Sir Paul Coleridge, the Family Division judge who recently launched a new charity to combat marital break-up, had been lined up as the main speaker at the annual event at the Law Society’s London headquarters later this month.

But organisers were forced to cancel it at short notice after the Law Society ruled that the programme reflected “an ethos which is opposed to same sex marriage”.

They accused the Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, of an “extraordinary” attempt to stifle debate on current affairs and warned that the cancellation itself could be against equality laws.

Lawyers, journalists and think tank chiefs were due to speak alongside Sir Paul at the annual conference organised by the World Congress of Families, a US-based non-religious group which promotes traditional family values.

Around 120 people were expected to attend event which this year took as its theme: “One Man. One Woman. Making the case for marriage, for the good of society.”

Sir Paul, who made headlines last week as he launched a new charity, the Marriage Foundation, was due to speak on the effects of divorce on society.

Labels: discrimination law, divorce, gay marriage, law, Marriage, professional associations, United Kingdom

VOTE

With the war in Afghanistan not yet over and the economy still reeling from the Great Recession, who would have predicted that 2012 would be the year of social issues? But so it is proving to be, between Rick Santorum’s surprisingly strong performance in the Republican primaries, the Obama administration’s mandate for employer-provided health insurance to cover contraception, and—in a series of battles in legislatures from New Jersey to Maryland—the ongoing struggle over same-sex marriage. Where the last is concerned, polls indicate that while more Americans still oppose gay marriage, the majority that does so is dwindling rapidly. ...

How has this happened? The gradual triumph of gay marriage is not merely due to a legal change that began 20 years ago or even to the sexual revolution of a half-century past; rather it is a consequence of a shift in the foundations of Western civilization that has been taking place over centuries—a shift from Christian to liberal foundations. So profound is this transformation that even the opponents of same-sex marriage are not exactly fighting to recover the old way of life.

To understand how marriage has changed, and not changed, over the course of Western history one can hardly do better than turn to Harvard sociologist Carle Zimmerman’s Family and Civilization as a primer. First published in 1947, it remains an invaluable, indeed prophetic, guide to the marriage debate and wider culture wars. While same-sex marriage may be an absolute novelty, there have been pitched battles over the definition of marriage before, as when the Catholic Church told the barbarians who had overtaken the Roman Empire that they could not continue their practices of cousin marriage—a tradition from time immemorial—if they wished to be Christians.

Indeed, as Zimmerman writes, “in the course of seven or eight centuries the family system of Europe had twice completely reversed its trend” thanks to the Church, which first reformed the socially atomistic conjugal practices of the late Romans before tackling the blood-bound “trustee” families of the invading tribes. “This struggle, one of the most interesting in the history of the Western family, is relatively unknown to us today,” though it was a matter of civilization-shaping importance at the beginning of European Christendom.

The balance between the social extremes of atomism and tribalism could only be maintained as long as the Church was the primary authority responsible for marriage—which it was for over a thousand years. “The barbarian family had to be broken away from clan influences and brought under that of the church,” writes Zimmerman, but “if temporal forces and strong states could take from the church its power, rule, and regulation of the family, then the atomistic type could reappear. Actually, this is what happened.”

Even Zimmerman could not have anticipated same-sex marriage, but he might not have been surprised by it. As Christianity has lost its power in public life, so too have the forms of marriage and family that it established given way to new configurations shaped by the institutions and ideologies that hold power today—specifically, liberalism and the modern state. But did liberalism, with its bedrock principle of legal equality for all individuals, have to lead to gay marriage?

Labels: Christianity, conservatism, culture, discrimination law, gay marriage, gay/straight differences, homosexuality, Lawrence v. Texas, liberalism, religious liberty

VOTE

The ruling follows the launch of a consultation over gay marriage in the UK, in which the Equalities Minister promised a change in the law.

The European Court of Human Rights reached the decision in the case of a lesbian couple in a civil partnership in France, who complained they would not be allowed to adopt a child as a couple, according to the Daily Mail.

The pair, Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, had tried to establish marriage rights under anti-discrimination laws but the judges said there had been no discrimination.

The court heard how the women had wanted Miss Gas to be allowed to adopt Miss Dubois's 11 year-old daughter.

But the judges in Strasbourg said: "The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage."

"With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples," the judges added.

On the issue of gay unions, the judges said: "Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation."

Labels: adoption, civil unions, discrimination law, Europe, gay marriage, law, United Kingdom

VOTE

In 2009, Julea Ward, a teacher and an evangelical Christian, was studying for a master’s degree in counseling at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti. As part of her training, she was required to treat clients, and she expressed her reluctance to work with any who were in same-sex relationships. A professor, heeding Ms. Ward’s wishes, referred a gay client to another counselor.

That seemingly simple request became a problem for Ms. Ward when the university expelled her for having made it. Ms. Ward sued, and her case raises the question of whether a counselor’s religious convictions can disqualify her from the profession. ...

The Sixth Circuit decision turns on how common it is to refer patients to other counselors. Ms. Ward argues that one’s religious beliefs are a reasonable reason to refer a client, while the university argues that it has to train students to work with all kinds of clients. The American Counseling Association filed a brief asserting that to habitually refer gay clients would violate its ethical canon.

Ms. Ward referred questions to her lawyer, Jeremy Tedesco of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal advocacy organization. Mr. Tedesco said that “if referrals are acceptable, including for many nonreligious-based reasons, they can’t deny someone who has a religion-based need to refer.” He said that Ms. Ward was not singling out gay men and lesbians, and that she would also refuse to affirm heterosexuals who sought counseling about their adultery.

“Does it require a Jewish counselor to affirm the religious beliefs of a Muslim client?” Mr. Tedesco asked. He noted that the American Counseling Association allows its members to choose not to work with terminally ill patients considering end-of-life options. That proves, he said, that counselors are sometimes allowed to refuse to treat clients because of a fraught ethical question — so why not when the question is sexuality, and the counselor is Christian?

What many of the briefs fail to investigate is the role of the counselor or therapist. Is it to “affirm” the client’s beliefs, or to offer support and guidance, even to clients whose practices one may find distasteful or morally wrong?

Labels: culture, discrimination law, homosexuality, mental health, relationships, religion, religious liberty

VOTE

Here we go again. Every presidential year since 2004, gay marriage winds up in the middle of the national political crossfire. This November, it could be on the ballot in six states; just this past week, Gov. Chris Christie called for a statewide vote in New Jersey, and gay-rights activists delivered signatures for an initiative in Maine. Though same-sex marriage is gradually gaining ground, it will remain a bitterly contested, polarizing issue for years to come.

Imagine an alternative dimension where both sides of the American culture wars come together to reduce strife and polarization. Not in our galaxy? Certainly not in Washington. But in Utah? Maybe. ...

Enter Ben McAdams and Derek Brown. And a new idea.

McAdams is a 37-year-old Utah state senator, a Democrat (and straight). In 2009, working for the mayor of Salt Lake City, he helped pass an ordinance adding sexual orientation to the city’s employment discrimination law. In a breakthrough, the Mormon church supported the measure. Today 12 other Utah cities have followed suit, and most Utahans favor nondiscrimination coverage for gays. But the state Legislature balked last year at McAdams’ bill banning anti-gay job discrimination statewide.

So this month he proposed something different. A new version of the bill bars employment discrimination based not only on sexual orientation but also on political speech or activity (provided the politics is outside the workplace and unrelated to work).

“I wanted something that could bring the community together,” McAdams said. “This changes the dialogue from the angry dialogue of accusation to a respectful dialogue. If we want respect, we need to give respect.”

The bill is bipartisan. Its co-sponsor is a 40-year-old Republican state House member, Derek Brown. “Both principles are worthwhile,” he said, “and both are concepts I would vote for in and of themselves, but when you pull them both together in one bill, it’s a much more powerful statement that we don’t discriminate, period. Bringing the two sides together where we can focus on the similarities is the only long-term answer we have.”

Labels: discrimination law, freedom of speech, Jonathan Rauch, Utah

VOTE

Here is the order of dismissal. The DCOHR did not reach CUA's and President Garvey's RFRA claims, relying instead on an interpretation of the DCHRA. One important reason, in the DCOHR's view, for dismissing the complaint was that to do otherwise would lead to absurd results, such as compulsory unisex bathrooms and compulsory unisex locker rooms. Better to hold all of these practices outside the ken of the DCHRA.

I applaud the decision. At the same time, I think it is extraordinary that in the current legal landscape, we are reduced to depending on the absurdity of forcing everyone, even if against their will, to accept unisex bathrooms, in order to conclude that a private religious institution like CUA can have men and women sleep in separate dorms. The toilet: our safety-net of common sense.

Labels: discrimination law, gender, universities

VOTE

The Michigan Court of Appeals has released for publication its September opinion in Moon v. Michigan Reproductive and IVF Center [pdf]. In that case, Allison Moon sued a fertility clinic because it would not provide services to her as a single woman. Reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals ruled that the clinic was subject to the state's anti-discrimination law and could not avoid litigation on the basis of a doctor's alleged right to choose his patients. ...

A place of public accommodation includes a "health facility" whose services are "available to the public." Such a facility cannot discriminate on the basis of marital status.

The defendant did not dispute that it was a public accommodation, but it did argue that the law requires a doctor-patient relationship to be consensual and that therefore the doctor could decline to treat anyone. The court ruled that the doctor can decline to treat a patient, but not on one of the grounds identified in the anti-discrimination statute. "A contrary interpretation," the court held, "would allow a doctor to follow his personal prejudices or biases and deny treatment to a patient merely because he is African-American, Jewish, or Italian."

Labels: Artificial Reproductive Technology, discrimination law, IVF, single parenting

VOTE

In an important test of the boundaries of the separation of church and state, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case examining whether a parochial school teacher may be barred from filing a discrimination lawsuit against her employer when the suit might entangle government in matters of religious faith.

The high court is being asked to decide whether Cheryl Perich and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may sue the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. ...

The high court has never before identified the contours of the ministerial exception, although such an exception has been recognized and upheld in the lower courts. It has been found to clearly apply to a pastor, priest, or rabbi, but less clear is whether it applies to other employees involved in religious duties.

The Obama administration, arguing on behalf of the EEOC, urged the court to reject the claims of the Lutheran Church and embrace a line of analysis that would have virtually eliminated the ministerial exception. ...

At one point, Justice Elena Kagan asked Ms. Kruger whether she believed that a church has a right grounded in First Amendment religious protections to hire and fire employees without government interference.

Kruger answered that the government was basing its argument on the freedom of association, rather than the parts of the First Amendment that deal with religious freedom.

“We don’t see that line of church autonomy principles in the religion clause jurisprudence as such,” Kruger replied. “We see it as a question of freedom of association.”

The position surprised several justices, including Justice Kagan, the Obama administration’s former solicitor general, who said she found the comment “amazing.”

Labels: discrimination law, law, Lutheran Church, religious liberty, schools

VOTE

When Catholic University President John Garvey announced in June that the university would be reverting to same-sex dorms for on-campus students, he probably didn't expect much of a legal challenge.

Well, he got one.

Yesterday the university was forced to explain to the D.C. Office of Human Rights how the new policy doesn't violate the city's Human Rights Act, a claim made by public interest law professor John Banzhaf in a lawsuit. According to Banzhaf, who teaches at The George Washington University Law School, the District's statute prohibits discrimination unless it is a "business necessity" without which an institution could not function. He adds:

Unfortunately for [Garvey], he cannot rely upon religion, because the D.C. Court of Appeals has held -- in a case in which Georgetown University tried to justify discrimination based upon sexual orientation because of fundamental and strongly held Catholic teachings about homosexuality -- that religious motivations were irrelevant, and no defense, under the statute.

Labels: Catholic Church, culture, DC, discrimination law, gender, hooking up, men, premarital sex, religion, religious liberty, sex, universities, women

VOTE

Some faith-based agencies in Illinois that try to help the state's most vulnerable residents are in flux over providing foster care services in light of the state's upcoming legal recognition of civil unions.

The Catholic Diocese of Rockford, Ill., said Thursday that it will end its state-funded adoption and foster care program rather than comply with a new law that would require it to place children with gay or unmarried couples. Officials said other dioceses would decide quickly whether to follow suit. ...

Officials from the Rockford Diocese said they were forced to terminate state contracts worth $7.5 million after lawmakers failed to pass an amendment exempting religious groups from provisions of the state's new civil unions law, which will let gay and lesbian couples form civil unions, a rough equivalent to marriage. The law takes effect Wednesday.

Catholic Charities wanted to be allowed to refer unmarried or gay couples to other agencies, as it has for years. ...

Catholic charity groups place children only with married couples or single people — not with couples living together. They consider couples in civil unions to be unmarried and therefore not eligible to adopt or provide foster care through their programs.

If the Legislature does not add a religious exemption, other dioceses could decide to withdraw from the state program, said Bob Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, civil unions, discrimination law, foster parenting, gay parenting, Illinois, marital status discrimination, religion, religious liberty, unmarried parents

VOTE

Rhode Island's leading gay marriage advocacy group says it opposes legislation to create civil unions because of a provision allowing religious groups to ignore the new law.

Marriage Equality Rhode Island says it's urging lawmakers to revise the legislation.

The provision would exempt religious organizations from having to perform civil union ceremonies or recognize the relationships. But MERI director Martha Holt says the exemption would also allow religious hospitals, cemeteries and schools to ignore rights given to gay couples in a civil union.

Labels: civil unions, discrimination law, religious liberty, Rhode Island

VOTE

Last month, when Attorney General Holder announced that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation warranted “heightened scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause, and that §3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional under this standard, it was not immediately clear what level of scrutiny he was advocating. ...

Holder borrowed this anti-stereotyping principle from sex-based equal protection law. In cases such as U.S. v. Virginia (which Holder cites), the Court has held that the state may classify on the basis of sex when doing so serves to disrupt sex-role stereotypes, but not when it reflects or reinforces such stereotypes. “Real differences” between the sexes do not trump or negate this rule. The state may take real differences into account when seeking “to promot[e] equal employment opportunity” or “advance full development of the talent and capacities of our Nation’s people,” but such differences may not be used to justify state action that reflects or reinforces traditional conceptions of men and women’s roles.

Holder’s adaptation of this anti-stereotyping principle illustrates the potential of orientation-based equal protection law. An anti-stereotyping principle would enable courts to invalidate laws restricting marriage to different-sex couples without further stigmatizing relationships outside of marriage. It would protect sexual minorities across a wide range of contexts (including parenting, work, and health) that the marriage-as-a-fundamental-right approach fails to reach. Under an anti-stereotyping approach, “real differences”—such as the fact that same-sex couples cannot conceive children on their own—could not be used to justify state action that reflects or reinforces stereotyped conceptions of gay parents and their children. This way of doing gay rights would help protect the liberty of all gays and lesbians to develop their capacities and form families free from “the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

Labels: culture, discrimination law, DOMA, gay marriage, gay/straight differences, gender differences, law

VOTE

State officials are investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly gay parents.

If they are found in violation, Lutheran Child and Family Services, Catholic Charities in five regions and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency will have to license openly gay foster parents or lose millions of state dollars, potentially disrupting more than 3,000 foster children in their care.

Though Illinois legislators championing the civil union bill earlier this year insisted that religious institutions would not be forced to bless same-sex unions, it said nothing about same-sex parents.

Now, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Gov. Pat Quinn's legal team and the Department of Children and Family Services are carefully researching the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Civil Union Act and the Illinois Constitution to determine whether they prohibit agencies from considering sexual orientation as a factor in foster care and adoption. In Illinois, all adults who adopt or become foster care providers must obtain foster care licenses.

"Social intervention such as adoption laws and practices inevitably reflect their communities," said Kendall Marlowe, a spokesman for DCFS. "Illinois as a state has grown on this (gay rights) issue as evidenced by (civil union legislation). Adoption law and practice should reflect the values of the people of Illinois."

But Bob Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said Catholic Charities has no intention of changing its policy against allowing openly gay foster parents after nearly a century of serving children in Illinois. Catholic Charities inspired the state to take on foster care, which ultimately led to the creation of DCFS. ...

Though the civil union legislation factors into the inquiry, the issue came to light months earlier when Lutheran Child and Family Services turned away a gay male couple when they tried to become mentors for a gay runaway in the Lutheran agency's care. The policies of Lutheran Child and Family Services, which is affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, preclude "developing or licensing foster care families who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or questioning." ...

Officials at several of the religious agencies at the center of the state's investigation argue that they are shielded by an executive order signed by President Barack Obama in November ensuring that faith-based organizations can provide social services with federal funds without sacrificing their "religious character."

Labels: Catholic Church, Christianity, discrimination law, foster parenting, gay parenting, homosexuality, Illinois, religion, religious liberty

VOTE

British society regards Christians with scorn and is too ready to dismiss believers as bigots who do not have a brain, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s wife.

Jane Williams, a theologian and teacher, said many Christians felt uncomfortable talking about their beliefs and feared that doing so was “not politically correct”.

But “lazy” and “scornful” attitudes towards people of faith in Britain must be challenged, she said, urging Christians to be more prepared to “argue our corner”.

Mrs Williams’s remarks come amid warnings from Church leaders that the prevailing attitudes in politics and human rights law discriminate against Christians. ...

Her comments come after the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, launched the “Not Ashamed” campaign urging Christians to stand up for their rights.

Labels: Anglican Church, Christianity, discrimination law, religion, religious liberty, United Kingdom

VOTE

A Christian couple opposed to homosexuality have lost a court battle over their right to become foster carers.

Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, of Derby, said the city council did not want them to look after children because of their traditional views. ...

But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

They said that if children were placed with carers who objected to homosexuality and same-sex relationships, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote the welfare' of looked-after children".

They rejected suggestions that the case involved "a threat to religious liberty", adding: "No one is asserting that Christians - or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims - are not fit and proper persons to foster or adopt. No-one is contending for a blanket ban." ...

"We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."

Labels: Christianity, discrimination law, foster parenting, homosexuality, religion, religious liberty, United Kingdom

VOTE

While celebrated as a historic step forward for gay rights in Illinois, the new civil union bill that awaits Gov. Pat Quinn's signature also offers opportunities for heterosexual couples who don't want to wed but seek many of the legal protections of marriage. ...

"It just seemed wrong to me to write a law that would be discriminatory," said state Rep. Greg Harris, D- Chicago, the bill's chief sponsor in the House.

He said some senior citizens lobbied for the bill. Seniors with survivor's benefits from Social Security or a pension could lose that income if they remarry. A civil union allows them to keep that benefit while providing the same state-level rights as a marriage. ...

Courtney Greve, spokeswoman for Cook County Clerk David Orr, said the clerk's office gets weekly calls from heterosexual couples who don't want to marry but are interested in some sort of domestic partnership. Some, she said, are young couples facing a loss of health insurance, who want to wait to get married until they can plan a more elaborate wedding. The county's domestic partnership registry is not open to heterosexual couples.

Labels: civil unions, culture, discrimination law, economics, heterosexual couples, Illinois, Marriage

VOTE

Do opposite-sex couples have a right to civil partnership? Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle of the United Kingdom plan to argue in a future lawsuit that they do. ...

Some have suggested, moreover, that sexual relationships ought not to be considered binary in this way and that individuals ought to be able to marry anyone they wish to marry, regardless of whether either of the parties has any desire to have or to be a "husband," a "wife," or something in between. This argument suggests that what's wrong with insisting on opposite-sex marriage is not simply that people might want to choose a different sort of role (i.e., a woman might want to be another woman's "husband"), but also that people might reject the idea that there must be "husband" and "wife" roles within such relationships at all. On this approach, the rigidity of traditional marriage is stifling and far too scripted, no matter how flexibly the dual roles within it might be allocated. Some might react to this rigidity by wanting something other than marriage, and this is where civil partnerships can come into play.

For a gay couple seeking to marry, a civil partnership might be inadequate, given its "consolation prize" quality -- we won't let you marry, but we'll give you all of the concrete legal benefits of marriage and name the institution something different. But for some gay couples and some straight couples, a civil partnership could be just what the doctor ordered -- an institution through which two committed partners who love each other and want to spend their lives together monogamously can do so, receiving the full legal benefits that come with this commitment, without associating themselves with all of the connotations of marriage.

We can get a sense of what these objectionable connotations might be by asking what someone who is opposed to gay marriage (and gay partnerships) would say is the proper definition of marriage. An opponent of gay unions might say, first, that marriage is about a union between a man and a woman. A straight couple that rejects this script might accordingly prefer an institution that does not contain a traditional sex-role division as part of its historic definition. Though the couple "qualifies" for the man/woman institution, the members of the couple might seek a union that does not emphasize or demand that one member be male and the other female, given the couple's own perception of what unites its members. It could also be that the man and woman in the couple are bisexual and do not like the idea of entering a union that inherently negates this aspect of their identities (by affirming their union as necessarily a heterosexual one).

A second part of the traditional definition of marriage is the couple's openness to the possibility of producing children. A couple that wishes to join together but has no desire to have children might find that this aspect of marriage creates undesirable expectations that they do not plan to meet and may not wish to confront. If marriage is understood to be about children, then this couple might want to opt out of marriage, even as it opts into many of the legal benefits that marriage offers, via a civil partnership.

Labels: childfree, civil unions, discrimination law, gender, heteronormativity, heterosexual couples, Marriage, United Kingdom

VOTE

The last remaining Roman Catholic adoption agency to resist Labour’s equality laws is facing closure, after the charity watchdog ruled that it could not avoid considering same-sex couples as potential parents.

Catholic Care had been given hope earlier this year that it could get around the controversial anti-discrimination rules that forced other agencies either to close down or sever their links with the church. ...

Since Labour’s homosexual rights law came into effect in January 2009, all the other 11 Catholic adoption agencies in England have either had to close down or sever their ties with the church hierarchy. Catholic Care was the last to hold out as it launched its legal bid.

The charity, which only found out the judgement was coming on Wednesday, has not yet decided whether to close its adoption service.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, discrimination law, gay parenting, religious liberty, United Kingdom

VOTE

This article examines the possibility of expanding the definition of “sexual orientation” in employment discrimination statutes to include other disfavored sexual preferences, specifically polyamory. It first looks at the fact that the current definition of “sexual orientation” is very narrow, being limited to orientations based on the sex of those to whom one is attracted, and explores some of the conceptual and functional problems with the current definition. Next the article looks at the possibility of adding polyamory to current statutory definitions of sexual orientation, examining whether polyamory is a sufficiently embedded identity to be considered a sexual orientation and the degree of discrimination that polyamorists face. After concluding that expanding current statutory definitions of sexual orientation to include polyamory would be reasonable, the article looks at some of the complications to making such a move, including potential policy implications and the conflicting evidence as to whether polys want specific legal protections.

Labels: culture, discrimination law, polyamory

VOTE

...The race analogy often focuses on Loving v. Virginia. In this 1967 case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Virginia statute that imposed criminal penalties for marriages between whites and those of other races.

Loving is a significant case in U.S. constitutional history. The nation’s highest court found that Virginia’s prohibition was “designed to maintain White Supremacy.” Such laws, the court concluded, are repugnant to the principles of racial equality embedded in our Constitution.

Those fighting for same-sex marriage often quote a passage from Loving that asserts marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man.” This passage is from the second part of the opinion, which explained that, under constitutional concepts of liberty, the right to marry cannot be denied on “so unsupportable a basis” as “the racial classifications” embodied in Virginia’s racial integrity law.

But proponents of same-sex marriage don’t always provide the entire quotation. In the same passage, the court explains that marriage is “fundamental to our very existence and survival” — and that the freedom to marry is essential to the “orderly” pursuit of happiness.

Marriage is not fundamental to our “existence” and “survival” merely because it sometimes is marked by expressions of love, commitment, and respect. Marriage is fundamental to our existence and survival because it remains society’s best and most effective way of ordering sexual relations between men and women, encouraging procreation, and increasing the odds that a child will have the influence and support of both a mother and a father.

Labels: discrimination law, gay marriage, Marriage, race

VOTE