GAY MARRIAGE BAN COSTS MONEY, S.F. SAYS: From Law.com

Attorneys arguing that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in California say the state's ban against that is costing San Francisco more than $15 million a year. ...

The city asserts that because gay and lesbian couples aren't allowed to marry, it pays for about $13 million in public health and social services for dependent partners and children who might take advantage of employer-provided insurance if same-sex marriage were allowed. It also argues it loses up to $6.1 million a year in sales and hotel tax from wedding-related purchases and honeymoons that don't take place. ...

Lawyers for the couples contend that laws prohibiting same-sex marriages violate the Constitution's due process, privacy, free expression and equal-protection provisions. The city argues that the marriage laws interfere with constitutional rights to liberty, privacy and equality.

"The great majority of our arguments will follow the trend you'll see in Goodridge," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, referring to last year's Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered that state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Both briefs cite Goodridge, and also attempt to draw parallels to Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, the 1948 case in which the California Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited marriages between people of certain racial backgrounds. ...They also quote the Perez court, saying there should be "freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." ...

The plaintiffs say tradition isn't a good enough reason, and any argument for a state interest in procreation or protecting children doesn't add up.

They note that the current marriage laws don't limit the institution to couples who intend to have children. "Any claim that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage somehow furthers the welfare of children is especially untenable in California," lawyers for the couples add, because the state has allowed same-sex couples to adopt children and serve as foster parents.

more

posted by Eve at 11:27 PM VOTE 0 comments

TWO GROUPS COMPETE FOR CATHOLIC VOTE: From the Miami Herald

With the drive to win over Roman Catholics in full swing at the Republican National Convention, two Catholic lay organizations have released dueling voter guides this week to highlight issues of moral importance for Catholics in the coming election.

The two nonpartisan organizations, the Catholic Voting Project and Catholic Answers, say their guides are based on Vatican documents and the policies of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference.

While Catholic Answers urges Catholics to vote based on five sexuality and ''right to life'' issues, the competing guide cites more than 30 issues of importance to Catholics, from the eradication of land mines and nuclear weapons to abortion.

Scholars say American Catholic voters, who are roughly 25 percent of the electorate, base their votes on a broad range of issues and elude liberal/conservative labels. ''It's difficult for anyone to get a handle on the Catholic vote because there is no Catholic vote,'' said Laura Olson, a professor of political science at Clemson University and an expert on religion and politics. ''The Catholic Church right now is a microcosm of American society in general.''

Experts on Catholic voting behavior say such guides aren't backed by authority of the Catholic hierarchy, however. ...

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is directing parishes to use its own document, Faithful Citizenship: a Catholic Call to Political Responsibility, which was released in October 2003 and directs Catholics to consult church doctrine when casting their votes. ...

Catholic Answers, a San Diego-based organization founded in 1979, cites five ''nonnegotiable'' issues: abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia and human cloning. Catholics are advised to avoid supporting candidates who diverge from church teachings on these issues, said Jimmy Akin, a spokesperson for Catholic Answers. ...

Kerry fares better by the guide put out by the Catholic Voter Project, which includes issues such as a ban on nuclear weapons development, which Kerry and the Catholic hierarchy both support.

more

posted by Eve at 11:14 PM VOTE 0 comments

SSM COURT FIGHT TAKES SHAPE IN CALIF.: From the Los Angeles Times

The battle over the constitutionality of California's heterosexual marriage laws began in earnest this week as city officials and lawyers for same-sex couples unveiled the strategies they will use in their closely watched lawsuits against the state.

"Discriminatory behavior against gays and lesbians ... should not be countenanced by anyone," San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera said at a news conference Thursday.

The cases filed against state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, by the city and on behalf of the couples and gay rights organizations, are among a handful that have been coordinated before a Superior Court judge here. The cases are expected to reach the California Supreme Court within two years and determine whether laws defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" are constitutional. ...

Most laws are presumed by the courts to be constitutional and will survive judicial review as long as there is a "rational basis" for them. But laws that restrict the rights of an entire class or group historically subject to disfavor -- for example, by race or gender -- must meet a tougher test, known as "strict scrutiny." In those cases, the burden is on the government to show that the regulation is needed and narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

San Francisco's attorneys contend that gays and lesbians make up such a category, and that no compelling state interest exists to deny them marriage rights. Even if the high court disagrees that homosexuals make up such a class, the city argues that there is still no rational basis for the law.

"The burden is square on the state to show why it thinks the Constitution permits it to limit access to one of the most vital legal and social institutions on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.... Nothing the state can say and nothing the state can do will meet this burden," the San Francisco attorneys wrote. ...

But lawyers for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group seeking to intervene on the state's behalf, have articulated their position. They say marriage is a tradition created for men and women -- in furtherance of procreation -- and that same-sex couples have no fundamental right to participate.

"The state certainly has a rational basis in ensuring that kids have both a mom and a dad," said Alliance Defense Fund staff attorney Dale Schowengerdt. ...

Existing California law "forecloses one of life's most personal choices: the means to show one's beloved that they are utterly precious and irreplaceable," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which filed the case along with the American Civil Liberties Union and gay rights group Lambda Legal.

more

posted by Eve at 10:53 PM VOTE 0 comments

W.V. COURT TO DECIDE PARENTAL RIGHTS: From the Charleston Daily Mail

The state Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether state law will recognize the parental rights of two mothers when a child is raised by lesbians.

The first-of-its-kind case, accepted for argument Thursday in a 3-2 vote, is expected to garner national attention.

It centers on the fate of a 4-year-old Clay County boy conceived via artificial insemination and born to a lesbian couple. When his biological mother, Christina D. Smarr, died in a 2002 car accident, he became the focus of a pitched custody battle between Smarr's parents and Smarr's lesbian partner, Tina Burch.

At issue: whether Burch's sexuality makes her ineligible to take custody of the boy who she has helped raise since conception.

Burch lost custody of the boy in December after Clay Circuit Judge Jack Alsop ruled that state law doesn't give a homosexual the right to win legal guardianship of a former partner's child.

Her lawyer, James Wilson Douglas of Sutton, responded by asking the Supreme Court to overturn Alsop's decision. He is trying to use a 14-year-old high court ruling granting custody rights to so-called "psychological parents" to put the boy back under Burch's roof.

On Thursday, he won a small victory. In addition to agreeing to hear the case, Justices Joe Albright, Robin Davis and Larry Starcher voted to give the boy back to Burch for the time being. ...

From the start, the two women raised the child together. They kept pregnancy calendars, shopped for baby clothes and visited the doctor side by side.

After the boy was born on Christmas Day 1999, they shared the parental duties. ...

The custody fight for the little boy began within hours of Smarr's death when Smarr's brothers-in-law took the boy from Burch and handed him over to his grandparents, Paul and Janet Smarr. ...

Burch's argument worked in Clay County Family Court. Since "it was not planned that the Smarrs serve as primary custodians prior to the death of their daughter," Judge Timothy Ruckman wrote in a July 2003 order that "the stability of the child and the continuity of existing parent-child relationships are best promoted by designating Tina Burch as primary custodian."

more

posted by Eve at 10:47 PM VOTE 0 comments

N.J. SAYS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SSM: From the Newark Star-Ledger

Same-sex couples do not have a constitutionally protected right to marry, lawyers for the state argued yesterday in court papers responding to a lawsuit brought by seven gay couples alleging the state's marriage laws are discriminatory.

If homosexuals want the right to marry, they should make their case to the Legislature, not the courts, Patrick DeAlmeida, assistant attorney general argued in a brief filed in the Appellate Division of Superior Court. ...

"Many of harms alleged in the initial complaint have been ameliorated with domestic partnership," said DeAlmeida.

Under the new law, same-sex couples -- and unmarried, opposite-sex couples age 62 and over -- are allowed hospital visitation, the right to make emergency medical decisions, the right to claim each other as exemptions on state income tax filings and the right to qualify for exemptions from the state inheritance tax. Advocates for gay rights say that's not enough.

more

posted by Eve at 10:43 PM VOTE 0 comments

EHRLICH, STEELE SOFTEN ANTI-GAY RHETORIC: From the Washington Blade, hence the headline

Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich's administration has softened its strident rhetoric against allowing gays to marry since the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Baltimore in July claiming that the state's current law prohibiting gay marriage violates the Maryland Constitution, experts said this week.

Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, a Republican and Catholic, told the Washington Times newspaper last week that while Republicans should debate marriage rights for same-sex couples, a premature discussion regarding a state constitutional amendment prohibiting such rights was detracting from more important issues. ...

At the time the lawsuit was announced in July, Ehrlich quickly dismissed it as part of the ACLU's "far left agenda," adding that he would support the General Assembly in clarifying the state's current law prohibiting gay marriage.

"Traditional marriage in my view and the view of most Marylanders and Americans is the cornerstone of our society," Ehrlich said in a statement. "That used to be common sense."

more

posted by Eve at 6:16 PM VOTE 0 comments

AMENDMENT WON'T LIMIT GAY RIGHTS, ATTORNEY SAYS: From the Deseret Morning News

An attorney for the conservative think tank Sutherland Institute says Utah's proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages was crafted narrowly enough that it won't impact any rights for gay and lesbian couples, as opponents have suggested.

The amendment, which will be on November's ballot, defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman and also prevents giving the "same or substantially equivalent legal effect" as a marriage to any other union.

Bill Duncan told the Deseret Morning News Editorial Board on Thursday that the amendment "freezes in place current policy."

The Don't Amend Alliance campaign against the amendment has argued that the language is overly broad and could be used to deny basic legal protections to all unmarried couples -- gay or straight. Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and his two challengers have issued a joint statement against the amendment. ...

Dani Eyer, director of the Utah ACLU, said [Duncan's] logic doesn't make sense.

"It actually begs the question: 'At what point is something substantially equivalent to marriage?' " she said. ...

"We want to see a bill move forward that's not just limited to same-sex couples," Duncan said, noting that a mother and daughter might want to enter into similar contracts as an unmarried couple, such as power of attorney. He doesn't see such contracts as "substantially equivalent" to marriage.

more

posted by Eve at 6:12 PM VOTE 0 comments

BENEFITS FOR PARTNERS CATCHING ON: From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

...Robert Perego, a first vice president with Mellon in charge of employee benefits, said the company has had as many as 600 employees qualify for domestic partner benefits at any point since they were introduced in 2001 but currently has about 230 registered employees.

About 80 percent of the users are opposite-sex partners. To be eligible, the partners must be in a committed long-term relationship and provide proof of financial interdependence or must register their relationship in locales where that is permitted. ...

More employers offer domestic partner benefits to opposite-sex partners (34 percent) than to same sex partners (27 percent) -- an issue that the HR management society expects to be widely debated as legislatures and courts take up the issues of same-sex marriage, civil unions and the legality of providing different benefits to opposite- sex than to same-sex couples.

Four years ago, when the organization first began asking HR executives about domestic partner benefits, 26 percent said they offered them to opposite-sex partners, compared with 16 percent for same-sex partners.

more

posted by Eve at 6:09 PM VOTE 0 comments

MICHIGAN COURT SAYS MARRIAGE AMENDMENT CAN GO TO VOTERS: From the Detroit Free Press

The re-election campaign of President George W. Bush got two pieces of good news Friday from the Michigan Court of Appeals: the state’s Nov. 2 presidential ballot will carry the name of Ralph Nader as an independent candidate for president and a proposal for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. ...

Meanwhile, a group called Citizens for Protection of Marriage had filed 412,243 signatures, far more than the required number to place the gay marriage ban on the ballot. The appeals court ruled today that members of the Board of Canvassers had no legal authority to object that the ballot proposal did not state that it could also ban domestic partnerships between a man and woman or civil unions between gays.

more

posted by Eve at 6:06 PM VOTE 0 comments

LA. COURT CLEARS THE WAY FOR MARRIAGE VOTE: From the New Orleans Times-Picayune

The Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously refused to consider a gay rights group's challenges of a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the measure to go before voters Sept. 18. ...

Chief Justice Pascal Calogero offered some hope for the amendment's opponents in a concurring opinion.

Calogero said he agrees "that the proposed amendment compels voters to decide with a single vote whether to deny gay couples both the right to marry and the right to enter into such arrangements as civil unions, and does not permit voters to decide to allow one and not the other."

He added, "There are a significant number of voters who would support permitting gay couples to form civil unions, even though they would deny these couples the right to marry."

Calogero cited a recent New York Times/CBS News poll showing 30 percent of adults nationwide support civil unions but not gay marriage and said, "The court may yet have to address this constitutional question in a post-election challenge."

more

posted by Eve at 6:02 PM VOTE 0 comments

S.F., GAYS ARGUE FOR "MARRIAGE EQUALITY": From the San Francisco Chronicle


A dozen gay and lesbian couples and the city of San Francisco launched a legal attack on California's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, arguing that the law enshrines bigotry, discriminates arbitrarily and violates a constitutional right to marry one's chosen partner.

"Exclusion from marriage ... marks lesbian and gay couples as second- class citizens. It dashes their hopes and dreams, and labels them and their children as inferior, based only on archaic stereotypes,'' lawyers for the couples said in written arguments in San Francisco Superior Court. ...

The briefs opened what is likely to be the decisive round in the court battle over the law that defines marriage as a union strictly between a man and a woman. The law was passed by the California Legislature in 1977 and reaffirmed in 2000 by voters' approval of Proposition 22. ...

No such restraint was shown by attorney Andrew Pugno of the Prop. 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, which is trying to intervene in the case by arguing that Lockyer won't adequately defend the marriage law. Pugno said advocates of same-sex marriage are misconstruing the courts' recognition of the fundamental right to marry.

"Marriage is a fundamental right between the opposite sexes,'' he said. "Same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right in the same way that plural or polygamous marriage is not a fundamental right.''

But opponents of the law contended the right to marry is part of California's constitutional right to privacy, a right that applies equally to everyone. They also argued that the law discriminates on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation and is harming those it purports to benefit -- children who are being raised by thousands of same-sex couples in the state.

more

posted by Eve at 5:58 PM VOTE 0 comments

SSM AND CIVIL UNIONS IN WASHINGTON STATE: From the Seattle Times

[Assuming the reporting here is accurate, neither the headline nor the first paragraph of this piece are correct. The state's attorney seems to me to be saying, 1) "is same-sex marriage required under our state constitution?" and "are civil unions for same-sex couples required under our state constitution?" are two different questions; and 2) the state legislature could, if it wanted to, set up civil unions without violating the state constitution. The second paragraph of the piece reflects my reading of things. The headline, on the other hand, seems to think civil unions = gay marriage, while the first paragraph is written as if the state is actually arguing that civil unions were required by the state constitution. I am confused and dissatisfied. More as I learn more. --Eve]

In defending Washington's ban on gay marriage before a judge here yesterday, the state appeared to concede that same-sex couples may be owed some kind of legal recognition.

Assistant Attorney General William Collins, arguing before Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks, suggested that the court might uphold the ban, but the Legislature could consider allowing same-sex civil unions.

Collins told the court that the claims of 11 couples suing the state for the right to marry come down to two questions:

The first is whether Washington's constitution requires the state to extend to same-sex couples benefits and rights identical to those offered to heterosexual married people, Collins argued.

The second is whether the state is required to call that relationship a "marriage."

Across the country, "courts have responded to these two distinct questions in different ways," he said. ...

As the courtroom audience chuckled, Collins responded: "You probably can't tell the Legislature what to do.

"But you could let them know they have an option. You could let them know that it would not be unconstitutional to establish civil unions that gave gay couples the right to benefits."

more

posted by Eve at 5:49 PM VOTE 0 comments

FROM HERE TO MATERNITY: Phillip Longman

What's the difference between the protesters outside the Republican convention and the delegates inside? There are many, of course, but one will ultimately skew American politics and the culture wars in the Republicans' favor, regardless of who has God or reason on her side. It's the divide between who is having children and who isn't.

Over the past decade, fertility rates among all major American ethnic groups have either remained low or fallen dramatically. Between 1990 and 2002 fertility declined 14 percent among Mexican Americans and 24 percent among Puerto Ricans. African Americans, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, now have a lower average fertility rate than whites, and they are no longer producing enough children to replace their population. But one big difference in fertility rates remains: Conservative, religiously minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal, secular counterparts.

In Utah, for example, where 69 percent of all residents are registered members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, fertility rates are the highest in the nation. Utah annually produces 90 children for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age. By comparison, Vermont -- the only state to send a socialist to Congress and the first to embrace gay unions -- produces only 49.

Fertility correlates strongly with religious conviction. In the United States, fully 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say that their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, only 27 percent of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

more

posted by Eve at 10:14 PM VOTE 0 comments

DUAL SIGNALS ON GAYS AT RNC: From New York Newsday

So far, in the most public moments of the Republican convention, the party has paraded high-profile gay rights supporters such as former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

But subtly, in invocations and performances, the GOP is highlighting clergy, including Freeport minister and gospel singer Donnie McClurkin--he performs tonight--who view homosexuality as a "curse," a position in line with the party's conservative platform. ...

This week, gay rights organizations have lashed out at the Republican National Committee for allowing appearances by McClurkin, Missouri Bishop Keith Butler and religious author Sheri Dew. All have triggered attacks from gay rights groups for their comments. In a July editorial in the Detroit News, Butler, who is black, called homosexuality "a lifestyle choice" and attacked gay rights leaders for trying to tie their efforts to the civil rights movement. McClurkin, a former gay man and a Bush supporter who tells his congregation to vote for the president, has spoken of his conversion to heterosexuality as an effort to "break the curse of homosexuality." And in a written response to the national push for legal approval of same-sex marriages, Dew compared Hitler's atrocities to what she termed "contemporary threats against the family."

Steven Fisher, communications director for Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, called on the president to disassociate himself from those comments. ...

Jasmyne Cannick, a board member of the National Black Justice Coalition, a group of gay leaders, said that by showcasing Butler and McClurkin, who is also black, Republicans are using morality as a wedge issue to draw black votes.

more

posted by Eve at 10:11 PM VOTE 0 comments

GAY MAN SEEKS SHARE OF PARTNER'S ESTATE: From the Houston Chronicle

When he died in January 2003, John Green left no will designating who should be given his town house, another home under renovation in Katy and stock worth $88,000.

As administrator of his father's estate, his son, Scott Goldstein of South Florida, says all of the proceeds belong to him and his siblings.

But Green's partner for 7 1/2 years, William Ross, has asked Harris County Probate Judge Russell Austin to grant him many of the same rights as a man or woman who has lost a spouse--meaning he could claim a good portion of the estate. ...

Only after the estate sued him did Ross file a countersuit, saying the court should apply a "marriage-like relationship doctrine" and view him as a surviving spouse. ...

Some family courts and probate courts in various states recognize that unmarried heterosexuals who were in lengthy relationships have standing to seek alimony and child visitation, and claim inheritance rights, Buseck said.

But lawmakers and the courts have lagged in providing similar recognition for gay people in the same type of relationships, he said.

more

posted by Eve at 10:08 PM VOTE 0 comments

WA JUDGE HEARS SSM ARGUMENTS: From the Associated Press

A Thurston County judge heard arguments on the legality of gay marriage Thursday morning, and said he will rule on the case next week.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the constitutionality of Washington state's ban on same-sex marriage on behalf of 11 gay and lesbian couples from around the state.

"Marriage is a right that ought to be granted equally to all Washington citizens," Paul Lawrence, lead attorney for the ACLU, told Judge Richard Hicks. "The discrimination that exists under Washington law cannot stand."

This is the second major challenge to Washington's marriage laws. Last month a King County Superior Court judge ruled that the state law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution. Both cases are headed to the state Supreme Court. ...

On Thursday, Assistant Attorney General William Collins suggested Hicks could uphold the ban but open the door for the Legislature to approve same-sex civil unions.

Collins linked the right to marry with procreation: "Only sexual relations between men and women result in children. The idea of the benefits of marriage is to get that relationship in a structure that will take care of children."

Lawrence countered that the procreation rationale doesn't apply to heterosexual couples.

"Fertility does not limit the ability to marry," he said. "Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry does not promote procreation."

Collins also noted that "same-sex marriage is not recognized in the history and traditions of this country."

"Couldn't the same be said for interracial marriage, that there was no history of that?" Hicks asked, referring to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on interracial marriage.

Collins said states were moving to accept interracial marriage at that time in a way they are not accepting gay marriage today.

more

posted by Eve at 10:03 PM VOTE 0 comments

MICH. APPEALS COURT HEARS BALLOT DISPUTE ARGUMENTS: From the Associated Press

The Michigan Court of Appeals likely will rule within days on whether voters may weigh in on proposals related to gay marriage and gambling Nov. 2.

A three-judge panel heard arguments related to the voter petition drives Wednesday. The judges' upcoming rulings could dictate what state election officials must do with the proposals. ...

The canvassers deadlocked 2-2 last week on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Republican board members voted to allow the issue on the ballot, but Democrats voted against it. ...

The dispute centers on language that would recognize only a union between a man and woman as a marriage or "similar union for any purpose."

The Coalition for a Fair Michigan, which opposes the amendment, fears the "similar union" wording would strip domestic partner benefits from same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples employed by universities, schools and governments. The coalition says the proposed ballot language does not clearly reflect the amendment's scope.

more

posted by Eve at 9:46 PM VOTE 0 comments

CALIF. COURT TO SET RULES FOR PARENTAL DISPUTES BETWEEN SAME-SEX COUPLES: From the San Francisco Chronicle


The California Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to set ground rules for parental disputes between same-sex couples, granting hearings in three cases in which former lesbian partners claim parental status for children they had helped to raise.

In two of the cases, state appeals courts said only the birth mother was the legal parent and denied custody, visitation or child support that would have been ordered for an opposite-sex couple. In the third case, an appellate court in Los Angeles said in the first ruling of its kind that a non-birth mother may qualify as a second parent under the laws that establish the rights of legal fatherhood. ...

"The court is now going to decide whether children born to same-sex parents must be given the same legal protections as children born to straight parents,'' said Shannon Minter, an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represents an El Dorado County woman in one of Wednesday's cases.

more

posted by Eve at 9:43 PM VOTE 0 comments

NORTH DAKOTA AMENDMENT WILL BE ON BALLOT: From the Associated Press

North Dakotans gathered enough signatures to force a November vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the Secretary of State said Wednesday.

A petition circulated by the North Dakota Family Alliance had 42,093 legal signatures, considerably more than the 25,688 needed to put the idea on the November ballot, Al Jaeger said.

The amendment would deny legal recognition to same-sex marriages or civil unions, an option considered a legal alternative for gay and lesbian couples who seek the rights normally conferred on married people.

more

posted by Eve at 9:40 PM VOTE 0 comments

UTAH GROUP FLAYS GAY NUPTIALS PROPOSAL: From the Deseret Morning News

...In addition to declaring the only legal marriage can be between a man and woman, the proposed amendment would prevent granting the "substantially equivalent legal effect" as a marriage to any other relationship.
document.

Supporters have said the proposed amendment is necessary to protect the state's traditional definition of marriage from court challenges. The second part, they say, is essential to prevent the recognition of marriage by another name--such as domestic partnership or civil union.

...Ewing said the amendment would prohibit the Legislature from extending even basic rights, such as hospital visitation or insurance benefits, being granted to unmarried partners in Utah, and could go so far as to invalidate the state's domestic violence statute, which allows a protective order to be issued against an unmarried partner. ...

But supporters of the proposed amendment, including Republican gubernatorial candidate Jon Huntsman Jr., have said the amendment's second part would not impact any existing rights for unmarried couples.

more

posted by Eve at 9:36 PM VOTE 0 comments

ROUNDUP OF SSM TALK AT REPUBLICAN CONVENTION SO FAR: From the Washington Times

here

posted by Eve at 9:32 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARRIAGE A "PRE-CONSTITUTIONAL" ISSUE: David Blankenhorn

[The piece he links to is fairly standard, but I thought his comments were really interesting. --Eve]

At Cornell, a faculty member makes the case against SSM.

He uses an interesting term, calling marriage a "pre-constitutional" issue. If he means that marriage is in part a natural institution, present in all societies and predating governments, I think he's right. That's why it's true to say that governments cannot create (or legitimately abolish) marriage, any more than governments can create (or legitimately abolish) human rights -- both are prior to and ultimately over governments, not subservient to them. But at the same time, marriage is not merely a natural institution. It is also in part a legal institution in which governments have a long-standing and (I think) legitimate interest. And so in that sense I think calling it "pre-constitutional" is misleading.

One trend in modern societies is for governments to try to reshape institutions, even natural institutions, according to the regnant values of the polity. Thus, if the primary values of the polity are, say, inclusion and tolerance, the push is for all social institutions, even those whose origins and purposes are pre-constitutional, to change in order to reflect those values. Whether or not this is a good trend is ... a longer discussion. I'll just say for now that I have my doubts, at least in the case of marriage.

link

posted by Eve at 4:59 PM VOTE 0 comments

A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO MARRIAGE: Matthew A. Coles

...To get the courts to strike down a law, you have to convince them that the law violates one of the specific rights in either the U.S. Constitution or the state's constitution. There are two possible legal arguments we can use in marriage cases: the "right to equal protection" and the "right to marry."

Equal protection: Under equal protection, courts most often strike down laws only if the court is "suspicious" of the government's reasons for discriminating. Typically, the courts are "suspicious" of discrimination based on race, sex and national origin. Odd as it may seem, the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't decided whether discrimination against gay people is suspicious, and neither have most state supreme courts. To make matters worse, most of the lower-court cases have said discrimination against gay people is not suspicious.

Under the rules, courts should rule that discrimination against gay people is suspicious. And even without that, we ought to be able to get courts to strike down the exclusion from marriage as "irrational." In courts that deal a lot with constitutional-equality cases, or courts that have generally been willing to listen to gay people, we should win. But the concepts are loose enough that there is room for a hostile or confused court to say that discrimination against gay people is not suspicious and the laws are not irrational. We're unlikely to win in courts like those until the Supreme Court either says anti-gay discrimination is suspicious or strikes the marriage exclusion down itself.

The right to marry: Neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state constitution explicitly mentions a constitutional right to marry. Most courts have said that the right to marry is understood to be part of the due-process clause that is found in the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. To decide what rights are implicitly protected by due process, courts typically look to see whether society has historically treated the right as something the government could not take away. The problem here is that our opponents will say that traditionally, we never had a right to marry. We have a good argument that a history of excluding some people from a right is not relevant. As with equality, we should do well in courts that hear a lot of due-process cases or courts that are truly open to claims from gay people. But again, the rules are loose enough that there is plenty of room for hostile or uncertain courts to rule against us.

more

posted by Eve at 8:18 PM VOTE 0 comments

COURT OK'S LA. AMENDMENT VOTE: From the Associated Press

A state appeals court ruled Monday that a proposed amendment to the state Constitution banning gay marriage should remain on the ballot, overturning a lower court ruling and sending the issue to the state Supreme Court.

The ruling came in one of three lawsuits filed by gay activists to keep the amendment off the Sept. 18 ballot.

John Rawls, a lawyer for the activists, said he planned to ask the state's highest court to consider the three cases together. ...

The lawsuits argued that the amendment would unconstitutionally deprive unmarried couples -- gay or straight -- of the right to enter into contracts and own property. Supporters of the ban disagree.

more

posted by Eve at 8:16 PM VOTE 0 comments

SHOULD CHURCHES BE ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTION?: Jay Sekulow

[A recurring topic here, though only tangentially related. --Eve]

When the Internal Revenue Service was established, it had one purpose -- to collect revenue for the general treasury. Over the past 50 years, that role has expanded and to the chagrin of many people of faith, the IRS has become the "speech police" -- holding a heavy hand over non-profit organizations, including churches -- threatening to remove their tax-exempt status if they participate in political activity. ...

Under IRS regulations, pastors and churches cannot endorse or oppose a candidate for political office. But they can -- and should -- speak out from the pulpit on issues that matter most, issues that are being debated this political season -- issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and the war on terrorism.

Under federal campaign finance and tax laws, pastors and churches can also sponsor voter registration drives, sponsor candidate forums and debates -- even open their doors for political events -- including the use of their facilities as polling places on Election Day.

The country has a rich and welcomed history of turning to churches and houses of worship during the debate of the great moral issues of the day. In the early days, the "election sermon" was common -- pastors acknowledging our religious heritage and addressing the key issues of their day.

more

posted by Eve at 9:44 PM VOTE 0 comments

COURT DATE SET IN ARK. AMENDMENT CHALLENGE: From the Arkansas News Bureau

Oral arguments on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages will be heard by the Arkansas Supreme Court on Sept. 23. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed a legal challenge to the proposed amendment on Thursday hoping to get it tossed off the Nov. 2 general election ballot. In an order Friday morning, the Supreme Court gave the ACLU and the state attorney general's office until Sept. 15 to file briefs and until Sept. 20 to respond to the briefs. ...

The ACLU said the proposed amendment, which also would prohibit state recognition of civil unions between same-sex couples, is deliberately vague--hiding potentially far-ranging effects on civil unions, single people and heterosexual married couples.

Cox said the legal challenge is "without merit."

more

posted by Eve at 9:41 PM VOTE 0 comments

ADS FAULT REPUBLICANS OVER FMA: From the New York Times

Two gay groups--one of them a gay Republican group--are starting advertising campaigns in the New York market during the Republican convention to attack the party's conservative turn, including the president's support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay party members, is expected to announce today that it will be running commercials in the New York market this week, people briefed on the plans said. One person briefed on the plans said the commercials would quote from President Ronald Reagan on the subject of the party as a "big tent." Christopher Barron, political director for the Log Cabin Republicans, disputed certain descriptions of the plans but declined to elaborate. ...

Yesterday, the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, said that it was beginning to run television commercials using Vice President Dick Cheney's recent sympathetic comments about same-sex unions to attack the proposed amendment.

more

posted by Eve at 9:38 PM VOTE 0 comments

ADS TARGET CATHOLIC VOTERS: From the San Jose Mercury News

A full-page ad will appear Tuesday in USA Today reminding the faithful that Catholic teaching forbids them to vote in favor of abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia.

And that extends to politicians who don't oppose those issues.

''It's a serious sin to vote for moral evils, especially those that are so clearly opposed to the church's teachings,'' said Karl Keating, founder and president of Catholic Answers, the organization that placed the ad. ...

Catholic Answers is privately funded and independent of the church. It has authorization from the San Diego bishop to operate in the diocese, but did not seek his approval for the ad, said Frank Norris, Catholic Answers director of development. ...

The Catholic Answers' ad is similar to the voters' guide it has been distributing nationwide and on its Web site (www.catholic.com)

more

posted by Eve at 9:25 PM VOTE 0 comments

LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS AT CONVENTION

[lots of stories today about 'em. This one, from the Washington Post, had the most SSM-related content, I think. --Eve]

The gay Log Cabin Republicans, backed by such GOP allies as New York Gov. George E. Pataki and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), said Sunday that the party has been "hijacked by the radical right" and demanded that President Bush square his actions with his rhetoric of inclusiveness or risk losing their endorsement. At a "Big Tent" rally in a park blocks from Madison Square Garden, about 450 Log Cabin members from across the country -- and some of about 50 openly gay GOP convention delegates and alternates -- hailed Pataki, Specter and New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for their pro-gay rights stand, drawing a contrast with the incumbent president. ...

Log Cabin members, who cite exit polls showing that 1 million of 4.2 million gay voters supported Bush in 2000, including 45,000 in Florida, say the president has seriously jeopardized his chances of receiving their support when the group's 25-member national board meets Sept. 7. ...

Catania, who raised nearly $80,000 for Bush's reelection and was touted by the campaign as one of its top under-40 fundraisers, said he could not reconcile his personal beliefs with the party's position against gay marriage. A Republican since he was 16, Catania stopped raising money for Bush in February, when the president announced his support for the amendment. ...

Steve Gunderson, a former member of Congress from Wisconsin who is gay and was active in Bush's 2000 campaign, said, "If the president actively pursues that amendment, no gay Republican with integrity can be supportive of his campaign."

Catania's replacement in the D.C. delegation, his longtime aide Carl Schmid, pointed to Bush's statement this month to CNN in which he repeated his support for an anti-gay marriage amendment but added, "If [states] want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great," and called for the debate to be held "with the greatest respect for people."

more

posted by Eve at 9:10 PM VOTE 0 comments

GAY MARRIAGE IN DOLLARS AND CENTS: From the Christian Science Monitor

Gay marriage challenges society. It roils contemporary politics and raises moral objections for some. But on economists' screens, it barely registers.

That's because legalizing gay marriage isn't that costly in economic terms. In fact, research suggests it should save money for federal and state governments. And for corporate America, the costs of extending benefits to the partners and families of gay employees are small. ...On average, it would add 1 percent--2 percent tops--to employers' benefit costs, says Susan Sandler, editor of a newsletter, HRfocus, for the Institute of Management and Administration in New York.

Demographics partially explains this modest impact. More than 96 percent of firms would face no additional costs for healthcare benefits, largely because most businesses would not have an employee married to a same-sex partner. That figure comes from a study released by the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, an Amherst, Mass., think tank, and Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a Washington group seeking equal rights for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people. ...

As for the financial impact on the government, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study found that if gay marriage were allowed throughout the United States, it would "improve the [federal] budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $ 1 billion in each of the next 10 years."...

The CBO calculates that same-sex couples would boost Social Security spending, because the partner of a deceased worker would receive 100 percent of the worker's benefit. But the federal government would save money on Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, and Medicare.

more

posted by Eve at 9:13 PM VOTE 0 comments

FEDS DEFEND GAY MARRIAGE BAN IN FLORIDA: From the Associated Press

The U.S. government has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the 8-year-old federal law that bans gay marriage.

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said it was the government's first direct legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allows states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states. ...

The argument by the Justice Department that the couples have no legal standing is a "procedural one" that is a far cry from defending whether the law violates human liberties, said Jennifer Pizer, senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group.

"The fundamental right is the right to marry the person of your choice without the government getting involved there, like a matchmaker," Pizer said.

more

posted by Eve at 8:34 PM VOTE 0 comments

MEAN PEOPLE AND MARRIAGE: Mark Barton replies to R.K. Becker

R.K. Becker: Isn't it more likely that Clyde is being bullied because his dads are gay, not because they're unmarried?

Mark B.: Well yes. But note that a straw-man argument has been committed here. The original argument was in terms of "can't get married," and it's been rephrased in terms of "unmarried."

R.K. Becker: It is as likely if not more likely that SSM will make the bullying of the children of gay parents worse because it will simply advertise the fact of their parents' homosexuality, confirming to the other kids what in many instances was uncertain before. Not that this is a good argument against SSM; it isn't, and shouldn't be used as such.

Mark B.: Indeed the above would be a lousy argument against SSM, but it's equally lousy as a counterargument to the original argument for SSM, because it attacks the straw man instead. Clyde's dads' homosexuality is not going to be advertised by a marriage certificate in a filing cabinet. It's going to be advertised by them acting as co-parents in public, quite independently of whether they're married. And this is going to trigger some anti-gay bigotry among the kids, again independently of whether Clyde's dads are actually married. But the intensity of this bigotry is going to depend in small but not insignificant part on whether the government is saying that Clyde's dads' relationship is so harmful or worthless or otherwise contemptible that it mustn't be allowed to be formalized as a marriage.

posted by Eve at 8:27 PM VOTE 0 comments