GAYS' OFFSPRING DO FINE, EXPERT SAYS: From the Deseret Morning News

[1) For another view, go here. 2) What is up with the DMN and weird words in headlines? They never say "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage," always "gay nuptials." And now "offspring"? 3) But the first thing is more important. --Eve]

The research -- all the research -- shows that the children of gay and lesbian parents turn out fine, says sociologist Judith Stacey.

Stacey, the co-author of a controversial mega-analysis of gay parenting research, spoke Friday to the national convention of PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), which is meeting this weekend at the Little America Hotel. ...

"There's no disagreement . . . that the quality of the parenting is at least as good" by same-sex parents as heterosexual parents, says Stacey, a professor at New York University. Opponents have to turn not to research but to "ideologues," she says, to shore up their case. "They've never been able to say there's any harm done. It's only lies, more lies and the lying liars who tell them." Yes, some of the research indicates that the children of same-sex parents are different than children raised by heterosexual parents, Stacey reports. "But differences aren't problems."

One of those differences, she says, is that a "larger minority" of children raised by gay and lesbian parents "will not turn out to be heterosexual." This is the finding, she admits, that made her analysis "incendiary," but it's a finding that doesn't need apologizing for, she says.

What it means, she says, is that these children "will have freer opportunities to come to understand their desires and act on them, and that this is a good thing." ...

In a question-and-answer session after the panel discussion, Butterfield was asked whether he and his partner act as two fathers or "mother" and father. What his own mother does when she mothers "is not a function of her being a woman," he answered. "If our child falls down, it's not like we both say 'Get up!' We can 'mother.' "

Butterfield and Redd-Butterfield became parents via an egg donor and a separate surrogate mother. Sociologist Stacey noted that she recently attended a christening of surrogacy twins at a Catholic church in California. The older sister of these twins explained to her playmates that surrogacy is "when your mommy has a baby for two men."

more

posted by Eve at 10:52 PM VOTE 0 comments

KINSHIP: Marty McKeever replies to Michael J. Bruno

On one hand, Bruno practically reinforces my point, by tossing out biological kinship in favor of simple"emotional attachment." Of course, we all know many biological kin with severely strained emotional bonds,s o what exactly could he mean? That there is no kinship worth consideration beyond the legal?

Second, he brings up one counterexample, sperm donation for an infertile father (and there are several other equally valid examples he could have used). While this actually does create a biological weakness of the same sort I refer to in same-sex partners, it is rooted in a compassionate response to brokenness. Divorce, adoption, and infertility all share this condition, and as such do not threaten the legal status quo of biological preference. But because same-sex partners create such families not as a"cure" for brokenness, but by design, they can set the precedent that biology really doesn't matter, making blood no thicker than legal water.

posted by Eve at 6:15 PM VOTE 0 comments

SEXUALITY AND... STUFF: Lawrence Krubner replies to Eve

here. (May respond if I get a chance, but wanted to give you all the pointer now.)

posted by Eve at 6:10 PM VOTE 0 comments

NORDIC BLISS?: Stanley Kurtz gives preliminary reply to Eskridge, Spedale, and Ytterberg

...But one comment for now: The core of my case on the causal effects of same-sex marriage (and marriage-like registered partnerships) rests on my treatment of Norway and the Netherlands. Yet this article has essentially nothing to say about either country. The entire article is about Sweden and Denmark. Now I do think that registered partnerships have helped to lock in and reinforce the separation of marriage and parenthood in both Sweden and Denmark. But as I noted in my original piece on Scandinavia, the causal effect is significantly weaker in Sweden and Denmark than it is in Norway. That's why I've focused my Scandinavia work on Norway. I've argued that parental cohabitation and same-sex marriage (or marriage-like registered partnerships) are mutually reinforcing. In Sweden and Denmark, marriage was already very weak prior to the establishment of registered partnerships. That weakness helped create registered partnerships in the first place. In Norway and Holland, on the other hand, registered partnerships were adopted when marriage itself was significantly stronger than it had been in Sweden or Denmark. And when same-sex marriage (or its rough equivalent) was brought into an environment where marriage itself was relatively strong, it had the effect of substantially weakening marriage. That's why Norway has been the key to my causal case in all my various writings on Scandinavia. And since then, I've made my strongest causal argument by pointing to the example of Holland. Yet this supposed refutation of my argument says essentially nothing about the two countries at the empirical core of my causal claims. That makes this "refutation" something of a non sequitur.

more

posted by Eve at 5:59 PM VOTE 0 comments

TEN SAME-SEX COUPLES LOSE NEW YORK CASE: From the Associated Press

Ten same-sex couples, including the mayor of Nyack and his partner, have lost the lawsuit they filed when New York State denied them marriage licenses. Acting state Supreme Court Justice Alfred Weiner ruled Thursday in New City that the state's domestic relations law limited marriage licenses to heterosexual couples, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Norman Siegel, said Friday.

The couples, known as the "Nyack 10," had claimed that the law did not specifically ban same-sex couples. But the judge said the Legislature's use of phrases such as "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" made its intentions clear.

The couples had also claimed that the denial of marriage licenses was unconstitutional discrimination by sexual orientation, but Weiner dismissed that as well.

"It's rather appalling to see in black and white that discrimination is overtly unconstitutional in the state Constitution unless it happens to be discrimination based on your sexual orientation," said plaintiff Toni Bonde. Siegel said he would appeal the ruling.

more

posted by Eve at 5:37 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT FILED IN VIRGINIA: From the Washington Blade

Virginia gay rights groups expressed outrage this week at the introduction of a proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the state.

Virginia House Joint Resolution No. 528, which was pre-filed on Oct. 8 for the 2005 session of the General Assembly, would add a subsection to the state’s Bill of Rights explicitly outlawing gay marriage.

The proposed amendment states: "To be valid or recognized in this Commonwealth, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman. No provision of this Constitution shall be interpreted to require the Commonwealth to recognize or permit marriage between individuals of the same sex." ...

According to Virginia state law, in order to be adopted, the proposed amendment would have to pass in the same written form by a simple majority in two successive sessions of Virginia's General Assembly, separated by an election.

Given that 2005 is an election year, if the measure is passed by the General Assembly in both 2005 and 2006, it would then be put on the ballot as a voter referendum in the fall of 2006.

more

posted by Eve at 5:25 PM VOTE 0 comments

OHIO COURT WON'T BLOCK AMENDMENT VOTE: From the Toledo Blade

The Ohio Supreme Court yesterday rejected the last legal attempt to prevent a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage from being on the Nov. 2 ballot. ...

Justice Paul Pfeifer dissented. "It is a seductively easy slide from the golden fortress of judicial restraint to the desolate valley of judicial indifference. In this case, this court has been seduced into the valley by hypertechnical arguments that cause it to disregard the initiative petition's clear statutory violations.''

more

decision (PDF) here

posted by Eve at 5:16 PM VOTE 0 comments

OHIO VOTERS TO DECIDE ON NATION'S BROADEST MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: From the Associated Press

Ohio has the toughest of 39 state laws banning same-sex marriage. Now voters are being asked to back it up with the broadest of about a dozen proposed or passed state constitutional amendments on gay marriage.

Ohio's Issue One on the Nov. 2 ballot bans civil unions and legal status to all unmarried couples. Analysts say it could affect benefits policies of private employers as well as public and other legal agreements including joint home ownership.

"I don't think there's another one out there that's written more broadly," said Daniel Smith, a University of Florida political scientist who studies voter initiatives. "This is not only going to affect gays and lesbians."

Still, the amendment's language is so vague, including phrases such as "intends to approximate," that legal experts say it's impossible to predict how courts would interpret it. All that's guaranteed, they say, is years of litigation.

Polls have indicated the amendment will pass by a wide margin. ...

The amendment's author, Cincinnati attorney David Langdon, said he crafted it to go beyond the Ohio Defense of Marriage Act, which is limited to the benefits of marriage granted by law, such as the right to refuse to testify against a spouse in court.

With its gay marriage law, Ohio became the second state to deny some benefits to unmarried employees' partners.

After the law was passed in February, public universities and cities offered health insurance coverage to employees' domestic partners. Passage of the amendment wouldn't rescind those agreements but would prevent more government institutions from making what campaign director Phil Burress calls "an end run around marriage."

It also would solidify Ohio law that says two unmarried people can't jointly adopt a child, he said. ...

Opponents say the ban would apply to private employers because courts--as a public entity--would not be able to "recognize" or enforce a private contract that includes domestic partner benefits. Supporters deny the amendment's sweep is so broad.

more

posted by Eve at 5:12 PM VOTE 0 comments

WHAT WILL STATE AMENDMENTS ACTUALLY DO?: Joshua Baker replies to Barry Deutsch and Walter Olson

A couple of brief thoughts in response to Walter Olson and Barry Deutsch . . . .

First off, my thanks to Walter Olson for his correction regarding the Virginia law limiting group health insurance policies to spouses and dependents. Apparently the Virginia law has been in place since 1986, preceding the current gay marriage debate. This Washington Business Journal piece from May 2004 has a nice writeup on the larger subject of partner benefits, including reference to the Virginia law. I would also note, though, that the Human Rights Campaign lists a few (about 35) Virginia businesses that extend domestic partner benefits (perhaps these are all self-insured, or there are other ways around the law).

Neither Walter's comments nor Barry Deutsch's comments are inconsistent with my larger point, however: Many of the scenarios raised in opposition to state marriage amendments bear little relation to the likely effect of the amendments. What is the causal link between the amendment and the anticipated consequence?

I still see no persuasive argument as to how any of the proposed marriage amendments is likely to (a) ban private employee DP benefits; (b) limit hospital visitation rights; or (c) deprive children of parental support, all of which exist independently of marriage under current law. Generally speaking, private employee benefits are not a matter of legal status but of employer policy. Even Virginia's group health insurance law would not have been mandated by a marriage amendment, but rather was the result of a legislative change in the insurance code twenty years ago.

While some hospitals have undoubtedly balked at recognizing visitation rights (or medical decisionmaking documents) for same-sex couples, these private policies exist independent of the amendments. Acknowledging the limitations of such legal documents, it remains that living wills and powers of attorney for health care are not legally tied to marriage -- and would not be impacted by the marriage amendments. Even concerning abuses of visitation policies, with or without an amendment, a state legislature could step in to address concerns about hospital visitation (as the Nebraska Legislature did in 2002 -- two years after the Nebraska marriage amendment was adopted).

At bottom, my concern is with the unsupported suggestions I've read that suggest the proposed marriage amendments would dramatically change the status quo, unleashing a parade of unintended horribles. That is not to say that employee benefits, visitation rights and parental rights are not real issues in the larger same-sex marriage debate -- but rather that the pending amendments are very unlikely to work any significant change in existing law on these topics. And that efforts should be made to support claims to the contrary.

posted by Eve at 6:40 PM VOTE 0 comments

WHAT WILL STATE AMENDMENTS ACTUALLY DO?: Maggie Gallagher replies to Barry Deutsch

Barry writes:
"Joshua's apparent belief that hospitals never reserve visitation rights--and, just as importantly, decision-making authority--to closest kin is shockingly ignorant."

This is a classic case of misdirection. Josh never claimed that hospitals don't reserve visitations rights to next of kin in some circumstances. Josh's claim is that state law doesn't limit visitation rights to spouses so that visitation rights aren't incidents of marriage under the law.

People here need to remember what the question is: Is the right to visit someone in the hospital a marital right, such that a state marriage amendment that forbids civil unions will preclude hospital visitation rights?

Josh's answer is not "shockingly ignorant." Josh's answer is clearly correct: hospital visitation is not a marital right in state law, or hospital policy (since even in these "shocking" situations it is a right of 'next of kin' in general, not married couples in particular).

Therefore state marriage amendments will not preclude hospitals from granting visitation to whomever they deem appropriate.

If state legislatures need to do something to protect the rights of gays and lesbians to have whomever they wish in the hospital, they can.

In particular, if medical powers of attorney are being routinely ignored, as some gay advocates claim, then state legislatures can address these issues.

posted by Eve at 6:34 PM VOTE 0 comments

MY NAME OR YOURS?: Summary from the Wilson Quarterly

"Making a Name: Women's Surnames at Marriage and Beyond" by Claudia Goldin and Maria Shim, in Journal of Economic Perspectives (Spring 2004), Macalester College, 1600 Grand Ave., Saint Paul, Minn. 55105.

"I do. I don't." That might be the wedding vow of many young women who choose to keep their given names at marriage. Apparently, it's being heard less often these days. After peaking in the mid-1980s, the number of "keepers" declined in the 1990s, report Goldin, a Harvard University economist, and Shim, a recent Harvard graduate.

The practice of keeping one's maiden name varies by education and other factors. The authors looked at Massachusetts data on white women who were in their late twenties when they gave birth to their first child. In 1990, 21 percent of the college graduates were keepers; a decade later, only 13 percent. Among those with more than four years of college, the proportion of keepers dropped from 29 percent to 20 percent.

Goldin and Shim found a parallel trend among Harvard graduates. In the class of 1980, 44 percent of women who married within 10 years of graduation decided to keep their surname; in the class of 1990, only 32 percent did.
Nationwide, the authors estimate, "a shade under 20 percent" of college-educated women now keep their surname when they tie the knot.

Why the change? More conservative social values, or maybe, the authors speculate, young women have gained more self-confidence and feel less peer pressure to turn their married names into proclamations for female equality.

link

posted by Eve at 6:30 PM VOTE 0 comments

MATING BEHAVIOR 101: From Newsweek

It was just after sunset on a warm day at the College of New Jersey. Under a rising moon, the soccer team ran the field in the lighted stadium. Outside the student union, a guitar duo played an acoustic set. And in a dormitory lounge, 27 freshmen sprawled on couches as psychology professor Elizabeth Paul quizzed them about their sex lives. There was hardly any talk of "dating" or "boyfriends" or "girlfriends"--this is 2004, not a rerun of "Happy Days." Instead, the students and the professor talked about "beer goggles" and what happens when partners "catch feelings." Even as freshmen these students know enough about "hooking up" to hold forth for more than an hour. As they dished, Paul scrawled in her notebook. Their musings may contain the spark for her next big research project. ...

The early research confirms just how widespread the behavior has become. In 2000 Paul published what colleagues credit as the first academic article that explored college hookups in depth. Her survey of 555 undergrads found that 78 percent of students had hooked up, that they usually did so after consuming alcohol and that the average student had accumulated 10.8 hookup partners during college. Studies on other campuses produced similar numbers. Researchers at James Madison University found that 77.7 percent of women and 84.2 percent of men had hooked up, a process they said routinely involving "petting below the waist, oral sex or intercourse." At the University of Michigan, more than 60 percent of students reported hooking up; they said that a typical hookup more often included "genital touching" than "a meaningful conversation." ...

Those sentiments weren't apparent in Paul's focus group last week, probably because the students had just arrived at college. The group's more vocal participants happily discussed their motivations and the emotional fallout of their high-school hookups. Some said hookups often left them feeling lousy--especially if they'd suffered beer goggles (in which drunkenness led them to a substandard partner) or if one hookee caught feelings (meaning they became emotionally involved). When Paul asked how they defined a "good hookup," one young woman quickly answered: "When no one finds out about it or talks about it later."

Now that early studies have quantified the frequency of and sex practices that take place during hookups, researchers are becoming more interested in the emotional aftereffects. Some researchers are doing longitudinal studies that follow the same students from freshman year onward, to see how their attitudes change. For her current research Paul is asking more questions like "Do you think your hookup experiences are going to help you be a good relationship partner someday?" The students don't really have an answer.

more

posted by Eve at 6:27 PM VOTE 0 comments

IF I CAN MARRY I WANT TWO WIVES: Eleanor Brown

...Sound familiar? Considered a sicko for the way you structure your private life, jailed for your relationship, harassed by the state for a victimless crime? ...

Certainly some cultists (they're always men, it seems) "marry" little girls. But it's not the multiple marriages that are the real problem, it's the sexual interest in little girls who are too young to know what they're actually getting into.

So we call polygamists pedophiles. That's what "they" say about homos, too. But they're different issues, aren't they? ...

We certainly don't say that homosexuality should be banned because some people behave badly. (Married men cheating on their wives with other men, for example -- we don't demand jail for such adulterers.)

Polygamy, when practiced in an ethical and thoughtful manner, is just like homosexuality. There are no victims, everyone understands what's up and agrees to the relationship rules they've all drawn up. ...

Careful readers of my columns will send me gently teasing messages about my past opposition to same-sex marriage. This whole column seems to be in favor of marriage.

I'm a pragmatist, and marriage is now a legal given in the majority of Canada's provinces. Nothing I yell out into the vastness of the Internet will change that, and I have no choice but to move on.

Marriage is set up for two people only. If we have to have it, at least let's fight to make it the kind of marriage that takes it completely out of the control of those damnable moralists who'll only accept a state-sanctioned twosome as legitimate.

more

posted by Eve at 6:22 PM VOTE 0 comments

NORDIC BLISS?: William N. Eskridge, Jr., Darren R. Spedale, and Hans Ytterberg

The proponents of same-sex marriage have long argued that committed lesbian and gay couples should have the same legal options as committed straight couples, including marriage. Same-sex marriage opponents have shifted from one argument to another in an effort to find one that can appeal to the increasing number of Americans open to equal rights for gay people. Since the 1990s, opponents have argued that allowing same-sex marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. In recent publications, Hoover Institute scholar Stanley Kurtz has expanded this argument and provided evidence to support it. He argues that Scandinavian "registered partnerships", which provide same-sex couples with almost all the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, are "both an effect and a reinforcing cause of this Scandinavian trend toward unmarried parenthood." According to Kurtz, "Once marriage is separated from the idea of parenthood, there seems little reason to deny marriage, or marriage-like partnerships, to same-sex couples. By the same token, once marriage (or a status close to marriage) has been redefined to include same-sex couples, the symbolic separation between marriage and parenthood is confirmed, locked-in, and reinforced."

Eskridge, Spedale, and Ytterberg dissent from Kurtz's speculative causal link between registered partnerships and what he calls the "end" of marriage in Scandinavia. To begin with, the authors question Kurtz's logic. Family law throughout much of the West has, arguably, undermined marriage as an institution by making it easier to exit and by providing civil alternatives with some of the benefits and few of the obligations. But expanding the eligibility of marriage, or a parallel institution, to same-sex couples who want to take on the civil obligations as well as the benefits of marriage does not logically undermine the institution of marriage. More important, the evidence from Scandinavia refutes rather than supports Kurtz's logic. Long-range trends in marriage rates, divorce rates, and nonmarital births either have been unaffected by the advent of same-sex partnerships or have moved in a direction that suggests that the institution of marriage is strengthening. Finally, the authors focus on the security of children in Scandinavia and find none of the ill effects posited by Kurtz.

In a concluding section, Eskridge, Spedale, and Ytterberg raise normative questions relevant to the ongoing search for arguments to deny gay people civil equality. The big loser in such a campaign is marriage. By scapegoating gay marriage (or partnerships) as the "cause" of marriage's decline, pseudo-conservatives tend to reinforce the actual causes of the decline--the options straight couples are utilizing, such as no-fault divorce and cohabitation rights.

abstract

full paper

posted by Eve at 6:19 PM VOTE 0 comments

RELIGION & UTAH AMENDMENT: From the Deseret Morning News

Following the LDS Church First Presidency's statement in support of traditional marriage, some of Utah's mainline Protestant religious leaders issued a statement of their own Wednesday opposing a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a separate statement, the Most Rev. George H. Niederauer of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City said he will not endorse Amendment 3, which will be on the Nov. 2 ballot, out of respect for those who have expressed concerns over the language, including GOP Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and his opponents for re-election.

The religious leaders' concerns Wednesday were centered around Amendment 3's second sentence, which reads: "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Last week, some 80 religious leaders--mostly Evangelical--endorsed Amendment 3, saying the measure was needed to protect traditional marriage, agreeing with amendment supporters that it would be interpreted narrowly. ...

In a statement to be published in an upcoming issue of Intermountain Catholic newspaper, Bishop Niederauer said: "We share the concern of all three candidates for the Office of Attorney General (the state's highest legal office) that the second part of the amendment is problematic."

The three candidates have said the amendment is vaguely worded and could have punitive impacts on unmarried couples, negating wills, powers of attorney and other legal contracts.

"While it is true that the Catholic Church is opposed to same-sex marriage, we are reassured that Utah law already prohibits such marriages," Bishop Niederauer said.

more

posted by Eve at 6:15 PM VOTE 0 comments

"OCTOBER SURPRISE" IN BLACK VOTE?: Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

This year's October surprise will be a critical mass of the black, Christian community standing up for biblical concepts of righteousness and justice. These courageous black voters will attempt a risky, but important strategy.

They will attempt to act as the conscience of the party that currently seems, to many, so insensitive to the plight of the poor and needy. They will vote for President Bush and hope for major policy adjustments in six vital areas: protection of biblical marriage; wealth creation opportunities for minorities; educational reform, which emphasizes urban change as a priority; African relief that stops genocide in the Sudan by placing trade sanctions on that nation; prison reform that rehabilitates inmates with spiritual solutions; and health care for the poor.

No, I did not say that the majority of blacks will vote for Mr. Bush. But a critical mass of 20 percent or more will break the dead heat we are observing today. ...

These additional Bush votes will come from the new black church. High-impact black churches are creating high-impact leaders and developing high-impact congregations that are changing their communities. The primary research enunciated in my new book, co-authored with George Barna, "High-Impact African-American Churches," shows that black Christians are more likely to read their Bibles and practice the spiritual disciplines of prayer, fasting or worship than their white, Hispanic or other ethnic counterparts. They are America's answer to a morally bankrupt society. These high-impact churches are beginning to address the problems of our nation.

more

posted by Eve at 6:01 PM VOTE 0 comments

WAR OF WORDS IN GA.: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Former Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, the author of a federal law defining marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman, on Wednesday called Georgia's proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage a "poorly worded proposal" and suggested the state Legislature redraft it.

Barr was one of six panelists who participated in a debate on the proposed amendment, slated to be decided by voters on Nov. 2. ...

Last month, the Georgia ACLU, Lambda Legal, a national organization that represents gay people, and the Atlanta firm of Alston & Bird filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the referendum.

The suit argued that the amendment violates the state constitution's single-subject rule by pertaining to issues besides marriage, such as civil unions and the jurisdiction of Georgia courts. It also contended that the ballot question that voters will see is misleading because it asks voters about marriage without disclosing the whole amendment. ...

Georgians Against Discrimination, a coalition of groups fighting the amendment, has argued that if passed, it could do more than ban same-sex marriage, which is already illegal under state law. A key strategy of the organization is to tell voters the amendment could threaten domestic partnership benefits, adoption and custody rights, and the ability of gay couples to appoint medical and financial powers of attorney.

Lynn Hogue, a constitutional law professor at Georgia State University, disagreed with Barr and panelist Jeff Swart, an attorney with Alston & Bird, about the amendment's language. Hogue said that the amendment does not cover more than one subject. He argued the word "union" in the text of the amendment refers only to marriage.

Hogue said that certain aspects of the amendment --- such as whether or not it would jeopardize domestic partnership benefits for gay couples --- would have to be decided in the future by the courts.

more

posted by Eve at 5:38 PM VOTE 0 comments

RELIGION IN MICH. AMENDMENT DEBATE: From the Detroit Free Press

Divisions over homosexuality that have wracked American religious groups for decades are spilling into voting booths this year.

Denominations are at odds with each other and religious leaders are sparring in the public square. Even their millions of members across Michigan are splitting into camps; a Free Press poll in September shows that this division cuts most deeply between those who regularly attend services and those who don't.

On one side is the Presbytery of Detroit, the state's Episcopal bishops and influential rabbis and other clerics who have lined up against Proposal 2, which would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in Michigan. On the other side is the combined financial and numerical power of an array of black and white Protestant churches, plus Michigan's seven Catholic dioceses.

In fact, Michigan's Catholic leaders are far more politically active this year than their Catholic colleagues in other states with similar ballot issues. Michigan's bishops have donated $505,000 to the group backing Proposal 2, recently suggested that priests do sermons on the issue and mailed literature to 600,000 Catholic households.

The political battle has forged unlikely partnerships. Bishop Keith Butler, head of the Word of Faith Christian Center in Southfield and a nationally known Republican activist, is working with Rev. Edgar Vann Jr. of Second Ebenezer Baptist Church in Detroit and Bishop Charles Ellis of Greater Grace Temple in Detroit, both prominent pastors traditionally associated with Democratic causes. ...

In the other states with similar measures, Catholic leadership generally issued pronouncements against same-sex marriage in diocesan newspapers and parish bulletins.

Even in Ohio, a state demographically similar to Michigan, Catholic dioceses have not contributed financially to a statewide initiative as they have here. And, surprisingly in Utah, Salt Lake City Bishop George Niederauer has taken a position against the amendment. He believes its wording could endanger other rights, said spokeswoman Dee Rowland.

more

posted by Eve at 5:22 PM VOTE 0 comments

"THE COSBY FACTOR"--MORE ON BLACK VOTING PATTERNS: Mary Mitchell

A recent survey by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies may have uncovered the Cosby Factor. You may recall that last summer, Bill Cosby went on a rant that made him look more like an angry old man than the beloved comedian he is. Indeed, when Cosby scolded irresponsible poor black parents for holding back the race, he sounded more like Rush Limbaugh than most of us wanted to admit.

But Cosby may just be showing his age.

According to the Joint Center's report, in 2004 -- for the first time in recent years -- younger African Americans became more Democratic and older African Americans became more Republican.

African-American voters between the ages of 19 to 25 who labeled themselves as Democrats increased from 54 percent to 71 percent, and from 56 to 63 percent among those ages 26 to 35. But older African Americans were less likely in 2004 to identify themselves as Democrats and more likely to identify as Republicans, the survey found.

Black seniors between the ages of 51 and 64 shifted from a 75 percent Democrat and 5 percent Republican split, to a 66 percent Democrat and 12 percent GOP split. ...

Jeremy Levitt, a professor of law at DePaul University, said the shift by older African Americans could be a response to what is "arguably a failure of the Democratic Party agenda to uplift the African-American community.

"These are also individuals who actively participated in the civil rights movement and tend to have a higher level of patriotism than the 19- to 25-year-olds. But these stats are interesting because blacks were in the Republican Party until the 1940s. This 51-64 category grew up in households where their parents were members of the Republican Party," he said.

"Blacks are conservative. So when you look at the same-sex marriage, death penalty, school choice, prayer in school and the list goes on, you'll find we subscribe to a conservative doctrine. The only reason why we don't have 20 percent and above figure for blacks in the Republican Party is because the Republican Party has not been able to wash away the perceived stain of white supremacy."

more

posted by Eve at 2:27 PM VOTE 0 comments

GAY MARRIAGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA: Maggie Gallagher

How big a problem is the gay marriage issue for the Democrats? Reading between the lines on the Mary Cheney flap suggests something pretty big is happening out there in Demland. ...

Even minor defections from the base can spell doom in a tight election. (In the latest New York Times poll, 17 percent of black Americans say they plan to vote for Bush, about double the 2000 vote.) And gay marriage is the kind of issue that, as former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell pointed out on the Oct. 15 "Hannity & Colmes," splits the Democratic base up the middle: "Among (the) most ardent opponents of gay marriage are African-Americans, Hispanics, and voters over 65, the heart of the Democratic Party. That's who Kerry was trying to speak to," says Caddell. He means in that last debate, when John Kerry threw in the fact -- have you heard? -- that Mary Cheney is gay. ...

So Kerry is nervous, and so, apparently, is Democratic minority leader Sen. Tom Daschle, who in a razor-tight race in South Dakota has just started (according to one local observer) running ads suggesting he is against gay marriage, as well as anti-abortion. (Seventy-three percent of South Dakotans in a recent poll strongly disapproved of same-sex marriage.) Daschle received a 100 percent approval rating from the lead gay rights group advocating same-sex marriage, the Human Rights Campaign, and led the charge to stop a federal marriage amendment.

In response, a new 527, "You're Fired Inc.," has started to run ads attacking Daschle on this issue. (To view the ads, go to www.heartlandvalues.com.) Like most of the political advertising I have seen on this issue, they aren't anti-gay at all. They are pro-democracy and pro-marriage:

"Tom Daschle refuses to protect traditional marriage. He would let liberal activist judges redefine it. Most South Dakotans believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and every child should have the chance to have a father and a mother. We're not interested in depriving anyone of any rights, but let's not allow liberal judges from Massachusetts to redefine marriage for us."

How will that play in South Dakota and the rest of the nation? Stay tuned this November.

more

posted by Eve at 8:22 PM VOTE 0 comments

CASE AGAINST MICHIGAN AMENDMENT: From the Detroit Free Press

Judy Fertel Layne says she can't recall a decisive moment in the formation of her political views. ...

But she says her principles have always been clear: "I would describe myself as very liberal."

Today, she is paying close attention to the marriage amendment, and can hardly say enough bad things about it. Fertel Layne considers the proposal to define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution wrongheaded, unjust and morally wrong. ...

What she says she does know is that treating people differently based on their sexual orientation is discriminatory, and "anything that is discriminatory really offends me."

That impression developed over the years, Fertel Layne says, and came into sharp focus after she became a lawyer specializing in estate planning, where she became increasingly vexed by the legal hurdles facing gay and lesbian couples who could not marry. ...

Like many of those on the other side, Fertel Layne frames the issue of same-sex marriage in the language of right and wrong. But for her it is a more generalized, golden rule kind of right and wrong rather than a religious teaching (her family observed conservative Judaism, but she attends synagogue only on high holidays).

"It is hurtful and wrong" to exclude gays and lesbians from the institution of marriage and its benefits, she says.

She also says it's bad for everyone else.

During her lifetime, she's seen a growing acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships, she says, and that it's a good thing. Children who grow up with an awareness and appreciation that not all families consist of a mother and father are more likely to learn the virtue of tolerance, she says.

And she is skeptical about the argument made by Proposal 2 proponents that children are most likely to prosper in a home with their own mother and father.
Two parents are better than one, she says.

"But I'm not sure it has to be a mom and a dad. If our society didn't treat homosexuality with the disdain that it does, I don't think it would be a problem."

more

posted by Eve at 8:17 PM VOTE 0 comments

THE CASE FOR MICHIGAN AMENDMENT: From the Detroit Free Press

Kristina Hemphill came of age in the San Francisco Bay area in the 1980s. She saw her first gay pride march as a 9-year-old. Her activist father took her to anti-nuclear rallies and abortion rights demonstrations as a teenager.

As an adult, Hemphill is pretty solidly on the liberal side of arguments over civil rights and affirmative action.

So how did she end up as the spokeswoman for the conservative cause in this year's hottest culture clash -- the fight over same-sex marriage?

Certainly serendipity had something to do with it (she was recruited by a friend of a friend who saw her at a religious rally at the same time the marriage campaign was looking for help). But Hemphill says she thinks something else was at work as well -- the grace of God. ...

She is a lifelong Democrat in a family of Democrats. Former President Jimmy Carter appointed her uncle Harry T. Edwards to the federal appeals court.
Hemphill says she's voted like "a typical African American, mostly for Democrats," her entire adult life (although she hasn't decided who will get her vote for president this year). ...

In conversation about the marriage amendment, Hemphill returns to her experience with a group of young women she meets with regularly in Detroit.

The organization is called In Control, and its aim is to help women develop ways to make their lives work better. They struggle with poverty and poor education and child-rearing and life, Hemphill says.

An unwed and expectant mother from the group moved in with Hemphill and her family recently. It has happened before. But Hemphill says there seems to be one consistent shortcoming in the lives of the women she helps -- responsible men. ...

She says part of her support for marriage between one man and one woman is based on the experience of growing up with divorced parents.

Her mother and father were wonderful and supportive, she says. Both remarried, and the stepparents that came into her life were loving.

"But the desire of every child is to live in a home with their mother and father," she says.

more

posted by Eve at 8:11 PM VOTE 0 comments

BUSH MAY GET LARGER PORTION OF BLACK VOTE: From the Washington Post

[Or he may not, you know? --Eve]

A significant number of black Americans -- 18 percent -- said they are willing to vote for President Bush, even though his job-approval ratings in the community are quite low, according to a national opinion survey released yesterday by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, an African American think tank.

In a hypothetical match-up between the presidential candidates, black Americans favored Sen. John F. Kerry to Bush, 69 to 18 percent, the survey said. But the 18 percent for Bush is 10 percentage points higher than the president's vote total in exit polling among this population in the 2000 election.

Eddie N. Williams, the center's president, said black Americans "are holding conservative positions on some wedge issues like same-sex marriage and civil unions." About half the survey's black respondents opposed marriage and civil unions for gays, compared with 39 percent of nonblack respondents.

Bush supports a constitutional amendment that recognizes marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. Kerry said he believes marriage is a union between a man and woman but does not support amending the Constitution.
In the survey, Bush received a 22 percent approval rating, while 67 percent rated him unfavorably. Kerry's approval rating was 78 percent, a solid number, the survey said, but well short of the 86 percent Al Gore received when he ran for president in 2000.

Black Americans have routinely given Democrats about 90 percent of the vote in presidential elections.

more

posted by Eve at 8:03 PM VOTE 0 comments

ADS, ADS, ADS:

MTV ad for gay marriage

South Dakota ads against SSM and Daschle

(edited to remove bizarro-world Nebraska reference, sorry --Eve)

posted by Eve at 7:58 PM VOTE 0 comments

MASS. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE COUNTERS "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" CHARGE: From the Boston Globe

The chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court defended the judiciary yesterday against the charge of "judicial activism" that has been leveled by President Bush and Governor Mitt Romney since the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

Margaret H. Marshall, the author of the landmark ruling, also told a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast that she opposes a trend around the country toward elected judges, and she dismissed what she called "attack politics" that sometimes ensnares judges.

"I don't think they are activist judges," Marshall said. "I think they are judges doing their constitutional duty." ...

"I don't think we should elect judges," Romney said. "I do think we should have an independent judiciary. I think those of us who appoint judges should look for individuals who will interpret the constitution and the laws of the land strictly and will not branch off on their own social agenda for something that they may choose to promulgate. That's the job of the Legislature, to decide what the social direction of our country will be. The Legislature makes laws, the courts should interpret them, and I think our Supreme Judicial Court went beyond that boundary." ...

Yale University law professor Akhil Reed Amar, author of a forthcoming book, "America's Constitution: A Guided Tour," said tensions between lawmakers and the courts reach back at least to the US Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision on slavery that helped hasten the nation's descent into civil war.

But he also argued that the tension between the courts and elected lawmakers is probably tied to what he sees as the growing role of the judiciary in America. In its earliest years, the United States had five members of the US House of Representatives for every federal judge, Amar said. Today, he said, there are two federal judges for every congressman.

What's more, he said, the first 80 years of the nation saw the courts overturn just two acts of Congress. Today, by contrast, the courts do so an average of four times a year.

"I think the federal judiciary is more powerful today than it ever has been, more powerful than in the era of John Adams, whom [Marshall] invoked," said Amar, who described himself as an admirer of Marshall's.

more

posted by Eve at 7:54 PM VOTE 0 comments

ORE. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SAYS MARRIAGE AMENDMENT PROPONENTS MISLEADING: From the Associated Press

Oregon's superintendent of public instruction is upset over broadcast ads and statements in the voters' pamphlet that she says inaccurately link gay marriage to public schools' curriculums.

"They have no business using our public schools as part of this campaign," Schools Superintendent Susan Castillo said Tuesday. "Our schools have nothing to do with this measure. They are trying to create some sort of fear in our schools related to sexual orientation."

The passages that upset Castillo, a Democrat, were submitted by a diverse group of citizens, including Republican Rep. Wayne Scott, the current House Majority Leader, Clark Brody, a former deputy superintendent of public instruction, and David Crowe, the founder of a Christian group called "Restore America."

All three are in favor of Measure 36, which would amend Oregon's constitution to state that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Scott's statement reads in part, "The ACLU will surely force costly litigation on the state and school districts demanding that same sex marriage become a normal component of school curriculums. Teachers will be forced to teach sex education to middle school children based on the new interpretation of marriage in Oregon."

Dave Fidanque, the director of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the organization would not be filing any such lawsuit. ...

Castillo said that Oregon schools tend to focus discussions not on marriage, per se, but on more general family life.

"Perhaps half of our students have single parents, stepparents, foster parents," she said. "We don't define families, because that would leave a lot of kids out."

But Tim Nashif, political director of the Defense of Marriage Coalition, the key sponsors of Measure 36, said if gay marriage is legalized in Oregon, his group is convinced that local schools will have no legal choice but to put gay marriage on equal footing with heterosexual marriage, in accordance with potential changes in state standards.

more

posted by Eve at 7:51 PM VOTE 0 comments

GA. AMENDMENT IN COURT: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Justices of the Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday asked pointed questions about the language of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, indicating they might rule on issues beyond jurisdiction in the case.

The justices heard oral arguments for less than an hour in a lawsuit attempting to stop a scheduled Nov. 2 referendum on the question. The jurists did not say when they expected to issue a ruling, but both sides anticipate one before Nov. 2.

...Justice Leah Ward Sears asked Stefan Ritter, a senior assistant attorney general representing the state, to explain a sentence in the amendment that reads: "No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage."

Ritter said "union" is used as a proxy for "marriage."

Opponents of the proposed constitutional amendment argue that "union" can be interpreted to mean same-sex relationships other than marriage.

Justice Robert Benham asked whether a phrase prohibiting the court from considering or ruling on issues with respect to any "such relationship" would apply to contractual arrangements between same-sex partners.

Ritter replied that the term "such relationship" refers to a civil union or marriage but would not cover all contractual arrangements. He said the language is not so broad that it eliminates all rights.

more

posted by Eve at 7:44 PM VOTE 0 comments

STATE BANS ON DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS: Walter Olson replies to Joshua Baker--READ THIS VERSION!!!

[I somehow failed to successfully cut-and-paste here. At times, my friends use me as evidence against natural selection.... My apologies. Here is the real post. --Eve]

Joshua Baker, on the Oct. 15 Marriage Debate, writes as follows:

No state, not even Nebraska (with a marriage amendment that explicitly bans recognition of domestic partnerships) has ever limited the right of a private employer to extend health insurance to the domestic partners of its employees....It's easy to make claims. But claims need support from argument and/or (at least) anecdote.

Baker is in error. The state of Virginia forbids employers from extending group health insurance to employees' domestic partners. (Self-insured employers can get around the rule, but not many companies are large enough to do that.) In recent years some members of the state legislature have sought to legalize such coverage but their efforts have been opposed by the Religious Right and thus far have fallen short of success. See, for example, here and here.

Press accounts differ as to whether any other states impose similar restrictions (many articles describe Virginia as standing alone, but the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot article says that Tennessee and West Virginia also restrict such coverage). Georgia used to forbid private DP coverage but dropped the policy, in part because national businesses want the freedom to offer such benefits where advantageous. Given the enthusiasm of the Virginia Religious Right forces for keeping their state's ban in place, it is far from unreasonable to suspect that their co-thinkers in other states might also harbor an ambition of restricting the availability of private domestic-partner health benefits.

posted by Eve at 11:02 PM VOTE 0 comments

AUTHOR OF GAY MARRIAGE DECISION DECRIES POLITICIZING JUDGE SELECTION: From the Associated Press

[Am I the only one who suspects the headline writer of a slightly mordant approach? --Eve]

The author of the landmark gay marriage decision that triggered political backlash across the country warned Tuesday against efforts to tamper with the independent judiciary system.

Margaret Marshall, chief justice of the state's Supreme Judicial Court, told a gathering of business leaders that she welcomed scrutiny and criticism of the court's decision, but she decried attempts here and elsewhere to subject judges to elections.

''Our system has worked for 200 years, where you have independent judges who are not beholden to the elective public,'' Marshall said. ''I know that sometimes seems controversial, but it has worked.''

In a rare public appearance, Marshall also told the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce that ''overheated factionalism is exerting tremendous pressure'' on the nation's founding ideals. ...

''The governor believes the process works well so long as the judges appointed do not legislate or assume for themselves the power of legislating,'' Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom said.

During her remarks, however, Marshall described how the state's constitution, upon which the U.S. Constitution was based, created for the first time a judiciary that was not beholden to the legislative body.

''Their function now would be to decide each case solely on the rule of law, and only the rule of law,'' Marshall said.

more

posted by Eve at 10:21 PM VOTE 0 comments

STATE BANS ON DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS: Walter Olson replies to Joshua Baker

Joshua Baker, on the Oct. 15 Marriage Debate, here.

Press accounts differ as to whether any other states impose similar restrictions (many articles describe Virginia as standing alone, but the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot article says that Tennessee and West Virginia also restrict such coverage). Georgia used to forbid private DP coverage but dropped the policy, in part because national businesses want the freedom to offer such benefits where advantageous. Given the enthusiasm of the Virginia Religious Right forces for keeping their state's ban in place, it is far from unreasonable to suspect that their co-thinkers in other states might also harbor an ambition of restricting the availability of private domestic-partner health benefits.

posted by Eve at 2:00 AM VOTE 0 comments

MARRIAGE, STATE INTEREST, AND KINSHIP: Michael J. Bruno replies to Marty McKeever

[Michael J. Bruno is a graduate student in biochemistry and structural biology.]

Marty McKeever makes some very important points about biological kinship when he says,

"What is missing though, is the fact that in a traditional family, biological kinship also comes hand in hand with a legal kinship bond. This SHOULD make the bonds TWICE as strong as either one alone (and it has been implicitly interpreted that way in most custody cases)."

But what he describes is less a biological kinship than an emotional kinship formed by the essence of parenthood. If a married woman has an affair that results in pregnancy but her husband is unaware that the child is not genetically linked to him, he has no less a bond with that child had it been biologically his. He treats that child as his own and the bond, which Marty calls biological, is really the emotional bond that a father forms with his developing child as he prepares for his role as a parent. There is no "magic bond" because a parent shares half a genome with this child.

He concludes by saying, "It seems like a stretch, I know, but we remove the grave deference to biological kinship at our own peril. Same-sex marriage makes a legal precedent for doing just that." I would argue that it is more of a peril to equate a mere biological kinship with the extremely important emotional kinship formed by actual parenting. I would hope that Marty would be able to see the very real difference between the kinship a sperm donor has to any of his biological offspring and the one that a sterile husband has to the child his wife bore. The value of that man's parenthood would never be called into question because he did not have "biological kinship" to his child. But he would call into question the parenthood of the adoptive, non-biological parent in a lesbian relationship. It seems to me that making this argument in order to prevent two homosexuals from getting married is a specious one and should best be forgotten.

posted by Eve at 1:54 AM VOTE 0 comments

WHY MARRIAGE CAN'T BE LEFT TO THE STATES: Jeff Jacoby

AN ISSUE as urgent as the future of marriage in America deserved more than the three minutes CBS newsman Bob Schieffer allowed it during last week's debate between President Bush and Senator John Kerry. And it deserved a more thoughtful introduction than Schieffer's irrelevant question about whether "homosexuality is a choice." (Do we debate issues of religious liberty by first asking if "religion is a choice?") Even so, in their brief exchange on what may turn out to be the most critical social question of the next four years, Bush and Kerry each said something significant.

The president explained why a constitutional amendment is the only option for those who want to preserve the timeless understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. There is already a federal law on the books -- the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- that purports to do just that. "But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests."

Kerry, who claims to oppose same-sex marriage but who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, replied that there is no reason to treat marriage as a federal issue. "With respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today -- every state -- that they can manage them adequately."

Kerry's call for leaving marriage to the states echoes the old segregationist argument that the federal government had no business interfering with the states' handling of race relations. Now as then, "states' rights" is a smokescreen for the protection of something most Americans find objectionable: Jim Crow in the 1950s and '60s, same-sex marriage today. And just as state sovereignty was not permitted to override the compelling national interest in racial equality, it cannot be allowed to override the compelling national interest in preserving the definition of marriage that Americans have always embraced.

In any event, it simply is not true that the US legal system has always left marriage to the states.

more

posted by Eve at 5:32 PM VOTE 0 comments

A QUEST TO DISCRIMINATE: Peter J. Gomes

...First, despite rhetoric to the contrary, marriage is not under attack. No one has argued that marriage is a bad thing. No one has said that men may no longer marry women, no penalties are attached to heterosexual marriage, and it is unlikely that the heterosexual marriage rate will change in consequence of court actions.

The institution of marriage has far more to fear from the rate of heterosexual divorce.

Second, it must be remembered that in the United States, marriage is a civil and not, in the first instance, an ecclesiastical matter. Nothing in the movement to accord the civil right of marriage to homosexuals affects how religious institutions provide for marriage under their rubrics. The Catholic Church is free to define marriage as it always has: Its tenets are not subject to legal review. Unfortunately some religious institutions wish to give their denominational convictions the force of civil law.

Certain custodians of the civil rights movement in this country argue vehemently that in this debate there is no moral equivalency to the high ground of the civil rights movement. ...

Not only does this position fail to remember that civil rights is an "American thing" and not just an "African-American thing," but it also produces strange and unlikely alliances. It is a wonder of contemporary wedge politics that the heirs of the civil rights movement are seen to be in league with the most conservative elements of the Republican Party -- with whom the interests of most African-Americans are not usually found.

What then should we do? Certainly, we should not amend the federal or state constitutions. In the over-heated and partisan climate of the debate on the nature of marriage, now is no time to inhibit the rights of the several states to do what they do best, which is to make just and equitable laws for their people. Amending the federal and state constitutions is the wrong solution to an ill-defined problem.

more

posted by Eve at 5:24 PM VOTE 0 comments

ARE HUMAN RIGHTS A STATE ISSUE?: Jonathan Rauch replies to David Blankenhorn

I don't think I can add much in reply to David’s latest without repeating myself. But I cannot let stand his inaccurate and unfair claim that I have argued "forcefully" in other forums "that any national-level activity in opposition to SSM is in his view basically little more than morally repugnant gay-bashing." I am unaware of ever having argued any such thing in any forum, forcefully or otherwise. If readers are interested in what I really have said, I hope they’ll take a look at my book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. There they will find that I say:

"…The very reason I support the federalist approach is the reason anti-gay-marriage hard-liners oppose it. They want to stop the experiment from ever beginning. Repeat: ever. If you care about finding the best way forward for marriage and for gay people in a changing world, that posture is hard to justify."

They will find that I also argue that neither gay-marriage opponents nor gay-marriage supporters should be allowed to impose their preference on the entire country:

"The simple answer--really not simple at all--to both schools of all-or-nothing activists is just this: try federalism first. If state-by-state incrementalism fails, there will always be time for national solutions later on. Neither side can be blamed for wanting to impose its moral vision on the whole country and for hoping to preempt any mixed or moderate alternative, but the nation would be unwise to let either side have its way. Memo to federal judges (especially those on the Supreme Court): do us all a favor, and butt out. Memo to constitutional amenders: do us all a favor, and butt out."

link

posted by Eve at 5:07 PM VOTE 0 comments

SSM AND THE COURTS: Barry Deutsch

Eve Tushnet has some questions about marriage and the courts.

1) If same-sex marriage is a fundamental civil right, should it be imposed by courts over & against voters' wishes?

Assuming that it is a fundamental civil right, then yes, it should be. It is the job of the courts to protect civil rights from the wishes of the majority.

To me, this is the central issue of Goodridge and other court cases regarding SSM--and an issue that SSM opponents don't seem eager to address. Does equal protection of the laws apply to lesbians and gays, or not? If lesbians and gay men are entitled to equal protection of the law, then same-sex marriage is inevitable.

By pursing constitutional amendments, SSM opponents implicitly admit that federal and state constitutions, as currently written, will lead courts to find that lesbians and gays have an equal right to marry. Same-sex marriage opponents are unable to provide a rational basis for discrimination in court; so they're trying to alter the various constitutions so that equal protection laws no longer apply to lesbians and gays (at least regarding marriage and civil unions). ...

Fear of the unknown is powerful stuff; and right now, for most Americans, same-sex marriage is an unknown. For that reason, I think it would be a terrible mistake for SSM to be imposed on the whole country by the Supreme Court at this time. While SSM is still a frightening unknown, most of the country will not accept it. There would be a nationwide rebellion against so-called "judicial activism," and quite possibly a federal anti-gay constitutional amendment.

To avoid this risk, legal SSM should begin with just a few states allowing legal same-sex marriage--and they should be relatively liberal states, in which at least a large minority is already willing to recognize SSM. Five or ten years from now, if nothing goes wrong, same-sex marriage will be a rather dull status quo in Massachusetts, and perhaps in Oregon, Washington, and New Jersey as well. Inevitably, there will be some married gay celebrities, and some TV shows will include flattering portrayals of same-sex marriages. Once SSM has become a boring norm, same-sex couples will have gained "marriage that's socially as well as legally recognized." And after that, nationwide recognition will be just a matter of time.

more

posted by Eve at 5:00 PM VOTE 0 comments

WHAT WOULD STATE AMENDMENTS ACTUALLY DO?: Barry Deutsch replies to Joshua Baker

...Joshua clearly hasn't been reading many proponents of anti-SSM amendments if he thinks they've even come close to discussing "marriage (and little else)".

Joshua goes on to suggest that pro-SSM arguments about private employer's health insurance, hospital visitation, and parental rights are nonsense:

Repeatedly raising the specter of gay partners being thrown out of hospital rooms, or children being deprived of parental support, or businesses being told they can no longer offer partnership benefits to their employees serves simply to obscure, rather than illuminate, the real issues at stake.

But it's Joshua who is oversimplifying matters. Even on his strongest point--what would happen to private business partnership coverage--it's not clear that the broader anti-SSM amendments would have no effect. Some cities have laws requiring all businesses contracting with the city to offer domestic partnership benefits if they offer marriage partner benefits. Will such laws still be legal if the amendments pass? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know, and I suspect Joshua doesn't either.

(There's also the matter of insurance coverage, pension inheritance and other benefits for same-sex partners of public employees, which could easily be outlawed under reasonable interpretations of some of the amendments.)

Joshua's apparent belief that hospitals never reserve visitation rights--and, just as importantly, decision-making authority--to closest kin is shockingly ignorant. When a heterosexual is in such a situation, she or he is assured that the decision-maker will be their spouse; for homosexuals, a third cousin who you haven't seen in person for 12 years ranks above a life partner, in a hospital's eyes. ...

Joshua is doubtless correct that some claims about hospitals, insurance and parenting rights by opponents of anti-SSM amendments are technically incorrect in some way. (Just as many of the claims made by proponents of the amendments are often flat-out wrong, not to mention ridiculous). But even when technically mistaken in their particulars, the thrust of pro-SSM arguments are correct: There are essential legal and financial protections for families and children that marriage, and marriage alone, can secure. And those protections are denied to same-sex couples and their children.

If Joshua wants to discuss "the real issues at stake," that's one issue (one of several) which he should be ready to seriously discuss. And nit-picking at particular examples to imply that the overall problem isn't real, does not qualify as serious discussion.

more

posted by Eve at 4:51 PM VOTE 0 comments

KERRY'S PLAN FOR GAY AMERICA: Interview in The Advocate

...Why should gay and lesbian Americans vote for you, since you don't support same-sex marriage?

Because I have a 35-year lifetime record of fighting for equality. Because the difference between me and George Bush will be the difference to gay and lesbian couples and individuals across this country--whether rights are afforded them or whether or not they are discriminated against.

I would urge the community to not get into a place of rigidity and narrowness where they can't view the whole and what is at stake. I am for civil unions. Tell me, what presidential candidate in the history of the nation has supported that?...

Would you ever change your mind regarding same-sex marriage?

I have my view, and my view is my view. I can't tell you in 20 years or whenever, if someone made a persuasive argument, the world changes. You know, George Bush just changed his mind on a national security director, and he changed his mind on raiding Social Security, and he changed his mind on homeland security. So I don't predict the future. What I tell you is that my position is what it is.

more

posted by Eve at 4:35 PM VOTE 0 comments

THE COURTS HAVE GONE TOO FAR: Michael M. Uhlmann

Liberals and conservatives have been fighting about the implications of expanded judicial power for nearly four decades. The dispute revolves around the concept of "the living Constitution," a term coined by liberals to weaken the authority of constitutional text and tradition, thereby freeing judges to become active agents of social reform. This is necessary, they say, to overcome the lassitude or indifference of the people's representatives.

Conservatives believe that courts are ill-suited to the task of social reform and that "the living Constitution" is little more than a formula by which judges equate their own ideological preferences with the rule of law. One may share his or her preferences for policy reasons, but if judges are free to disregard constitutional text and tradition as the ground for their decisions, why should their opinions be considered as binding authority? ...

Conservatives believe that judicial activism undercuts the rationale for having a written constitution to begin with. No constitution, to be sure, can work like a mathematical formula; it must have flexibility in its joints. Rules of interpretation, however, are not an open-ended invitation to judges to make it up as they go. Long before liberals invented the "living" Constitution, the Constitution adapted itself quite nicely to social change and secured rights without doing violence to its original principles.

Being conservative on matters of constitutional interpretation does not mean that one is wedded to some antediluvian concept of society, or that the Constitution is good just because it is old. The Constitution was designed, however, to ensure that its meaning would be informed by the deliberate sense of the people; it is not a piece of Playdough to be bent and shaped by judges to comport with their own ideas of social progress. A written constitution simply cannot accommodate every demand made upon it by contemporary policy advocates, whether of the right or left. And when it cannot, the remedy lies not in free-wheeling judicial modification, but in the procedures for constitutional amendment.

more

posted by Eve at 4:25 PM VOTE 0 comments

HOW THE WEDGE ISSUES CUT: From Time Magazine

[I wonder what makes something a "wedge issue." Do Democrats ever use them? How odd that an entire major political party would so resolutely ignore this strategy. --Eve, growly]

...At the start of the 2004 campaign, it seemed that Bush the son would also use wedge issues to repel a Massachusetts rival. Earlier this year, just as John Kerry was celebrating primary victories, the top court in his home state affirmed a decision unpopular in most of the U.S. that legalized marriage for same-sex couples. ... Saying that Kerry takes multiple positions has now made it harder to claim he's on the wrong side of wedge issues.

Voters are not convinced that he is on the wrong side. A new TIME poll, conducted after last week's third presidential debate (see chart, pages 36-37), suggests that wedge issues, which normally work to the Republicans' advantage, are not a big G.O.P. plus this time. Asked whom they trust to handle "moral-values issues such as gay marriage and abortion," more voters chose Bush (44%) than Kerry (42%), though the difference was within the margin for error. In early September the numbers were 51% to 37% in Bush's favor. ...

To be sure, most voters won't decide their vote based on social issues. According to the TIME poll, only 12% say values issues are paramount in this election. Even Bush-Cheney strategist Ralph Reed, who witnessed the potency of values politics as head of the Christian Coalition in the 1990s, says that this year "the overwhelming majority of voters are going to vote on jobs, the economy, Iraq, terrorism and health care." ...

On Saturday, Bush himself devoted part of his radio address to wedge issues, smacking Kerry for voting against bills proscribing partial-birth abortion and against the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages but otherwise left the matter to the states. Kerry says he voted against the abortion bills because they didn't contain sufficient protections for a mother's health. He now agrees with the marriage act's provisions, but he has said he voted against it because he didn't want to support "gay bashing." ...

Pro-Kerry troops are trying to mobilize their own social-issues voters. Many lesbians and gays--including gay friends of the President--felt deeply betrayed when Bush announced support for the anti--gay-marriage amendment. Recently Bill Jacobs, the gay-outreach coordinator for the Kerry campaign in Nevada, took volunteers into a section of Las Vegas known for its gay bars. They were able to register 200 people in just a few nights. "Don't do it for Kerry; do it for the community," Jacobs kept saying.

One of the ironies of the 2004 campaign is that although wedge issues won't determine the outcome of a race dominated by national security and the economy, the victor can have a more direct impact on certain social issues than on intractable problems like unemployment. Bush and Kerry have similar plans for Iraq. Presidents can do little to directly improve the economy, and their powers to disband terrorist networks are limited. But if Kerry wins, he could change the landscape of values politics in the short term and--assuming the next President will nominate at least one Supreme Court Justice--well into the future. ...

Kerry may still remain vulnerable to a wedge attack that can convince swing voters that he doesn't share their values. But the TIME poll shows that voters now find themselves closer to Kerry on stem-cell research, abortion, gay rights and gun control.

more

posted by Eve at 4:14 PM VOTE 0 comments

FAQ FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF UTAH AMENDMENT: From the Deseret Morning News

[I don't know who wrote these responses. --Eve]

...What impact, if any, will this amendment have on legal protections for unmarried couples?

OPPONENTS: Passage of Amendment 3 would create uncertainty for nontraditional Utah families. The amendment could strip from unmarried couples basic legal protections and deny them the ability to petition their lawmakers for those protections.The term "substantially equivalent" to a marriage could mean any individual legal protection that is similar to a protection afforded to a married couple would become threatened under this law.

That same wording would prevent lawmakers from even considering granting small bundles of protections, such as funeral and burial decisions, on the basis of any "domestic union" that's not a marriage.

Here's the effect on some specific legal protections: Cohabitant Abuse Act: Because it's unclear what "domestic union" means, it's possible that a court could interpret that definition to include roommates, which would prevent "someone who resides or has resided in the same residence" or any other unmarried cohabitant from seeking protection under this act.

Private contracts: Unmarried couples rely on wills, powers of attorney and other private contracts to create domestic unions. Since couples are using these contracts to create substantially similar legal benefits that a marriage affords, a court would be barred from enforcing these contracts.

Domestic partner benefits: Because there is no reference to the state of Utah in the amendment, it leaves open the possibility that private companies would be barred from giving the same benefits to domestic partners as they do to spouses.

Common law marriages: Common law marriage, in effect, is a way for a domestic union to be recognized as a marriage. Because the amendment clearly states that no other union can be given the same legal effect as a marriage, this amendment would therefore invalidate that statute.

SUPPORTERS: The amendment wouldn't impact any existing legal protections and would simply maintain the "status quo."

It also wouldn't prevent the Legislature from creating new benefits for people in relationships defined by dependence or residence. It would only prevent the recognition of relationships defined by their sexual basis.

The term "domestic union" will be interpreted to mean only relationships defined as sexually based, because of the context of the amendment.

Here's the effect on some specific legal protections: Cohabitant Abuse Act: The provision wouldn't be impacted because the six types of cohabitants against whom a protective order may be filed include "someone who resides or has resided in the same residence." Such roommates are not substantially equivalent to a married spouse.

Private contracts: Marriages are not considered private contracts, such as wills, powers of attorney and other private contracts. The state's current marriage law, enacted this year, says it doesn't apply to "any contract or other rights, benefits or duties that are enforceable independently of this section."

Domestic partner benefits: Because the amendment only applies to state action, it won't prevent private employers from providing "domestic partner" benefits, or prevent partners from visiting each other in the hospital.

Common law marriages: The law provides that a non-solemnized marriage can be granted by the state if a man and a woman meet certain requirements, such as holding themselves out as husband and wife. The amendment wouldn't impact this type of marriage because it involves a man and a woman.

more

posted by Eve at 4:08 PM VOTE 0 comments

UTAH AMENDMENT FOES SAY GAYS AND THEIR CHILDREN NEED PROTECTIONS: From the Deseret Morning News

Lorie Hutchinson can't marry her lesbian partner Chris Johnson. She can't adopt Johnson's 12-year-old daughter, Olivia White.

In short, she says, she can't defend her family with a simple legal document that automatically affords more than 1,000 legal protections and responsibilities -- a marriage license. ...

"I don't have any rights," Johnson said. "This doesn't take away my rights because I have no rights as a lesbian. . . . Right now we're not a (legal) family; we're roommates with a child."

The couple can piecemeal together some legal protections such as a will, powers of attorney or hospital visitation rights. But they and other opponents to the proposed amendment say it threatens even those existing protections.

"All it takes is one blood relative," Hutchinson notes, to challenge a will or other legal contract she and her partner have entered into.

Their family isn't the only one fearing that the amendment would forever bar them from the same legal protections that married, heterosexual families have.

They're among an estimated 2,568 with children, headed by same-sex unmarried partners in Utah, according to an analysis of the 2000 Census Public Use Microdata Sample by Pam Perlich, senior research economist at the University of Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research.

The sample data suggested that some 66 percent of the roughly 3,912 same-sex partner-headed households are raising children.

Children in these families are particularly vulnerable when it comes to their parents' divorce or death, because Utah's adoption law only allows married couples and single adults to adopt, said attorney Jane Marquardt, a board member of Equality Utah. ...

By denying recognition to gay and lesbian families, states deny their children stability and other benefits such as health insurance, said Joseph Hagan, past chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. Hagan was an author of his association's statement advocating same-sex parent adoption.

"We really didn't in the academy talk about marriage. . . . We talked about the needs of the kids to have a family," he said."I've researched the data. If there is data suggesting poor, or even a poorer outcome compared to the 'ideal' for these children, we couldn't find it."

more

posted by Eve at 4:02 PM VOTE 0 comments

UNDECLARED DETENTE IN THE CULTURE WARS: From the San Francisco Chronicle

Almost from the moment same-sex couples started lining up to get married at city halls from San Francisco to New Paltz, N.Y., experts predicted "cultural values" would play a dominant role in the presidential race.

In one of the surprises of the campaign, it has not turned out that way.

As the debates demonstrated, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have reserved their greatest passion, and bile, for such issues as the war in Iraq, jobs and health care. The candidates have, if anything, tried to gloss over questions about abortion and same-sex marriage, the source of caustic battles in the past, or they have simply changed the subject.

On the stump, the issues barely come up. Clashes over the war in Iraq, in particular, appear to have crowded out much of the debate over the values issues.

"We were just wrong," said John Zogby, the head of Zogby International, an independent polling organization that had found great interest among voters earlier this year in the issues that separate liberals and conservatives in the "culture wars." "These were the wedge issues, and we expected to hear more about them." ...

The trick politically, Newport said, is when to raise the issues. For the most part, the Republicans are using them to mobilize right-wing voters and get them to turn out on election day, but they avoid the issues when trying to appeal to swing voters.

"The people who really care about these values issues have decided already," Newport said.

In fact, said Newport, one of the most important shifts in voter behavior in recent years has been what he calls religiosity -- the growing number of voters who cast their ballots based on religious conviction rather than traditional socioeconomic factors.

"If I were to go out on the street and ask one thing as the predictor of voter behavior, it would be how often they go to church," said Newport, who added that almost invariably, regular churchgoers vote for conservatives.

In his recent book, "The Values Divide: American Politics and Culture in Transition," John Kenneth White, a professor of politics at Catholic University in Washington, says that, hidden or not, religious conviction is the pivot around which voting patterns turn today.

more

posted by Eve at 3:22 PM VOTE 0 comments

"MARRIAGE" VS "UNION": From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

What a difference a word makes.

More than 60 percent of likely Georgia voters intend to vote in favor of an amendment to the state constitution that would ban marriage between homosexual couples, according to a poll conducted last week for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution by Zogby International.

But when asked whether the permanent relationships of gay couples should enjoy a legal status that's called something "other than marriage," those same voters are split down the middle, at 47 percent each. ...

Opponents of Georgia's proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage said the support expressed for gay civil unions in the survey underscores the importance of a legal battle that goes to the state Supreme Court this week.

In an attempt to block the vote, opponents are claiming that the language on the November ballot is misleading. The question asks voters whether marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. Left unseen is language that also would ban civil unions between gay couples, opponents say. ...

Sadie Fields said she is skeptical of the support the poll shows for gay civil unions. Fields is president of the Georgia Christian Coalition and organized the effort to have the ban placed on the November ballot.

Once the details connected with civil union are examined --- such as child custody, adoption, spousal insurance benefits --- voter support will disappear, Fields said.

In fact, in a separate poll done for the Journal-Constitution by Zogby a week earlier, those respondents, after being read a series of scenarios, had stronger opposition to civil unions, 56 percent to 40 percent.

more

posted by Eve at 3:17 PM VOTE 0 comments

DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS AT RISK: From the Akron Beacon Journal

...Phil Burress, organizer of the Ohio campaign to pass the marriage amendment, said the ballot language is intentionally broad.''What good does it do if you protect the word 'marriage' but you let couples or three or more people come together and get all of the benefits?'' said the head of the Citizens for Community Values in Cincinnati. ''The term 'domestic partner' is marriage by a different name.'' ...

Burress, the head of the anti-gay marriage campaign, says the amendment wouldn't affect private companies' plans at all.

But Alan Melamed, who heads the opposition, Ohioans Protecting the Constitution, said the amendment would, indirectly, because employees wouldn't be able to turn to courts if the benefits arrangement somehow went awry. Courts wouldn't be able to acknowledge that the arrangement existed, in Melamed's eyes.

Regardless, both Melamed and Burress agree that the amendment would affect domestic-partner benefits in the public sector.

In Ohio, perhaps no more than 200 workers and their same-sex partners are getting the benefits. Public entities -- largely, universities -- say they're being driven to offer domestic partner benefits because of market forces.

''We knew we were losing people,'' said Miami University spokesman Richard Little. ''I can think of one very good marketing professor who left because he had another job offer. He wanted domestic partner benefits, but we didn't offer them. We hear it quite often.'' ...

Meanwhile, the oldest benefit program for domestic partnerships has come up dry.

Cleveland Heights hasn't had one taker since it began to offer the first -- and only -- municipal program in Ohio. The city also offers the nation's first registry for same-sex couples this year, but that confers no benefits.

Domestic partner benefits are for the partners of gay or lesbian employees and, in some cases, for unmarried heterosexuals in committed relationships. While the four Ohio universities are only offering the benefits to same-sex partners, Ohioans Protecting the Constitution points out that Issue 1, if passed, could affect heterosexual couples as well who are not married.

Despite the fact that so few people are covered under the public policies, there's bound to be plenty of court action if the amendment passes, observers said.

Rick Farmer, an associate professor of political science at the University of Akron, said universities would no doubt argue that they wouldn't be affected by the amendment.

more

posted by Eve at 3:08 PM VOTE 0 comments

PANELIST: "MARRIAGE EQUALITY" PACE TIED TO ELECTION RESULTS: From the St. Petersburg Times

In Karen Doering's family, marriage is so important that her parents have seven unions between them.

"Yet somehow, our one marriage to each other is defiling unions," said Doering, a Tampa civil rights attorney who said she has been married for nearly 10 years to another woman.

With several states issuing marriage licenses to gay couples this year and more than a dozen states considering its constitutionality, same-sex marriage has become an issue in the presidential race. On Saturday, that debate came to the 15th annual Tampa International Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in the form of a panel titled 1600 Reasons Why Marriage Matters.

"What they're telling us when we can't have marriage equality is that we don't deserve society's safety net, and they don't give a d--- that we pay the same taxes as everybody else," said Doering, who outlined some of the 1,100 federal (such as family medical leave, unemployment compensation and immigration) and 500 state (parental and tax rights) benefits available to heterosexual married couples, but not homosexuals. ...

Sen. John Kerry agrees that marriage is between a man and a woman, but does not support a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages. He suggested during last week's third presidential debate that homosexuality is not a choice.

The different stances are why Doering described this presidential race as "the single most important election of our lives. This election is going to make the difference between whether we win marriage equality in five years or 25 years."

more

posted by Eve at 3:00 PM VOTE 0 comments

REPORT ON "MAYDAY FOR MARRIAGE" RALLY: From the Washington Post

(and very basic.)

posted by Eve at 2:57 PM VOTE 0 comments