Romney Lawyers: Legislature Illegally Blocking Amendment Banning Gay Marriageby 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: November 30, 2006 11:00 am ET, Updated 2:00 pm ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) A Supreme Judicial Court justice Thursday declined to rule on a motion to force a proposed amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot in 2008 - instead she passed the issue onto the full court.
A lawyer for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney implored Justice Judith Cowin to order the Legislature to hold a vote on a proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage, or failing that to direct the Secretary of State William Galvin to place the question on the 2008 ballot bypassing the State House.
The governor, and the group behind the proposed amendment, made their case before Cowin using a private attorney, John Hanify. The legislature was represented by the Attorney General's department.
On November 10 the legislature, meeting in a special joint session to consider the proposed amendment recessed until January 2, without taking a vote. (story) January 2 is the final day in the current session and it is expected no vote will be held, effectively killing the measure.
Hanify told Cowin that the legislature has a long history of killing citizen inspired amendments.
"They've done it repeatedly. They've done it incessantly. It will persist if the court doesn't intervene," Hanify told Cowin, who was among the court's majority that legalized gay marriage three years ago.
Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks said the motion should be rejected, citing the constitutional separation of powers and the court's own precedent in similar issues.
"The request for relief to try to force the joint session to take action is squarely barred," he said.
But Cowin decided not to issue a ruling. Instead she moved the governor's motion to the full seven-member court. A hearing has been set for Dec. 20 to consider the case.
The proposed amendment was the result of a signature gathering campaign mounted by conservative groups. More than the required number of names were collected, sending the issue to the Constitutional Convention where it needs only the support of only 50 lawmakers - 25 percent of the House and Senate - in two constitutional conventions for it to be put to voters in 2008.
If the convention fails to vote on January 2 supporters of the amendment would have to begin collecting signatures all over again in an attempt to place it before voters in 2010.
Even if the measure were to pass on January 2 it would need a second round of approval in the new session of legislature - something considered even more unlikely.
But if the court orders Secretary of State William Galvin to put the question directly on the 2008 ballot the legislature would be out of the picture.
Romney has opposed same-sex marriage since the first court case was filed and forced local clerks to adhere to a law dating back to the early part of the last century that said marriage licenses could only be issued to people from out of state if their marriages would be legal where they lived.
In numerous speeches around the country where the Republican governor is trying to drum up support for a presidential bid Romney has attacked same-sex marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that the state could not bar same-sex couples from marrying. Since then, more than 8,000 gay and lesbian couples in the state have wed.
Romney was not in court Thursday for the arguments. The governor, whose term ends in January and is expected to run for President in 2008 was in Miami attending the Republican Governors Association meeting.
©365Gay.com 2006
November 30, 2006
November 29, 2006
Canada to revisit same sex marriage debate
House to revisit same-sex debate
Nov. 28, 2006. 10:50 PM
CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA — The federal Conservative government has served notice it will deliver on its promise to revisit same-sex marriage.
Debate on the divisive issue is expected to begin as early as next Wednesday.
The government confirmed Tuesday the debate will be followed by a vote before the House breaks for the Christmas holidays.
The motion is not expected to directly challenge existing legislation but may ask if parliamentarians are willing to repeal or amend the law.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he is willing to abide by a decision by the Commons to let the current law stand.
Same-sex marriage became legal in Canada last year when Parliament passed Bill C-38 in response to a series of court rulings that gay people have the right to marry.
During the election campaign, Harper promised to hold a free vote in the Commons on whether Parliament should revisit the issue.
Nov. 28, 2006. 10:50 PM
CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA — The federal Conservative government has served notice it will deliver on its promise to revisit same-sex marriage.
Debate on the divisive issue is expected to begin as early as next Wednesday.
The government confirmed Tuesday the debate will be followed by a vote before the House breaks for the Christmas holidays.
The motion is not expected to directly challenge existing legislation but may ask if parliamentarians are willing to repeal or amend the law.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he is willing to abide by a decision by the Commons to let the current law stand.
Same-sex marriage became legal in Canada last year when Parliament passed Bill C-38 in response to a series of court rulings that gay people have the right to marry.
During the election campaign, Harper promised to hold a free vote in the Commons on whether Parliament should revisit the issue.
MD case movs to high court
Gay marriage battle moves to high court
A 1973 law defining marriage as between a man and a woman was ruled unconstitutional earlier this year
Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006
by Douglas Tallman
Staff Writer
ANNAPOLIS — Both sides are sharpening legal arguments for Monday’s hearing before the Maryland Court of Appeals over whether gays and lesbians should have the right to marry.
‘‘What’s going to matter is whether the court wants to do the right thing. If they want to do the right thing, it’s all right in front of them, and it’s on our side,” said Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, an advocacy group of gay rights.
On Jan. 20, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled that Maryland’s 1973 statute, which established marriage as between one man and one woman, ran afoul of the equal rights provisions in the state constitution.
The American Civil Liberties Union brought the case on behalf of nine same-sex couples and a widower from Hagerstown.
The case has drawn attention from a number of quarters. At least 20 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed looking at the issues from spiritual and legal points of view.
At least one opponent of gay marriage believes the judges should rule that the matter is not one for the courts.
‘‘There’s an element in the decision that is not judicial in nature. It’s social in nature, and those issues are better left to a legislature,” said Owen M. Taylor, an Annapolis lawyer who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Center for Law and Justice. ACLJ, based in Washington, specializes in constitutional law as it relates to religious freedom. ‘‘The law as written ... requires no interpretation. The court ought to uphold it,” Taylor said.
The ACLJ’s filing also says that if Maryland defines marriage to include same-sex unions, the state would not be able to prevent unions of two or more people who have a close personal relationship.
David Rocah, a staff attorney for the ACLU, dismisses that notion. The case centers on whether limitations to marriage are justifiable. Prohibitions on other unions could be justified. ‘‘It is not the case that a ruling in our case means all bets are off for everything,” Rocah said.
The Family Research Council, represented by Columbia lawyer Steven L. Tiedemann, argues that the court should not use a new meaning for ‘‘marriage” for an old law.
The Maryland chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers argued children with same-sex parents are treated unequally when it comes to protections involving trusts, estates and inheritances.
‘‘Only by extending the right to marry to same-sex couples can Maryland afford the full range of legal rights and benefits to their children,” according to the chapter’s filing.
The NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund, based in Washington, drew comparisons to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1967 decision that overturned laws banning interracial marriage.
The state, which opposes the ACLU in the case, disagreed with the analogy to the 1967 Supreme Court case. Laws banning interracial marriage were not created with a ‘‘neutral marriage classification” because they were to justify white supremacy, according to the brief filed by the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.
Forty-seven religious and faith-based groups wrote they supported advocates of same-sex marriage because they believe that ‘‘as lesbians and gay men, [they] have the same capacity to love, to form relationships, to commit to one another, and if they desire, to nurture children, as do heterosexuals.”
Included in the filing are Jewish synagogues, Friends meetinghouses, as well as United Church of Christ, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, among other denominations.
The Murdock decision came just as the 2006 General Assembly was just starting. It galvanized lawmakers for weeks as conservatives tried to craft a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Democratic maneuvering prevented the ban from reaching the floor of the House of Delegates.
Copyright © 2006 The Gazette - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
A 1973 law defining marriage as between a man and a woman was ruled unconstitutional earlier this year
Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006
by Douglas Tallman
Staff Writer
ANNAPOLIS — Both sides are sharpening legal arguments for Monday’s hearing before the Maryland Court of Appeals over whether gays and lesbians should have the right to marry.
‘‘What’s going to matter is whether the court wants to do the right thing. If they want to do the right thing, it’s all right in front of them, and it’s on our side,” said Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, an advocacy group of gay rights.
On Jan. 20, Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled that Maryland’s 1973 statute, which established marriage as between one man and one woman, ran afoul of the equal rights provisions in the state constitution.
The American Civil Liberties Union brought the case on behalf of nine same-sex couples and a widower from Hagerstown.
The case has drawn attention from a number of quarters. At least 20 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed looking at the issues from spiritual and legal points of view.
At least one opponent of gay marriage believes the judges should rule that the matter is not one for the courts.
‘‘There’s an element in the decision that is not judicial in nature. It’s social in nature, and those issues are better left to a legislature,” said Owen M. Taylor, an Annapolis lawyer who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Center for Law and Justice. ACLJ, based in Washington, specializes in constitutional law as it relates to religious freedom. ‘‘The law as written ... requires no interpretation. The court ought to uphold it,” Taylor said.
The ACLJ’s filing also says that if Maryland defines marriage to include same-sex unions, the state would not be able to prevent unions of two or more people who have a close personal relationship.
David Rocah, a staff attorney for the ACLU, dismisses that notion. The case centers on whether limitations to marriage are justifiable. Prohibitions on other unions could be justified. ‘‘It is not the case that a ruling in our case means all bets are off for everything,” Rocah said.
The Family Research Council, represented by Columbia lawyer Steven L. Tiedemann, argues that the court should not use a new meaning for ‘‘marriage” for an old law.
The Maryland chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers argued children with same-sex parents are treated unequally when it comes to protections involving trusts, estates and inheritances.
‘‘Only by extending the right to marry to same-sex couples can Maryland afford the full range of legal rights and benefits to their children,” according to the chapter’s filing.
The NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund, based in Washington, drew comparisons to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1967 decision that overturned laws banning interracial marriage.
The state, which opposes the ACLU in the case, disagreed with the analogy to the 1967 Supreme Court case. Laws banning interracial marriage were not created with a ‘‘neutral marriage classification” because they were to justify white supremacy, according to the brief filed by the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.
Forty-seven religious and faith-based groups wrote they supported advocates of same-sex marriage because they believe that ‘‘as lesbians and gay men, [they] have the same capacity to love, to form relationships, to commit to one another, and if they desire, to nurture children, as do heterosexuals.”
Included in the filing are Jewish synagogues, Friends meetinghouses, as well as United Church of Christ, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, among other denominations.
The Murdock decision came just as the 2006 General Assembly was just starting. It galvanized lawmakers for weeks as conservatives tried to craft a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Democratic maneuvering prevented the ban from reaching the floor of the House of Delegates.
Copyright © 2006 The Gazette - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
November 28, 2006
VA court rules VT court decides case
Virginia appeals court: Vt. has say in lesbian custody battle
By Dionne Walker, Associated Press Writer November 28, 2006
RICHMOND, Va. --A Virginia appeals court sidestepped the issue of civil unions Tuesday and ruled that Vermont courts have jurisdiction in a custody battle between two former lesbian partners.
The Court of Appeals of Virginia remanded the dispute between Janet Miller-Jenkins and Lisa Miller-Jenkins to a lower court.
"By so holding, we do not address whether Virginia law recognizes or endorses same-sex unions entered into in another state or jurisdiction," the court wrote in its decision, adding the ruling was based on jurisdiction.
Vermont became the first state in the nation to recognize same-sex couples' relationships in 2000, enacting a civil union law that mimics marriage. Virginia does not have a similar statute, and voters in November approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
The two women were Virginia residents in 2000 when they traveled to Vermont to join in a civil union. Lisa Miller-Jenkins conceived a child through artificial insemination in 2001 while the couple was together and a child, Isabella, was born the following April. They eventually moved full-time to Vermont in August 2002.
In the fall of 2003, the women separated and Lisa Miller-Jenkins moved back to Virginia. She filed for a dissolution of their civil union, which is akin to a divorce, and sought custody of Isabella.
In August, however, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont courts had exclusive jurisdiction in the custody battle. It conflicted with a lower court order in Virginia granting Lisa Miller-Jenkins custody of the child, which the appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
In returning the case, Virginia Appeals Judge Jere Willis Jr. wrote:
"This case does not place before us the question whether Virginia recognizes the civil union entered into by the parties in Vermont. The only question before us is whether ... Virginia can deny full faith and credit to the orders of the Vermont court.
"It cannot."
The Vermont court wrote that the dispute revolved around a federal law and a uniform state law that's on the books in some form in every state. The federal law is the Parental Kidnapping Protection Act and the state statute is the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
The Court of Appeals of Virginia agreed.
The laws gave Vermont jurisdiction because state courts had determined that the women's relationship was legally valid and they were both legally the parents of the child.
Legal experts have said the differing interpretations by the two states' courts could place the question of civil unions and same-sex marriages before the U.S. Supreme Court, even if the justices want it dealt with at the state level.
By Dionne Walker, Associated Press Writer November 28, 2006
RICHMOND, Va. --A Virginia appeals court sidestepped the issue of civil unions Tuesday and ruled that Vermont courts have jurisdiction in a custody battle between two former lesbian partners.
The Court of Appeals of Virginia remanded the dispute between Janet Miller-Jenkins and Lisa Miller-Jenkins to a lower court.
"By so holding, we do not address whether Virginia law recognizes or endorses same-sex unions entered into in another state or jurisdiction," the court wrote in its decision, adding the ruling was based on jurisdiction.
Vermont became the first state in the nation to recognize same-sex couples' relationships in 2000, enacting a civil union law that mimics marriage. Virginia does not have a similar statute, and voters in November approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
The two women were Virginia residents in 2000 when they traveled to Vermont to join in a civil union. Lisa Miller-Jenkins conceived a child through artificial insemination in 2001 while the couple was together and a child, Isabella, was born the following April. They eventually moved full-time to Vermont in August 2002.
In the fall of 2003, the women separated and Lisa Miller-Jenkins moved back to Virginia. She filed for a dissolution of their civil union, which is akin to a divorce, and sought custody of Isabella.
In August, however, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont courts had exclusive jurisdiction in the custody battle. It conflicted with a lower court order in Virginia granting Lisa Miller-Jenkins custody of the child, which the appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
In returning the case, Virginia Appeals Judge Jere Willis Jr. wrote:
"This case does not place before us the question whether Virginia recognizes the civil union entered into by the parties in Vermont. The only question before us is whether ... Virginia can deny full faith and credit to the orders of the Vermont court.
"It cannot."
The Vermont court wrote that the dispute revolved around a federal law and a uniform state law that's on the books in some form in every state. The federal law is the Parental Kidnapping Protection Act and the state statute is the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
The Court of Appeals of Virginia agreed.
The laws gave Vermont jurisdiction because state courts had determined that the women's relationship was legally valid and they were both legally the parents of the child.
Legal experts have said the differing interpretations by the two states' courts could place the question of civil unions and same-sex marriages before the U.S. Supreme Court, even if the justices want it dealt with at the state level.
November 27, 2006
Conservatives in NJ propose alternative to marriage
Conservatives in NJ offer alternative to gay marriage
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer
November 27, 2006, 4:56 PM EST
TRENTON, N.J. -- Conservative groups in New Jersey announced plans Monday to push two measures that would keep gay unions from having the same legal status as marriage.
A constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between only a man and a woman was widely expected. The second measure is a novel approach described by its backers as a "compromise" that would grant the rights of marriage _ but not the title _ not only to gays but also to couples in other domestic relationships.
The measures came in reaction to a landmark ruling last month in which the state Supreme Court said gay couples in New Jersey should have access to the same rights and benefits as married couples. But the court stopped short of finding that the couples have a right to marry.
Whether to call the unions marriages, civil unions or something else is up to the Legislature. The court gave lawmaker six months to act.
Key lawmakers in the Democratic majority in the Legislature say they favor letting gay couples register in civil unions that would offer all the benefits of marriage but not the title. Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr., D-Camden, has said action may be taken by the end of the year.
After Monday's announcements from conservative groups, it appears lawmakers will have a full range of options.
Some lawmakers, backed by gay civil rights leaders, are pushing for full marriage rights _ and the name _ for gays. Gay rights activists say that it's important for them to be able to call their unions "marriage" because everyone understands what that term means, unlike "civil unions."
The new measure outlined by conservatives Monday would offer the same benefits not just to gay couples but to people in various other housekeeping arrangements, regardless of their sexual orientation.
For instance, a brother and sister who live together would be able to register under what supporters call an "equal benefits" bill. That way, one sibling could be covered under the employer-sponsored health insurance for the other, for instance, and the survivor would not be taxed on inheritance if the other died.
The status would be available to gay couples, relatives and other twosomes who are not eligible to marry, said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. Unrelated opposite-sex couples, who can legally marry, would not be eligible.
State Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Bergen, one of the most socially conservative members of the Legislature, said he would support such a law because it does not discriminate against people who are not gay.
Making the law broad would avoid something distasteful to many conservatives _ elevating the relationships of same-sex couples alone to the same legal status enjoyed by married couples.
"We're going to vigorously oppose civil unions if it raises up to marriage without the m-word," said John Tomicki, president of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, a group of clergy, scholars and conservative groups.
Assemblyman Alfred Steele, D-Passaic, is planning to introduce the legislation, said his spokesman, Joe Donnelly.
Steven Goldstein, executive director of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said the measure was a longshot to pass and, if it did, would not satisfy the state Supreme Court's requirements in last month's decision.
"It's a red herring for anti-gay vitriol," Goldstein said.
The constitutional amendment, which Cardinale said he would introduce, was widely expected. Similar measures have been introduced the last several years and have never had so much as a committee hearing.
It would take the support of 60 percent of the Legislature, or a majority in consecutive years, to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in a general election.
Copyright 2006 Newsday
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer
November 27, 2006, 4:56 PM EST
TRENTON, N.J. -- Conservative groups in New Jersey announced plans Monday to push two measures that would keep gay unions from having the same legal status as marriage.
A constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between only a man and a woman was widely expected. The second measure is a novel approach described by its backers as a "compromise" that would grant the rights of marriage _ but not the title _ not only to gays but also to couples in other domestic relationships.
The measures came in reaction to a landmark ruling last month in which the state Supreme Court said gay couples in New Jersey should have access to the same rights and benefits as married couples. But the court stopped short of finding that the couples have a right to marry.
Whether to call the unions marriages, civil unions or something else is up to the Legislature. The court gave lawmaker six months to act.
Key lawmakers in the Democratic majority in the Legislature say they favor letting gay couples register in civil unions that would offer all the benefits of marriage but not the title. Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Jr., D-Camden, has said action may be taken by the end of the year.
After Monday's announcements from conservative groups, it appears lawmakers will have a full range of options.
Some lawmakers, backed by gay civil rights leaders, are pushing for full marriage rights _ and the name _ for gays. Gay rights activists say that it's important for them to be able to call their unions "marriage" because everyone understands what that term means, unlike "civil unions."
The new measure outlined by conservatives Monday would offer the same benefits not just to gay couples but to people in various other housekeeping arrangements, regardless of their sexual orientation.
For instance, a brother and sister who live together would be able to register under what supporters call an "equal benefits" bill. That way, one sibling could be covered under the employer-sponsored health insurance for the other, for instance, and the survivor would not be taxed on inheritance if the other died.
The status would be available to gay couples, relatives and other twosomes who are not eligible to marry, said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council. Unrelated opposite-sex couples, who can legally marry, would not be eligible.
State Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Bergen, one of the most socially conservative members of the Legislature, said he would support such a law because it does not discriminate against people who are not gay.
Making the law broad would avoid something distasteful to many conservatives _ elevating the relationships of same-sex couples alone to the same legal status enjoyed by married couples.
"We're going to vigorously oppose civil unions if it raises up to marriage without the m-word," said John Tomicki, president of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage, a group of clergy, scholars and conservative groups.
Assemblyman Alfred Steele, D-Passaic, is planning to introduce the legislation, said his spokesman, Joe Donnelly.
Steven Goldstein, executive director of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said the measure was a longshot to pass and, if it did, would not satisfy the state Supreme Court's requirements in last month's decision.
"It's a red herring for anti-gay vitriol," Goldstein said.
The constitutional amendment, which Cardinale said he would introduce, was widely expected. Similar measures have been introduced the last several years and have never had so much as a committee hearing.
It would take the support of 60 percent of the Legislature, or a majority in consecutive years, to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in a general election.
Copyright 2006 Newsday
November 26, 2006
NJ gain is NY loss rights bring dividends
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Gay rights could pay big dividends
By RICHARD FLORIDA and GARY GATES
Sunday, November 26th, 2006
Some New Yorkers take New Jersey for granted. Sure, it's a great place to go to the beach, shop at Ikea or see a football game. But take people, money and buzz away from the Big Apple? It'll never happen.
Yet the Garden State may finally be on its way to turning the tables on its big brother - thanks to, of all things, a court decision.
Last month, of course, New Jersey's Supreme Court paved the way for giving same-sex partners equal rights, giving lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.
This will be a big deal - not just for same-sex couples, but for New Jersey's economy.
Why? Because, despite some rumblings in Albany, New York is likely to be years away from allowing same-sex marriage or civil unions. That will give Jersey a serious competitive advantage in attracting gay couples and the economic benefits associated with their calling a place home.
A forthcoming study by UCLA's Williams Institute finds that revenue from weddings and wedding tourism alone (if the Jersey legislature approves marriage, not civil unions) would add nearly $103 million per year in business to the state for at least the next few years.
But the economic impact could go way beyond that. Our research on what makes cities and regions grow shows that urban economic vitality today turns on openness to new ideas, new people and different lifestyles. Artistic, technological and cultural innovators and the more than 40 million workers who are part of what we call "the creative class" are drawn to places that are diverse and tolerant.
And when they settle somewhere, these people, who tend to have disposable income to spend in restaurants, bars and coffee shops, attract more of each other and fuel all kinds of economic activity.
Yes, Manhattan has long been seen as a powerful beacon of tolerance and a magnet of artistic and cultural innovation. That's what enabled the city's rise and resurgence as a world center of not just finance but art, design, fashion and entertainment.
But success has also brought its costs. Housing and rents have skyrocketed, and a growing numbers of the foot soldiers of the creative class have been forced out of Manhattan. Now, people are getting priced out of Park Slope, Williamsburg and Astoria, too. Neighborhoods are in a quiet contest, jockeying to be open, vibrant and affordable alternatives in which this creative class can live and work.
As we speak, much of the shift has benefited Brooklyn, the new creative hot spot of New York. But what about the next center? Could theaters, music clubs and Internet startups cluster in Jersey City or Newark?
With its coming leap ahead of New York on gay rights, the smart money just may have moved to New Jersey.
Florida is author of "Rise of the Creative Class." Gates is author of "The Gay and Lesbian Atlas."
Gay rights could pay big dividends
By RICHARD FLORIDA and GARY GATES
Sunday, November 26th, 2006
Some New Yorkers take New Jersey for granted. Sure, it's a great place to go to the beach, shop at Ikea or see a football game. But take people, money and buzz away from the Big Apple? It'll never happen.
Yet the Garden State may finally be on its way to turning the tables on its big brother - thanks to, of all things, a court decision.
Last month, of course, New Jersey's Supreme Court paved the way for giving same-sex partners equal rights, giving lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.
This will be a big deal - not just for same-sex couples, but for New Jersey's economy.
Why? Because, despite some rumblings in Albany, New York is likely to be years away from allowing same-sex marriage or civil unions. That will give Jersey a serious competitive advantage in attracting gay couples and the economic benefits associated with their calling a place home.
A forthcoming study by UCLA's Williams Institute finds that revenue from weddings and wedding tourism alone (if the Jersey legislature approves marriage, not civil unions) would add nearly $103 million per year in business to the state for at least the next few years.
But the economic impact could go way beyond that. Our research on what makes cities and regions grow shows that urban economic vitality today turns on openness to new ideas, new people and different lifestyles. Artistic, technological and cultural innovators and the more than 40 million workers who are part of what we call "the creative class" are drawn to places that are diverse and tolerant.
And when they settle somewhere, these people, who tend to have disposable income to spend in restaurants, bars and coffee shops, attract more of each other and fuel all kinds of economic activity.
Yes, Manhattan has long been seen as a powerful beacon of tolerance and a magnet of artistic and cultural innovation. That's what enabled the city's rise and resurgence as a world center of not just finance but art, design, fashion and entertainment.
But success has also brought its costs. Housing and rents have skyrocketed, and a growing numbers of the foot soldiers of the creative class have been forced out of Manhattan. Now, people are getting priced out of Park Slope, Williamsburg and Astoria, too. Neighborhoods are in a quiet contest, jockeying to be open, vibrant and affordable alternatives in which this creative class can live and work.
As we speak, much of the shift has benefited Brooklyn, the new creative hot spot of New York. But what about the next center? Could theaters, music clubs and Internet startups cluster in Jersey City or Newark?
With its coming leap ahead of New York on gay rights, the smart money just may have moved to New Jersey.
Florida is author of "Rise of the Creative Class." Gates is author of "The Gay and Lesbian Atlas."
November 24, 2006
Survey Examines Reasons for Arizona's Rejection of Anti-Gay Amendment
Survey Examines Reasons For Arizona's Rejection Of Anti-Gay Amendment
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
November 24, 2006 - 12:01 am ET
(Phoenix, Arizona) Arizona this month became the first state to reject a proposed amendment to its constitution to bar same-sex marriage, but what made voters on Nov. 7 different from their counterparts in other states?
That was the question researchers from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication sought to determine in a new survey of people who voted in the election.
The answer appears to be the broad nature of the amendment, which would have affected thousands of non-gay couples throughout the state.
The proposed amendment would have banned same-sex marriage, civil unions, and prohibited state and local governments from providing marriage-like legal status to relationships other than marriage.
The amendment could have been used to deny partner benefits to same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex couples.
Arizonan voters rejected the measure 51 to 48 percent.
The Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University asked people who voted in the election about their decision in a poll taken Nov. 16 - 19.
A majority, 60 percent, of those who voted against the measure said they felt it violated individual rights. But, of those voted against it only 8 percent said they supported same-sex marriage. Another 30 percent said they voted against the measure because it was not fair to deny benefits to unmarried couples.
"This issue had nothing to do with same sex marriage,'' Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state lawmaker and leader of the campaign against the amendment told KAET television which sponsored the survey.
"What it did was take away benefits and legal protections that unmarried families in Arizona had. And Arizonans believe that's wrong: that the government shouldn't take things away from people.''
Sinema said the key to defeating the measure was making people understand how broad and encompassing the proposed amendment was.
©365Gay.com 2006
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
November 24, 2006 - 12:01 am ET
(Phoenix, Arizona) Arizona this month became the first state to reject a proposed amendment to its constitution to bar same-sex marriage, but what made voters on Nov. 7 different from their counterparts in other states?
That was the question researchers from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication sought to determine in a new survey of people who voted in the election.
The answer appears to be the broad nature of the amendment, which would have affected thousands of non-gay couples throughout the state.
The proposed amendment would have banned same-sex marriage, civil unions, and prohibited state and local governments from providing marriage-like legal status to relationships other than marriage.
The amendment could have been used to deny partner benefits to same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex couples.
Arizonan voters rejected the measure 51 to 48 percent.
The Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University asked people who voted in the election about their decision in a poll taken Nov. 16 - 19.
A majority, 60 percent, of those who voted against the measure said they felt it violated individual rights. But, of those voted against it only 8 percent said they supported same-sex marriage. Another 30 percent said they voted against the measure because it was not fair to deny benefits to unmarried couples.
"This issue had nothing to do with same sex marriage,'' Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state lawmaker and leader of the campaign against the amendment told KAET television which sponsored the survey.
"What it did was take away benefits and legal protections that unmarried families in Arizona had. And Arizonans believe that's wrong: that the government shouldn't take things away from people.''
Sinema said the key to defeating the measure was making people understand how broad and encompassing the proposed amendment was.
©365Gay.com 2006
Romney Asks court to order Anti Gay Amendment put to voters
Romney Asks Court To Order Anti-Gay Amendment Put To Voters
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: November 24, 2006 1:00 pm ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney asked the state's highest court Friday for an order placing a proposed amendment that would ban same-sex marriage on the ballot without the approval of the legislature.
Lawyers for the Republican governor filed the motion with a single justice of the court. It accuses the Legislature of obstructing the democratic process when lawmakers refused to vote on the proposed amendment earlier this month.
On November 10 the Legislature, meeting in a special joint session called a Constitutional Convention, to consider the proposed amendment recessed until January 2, without taking a vote. (story)
January 2 is the final day in the current session and it is expected no vote will be held, effectively killing the measure.
The move infuriated Romney and other social conservatives.
Because the Convention is in recess until January and not technically not over, most legal experts in the state believe the judiciary will not intervene.
The governor's motion says the court has the power to act and asks that Secretary of State William Galvin be direct to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot if lawmakers fail to take action when they return on Jan. 2.
Earlier this week Romney sent a letter to members of both the House and Senate accusing them of violating their oaths of office.
The court has not indicated when it might rule. Since the motion was put before a single justice, whatever the decision it is likely to be appealed to the full court.
The proposed amendment was the result of a signature gathering campaign mounted by conservative groups. More than the required number of names were collected, sending the issue to the Constitutional Convention where it needs only the support of only 50 lawmakers - 25 percent of the House and Senate - in two constitutional conventions for it to be put to voters in 2008.
If the convention fails to vote on January 2 supporters of the amendment would have to begin collecting signatures all over again in an attempt to place it before voters in 2010.
Even if the measure were to pass on January 2 it would need a second round of approval in the new session of Legislature - something considered even more unlikely.
The Convention refused to vote on a citizens' initiative in 2002, and two years later lawmakers voted down their own proposed amendment that would have banned gay marriage but legalized civil unions.
Romney has opposed same-sex marriage since the first court case was filed and forced local clerks to adhere to a law dating back to the early part of the last century that said marriage licenses could only be issued to people from out of state if their marriages would be legal where they lived.
In numerous speeches around the country where the Republican governor is trying to drum up support for a presidential bid Romney has attacked same-sex marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that the state could not bar same-sex couples from marrying. Since then, more than 8,000 gay and lesbian couples in the state have wed.
©365Gay.com 2006
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: November 24, 2006 1:00 pm ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney asked the state's highest court Friday for an order placing a proposed amendment that would ban same-sex marriage on the ballot without the approval of the legislature.
Lawyers for the Republican governor filed the motion with a single justice of the court. It accuses the Legislature of obstructing the democratic process when lawmakers refused to vote on the proposed amendment earlier this month.
On November 10 the Legislature, meeting in a special joint session called a Constitutional Convention, to consider the proposed amendment recessed until January 2, without taking a vote. (story)
January 2 is the final day in the current session and it is expected no vote will be held, effectively killing the measure.
The move infuriated Romney and other social conservatives.
Because the Convention is in recess until January and not technically not over, most legal experts in the state believe the judiciary will not intervene.
The governor's motion says the court has the power to act and asks that Secretary of State William Galvin be direct to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot if lawmakers fail to take action when they return on Jan. 2.
Earlier this week Romney sent a letter to members of both the House and Senate accusing them of violating their oaths of office.
The court has not indicated when it might rule. Since the motion was put before a single justice, whatever the decision it is likely to be appealed to the full court.
The proposed amendment was the result of a signature gathering campaign mounted by conservative groups. More than the required number of names were collected, sending the issue to the Constitutional Convention where it needs only the support of only 50 lawmakers - 25 percent of the House and Senate - in two constitutional conventions for it to be put to voters in 2008.
If the convention fails to vote on January 2 supporters of the amendment would have to begin collecting signatures all over again in an attempt to place it before voters in 2010.
Even if the measure were to pass on January 2 it would need a second round of approval in the new session of Legislature - something considered even more unlikely.
The Convention refused to vote on a citizens' initiative in 2002, and two years later lawmakers voted down their own proposed amendment that would have banned gay marriage but legalized civil unions.
Romney has opposed same-sex marriage since the first court case was filed and forced local clerks to adhere to a law dating back to the early part of the last century that said marriage licenses could only be issued to people from out of state if their marriages would be legal where they lived.
In numerous speeches around the country where the Republican governor is trying to drum up support for a presidential bid Romney has attacked same-sex marriage.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that the state could not bar same-sex couples from marrying. Since then, more than 8,000 gay and lesbian couples in the state have wed.
©365Gay.com 2006
November 22, 2006
Ohio University can offer same sex benifits
Same-sex benefits lawsuit dismissed
Lawmaker has no legal standing to challenge Miami U.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Kevin Kidder
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Rep. Thomas E. Brinkman Jr. said he is encouraged by a decision in his legal challenge to Miami University’s samesex benefits.
A lawsuit challenging Miami University’s same-sex benefits for faculty was dismissed yesterday, and the decision left both sides happy.
The Butler County Common Pleas Court found that state Rep. Thomas E. Brinkman Jr., a Cincinnati Republican who filed the suit as a taxpayer, didn’t have legal standing to sue. Brinkman said last night that he’ll appeal.
The suit, filed Nov. 22, 2005, contends that the benefits are an unlawful use of state tax dollars and violate Ohio’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.
It sought a permanent injunction against Miami and its board of trustees.
"The lesson is that people who are not harmed by giving health care to gay and lesbian families should not be in the business of filing lawsuits and taking away that health care," said James P. Madigan, who argued the case for Lambda Legal, which represented two Miami faculty members.
"We’re hopeful that others aren’t inclined to file such lawsuits."
Judge Charles L. Pater’s decision concluded that Brinkman hadn’t been "damaged individually or concretely" by the samesex benefits policy.
But yesterday’s ruling didn’t address whether Brinkman’s argument had merit. And that leaves him hopeful.
"I feel I’m pretty happy with the direction it’s going in," said Brinkman, whose son and daughter attend Miami.
"We’re going to be in pretty good shape, but somebody has got to have standing." He pointed to other parts of the ruling, where "he’s basically saying we’re correct."
"Arguably, Brinkman is correct, but he lacks the requisite, adverse legal interest in the dispute," the court’s decision states.
"The order should not be construed to suggest that no one can challenge the practice at issue in the court of Common Pleas."
The Ohio Constitution not only bars same-sex marriage, but also blocks the state and all political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Brinkman’s suit argues that Miami’s policy, enacted in July 2004, has "created and given recognition to a legal status of ‘domestic partnership’ for a certain form of same-sex cohabitation," and thus violates the Ohio Constitution.
Miami University also applauded the decision.
"The university is happy with this judgment. It means we can go on offering benefits as we have been," said university spokeswoman Claire Wagner.
"We feel it is the right thing to do for our employees
Lawmaker has no legal standing to challenge Miami U.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Kevin Kidder
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Rep. Thomas E. Brinkman Jr. said he is encouraged by a decision in his legal challenge to Miami University’s samesex benefits.
A lawsuit challenging Miami University’s same-sex benefits for faculty was dismissed yesterday, and the decision left both sides happy.
The Butler County Common Pleas Court found that state Rep. Thomas E. Brinkman Jr., a Cincinnati Republican who filed the suit as a taxpayer, didn’t have legal standing to sue. Brinkman said last night that he’ll appeal.
The suit, filed Nov. 22, 2005, contends that the benefits are an unlawful use of state tax dollars and violate Ohio’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.
It sought a permanent injunction against Miami and its board of trustees.
"The lesson is that people who are not harmed by giving health care to gay and lesbian families should not be in the business of filing lawsuits and taking away that health care," said James P. Madigan, who argued the case for Lambda Legal, which represented two Miami faculty members.
"We’re hopeful that others aren’t inclined to file such lawsuits."
Judge Charles L. Pater’s decision concluded that Brinkman hadn’t been "damaged individually or concretely" by the samesex benefits policy.
But yesterday’s ruling didn’t address whether Brinkman’s argument had merit. And that leaves him hopeful.
"I feel I’m pretty happy with the direction it’s going in," said Brinkman, whose son and daughter attend Miami.
"We’re going to be in pretty good shape, but somebody has got to have standing." He pointed to other parts of the ruling, where "he’s basically saying we’re correct."
"Arguably, Brinkman is correct, but he lacks the requisite, adverse legal interest in the dispute," the court’s decision states.
"The order should not be construed to suggest that no one can challenge the practice at issue in the court of Common Pleas."
The Ohio Constitution not only bars same-sex marriage, but also blocks the state and all political subdivisions from creating or recognizing "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Brinkman’s suit argues that Miami’s policy, enacted in July 2004, has "created and given recognition to a legal status of ‘domestic partnership’ for a certain form of same-sex cohabitation," and thus violates the Ohio Constitution.
Miami University also applauded the decision.
"The university is happy with this judgment. It means we can go on offering benefits as we have been," said university spokeswoman Claire Wagner.
"We feel it is the right thing to do for our employees
November 21, 2006
When religion loses its credibility
When religion loses its credibility
By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas
Mon Nov 20, 6:40 AM ET
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas
Mon Nov 20, 6:40 AM ET
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
Israeli court recognizes marriages
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 200613:31 MECCA TIME, 10:31 GMT
Israeli court allows gay marriage
A recent gay pride parade in Jerusalem provoked an angry reaction from Ultra-Orthodox Jews.
The Israeli supreme court has ordered the government to recognise same-sex marriages performed abroad.
Five couples who had obtained common-law same-sex marriages in Canada and wanted to appear as married couples on the country's population registry had petitioned the court with the support of an Israeli civil rights group.
Six of the seven judges voted for the move while the lone dissenter was an observant Jew, highlighting the controversy the decision arouses among Israeli religious groups.
Moshe Gafni, an ultra-Orthodox legislator, said:"We don't have a Jewish state here. We have Sodom and Gomorrah here."
He told Israel's Army Radio: "I assume that every sane person in the state of Israel, possibly the entire Jewish world, is shocked, because the significance is ... the destruction of the family unit in the state of Israel."
Gafni said he would consider presenting a bill to parliament that would bypass Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling and make recognition of all same-sex marriages illegal.
Moshe Negbi, a legal expert, said the court's decision was mostly symbolic because gay couples in Israel already had many of the rights of heterosexual partnerships.
Negbi said the significant changes were that they would now get the same tax breaks as a married couple and be able to adopt children.
'Long battle'
Efforts by Israel's gay community to win approval for same-sex marriage face a major obstacle because Israel's religious authorities have a monopoly over Jewish marriage and divorce.
Yossi Ben-Ari, who petitioned the court along with his partner, Loren Shuman, brushed off Gafni's comments as a continuation of the ultra-Orthodox "frenzy" against Israel's gay and lesbian community.
Ben-Ari told Israel's Army Radio: "This is only the beginning of the battle. The courts here are very progressive ... but the battle is for the face of society.
"The battle for our rights doesn't end here, it is still very long."
Animosity towards gay people is one of the few issues that unites Jews, Muslims and Christians in Israel and the occupied territories.
Earlier this month, a planned gay parade in Jerusalem set off days of violence in the city's ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods.
Israeli court allows gay marriage
A recent gay pride parade in Jerusalem provoked an angry reaction from Ultra-Orthodox Jews.
The Israeli supreme court has ordered the government to recognise same-sex marriages performed abroad.
Five couples who had obtained common-law same-sex marriages in Canada and wanted to appear as married couples on the country's population registry had petitioned the court with the support of an Israeli civil rights group.
Six of the seven judges voted for the move while the lone dissenter was an observant Jew, highlighting the controversy the decision arouses among Israeli religious groups.
Moshe Gafni, an ultra-Orthodox legislator, said:"We don't have a Jewish state here. We have Sodom and Gomorrah here."
He told Israel's Army Radio: "I assume that every sane person in the state of Israel, possibly the entire Jewish world, is shocked, because the significance is ... the destruction of the family unit in the state of Israel."
Gafni said he would consider presenting a bill to parliament that would bypass Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling and make recognition of all same-sex marriages illegal.
Moshe Negbi, a legal expert, said the court's decision was mostly symbolic because gay couples in Israel already had many of the rights of heterosexual partnerships.
Negbi said the significant changes were that they would now get the same tax breaks as a married couple and be able to adopt children.
'Long battle'
Efforts by Israel's gay community to win approval for same-sex marriage face a major obstacle because Israel's religious authorities have a monopoly over Jewish marriage and divorce.
Yossi Ben-Ari, who petitioned the court along with his partner, Loren Shuman, brushed off Gafni's comments as a continuation of the ultra-Orthodox "frenzy" against Israel's gay and lesbian community.
Ben-Ari told Israel's Army Radio: "This is only the beginning of the battle. The courts here are very progressive ... but the battle is for the face of society.
"The battle for our rights doesn't end here, it is still very long."
Animosity towards gay people is one of the few issues that unites Jews, Muslims and Christians in Israel and the occupied territories.
Earlier this month, a planned gay parade in Jerusalem set off days of violence in the city's ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods.
November 20, 2006
States will have to recognize same sex relationships
States will have to recognize same-sex relationships (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/141015,CST-EDT-REF18B.article)
November 18, 2006
BY ANDREW KOPPELMAN
Like it or not, legalized same-sex relationships are here to stay, and, for the time being, so too is America's division over the issue. So what happens when people in legally recognized same-sex marriages cross state lines?
Can someone who lives with a same-sex spouse in Massachusetts safely run away to Virginia with the family's assets? And what happens when someone from Massachusetts is hospitalized in Virginia and the hospital needs to know who is entitled to make the patient's medical decisions? Can a person with a same-sex spouse in Massachusetts come to Virginia and marry someone else of the opposite sex? If so, would the bigamous spouse be required even to tell the new spouse about the existing marriage?
This is not the first time that Americans have been divided about what kinds of marriages to recognize. Profound moral disagreements about marriage have involved differences in state laws concerning marriages between kin, marriages involving young teenagers, remarriages after divorce, and above all, interracial marriages.
The outcomes almost always turned on a single question: Where did the couple make its home? Take this 1948 case. Pearl Mitchell, who was black, died in Chicago without a will, leaving land that she had owned in Mississippi. A provision in the Mississippi Constitution declared interracial marriages "unlawful and void."
The state Supreme Court nonetheless allowed her white husband to inherit, because the couple had not lived in Mississippi.
The Mississippi courts in 1948 were bulwarks of an evil system of racial subordination. But they understood something important about the problem of moral pluralism in a federal system: that each state must respect the legitimate operation of other states' laws.
This history can teach us how to respond to our present divisions. This month, those divisions became even further entrenched. Seven states passed constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. But only two weeks before that, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that the state must join California, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts -- altogether comprising nearly a fifth of the U.S. population -- in giving gay couples all the rights of married couples. And the Republicans' loss of a majority in Congress means that the effort to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage is dead.
There are now 43 states with laws banning same-sex marriage. These laws were passed mainly to guarantee that these states would be able to govern the marriages of their own citizens. But other situations will arise in which a same-sex marriage or civil union will be pertinent.
In order to avoid bizarrely unfair results that nobody has ever intended -- such as a deadbeat father running away with all his family's assets and finding a safe haven in another state -- states will have to recognize same-sex relationships sometimes, for some purposes.
The hard work lies in figuring out how to map the boundaries of recognition in a way that allows each state to pursue its own deeply felt public policies. It's a complex task, but hardly an insurmountable one. If the Southern racist courts could do it, so can we.
At a minimum, we should not respond to our disagreements in a less civilized and humane way than we managed to do in the shameful days of racial segregation.
Andrew Koppelman, professor at Northwestern University School of Law, is the author of Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press).
What happens when people in legally recognized same-sex marriages cross state lines?
November 18, 2006
BY ANDREW KOPPELMAN
Like it or not, legalized same-sex relationships are here to stay, and, for the time being, so too is America's division over the issue. So what happens when people in legally recognized same-sex marriages cross state lines?
Can someone who lives with a same-sex spouse in Massachusetts safely run away to Virginia with the family's assets? And what happens when someone from Massachusetts is hospitalized in Virginia and the hospital needs to know who is entitled to make the patient's medical decisions? Can a person with a same-sex spouse in Massachusetts come to Virginia and marry someone else of the opposite sex? If so, would the bigamous spouse be required even to tell the new spouse about the existing marriage?
This is not the first time that Americans have been divided about what kinds of marriages to recognize. Profound moral disagreements about marriage have involved differences in state laws concerning marriages between kin, marriages involving young teenagers, remarriages after divorce, and above all, interracial marriages.
The outcomes almost always turned on a single question: Where did the couple make its home? Take this 1948 case. Pearl Mitchell, who was black, died in Chicago without a will, leaving land that she had owned in Mississippi. A provision in the Mississippi Constitution declared interracial marriages "unlawful and void."
The state Supreme Court nonetheless allowed her white husband to inherit, because the couple had not lived in Mississippi.
The Mississippi courts in 1948 were bulwarks of an evil system of racial subordination. But they understood something important about the problem of moral pluralism in a federal system: that each state must respect the legitimate operation of other states' laws.
This history can teach us how to respond to our present divisions. This month, those divisions became even further entrenched. Seven states passed constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage. But only two weeks before that, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that the state must join California, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts -- altogether comprising nearly a fifth of the U.S. population -- in giving gay couples all the rights of married couples. And the Republicans' loss of a majority in Congress means that the effort to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage is dead.
There are now 43 states with laws banning same-sex marriage. These laws were passed mainly to guarantee that these states would be able to govern the marriages of their own citizens. But other situations will arise in which a same-sex marriage or civil union will be pertinent.
In order to avoid bizarrely unfair results that nobody has ever intended -- such as a deadbeat father running away with all his family's assets and finding a safe haven in another state -- states will have to recognize same-sex relationships sometimes, for some purposes.
The hard work lies in figuring out how to map the boundaries of recognition in a way that allows each state to pursue its own deeply felt public policies. It's a complex task, but hardly an insurmountable one. If the Southern racist courts could do it, so can we.
At a minimum, we should not respond to our disagreements in a less civilized and humane way than we managed to do in the shameful days of racial segregation.
Andrew Koppelman, professor at Northwestern University School of Law, is the author of Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press).
What happens when people in legally recognized same-sex marriages cross state lines?
Alaska Advances Anti Gay Bills
Alaska Senate Advances Anti-Gay Bills
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
November 20, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET
(Juneau, Alaska) A key Alaska Senate committee has ratified two bills passed Friday by the House that could result in a constitutional showdown between the legislature and the state Supreme Court over same-sex benefits.
The first bill prohibits Gov. Frank Murkowski's administration from granting any court-ordered health and retirement benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. The second would explore the possibility of a constitutional amendment barring gay benefits that could go on the 2008 ballot.
Murkowski called the legislature into special session to approve a benefits package worked out by the Department of Administration to comply with a court order declaring the lack of health and pension benefits violated the Alaska constitution and ordering the legislature to rectify the situation by January 1.
The House voted last week to pass the measures 22 - 10. (story) The Senate Finance Committee approved the measures Sunday night on a 4 - 1 vote. The bills now advance to the full Senate.
If passed and signed into law by the governor the first measure would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court, but a constitutional amendment banning benefits for same-sex couples would tied the court's hands from further action.
Last year the state Supreme Court ruled the state must establish benefits to same-sex partners of its employees in response to an action filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and nine Alaska couples.
The high court ruled that because same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying in Alaska, denying them rights extended to married couples deprives them of equal protection guaranteed under the Alaska Constitution.
©365Gay.com 2006
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
November 20, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET
(Juneau, Alaska) A key Alaska Senate committee has ratified two bills passed Friday by the House that could result in a constitutional showdown between the legislature and the state Supreme Court over same-sex benefits.
The first bill prohibits Gov. Frank Murkowski's administration from granting any court-ordered health and retirement benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. The second would explore the possibility of a constitutional amendment barring gay benefits that could go on the 2008 ballot.
Murkowski called the legislature into special session to approve a benefits package worked out by the Department of Administration to comply with a court order declaring the lack of health and pension benefits violated the Alaska constitution and ordering the legislature to rectify the situation by January 1.
The House voted last week to pass the measures 22 - 10. (story) The Senate Finance Committee approved the measures Sunday night on a 4 - 1 vote. The bills now advance to the full Senate.
If passed and signed into law by the governor the first measure would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court, but a constitutional amendment banning benefits for same-sex couples would tied the court's hands from further action.
Last year the state Supreme Court ruled the state must establish benefits to same-sex partners of its employees in response to an action filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and nine Alaska couples.
The high court ruled that because same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying in Alaska, denying them rights extended to married couples deprives them of equal protection guaranteed under the Alaska Constitution.
©365Gay.com 2006
McCain: No to gay marriage
McCain: No To Gay Marriage, No To Repeal Of DADT As 2008 Contenders Begin To Lay Out Positions
by The Associated Press
November 19, 2006 - 4:00 pm ET
(Washington) Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry insisted on Sunday his "botched joke" about President Bush's Iraq policy would not undermine a possible White House campaign in 2008.
"Not in the least," Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, said when asked if the furor over his comment had caused him to reconsider a 2008 race. "The parlor game of who's up, who's down, today or tomorrow, if I listened to that stuff, I would never have won the nomination."
One of the GOP politicians mentioned in a crowded field for the White House, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, said he would not make a decision until September - a relatively late date in the campaign cycle - to focus in the private sector on trade policies.
"We have lots of time for personal ambition," the Georgia Republican said. "And I think an awful lot of this early energy is wasted, and we ought to be focusing on, you know, how are you going to compete with China and India, how are you going to solve the problem in Iraq?"
Gingrich said Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, both of whom have set up presidential exploratory committees, were the likely front-runners. But Gingrich said voters are yearning for a clearer conservative voice.
"I think Mitt Romney has an opportunity to fill that," Gingrich said, referring to the outgoing Massachusetts governor.
McCain said Giuliani was an "American hero" for his leadership in New York following the Sept. 11 attacks. But McCain called himself the best presidential candidate based on a "record of being a conservative Republican, of knowledge on national security and defense issues."
McCain, who supports a ban on abortion except in cases of rape, incest and to save a mother's life, said he doubted a constitutional amendment could pass but that one would not be needed because "it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should - could - overturn Roe v. Wade."
The high court is deciding this term whether to uphold a 2003 federal law banning the procedure opponents call "partial-birth" abortion in a case conservatives hope could be used to reverse the landmark 1973 abortion-rights decision.
At least two conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, have called on Roe to be overturned. Legal analysts have said if the court issues an anti-abortion ruling, justices would be more likely to impose restrictions rather than abolish the right.
"I'm a federalist," McCain said. "Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."
McCain called the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays "very effective." He said he opposed gay marriage, but as to civil unions, "people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationship can enter into."
Kerry said he would decide early next year whether to run for president.
Shortly before the Nov. 7 elections that brought Democrats back into power in the House and Senate, Kerry retreated from public view following his remark to a college audience that young people might get "stuck in Iraq" if they do not study hard and do their homework.
"This is over. This was a misstatement. All of us make them in life. You wish you could have it back, but you can't," the senator said Sunday.
Kerry said Sunday he had made the decision to keep a low profile after the White House attacked the joke as insulting to U.S. troops and several Democrats called the comment a needless distraction before the pivotal congressional elections.
"Since we had very close races, I made the decision to make certain that I didn't distract. The results speak for themselves," he said.
On running in 2008, Kerry said he had not yet made a decision whether to set up an exploratory committee.
"Right now, my focus will be what happened on election day," he said, citing a need to work toward solutions on Iraq, energy independence and health care. "The American people are waiting for us to lift up an enormous challenge."
Both Kerry and Gingrich appeared on "Fox News Sunday." McCain was on "This Week" on ABC.
©365Gay.com 2006
by The Associated Press
November 19, 2006 - 4:00 pm ET
(Washington) Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry insisted on Sunday his "botched joke" about President Bush's Iraq policy would not undermine a possible White House campaign in 2008.
"Not in the least," Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, said when asked if the furor over his comment had caused him to reconsider a 2008 race. "The parlor game of who's up, who's down, today or tomorrow, if I listened to that stuff, I would never have won the nomination."
One of the GOP politicians mentioned in a crowded field for the White House, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, said he would not make a decision until September - a relatively late date in the campaign cycle - to focus in the private sector on trade policies.
"We have lots of time for personal ambition," the Georgia Republican said. "And I think an awful lot of this early energy is wasted, and we ought to be focusing on, you know, how are you going to compete with China and India, how are you going to solve the problem in Iraq?"
Gingrich said Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, both of whom have set up presidential exploratory committees, were the likely front-runners. But Gingrich said voters are yearning for a clearer conservative voice.
"I think Mitt Romney has an opportunity to fill that," Gingrich said, referring to the outgoing Massachusetts governor.
McCain said Giuliani was an "American hero" for his leadership in New York following the Sept. 11 attacks. But McCain called himself the best presidential candidate based on a "record of being a conservative Republican, of knowledge on national security and defense issues."
McCain, who supports a ban on abortion except in cases of rape, incest and to save a mother's life, said he doubted a constitutional amendment could pass but that one would not be needed because "it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should - could - overturn Roe v. Wade."
The high court is deciding this term whether to uphold a 2003 federal law banning the procedure opponents call "partial-birth" abortion in a case conservatives hope could be used to reverse the landmark 1973 abortion-rights decision.
At least two conservatives, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, have called on Roe to be overturned. Legal analysts have said if the court issues an anti-abortion ruling, justices would be more likely to impose restrictions rather than abolish the right.
"I'm a federalist," McCain said. "Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."
McCain called the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays "very effective." He said he opposed gay marriage, but as to civil unions, "people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people who have relationship can enter into."
Kerry said he would decide early next year whether to run for president.
Shortly before the Nov. 7 elections that brought Democrats back into power in the House and Senate, Kerry retreated from public view following his remark to a college audience that young people might get "stuck in Iraq" if they do not study hard and do their homework.
"This is over. This was a misstatement. All of us make them in life. You wish you could have it back, but you can't," the senator said Sunday.
Kerry said Sunday he had made the decision to keep a low profile after the White House attacked the joke as insulting to U.S. troops and several Democrats called the comment a needless distraction before the pivotal congressional elections.
"Since we had very close races, I made the decision to make certain that I didn't distract. The results speak for themselves," he said.
On running in 2008, Kerry said he had not yet made a decision whether to set up an exploratory committee.
"Right now, my focus will be what happened on election day," he said, citing a need to work toward solutions on Iraq, energy independence and health care. "The American people are waiting for us to lift up an enormous challenge."
Both Kerry and Gingrich appeared on "Fox News Sunday." McCain was on "This Week" on ABC.
©365Gay.com 2006
Romney seeks to force gay marriage vote
Romney seeks to force gay marriage vote
Rips lawmakers, eyes bid in SJC
By Scott Allen, Globe Staff November 20, 2006
Governor Mitt Romney said yesterday that he would ask the Supreme Judicial Court to override the Legislature and let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage, telling a boisterous crowd of several thousand at a State House rally that lawmakers are violating the state constitution by refusing to act on the proposal.
Conservative and religious groups gathered a record 170,000 signatures on a petition to put the proposed ban on same-sex marriages on the 2008 ballot, but the measure also requires the support of at least 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions to qualify for a statewide referendum. On Nov. 9, legislators voted 109 to 87 to go into recess rather than vote on the gay marriage ban, all but dooming its chances of appearing on the 2008 ballot.
"The issue before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the constitution," declared Romney, promising to send the 109 lawmakers a copy of the constitution and their oath of office to underscore his frustration. "Let us not see the state, which first established constitutional democracy, become the first to abandon it."
A spokesman for Romney said he would file a lawsuit with an SJC justice this week, urging the justice to direct Secretary of State William F. Galvin to place the issue on the state ballot anyway on the grounds that the Legislature is obstructing democracy.
State Police estimated the crowd at about 5,000 people, with gay marriage opponents significantly outnumbering supporters.
"On an issue as important as marriage, I think the people deserve a chance to vote," said Rich Sorcinelli , who traveled from West Springfield to pressure the Legislature to allow a statewide referendum on same-sex marriage. "Less than this has brought wars. This is what brings civil disobedience."
But proponents of same-sex marriage at the rally said lawmakers deserved praise, not a lawsuit, for blocking the gay marriage ban from reaching the ballot.
"As soon as you go down the path of the majority voting on the rights of the minority, you're going down a dangerous path," said Ken Repp of Waltham who attended the rally with his husband of 2 1/2 years, Christopher Johnson .
A specialist on Massachusetts constitutional law said Romney's legal appeal is unlikely to succeed, in part because it is premature. Legislators still have one day to vote on the same-sex marriage ban on Jan. 2, the last remaining day for current legislators, said Lawrence Friedman, an assistant professor at the New England School of Law. He also said Romney's legal argument is wrong.
"That's a lawsuit that is probably a waste of taxpayers' dollars," said Friedman , who filed a legal brief in support of same-sex marriage when it came before the SJC in 2003. He said he is not involved in the current debate. "The constitution doesn't actually require the Legislature to take a vote. It says that they have to discuss it and debate it, and I don't think there is any good argument that there hasn't been a lot of discussion and debate."
The rally was more about high political drama than the nuances of constitutional law. Opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage stood across Beacon Street from each other. One side chanted "Let the people vote;" the other, "Let the people marry."
Romney and other speakers stood before an enormous American flag draped across the State House doors, while nuns distributed anti gay marriage brochures in the crowd below. On the other side, proponents of same-sex marriage shouted "bigot" and "shame" as Romney and others spoke.
Lieutenant Paul Maloney , a State Police spokesman, said he knew of no arrests at the rally despite the strong sentiments.
Romney, whose staff helped organize the rally, is considering a 2008 presidential bid, and some critics accused him of using the issue to sharpen his conservative credentials nationally before he steps down as governor.
But Romney's chief spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom , said the personal attacks on his boss show the weakness of the argument against letting voters decide. "The governor has a constitutional role to play in making sure that the Legislature votes on matters that are brought to them by the people," said Fehrnstrom. "He is using the bully pulpit of his office to get the Legislature to uphold its constitutional obligation."
Romney's planned appeal to the SJC underscores his limited options to force the Legislature to act. It was the state's top court that in 2003 ruled to legalize marriages between same-sex partners in the first place. The 4-to-3 decision triggered a powerful backlash among social conservatives, who formed an umbrella group, VoteonMarriage.org , to gather the required 60,000 signatures for a statewide referendum on same-sex marriage. Although the group gathered more than twice the signatures necessary, legislators have declined to vote directly on the proposal, making it impossible for those who support the ban to show they have the required support of 50 legislators.
As recently as Nov. 9, Romney acknowledged that his legal options are limited.
Friedman said that, under Massachusetts' constitution, voters have no right to vote directly on issues unless the Legislature decides to allow it.
Yesterday, though, Romney said there is no question that the majority of state legislators on Nov. 9 decided to "usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy, and substitute a form of what this nation's founders called tyranny" for the will of the people. He said the constitution "plainly states" that legislators must vote directly on petitions from citizens.
Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi could not be reached for comment.
Roberto Miranda , chairman of VoteonMarriage.org, said that the Legislature's refusal to act has given gay marriage opponents the moral high ground in the debate. He said that gay people "portray themselves as victims, but in this case they act as oppressors."
Rips lawmakers, eyes bid in SJC
By Scott Allen, Globe Staff November 20, 2006
Governor Mitt Romney said yesterday that he would ask the Supreme Judicial Court to override the Legislature and let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage, telling a boisterous crowd of several thousand at a State House rally that lawmakers are violating the state constitution by refusing to act on the proposal.
Conservative and religious groups gathered a record 170,000 signatures on a petition to put the proposed ban on same-sex marriages on the 2008 ballot, but the measure also requires the support of at least 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions to qualify for a statewide referendum. On Nov. 9, legislators voted 109 to 87 to go into recess rather than vote on the gay marriage ban, all but dooming its chances of appearing on the 2008 ballot.
"The issue before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the constitution," declared Romney, promising to send the 109 lawmakers a copy of the constitution and their oath of office to underscore his frustration. "Let us not see the state, which first established constitutional democracy, become the first to abandon it."
A spokesman for Romney said he would file a lawsuit with an SJC justice this week, urging the justice to direct Secretary of State William F. Galvin to place the issue on the state ballot anyway on the grounds that the Legislature is obstructing democracy.
State Police estimated the crowd at about 5,000 people, with gay marriage opponents significantly outnumbering supporters.
"On an issue as important as marriage, I think the people deserve a chance to vote," said Rich Sorcinelli , who traveled from West Springfield to pressure the Legislature to allow a statewide referendum on same-sex marriage. "Less than this has brought wars. This is what brings civil disobedience."
But proponents of same-sex marriage at the rally said lawmakers deserved praise, not a lawsuit, for blocking the gay marriage ban from reaching the ballot.
"As soon as you go down the path of the majority voting on the rights of the minority, you're going down a dangerous path," said Ken Repp of Waltham who attended the rally with his husband of 2 1/2 years, Christopher Johnson .
A specialist on Massachusetts constitutional law said Romney's legal appeal is unlikely to succeed, in part because it is premature. Legislators still have one day to vote on the same-sex marriage ban on Jan. 2, the last remaining day for current legislators, said Lawrence Friedman, an assistant professor at the New England School of Law. He also said Romney's legal argument is wrong.
"That's a lawsuit that is probably a waste of taxpayers' dollars," said Friedman , who filed a legal brief in support of same-sex marriage when it came before the SJC in 2003. He said he is not involved in the current debate. "The constitution doesn't actually require the Legislature to take a vote. It says that they have to discuss it and debate it, and I don't think there is any good argument that there hasn't been a lot of discussion and debate."
The rally was more about high political drama than the nuances of constitutional law. Opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage stood across Beacon Street from each other. One side chanted "Let the people vote;" the other, "Let the people marry."
Romney and other speakers stood before an enormous American flag draped across the State House doors, while nuns distributed anti gay marriage brochures in the crowd below. On the other side, proponents of same-sex marriage shouted "bigot" and "shame" as Romney and others spoke.
Lieutenant Paul Maloney , a State Police spokesman, said he knew of no arrests at the rally despite the strong sentiments.
Romney, whose staff helped organize the rally, is considering a 2008 presidential bid, and some critics accused him of using the issue to sharpen his conservative credentials nationally before he steps down as governor.
But Romney's chief spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom , said the personal attacks on his boss show the weakness of the argument against letting voters decide. "The governor has a constitutional role to play in making sure that the Legislature votes on matters that are brought to them by the people," said Fehrnstrom. "He is using the bully pulpit of his office to get the Legislature to uphold its constitutional obligation."
Romney's planned appeal to the SJC underscores his limited options to force the Legislature to act. It was the state's top court that in 2003 ruled to legalize marriages between same-sex partners in the first place. The 4-to-3 decision triggered a powerful backlash among social conservatives, who formed an umbrella group, VoteonMarriage.org , to gather the required 60,000 signatures for a statewide referendum on same-sex marriage. Although the group gathered more than twice the signatures necessary, legislators have declined to vote directly on the proposal, making it impossible for those who support the ban to show they have the required support of 50 legislators.
As recently as Nov. 9, Romney acknowledged that his legal options are limited.
Friedman said that, under Massachusetts' constitution, voters have no right to vote directly on issues unless the Legislature decides to allow it.
Yesterday, though, Romney said there is no question that the majority of state legislators on Nov. 9 decided to "usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy, and substitute a form of what this nation's founders called tyranny" for the will of the people. He said the constitution "plainly states" that legislators must vote directly on petitions from citizens.
Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi could not be reached for comment.
Roberto Miranda , chairman of VoteonMarriage.org, said that the Legislature's refusal to act has given gay marriage opponents the moral high ground in the debate. He said that gay people "portray themselves as victims, but in this case they act as oppressors."
November 18, 2006
Keep Gay Marriage Out of the Courts
November 17, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Conservatives: Keep Gay Marriage Out of the Courts
By DAVID B. RIVKIN Jr. and LEE A. CASEY
Washington
CONSERVATIVES have consoled themselves since Election Day with the knowledge that many “conservative” social issues did well — including (and especially) the eight state “marriage amendments” on the ballot — even if the Republican candidates faltered.
These marriage measures, of which only Arizona’s was defeated, generally prevent recognition of gay marriages by defining marriage as a “union between a man and a woman” in the state constitutions. More than half of the states now have such constitutional provisions (some of which would also forbid same-sex civil unions), and conservatives need to reconsider whether that’s really what we want. There are, in fact, some very good reasons conservatives should oppose this approach.
The definition of marriage is, of course, of critical importance to individuals on both sides of the issue and to society at large. But at least since independence, the question of who may marry and under what conditions has been the province of the state legislatures. And it should have remained that way.
The justifications for stripping the legislatures of authority in this area and settling the matter in a state’s constitution are wanting. It’s true that courts in certain states — for example, Massachusetts — have interposed themselves in this debate, misconstruing “equal protection” guarantees as requiring recognition of gay marriages. But errant or aggressive judges can be corrected by amendments that simply deny the state courts authority over this issue, reserving the definition and regulation of marriage to the legislatures alone.
Moreover, the meaning of marriage, as important as it is, is no more crucial than many other issues of individual autonomy and morality that have also historically been decided by the legislatures. These include adoption and child-welfare laws, as well as a host of criminal and other regulatory measures of the greatest moment.
Indeed, cluttering state constitutions with the disposition of many difficult social issues — and this process will probably go on, and even accelerate, especially if all of the states choose to define marriage in their constitutions — is likely to empower the judiciary more. This paradoxical and unwelcome result would arise because some of the newly enshrined constitutional definitions and guarantees are sure to conflict with one another, leaving the courts the only venue for resolving the tension. Conservatives should find this outcome highly unpalatable.
At the same time, leaving the marriage issue to the state legislatures has many benefits. As Edmund Burke taught, time-tested institutions and practices should be changed only upon the clearest need, and then only to the extent necessary. If the courts in some states have trespassed on the legislatures’ traditional and legitimate authority over marriage, they can be checked without altering the otherwise established norm of legislative power in this area.
Also, allowing the issue to be decided by state legislatures would be in the best tradition of American federalism: the states act as laboratories of political change, and remain free to give divergent answers to difficult social questions. Operating within the federalist context, state legislatures are likely to enact different definitions of marriage, some allowing same-sex unions, others banning them. Significantly, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, already ensures that the choices of one state cannot be imposed on others. If that statute is ultimately found to be ineffective or unconstitutional, additional steps can be considered at the federal level to ensure that individual state choices are respected.
If state legislatures were free to define and re-define marriage, we would have genuinely political solutions to an especially difficult and incendiary issue. Very few people do not hold deep convictions regarding same-sex marriage. To enshrine the definition of marriage in a state’s constitution removes the issue from the give-and-take of the normal political process. That process rarely produces an absolute victory for any side, but it also rarely results in absolute defeat. The outcome is never final; the defeated party can rally, regroup and try again.
By contrast, a constitutional amendment resolves a policy issue with a sufficient finality to prompt a more or less permanent sense of injustice and bitterness on the losing side. Conservatives, religious conservatives especially, should understand these dynamics. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court granted victory on constitutional grounds to the abortion-rights position in the abortion debate, and that decision has polarized American politics for nearly two generations. America does not need another such issue. The wave of marriage amendments — at least those that go beyond removing the issue from judicial resolution — should stop.
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey are lawyers who served in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Op-Ed Contributor
Conservatives: Keep Gay Marriage Out of the Courts
By DAVID B. RIVKIN Jr. and LEE A. CASEY
Washington
CONSERVATIVES have consoled themselves since Election Day with the knowledge that many “conservative” social issues did well — including (and especially) the eight state “marriage amendments” on the ballot — even if the Republican candidates faltered.
These marriage measures, of which only Arizona’s was defeated, generally prevent recognition of gay marriages by defining marriage as a “union between a man and a woman” in the state constitutions. More than half of the states now have such constitutional provisions (some of which would also forbid same-sex civil unions), and conservatives need to reconsider whether that’s really what we want. There are, in fact, some very good reasons conservatives should oppose this approach.
The definition of marriage is, of course, of critical importance to individuals on both sides of the issue and to society at large. But at least since independence, the question of who may marry and under what conditions has been the province of the state legislatures. And it should have remained that way.
The justifications for stripping the legislatures of authority in this area and settling the matter in a state’s constitution are wanting. It’s true that courts in certain states — for example, Massachusetts — have interposed themselves in this debate, misconstruing “equal protection” guarantees as requiring recognition of gay marriages. But errant or aggressive judges can be corrected by amendments that simply deny the state courts authority over this issue, reserving the definition and regulation of marriage to the legislatures alone.
Moreover, the meaning of marriage, as important as it is, is no more crucial than many other issues of individual autonomy and morality that have also historically been decided by the legislatures. These include adoption and child-welfare laws, as well as a host of criminal and other regulatory measures of the greatest moment.
Indeed, cluttering state constitutions with the disposition of many difficult social issues — and this process will probably go on, and even accelerate, especially if all of the states choose to define marriage in their constitutions — is likely to empower the judiciary more. This paradoxical and unwelcome result would arise because some of the newly enshrined constitutional definitions and guarantees are sure to conflict with one another, leaving the courts the only venue for resolving the tension. Conservatives should find this outcome highly unpalatable.
At the same time, leaving the marriage issue to the state legislatures has many benefits. As Edmund Burke taught, time-tested institutions and practices should be changed only upon the clearest need, and then only to the extent necessary. If the courts in some states have trespassed on the legislatures’ traditional and legitimate authority over marriage, they can be checked without altering the otherwise established norm of legislative power in this area.
Also, allowing the issue to be decided by state legislatures would be in the best tradition of American federalism: the states act as laboratories of political change, and remain free to give divergent answers to difficult social questions. Operating within the federalist context, state legislatures are likely to enact different definitions of marriage, some allowing same-sex unions, others banning them. Significantly, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, already ensures that the choices of one state cannot be imposed on others. If that statute is ultimately found to be ineffective or unconstitutional, additional steps can be considered at the federal level to ensure that individual state choices are respected.
If state legislatures were free to define and re-define marriage, we would have genuinely political solutions to an especially difficult and incendiary issue. Very few people do not hold deep convictions regarding same-sex marriage. To enshrine the definition of marriage in a state’s constitution removes the issue from the give-and-take of the normal political process. That process rarely produces an absolute victory for any side, but it also rarely results in absolute defeat. The outcome is never final; the defeated party can rally, regroup and try again.
By contrast, a constitutional amendment resolves a policy issue with a sufficient finality to prompt a more or less permanent sense of injustice and bitterness on the losing side. Conservatives, religious conservatives especially, should understand these dynamics. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court granted victory on constitutional grounds to the abortion-rights position in the abortion debate, and that decision has polarized American politics for nearly two generations. America does not need another such issue. The wave of marriage amendments — at least those that go beyond removing the issue from judicial resolution — should stop.
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey are lawyers who served in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
November 16, 2006
NJ rules moms can both be on birth certificate
After gay rights ruling, 2 moms to be on baby's birth certificate
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer(Published: November 15, 2006)
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) - In some of the first legal fallout from a state Supreme Court ruling that gives same-sex couples in New Jersey access to the same rights as married couples, two women will be listed on the birth certificate of a baby born this week in Burlington County.
In a closed family court proceeding on Monday, a day before the child was born, the state and the women agreed that both women should be listed as the baby's parents in light of the landmark high court ruling last month. A judge agreed with the state and the women, lawyers said.
The Supreme Court last month ruled that gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights in New Jersey as married couples. But the court left working out the details - including the important one of whether the unions should be called "marriages" - to lawmakers and gave them six months to act.
In the decision, the court specifically mentioned the state's artificial insemination law. Under it, the husband of a woman who gives birth after being artificially inseminated is listed on the birth certificate as the father. But no such provision is made in the law for lesbian couples and, usually, only the birth mother is listed on the baby's birth certificate.
As a result, lesbian couples often go through lengthy and costly adoptions to give both women equal rights as parents.
Parental rights are especially important to children because they establish inheritance rights and custody should a parent die. Listing both parents on a birth certificate also allow the child to be covered by the health insurance of either parent.
The Burlington County women, who are registered as domestic partners in New Jersey, did not want their names made public, said their lawyer, Stephen Hyland.
Hyland said his clients' question is one of many legal issues the state may have to iron out before the Legislature takes action on gay unions.
Other issues, he said, include whether the rights for same-sex couples should be retroactive. For instance, should babies conceived by artificial insemination to lesbian couples before last month's ruling have both women listed on their birth certificates? Also, for children born that way in other states, how should their parentage be recognized in New Jersey?
Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida said Hyland's clients are the first he knows of in New Jersey to take advantage of new rights granted by the Oct. 25 Supreme Court ruling.
DeAlmeida said the state has not taken a position on whether the rights granted in the landmark decision should be retroactive.
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer(Published: November 15, 2006)
MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) - In some of the first legal fallout from a state Supreme Court ruling that gives same-sex couples in New Jersey access to the same rights as married couples, two women will be listed on the birth certificate of a baby born this week in Burlington County.
In a closed family court proceeding on Monday, a day before the child was born, the state and the women agreed that both women should be listed as the baby's parents in light of the landmark high court ruling last month. A judge agreed with the state and the women, lawyers said.
The Supreme Court last month ruled that gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights in New Jersey as married couples. But the court left working out the details - including the important one of whether the unions should be called "marriages" - to lawmakers and gave them six months to act.
In the decision, the court specifically mentioned the state's artificial insemination law. Under it, the husband of a woman who gives birth after being artificially inseminated is listed on the birth certificate as the father. But no such provision is made in the law for lesbian couples and, usually, only the birth mother is listed on the baby's birth certificate.
As a result, lesbian couples often go through lengthy and costly adoptions to give both women equal rights as parents.
Parental rights are especially important to children because they establish inheritance rights and custody should a parent die. Listing both parents on a birth certificate also allow the child to be covered by the health insurance of either parent.
The Burlington County women, who are registered as domestic partners in New Jersey, did not want their names made public, said their lawyer, Stephen Hyland.
Hyland said his clients' question is one of many legal issues the state may have to iron out before the Legislature takes action on gay unions.
Other issues, he said, include whether the rights for same-sex couples should be retroactive. For instance, should babies conceived by artificial insemination to lesbian couples before last month's ruling have both women listed on their birth certificates? Also, for children born that way in other states, how should their parentage be recognized in New Jersey?
Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida said Hyland's clients are the first he knows of in New Jersey to take advantage of new rights granted by the Oct. 25 Supreme Court ruling.
DeAlmeida said the state has not taken a position on whether the rights granted in the landmark decision should be retroactive.
Wis. Same-sex vote has some job-hunting
Wis. same-sex vote has some job-hunting
RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press
MADISON, Wis. - Gay and lesbian faculty and staff at the University of Wisconsin-Madison say they might quit their jobs because of the state's passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions.
"I think that a lot of people are looking elsewhere," said Concha Gomez, an academic staff member in the mathematics department.
Meeting Wednesday with about 100 concerned students, faculty and staff, UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley said the amendment makes it unlikely that Wisconsin's legislature will add health insurance benefits for domestic partners.
UW-Madison is the only school in the Big 10 that doesn't offer health insurance coverage for domestic partners - which puts the university at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting and retaining employees, he said.
Gomez said she started looking for jobs in other states the day after the amendment passed. She said she and her partner entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2000, but now they fear they have no legal rights in Wisconsin.
Dennis Miller, an employee in the Department of Art, told Wiley that his partner resigned his job in the admissions office Tuesday over the issue.
Some employees vowed to lobby state lawmakers for domestic partner benefits despite the overwhelming vote last week for the amendment.
Wiley said a state law that defines the family for insurance purposes must be changed before the university can offer the benefits. Lawmakers have repeatedly rejected attempts to do so, and every other attempt by the UW to find ways around the law has failed, he said.
"In this one instance we are now apparently forced to discriminate very much against our will," he said.
While a team of employees reviews the potential ramifications, Wiley said, current benefits and services offered for gay couples will remain in place unless a court orders the UW to change them.
The campus helps domestic partners of newly hired employees find jobs and receive in-state tuition. The partners can also qualify for library cards and passes to UW recreational facilities, among other benefits. To qualify, they fill out a form verifying they are in a committed relationship with commingled finances.
Eric Trekell, director of the campus Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender center, said the university's response will be key in whether it retains gay employees such as himself. He applauded Wiley's pledge that Madison would continue to be a welcoming place for all employees.
Trekell said he has received e-mails from people "as they are crying at their computers and students just enraged and vowing vengeance."
"The people of the state of Wisconsin said it's not merely gay marriage," he said. "They said, 'We're not going to recognize your relationships at all.'"
RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press
MADISON, Wis. - Gay and lesbian faculty and staff at the University of Wisconsin-Madison say they might quit their jobs because of the state's passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions.
"I think that a lot of people are looking elsewhere," said Concha Gomez, an academic staff member in the mathematics department.
Meeting Wednesday with about 100 concerned students, faculty and staff, UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley said the amendment makes it unlikely that Wisconsin's legislature will add health insurance benefits for domestic partners.
UW-Madison is the only school in the Big 10 that doesn't offer health insurance coverage for domestic partners - which puts the university at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting and retaining employees, he said.
Gomez said she started looking for jobs in other states the day after the amendment passed. She said she and her partner entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2000, but now they fear they have no legal rights in Wisconsin.
Dennis Miller, an employee in the Department of Art, told Wiley that his partner resigned his job in the admissions office Tuesday over the issue.
Some employees vowed to lobby state lawmakers for domestic partner benefits despite the overwhelming vote last week for the amendment.
Wiley said a state law that defines the family for insurance purposes must be changed before the university can offer the benefits. Lawmakers have repeatedly rejected attempts to do so, and every other attempt by the UW to find ways around the law has failed, he said.
"In this one instance we are now apparently forced to discriminate very much against our will," he said.
While a team of employees reviews the potential ramifications, Wiley said, current benefits and services offered for gay couples will remain in place unless a court orders the UW to change them.
The campus helps domestic partners of newly hired employees find jobs and receive in-state tuition. The partners can also qualify for library cards and passes to UW recreational facilities, among other benefits. To qualify, they fill out a form verifying they are in a committed relationship with commingled finances.
Eric Trekell, director of the campus Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender center, said the university's response will be key in whether it retains gay employees such as himself. He applauded Wiley's pledge that Madison would continue to be a welcoming place for all employees.
Trekell said he has received e-mails from people "as they are crying at their computers and students just enraged and vowing vengeance."
"The people of the state of Wisconsin said it's not merely gay marriage," he said. "They said, 'We're not going to recognize your relationships at all.'"
Evangelicals and Same Sex Marriage
Evangelicals and Same-Sex Marriage
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
by Lis Wiehl
When news broke that Rev. Ted Haggard, a staunch opponent of legalizing gay marriage, had allegedly been cheating on his wife with a male prostitute, the evangelical community was in shock.
"I probably cried all morning," says Michelle Richmond, one of 14,000 members of Haggard's New Life Church. No doubt, the 30 million members of the Haggard-led National Association of Evangelicals felt the same way.
Patti and Jeff Ellis, a conservative Christian couple from Atlanta, GA, experienced a similar shock when their 16-year-old son Adam announced he was gay.
"Patti and I were devastated," writes Jeff on his family's website, Familyacceptance.com. "Our response was typical. We prayed for a miracle. We pleaded, 'God, please remove this burden from our son and our whole family. If Adam is truly gay, then please change him.'"
Patti and Jeff now say their prayers have been answered, but not in the way you might think; in fact, not only have they come to accept Adam's homosexuality, they both now favor laws which permit gays to marry.
"This is the same as civil rights," says Patti. "More parents need to stand up for their children." So what does this have to do with Ted Haggard?
The key to the Ellis' "conversion," they say, was being able to put a face on the otherwise abstract issue of homosexuality. "It's not about the gays," says Patti, "It's about the Ellises." Or as Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, puts it, people like the Ellises "go from an abstract idea to a real person with a real name and a real story," and come to understand "there's no negative impact on their own lives to have gays and lesbians living out in the open." The question is will the members of Rev. Haggard's spiritual family undergo a similar conversion?
According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, the conversion may already be underway. Granted, opposition to gay marriage remains at 56 percent for white evangelical Protestants — but that number is down from 65 percent just two years ago.
Nevertheless, 82 percent of gay marriage opponents say it runs counter to their religious beliefs. For Jeff Ellis, the Bible was clear that being gay, much less being gay and married, was a sin in the highest order. Rev. Bob Hudak, of the Church of Nativity in Fayetteville, Georgia, puts it even more bluntly. "If I were to take the Bible literally," says Hudak, "every homosexual should be put to death because of what Leviticus says."
Nevertheless, with some interpretation, the Ellises have found other passages in the Bible that have given them hope, such as John 8:7, in which Jesus says to a crowd criticizing an adulterous woman, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
Jeff asks: "If the story were to be exchanged with a gay man, would Jesus have responded differently? Would he have said, 'You have my blessing in stoning this man to death?' I don't think so."
Ultimately, say the Ellises, coming to terms with their son's homosexuality deepened their beliefs. "Faithful to his word, God answered our prayer," says Jeff. "However, the changes that took place were not in Adam but in us. God...opened our eyes to the fact that he had created Adam gay for his own reasons and we, in our arrogance, viewed God's creation as flawed."
The Ellises now view their son's homosexuality as a kind of blessing. "I believe God's purpose for making Adam gay was to show Patti and I, and the rest of the world, the true meaning of unconditional love," says Jeff.
Ted Haggard's support system has thus far taken a distinctly different tack. Rev. Jack Hayford and the Rev. Tommy Barnett have been tapped by New Life's overseer board to supervise Haggard's spiritual "restoration," a process that could take up to three to five years, and will involve prayer, confession, and the rebuke of "godly men" like singer Pat Boone and televangelist/sex scandal veteran Jim Bakker. A polygraph test will also be used.
Meanwhile, America's ambivalence toward laws that permit gay marriage (and/or civil unions) remains. Although 51 percent of Americans continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage, that number has declined significantly from 63 percent just two years ago.
"Public attitudes toward gay rights have changed more than any other issue I've tracked in 20 years," says Clyde Wilcox, professor of government at Georgetown University. "It's not going to be long before we see several of these proposed [gay marriage] amendments fail."
Indeed, lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, recently dealt what appears to be a fatal blow to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it. Nevertheless, eight states voted on amendments to ban gay marriage this past election — and of those, seven passed.
So, years from now, will we look back at the Ted Haggard scandal and say, in an odd way, it helped set the stage for legalizing gay marriage or gay civil unions? Perhaps not — but I, for one, am keeping the faith.
Lis Wiehl joined FOX News Channel as a legal analyst in October 2001. She is currently a professor of law at the New York Law School. Wiehl received her undergraduate degree from Barnard College in 1983 and received her Master of Arts in Literature from the University of Queensland in 1985. In addition, she earned her Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School in 1987. .
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
by Lis Wiehl
When news broke that Rev. Ted Haggard, a staunch opponent of legalizing gay marriage, had allegedly been cheating on his wife with a male prostitute, the evangelical community was in shock.
"I probably cried all morning," says Michelle Richmond, one of 14,000 members of Haggard's New Life Church. No doubt, the 30 million members of the Haggard-led National Association of Evangelicals felt the same way.
Patti and Jeff Ellis, a conservative Christian couple from Atlanta, GA, experienced a similar shock when their 16-year-old son Adam announced he was gay.
"Patti and I were devastated," writes Jeff on his family's website, Familyacceptance.com. "Our response was typical. We prayed for a miracle. We pleaded, 'God, please remove this burden from our son and our whole family. If Adam is truly gay, then please change him.'"
Patti and Jeff now say their prayers have been answered, but not in the way you might think; in fact, not only have they come to accept Adam's homosexuality, they both now favor laws which permit gays to marry.
"This is the same as civil rights," says Patti. "More parents need to stand up for their children." So what does this have to do with Ted Haggard?
The key to the Ellis' "conversion," they say, was being able to put a face on the otherwise abstract issue of homosexuality. "It's not about the gays," says Patti, "It's about the Ellises." Or as Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, puts it, people like the Ellises "go from an abstract idea to a real person with a real name and a real story," and come to understand "there's no negative impact on their own lives to have gays and lesbians living out in the open." The question is will the members of Rev. Haggard's spiritual family undergo a similar conversion?
According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, the conversion may already be underway. Granted, opposition to gay marriage remains at 56 percent for white evangelical Protestants — but that number is down from 65 percent just two years ago.
Nevertheless, 82 percent of gay marriage opponents say it runs counter to their religious beliefs. For Jeff Ellis, the Bible was clear that being gay, much less being gay and married, was a sin in the highest order. Rev. Bob Hudak, of the Church of Nativity in Fayetteville, Georgia, puts it even more bluntly. "If I were to take the Bible literally," says Hudak, "every homosexual should be put to death because of what Leviticus says."
Nevertheless, with some interpretation, the Ellises have found other passages in the Bible that have given them hope, such as John 8:7, in which Jesus says to a crowd criticizing an adulterous woman, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
Jeff asks: "If the story were to be exchanged with a gay man, would Jesus have responded differently? Would he have said, 'You have my blessing in stoning this man to death?' I don't think so."
Ultimately, say the Ellises, coming to terms with their son's homosexuality deepened their beliefs. "Faithful to his word, God answered our prayer," says Jeff. "However, the changes that took place were not in Adam but in us. God...opened our eyes to the fact that he had created Adam gay for his own reasons and we, in our arrogance, viewed God's creation as flawed."
The Ellises now view their son's homosexuality as a kind of blessing. "I believe God's purpose for making Adam gay was to show Patti and I, and the rest of the world, the true meaning of unconditional love," says Jeff.
Ted Haggard's support system has thus far taken a distinctly different tack. Rev. Jack Hayford and the Rev. Tommy Barnett have been tapped by New Life's overseer board to supervise Haggard's spiritual "restoration," a process that could take up to three to five years, and will involve prayer, confession, and the rebuke of "godly men" like singer Pat Boone and televangelist/sex scandal veteran Jim Bakker. A polygraph test will also be used.
Meanwhile, America's ambivalence toward laws that permit gay marriage (and/or civil unions) remains. Although 51 percent of Americans continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage, that number has declined significantly from 63 percent just two years ago.
"Public attitudes toward gay rights have changed more than any other issue I've tracked in 20 years," says Clyde Wilcox, professor of government at Georgetown University. "It's not going to be long before we see several of these proposed [gay marriage] amendments fail."
Indeed, lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, recently dealt what appears to be a fatal blow to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it. Nevertheless, eight states voted on amendments to ban gay marriage this past election — and of those, seven passed.
So, years from now, will we look back at the Ted Haggard scandal and say, in an odd way, it helped set the stage for legalizing gay marriage or gay civil unions? Perhaps not — but I, for one, am keeping the faith.
Lis Wiehl joined FOX News Channel as a legal analyst in October 2001. She is currently a professor of law at the New York Law School. Wiehl received her undergraduate degree from Barnard College in 1983 and received her Master of Arts in Literature from the University of Queensland in 1985. In addition, she earned her Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School in 1987. .
Romney to call for the vote on marriage at rally
Romney to call for vote on gay marriage at rally
November 15, 2006
BOSTON --In a move to publicly pressure lawmakers who have so far ignored him, Gov. Mitt Romney plans to appear at a Statehouse rally on Sunday to demand the Legislature vote on a proposed ballot question that would end gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Lawmakers last week again refused to take up the question at a joint session, voting instead to recess until Jan. 2, which all but killed the measure because a vote then is unlikely.
Romney's spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, said the fight won't be over until the people vote.
"Legislators made a serious miscalculation," he said. "Their action strikes at the very heart of democracy. No matter how you may feel about the marriage issue, people have a right to participate in their own government."
Arline Isaacson of the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus said Romney is using a rally for a lost cause to boost his prospects with conservatives as he weighs a presidential run.
"We're done, we won, it's over," Isaacson said. "No one wants this to continue except for the zealots on the other side and Romney because it helps his race."
Because the Legislature is in recess and did not adjourn, Romney has no legal authority to call lawmakers back into session. Gay marriage opponents say they are considering legal options to force a vote.
More than 170,000 people signed a petition in support of the ballot question, which would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Supporters of the question say the state Constitution requires a vote, but lawmakers who support gay marriage say there's no such mandate.
A similar amendment on gay marriage died in 2002 when lawmakers refused to vote on it.
© Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
'
November 15, 2006
BOSTON --In a move to publicly pressure lawmakers who have so far ignored him, Gov. Mitt Romney plans to appear at a Statehouse rally on Sunday to demand the Legislature vote on a proposed ballot question that would end gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Lawmakers last week again refused to take up the question at a joint session, voting instead to recess until Jan. 2, which all but killed the measure because a vote then is unlikely.
Romney's spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, said the fight won't be over until the people vote.
"Legislators made a serious miscalculation," he said. "Their action strikes at the very heart of democracy. No matter how you may feel about the marriage issue, people have a right to participate in their own government."
Arline Isaacson of the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus said Romney is using a rally for a lost cause to boost his prospects with conservatives as he weighs a presidential run.
"We're done, we won, it's over," Isaacson said. "No one wants this to continue except for the zealots on the other side and Romney because it helps his race."
Because the Legislature is in recess and did not adjourn, Romney has no legal authority to call lawmakers back into session. Gay marriage opponents say they are considering legal options to force a vote.
More than 170,000 people signed a petition in support of the ballot question, which would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Supporters of the question say the state Constitution requires a vote, but lawmakers who support gay marriage say there's no such mandate.
A similar amendment on gay marriage died in 2002 when lawmakers refused to vote on it.
© Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
'
November 14, 2006
South African Parliment Approves Gay Marriages
South African Parliament Approves Gay Marriages
By SHARON LaFRANIERE
Published: November 14, 2006
NYTIMES
JOHANNESBURG, Nov. 14 — South Africa’s Parliament overwhelmingly voted today to legalize same-sex marriages, making the nation the first in Africa and the fifth in the world to remove legal barriers to gay and lesbian unions, according to activists.
The legislature voted after the nation’s highest court ruled that South Africa’s marriages statutes violated the constitution’s guarantee of equal rights. The court gave the government a year to amend the legal definition of marriage. That deadline expires in two weeks.
Melanie Judge, program manager for OUT, a gay rights advocacy group, noted that the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada were the only other countries to allow same-sex marriages nationwide. In most African nations, she said, homosexuality is still treated as a crime. Some penalties are stiffer than those for rape or murder..
Ms. Judge credited South Africa’s liberal constitution with forcing change.
“This has been a litmus test of our constitutional values,” she said in a telephone interview. “What does equality really mean? What does it look like? Equality does not exist on a sliding scale.”
Religious groups and traditional leaders strenuously opposed the measure, arguing that if necessary the constitution should be amended to outlaw same-sex unions. But the ruling African National Congress virtually demanded that lawmakers support the bill.
Despite deep divisions within the party, the measure passed 230 to 41. It must now be approved by the Council of Provinces, a quasi-federal chamber, and be signed the president to become law.
Vytjie Mentor, the party’s caucus chairman, told the South African newspaper The Sunday Independent earlier this month that he expected legislators belonging to the African National Congress to vote for the measure, regardless of their personal views.
There is “no such thing as a free vote or a vote of conscience,” he said. “How do you give someone permission to discriminate in the name of the A.N.C.? How do you allow for someone to vote against the constitution and the policies of the A.N.C., which is antidiscrimination?”
The new law allows both heterosexual and same-sex couples to register their unions either as marriages or civil partnerships. But in a concession to critics, it also allows civil officers to refuse to marry same-sex couples on the basis on conscience. Ms. Judge, the gay rights advocate, predicted that provision will be challenged in court.
“We can’t be in the situation where civil officers can decide who they want to marry and who they don’t want to marry,” she said. “They aren’t able to refuse to marry a black person and a white person. This is unconstitutional.”
By SHARON LaFRANIERE
Published: November 14, 2006
NYTIMES
JOHANNESBURG, Nov. 14 — South Africa’s Parliament overwhelmingly voted today to legalize same-sex marriages, making the nation the first in Africa and the fifth in the world to remove legal barriers to gay and lesbian unions, according to activists.
The legislature voted after the nation’s highest court ruled that South Africa’s marriages statutes violated the constitution’s guarantee of equal rights. The court gave the government a year to amend the legal definition of marriage. That deadline expires in two weeks.
Melanie Judge, program manager for OUT, a gay rights advocacy group, noted that the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Canada were the only other countries to allow same-sex marriages nationwide. In most African nations, she said, homosexuality is still treated as a crime. Some penalties are stiffer than those for rape or murder..
Ms. Judge credited South Africa’s liberal constitution with forcing change.
“This has been a litmus test of our constitutional values,” she said in a telephone interview. “What does equality really mean? What does it look like? Equality does not exist on a sliding scale.”
Religious groups and traditional leaders strenuously opposed the measure, arguing that if necessary the constitution should be amended to outlaw same-sex unions. But the ruling African National Congress virtually demanded that lawmakers support the bill.
Despite deep divisions within the party, the measure passed 230 to 41. It must now be approved by the Council of Provinces, a quasi-federal chamber, and be signed the president to become law.
Vytjie Mentor, the party’s caucus chairman, told the South African newspaper The Sunday Independent earlier this month that he expected legislators belonging to the African National Congress to vote for the measure, regardless of their personal views.
There is “no such thing as a free vote or a vote of conscience,” he said. “How do you give someone permission to discriminate in the name of the A.N.C.? How do you allow for someone to vote against the constitution and the policies of the A.N.C., which is antidiscrimination?”
The new law allows both heterosexual and same-sex couples to register their unions either as marriages or civil partnerships. But in a concession to critics, it also allows civil officers to refuse to marry same-sex couples on the basis on conscience. Ms. Judge, the gay rights advocate, predicted that provision will be challenged in court.
“We can’t be in the situation where civil officers can decide who they want to marry and who they don’t want to marry,” she said. “They aren’t able to refuse to marry a black person and a white person. This is unconstitutional.”
November 12, 2006
ESPA to push Spitzer on Marriage
Gay rights groups to push Spitzer on legalizing same-sex marriage
By DAN WIESSNER
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
(Original publication: November 12, 2006)
ALBANY - Gay rights groups across the state will push Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer to propose legalizing same-sex marriages, citing his win this week as a "tremendous victory in the battle for gay rights."
"The question with New York has never been if we'll have equality, it's always been a matter of when," said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a statewide gay rights advocacy group. "With the election of Eliot Spitzer, the question now is how soon."
Spitzer, the current state attorney general, voiced support for same-sex marriage throughout his campaign. At a Pride Agenda dinner in October, he pledged to write marriage-equality legislation and present it to the Legislature. According to Van Capelle, gay rights groups believe Spitzer will act early in his administration.
"Eliot (Spitzer) has said that on Day 1, everything changes, and among the changes Albany will be experiencing is marriage equality," Van Capelle said. "Our job is to make sure that he delivers on his promises."
A Spitzer spokeswoman didn't return phone calls seeking comment about his plans to push for gay marriage - a touchy political issue.
"I know he believes that we're an important constituency, and not just from a political point of view, but from a personal point of view, our community is important to him," said state Sen. Thomas Duane, D-Manhattan, who became the first openly gay member of the Senate when he was elected in 1998. "We should feel very optimistic about that."
In 2002, Duane pushed for the passage of the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act, or SONDA, which protects the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in employment, education, housing and other areas.
In July, the state's highest court rejected the claim that banning gay marriage violates the state Constitution. In its decision, the court said the issue is one for the Legislature, not the judiciary, to decide. This has triggered a push for legislation in the early days of Spitzer's administration.
While gay marriage has broad support in the Democratic-run Assembly, it faces strong opposition in the GOP-led Senate. Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, has said he opposes it. He couldn't be reached for comment Thursday or Friday.
Despite the optimism of gay rights groups over the election of gay marriage supporters to the state's top posts, national sentiment seems to be moving the other way. Nine states had same-sex marriage bans on the ballot Tuesday, and eight passed the measures. (Arizona was the exception.)
Still, according to Duane, the fact that so much attention is being paid to the issue is a victory in itself.
"Every time the issue is discussed, it's a win for the gay community because the poll numbers of Americans supporting same-sex marriage increases," he said.
Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal, but it is considering putting the issue before voters in 2008.
Among New York's other neighbors, civil unions have been sanctioned in Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey. Pennsylvania and Ohio have both banned same-sex marriages.
By DAN WIESSNER
GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
(Original publication: November 12, 2006)
ALBANY - Gay rights groups across the state will push Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer to propose legalizing same-sex marriages, citing his win this week as a "tremendous victory in the battle for gay rights."
"The question with New York has never been if we'll have equality, it's always been a matter of when," said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a statewide gay rights advocacy group. "With the election of Eliot Spitzer, the question now is how soon."
Spitzer, the current state attorney general, voiced support for same-sex marriage throughout his campaign. At a Pride Agenda dinner in October, he pledged to write marriage-equality legislation and present it to the Legislature. According to Van Capelle, gay rights groups believe Spitzer will act early in his administration.
"Eliot (Spitzer) has said that on Day 1, everything changes, and among the changes Albany will be experiencing is marriage equality," Van Capelle said. "Our job is to make sure that he delivers on his promises."
A Spitzer spokeswoman didn't return phone calls seeking comment about his plans to push for gay marriage - a touchy political issue.
"I know he believes that we're an important constituency, and not just from a political point of view, but from a personal point of view, our community is important to him," said state Sen. Thomas Duane, D-Manhattan, who became the first openly gay member of the Senate when he was elected in 1998. "We should feel very optimistic about that."
In 2002, Duane pushed for the passage of the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act, or SONDA, which protects the rights of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in employment, education, housing and other areas.
In July, the state's highest court rejected the claim that banning gay marriage violates the state Constitution. In its decision, the court said the issue is one for the Legislature, not the judiciary, to decide. This has triggered a push for legislation in the early days of Spitzer's administration.
While gay marriage has broad support in the Democratic-run Assembly, it faces strong opposition in the GOP-led Senate. Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, has said he opposes it. He couldn't be reached for comment Thursday or Friday.
Despite the optimism of gay rights groups over the election of gay marriage supporters to the state's top posts, national sentiment seems to be moving the other way. Nine states had same-sex marriage bans on the ballot Tuesday, and eight passed the measures. (Arizona was the exception.)
Still, according to Duane, the fact that so much attention is being paid to the issue is a victory in itself.
"Every time the issue is discussed, it's a win for the gay community because the poll numbers of Americans supporting same-sex marriage increases," he said.
Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal, but it is considering putting the issue before voters in 2008.
Among New York's other neighbors, civil unions have been sanctioned in Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey. Pennsylvania and Ohio have both banned same-sex marriages.
November 10, 2006
NJ marriage Bill submitted
Bill Would Legalize Gay Marriage In New Jersey
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
November 10, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET
(Trenton, New Jersey) A same-sex marriage bill has introduced in the New Jersey Legislature despite opposition from the Assembly leadership and Gov. Jon Corzine.
The bill fulfills a commitment by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D) following last month's state Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples must have all the rights of marriage.
The Court gave the New Jersey State Legislature 180 days to act on the decision to grant same-sex couples the rights and benefits enjoyed by different-sex married couples but left it up to the legislators to decide whether to call it marriage or civil unions. (story)
"If you want to fulfill the spirit and the decision of the Supreme Court without creating a system of separate but equal, just any two consulting adults who want to obtain a state marriage would get a civil marriage," said Gusciora.
Called the Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act, it opens up marriage to same-sex couples but states that churches are not required to conduct marriage ceremonies if they don't want to.
The bill would allow civil officiants to perform the ceremonies for a $50 fee that would go to property tax reform.
The legislation has the endorsement of the state's largest LGBT rights group.
"Marriage equality in New Jersey would in no way force any religion or any member of the clergy to perform any marriage ceremony that violates their own conscience," said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality.
The leadership in the Legislature and Gov. Corzine have said they favor civil unions, but have indicated they are in no rush to proceed with legislation despite the time limit imposed by the court. (story)
Meanwhile a Republican lawmaker has proposed impeaching the State Supreme Court justices over the marriage ruling.
Assemblyman Richard Merkt (R) on Thursday introduced seven resolutions in the Assembly charging each state Supreme Court justice with professional misconduct, violating their oaths and contravening the state constitution.
Apart from encouraging conservatives opposed to gay marriage, the measure is unlikely to gain any traction in the Legislature.
Three public opinion polls taken after the high court ruling all show that a majority of New Jersey voters prefer civil unions for gay couples rather than marriage. (story)
©365Gay.com 2006
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
November 10, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET
(Trenton, New Jersey) A same-sex marriage bill has introduced in the New Jersey Legislature despite opposition from the Assembly leadership and Gov. Jon Corzine.
The bill fulfills a commitment by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D) following last month's state Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples must have all the rights of marriage.
The Court gave the New Jersey State Legislature 180 days to act on the decision to grant same-sex couples the rights and benefits enjoyed by different-sex married couples but left it up to the legislators to decide whether to call it marriage or civil unions. (story)
"If you want to fulfill the spirit and the decision of the Supreme Court without creating a system of separate but equal, just any two consulting adults who want to obtain a state marriage would get a civil marriage," said Gusciora.
Called the Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act, it opens up marriage to same-sex couples but states that churches are not required to conduct marriage ceremonies if they don't want to.
The bill would allow civil officiants to perform the ceremonies for a $50 fee that would go to property tax reform.
The legislation has the endorsement of the state's largest LGBT rights group.
"Marriage equality in New Jersey would in no way force any religion or any member of the clergy to perform any marriage ceremony that violates their own conscience," said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality.
The leadership in the Legislature and Gov. Corzine have said they favor civil unions, but have indicated they are in no rush to proceed with legislation despite the time limit imposed by the court. (story)
Meanwhile a Republican lawmaker has proposed impeaching the State Supreme Court justices over the marriage ruling.
Assemblyman Richard Merkt (R) on Thursday introduced seven resolutions in the Assembly charging each state Supreme Court justice with professional misconduct, violating their oaths and contravening the state constitution.
Apart from encouraging conservatives opposed to gay marriage, the measure is unlikely to gain any traction in the Legislature.
Three public opinion polls taken after the high court ruling all show that a majority of New Jersey voters prefer civil unions for gay couples rather than marriage. (story)
©365Gay.com 2006
3rd NJ Poll Favors Civil Unions Over Marriage.
3rd NJ Poll Favors Civil Unions Over Marriage
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
November 8, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET
(Trenton, New Jersey) For the third time in a week a public opinion poll has found a majority of people in New Jersey support civil unions for same-sex couples, with all of the rights of marriage, but not marriage itself.
The Quinnipiac University Poll released Wednesday shows 56 percent in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples but when asked about the word marriage people preferred civil unions 51 to 29 percent. Twenty-one percent of those polled were undecided.
The New Jersey Supreme Court last month ruled same-sex couples must have all the rights of marriage.
The Court gave the New Jersey State Legislature 180 days to act on the decision to grant same-sex couples the rights and benefits enjoyed by different-sex married couples but left it up to the legislators to decide whether to call it marriage or civil unions. (story)
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D) has said he'll press ahead with marriage legislation.
The leadership in the Legislature and Gov. Jon Corzine (D) have said they favor civil unions, but have indicated they are in no rush to proceed with legislation despite the time limit imposed by the court. (story)
The Quinnipiac survey asked people if they thought the legislature should enact a marriage law for same-sex couples found 50 per cent were opposed. Forty-one percent were in favor.
The poll also found that support for gays and lesbian couples marrying varied with age.
Slightly more than three out of five people between the ages of 18 and 34 supported same-sex marriage. Among voters over 65 support was only one in five.
Support also was higher among wealthier more educated voters. About half of those from households with incomes over $100,000 supported marriage.
Polls by Rutgers-Eagleton and Blum & Wesprin Associates showed similar results
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
November 8, 2006 - 3:00 pm ET
(Trenton, New Jersey) For the third time in a week a public opinion poll has found a majority of people in New Jersey support civil unions for same-sex couples, with all of the rights of marriage, but not marriage itself.
The Quinnipiac University Poll released Wednesday shows 56 percent in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples but when asked about the word marriage people preferred civil unions 51 to 29 percent. Twenty-one percent of those polled were undecided.
The New Jersey Supreme Court last month ruled same-sex couples must have all the rights of marriage.
The Court gave the New Jersey State Legislature 180 days to act on the decision to grant same-sex couples the rights and benefits enjoyed by different-sex married couples but left it up to the legislators to decide whether to call it marriage or civil unions. (story)
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D) has said he'll press ahead with marriage legislation.
The leadership in the Legislature and Gov. Jon Corzine (D) have said they favor civil unions, but have indicated they are in no rush to proceed with legislation despite the time limit imposed by the court. (story)
The Quinnipiac survey asked people if they thought the legislature should enact a marriage law for same-sex couples found 50 per cent were opposed. Forty-one percent were in favor.
The poll also found that support for gays and lesbian couples marrying varied with age.
Slightly more than three out of five people between the ages of 18 and 34 supported same-sex marriage. Among voters over 65 support was only one in five.
Support also was higher among wealthier more educated voters. About half of those from households with incomes over $100,000 supported marriage.
Polls by Rutgers-Eagleton and Blum & Wesprin Associates showed similar results
Mass marriage amendment thwarted
Gain for Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts
By PAM BELLUCK
NY Times
BOSTON, Nov. 9 — Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, dealt what appeared to be a fatal blow Thursday to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it.
In a flurry of strategic maneuvering, supporters of same-sex marriage managed to persuade enough legislators to vote to recess a constitutional convention until the afternoon of Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session.
On that day, lawmakers and advocates on both sides said, it appeared likely that the legislature would adjourn without voting on the measure, killing it.
“For all intents and purposes, the debate has ended,” said Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat and the assistant majority leader. “What members are expecting is that the majority of constituents are going to say, ‘Thank you, we’re glad it’s over, we think it has been discussed enough.’ ”
The measure had been expected by both sides to gain easily the 50 votes required from the 200 legislators as the first step toward making same-sex marriages illegal.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which sponsored the amendment, called the recess vote a “travesty,” and, waving a copy of the State Constitution, said the legislators had “just said that it’s irrelevant.”
As for whether the fight was over, Mr. Mineau said, “We’re assessing the situation.”
Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, said the vote was a “triumph of arrogance over democracy.” He said that he would “explore any alternatives” to try to force a vote, but that “my options are limited.”
Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “The fact that they put this off until the end of the year makes it easier for them to adjourn. If they were giving consideration, I think they would have recessed until tomorrow or maybe Monday or Tuesday next week.”
The action on Thursday came two days after Massachusetts voters elected Deval L. Patrick, a same-sex marriage supporter, as the state’s first Democratic governor in 16 years. Democrats were also elected to all of the statewide offices, leaving the state’s Republican Party in shambles.
But the fact that the amendment had enough supporters to pass the first 50-vote round indicated that the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive three years after the state’s highest court ruled that such marriages were constitutional in Massachusetts. More than 8,000 same-sex couples have since married.
To bring the amendment before the legislature, the Massachusetts Family Institute had gathered 170,000 petition signatures. If the amendment were to get 50 votes, it would then require the votes of 50 legislators in another constitutional convention in the 2007-8 legislative session. Then it would be voted on in a referendum in November 2008.
Polls have generally found that just more than half of the citizens surveyed supported same-sex marriage, but about the same number wanted the constitutional amendment to come before voters.
The vote to recess followed a day of intense politicking and strategizing by supporters of same-sex marriage. Many legislators, even supporters of such marriages, had said they planned to vote for the amendment for fear that if they did not they would appear to be shirking their responsibility.
Gay rights advocates persuaded the legislators to first take up another amendment to ban same-sex marriage, one introduced nearly two years ago by a conservative lawmaker, but which was now considered by Mr. Mineau and other same-sex marriage opponents to be unable to pass constitutional muster because it would nullify the same-sex marriages that had already taken place.
Because that amendment had been initiated by a legislator and not a citizens’ group, it would have needed 101 votes to pass. On Thursday it was defeated unanimously.
Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said the plan was to give the legislators political cover with their constituents, because they “can all point to the fact that they fully debated same-sex marriage and took a vote on it.”
Same-sex marriage advocates also persuaded lawmakers to vote for a recess and not an adjournment because if they adjourned, Governor Romney could call them back into session.
Representative Michael A. Costello, a Democrat from Newburyport and a strong opponent of the amendment, said: “The way I looked at it was that we would kill it with a handgun or a hand grenade. It’s never been proper to put civil rights on the ballot. So we killed it through procedure, rather than on substance.”
The debate in the House was full of impassioned speeches.
“I’m 3,000 feet to the right of Attila the Hun, they tell me,” Representative Marie J. Parente, a Democrat from Milford who had lost her re-election bid on Tuesday, told her colleagues. “But you’re not. You’re the other side. The gracious people, the liberal people, the socially conscious people.”
For the 170,000 people who signed the petition and want a referendum, “does your graciousness end?” she asked. “Give the people the right to be heard.”
Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, who is gay and married, told the chamber, “It’s time for a little straight talk.”
Pointing to his wedding band, he said: “You don’t have to live next to us. You don’t have to like us. We are only asking you to end the debate,” so that “we will at least have the right to enjoy the same rights that the rest of you have enjoyed from time immemorial.”
Ariel Sabar contributed reporting.
By PAM BELLUCK
NY Times
BOSTON, Nov. 9 — Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, dealt what appeared to be a fatal blow Thursday to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it.
In a flurry of strategic maneuvering, supporters of same-sex marriage managed to persuade enough legislators to vote to recess a constitutional convention until the afternoon of Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session.
On that day, lawmakers and advocates on both sides said, it appeared likely that the legislature would adjourn without voting on the measure, killing it.
“For all intents and purposes, the debate has ended,” said Representative Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat and the assistant majority leader. “What members are expecting is that the majority of constituents are going to say, ‘Thank you, we’re glad it’s over, we think it has been discussed enough.’ ”
The measure had been expected by both sides to gain easily the 50 votes required from the 200 legislators as the first step toward making same-sex marriages illegal.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which sponsored the amendment, called the recess vote a “travesty,” and, waving a copy of the State Constitution, said the legislators had “just said that it’s irrelevant.”
As for whether the fight was over, Mr. Mineau said, “We’re assessing the situation.”
Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, said the vote was a “triumph of arrogance over democracy.” He said that he would “explore any alternatives” to try to force a vote, but that “my options are limited.”
Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “The fact that they put this off until the end of the year makes it easier for them to adjourn. If they were giving consideration, I think they would have recessed until tomorrow or maybe Monday or Tuesday next week.”
The action on Thursday came two days after Massachusetts voters elected Deval L. Patrick, a same-sex marriage supporter, as the state’s first Democratic governor in 16 years. Democrats were also elected to all of the statewide offices, leaving the state’s Republican Party in shambles.
But the fact that the amendment had enough supporters to pass the first 50-vote round indicated that the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive three years after the state’s highest court ruled that such marriages were constitutional in Massachusetts. More than 8,000 same-sex couples have since married.
To bring the amendment before the legislature, the Massachusetts Family Institute had gathered 170,000 petition signatures. If the amendment were to get 50 votes, it would then require the votes of 50 legislators in another constitutional convention in the 2007-8 legislative session. Then it would be voted on in a referendum in November 2008.
Polls have generally found that just more than half of the citizens surveyed supported same-sex marriage, but about the same number wanted the constitutional amendment to come before voters.
The vote to recess followed a day of intense politicking and strategizing by supporters of same-sex marriage. Many legislators, even supporters of such marriages, had said they planned to vote for the amendment for fear that if they did not they would appear to be shirking their responsibility.
Gay rights advocates persuaded the legislators to first take up another amendment to ban same-sex marriage, one introduced nearly two years ago by a conservative lawmaker, but which was now considered by Mr. Mineau and other same-sex marriage opponents to be unable to pass constitutional muster because it would nullify the same-sex marriages that had already taken place.
Because that amendment had been initiated by a legislator and not a citizens’ group, it would have needed 101 votes to pass. On Thursday it was defeated unanimously.
Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said the plan was to give the legislators political cover with their constituents, because they “can all point to the fact that they fully debated same-sex marriage and took a vote on it.”
Same-sex marriage advocates also persuaded lawmakers to vote for a recess and not an adjournment because if they adjourned, Governor Romney could call them back into session.
Representative Michael A. Costello, a Democrat from Newburyport and a strong opponent of the amendment, said: “The way I looked at it was that we would kill it with a handgun or a hand grenade. It’s never been proper to put civil rights on the ballot. So we killed it through procedure, rather than on substance.”
The debate in the House was full of impassioned speeches.
“I’m 3,000 feet to the right of Attila the Hun, they tell me,” Representative Marie J. Parente, a Democrat from Milford who had lost her re-election bid on Tuesday, told her colleagues. “But you’re not. You’re the other side. The gracious people, the liberal people, the socially conscious people.”
For the 170,000 people who signed the petition and want a referendum, “does your graciousness end?” she asked. “Give the people the right to be heard.”
Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, who is gay and married, told the chamber, “It’s time for a little straight talk.”
Pointing to his wedding band, he said: “You don’t have to live next to us. You don’t have to like us. We are only asking you to end the debate,” so that “we will at least have the right to enjoy the same rights that the rest of you have enjoyed from time immemorial.”
Ariel Sabar contributed reporting.
Mexico City legalizes gay unions .
Gay unions legalized for first time in Mexico
Thu Nov 9, 6:57 PM ET
Mexico City approved homosexual civil unions on Thursday, legalizing gay partnerships for the first time in the world's second-largest Roman Catholic nation.
The capital's municipal assembly, controlled by left-wing legislators, voted for the measure 43-17 as hundreds of rival protesters demonstrated noisily outside the building.
The move paves the way for same-sex civil unions in the city of 8.6 million people early next year.
The local congress in the northern state of Coahuila, bordering Texas, began debating a similar plan to legalize gay unions this week.
"These reforms are going to cause a snowball effect that no one will be able to stop," said David Sanchez of the left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution, one of the few openly gay national congressmen.
The measures in Mexico City and Coahuila are modeled on France's civil code and provides property, pension, inheritance and even co-parenting rights. But they stop short of allowing full marriage or adoption of children.
Outside the assembly hall, gay activists with rainbow-color flags and Christian opponents of the law exchanged barbs.
"It's anti-natural. They are descending into something that is against humanity. Societies have always fallen into decadence when there has been homosexuality and disruption in the family," said protester Humberto Muniz.
Authorities in Mexico's powerful Catholic Church have condemned gay union. Some 90 percent of Mexico 107 million people are Catholics and conservative evangelical groups are also winning adherents. Only Brazil has more Catholics.
Thu Nov 9, 6:57 PM ET
Mexico City approved homosexual civil unions on Thursday, legalizing gay partnerships for the first time in the world's second-largest Roman Catholic nation.
The capital's municipal assembly, controlled by left-wing legislators, voted for the measure 43-17 as hundreds of rival protesters demonstrated noisily outside the building.
The move paves the way for same-sex civil unions in the city of 8.6 million people early next year.
The local congress in the northern state of Coahuila, bordering Texas, began debating a similar plan to legalize gay unions this week.
"These reforms are going to cause a snowball effect that no one will be able to stop," said David Sanchez of the left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution, one of the few openly gay national congressmen.
The measures in Mexico City and Coahuila are modeled on France's civil code and provides property, pension, inheritance and even co-parenting rights. But they stop short of allowing full marriage or adoption of children.
Outside the assembly hall, gay activists with rainbow-color flags and Christian opponents of the law exchanged barbs.
"It's anti-natural. They are descending into something that is against humanity. Societies have always fallen into decadence when there has been homosexuality and disruption in the family," said protester Humberto Muniz.
Authorities in Mexico's powerful Catholic Church have condemned gay union. Some 90 percent of Mexico 107 million people are Catholics and conservative evangelical groups are also winning adherents. Only Brazil has more Catholics.
November 09, 2006
Constitutional Convention now likely to vote
Constitutional Convention:Legislature likely to act on gay marriage ban amendment
By Edward Mason , Staff writerEagle-Tribune
—
BOSTON - Massachusetts lawmakers today are expected to consider a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, nearly five months after they abruptly postponed consideration of the proposal until after Election Day.A vote in favor of the proposal, at what is called a Constitutional Convention, would be a crucial first step to allowing Bay State voters to decide whether same-sex marriage should remain legal.When legislators last met on the issue July 12, they voted 100-91 to recess. The North of Boston delegation was against the recess, 11-9.Senate Majority Leader Frederick E. Berry, D-Peabody, said the Senate leadership - which sets the agenda for the Constitutional Convention - is committed this time to putting the amendment to a vote."We won't play any games to get out of this," said Berry, a gay marriage supporter who was among the minority of area lawmakers who voted in July to adjourn in order to prevent the proposed amendment from becoming an election issue.Rep. Harriett L. Stanley, D-West Newbury, was one of the 11 North of Boston lawmakers against the recess. Stanley, who backs gay marriage rights, said she will push again for lawmakers to take a stand.
"I voted not to adjourn in July because I was ready to take the vote then and I'm ready (now)," Stanley said. "People need to know where their legislators stand."The leading Republican in the North of Boston delegation, House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading, said he favors a vote but has not decided how he will vote.Jones said constituent calls are going 59-41 in favor of putting the ban on the ballot. He said he's leaning toward voting with his constituents.A vote today in favor of the amendment doesn't put it before voters. It needs 50 votes, 25 percent of legislators, in consecutive legislative sessions. Lawmakers in the 2007-2008 session will vote on whether to put it on the 2008 ballot, when voters will decide whether same-sex marriage should be legal.Rep. Mike Costello, D-Newburyport, said the outcome of today's Constitutional Convention is far from a sure thing."The vote count is very, very close," said Costello, who opposes the ban.Costello spent much of yesterday with other referendum opponents planning strategies to keep the measure from passing.
If the question is decided substantively, referendum supporters will only need 50 votes to pass it. If a procedural motion is introduced to delay or kill the measure, however, they will need 101 votes to overcome it."Some legislators are saying they want to vote on the question itself," Costello said. "I think we should use any parliamentary tool available to us to kill it."But as previous Constitutional Conventions have shown, no amount of planning can make the convention less unpredictable, Costello said."It's an incredibly fluid process, with a lot of head-counting," he said.However it happens, Costello said he is determined to keep the right to marriage off of a state ballot - even if some of his constituents still disagree with him."If I take a hit for standing up on this, so be it," he said. "That's the kind of hit I'm glad to take."A Supreme Judicial Court ruling in November 2003 made Massachusetts the first state to recognize same-sex marriage.Gay marriage foes, led by VoteOnMarriage.org, submitted petitions with the signatures of 170,000 registered voters to get the issue before state lawmakers.
Gov.-elect Deval Patrick, a gay marriage supporter, said he had made his position known during the campaign, but didn't directly answer a question about whether he would look to influence the Legislature the day before its vote.Gov. Mitt Romney's press office released a statement reading, "The people of Massachusetts deserve the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage. The only way that can happen is for the Legislature to first do its job and take a vote of its own. The Constitution calls for such a vote. Failure to vote is a violation of the oath of office we all take to uphold the Constitution. Whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, democracy should have its day and a vote should occur."Reporter Nick Pinto and correspondent Ana Rivas contributed to this story.
Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc.
By Edward Mason , Staff writerEagle-Tribune
—
BOSTON - Massachusetts lawmakers today are expected to consider a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, nearly five months after they abruptly postponed consideration of the proposal until after Election Day.A vote in favor of the proposal, at what is called a Constitutional Convention, would be a crucial first step to allowing Bay State voters to decide whether same-sex marriage should remain legal.When legislators last met on the issue July 12, they voted 100-91 to recess. The North of Boston delegation was against the recess, 11-9.Senate Majority Leader Frederick E. Berry, D-Peabody, said the Senate leadership - which sets the agenda for the Constitutional Convention - is committed this time to putting the amendment to a vote."We won't play any games to get out of this," said Berry, a gay marriage supporter who was among the minority of area lawmakers who voted in July to adjourn in order to prevent the proposed amendment from becoming an election issue.Rep. Harriett L. Stanley, D-West Newbury, was one of the 11 North of Boston lawmakers against the recess. Stanley, who backs gay marriage rights, said she will push again for lawmakers to take a stand.
"I voted not to adjourn in July because I was ready to take the vote then and I'm ready (now)," Stanley said. "People need to know where their legislators stand."The leading Republican in the North of Boston delegation, House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading, said he favors a vote but has not decided how he will vote.Jones said constituent calls are going 59-41 in favor of putting the ban on the ballot. He said he's leaning toward voting with his constituents.A vote today in favor of the amendment doesn't put it before voters. It needs 50 votes, 25 percent of legislators, in consecutive legislative sessions. Lawmakers in the 2007-2008 session will vote on whether to put it on the 2008 ballot, when voters will decide whether same-sex marriage should be legal.Rep. Mike Costello, D-Newburyport, said the outcome of today's Constitutional Convention is far from a sure thing."The vote count is very, very close," said Costello, who opposes the ban.Costello spent much of yesterday with other referendum opponents planning strategies to keep the measure from passing.
If the question is decided substantively, referendum supporters will only need 50 votes to pass it. If a procedural motion is introduced to delay or kill the measure, however, they will need 101 votes to overcome it."Some legislators are saying they want to vote on the question itself," Costello said. "I think we should use any parliamentary tool available to us to kill it."But as previous Constitutional Conventions have shown, no amount of planning can make the convention less unpredictable, Costello said."It's an incredibly fluid process, with a lot of head-counting," he said.However it happens, Costello said he is determined to keep the right to marriage off of a state ballot - even if some of his constituents still disagree with him."If I take a hit for standing up on this, so be it," he said. "That's the kind of hit I'm glad to take."A Supreme Judicial Court ruling in November 2003 made Massachusetts the first state to recognize same-sex marriage.Gay marriage foes, led by VoteOnMarriage.org, submitted petitions with the signatures of 170,000 registered voters to get the issue before state lawmakers.
Gov.-elect Deval Patrick, a gay marriage supporter, said he had made his position known during the campaign, but didn't directly answer a question about whether he would look to influence the Legislature the day before its vote.Gov. Mitt Romney's press office released a statement reading, "The people of Massachusetts deserve the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage. The only way that can happen is for the Legislature to first do its job and take a vote of its own. The Constitution calls for such a vote. Failure to vote is a violation of the oath of office we all take to uphold the Constitution. Whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, democracy should have its day and a vote should occur."Reporter Nick Pinto and correspondent Ana Rivas contributed to this story.
Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc.
Marriage Amendment Recap
Arizona rejects anti-gay marriage amendment
By ERIC ERVINNOV. 8, 2006
Houston Voice
Arizona rejects anti-gay marriage amendment
Similar measures pass in seven other states
Results of Nov. 7 votes on gay marriage amendments
ArizonaYes: 48.6 percentNo: 51.4 percent
ColoradoYes: 56 percentNo: 44 percent
IdahoYes: 63 percentNo: 37 percent
South CarolinaYes: 78 percentNo: 22 percent
South DakotaYes: 52 percentNo: 48 percent
TennesseeYes: 81.3 percentNo: 18.7 percent
VirginiaYes: 57 percent No: 43 percent
WisconsinYes: 59 percentNo: 41 percent
Source: CNN.com and state offices of the Secretary of State.
Arizona voters narrowly defeated a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, becoming the first state in the country to reject such a measure.
Some 51.4 percent of those who voted rejected the measure and 48.6 supported it, with 2,208 of the state’s 2,209 precincts reporting, according to unofficial results from the Arizona Secretary of State’s office on Wed.
Proposition 107 would have banned gay marriage and prohibited granting unmarried couples any legal status similar to marriage.
“I don’t think it’ll make a difference when all of the ballots are counted, we’ve won. I’m really proud to be in Arizona right now,” said Kyrsten Sinema, chair of Arizona Together and a Democratic state legislator.
Sinema estimated her organization spent about $1.5 million on the campaign to defeat the measure. The Human Rights Campaign, a national gay political group, contributed approximately $125,000 to Arizona Together, and “helped leverage an additional $70,000,” according to an HRC press release.
Joe Solmonese, HRC president, hailed the Arizona results, but added it takes time to achieve marriage equality for gay men and lesbians.
“In this modern day world, we get a little impatient about how long this awesome civil rights struggle will take,” he said. “This is the civil rights struggle of our time. This is a decade-long-or-more struggle.”
Solmonese said he believes Tuesday’s vote in Arizona shows gay activists are making strides in winning equality.
“Is this Arizona victory the next turning point in that very long march to equality? I think it might be,” he said.
By ERIC ERVINNOV. 8, 2006
Houston Voice
Arizona rejects anti-gay marriage amendment
Similar measures pass in seven other states
Results of Nov. 7 votes on gay marriage amendments
ArizonaYes: 48.6 percentNo: 51.4 percent
ColoradoYes: 56 percentNo: 44 percent
IdahoYes: 63 percentNo: 37 percent
South CarolinaYes: 78 percentNo: 22 percent
South DakotaYes: 52 percentNo: 48 percent
TennesseeYes: 81.3 percentNo: 18.7 percent
VirginiaYes: 57 percent No: 43 percent
WisconsinYes: 59 percentNo: 41 percent
Source: CNN.com and state offices of the Secretary of State.
Arizona voters narrowly defeated a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, becoming the first state in the country to reject such a measure.
Some 51.4 percent of those who voted rejected the measure and 48.6 supported it, with 2,208 of the state’s 2,209 precincts reporting, according to unofficial results from the Arizona Secretary of State’s office on Wed.
Proposition 107 would have banned gay marriage and prohibited granting unmarried couples any legal status similar to marriage.
“I don’t think it’ll make a difference when all of the ballots are counted, we’ve won. I’m really proud to be in Arizona right now,” said Kyrsten Sinema, chair of Arizona Together and a Democratic state legislator.
Sinema estimated her organization spent about $1.5 million on the campaign to defeat the measure. The Human Rights Campaign, a national gay political group, contributed approximately $125,000 to Arizona Together, and “helped leverage an additional $70,000,” according to an HRC press release.
Joe Solmonese, HRC president, hailed the Arizona results, but added it takes time to achieve marriage equality for gay men and lesbians.
“In this modern day world, we get a little impatient about how long this awesome civil rights struggle will take,” he said. “This is the civil rights struggle of our time. This is a decade-long-or-more struggle.”
Solmonese said he believes Tuesday’s vote in Arizona shows gay activists are making strides in winning equality.
“Is this Arizona victory the next turning point in that very long march to equality? I think it might be,” he said.
Gay-marriage votes get diverse spins
Gay-marriage votes get diverse spins from activists
Arizona defeats a ban on the unions, but seven states pass them. Supporters on both sides see progress.
By Elizabeth Mehren
LATimes
Staff WriterNovember 9, 2006
After seven states affirmed traditional marriage — and an eighth rebuffed the declaration that marriage should be confined to a union between one man and one woman — activists for and against same-sex marriage disagreed Wednesday on the impact of Tuesday's election. Arizona became the first of 20 states that have taken up constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage to defeat such a measure — an "extraordinary" development, according to Christine Nelson of the National Conference of State Legislatures.In separate ballot initiatives, Colorado on Tuesday voted to ban same-sex marriage and defeated a separate bill to permit domestic partnerships.Carrie Gordon Earll, a spokeswoman for Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, said Wednesday that the national results on the subject showed that "especially in light of the shifting of the House of Representatives and potentially the Senate ... voters are motivated by social issues. They want their issues to be represented, and when they are clearly offered in terms of amendments, people turn out."Nelson, a policy associate who studies marriage for the National Conference of State Legislatures, said Colorado voters might have been influenced by the recent scandal involving a Colorado minister who resigned from a leadership post with the National Assn. of Evangelicals after admitting he contacted a male prostitute and purchased methamphetamine."Ted Haggard was one of the chief architects of Amendment 43," Nelson said, referring to the amendment to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. News about Haggard dominated the state in the days preceding the election, she said."The words 'gay sex' made many people say, 'No, no, no, we'll have none of that going on here,' " Nelson said.The Haggard scandal built on negative publicity over admissions by now-resigned Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) that he engaged in inappropriate communication with male congressional pages, said Sean Duffy, who led the campaign in Colorado to oppose a ban on same-sex marriage.Duffy said the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision requiring that state's Legislature to extend marriage to — or craft marriage-like benefits for — same-sex couples also kept the topic on the public radar."Our whole campaign was about explaining the commitment of same-sex couples who spend 15, 30 years together in a monogamous relationship, and the media here was wall-to-wall with stuff that was decidedly the opposite…. We had a tough sell," Duffy said.But Duffy said he was optimistic, because more than 40% of Colorado voters did not support the same-sex marriage ban. "I think it bodes well for future strategy," he said. "Clearly the needle has moved."Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, saw progress even in the defeats because the percentage of voters who opposed banning same-sex marriage was growing.Wisconsin, South Dakota and Virginia joined Colorado as states that voted to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman where the percentage voting no was more than 40%. "The same-sex-marriage glass is becoming progressively more full," Foreman said Wednesday. "It's not just public opinion. Voter support for same-sex marriage continues to grow significantly."Opposition to same-sex marriage was more decisive in three other states that took up marriage amendments Tuesday: In Idaho, 63% of voters supported the ban on same-sex unions; in South Carolina, 78% voted in favor of a traditional definition of marriage; and in Tennessee, 81% opposed same-sex marriage.Robert Knight, director of the conservative Culture and Media Institute think tank in Alexandria, Va., said Wednesday that Arizona was "out there on the edge" in its defeat of the traditional-marriage amendment."Look at the rest of these states," Knight said. "Wisconsin had a good healthy vote in support of marriage. The gays threw everything but the kitchen sink into the battle, but they couldn't win even in liberal Wisconsin. So Arizona really is on its own."Kyrsten Sinema, who chaired the campaign to defeat Arizona's proposed ban, said Wednesday that opponents of the amendment focused on how the initiative would take benefits away from all unmarried couples — not just gays and lesbians."When the proponents would try to connect it to other parts of the country, we just said 'This has nothing to do with Arizona,' " said Sinema, a Democratic state legislator who was reelected Tuesday. "I think it was a very good strategy."But Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy in Manassas, Va., said Wednesday: "The good news for gay-marriage advocates is that they finally defeated a state marriage amendment. The bad news is that the vote had almost nothing to do with increasing public support for gay marriage."*
elizabeth.mehren@latimes.com
Arizona defeats a ban on the unions, but seven states pass them. Supporters on both sides see progress.
By Elizabeth Mehren
LATimes
Staff WriterNovember 9, 2006
After seven states affirmed traditional marriage — and an eighth rebuffed the declaration that marriage should be confined to a union between one man and one woman — activists for and against same-sex marriage disagreed Wednesday on the impact of Tuesday's election. Arizona became the first of 20 states that have taken up constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage to defeat such a measure — an "extraordinary" development, according to Christine Nelson of the National Conference of State Legislatures.In separate ballot initiatives, Colorado on Tuesday voted to ban same-sex marriage and defeated a separate bill to permit domestic partnerships.Carrie Gordon Earll, a spokeswoman for Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, said Wednesday that the national results on the subject showed that "especially in light of the shifting of the House of Representatives and potentially the Senate ... voters are motivated by social issues. They want their issues to be represented, and when they are clearly offered in terms of amendments, people turn out."Nelson, a policy associate who studies marriage for the National Conference of State Legislatures, said Colorado voters might have been influenced by the recent scandal involving a Colorado minister who resigned from a leadership post with the National Assn. of Evangelicals after admitting he contacted a male prostitute and purchased methamphetamine."Ted Haggard was one of the chief architects of Amendment 43," Nelson said, referring to the amendment to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. News about Haggard dominated the state in the days preceding the election, she said."The words 'gay sex' made many people say, 'No, no, no, we'll have none of that going on here,' " Nelson said.The Haggard scandal built on negative publicity over admissions by now-resigned Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) that he engaged in inappropriate communication with male congressional pages, said Sean Duffy, who led the campaign in Colorado to oppose a ban on same-sex marriage.Duffy said the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision requiring that state's Legislature to extend marriage to — or craft marriage-like benefits for — same-sex couples also kept the topic on the public radar."Our whole campaign was about explaining the commitment of same-sex couples who spend 15, 30 years together in a monogamous relationship, and the media here was wall-to-wall with stuff that was decidedly the opposite…. We had a tough sell," Duffy said.But Duffy said he was optimistic, because more than 40% of Colorado voters did not support the same-sex marriage ban. "I think it bodes well for future strategy," he said. "Clearly the needle has moved."Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, saw progress even in the defeats because the percentage of voters who opposed banning same-sex marriage was growing.Wisconsin, South Dakota and Virginia joined Colorado as states that voted to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman where the percentage voting no was more than 40%. "The same-sex-marriage glass is becoming progressively more full," Foreman said Wednesday. "It's not just public opinion. Voter support for same-sex marriage continues to grow significantly."Opposition to same-sex marriage was more decisive in three other states that took up marriage amendments Tuesday: In Idaho, 63% of voters supported the ban on same-sex unions; in South Carolina, 78% voted in favor of a traditional definition of marriage; and in Tennessee, 81% opposed same-sex marriage.Robert Knight, director of the conservative Culture and Media Institute think tank in Alexandria, Va., said Wednesday that Arizona was "out there on the edge" in its defeat of the traditional-marriage amendment."Look at the rest of these states," Knight said. "Wisconsin had a good healthy vote in support of marriage. The gays threw everything but the kitchen sink into the battle, but they couldn't win even in liberal Wisconsin. So Arizona really is on its own."Kyrsten Sinema, who chaired the campaign to defeat Arizona's proposed ban, said Wednesday that opponents of the amendment focused on how the initiative would take benefits away from all unmarried couples — not just gays and lesbians."When the proponents would try to connect it to other parts of the country, we just said 'This has nothing to do with Arizona,' " said Sinema, a Democratic state legislator who was reelected Tuesday. "I think it was a very good strategy."But Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy in Manassas, Va., said Wednesday: "The good news for gay-marriage advocates is that they finally defeated a state marriage amendment. The bad news is that the vote had almost nothing to do with increasing public support for gay marriage."*
elizabeth.mehren@latimes.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
