August 6, 2006

Misadventure: gay marriage by lawsuit a failure

Whatever you think of the legal merits of the campaign for gay marriage by judicial fiat, you have to admit it’s been a political disaster:data manager dowland

After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriage in 2003, and gay and lesbian couples began to wed in San Francisco and Portland, Ore., soon after, it seemed to Lisa Stone that a new era was sweeping the country. In 2004, Stone, a Seattle gay-rights advocate, sued to overturn Washington’s 1998 gay-marriage ban. “There was a youthful optimism about what was ahead of us,” she says.

Now, though, “nobody’s swept up anymore,” says Stone. For advocates of same-sex marriage, the outlook is dark, that early enthusiasm tempered by a wave of anti-gay-marriage voter initiatives and a string of courtroom losses. And more court decisions and initiatives expected this year could result in devastating setbacks. “We may face a reality by the end of this year that is so radically different … that we may have to completely rethink and rework how we’re going to move forward,” says Ed Murray, a gay Washington State representative. Jordan Lorence of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund is more blunt: “One side is clearly prevailing, and one is losing.”

The losses may have been self-inflicted. Despite some early recognition of gay couples’ legal rights in Hawaii and Vermont courts, the Massachusetts case seemed to spark a torrent of voter hostility. Today, 44 states have laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman, and voters have written gay-marriage bans into the constitutions of 19 states — 16 since 2003.

Posted by Paul at 7:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack data manager dowland

July 14, 2006

8th Circuit reinstates Nebraska’s gay marriage ban

The call by many gays and lesbians for Government by Judicial Fiat is not fairing well these days:data manager dowland

Courts handed victories to gay-marriage opponents in two states Friday, reinstating Nebraska’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and throwing out an attempt to keep a proposed ban off the ballot in Tennessee.

In the Nebraska case, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a judge’s ruling last year that the ban was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things.

Seventy percent of voters had approved the ban as a constitutional amendment in 2000.

It went further than similar bans in many states in that it also barred same-sex couples from many legal protections afforded to heterosexual couples. For example, the partners of gays and lesbians who work for the state are not entitled to share their health insurance and other benefits.

New York-based Lambda and the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Project sued, arguing it violated gay rights.

The court, however, ruled that amendment ”and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.”

The 8th Circuit’s opinion is here. It reads in part:data manager dowland

In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States Constitution. Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed “for want of a substantial federal question.” (Emphasis added.) There is good reason for this restraint. As Judge Posner has observed:

“This is not to say that courts should refuse to recognize a constitutional right merely because to do so would make them unpopular. Constitutional rights are, after all, rights against the democratic majority. But public opinion is not irrelevant to the task of deciding whether a constitutional right exists … If it is truly a new right, as a right to same-sex marriage would be … [judges] will have to go beyond the technical legal materials of decision and consider moral, political, empirical, prudential, and institutional issues, including the public acceptability of a decision recognizing the new right.”

Posted by Paul at 8:15 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack data manager dowland

June 25, 2006

“I’m amazed by how little support for gay marriage comes from gay people”

Who said that? Answer below the jump.data manager dowland

Playwright and AIDS activist Larry Kramer.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 7:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

June 11, 2006

Tick, tock: gays are winning the fight to wed

Steve Chapman explains well why religious conservatives are losing the fight against gay rights. Among other things, he notes that “[t]wo states (Vermont and Connecticut) have legalized civil unions, without attracting 1 percent of the attention that has gone to Massachusetts.”data manager dowland

That’s right, isn’t it? Even now, if you legalize gay marriage but call it something else, almost nobody bats an eye. (Connecticut’s civil union law is, by the way, wholly the work of democratic process.) I wonder whether gay activists wouldn’t make much quicker advancements were they to campaign for the right to “civil union” rather than the right to “marriage.”data manager dowland

But whether it’s marriages or civil unions, and whether they come soon or very soon, Mr. Chapman’s thesis is correct: the gay community is winning this fight.data manager dowland

Relatedly, it’s now been fifteen months since Washington’s Supreme Court heard argument on the constitutionality of the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to one man and one woman:data manager dowland

… if the court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act, Washington would become the second state in the country, after Massachusetts, to offer same-sex marriages and the first to extend the benefit to those who live outside the state.

I’m not a fan of this sort of social policy change by judicial fiat. Nevertheless, the delay here probably signals the end of the state’s DOMA:data manager dowland

Some opponents of gay marriage have already read doom into the long timeline, saying a ruling that would uphold existing law — the outcome they’re hoping for — would have been reached and a decision rendered months ago.

Posted by Paul at 12:19 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack data manager dowland

June 7, 2006

Let them vote (and be done with it)

The Senate votes today on the Federal Marriage Amendment. Good:data manager dowland

Knowing it isn’t going anywhere in Congress, Bush and the Senate GOP leadership feel secure in cynically using the doomed marriage amendment to “rile up the base” just in time for those elections in November. The day after the election, of course, it’s doubtful the phrase “marriage amendment” will ever again be heard in the Bush White House.

Even better:data manager dowland

By bringing up the proposal now, when it is certain to be defeated, and making it clear in comments to the media that they are doing it only to “bring out the base” in November, Bush, Rove and company are also laying the groundwork for permanently shelving the initiative after the ballots are counted.

ADDED —data manager dowland

Motion to end debate fails, 49-48. Roll call here.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 9:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

June 4, 2006

Religious conservatives: played like a fiddle

I admit I don’t care for the tune, but still:data manager dowland

Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the [federal marriage] amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told Newsweek that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president’s moral radar. “I think it was purely political. I don’t think he gives a shit about it. He never talks about this stuff.”

The president will again tomorrow endorse passage of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, even though both supporters and opponents agree the amendment has no chance of winning the necessary two-thirds vote from either house of Congress. And Mr. Bush has not phoned any member to ask for their vote:data manager dowland

A White House official … says Bush has not made calls on the amendment because “nobody has asked us.”

Umm, hmm. Yes, that is how it usually works, Rev. Dobson. The president doesn’t lobby for legislation he favors passionately unless somebody asks him to lobby. Geez, everybody knows that.data manager dowland

(Okay, so maybe it’s not such a bad little tune after all: “Dance, bitches. I said dance!” )data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 4:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

June 1, 2006

Same-sex marriage: nonsense from both sides

Today I received a blast e-mail from Log Cabin Republicans. In part, it reads:data manager dowland

Call President Bush today! Tell him not to play politics with the Constitution. News reports indicate the President is going to hold a White House event on Monday, June 5th to push the anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment. Please call the White House comment line now (202) 456-1111. Tell the President he should be uniting the country, not dividing it. [Emphasis mine.]

What the hell does that mean?* (I take it to mean, “Don’t support anything we oppose.”) Politics is inherently divisive, and nothing the president does on the question of same-sex marriage will unite the country.data manager dowland

Suppose Mr. Bush suddenly announced his support for a Federal constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think Log Cabin would give a rat’s ass about how bitterly divisive that would be?data manager dowland

Meanwhile, this from Sen. Wayne Allard, R-CO:data manager dowland

Respect for the democratic process compels this Congress to protect traditional marriage in the face of a coordinated effort to redefine marriage through the courts.

[…]

Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution is being amended to reflect a new definition of marriage — not by democratically elected members of Congress, but by unaccountable and unelected judges. [Again, emphasis mine.]

Horse hockey.data manager dowland

Here’s the truth: the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision in Goodridge wasn’t based on the Federal Constitution. It was based on Massachusetts’ constitution. And the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision in Baker likewise wasn’t based on the Federal Constitution. It was based on Vermont’s constitution.data manager dowland

Sen. Allard might say that both state courts were wrong about their own law. But he cannot truthfully say that they “amended” the Federal Constitution, for neither court relied on the Federal Constitution. And no federal court has announced a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In other words, pace the senator’s claim to the contrary, no court has announced a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.data manager dowland

Why, then, should we amend the Federal Constitution to insulate the states from their own courts? Can’t the states amend their constitutions for that purpose? And even if we thought it appropriate to enact a national remedy to local activism, why should we answer the underlying policy question? Why doesn’t “respect for the democratic process” compel to us to commit the question to the legislatures?data manager dowland

(*Yes, I know Mr. Bush himself said, “I’m a uniter, not a divider.” It was a stupid thing to say.)data manager dowland

ADDED —data manager dowland

Relatedly, you might be interested in a just-published Cato paper, “The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic,” by University of Minnesota law professor (and Log Cabin member) Dale Carpenter.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 6:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

May 30, 2006

Are you your penis?

Paleoconservative Star Parker acknowledges what most suspect, many fear and others cheer — the tide of public opinion is turning on gay marriage:data manager dowland

The most recent polling shows that a strong majority of Americans oppose legal recognition of same sex marriage (58 percent) and a slight majority favor a constitutional amendment (50 percent for, 47 percent opposed). The support breaks out consistently along partly lines. Republicans favor the amendment (66 percent for) and Democrats oppose (55 percent against).

These results are about the same as they were last year. However, they have changed a lot over the last 10 years. Today 39 percent of Americans support legal recognition of same sex marriage, up from 27 percent 10 years ago and 58 percent oppose, down from 68 percent 10 years ago.

Completing the picture of what seems reasonable to call a trend, the area of the population where support for same-sex marriage is strongest and growing is among young people. Time does not seem to favor those who want to preserve tradition.

Correct. And this is one reason why gays and lesbians should not seek court rulings that elicit backlash from transient majorities. We should instead follow the example of a winning football team in the closing minutes of the game: fall on the ball and run the clock. We don’t need yardage. We need time.data manager dowland

But Ms. Parker’s admission of the apparent isn’t what caught my attention. This is:data manager dowland

… along with the trend toward increasing acceptance of the idea of same-sex marriage has been the complete obliteration of the idea that homosexuality is a type of behavior as opposed to a state of being. The discussion has long disappeared that this is about attitudes regarding this behavior and it has become almost exclusively cast as discrimination claims against gays and lesbians.

[…]

Now there are without question instances where individuals change their sexual behavior.

I have never heard of instance of a black person becoming white or vice versa.

Yet, somehow we have gotten to the point where it is generally accepted that being gay is a fact and not a choice. [Emphasis mine.]

Notice the conflation of behavior with orientation? Ms. Parker first reduces the homosexual to his genitals, and then concludes that what he can do with them explains the whole of his being. data manager dowland

Here, as fairly as I can put it, is Mr. Parker’s argument in syllogistic form, albeit it with one modification:data manager dowland

Minor premise: There are without question instances where heterosexuals have changed their sexual behavior (e.g., in prison, in the military, in British boarding schools).data manager dowland

Major premise: Behavior is a synonym for orientation. data manager dowland

Conclusion: Therefore, heterosexuality is a choice and not a fact.data manager dowland

In Ms. Parker’s argument, the outside experiences of a few homosexuals belie the inside experiences of all the rest. Accordingly, she ignores any of the extra-sexual elements of gay attraction or relationships, including emotional comfort, psychological support, intellectual stimulation or spiritual growth. She does not commend to us the mysteries that in any case bind one human intimately to another. She commends to us only what people can do with their sex organs. That, she would have us believe, tells the whole story — or at least it does where gays and lesbians are concerned.data manager dowland

Fortunately, Ms. Parker’s argument is evidently unpersuasive to the Nation’s youth. They have come to see gays and lesbians in a way she does not: as human beings.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 6:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

May 27, 2006

No amnesty for gays; biennial berating set for June 5

Posted by Paul at 1:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack data manager dowland

May 14, 2006

Sen. Frist and the marriage amendment

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN, on how he justifies a Federal Marriage Amendment to Vice President Dick Cheney, who opposes it:data manager dowland

I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country. And we’ve seen activist judges overturning state by state law, where state legislatures have passed laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that’s being overturned by a handful of activist judges around the country. And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman.

Let’s be clear: the activist judges in question are state court judges. No federal court has found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.data manager dowland

Why should we amend the Federal Constitution to protect the states from their own courts?data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 10:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

March 17, 2006

Polygamy & gay marriage: it’s a fair question

Charles Krauthammer:data manager dowland

To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two? (Link)

Posted by Paul at 9:35 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack data manager dowland

January 14, 2006

The slippery slope to polygamy

If, as Mark Steyn suggests, gay marriage is the slippery slope to polygamy, then what was the slippery slope to gay marriage? The answer is no-fault divorce, something gays had nothing to do with.data manager dowland

Under the status quo ante, when a couple could separate but not divorce even if they made one another miserable, gay marriage would have been intellectually incoherent. “Till death do us part” makes sense only when the interests of third parties, e.g., children, are implicated, and most gay couples don’t have children and never will. data manager dowland

But once the interests of children were subsumed to those of adults, as they were with the enactment of no-fault divorce statutes, heterosexuals themselves changed the definition of marriage by changing its purpose. Marriage ceased to be the institution by which society promoted the stability of the nuclear family, and became instead the institution by which adults celebrated their affection and happiness. No-fault divorce simply acknowledges that affection and happiness are often transitory.data manager dowland

If a marriage serves no purpose larger than itself, if it’s just about love and romance for as long as the love and romance last, what’s uniquely heterosexual or even mongamous about it? If the law says you must stay with your partner only until you no longer want to stay with your partner, then marriage has no requirements not easily satisfied by any two (or three or four) amorous adults. data manager dowland

The door to polygamy may indeed be open now. But gay marriage wasn’t the first to walk through it.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 6:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack data manager dowland

January 7, 2006

Gay group: democracy has no place in a democracy

I kid you not. From Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, on a proposed ballot initiative in Massachusetts to end same-sex marriages there:data manager dowland

“‘Let the people vote’ is not the answer to every question that confronts our democracy,” said Buseck.

So what is the answer, Mr. Buseck? Your way or the highway?data manager dowland

Among my gay brethren, I’ve long noticed a strong and unsettling autocratic impulse. Perhaps this is to be expected from the social heirs of Alexander’s legacy, but that hardly makes it less disturbing …data manager dowland

(Thanks to Gay Patriot.)data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 8:12 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack data manager dowland

December 7, 2005

Gay marriage opponents present signatures for Massachusetts ballot initiative

BOSTON — Supporters of a 2008 ballot initiative to eliminate gay marriage delivered petitions with more than 170,000 signatures to the secretary of state on Wednesday.

The move by the Massachusetts Family Institute and its supporters was the next step in their quest to overturn the 2003 court ruling that made Massachusetts the only state with gay marriage. The initiative also seeks to ban same-sex civil unions.

For the opponents of gay marriage, this is risky. I’ve seen polling data — alas, I can’t find the link now — that suggest Massachusetts voters have acclimated to same-sex marriage and are not inclined to overturn it. They’ll have another two years to acclimate further before voting on this initiative.data manager dowland

Have the supporters of this initiative pondered the possibility, and perhaps the probability, that they will lose? Not that it’s gone anywhere now, but the Federal Marriage Amendment is doomed forever if even one state gives democratic legitimacy to gay marriage.data manager dowland

Massachusetts Family Institute, be careful what you ask for.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 9:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack data manager dowland

November 12, 2005

Gay leader: democracy borders on the “immoral”

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, on public referenda on same-sex marriage:data manager dowland

“What I really want people to understand is rather than seeing these as political contests, these are really profound, unfair, bordering on immoral elections,” Foreman told Reuters on Saturday. “Imagine if this was being done to a minority in Kosovo — people would be outraged.”

Yeah, and imagine if leaders of the gay community didn’t analogize torture and murder to free elections in which gays and lesbians participate — people would be pleasantly surprised!data manager dowland

Does Mr. Foreman think that kind of moral obtuseness is persuasive? Or does he believe that emotion is a substitute for reason? Or what?data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 8:44 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack data manager dowland

November 9, 2005

“A quiet revolution has occurred in the last few decades”

Despite the state constitutional amendments banning them, Dan Morgan at No Speed Bumps says the battle against gay marriages is already lost.data manager dowland

I think the battle was lost even earlier than Dan does. Calls for gay marriage are not the cause of change; they are the result of it. With the adoption of no-fault divorce laws, our society transformed marriage into an institution concerned chiefly with the happiness of couples. And if marriage is about the happiness of couples, there’s no good reason the couples in question can’t be gay.data manager dowland

(By the way, wouldn’t it be fascinating to present voters with a constitutional amendment banning no-fault divorce when presenting them with one banning gay marriage? Can people handle that much cognitive dissonance without their heads exploding?)data manager dowland

(Thanks to Vodkapundit.)data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 6:57 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack data manager dowland

November 4, 2005

Oregon court upholds gay marriage ban

Statesman-Journal:data manager dowland

SALEM — A judge today upheld the gay marriage ban that was adopted by Oregon voters in 2004, sweeping aside arguments by gay rights supporters that the measure is flawed.

In his ruling, Marion County Circuit Judge Joseph Guimond rejected opponents’ arguments that Measure 36 contained too many changes that should have been voted on as separate amendments and that it was improperly submitted to voters.

Today’s ruling was the latest setback for gay rights backers in Oregon, where more than 3,000 marriage licenses were granted to same-sex couples in Multnomah County in the spring of 2004 before a judge halted the practice.

The court’s order is here [link opens PDF].data manager dowland

(Thanks to Howard Bashman.)data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 4:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

November 1, 2005

A conservative case for gay marriage

University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter is guest blogging at The Volokh Conspiracy on the question of same-sex marriage. Dale, whom I know from his days in Houston and our work together in Log Cabin Republicans, is arguing the case for gay marriage from a traditionalist perspective. His first substantive post is here. data manager dowland

I share his view that “gay-marriage advocates have the burden of proof in this debate.” The burden always rests with the affirmative proposition. This is one reason why I believe same-sex marriage must come slowly by way of democratic process and not suddenly by way of judicial fiat. The redefinition of society’s most important social institution is a big deal; the rigorous but unhurried demands of democracy will guarantee that gay marriage advocates meet their burden.data manager dowland

Again, Dale is not making a rights-based argument: “Lots of people spend lots of time arguing about this; indeed, rights-talk has monopolized the debate. The traditionalist case is consequential and moral, not legal.” data manager dowland

I think you’ll enjoy his posts.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 12:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

October 26, 2005

“There is a legitimate debate here, not just the forces of bigotry aligned against equality and civil rights”

At her blog The Y Files, Boston Globe contributor Cathy Young has this very thoughtful post on the debate over same-sex marriage.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 8:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

October 13, 2005

Three cheers for a new ad campaign

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has reversed fields and is now airing television ads that ask straight Texans to see themselves through gay eyes. On November 8, voters in Texas go to the polls to decide the fate of Proposition 2, an amendment to the state constitution that bans same-sex marriage.data manager dowland

It’s a fantastic set of ads.data manager dowland

This one and this one are the best. (Links launch the Quick Time media player.)data manager dowland

If you live in Texas, please remember to vote on November 8. And vote NO on 2.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 8:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

October 6, 2005

No on Prop 2

data manager dowland

See the television ad for the Texas “No on 2” campaign. (Link launches the Quick Time media player.)

On November 8, Texans will vote on Proposition 2. If passed When passed, Prop 2 would ratifydata manager dowland

“[t]he constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” (Link)

Of course, same-sex marriage is already against the law in Texas and neither the state’s legislature nor her courts are going to change that any time soon. But the amendment could put domestic partner benefits — such as the health insurance offered to same-sex companions of employees of Dallas and Travis counties — at risk. data manager dowland

Proposition 2 will pass. The only question is, “By what margin?” Opponents hope to turn out a “No” vote of 30%, which I think is very doable.data manager dowland

The voter registration deadline is October 11. (Unregistered Texan? Get a voter registration form here.) Early voting runs from October 24 to November 4.data manager dowland

If you’re a Texan — and I know that several regular readers of this site are — I’m asking you to please remember to vote. And I’m asking you to vote no on Prop 2.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack data manager dowland

September 29, 2005

Schwarzenegger vetos gay marriage bill

Reuters:data manager dowland

SAN FRANCISCO — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a widely expected move vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have allowed gay couples to marry.

The Republican governor had said earlier this month that he would veto the bill passed by California’s Democrat-led legislature. The bill was the first of its kind approved by a state legislature.

Schwarzenegger said he would leave the issue of same-sex marriage to the courts and voters, who approved a ballot measure five years ago defining marriage as between a man and woman.

“I do not believe the legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California,” he said in a written statement.

“This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue,” Schwarzenegger wrote. “If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.”

Posted by Paul at 9:30 PM | TrackBack data manager dowland

September 14, 2005

Massachusetts Legislature votes 157-39 against amendment to ban gay marriage

This is the same amendment that passed 105-92 last year.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 6:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

September 10, 2005

Naming names: ‘outing’ the opponents of same-sex marriage

Boston Hearld:data manager dowland

A pair of gay activists are raising the stakes in the fight over same-sex marriage, vowing to post on the Internet the name and address of anyone who signs a petition to ban gay marriage and civil unions in Massachusetts.

“I have the fight in me now, and if people I know, or that I support, or that I do business with are on that list, I might not support them or their philanthropies or their businesses, said Tom Lang, who launched knowthyneighbor.org with his spouse, Alex Westerhoff.

Lang, 42, said he and Westerhoff, 36, are only providing via the Internet public information that any citizen could obtain at the secretary of state’s office. But anti-gay marriage activists are outraged.

“We think that it is intimidation by no other name,”’ said Kristian Mineau, whose name was listed as one of the first 30 signers of the petition. Mineau said he will explore the rights of people who have signed or plan to sign the petition.

“Certainly it raises my concerns. This is the first I have heard of it,” said Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

[…]

Lang said he was not advocating that gay marriage backers use the Web site as a method of intimidating the signers, but rather as a way to “open up communication” on both sides of the debate. “We are not telling people what to do. We are letting people become their own armchair activists,” he said.

Are Messrs. Lang and Westerhoff “encouraging retaliation” against the petition’s signatories? Clayton Cramer says they are:data manager dowland

Oh yeah, and if a pro-life group put up a website listing the names and home addresses of abortion doctors, but claimed, “We want you to open up communication with them,” I would believe that, too.

Well, we need not suppose a pro-life group doing that, for a pro-life group did do that. The website “Nuremberg Files” published the names and addresses of abortionists, put their names on ‘wanted’ posters, offered rewards for their arrest, called for them to be tried for crimes against humanity and crossed out the names of physicians who had been murdered.data manager dowland

In 2002, an en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit held that the content of the “Nuremberg Files” was not constitutionally protected, and affirmed a jury’s award for punitive damages against the American Coalition of Life Activists, operators of the website. data manager dowland

On Tuesday, the court slashed the damage award from $109 million to $4.7 million. But there ought not to be any award. In my view, the Ninth Circuit erred. And the U.S. Supreme Court should grant the defendants’ forthcoming petition for review and reverse. For as Judge Alex Kozinski noted in dissent:data manager dowland

… it is not illegal — and cannot be made so — merely to say things that would frighten or intimidate the listener. For example, when a doctor says, “You have cancer and will die within six months,” it is not a threat, even though you almost certainly will be frightened.

[…]

The difference between a true threat and protected expression is this: A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls.

[…]

In other words, some forms of intimidation enjoy constitutional protection.

Now I don’t know what Messrs. Lang and Westerhoff intend by publishing the names and addresses of the petition’s signatories, and Mr. Cramer doesn’t know either. (Suspecting and knowing are not the same thing.) But let’s assume, as we might in the case of the “Nuremberg Files,” that the webmasters hope for intimidation, or worse. Unless they themselves expressly threaten violence, or solicit the commission of a crime, the chilling nature of their hope is neither here nor there, except perhaps as a matter of conscience. Our hopes exist only in our imagination; they are not events in the world, nor do they make us responsible for the conduct of others. As an advocate of the right to keep and bear arms, Mr. Cramer ought to know that the publication of names and addresses is no more an incitation to unlawful or immoral behavior than is the manufacturing of firearms. People make choices; data and inanimate objects do not. (By the way, the operators of the “Nuremberg Files” expressly forswore the use of violence, and Messrs. Lang and Westerhoff disclaim even a wish to intimidate.)data manager dowland

But there is an important difference between the abortionists targeted for attention by the “Nuremberg Files” and the signatories targeted for attention by Messrs. Lang and Westerhoff. The former were not engaged in a public act, whereas signing a petition that calls for amending the state’s constitution is a public act, and not one in which the signatory has a privacy interest. Even when voting, a practice to which democratic societies attach particular significance, only the marking of the voter’s ballot is secret; the fact of the ballot is not. The voter’s name and address are a matter of public record.data manager dowland

Although I support gay marriage, I have repeatedly stated my view — and I repeat it again now — that, at least in the case of the Federal Constitution, there is no right to same-sex marriage, and that the question of same-sex marriage is political and therefore non-justiciable and must be committed to resolution by the people or their elected representatives. But the notion, inherent in Mr. Cramer’s outrage, that signatories of a petition to Government are entitled to press their view away from public examination, or in the absence of a non-violent badgering, is bogus on its face.data manager dowland

Democracy means the majority rules; the First Amendment means it might not rule comfortably.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 12:10 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack data manager dowland

September 7, 2005

Schwarzenegger to veto same-sex marriage bill

Los Angeles Times:data manager dowland

SAN FRANCISCO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will veto the bill permitting same-sex marriages, his press secretary said this afternoon.

Noting that voters approved a proposition that said marriage was between a man and a woman, spokeswoman Margita Thompson said the governor believes the state “cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.”

“He believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship,” Thompson said in the statement. But she added that legislative action would be unconstitutional and can only be changed by the courts or by voters.

The Assembly passed the same-sex marriage bill Tuesday with no votes to spare. The state Senate had earlier approved it.

Posted by Paul at 9:19 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack data manager dowland

California legislature passes gay marriage bill

Los Angeles Times:data manager dowland

SACRAMENTO — The California Legislature made history Tuesday as the Assembly passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. With no votes to spare, California’s lawmakers became the first in the United States to act without a court order to sanction gay unions. The measure was approved after three Democratic lawmakers, who abstained on a similar proposal that failed in June, changed their minds under intense lobbying by bill author Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and gay and civil rights activists.

The bill, which would change California’s legal definition of marriage from “a civil contract between a man and a woman” to a “civil contract between two persons,” now goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governor has signaled that he will veto it.

The vote was 41-35.data manager dowland

I’m reminded now that gays are such an ‘insular minority’ that they can’t win anything by democratic process, except for passage of an historic bill in the Nation’s largest state.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 12:27 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack data manager dowland

August 26, 2005

Massachusetts likely to keep gay marriage

Reuters:data manager dowland

BOSTON — Opponents of same-sex marriage face near-certain defeat in their bid to overturn a ruling in Massachusetts allowing gays and lesbians to wed, a result that could influence debate on the hotly contested issue across the country.

Just over a year after Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to allow gay couples to marry, political support is fading for a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and allow only same-sex civil unions.

Massachusetts lawmakers vote on the proposal on September 14 in a constitutional convention. Approval would pave the way for a final hurdle — a state referendum on the amendment in 2006. But a senior lawmaker expressed doubts it would get that far.

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi said rejection was likely.

“At this point he thinks the way it looks now, the amendment will not proceed any further,” said DiMasi spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

Posted by Paul at 7:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack data manager dowland

August 16, 2005

Two straight men seek to marry

I heard about this last week on the radio and apparently it’s true:data manager dowland

What’s love got to do with it?

Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out the new same-sex marriage legislation with a twist — they’re straight men.

“I think it’s a hoot,” Pinn said.

The proposal came last Monday on the patio of a Toronto bar amid shock and laughter from their friends. But the two — both of whom were previously married and both of whom are still looking for a good woman to love — insist that after the humour subsided, a real issue lies at the heart of it all.

“There are significant tax implications that we don’t think the government has thought through,” Pinn said.

Ironic, I suppose, but not unexpected.data manager dowland

The unexpected comes from Bruce Walker, a gay lawyer in Toronto who should know better:data manager dowland

“Generally speaking, marriage should be for love,” he said. “People who don’t marry for love will find themselves in trouble.”

Please. If we’re to unmoor marriage from its roots in the rearing of children by their biological parents — as heterosexuals began to insist about 30 years ago and as homosexuals insist today — then there’s no more reason for limiting it to people in love than there is for limiting it to people of the opposite sex.data manager dowland

(Thanks to Amy for the link.)data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 5:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack data manager dowland

July 12, 2005

Spain sees first gay marriage

Associated Press (via Gay.com):data manager dowland

MADRID, Spain -- Two men who have been together for 30 years got married Monday, becoming the first couple to wed under Spain's new law allowing same-sex marriages.

The ceremony took place in Tres Cantos, a town outside Madrid. The law took effect eight days ago, making Spain the third country in the world to grant full legal recognition to same-sex couples. The others are the Netherlands and Belgium. Similar legislation is pending in Canada.data manager dowland

Spanish television showed video of the couple -- identified in news reports as Emilio Menendez and Carlos Baturin -- smiling broadly and holding up wedding rings after the ceremony at the town hall in Tres Cantos.

data manager dowland

Meanwhile, Red State reports that young Republican activists seem a lot more sympathetic than their older brethren to marriage equality for gays.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 6:59 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack data manager dowland

June 29, 2005

California high court upholds domestic partnerships

Associated Press (via San Francisco Chronicle):data manager dowland

Gays and lesbians won a major legal victory Wednesday when the California Supreme Court let stand a new law granting registered domestic partners many of the same rights and protections of heterosexual marriage.

Without comment, the unanimous justices upheld appellate and trial court rulings that the sweeping measure does not conflict with a voter-approved initiative defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.data manager dowland

The domestic partner law, signed in 2003 by then-Gov. Gray Davis, represents the nation's most comprehensive recognition of gay domestic rights, short of the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut.data manager dowland

The law, which went into effect Jan. 1, grants registered couples virtually every spousal right available under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.data manager dowland

Groups opposing the law said Wednesday they hope to qualify a ballot measure asking voters to overturn the justices, and perhaps to bar gay and lesbians from ever getting married in California.

data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 10:01 PM data manager dowland

Canadian Parliament passes gay marriage bill

Toronto Star:data manager dowland

OTTAWA -- After being fought in courtrooms, legislatures and street protests, one of the most turbulent debates in Canadian history was settled today in Parliament.

The House of Commons voted 158 to 133 to adopt controversial legislation that will make Canada the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.data manager dowland

[...]data manager dowland

The same-sex marriage bill will become official once it receives approval in the Senate, likely within days.

data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 6:58 AM data manager dowland

June 28, 2005

Canada poised to legalize gay marriage

Associated Press (via ABC News):data manager dowland

TORONTO -- Canada is set to become the third country to legalize gay marriage, with Parliament likely to pass landmark legislation Tuesday despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

Although gay marriage already is legal in seven provinces, the bill would grant all same-sex couples in Canada the same legal rights as those in traditional heterosexual unions. The Netherlands and Belgium already allow gay marriage. data manager dowland

The legislation, drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government, needs at least 155 members of the House of Commons to gain a majority of the 308-seat House. While some of his Liberal lawmakers have said they will not back the legislation, enough allies in other parties have indicated they would support the bill when it comes to a vote.data manager dowland

There are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics.

data manager dowland

The vote is set for 8 p.m. EDT. Meanwhile, a cabinet minister, Joe Comuzzi, has resigned so that he can vote against the legislation. According to the Toronto Star,data manager dowland

Comuzzi visited the prime minister's Parliament Hill office to say he wanted to give up his cabinet job and become a Liberal backbencher.

Cabinet ministers are required to support the government legislation and face expulsion from the ministry for breaking ranks.

data manager dowland

But as a backbencher, Comuzzi is at liberty to vote as he pleases.data manager dowland

The bill, C-38, is expected to pass, according to the Star. data manager dowland

(Link to Toronto Star requires registration.)data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 4:35 PM data manager dowland

June 16, 2005

Poised for victory, Log Cabin sounds retreat

Log Cabin Republicans is unhappy with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who, believing that in a democracy the courts shouldn't have the last word on changes to public policy, has called for a vote on whether his state should remain the only one in the Union where same-sex marriage is legal.data manager dowland

Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero:data manager dowland

Over the past year, thousands of loving, tax-paying, law-abiding couples in Massachusetts have embraced the lifelong responsibilities that come with marriage. This latest attempt by the far right to destroy marriage in Massachusetts is the last gasp of a movement whose outlandish claims about civil marriage equality are being proven wrong every day in the Bay State.

No, thousands of loving, tax-paying, law-abiding couples in Massachusetts have not embraced the lifelong responsibilities that come with marriage, for there are no lifelong responsibilities that any longer come with marriage. Surely Mr. Guerriero has heard of no-fault divorce; it's what makes discussion of same-sex marriage possible. data manager dowland

No-fault divorce laws acknowledge the obvious: society has no good reason to require that two adults who are unhappy with one another remain married; only children, whose needs differ from those of their parents, are served by such a requirement. But once a society decides -- and ours has -- that marriage can exist independent of the interests of children, it's silly to require an enduring, legal commitment from adults who would rather go their separate ways.data manager dowland

Like their heterosexual counterparts, gay couples who have married in Massachusetts are not obligated by their Government to remain together until death parts them, and many (most?) of them won't. This is not a trivial point. But for the ease of divorce, there would be no discussion of gay marriage. Most gay couples do not have children. And even those who do are no more likely than heterosexuals to stay together for the sake of their children. It's difficult to imagine that (mostly childless) gay couples would seek entry to an institution from which there was no exit, even after it had become incompatible with their personal happiness. data manager dowland

Log Cabin further admonishes that "[p]ublic opinion polls in Massachusetts show overwhelming support for civil marriage equality. In fact, an April 2005 poll showed that more than 60% of Massachusetts voters support protecting civil marriage equality." Why then the fear of submitting the question of gay marriage to public referendum? After all, wouldn't a victory at the polls give same-sex couples the public validation they seek? data manager dowland

In fact, if Log Cabin is right about public opinion in Massachusetts -- and I suspect that it is right -- the group ought to endorse the governor's call for a vote and hoist him on his own petard. More, a win at the polls would serve as a devastating rebuff to those who claim that gay marriage can come only by judicial fiat.data manager dowland

Unmoored from the reality of law, gays and lesbians are sweetly idealistic about lifelong commitments in the form of marriage. Why can't we muster the same idealism, especially when the polls support it, for the democracy we live in everyday?data manager dowland

(Thanks to Boi From Troy.)data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 4:59 PM data manager dowland

June 14, 2005

New Jersey appeals court says no to gay marriage

Associated Press (via Boston Globe):data manager dowland

NEWARK, N.J. -- A state appeals panel ruled Tuesday that New Jersey's Constitution does not require the recognition of gay marriage.

The 2-1 decision rejected the efforts of seven same-sex couples to marry, although the case is expected to go to the state Supreme Court.data manager dowland

The ruling said legislators will have to change marriage laws before same-sex couples can marry in New Jersey.data manager dowland

"However, absent legislative action, there is no basis for construing the New Jersey Constitution to compel the State to authorize marriages between members of the same sex," Appellate Judge Stephen Skillman wrote for the majority.data manager dowland

In dissent, Appellate Judge Donald G. Collester said that if marriage is defined strictly as a heterosexual union, then couples are denied the right to marry the person of their choice, and so have no real right to marry.data manager dowland

The third panel member, Appellate Judge Anthony J. Parrillo, wrote a concurring opinion, underscoring his belief that elected officials, not judges, should make the call on gay marriage.data manager dowland

"It is, therefore, a proper role for the Legislature to weigh the societal costs against the societal benefits flowing from a profound change in the public meaning of marriage," Parrillo said. "The choice must come from democratic persuasion, not judicial fiat."

data manager dowland

The court's opinion, in pdf format, is here.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 5:39 PM data manager dowland

June 3, 2005

Gay marriage bill dies in CA legislature

Coming four votes shy of the required 41-vote majority, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in California failed yesterday to win approval from the state's Democrat-controlled legislature.data manager dowland

Mitch Rosenberg examines the role of Hispanic legislators in the bill's defeat.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 5:57 PM data manager dowland

May 26, 2005

California legislature to vote on same-sex marriage

SACRAMENTO -- Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in California will go to a full vote in the Assembly next week.

The measure was approved Wednesday night by the Appropriations Committee, the final step in getting to the floor for a vote.data manager dowland

[...]data manager dowland

"We have very high hopes it will prevail," Equality California spokesperson Eddie Gutierrez told 365Gay.com.

data manager dowland

The bill, known as the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, is sponsored by Mark Leno, an openly gay Democrat from San Francisco. It would "require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings."data manager dowland

It's unclear whether California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, would sign the bill:data manager dowland

In a January meeting with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle Schwarzenegger suggested that this may not be the best time to push gay marriage, saying that a legislative push to fully recognize marriage rights for gays might backfire.

"Eventually in a few years from now, you can readdress it again and see what the people of California think,'' he told the paper. "You cannot force-feed those kind of things.''data manager dowland

Last year in a Tonight Show appearance Schwarzenegger said gay marriage would be "fine with me" if it were enshrined in state law or ruled legal by the courts.

data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 5:36 PM data manager dowland

May 20, 2005

"Absolutely ahead of the pack in its viciousness"

A proposed constitutional amendment in California would not only ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, it would also prohibit state and local governments from offering even health insurance to the partners of their gay employees. (You read that correctly: C-a-l-i-f-o-r-n-i-a.)data manager dowland

To qualify for a June 2006 ballot, sponsors of the amendment must submit only 600,000 signatures to the secretary of state. This is another way of saying that in June 2006, Californians will vote on the amendment.data manager dowland

Relatedly, Kip seems to have adopted a "so what" attitude toward the backlash against judicially force-fed same-sex marriage. I think he underestimates the danger to gay and lesbian interests. This country is, still and yet, a democracy. And as we?ll see next week, even the gay community's litigation-friendly benefactors on the bench are not immune to all democratic accountability.data manager dowland

Both the supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage are passionate in their views. The difference is that, at least for now, the opponents are in the majority -- and they're evidently in no mood to be ignored. data manager dowland

As a gay man, it's fun for me to imagine a country where gays and lesbians were in the majority and had the power to impose our political will. If you think we'd sit for being ignored, think again when you're not cracked out. Oh, you might well get your way; but it would come only after -- brace for it -- you had persuaded us with the force of your argument. In no event would you march by merrily while telling us to "talk to the hand." You'd lose the hand.data manager dowland

It's the "push/push back" phenomenon. Alarmed by the hubris of governance by litigation, the opposition won't just hold gays and lesbians to the 50-yard line; it's going to advance into territory we've already won.data manager dowland

Send in the defense.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 5:51 PM data manager dowland

May 13, 2005

Federal judge invalidates Nebraska ban on same-sex marriage

Associated Press:data manager dowland

A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.

The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

Judge Bataillon was nominated to the bench in 1997 by President Clinton and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on a 100-0 vote. His 43-page opinion is online in pdf format.data manager dowland

Religious conservatives were outraged by the decision. From James Dobson of Focus on the Family:data manager dowland

Today's ruling marks the first time a marriage-protection amendment has been overthrown by the whim of a federal judicial tyrant. In the guise of 'equal protection,' Judge Joseph Bataillon has single-handedly rejected the will of 70 percent of Nebraska's voters, who amended their state constitution in 2000 to protect the traditional definition of marriage. But to argue that supporters of same-sex marriage are disenfranchised by the amendment is ludicrous; they have every right to undertake the amendment process themselves and get a different measure passed � that's the way democracy is designed to work.

Last year when the Marriage Protection Amendment was being debated in the U.S. Senate, some senators � including Nebraska's own Ben Nelson � used the excuse that the MPA was 'not needed,' and that the crucial matters MPA addresses could be handled at the state level. Apparently not. Now we have dramatic evidence that this legal fig leaf is easily stripped away by judicial activism.

Nebraska's Attorney General, Jon Bruning, says the state will appeal. data manager dowland

Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School has analysis here: data manager dowland

The judge doesn't hold that there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage as such. Rather, he holds that the recently enacted Nebraska constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage � "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska." � is unconstitutional. (See footnote 1 of the decision.)

In sum, Professor Volokh predicts that the "Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse the decision."data manager dowland

Here's hoping he's right. For while I support same-sex marriage, I nevertheless believe that the litigants who bring these cases underestimate the breadth and depth of opposition to it. In time that opposition will lessen. But for now, the voters will not, I think, have their will ignored. If allowed to stand, this decision would add fresh impetus to passage of the otherwise-stalled Federal Marriage Amendment.data manager dowland

People are wagering everything and throwing the dice. But it may mean craps for us all.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 1:13 AM data manager dowland

May 7, 2005

The state of gay marriage: older lesbians most likely to tie the knot

The Berkshire Eagle:data manager dowland

The state's marriage statistics for the past year also indicate that the same-sex couples who sought marriage licenses tended to be older than the heterosexual couples who did so, apparently reflecting a demand for marriage among longtime gay and lesbian couples. More than 55 percent of heterosexual couples seeking licenses were 30 or older, compared with 94.2 percent of male couples and 91.7 percent of female couples.

Of the approximately 12,200 individuals who've entered a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, two-thirds are women.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 11:06 AM data manager dowland

April 23, 2005

Moving the goalpost on civil unions

Brian Brown of the Family Institute of Connecticut on his state's passage of a civil unions bill for gay and lesbian couples:data manager dowland

"Not a single legislator ran on this issue in 2004," he said. "You can't say this is the democratic process at work until you see the results of the next election."

Wrong. Even before the next election is held, we can still say that Connecticut's new law is the product of the process at work. Legislators don't campaign on all sorts of issues that they end up voting on. But it doesn't follow that their decisions are illegitimate or undemocratic. data manager dowland

Happily, Mr. Brown's ignorance of democratic process is matched by his ignorance of Connecticut politics:data manager dowland

He predicted lawmakers of both parties who supported [civil unions] could face tough challenges in the 2006 election.

No, they will not.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 5:22 PM data manager dowland

April 22, 2005

From the right, a concession

William at Southern Appeal, on the gay community's fair and square victory in Connecticut:data manager dowland

No matter where you stand on the gay marriage or civil union issue, at least Connecticut took this step via elected officials who are accountable to the people. It was not the work of unaccountable, unelected judges as was the case is Massachusetts. Progressives use to be expert political organizers--getting out the vote and persuading the people to side with them (e.g., FDR's New Deal). Today, it seems that the social reformers of the Left rely primarily on the courts. Perhaps Connecticut can remind liberals how social change should be brought about.

Not only have Connecticut's democracy-friendly gays and lesbians won new rights, they may have also won new respect.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 9:43 AM data manager dowland

April 20, 2005

The fight for gay marriage: it's getting nasty

Jeff at Backcountry Conservative notes that advocates for same-sex marriage have intimated that they may "out" prominent Republicans in South Carolina, where a ban on gay marriage is up for a vote. Private investigators are on the case:data manager dowland

�People better live upright between now and then,� says [state senator Robert] Ford. �Or you�re going to see husbands leaving their wives, clergy losing their churches, people leading double lives.�

In principle, there's no reason a gay man cannot oppose same-sex marriage. If I didn't think that heterosexuals had already made a farce of marriage, I'd oppose it. But any homosexual who's an elected Republican official and thinks he's going to remain closeted while voting no on gay marriage is delusional. Elements of the gay left see that as hypocrisy and they will not tolerate it.data manager dowland

While I've argued before that people have no privacy interest in their sexual orientation per se, I still don't approve of "outing" others. But those who support "outing" as a political tactic will get to the closet cases. You can count on it.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 4:33 PM data manager dowland

April 14, 2005

Court voids gay marriage licenses

Associated Press:data manager dowland

The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to gay couples a year ago by Portland's Multnomah County, saying a county cannot go against state matrimonial law.

"Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state's legislative power," the high court said in its unanimous ruling.

The legislature has the right to legislate? Who knew?data manager dowland

Meanwhile:data manager dowland

On Wednesday, Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he will push for a law allowing gay couples to form civil unions that would give them many of the rights and privileges of marriage.

The court's opinion, in html format, is here.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 6:10 PM data manager dowland

April 13, 2005

From coast to coast, civil unions

Reuters:data manager dowland

Gay and lesbian couples in Oregon would have marriage-like rights in the form of civil unions under a bipartisan bill introduced in the Legislature on Wednesday.

The move, backed by Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski, came one day before the Oregon Supreme Court was expected to rule on the legality of gay marriage.

The measure would grant same-sex couples legal protections, rights and responsibilities generally afforded to opposite-sex couples through marriage.

"Forming a family is a fundamental right. Oregon should provide a framework that offers legal protections to any loving, committed couple that wants to become a family," Republican Sen. Ben Westlund said.

Meanwhile, Connecticut remains well on its way to becoming the first state to voluntarily extend marriage in all but name to same-sex couples. Of course, those on the left who insist that we identify gay unions as "marriages" won't be happy; neither will those on the right who insist that the law treat gay couples as no more than "roommates." But for those of us not blinded by misery, we're seeing the birth of a national consensus.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 8:11 PM data manager dowland

April 11, 2005

That breeze you feel? It's just the winds of change

Favor gay marriage but feel frustrated with democratic process? Patience, Grasshopper, patience. Our supporters are coming up fast: data manager dowland

If you�re between the ages of 18 and 29 and live in Connecticut, it�s almost a sure bet that you think gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.

It�s almost equally certain that if your grandparents are 65 or older, they completely disagree.

That dramatic contrast between generations on the issue of gay marriage and civil unions was one of the more fascinating, if understandable, results of a public opinion survey released last week by Quinnipiac University.

Read the rest.data manager dowland

(Thanks to Gay News Blog.)data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 7:44 PM data manager dowland

April 3, 2005

"The importance of how this is happening here can't be underestimated"

Civil unions for gay and lesbian couples are on the verge of becoming law in Connecticut, the result not of judicial mandate but of legislative choice:data manager dowland

Connecticut could become the second state in the nation to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples -- and the first to do so without being prompted by a court order.

Legislation that would create civil unions, and give them legal status equal to marriage, has passed three House-Senate committees here and could come before the full Senate as soon as Wednesday. Democrats, who have lined up behind the measure, hold overwhelming majorities in both houses.

Connecticut would join Vermont, which sanctioned same-sex civil unions in 2000, and Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage became legal last May, as the only states to recognize such relationships.

Lawmakers in those two states acted only after court rulings forced their hand. Opponents of same-sex unions charged "activist judges" with overstepping their bounds, and used the decisions to inspire voters in 11 states to outlaw same-sex marriage last November.

But the Connecticut case represents a different challenge for opponents of such rulings ...

I bet, especially since a poll conducted last April showed that almost three-quarters of Connecticut residents support civil unions.data manager dowland

The state's Republican governor, M. Jodi Rell, is likely to sign the bill. But even if she vetos it, legislative leaders say they have the votes to override.data manager dowland

This is a clean win, fair and square. No judicial imperialism. Only representative democracy. This how it ought to be done -- and proof that it can be done.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 12:25 PM data manager dowland

April 2, 2005

"People who believe in traditional marriage want to do everything they can to protect it."

Well, probably not everything. Certainly not a ban on no-fault divorce, eh?data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 2:52 PM data manager dowland

March 14, 2005

California court strikes gay marriage ban

Reuters:data manager dowland

In a victory for gay rights groups, a California Superior Court judge ruled on Monday that the state's voter-approved ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional.

Both gay marriage advocates and opponents said the decision was just one step in a legal battle that may continue for years. Similar disputes are under review in other U.S. states.

"This is an important day but hardly is this effort complete," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told reporters. "It is inevitable there will be an appeal."

The ruling follows Newsom's decision last year to grant more than 4,000 gay marriage licenses. The California Supreme Court ruled that he had exceeded his authority but asked a lower court to consider the broader issue.

Posted by Paul at 8:17 PM data manager dowland

February 24, 2005

In the first announcement of a gay marriage, we learn all there is to know

This is fascinating. And very telling.data manager dowland

John O'Connor and Mark Jones are getting hitched and the Times of London carries word of it in the paper's forthcoming marriages section:data manager dowland

A period of engagement is announced between Mr John Christopher O�Connor and Dr Mark Bryan Jones, both of Islington, London. Following the enactment of the Civil Partnership legislation expected later this year, the couple will announce the time and location of both the civil union and subsequent church blessing ceremonies to interested parties.

Although the announcement itself is history-making -- never before in the paper's 220 years has it published notice of an upcoming same-sex partnership -- it's the other elements of the story I found both fascinating and informative.data manager dowland

Dr. Jones and Mr. O'Connor met on the Internet and carried on a five-month online courtship before finally meeting in person in 2002. But at the time they met, Dr. Jones was engaged to a woman -- a fact that had itself been announced in the Times. In other words, while Dr. Jones was engaged to a woman he was also engaged in a manhunt. This should have set off an alarm for Mr. O'Connor, who is evidently unaware of the truism that what people do with you, they'll do to you.data manager dowland

But it gets better:data manager dowland

"It [the Civil Partnership Act] means emotional stability and the same rights as a married couple," said Dr Jones. "It also might show other people how seriously committed we are to each other."

The Act -- which is nothing more than the codification of a legislator's musings -- means emotional stability for your relationship? Emotional stability?! Uh, no dear; it most assuredly does not. The law might affirm a relationship characterized by emotional stability, but it cannot provide it. And as for showing people how seriously committed these two are to one another, this speaks volumes:data manager dowland

Mr O'Connor and Dr Jones are also drawing up a "pre-nuptial" agreement over Dr Jones�s earnings before they met.

In other words, even before they're hitched, they're already opening an escape hatch and making sure it's big enough for their money to follow them through it. Ain't that sweet?data manager dowland

In this, the first announcement of its kind, we see in the appalling details a microcosm of what marriage has become and why same-sex marriage is now conceivable, not only in Europe but here too. After all, these men are only mimicking the behavior they've observed in others. (You can imagine, yes, an identical announcement from a heterosexual couple?)data manager dowland

Whatever it was or meant in the days of yore, marriage is no longer a sturdy foundation for the raising of children; or a way to protect women from isolation and poverty after they've spent their youth as mothers; or an institution that provides structure and stability to our communities. Today it's just a benefit-laden mechanism for joining together two adults who say to one another: "I'll love you until I don't." As evidenced by this first announcement of a forthcoming gay union, rooted as it is in betrayal and foreshadowing an exit strategy, the contemporary understanding of marriage does not require sobriety or a view to depth or durability.data manager dowland

As the Rev. Donald Sensing wrote: " ... gay marriage, if it ever comes about (and it will) will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it."data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 3:53 PM data manager dowland

February 15, 2005

So, you're a social conservative who wants to defeat same-sex marriage? Here's how

Dimitri Vassilaros, columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:data manager dowland

If social conservatives really wanted to protect marriage, the Marriage Protection Amendment would prohibit divorce.

[...]data manager dowland

Divorce, by definition, is the threat to the "sacred" institution. So let's use that in a counterattack. Let's put those who would deny Americans that most basic civil right, on the defensive. Let's see if marriage really is a sacred cow or just something to be milked politically.

For any social conservatives reading this blog, I'm going to tell you a surefire strategy for putting the kibosh on same-sex marriage. If you can get the Nation's legislators and prosecutors to do exactly two things, the gay community itself will end the campaign for equal marriage rights. I guarantee it. data manager dowland

Are you ready? Here we go. (By the way, I do mean every word of this.)data manager dowland

First, repeal no-fault divorce statutes wherever they exist and require anyone seeking a divorce to show cause why it should be granted. Set the bar high. A history of physical abuse should constitute acceptable cause, but not vague "irreconcilable differences." When people marry, they should know that the law takes their vows seriously; once a couple says "we do," the partners should understand that they will probably be without legal recourse for dissolving their union.data manager dowland

Second, make adultery a crime (in states where it isn't already) and then actually prosecute it. I admit this goal might be complicated by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. But I've read that decision three or four times and I'm not convinced that it presents an absolute bar to the criminalization of adultery. And in any event, there's only one way to find out. Bring up a defendant on charges. It won't be hard to find one. data manager dowland

If you can do these two things, I guarantee that the gay community will shut up about same-sex marriage. Indeed, you would have created an institution from which all but a few gay men would recoil in horror. You'd be saying to them, "Look, if you get married, you're probably going to have to stay married to this one partner for your whole life. And if you have any sex outside your relationship, you risk going to jail."data manager dowland

Hardly any gay men, especially those in their 20s or 30s, will want to hear that. And fewer still will want to be part of it. The PC crowd will jump me for saying so, but it's the truth. (I admit, lesbians may be another story. But lesbians don't set the gay community's political agenda. Middle class gay males set the gay community's political agenda. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, ladies; I'm just saying that's the way it is. But you already know that, don't you?)data manager dowland

You think I'm kidding about all this? I'm not. I'm serious as cancer. Moreover, I've just described public policy goals that would restore and protect traditional marriage. Easy divorce is a contemporary development in our law. And for most of our Nation's history, adultery was at least socially, if not always legally, penalized. (Bill Clinton managed to stay in office even after his extracurricular activities became a matter of public record. Do you think John Kennedy could have done the same?)data manager dowland

Of course, it's not politically possible -- or at least it's not in most states -- to repeal no-fault divorce laws or to prosecute adultery. But if you understand why those things aren't possible, you understand why same-sex marriage is possible -- or at least why it seems so to gay people. data manager dowland

When social conservatives talk of defending traditional marriage, to what traditions do you refer? To the ones Americans established only 30 years ago, when they decided that the rules by which their parents lived were inconsistent with personal happiness? If traditional marriage is inconceivable to most gay men, it's also now inconceivable to most heterosexuals.data manager dowland

In the past, the rules and attitudes pertaining to marriage were consistent with, and supportive of, the institution's larger-than-self (and heterosexually-oriented) social purposes. Yes, people married for love and they hoped for a lifetime of happiness. Weddings were then, as they are now, occasions for joy and expectation. But as a matter of both law and custom, the happiness of the couple wasn't ultimately dispositive. Marriage had a social purpose to serve, and it served that purpose whether or not the couple was happy.data manager dowland

If marriage was to keep women out of poverty and provide children with a stable home life, it made sense to make divorce difficult. If marriage was intended to corral the procreative consequences of heterosexual sex, it made sense to stigmatize adultery. These purposes also made marriage inapposite to the experience of gay men, which is why marriage rights weren't on the agenda of the liberation movement to which the Stonewall riots gave birth.data manager dowland

But today, for reasons we need not explore here, Americans see marriage as a vehicle for meeting the needs of the individual, and they require that their marriages not be inconsistent with their personal happiness. Unsurprisingly, our law and social customs now reflect this new understanding of marriage's purposes.data manager dowland

But where the old purposes of marriage served to disqualify gay men and women from admission to the institution, the new purposes invite them. Two gay men are indisputably capable of staying married only for so long as they're happy with one another. What's uniquely heterosexual about that?data manager dowland

Strip marriage of the rules that make it unappealing to gay men but keep all the nice perks that come with it -- what, you think we don't want our partners to have health insurance? -- and you get the inevitable. You get a political campaign driven by middle class gay men, possessed as all middle class Americans are of a suffocating sense of entitlement, that will not relent until it succeeds.data manager dowland

You're a social conservative who wants to protect traditional marriage? Fine. You can have what you want. All you have to do is get your neighbors to submit their own marriages to the rules of tradition.data manager dowland

You'll understand if I don't hold my breath.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 4:23 PM data manager dowland

February 11, 2005

Massachusetts court to reconsider gay marriage decision

I'm don't know enough about the operations of the Massachusetts judiciary to know what, if anything, to read into this, but it sure is interesting:data manager dowland

Opponents of same-sex marriage call it an unexpected and remarkable move: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on a request to block the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the commonwealth.

Same-sex couples have been permitted to legally marry in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision.

The Thomas More Center, one of the groups that is appealing that ruling, said it is "extremely pleased" that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in the case. The Law Center calls this the last legal action that would be capable of stopping same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

[...]data manager dowland

The Law Center argued in its brief that "what happens with the legal institution of marriage should ultimately depend on the democratic processes outlined in the Commonwealth's Constitution rather than by judicial fiat."

Posted by Paul at 4:08 PM data manager dowland

February 8, 2005

The post-DOMA marriage amendment

Chuck Muth, gay-friendly Republican political consultant:data manager dowland

In any event, the New York decision based upon the Loving decision [in which the Supreme Court voided laws against interracial marriage] could well be the basis of a case which ultimately ends up before the Supremes over the constitutionality of [the Defense of Marriage Act]. And when it does, my money is on the Court striking down DOMA based on the Loving precedent and the 14th Amendment.

Which brings us to the Federal Marriage Amendment (or whatever focus-grouped name they're now calling it).

If DOMA does get struck down, that will further inflame a large and vocal segment of the public and fuel congressional efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Unlike today, such an amendment, post-DOMA, could well garner the 2/3 vote needed in both houses of Congress to send the ban to the states. And just by looking at the number of states which passed gay marriage bans last November, there's a good shot that such an amendment could get the 3/5ths ratification needed to approve it.

As Steve Miller puts it:data manager dowland

Should marriage activists challenging DOMA at least give serious attention to this scenario? Absolutely! Are they? Don't bet the ranch.

No, I won't bet the ranch. I'll bet instead that the gay community's litigious elements, aided by messianic federal judges, are going to take the rest of us down with them.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 7:26 PM data manager dowland

February 6, 2005

What's the purpose of no-fault divorce?

Come April 5, voters in Kansas will adopt a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Alas, the line of attack from opponents is the same uninspired pablum we're heard before. Here's a sample, from a lesbian who favors democracy, but only if she's on the prevailing side:data manager dowland

"On a bad day, I'm really amazed by the fear and hatred that would make people want to take away from this democracy," she said.

Proponents of same-sex marriage are stuck in this rhetoric of the victim because they see marriage as a right, one that's being arbitrarily denied to gays and lesbians. data manager dowland

But supporters of conventional marriage don't see it that way. They see marriage as a civic responsibility, one that same-sex couples are, by definition, unable to fulfill. They aren't motivated by fear and hatred. But they are guilty of hypocrisy. data manager dowland

Instead of bemoaning the majority's alleged intolerance -- a strategy that's proven spectacularly unsuccessful in every state where it's been tried -- how about a strategy that encourages people to examine their assumptions?data manager dowland

What is the nature of the civic responsibility of marriage? And how is that responsibility honored by the law as it exists today? We're told that traditional marriage serves the interests of children. But how does no-fault divorce, now a cornerstone of marriage law, serve children? The answer is that it doesn't; instead, it serves the interests of adults. What if the Human Rights Campaign launched a national advertising campaign and called for the abolition of no-fault divorce laws? data manager dowland

Imagine the reaction. Would the states repeal their no-fault divorce statutes? No, of course not. Our heterosexual neighbors don't want to be stuck in unhappy marriages, the interests of their own children notwithstanding. But that truth tells us a lot how the law and society now view the nature of marriage. Whatever grand, larger-than-self purposes marriage may have served in, say, the 1950s, Americans today insist that it serve their personal happiness -- or least that it not be inconsistent with it. data manager dowland

For heterosexuals Americans, the definition of marriage has already changed. By reason of idealized self-image, they cling to the old-fashioned understanding of marriage -- that clinging is what makes them resistant to same-sex marriage -- but the rules they've written for themselves betray the truth. Marriage is no longer about kids. It hasn't been for a long time now. Today marriage is about adults and their happiness.data manager dowland

An institution that protects and promotes the coupling of biological parents for the sake of their children is indeed one for which gay couples are, by definition, unsuited. But that's not true of an institution that promotes and protects the happiness of two adults.data manager dowland

Instead of asserting, incredulously, that a constitutional amendment adopted in a statewide election is "taking away from democracy" and ignoring the ideal the majority is voting for, we have to get our neighbors to see that the ideal no longer exists, and that they're judging gay and lesbian couples by a standard to which they no longer hold themselves. They haven't held themselves to it for at least 30 years now. data manager dowland

"You say my same-sex partner and I are unsuited to marriage. But tell me please: what's the purpose of no-fault divorce?"data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 12:44 PM data manager dowland

February 5, 2005

The path to a Federal Marriage Amendment

In reference to this decision from a New York judge, Mark at Blogs for Bush writes:data manager dowland

The President knows that at the moment there isn't sufficient political power to amend the Constitution vis a vis gay marriage - but the political will is there [if] pushed to it; in other words, if the people feel their rights and judgements are being usurped and ignored by a few unelected judges, then they will amend the Constitution to clarify the issue.

Why would we amend the federal constitution to protect the states from their own courts?data manager dowland

I'll say it again: in the absence of mischief by the federal judiciary, the Federal Marriage Amendment is going nowhere. On the other hand, if the federal courts do act up, the gay community will watch helplessly as its fate is hermetically sealed. That's what makes suits like this one (see second item from top) so dangerous, and it's why the plaintiffs should reflect on the implications of their choices. You're playing with fire, guys, and you threaten to burn us all.data manager dowland

Time favors the proponents of same-sex marriage. If we keep making the political argument for change, let the clock run down and a new generation of voters rise up, we will win -- unless, of course, we insist on cutting ourselves off from the path to victory.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 1:38 PM data manager dowland

February 4, 2005

New York judge invalidates state marriage law

Reuters:data manager dowland

Gay couples should be allowed to marry because the state's constitution guarantees equality for all, a New York judge said on Friday in a ruling that could eventually clear the way for same-sex unions in New York.

State court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan said the rights of five same-sex couples were violated when they were denied marriage licenses at New York City's clerk office last year.

[...]data manager dowland

Friday's ruling in New York, which likely faces several years of appeals, was condemned by opponents of gay marriage who are seeking a national constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, a move backed by President Bush.

[...]data manager dowland

The judge stayed her ruling for a period of 30 days and the city is expected to appeal the decision.

Posted by Paul at 10:16 PM data manager dowland

January 26, 2005

Fearful of a conservative court, same-sex couples back off the litigation

Associated Press:data manager dowland

Three gay couples Tuesday dropped their lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, saying they do not want to risk having a conservative U.S. Supreme Court set precedent by rejecting their case.

The lawsuits were brought by gay couples who were wedded in Massachusetts and Canada and wanted Florida to recognize their marriages.

Since the Court isn't likely to get any less conservative anytime soon, I gather that these three couples have suspended indefinitely their effort to win by judicial fiat what they have not won democratically. That's a good thing. Americans are habituated to the notion that the Government requires the consent of the governed, and these litigious same-sex couples are threatening to do for gay marriage what Roe did for abortion.data manager dowland

Patience, Grasshoppers. Opposition to same-sex marriage is deeply generational, which means our day is coming. It may not come on your timetable, but it is coming. Your divorced neighbors might be flustered by gay marriage. But their kids, having seen firsthand that marriage now has more to do with the happiness of adults than it does with the interests of children, won't be. And when our victory comes, if we've won it in democratic fora, it will have political legitimacy.data manager dowland

Religious conservatives can make a potent case against judicial activism. They'll have a harder time making the case against democracy.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 4:26 PM data manager dowland

January 20, 2005

Indiana appeals court affirms ban on same-sex marriage

From the opinion of the Indiana Court of Appeals, affirming decision by a lower court to dismiss -- for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted -- complaint of three same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses:data manager dowland

One of the State�s key interests in supporting opposite-sex marriage is not necessarily to encourage and promote �natural� procreation across the board and at the expense of other forms of becoming parents, such as by adoption and assisted reproduction; rather, it encourages opposite-sex couples who, by definition, are the only type of couples that can reproduce on their own by engaging in sex with little or no contemplation of the consequences that might result, i.e. a child, to procreate responsibly.

The State recognized this during oral argument when it identified the protection of unintended children resulting from heterosexual intercourse as one of the key interests in opposite-sex marriage. The institution of opposite-sex marriage both encourages such couples to enter into a stable relationship before having children and to remain in such a relationship if children arrive during the marriage unexpectedly.

The recognition of same-sex marriage would not further this interest in heterosexual �responsible procreation.� Therefore, the legislative classification of extending marriage benefits to opposite-sex couples but not same-sex couples is reasonably related to a clearly identifiable, inherent characteristic that distinguishes the two classes: the ability or inability to procreate by �natural� means.

Justice Cordy of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has aptly described the connection between marriage, heterosexual reproduction, and childrearing in a way that emphasizes our point regarding �responsible procreation� and the fundamental difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples:

"Paramount among its many important functions, the institution of marriage has systematically provided for the regulation of heterosexual behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and ensured a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized.

Admittedly, heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are not necessarily conjoined . . ., but an orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is that mechanism."

The court's opinion, in PDF format, is here.data manager dowland

(Thanks to How Appealing.)data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 6:43 PM data manager dowland

January 19, 2005

Social conservatives upset with president's remarks on Federal Marriage Amendment

Washington Post:data manager dowland

President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives yesterday for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term.

Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. "Clearly there is concern" among conservatives, Perkins said. "I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage."

[...]data manager dowland

In the Post interview, Bush, for the first time, said senators have made it clear to him the amendment has no chance of passing unless courts strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere. Challenges to the act are pending in state courts from California to Florida.

[...]data manager dowland

"Remember, in the Senate, you have to have 67 votes to move a constitutional amendment forward," [White House spokesman Scott] McClellan added. "And there are a number of members of the Senate that have said that they're not open to it until the Defense of Marriage Act faces a serious legal challenge. So that's just talking about the legislative reality."

My advice to religious conservatives? Lay off the president and wait for the courts to show their ass. If that happens, the FMA will, I predict, pass with dizzying speed.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 4:49 PM data manager dowland

Louisiana high court reinstates marriage amendment

Associated Press:data manager dowland

The Louisiana Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously reinstated an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters in September.

The high court reversed a ruling by a state district judge, who struck down the "defense of marriage" amendment in October on the grounds that the measure dealt with more than one subject, in violation of the Louisiana Constitution.

But the Supreme Court said: "Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage."

The amendment was put on the ballot by the Legislature and approved by 78 percent of the voters. Eleven other states adopted similar amendments in the fall elections.

Posted by Paul at 4:19 PM data manager dowland

December 19, 2004

How not to win friends and influence people: same-sex marriage and the "hate" canard

I often marvel at the wildly irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric uttered by some of my gay and lesbian brethren. Here's yet another example of it, from Mark Bonney, a gay activist in Oklahoma, on his state's lopsided approval of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage:data manager dowland

"We couldn't get married before, so it didn't create any larger legal hurdle," Bonney said. "But it's got to hurt, when you know that three out of four of your neighbors don't want you around. It was a statement of hate."

A statement of hate? Where's the evidence for that? Or does opposition itself to gay marriage prove, ipso facto, that the opponent is hate-filled? If so, why?data manager dowland

I have no doubt that some voters, whether in Oklahoma or elsewhere, supported a ban on same-sex marriage out of visceral disgust with homosexuals. But I also have no doubt that others supported it out of disgust with an imperial judiciary hell-bent on undermining the capacity of a free people to govern themselves, and that still others worry over the unintended consequences of redefining an important social institution. To say blanketly that opposition to same-sex marriage is a "statement of hate" is to say that no decent person can object to it in good faith, or for intellectually defensible reasons.data manager dowland

But that's just not true. Good people who oppose same-sex marriage know themselves not to be bigots. And when gays and lesbians insist nevertheless on calling them ones, they know we're wrong. And if we're wrong about that, what else are we wrong about?data manager dowland

The Mark Bonneys of the world hope to short-circuit the debate by summarily dismissing the opposition. After all, why reason with bigots, who are, by definition, possessed of an unreasonable prejudice? But the opposition here is not dismissable, as Mr. Bonney learned on Election Day, nor is it unreasonable.data manager dowland

"You can't have marriage until you've gained enough self-acceptance to demand respect from your neighbors," he said.

Or until you show them the same respect you demand.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 1:37 PM data manager dowland

December 10, 2004

Irreconcilable differences: Massachusetts sees first gay divorces

With their marriages barely six months old, some same-sex couples in Massachusetts are already calling it quits. At issue in one divorce: cats.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 5:51 PM data manager dowland

December 1, 2004

Have you had your "dessert" yet? Why Americans are waiting later than ever to marry

While elements of the gay community push for access to marriage, heterosexual Americans are delaying their own nuptials for longer than they ever have before.data manager dowland

Associated Press:data manager dowland

It used to be common for men and women to get a marriage certificate not too long after collecting their high school diploma. Not anymore. Census Bureau figures for 2003 show one-third of men and nearly one-quarter of women between the ages of 30 and 34 have never been married, nearly four times the rates in 1970.

[...]data manager dowland

Data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey released this week show the age at which someone typically marries for the first time rose from 20.8 for women and 23.2 for men in 1970 to 25.3 and 27.1, respectively, last year.

In 1970, only 6 percent of women 30 to 34 had never been married; the figure was 23 percent in 2003. The rate for never-married men in the same age group rose from 9 percent to 33 percent.

Among younger women, some 36 percent of those 20 to 24 had never been married in 1970; last year it was 75 percent. Among men in that age group, the change was nearly as dramatic: 55 percent in 1970 to 86 percent last year.

But the age at which Americans marry isn't all that's changed. Attitudes have changed, too.data manager dowland

"The majority of people still want to get married, but they see it sort of as dessert now, something that's desirable rather than necessary," said Dorion Solot, executive director of the Albany, N.Y.-based Alternatives to Marriage Project ...

Meanwhile, many evidently no longer consider marriage a prerequisite to childbirth, either. Last year, more than a third of all births were to unmarried women, up sharply from 11% in 1970.data manager dowland

As I've argued before, the reason same-sex marriage is even conceivable to gay couples is that heterosexuals themselves have changed the purpose of marriage and devalued its meaning. If childbirth is commonly unmoored from marriage, and if marriage itself is merely a "dessert" for adults, and not an institution in service of children or of a larger-than-self social design, then why exactly shouldn't gay Americans get the last slice of pie?data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 9:46 PM data manager dowland

November 21, 2004

If straight Americans are serious about saving traditional marriage, they'll have to get serious about their own marriages

Some conservatives are urging a renewed focus -- one that goes beyond banning same-sex nuptials -- on protecting and strengthening traditional marriage. But here's the kicker:data manager dowland

... Americans face a choice of whether to view marriage as primarily an act of individual satisfaction or as an institution serving the communal good.

The push for gay marriage finds its genesis, I think, in the widespread acceptance of no-fault divorce, which says, in effect, that marriage is about the happiness of the couple and not about some purpose larger than the couple.data manager dowland

Prior to the promulgation in the 1970s of no-fault divorce, marriage had a social purpose, one not especially contingent on the personal satisfaction of husband and wife: the raising of children under an optimal family structure. If, as most Americans believe and as a mountain of social evidence confirms, that structure consists of one mom and one dad, then it's self-evident that a marriage must be limited to the union of a man and a woman. "Discrimination" against other arrangements is rational; other arrangements are inconsistent with the purpose of marriage. Under this view, the vocabulary of civil rights is inapposite; a would-be applicant has no civil right to admission to an institution for which he's unqualified. And he's unqualified if he's unable to effect the institution's purpose. Should the Secret Service, for example, accept for training as an agent a 300-pound blind man?data manager dowland

No-fault divorce, by placing primacy on the married couple's happiness, or lack thereof, changed the purpose of marriage. No longer is the institution concerned chiefly with the well-being of children; now the overriding concern is for the (often fleeting) bliss and convenience of grown-ups. But if marriage serves mostly to unite two adults only for as long as they're happy with each other, why should gay adults be excluded?data manager dowland

Unless the Nation's religious and political leaders end their silence and reverse fields on no-fault divorce, we are, I believe, not more than a generation away from the widespread legalization of same-sex marriage, the just-passed referenda to the contrary notwithstanding. America's children are being taught by example that marriage serves no purpose other than to unite two happy adults. More tolerant of homosexuality than their parents, they will as voters rectify the incoherence of our marriage law.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 2:48 PM data manager dowland

November 17, 2004

When marriage is available to them, few gays choose it

Since May 17, when the imperial order of the Massachusetts Supreme Court took effect, that state has recorded 2,980 marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Of those, 1,985 were to female couples and 995 were to male couples. Massachusettes may have issued as many as 4,266 same-sex marriage licenses, but not all of them have been recorded.data manager dowland

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Massachusetts has a population of 6,433,422. Of those, 23.6% are under 18. So the state has an adult population of 4,914,598. If we take the conservative assumption that only 2% of adults are homosexual, then the state has a gay population of 98,292. And of those, 6-8% are now married. (If we take the higher, liberal assumption that 10% of adults are homosexual, the percentage of gays in Massachusetts who are married falls accordingly.)data manager dowland

I would think that any pent up demand among same-sex couples for marriage licenses would have been expressed most strongly in the first months following their availability. If so, the figures from Massachusetts are surprisingly small. What's more, we have no reason to believe that lesbians outnumber gay males by a ratio of almost 2:1; so the interest in a marriage license shown to date by Massachusetts' gay male couples is very slight indeed.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 6:46 PM data manager dowland

November 16, 2004

Why did they do it? The president's black supporters explain their vote

Although Mr. Bush reportedly took only 11% of the black vote nationally, up slightly from the 8% he won in 2000, he did significantly better among African Americans in rural communities. In areas of north Florida, for example, exit polling showed the president garnered almost 30% of the black vote.data manager dowland

The reason? Same-sex marriage.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 4:44 PM data manager dowland

November 9, 2004

Some people never learn

Gay lobby groups say they have no intention of ceding the battleground on same-sex marriage and intend to pursue their fight for licenses through the courts.

Well, if the courts in question are federal, can anyone think of a better way to guarantee passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment? data manager dowland

Even now, in the new, more heavily Republican Congress, passage of the FMA seems unlikely. Democrats and socially liberal Republicans insist it isn't necessary. But some seem intent on proving them wrong.data manager dowland

Posted by Paul at 9:36 PM data manager dowland