CIVIL UNIONS AGAIN: Elizabeth Marquardt

[Comments, as always, also worth your time. --Eve]


Today's NYT has an article on the tactical retreat now being organized among SSM advocates. In the wake of the election and 11 state referendums passing, leaders are now saying they must abandon the fight for SSM, for now, and focus on more winnable goals like civil unions.

Apparently, now, the words "civil unions" can be uttered again.

I guess I'm less than elated. For the past year my position has been that I am against SSM and for civil unions. For that I've been accused of "soft bigotry." That position was the final death-knell in an already fragile friendship and also scored me an email by an old, friend-of-a-friend who ended her scathing remarks with "look what you've become." I've been told and heard for a year that to support civil unions is to support a "separate but equal" position. Might has well go back to Jim Crow, some have suggested.

So, yes, I still support civil unions. But there is hardly the warm and fuzzy, let's-all-work-together-on-this feeling that might have existed earlier. The NYT article ends with one advocate who says that the battle for SSM is, for now, not in the courts but in the culture. Well, my friend, the last year mattered, and the "nothing less than full marriage rights, now" position lost you some serious ground in the culture.

link

posted by Eve at 7:59 PM VOTE 0 comments

"VALUES VOTERS": PEW POLLAGE

...The survey findings parallel exit poll results showing that moral values is a top-tier issue for voters. But the relative importance of moral values depends greatly on how the question is framed. The post-election survey finds that, when moral values is pitted against issues like Iraq and terrorism, a plurality (27%) cites moral values as most important to their vote. But when a separate group of voters was asked to name ­ in their own words ­ the most important factor in their vote, significantly fewer (14%) mentioned moral values. Regardless of how the question is asked, the survey shows that moral values is the most frequently cited issue for Bush voters, but is seldom mentioned by Kerry voters.

In addition, those who cite moral values as a major factor offer varying interpretations of the concept. More than four-in-ten (44%) of those who chose moral values as the most important factor in their vote from the list of issues say the term relates to specific concerns over social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage. However, others did not cite specific policy issues, and instead pointed to factors like the candidates' personal qualities or made general allusions to religion and values.

more

posted by Eve at 7:48 PM VOTE 0 comments

GLBT MARRIAGE SURVEY: Press release

www.RainbowWeddingNetwork.com and www.SameLoveSameRights.com are conducting a survey about same sex marriage. This survey is used as a tool to inform the public about same sex marriages and about the impact same sex weddings have on the US economy. We will need your help in 3 areas: First- Fill out the survey; Second- this is a grass roots campaign so we need your help by forwarding this survey to your friends and family; and Third - How are you feeling about the elections? Are you disappointed with the constitutional amendments that were passed on November 2nd? Want to do something to show your sentiments? We've made it easy for you--please visit www.SameLoveSameRights.com and purchase the lapel pin and wear it as a symbol of protest! The lapel pin is $5.00 and a percentage of the proceeds will be donated to GLBT organizations. Now, more than ever, it is important to stand together, show our strength and continue to proclaim our belief in equality. Please answer the questions that apply to you, please click on the logo or copy and paste the link below and that will take you to the survey. http://rainbowwedding.clickndrop.com/cnd/survey/same_sex_marriage_2 Thank you for your participation!

posted by Eve at 7:36 PM VOTE 0 comments

MORE ON PROPOSED D.C. DOMA: From the Washington Blade

A Northeast D.C. woman hopes to add the District to the list of U.S. jurisdictions that prohibit same-sex marriage. She has started a group called D.C. Citizens for Marriage that intends to place before District voters a referendum that would permanently ban gay marriage in the nation’s capital.

Ward 4 resident Lisa L. Greene filed the necessary paperwork with the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics on Oct. 4. That body has scheduled a Nov. 18 hearing to determine if Greene's initiative meets the criteria required for a referendum. ...

The text of the proposed referendum, titled the District of Columbia Marriage Protection Act, reads: "The Citizens of the District of Columbia and the District Council defines and preserves marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman only."

If the DCBOEE approves, Greene and her allies would have to collect more than 19,000 signatures in 180 days to bring the measure before District voters, according to Bill O'Field, DCBOEE spokesperson. The total number of valid signatures needed is 5 percent of the number of registered voters in the District. ...

Representatives of GLAA, a small group of local gay activists, said they are researching legal options and plan to testify at next week's meeting. They think a law they helped pass decades ago may help defeat the initiative request.

In the 1980s, GLAA pushed for a law that bans D.C. initiatives or referenda that would remove civil rights protections conferred by the D.C. Human Rights Act. However, it's unclear whether same-sex marriage could be considered a civil rights protection conferred under the city's human rights law.

more

posted by Eve at 6:55 PM VOTE 0 comments

GAY-MARRIAGE DEFEAT PUTS LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS IN QUESTION: From the Louisville Courier-Journal

...Leaders on both sides of the amendment fight have said couples like Crossen and Callahan don't have anything to fear, because laws governing contracts and similar legal documents are separate from laws about marriage.

But legal observers and advocates on both sides also say the courts ultimately may decide what's affected by the amendment.

"People sort of make assumptions that once they have an arrangement in place, once they've signed papers, once they've talked to a lawyer, that they're safe," said Sam Marcosson, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Louisville and an advocate for gay legal rights. "That's not a safe assumption now."

Unmarried couples "ought to look at their documents and make sure the rights are not phrased in a way that references marital rights," such as referring to each other as spouse, husband or wife, he said. ...

Kent Ostrander, who led the pro-amendment Vote Yes for Marriage coalition and helped draft the amendment, said that language should not affect individuals' contracts.

And he said amendment advocates "don't plan on tracking things down" and challenging contracts.

But Carolyn Bratt, a University of Kentucky law professor and an advocate for gay legal rights, noted that judges--not activists--have the final say on what the amendment means. ...

Still, contracts cannot match all of the rights that come with a marriage license.
For example, one unmarried partner cannot sue over the wrongful death of the other. And if one unmarried partner in a relationship dies, the other cannot receive Social Security payments as a survivor, no matter how long they lived together.

Callahan, a professor of philosophy and director of the women's studies department at the University of Kentucky, also noted that she cannot put Crossen on a health insurance plan through the university.

No Kentucky public university --nor any local government agency in the state--has offered such benefits to unmarried partners of employees. And all sides agree the amendment shuts that door for the future, although private companies could offer such benefits.

more

posted by Eve at 6:45 PM VOTE 0 comments

CAUTION IN COURT FOR GAY RIGHTS GROUPS: From the New York Times

Fearful that aggressive action could backfire and generate public hostility, gay rights groups are planning to limit the scope of their legal challenges to the constitutional amendments banning gay marriage that were passed by 11 states last week.

The groups are making a temporary retreat from their most fundamental goal, winning the right for same-sex marriages, and focusing instead on those measures that addressed civil unions in some way. The groups say that broader suits seeking the right to marry could add fuel to President Bush's efforts to create a federal prohibition on gay marriage. Many of the state amendments passed by overwhelming margins, and Karl Rove, the architect of Mr. Bush's re-election, said this week that there was a broad national consensus that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So challenging the new state amendments by arguing that gays have the right to marry under the federal Constitution is unlikely anytime soon. Instead, gay rights groups will move cautiously, mostly on procedural matters in states whose measures appear to infringe on civil unions and benefits for same-sex couples. ...

Gay rights advocates said they would pursue two kinds of relatively oblique challenges to the amendments because they present low risks. Some of the amendments, they say, violated state laws on how questions are presented to voters; others are simply unclear. ...

A second kind of relatively low-risk lawsuit would seek clarification of ambiguous language. The language in the Ohio amendment, for instance, said David Buckel, the director of the marriage project at Lambda Legal, a national gay rights group, "really makes you scratch your head."

The amendment says the state "shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

"We presume that this law will be interpreted to be as harmful as it can be to gay families," Mr. Buckel said, citing the possibility that the law could, for instance, bar a member of a gay couple from visiting his or her partner in the hospital. "We will be filing suit to seek a narrowing construction of the law."

Questions concerning whether states and their agencies, including state universities, may continue to offer health insurance to gay partners are likely to arise in Ohio, Michigan and Utah, legal analysts said.

Mr. Foreman said, "People are deluging us with calls about whether they are going to lose domestic partnership health benefits, about whether they can complete the adoption of a child, about whether they have to change their living wills."

The amendment that passed in Oregon will probably not void the 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in the state in March, legal analysts said. But those licenses are in jeopardy for other reasons, and the Oregon Supreme Court is considering the matter.

For now at least, gay rights groups say filing suit in federal court arguing that the new amendments violate the federal Constitution would be treacherous.

more

posted by Eve at 6:40 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARRIAGE DEMOGRAPHICS: Justin Katz

(more on New England vs the Southeast)

posted by Eve at 9:16 PM VOTE 0 comments

"VALUES VOTERS" AND BIBLICAL INJUNCTIONS: Jose Solano

It's amazing how intelligent people can obfuscate issues and miss the obvious. That there are thousands of injunctions regarding care of the poor in the Bible is not doubted by anyone and all Christians, Jews and Moslems wish to help the poor. Indeed, all religions wish to help the poor. The disagreement comes with the repudiation of biblical injunctions on the sanctity of marriage and of life by what might be called the nouveau culture of death (abortion, embryonic stem cell experiments, etc.) and depravity (homosexuality and a host of other aberrant sexual behaviors.) That's it. Simple. These are the adversarial moral issues and this is what the country revolted against. This is why lifelong Democrats like myself as well as so many Hispanics, Blacks, and Catholics voted for Bush. They used to say "It's the economy stupid." Now they have to realize that "It's morality stupid."

posted by Eve at 9:03 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARRIAGE DEMOGRAPHICS: David Blankenhorn replies to Michael Triplett

[Sorry this took me so long to post! --Eve]

According to demographers, the main reason that divorce rates are lower in New England and the Midwest, as compared to the South and West, is that NE and the MW have populations that are a) older; b) more affluent; and c) less transient. All three of those factors favor lower divorce rates.

posted by Eve at 8:46 PM VOTE 0 comments

REVISIONIST HISTORY: Maggie Gallagher

Many pundits, including gay marriage activists like Andrew Sullivan, but also other pro-gay marriage conservatives and liberals, are eager to explain why the gay marriage issue was really not so bad for the Dems. Some argue "moral values" is just a catchall, which of course doesn't explain why it suddenly shot up to the (plurality) top of the voters list this year--in the middle of a mediocre economy, a war on terror, and a ground war in Iraq--splitting 80-20 for Pres. Bush.

Others argue (Andrew and George Will have both made this case) it's not really gay marriage that bothers voters but the San Francisco chaos. Gavin Newsom, a straight guy, is responsible, not gay marriage advocates. George Will also strikingly says that "Most Americans" oppose a constitutional amendment on marriage (or, as he puts it an "anti-same-sex marriage amendment").

I happened to be cleaning my desk yesterday and came across a memo from the Pew Research Center dated July 12, 2004 and "Reading the Polls on Gay Marriage and the Constitution."

Their conclusion: "Recent polls on a possible constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage have yielded very different results, with support as low as 36% and as high as 60 percent."

Here's the catch: To get the low result, you have to ask voters if they want a constitutional amendment to "ban gay marriage." To get the high results, you have to ask questions like "Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage ONLY between a man and a woman?"

Which is fairer or truer? You decide.

posted by Eve at 8:41 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARRIAGES OF CONVENIENCE: Jennifer Roback Morse

...Non-involved pairs of people will choose to call themselves "married" just to obtain government or insurance benefits. Some gay activists dismiss Kurtz's analysis as hysterical fear-mongering. Others, such as NYU queer studies professor Lisa Duggan embrace the outcome as desirable, since only the recalcitrance of the capitalist establishment to enact national health insurance prevents people from getting all the benefits they are morally entitled to. But a case in San Diego shows just how right Stanley Kurtz is: Society needs for marriage to have well-defined boundaries.

A woman sailor, Judy Ann Patterson, looked around for a man she could marry to qualify for the housing subsidy that the military pays for married couples. A friend introduced her to civilian Jason Huff. Two weeks later they got married and Patterson filed for the allowance, claiming that Huff lived in San Francisco. She picked San Francisco because the Bay Area has the highest housing benefits in the military. She also qualified for cost-of-living adjustments and extra benefits because her spouse lived in a different city. All totaled, she got an extra $2,600 per month, which added up to some $41,000 over the 16 months the scam operated.

Why was it a scam? The couple acknowledged that they never intended to live together as husband and wife. The whole point of the union was to obtain military housing benefits. Each month, Patterson sent her "husband" $500 and made a $300 payment on a truck in exchange for his going through the motions of being married.

Naturally, the military took a dim view of this fake marriage. Patterson was sentenced to 30 months in prison, a $4,800 fine, forfeiture of all pay, reduction in rank to seaman recruit, and a bad-conduct discharge. According to Navy Prosecutor Charles Olcutt, "Our military budget would be brought to its knees if every sailor thought they should get an extra $43,000 every year and a half." He said that housing-allowance fraud is a "large and growing crime."

more

[Look, I do think that many advocates of same-sex marriage make their case in a way that makes marriage look like a benefits package rather than a vital societal institution. Okay. But the case Morse is discussing--which involves the (fraudulent) union of one man and one woman!--obviously arose in the absence of same-sex marriage, and strikes me as much more about divorce and general turpitude than about SSM. Michael Triplett agrees, here. --Eve]

posted by Eve at 7:40 PM VOTE 0 comments

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS BACKS SSM: From PlanetOut Network

story

posted by Eve at 5:23 PM VOTE 0 comments

MARRIAGE IN IRELAND: Stanley Kurtz

Here's an extraordinary article on a move to legalize gay marriage in Ireland. That Ireland may soon adopt gay marriage is important news in itself. But the really interesting thing here is that the gay marriage move is only the opening wedge of a larger effort to equalize cohabitation and marriage. Here's yet another case where gay marriage is clearly undermining marriage. The gay marriage movement in Ireland is openly trying to create a de facto equation between marriage and parental cohabitation. Europe is disproving the "conservative case" for gay marriage before our very eyes How many more cases will it take for people to admit that? The "causal connection" between same-sex marriage and the weakening of the larger institution is playing out in plain sight.

link

posted by Eve at 10:10 PM VOTE 0 comments

PRO-MARRIAGE TAX REFORM?: David Blankenhorn

...Republican Party economic thinking is now generally dominated by supply-siders whose big ideas are cutting marginal rates, simplifying the code, and creating incentives to encourage more people to enter the labor force and work harder. And from their perspective, one important way to move toward these goals is to move toward a system of individual taxation – that is, taxing everyone as an individual as opposed to treating the family as a basic unit of taxation. But, we tried to show in this appeal from several years ago, this perspective is flagrantly anti-marriage.

The big question, then, is whether President Bush’s commission will contain only the usual-suspect, economic-growth-is-everything supply-siders, who ultimately just do not care about the mariage issue, or whether the commisison will also include a voice or two to stick up for marriage and parenthood. The U.S. tax code is by far the nation’s most influential family policy. Props to Maggie for raising this issue.

more

posted by Eve at 8:58 PM VOTE 0 comments

TAKING MARRIAGE SERIOUSLY: Maggie Gallagher

...Third, if you are politically smart you find ways to strengthen marriage. The marriage gap in voting dwarfs most other gaps, including the much ballyhooed gender gap. Married people favored Bush by 14 percentage points. Unmarried folks went for Kerry by 18 percentage points, according to The New York Times.
Why? Marriage has a simultaneous effect on two important political predicates: values and income. When people get married, they go to church more often and refocus on culturally conservative values. They also move into the middle class. Economically, this is especially true for women. As economists Lena Edlund and Rohini Pande pointed out in a 2002 analysis, "Marriage and divorce affect a woman's party affiliation significantly more than they do a man's. Marriage tends to make a woman more Republican, whereas divorce tends to make her more Democratic."

Taking marriage seriously means protecting marriage from judicial redefinition. But a party that was serious about looking for ways to strengthen marriage so that more children (and voters!) end up in stable, married families would find many politically attractive policy options (more on that in another column).

Does President Bush get it? First test: Look at who gets appointed to the proposed tax commission, and what proposals come out of it. A party serious about marriage (and its own future) will make sure that any proposed tax reform is pro-marriage and pro-family.

more

posted by Eve at 8:57 PM VOTE 0 comments

FOR THE MOMENT, CONCENTRATE ON BEING CIVIL: From the Los Angeles Times

...For the foreseeable future, we should let the heterosexuals keep marriage as their special right. We gays want the legal benefits of marriage to protect and stabilize our families. And we want the status of full equality for our humanity's sake. But the first can be solved with civil unions. Despite the humiliation of "settling" for anything less than full marriage, it is better than losing access to the benefits of civil unions in the wake of the backlash.

Frankly, it would be selfish to our families, to our children, to risk being denied protective civil-union laws because of a losing effort to stick our thumbs in the face of fundamentalists. We can let them have their sacred institution and then lead the way to the more progressive civil-union model.

Many Americans of goodwill support our movement but remain skittish about the prospect of gay marriage. We cannot afford to alienate them now. Frankly, we need all the support we can muster.

more

posted by Eve at 8:52 PM VOTE 0 comments

ROVE ELECTION POSTMORTEM: From the New York Times

President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, said Tuesday that opposition to gay marriage was one of the most powerful forces in American politics today and that politicians ignored it at their peril.

"This is an issue on which there is a broad consensus," Mr. Rove said, discussing a presidential election that took place as voters in 11 states backed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriages.

"In all 11 states, it won by considerable margins," Mr. Rove said, adding, "People do not like the idea or the concept of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman being uprooted and overturned by a few activist judges or a couple of activist local officials."

He said he was not certain that the votes necessarily helped Mr. Bush to defeat Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. He noted that Mr. Kerry had won Michigan and Oregon, where the amendments passed by large margins. ...

Mr. Rove appeared to stifle a grin when asked whether he was "indebted" to Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, who opened his City Hall to gay marriages until he was blocked by a court, and to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, for ruling that gay couples have a right to marriage.

"If you look at things that intrude into American politics through a nontraditional method--through a judicial vein--they tend to have a huge impact," he said.

more

posted by Eve at 7:36 PM VOTE 0 comments

UK COMMONS PASSES CIVIL PARTNERSHIP BILL: From 365Gay.com

The House of Commons Tuesday night passed legislation giving same-sex couples many of the same rights as married couples have.

The bill would create a civil partner registry. Gay couples would have inheritance rights to their partners' estates, hospital visitation rights, and the right to receive the spouses share of their partner's pension.

A move to weaken the bill by extending it to siblings who live together was rejected by Parliament. The proposal came from a handful of Tory MPs who oppose same-sex couples' rights, although Conservative Party leader Michael Howard supported the bill and gave his MPs a free vote on the matter. ...

The legislation goes back to the Lords next week. When it first went to the Upper House peers opposed to gay unions attempted to gut the bill. With time running out they will have to decide whether to again challenge the elected Commons.

more

posted by Eve at 7:34 PM VOTE 0 comments

GROUP PROPOSES D.C. VOTE TO BAN GAY MARRIAGES: From The Common Denominator

The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has scheduled a public hearing for Nov. 17 on a petition filed by Lisa L. Greene to determine whether the group's proposed "District of Columbia Marriage Protection Act" is a proper subject matter for an initiative measure.

If the subject matter is approved by the elections board, supporters of the proposed initiative would be required to gather signatures of at least 5 percent of registered D.C. voters within a 180-day period to put the issue to a vote. If proponents successfully gather the required signatures, including 5 percent of registered voters in at least five of the District's eight wards, the measure would be voted on during the next citywide election.

The proposed text of the measure, as published in a hearing notice in the D.C. Register, asserts that the citizenry of the District of Columbia "defines and preserves marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman only."

more

posted by Eve at 7:30 PM VOTE 0 comments

GA. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT CHALLENGED: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The fight over the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage returned to court Tuesday despite the widespread support it received from Georgia voters last week.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the Atlanta law firm of Alston and Bird, and Lambda Legal, a national organization that represents gays and lesbians, filed in Fulton County Superior Court a lawsuit claiming that the amendment is unconstitutional.

The legal team battling the amendment sued shortly after Secretary of State Cathy Cox certified last week's election results. In that balloting, 78 percent of Georgia voters approved the amendment defining marriage as "only the union of man and woman." Jack Senterfitt, a Lambda Legal lawyer working on the case, said his team was not daunted by the broad voter support for the measure. A majority of Georgia voters supported the amendment in every one of the state's 159 counties. ...

The lawsuit focuses on the language of the amendment, not whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

It claims that the amendment violates the Georgia Constitution's single-subject rule by pertaining to multiple issues. In addition to marriage, the amendment would affect civil unions and the ability of Georgia's courts to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, the attorneys argue.

The lawyers also contend that the wording of the ballot question that voters saw on Election Day was misleading because it asked only about marriage and not about the other issues the amendment might affect.

more

The complaint is here (PDF).

posted by Eve at 7:19 PM VOTE 0 comments

FLA. GOV SPEAKS ON GAY UNIONS: From the Orlando Sentinel

Republican Gov. Jeb Bush weighed in on the explosive issue of same sex marriage Tuesday, saying he might support a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if the courts open the door to such unions in Florida.

It was his strongest statement yet on the issue and came the same day that the Florida Baptist State Convention in Jacksonville unanimously agreed to seek a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Bush said he thinks the state's Defense of Marriage Act prohibits gay marriages, but he might back putting a constitutional question on the ballot if court rulings force the issue. "If there was a threat that gay marriage would be accepted in our state, then I might be supportive of it," Bush said. "I'm not sure it's necessary to do this in a pre-emptive fashion."

Bush said he thinks the Legislature would enthusiastically back a constitutional move to ban same-sex marriages if conditions change.

more

posted by Eve at 7:15 PM VOTE 0 comments

BOARD OK'S MD. SEX-ED PROGRAM: From the Washington Times

The Montgomery County public school system approved a curriculum yesterday in which 10th-graders will be shown how to put condoms on cucumbers, and eighth-graders will learn that homosexual couples are the newest American family.

The county school board voted 6-0 in favor of recommendations from the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development, despite opposition from parents. ...

The curriculum is a revision of previous ones and will be taught this spring to eighth- and 10th-graders in six schools. It defines a family as "two or more people who are joined together by emotional feelings or who are related to one another."

Same-sex parents are listed under the heading "kinds of families," along with eight other variations.

The new curriculum also includes detailed information about sexuality and "gender identity." Gender identity is defined as "a person's internal sense of knowing whether he or she is male or female."

The curriculum also will teach that "most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice."

more

posted by Eve at 7:07 PM VOTE 0 comments

GAY LEADERS TRY TO REFRAME STRUGGLE FOR MARRIAGE RIGHTS: From the San Francisco Chronicle

From adopting a NASCAR dad to embracing the moral rhetoric of the 1960s civil rights movement, gay and lesbian leaders are rethinking their message and market after last week's sweeping election losses, but they are refusing to retreat on same-sex marriage. ...

Among the strategies under discussion:
-- Courting Republicans who now dominate Washington and are indebted to the social and religious conservatives who helped provide a record GOP turnout rather than devoting the lion's share of money and lobbying to liberal Democratic allies.
-- Continuing a strategic legal attack using "the right plaintiffs in the right place at the right time," as David Buckel, director of the Lambda Legal Marriage Project, put it, to challenge the new state marriage bans and to continue the push for marriage rights in more liberal jurisdictions, including California, New Jersey and New York.
-- Going on the offensive with state ballot initiatives to expand inheritance rights, hospital visitation and other benefits for gay and lesbian couples rather than defending losing battles against same-sex marriage bans.
-- Finding new allies in the religious community. "We have allowed the radical right to usurp and control the lexicon of family values, faith and morality," Guerriero said. Trammel agreed, saying it is "extremely important" to "not let people who are anti-gay seize the mantle of religion and morality."
-- Creating a new message for moderate to conservative voters who may be uncomfortable even using the words gay and lesbian by personalizing the issue with mainstream gay couples who are raising children or caring for elderly parents.

Those are the "middle third" of voters who are "reachable but not yet reached," said Evan Wolfson, director of activist group Freedom to Marry and one of the early leaders of the same-sex marriage movement. Polls show about a third of the country supports full marriage equality, another third not only opposes same-sex marriage but considers homosexuality immoral, and a middle third is not yet firmly decided.

more

posted by Eve at 7:02 PM VOTE 0 comments

STATES LINING UP TO OUTLAW SSM: From the Washington Times

The next round of proposals to amend state constitutions to define marriage will begin in a few weeks as lawmakers in as many as nine states promise to get such measures before voters.

In Texas yesterday, state Rep. Warren Chisum "pre-filed" a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Virginia lawmakers have pre-filed a similar amendment, while state legislators in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina and Alabama have said they will introduce marriage amendments as soon as possible.

Marriage amendments already are being processed in Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Tennessee, where they require a second legislative approval to go before voters.

more

posted by Eve at 1:39 AM VOTE 0 comments

IRISH JUDGE TO RULE ON GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS: From The Guardian

A lesbian couple yesterday launched a high court challenge against the Irish government's refusal to recognise their marriage, in a case that could have implications for thousands of cohabiting couples in Ireland.

Catherine Zapaonne and Louise Gilligan appeared in the high court in Dublin to seek a judicial review of the inspector of taxes' refusal to recognise them as a couple.

Dr Zapaonne, a public policy consultant and member of the Human Rights Commission, and Dr Gilligan, an academic, have lived together for 23 years and own a house together in county Dublin. They are Irish citizens and married in Vancouver, Canada, in September last year--a marriage recognised under Canadian law. When they returned to Ireland and applied for the tax allowances of a married couple, their application was rejected.

The couple claimed there was no legal impediment to the recognition of same-sex marriage. They argued that an opposite-sex couple resident in Ireland who married in Canada would be recognised. Lawyers said the revenue of fice's refusal to grant them the same tax relief as a heterosexual married couple was discriminatory and breached their constitutional and human rights under the European convention.

more

posted by Eve at 1:11 AM VOTE 0 comments

NEWSOM MAY BE LOSING TOUCH: From the Oakland Tribune

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom became a national figure his first year in office, primarily because of the bold and very public stance he took in support of gay marriage.

But results from last week's local election show he may be losing touch with the voters who helped elect him here at home.

After floating to a giddy 80 percent approval rating in San Francisco, Newsom lost almost all of the major initiatives and candidates he endorsed in last Tuesday's election.

The very source of his popularity -- namely, reaching out to the city's progressive base through bold moves such as is suing marriage licenses to gay couples -- may have caused his election-night setbacks, accor ding to political observers.

more

posted by Eve at 1:08 AM VOTE 0 comments

GAY-RIGHTS SUPPORTERS SUE OVER GA AMENDMENT: From the Associated Press

Gay-rights supporters sued over Georgia's newly approved constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying Tuesday the wording did not make it clear that voters were also being asked to ban civil unions.

The plaintiffs--including two Democratic state legislators and a University of Georgia law professor--argued that the amendment, passed overwhelmingly on Nov. 2, should be thrown out.

more

posted by Eve at 1:08 AM VOTE 0 comments

DEATH IS THE MOTHER OF BEAUTY: Eve

Went to Mass yesterday, and the priest said something that really struck me. He was discussing Jesus' statement, "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection" (Luke 20:34-6, using the King James Version for Internet convenience). The priest said that marriage is a response to death: It's our way of continuing not only the species or bloodline (intercourse does that just dandy without marriage) but the society, the culture, the community. Marriage replenishes the community by not merely producing children but nurturing them. This reminded me of my old "Sunrise, Sunset" post. I'd be interested if people have any related thoughts....

posted by Eve at 3:12 PM VOTE 0 comments

BEAMS, PLANKS, AND MARRIAGE DEMOGRAPHICS: Michael Triplett

Tom Sylvester over at Family Scholars Blog takes a swipe at a Boston Globe column point out that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, but also is the first state to have gay marriage and is easily one of the most liberal states in the union. This, in contrast to the South and Southwest which has the highest divorce rates in the nation while touting family values and shunning "liberal" for their immorality.

While the column in defensive, it does raise the peculiar question of why tolerant and permissive New England has low divorce rates (and more intact families) while more conservative and rigid Southerners and Southwesterners have much higher divorce rates and fractured families.

To borrow a "Southernism," it does beg one to ask whether those states and voters shouldn't clean up their own front porch before criticizing their neighborhoods. Since liberalism, tolerance, and permissiveness doesn't appear to lead to high divorce rates (at least using this crude approach), then maybe they are missing the boat.

link

posted by Eve at 3:09 PM VOTE 0 comments

SEPARATION OF MARRIAGE AND STATE: Julian Sanchez

Like most libertarians, I'd like the state to get out of the business of defining marriage altogether--or anyway, to the extent compatible with the probably inevitable entanglement of such partnerships with immigration and tax laws--acting as a neutral enforcer of whatever arrangements partners or groups of whatever gender see fit to make. But I've also expended a moderate amount of rhetorical energy backing the fight for gay marriage, on the assumption that this best-case scenario was unlikely to come about soon, and that if the state were going to be involved with marriage, it had at least better not disburse the legal benefits thereof in a way that made some people second-class citizens.

But this post from Juan Cole--no libertarian he--gives me pause. The controversy over gay marriage may, just maybe, have made the libertarian's best-case scenario sellable to both sides in the guise of a "compromise" solution. Proponents of gay marriage who've just been handed 11 rather overwhelming setbacks on state ballots can get just about everything they really want from a two-tiered regime where states are, as they should be, in the business of enforcing, not sanctifying, and private churches decide which civil unions they want to consecrate as marriages. With states restricted to recognizing civil unions, gay couples get both the legal benefits they seek and the formal equality that would elude them if states merely added civil unions as a consolation prize to the current marriage regime. ...

The Prospect's Garance Franke-Ruta, incidentally, has a rather desultory argument against Cole's modest proposal. Her two central points seem to be, first, a vague objection centered on the legal rights of women that I have trouble imagining would be a serious obstacle (no more than pre-nuptial agreements, which are already an option) and a strikingly conservative one about the "moral and spiritual meaning" of marriage, which I would have expected a liberal to join libertarians in preferring be defined by the couples (or groups) whose marriages they are, along with their (spiritual or secular) communities.

more

posted by Eve at 10:26 PM VOTE 0 comments

SEPARATION OF MARRIAGE AND STATE: Garance Franke-Ruta

Via Daily Kos, I see Juan Cole is proposing that we get rid of the state's role in marriage altogether and replace it with a "civil contract" into which individuals of any gender can enter, leaving "marriage" itself as a purely religious institution ratified only by churches (and, presumably, synagogues and mosques). This strikes me as one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time and a totally counterproductive approach to the question of the hyper-politicization of the idea of gay marriage. Basically, Cole is proposing to destroy marriage as we know it in order to accommodate gay people's desire to marry. It is incomprehensible to me that such an idea would tame passions on this topic; it can only inflame them.

Basically, what Cole is arguing is that all marriage be abolished and replaced with civil union-like arrangements. Currently, gays in Vermont can enter into a civil union as a state contract and then be married religiously by whatever church, such as the Unitarians, will perform such a ceremony. And in the states where civil unions exist, gays have most of the same the rights as married heterosexuals with regard to each other. Cole is proposing transforming straight marriage into something more like gay marriage in states with civil union laws, where the legal and religious aspects of the contract and institution are disentangled. ...

This is exactly the kind of thing that religious conservatives have long warned gay marriage would lead to and why they are so agitated about stopping any effort to allow it. Proposing to do exactly what conservatives fear most -- abolish marriage as we know it -- in order to accommodate gay people can only make the anti–gay marriage blowback that much stronger.

Further, any arrangement that disentangled marriage from the legal protections that a century and a half of feminist agitating have finally got enshrined into marriage law would likely have an extremely deleterious effect on the rights of women over time. ...

Besides, what if you believe in the institution of marriage as a secular social institution with an abiding moral and historical force? I know plenty of people married in non-religious ceremonies for whom the institution retains its moral and spiritual meaning as the lifelong union of two individuals and the social union of two families and the basic moral framework within which to have a family, even absent any religious imprimatur. Marriage has all kinds of different meanings for different people and in different cultures -- think arranged marriages -- but it is an incredibly radical thing in the Anglo-American legal and historical framework to propose the idea of getting the government out of the straight marriage business altogether and replacing it with a series of genderless contracts.

I know everyone is all agitated about how to solve the dilemma of the Democrats and the backlash against the idea of gay marriage that in 2004 contributed to their failure to gain office, but one word of advice: You're not going to solve anything if you start mucking about with straight marriage. You're just not.

more

posted by Eve at 10:24 PM VOTE 0 comments

SEPARATION OF MARRIAGE AND STATE: Juan Cole

...For instance, a lot of Democrats would like to see gay marriage or at least civil gay unions passed into law. This is a matter of equity, since gay partners can't even get into a hospital to see an ill partner because hospitals limit visits to close family.

This issue scares the bejesus out of the red states. But if Democrats were sly, there is a way out. The Baptist southern presidential candidate should start a campaign to get the goddamn Federal and state governments out of the marriage business. It has to be framed that way. Marriage should be a faith-based institution and we should turn it over to the churches. If someone doesn't want to be married in a church, then the state government can offer them a legal civil contract (this is a better name for it than civil union). That's not a marriage and the candidate could solemnly observe that they are taking their salvation in their own hands if they go that route, but that is their business. But marriage is sacred and the churches should be in charge of it.

If you succeeded in getting the government out of the marriage business, then the whole issue would collapse on the Republicans. You appeal to populist sentiments against the Feds and to the long Baptist tradition of support for the US first amendment enshrining separation of religion and state.

But the final result would be to depoliticize gay marriage, because the Federal government wouldn't be the arena for arguing about it. If states didn't marry people, then there wouldn't be any point in arguing about it in Congress. The states could offer gays the same civil contract status as it offers straight people who want to shack up legally but without the sanction of a church. ...

The final outcome would be both more progressive (the government should not in fact be solemnizing a religioius ceremony like marriage) and also advantageous to the Democrats, and it would leave gays actually better off.

There are other such strategies that could be adopted. But it seems clear. In 2008, the Democrats have to find a way to get back a couple of big red states. They can't do that unless they find canny ways to defuse the cultural issues the Republicans have been deploying so effectively.

more

posted by Eve at 10:21 PM VOTE 0 comments

NEW MARRIAGE LAWS FACING COURT TESTS: From the Washington Times

Legal wrangling over new state constitutional amendments on marriage is already under way in Oregon, Louisiana and Oklahoma, and expected within a few weeks in Georgia.

The most explosive case is likely to be in Oregon, where plaintiffs representing 3,000 same-sex couples are suing to have their "marriages" recognized.

Oral arguments before the Oregon Supreme Court had been scheduled for Nov. 17, but now that voters have passed Oregon's constitutional marriage amendment, the high court has rescheduled arguments for Dec. 15. ...

The new amendment doesn't explicitly forbid same-sex "marriage" or civil unions, said David Fidanque, executive director of the ACLU state office. "It is way too early" to predict how the high court will react to the new marriage amendment, he added.

Oregon's amendment says that "only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."

more

posted by Eve at 10:20 PM VOTE 0 comments

OREGON COUPLES FRET OVER GAY MARRIAGE BAN: From the Associated Press

As she watched her 3-year-old son convert a box into a spaceship, Kelly Burke was dreading the arrival of a letter that could change their lives. The stay-at-home mom and her partner of 15 years, Dolores Doyle, are among the nearly 3,000 gay couples who wed in Oregon this spring. Now the status of those marriages, and the benefits that come with them, is unclear after Oregon voters decisively approved a ban on gay marriage this past week.

"The mailman came this morning and I panicked," said Burke, who relies on Doyle's employer for health insurance. "My first thought is: 'Oh my God, here comes the letter. They're cutting me off.'"

While 11 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage on Election Day, Oregon is the only state among them where the government has already approved gay marriage, albeit temporarily.

Some 2,960 gay couples tied the knot after Multnomah County momentarily flung open the door to same-sex marriage. A judge stopped the practice after six weeks, and the state has refused to acknowledge the marriages pending the outcome of a lawsuit on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage.

Still, some companies took it upon themselves to view the couples as legally married, extending benefits--such as insurance coverage--not previously available. ...

It is unclear what the passage of Measure 36 means for the current lawsuit in the Oregon Supreme Court, in which nine gay couples--including Burke and Doyle--claim that preventing them from marrying is unconstitutional.

The next hearing was postponed until Dec. 15 to give both sides a chance to argue what effect the amendment will have.

Oregon was home to the first court ruling in the nation to interpreted a state constitution to prohibit all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In that case, the Oregon Court of Appeals required Oregon Health & Science University to extend insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees.

But since that 1998 ruling, there has been little movement in the Legislature toward a clear policy on same-sex partner benefits.

more

posted by Eve at 10:17 PM VOTE 0 comments

AIDE SAYS BUSH WILL SEEK SSM BAN: From Reuters

U.S. President George W. Bush will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a "hopeful and decent" society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

Bush's call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about "moral values" to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week's election.

"If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman," Bush political aide Karl Rove told "Fox News Sunday."

Rove said Bush would "absolutely" push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of "activist judges" who would permit gay marriages. ...

Bush said last month that he disagreed with a Republican Party platform provision that would also ban civil unions of same-sex couples, and he said states should be able to allow such legal arrangements if they wish.

Rove elaborated on this on Sunday.

"He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."

more

posted by Eve at 10:14 PM VOTE 0 comments

UNDAUNTED LENO REVS UP MARRIAGE ISSUE: From the San Francisco Chronicle

Flying in the face of conventional wisdom, San Francisco state Assemblyman Mark Leno will bring the fight for same-sex marriage back into the spotlight, making it the first order of business when the Legislature reconvenes next month.

Leno, who is gay, is calling for the state to change its definition of marriage from a contract "between a man and a woman" to a contract "between two persons."

In other words, legalize same-sex marriage.

Considering the blowback from Tuesday's national election -- and the perception among prominent Democrats such as U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein that same-sex marriage hurt them at the polls -- one might think revving up the marriage issue so soon would be the last thing on Democratic legislators' minds. But Leno, who put his bill on hold until after the election, said he has already gotten the committed support of not only Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuez but about 30 other legislators and a who's who of statewide Democratic officeholders including Treasurer Phil Angelides, Controller Steve Westly and Secretary of State Kevin Shelley.

"So we are definitely moving ahead," Leno said. "In fact, the speaker is a co-author, which means it will be given a top priority."

Maybe -- but a good deal of that support was pledged before Tuesday's election, which showed that many people who voted to return President Bush to the White House did so because "moral values" were important to them. ...

"I looked at the maps," Leno said. "John Kerry did just as well in the states that had gay marriage bans on the ballot as Al Gore did four years ago. It wasn't a surprise in any way."

more

posted by Eve at 10:11 PM VOTE 0 comments