposite sex of the member. Regardless, the measure failed.

The club suggested French buy her own membership, an invitation she finds insulting. "Tell me," she says, "how many of the other members are willing to pay double for their household?"

In 2001, Koebke filed her lawsuit. A San Diego Superior Court judge dismissed her claims in 2002. But last March, an appellate court partially overturned the ruling, ordering the trial court to consider Koebke's claim that the club treated unmarried heterosexual couples as spouses. It rejected Koebke's challenges of the interpretation of California's civil rights law. The state Supreme Court is expected to announce in coming weeks whether it will hear her appeal.

French and Koebke, who are represented by the gay-rights defense fund Lambda Legal, would like the court to find the state's 1959 Unruh Civil Rights Act protects them from discrimination based on marital status. Since California law bans same-sex marriage, they argue, Koebke cannot fully enjoy the benefits of her membership.

Club counsel and member Thomas Monson wrote of Koebke's lawsuit in a 2001 letter to members saying the club was "a family oriented organization" and that the board "recognizes the State of California's strong public policy favoring marriage."

Koebke says she saw Monson's statement as a personal attack against her family. Monson declined to comment for this article. ...

Nationwide, clubs are divided about how to treat same-sex and unmarried couples, with about a third offering some form of benefits, according to Andrew Fortin, spokesman for the National Club Association, a Washington-based trade group of about 1,000 organizations.

Many, he says, are waiting to see what will happen with Koebke's case.

A similar conflict is unfolding in Atlanta, where the Druid Hills Golf Club was found to violate the city's anti-discrimination ordinance by refusing spousal benefits to a lesbian couple and a gay couple. Efforts to mediate a solution broke down in late May.

more
posted by Eve at 11:52 PM VOTE 0 comments

MASS. COURT CHALLENGE: From the Washington Times

Lawyers in Massachusetts are preparing for a federal court hearing today on whether the state high court had the power to change the state's marriage law by itself.

"We will argue that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court exceeded its power when it redefined marriage from the 'union of one man and one woman' to the 'union of two persons' " in the Nov. 18 high court decision, Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said of today's hearing before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. ...

When the Massachusetts court bypassed the legislative and executive branches to change state marriage law, it upset the separation of powers in the state and violated the plaintiffs' rights, under the "guarantee clause" of the U.S. Constitution, to have a republican government, said Mr. Staver, who with other conservative lawyers represent 11 Massachusetts lawmakers and a Boston resident.

The plaintiffs have asked the federal court to stop the state from issuing or recording marriage licenses for homosexuals.

Lawyers with the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who won the Goodridge case, will argue that the high court was well within its authority to reach its decision and that jurisdictional questions already have been raised and answered.

more
posted by Eve at 11:38 PM VOTE 0 comments

FRANCE'S FIRST GAY WEDDING STIRS CONTROVERSY: From Reuters

A French mayor has defied Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin by vowing to press ahead with France's first gay wedding, stoking a controversy that is set to rage on after the couple say "I do".

The two men who plan to wed on Saturday in the southwestern town of Begles near Bordeaux have gone into hiding from the media. Conservatives and gay lobby groups plan protests, and extra police have been drafted in for fear of scuffles.

Begles mayor Noele Mamere has been accompanied by two personal body guards for the past month because of threats against him. He shrugged off Raffarin's warning that officials who perform gay weddings would be breaking the law.

"I will go ahead with this marriage," said Mamere, a Green member of parliament who says violating the law is sometimes the only way to change it. "Afterwards, it's up to the public prosecutor to go to court if he wants to annul the marriage."

He said he would lodge an appeal if the wedding between Bertrand Charpentier and Stephane Chapin is annulled and take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

"These two men, whom I have moved away from the media glare to stop them from being crushed, are currently in a catastrophic situation because they are scared," Mamere told reporters ahead of what is set to be a public wedding.

Justice Minister Dominique Perben says the marriage will be invalid.

Raffarin told parliament this week that French law does not permit marriage between people of the same sex and said any officials performing gay weddings would "incur the punishment laid out by the law".

Bordeaux's public prosecutor warned Mamere on Thursday he did not have the legal right to conduct the wedding because the address given by one of the men was invalid. Mamere dismissed this as "justice via guerrilla tactics".

The wedding is France's first between a gay couple although laws already allow civil unions between homosexuals. Gays say this is a bad deal in terms of tax, inheritance and parenting rights.

more
posted by Eve at 9:41 PM VOTE 0 comments

WHY WE'RE NOT GETTING MARRIED: Martha Ackelsberg and Judith Plaskow

WE LOVE EACH other, and we've been in a committed relationship for nearly 20 years. We are residents of Massachusetts. But we're not getting married.

We fully believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry, and we celebrate the fact that a significant barrier to our full citizenship has fallen. In not taking advantage of this new right, however, we can more comfortably advocate for the kind of society in which we would like to live.

Those who have fought for gay marriage have made clear that, in the U.S., important benefits are tied to marital status. As the judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court noted in the Goodridge decision, "Marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits." ...

Opening up this status to gay couples makes an enormous difference to those in committed relationships in which at least one partner has access to benefits or resources to share.

BUT FOCUSING ON the right to marry perpetuates the idea that these rights ought to be linked to marriage. Were we to marry, we would be contributing to the perpetuation of a norm of "coupledness" in our society. This preference for couples marginalizes those who are single, single parents, widowed, divorced or otherwise living in non-traditional constellations. ...

The Massachusetts decision argues that gay marriage is good for society because children ought to be raised by two parents. The judges stated, in fact, "It cannot be rational under our laws to penalize children by depriving them of state benefits" because of their parents' sexual orientation.

But why is it any more rational to deprive children of state benefits because their parents are not married? Yet, precisely such arguments tying benefits to marriage are being used to justify repressive "marriage promotion" policies that pressure single mothers receiving welfare benefits to marry, and deny them (and their children) significant benefits if they do not marry.

A focus on marriage and familial status also leads us to neglect our social responsibilities to provide adequate child-care, day care, elder-care, etc., that would allow all adults who want to work to be able to do so.

Similarly, a focus on increasing the numbers of people who can get access to health or retirement benefits through their spouses can easily lead us to ignore or deny our societal responsibility to provide basic health care and old age security to all our citizens, regardless of marital status. ...

At this moment, when there is so much focus on celebrating the right to marry, we want to hold up a vision of a society in which basic rights are not tied to marriage, and which there are many ways to organize our intimate lives, marriage being only one of them.

more
posted by Eve at 3:03 PM VOTE 0 comments

WHAT HAPPENED IN EUROPE?: R.K. Becker

As much as I appreciate Stanley Kurtz's attempts to look at what's happening in Europe now for some sign of what SSM means for the future, I feel that it's way too soon to be able to make any definitive statements of cause and effect. As we have seen, every point Kurtz makes gets vigorously argued by those on the other side, and nobody convinces anyone who is not already on their side of the debate. I fully expect that this will be the case for quite a while yet.

The reason relates to the varying time lag between cause and effect in social policy changes. There is an erroneous belief among many that any effects that will be caused by a policy change should all present themselves within only a few years of when the change takes place.

In fact, often the effect of policy changes takes up to a full generation to be noticed. This is because an effect may not actually become obvious until the message of the social policy change has been internalized by the society, and this may not occur until a generation has grown up with the policy change.

SSM, for instance, will probably not have an immediate effect on most married heterosexuals. Although many won't accept the idea, it won't effect their marriages precisely because their vision of marriage won't change. Regardless of what the law says, many, perhaps most, heterosexuals will still think of marriage as they have since they grew up--as a heterosexual institution. In part out of a defensive denial to avoid changing this image, they will regard gay marriage as merely a separate side category for another segment of society that doesn't really affect them.

This will not cross over to the next generation which internalizes from the beginning a very different idea of marriage--not as two separate-but-equal institutions but as one androgynized one. It is when this group starts growing up, marrying (or not marrying), and having (or not having) children, that we will really begin to see what effects SSM has had. The problem is that by then, if the effects are negative as I predict, it may be too late to do anything to undo them.

At this time, however, and probably for some time to come, sociology, anthropology, and psychology (the 'human nature' sciences) are just not developed to the point that they can even say with certainty just how long it takes for a particular cause to show its effect in the culture. Thus, when analyzing data from Europe, are we dealing with the effects of changes from a mere year ago (direct responses to changes in a law), or five to ten years ago (after the present generation has slowly internalized the change), or thirty or more years ago (changes due to internalization by the new generation)? Probably a mixture of all, making any definitive statements impossible to make. As time goes on, some things should become more evident, and it might be possible to sort out the differing possible causes. Though even then I doubt that there'll be universal agreement.

But a very obvious and massive effect will cry out for an explanation. And if that effect was predicted years earlier as the result of a particular change, the connection will be easier to make and probably easier to examine. Hence, there's no harm in speculating about the possible effects SSM might have, and I will do so as much as I can, and encourage others to do so as well. By doing this, advocates for tradition may be able to slow down or even contain the rush toward SSM. Or they may not, and may just have to wait and see if their predictions come true years down the line.

Examining the data now is fine, and a really discerning sociologist may be able to note many possibly relevant changes. But for now, on both sides, people should lower their expectations and not expect 'proof' for either side to come from statistics. It's just too soon.
posted by Eve at 4:46 AM VOTE 0 comments

THE EUROPEAN FAMILY DEBATE: Addendum from Maggie

I mentioned that a detailed response to Badgett/Kurtz requires a detailed knowledge of Euro-family statistics. (I know from this country how easy it is to post misleading figures if you are not familiar with the underlying categories scholars are using.)

Case in point: A note from Stanley Kurtz says that what Badgett actually said is not that 90% of children in the Netherlands are living with married parents, but that "'90% of children of couples in the Netherlands were living with married parents.' But as I showed, her figures for both the Netherlands and Denmark left out single parents and step families."

All this statistic means is that 90% of kids with intact families have married (rather than cohabiting) parents. Outside of marriage few kids grow up with their own mother and father. That statistics doesn't tell you anything about trends towards family fragmentation as a whole, or how well marriage is doing in general.
posted by Eve at 4:21 AM VOTE 0 comments

MAYOR OFFICIATES AT MICHIGAN SYMBOLIC WEDDING: From the Associated Press

Nearly a dozen gay and lesbian couples pledged their love and commitment under blue skies Saturday at a symbolic marriage ceremony officiated by the mayor of this Detroit suburb.

Although the ceremony carried no legal weight, the 11 couples who exchanged vows and rings left feeling married.

"I can't stop quivering," said Melvin Rodgers Berta, 41, clutching the ringed hand of his partner of three years, Leroy Berta, 46.

"It's just like the day we met," Leroy Berta added.

A handful of protesters silently lined the sidewalk in front of City Hall, where the couples and Mayor Robert Porter gathered under a blue and pink outdoor banner that proclaimed: "To love, honor and be recognized."

Porter and the Rev. Mark Bidwell, pastor of the majority gay Metropolitan Community Church and co-officiator of the ceremony, called it an important symbol and hoped it would be a catalyst for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Michigan.

more
posted by Eve at 3:27 AM VOTE 0 comments