San Francisco's First Gay Marriage

[mrentoul]

Most unlikely couple for SF's first gay marriage - aged 79 and 83!

San Francisco carries out first US gay marriage

AFP

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - The freewheeling US city of San Francisco made history by granting the first ever same-sex marriage licenses to an elderly lesbian couple as part of a challenge to a ban on gay marriage.

Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 79, said "I do" at the city hall after Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered officials to wed gay couples and issue marriage licenses in an act of civil disobedience against a state law that bars same-sex marriages.

"We got married," said one of the women, who have been together for around 50 years.

City official Mabel Teng officiated over the ceremony for Martin and Lyon, exchanging the traditional phrase of "husband and wife" for "spouse for life."

Instead of calling them "bride" and "groom", the wedding licence application listed the couple as "1st applicant" and "2nd applicant."

"This is a very significant day for Del and Phyllis and for all of us witnessing this historic ceremony," Teng said before the ceremony, carried out as the issue of same sex marriages makes headlines across America.

Other couples were lining up behind Martin and Lyon to take their vows after Newsom, who took charge of the liberal city in December, announced he would defy state law and marry gay couples in a bid to fight discrimination.

But major legal challenges to the decision by city authorities were expected, officials conceded.

The decision to challenge marriage laws was taken late Wednesday, the San Francisco Chronicle said, and city workers spent Thursday morning altering official marriage forms to reflect the change.

Officials were racing to issue official marriage reflect before the expected legal challenges and injunctions are filed to prevent more gay weddings, the paper said.

San Francisco is home to one of the largest US gay communities. The Castro area of the West coast city was seen as the hub of gay activism in the 1960s and 70s.

In the eastern state of Massachusetts, lawmakers struggled meanwhile to find a way out of a legal quagmire surrounding the hugely divisive issue of gay marriage following a landmark court decision in November that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

But lawmakers met in Boston to consider re-writing the state constitution to restrict marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

February 12 has been declared National Freedom to Marry Day by gay-rights groups which are encouraging same-sex couples nationwide to go to courthouses and apply for marriage reflect on Thursday.

In the Los Angeles-area city of Beverly Hills, officials refused two gay couples seeking to formalize their unions. The couples were denied marriage reflect prompting a media-savvy attorney to announce she would sue to challenge the ban on gay marriages in California.

Reverend Troy Perry and his partner Phillip Ray DeBlieck, along with lesbian rights activist Robin Tyle and her partner Diane Olson, were denied marriage reflect by officials who gave them fliers detailing California's same-sex marriage ban.

"We're not going to the back of the bus. We're not not getting on the bus, we're not sitting at the lunch counter, we're just not taking civil union, domestic partnership, we're just not taking it anymore," Tyler said.

Publicity-friendly lawyer Gloria Allred said she would challenge the ban to the California Supreme Court.

"It's time to make a legal challenge," she said. "And so we will be filing the lawsuit. There are no appellate cases in California on this issue, and so we think it's long overdue and we're going to fight that fight now."

Stories:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...ia_040212221348

AP pic:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl...ys_and_Lesbians

[Guest IT Manager]

I think that is quite good. Thank you for letting us know.

[mrentoul]

Publicity-friendly lawyer Gloria Allred said she would challenge the ban to the California Supreme Court.

What a tactful way of putting it. I could think of less flattering terms to describe someone who is ''publicity friendly''.

[Jeepz]

Okay, so just for purposes of this discussion, I should note that I'm heterosexual. Where I grew up homosexuality was seen as very negative. And I shared that view through most of my youth until I was a young adult. I changed my views on it slowly as time went along.

I don't really have a problem with "Gay Marriage" per se, but I know a fair amount of people that do. They see marriage as a sacred pact between members of the opposite sex. And I can understand where they are coming from. Sort of "hey, we've had this institution for thousands of years and now you want to pretend it's yours. Sorry Charlie!"

So for me the solution is civil union (with the same legal standing as marriage). But that doesn't meet everyone's needs. There are churches that are gay accepting or even gay based and who has the right to tell them that they can't worship (and marry) according to their faith.

I was a bit offput by the Mayor of San Francisco saying that the reason he was supporting the Gay Marriage Ceremony even though it is explicitly against California law was that he thought it was a bad law and that it shouldn't be obeyed. That brings up the whole civil disobedience thing, and while I appreciate that, the mayor of a major city took an oath. I suppose he either mentioned he wouldn't support laws he didn't like when he took it, or maybe he had his fingers crossed at the time. Something on those lines.

Next time I get a parking ticket I'm going to ignore it, because, well, it's really a law that I think is bad (Hey we paid to build the dagnab streets in the first place) and per the Mayor of San Francisco, those laws are optional.

In the mean time, I am happy to see that people that love each other have a way of demonstrating it and for providing for the care and support of their mates.

Jeepz

[Jeepz]

Gee whiz. I was hoping my post would encourage some discussion about gay's (and others) views on marriage versus civil union. How do you folks feel about it. Does the idea of civil union (but not marriage) smack of unreasonable discrimination or do you see it as a reasonable accomodation to your needs for a recognized and legal relationship?

Jeepz

[mrmnp]

Jeepez, your feelings about same-sex marriage are understandable considering your upbringing. You are to be congratulated for moving in the direction of civil rights. You have a way to go but you seem to be open to it.

One only has to go back a few years in the U.S. to when inter-racial marriage was universally illegal in all the states. It took a Supreme Court decision to turn that around or those laws would still be on the books. I was married at the time and looking forward to the birth of my first anglo child and I feltfelt it was a bad thing, that Sammy Davis, Jr. and Brik Eklund, his Swedish wife. would have mongrel kids. I have come along way since.

A hundred years ago women couldn't vote, where property of their husbands, etc.

Go back even further and you have slavery.

More to the point, the U.S. Supremen Court ruled in 1954 that "separate but equal" schools for blacks and whites were iherently wrong and that there is no such a thing as "separate but equal" under the equal protection provision of the U.S. Constitution. When you stated that civil unions for same-sex committed partners was the way to go for you, you placed yourself in the shoes of the segregationists of the 50's and 60's in the U.S., not a good place to be in the modern age.

[mrentoul]

You have a way to go but you seem to be open to it.

Big of you to say so. I am sure he appreciates your ''compliment'' as well.

[Guest chingy]

San Francisco carries out first US gay marriage

i thought Hawaii was the first, they have gay marriage over 10 year ago

there are plenty of gay marriage in Hawaii.

[mrmnp]

Chingy, you right that the Hawaii Supreme ruled essentially like the Supreme Court in Massachusetts did, howver, shortly thereafter, the Mormon church, although less than 10% of the population, got the decision turned around with a constitutional ammendment so same-sex marriage in Hawaii is not possible.

[Jeepz]

mrmnp~

Thanks for your comments. I don't really have a major personal problem with "marriage" for same sex partnership. Oh, yeah, there are echos from my youth that make me perhaps a touch uneasy with it. But not any serious objection to it.

The reason I'm more pro "civil union" is an acknowledgement of those folks that define marriage as the traditional gender arrangement. I know that many of them (mostly Christians in my experience) find same sex marriages extremely upsetting. Viewing gender issues as equivalent to race issues is a point that hasn't quite occurred yet. But that day approaches quickly.

I very much believe that same sex couples have to have the ability to look after each other, share health coverage, enjoy the protection of the law, as traditional marriages do today. The discussion of terminology to me takes a back seat to getting something on the law books that has that effect. I would rather see "civil unions" have legal status shortly than to hold out for "marriage" another decade or two down the road.

Still, there are a lot of "hot" topics surrounding this. Adoption by same sex couples is a very contentious issue. And some of it I can understand. Not that I think that gays can't be extremely loving and caring, and good parents. But I would have a problem with a boy being raised by some of the feminist lesbian couples I've run across. [Note: Interestingly, I don't seem to be bothered so much by a girl being raised by a couple of homosexual men.]

In fact, one lesbian couple, who were deaf, were trying to get one of the partners pregnant. The kicker was that they wanted their baby to be deaf too. So they only wanted artifical insemination by a donor that had a genetic condition that caused deafness from birth. Now I realize this is an unusual and extreme case. But that sort of situation is one that drives more traditional individuals bonkers. When they see "rights" and "issues" overriding the health and well-being of a child, flashing lights and sirens start going off.

While Bush is in office, I doubt that any thing approaching either a "civil union" or "gay marriage" is going to happen. In fact, Bush may try to outlaw them, creating a debate about it to take the heat off other issues that he has less support or is more vulnerable on. Which would be bad, since he needs to answer to the issues he has on his plate now. WMD, Job loss, and so forth.

So ultimately, I'm pro civil union, a bit more iffy about "marriage" as a legal term, and quietly ansy about some of the surrounding issues. That is just one guy's opinion.

Jeepz

[mrmnp]

Jeepz, your reply is much appreciated. It is gratifying to discuss issues with emotional overtones with a rational thinker, such as yourself.

I was firmly with you on civil unions until the Massachusetts supreme court came out with their decison. Readiing it in its entirety, and having been legally trained, I was moved to the point of rejecting "civil unions" as a second class ciitizenship.

"Equal protection of the Law" is the contitutional issue involved, as you know. Even if Bush and his neo-cons team up with the religious right to get a U.S. Constituional Amendment passed, they still must face the "Equal protection" issue when the U.S. Surpeme Court hears the constitutionality of the ammendment.

You are so right that the Bush people and the entire religious right have fixated on this issue for its emotional appeal and their ability to depict "horror stories" of what will happen after gay marriage becomes law.

Since the last U.S. census reports that only 1% of the population in Massachusetts falls into the category of same-sex live togethers, it is hardly an issue that will change anything or threaten anything, least of all hetero-marriage.

The information coming out of the Netherlands regarding their experience with same-sex marriage is only positive, with their previously negative clergy changing en masse to pro.

Like with the race issue in the U.S., when black men didn't have equal rights, in many cases they didn't act responsibly toward their children. The more responsibly men are treated, the more responsibly they act.

The faith based religions are the last to change and it takes the courts to do that. Example, inter-racial marriage. The Catholic church is a great example of an institution rooted in the long past that has been moved by law to a accept civil rights. Only through the enforcement of laws on "child abuse" has that institution moved toward the modern view toward "child rights".

Rational thought demands rational reasons for something to be so. Do you have any rational reasons that same-sex mariage should not be allowed? Your imput would be appreciated. An easy example is the argument that marriage should be reserved for those who can procreate. Rationalist point out then that barren couples should not be allowed to be married, etc.

Diverging a little, I was there when someone raised the issue in the constructon industry that women had "retiring rooms" lounges and men didn't. Equal protection ended up eliminating "ladies lounges" in new construction or giving both sexes lounges attached to toilets. Likewise, split seat toilets. Why in the world would women need split toilet seats? Standing up to urinate? Anyway, they have them now in new construction if the men do or not at all if the men don't, equal protection at work? A bit absurd. Certainly equal protection can be taken too far, but since so many "rights and privileges" flow from the marriage state, equal protection issues are necessarily involved.

The GLAD.com web page has the link to the Massachusetts Supreme Court Decision which has the rationale why civil unions are a "separate and unequal" approach to dealing with this issue. The U.S. is supposed to have a secular government and thus religious organizations should have no say in this issue, but they do. The religions are free to include or exclude same-sex marriage as they see fit. They have no say, under the constitution's separation of church and state mandate about whether the state should recognize same-sex marriage. The founding fathers were well aware of the concept of "tyrany of the majority" and thus gave courts the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

I predict that the California Supreme Court will rule as the Massachusetts Supreme Court did and will deem the Protection of Marriage law in California to be unconsititutional.

There is a strong arguement that the right to marry is a state created right, not an inherent right, and therefore the state can dictate its parameters. The Massachusetts Court argued that there is no more fundamental right or freedom than the right of citizens to marry, and the denial of that right to a class of citizens is a denial of equal protection under the law and thereby unconstitutional.

I hope your are interested enough in this subject to reply, as I hope others are as well.

[Jeepz]

mrmnp~

I haven't had the opportunity to view the Massachusetts supreme court decision. I did try the URL you mentioned, but it gave me the makers of GLAD wrap, a thin, clingy, transparent substance, much like my last girl friend (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that comparison though it is not particularly valid).

I did do a bit of web searching to find some arguements pro & con. Mostly con showed up, pushing for full marriage rights vs limited civil union rights. My lack of legal training and/or experience with the legal system became obvious. I am aware that specific words or terms have very defined meanings in law. So while I may think that a word represents one thing, it may legally have much deeper implications. I had viewed any non-religious state sanctioned ceremony as a "civil union". That union has the equivalency of marriage in fact and law. But it does not have the same equivalency as a religious marriage to various faiths.

I would agree with you if "civil unions" are not provided the same rights under law as marriage. A term I came across is "civil marriage", which may be a legal definition. But to me, it is simply "civil union" by a justice of the peace or someone who has the right to perform such a ceremony legally. We have had separate but equal ceremonies (religious vs civil) for opposite sex couples for a long time. I simply see the extension of that to same sex couples, leaving the term "marriage" to those that need to have a religious aspect to their ceremony.

I would argue that we should redefine the terms so that "civil union" is available to any two individuals. It would have the same status legally as a ceremony peformed by a justice of the peace or similar individual. That means status both under state and federal law. It is a case of separate but equal in the sense that either a religious or civil ceremony has the same status in the eyes of the law. That is currently true and there is no reason it could not continue to do so.

Marriage would be a religious ceremony. And even there, I don't have a problem for individuals that are members of a faith that accepts same sex unions to perform them. If a religious aspect is necessary to the individuals marrying, and they are members of a faith that allows that marriage (note my very gender neutral terms here) then they can have their ceremony and it would be viewed as the equivalent of a "civil union" which is blind to gender. Providing that the person performing the ceremony is authorized by the state (which regulates this) then their rights as a couple may actually stem from the "civil union" aspect, but they are in fact married as far as the state is concerned and in the eyes of their religion.

I don't agree with the proposition that marriage is a state derived right. It may be acknowledged and even regulated by the state, but the existance of marriage seems to transend any particular state's existance. Marriage as a relationship between individuals of the opposite sex is documented as far back as we have recorded history. The ancient Egyptians allowed for incest in marriage, but not same sex unions, as far as I've seen. And even the most remote tribes and races have had the institution of marriage although with often different codes of conduct.

It is interesting that you noted the separate-but-equal aspect of education. When slavery was legal in the USA, marriage for slaves had very little force. They were often reduced to the most simplistic of ceremonies which had no force of law but were still recognized within their community (of slaves). To argue that only the state has the right to sanction marriage (or union) is to argue against the experience of human kind under the some of the most desperate of circumstances. And that brings us back to why we need something that is recognized for individuals that are to some extent in similar circumstances today. The state (much as the slaves masters) does not allow it or at least won't recognize it and disposes of their rights as it sees fit. And that is a very sad state indeed.

Jeepz

[Bobcat]

Here is the correct link to the opinion:

http://www.glad.org/marriage/SJC_Advisory_...on_020404.shtml

[tuky]

wow man, like far out, thats really heavy.

I am almost scared to ask this question for fear I will not understand the answer

does the defacto arrangement apply to same sex couples as it does to hetero couples?

[mrmnp]

Jeepz, your last post is most intriguing. So we understand each other in this discussion, the word civil refers to governmental sanction. Marriage is a broad and all encompassing term both by civil authority and religious authority. No religion can perform a marriage without the participants first obtaining state sanction by the issuance of a marriage license.

I will approach your intriguing thought generically. A civil union(a legal contract) of two opposite sex people is currently provided for by the state with the official ceremony joing of the two under the law being performed by governmental officials, captains at sea and the clergy and the law refers to this process as marriage. The number of times the word marriage is used in the statutes is astronomical. From a point of convenience, if nothing else, if we are to describe persons joined together civilly, (without the benefit of clergy) we should reserve the word marriage for that status and thereby avoid trouble because of the mandate of separation of church and state. Additionally, many same-sex couples will be married in churches by clergy anyway.

While I am intrigued by your notion, if I understood you right, that the unions of people should be categorized by the type of ceremony used to join them, but that all the rights, privileges and benefits accrue equally to them all, are we not then begging the question "Why differentiate at all"?

If we categorize the opposite-sex status from the same-sex status, are we not just adding an adjective to the word marriage, ie. opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage, which we will do anyway if the law describes both unions as marriages.

I am as sensitive as ever to the many emotional overtones connected to the word marriage. However, we are talking about governmental action, mandated to be non-religious. Accordingly, the law recognizes the concept of marriage and defines its parameters. That law is under review, as it always is, to conform to modern concepts of what is right, fair and just.

Taking the opposite point of view, the only real reason against including perhaps an additional two percent of the population into the inclusive class of persons allowed to marry, is that marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Less than fifty years ago, marriage was restricted to persons of the same race.

I am sure that you will agree that marriage is really a bond between two people and that bond only lasts as long as those two people make it so, with or without the government, church or others participation. Many common law "marriages" have occured outside the government or church. It was only after legal equity demanded "rights" to accrue after a substantial amount of time in a common law mariage, that the law steped in and made common law marriage a recognized entity.

The foregoing as been off the top of my head and really goes nowhere. If you can come up with some scheme where under the law of the land, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are joined as couples without any legal distinction between them and then conjoin a word or phrase to that generic term to connote some distinction, I would welcome it. However, since marriage is a legal word and the law is civil in nature, as opposed to religious, church married opposite-sex people will have to come up with another term to set them apart from same-sex couples that are married in a church.

Bobcat was kind enough to provide the link to the Massachusetts court opinion and I urge you to read it, paying particular attention to the dissenting opinions. It was a 4-3 decision and interestingly enough, the majority were all appointed by republican govenors. Two women and a black were part of the majority. How things have changed on the bench.

If you find the dissenting opinions persuasive, I would appreciate your input as to what argument you think is controlling and upon what grounds you would reverse the majority opinion, if you had the power. That court defines the issues and reaches reasoned positions far more eloquently than I can.

[Jeepz]

mrmnp~

My thanks to Bobcat for the GLAD.org link. I should have tried that before, but it escaped me. I read, though I'm not sure I completely comprehended, the decision. I take it that the responding defense that followed on the same page was the minority position of the court.

Both in their own way were persuasive. And to be honest, before I had read the minority position, I felt that the major flaw in the proposed legislation was the section that specifically set a "prohibition" against same sex "marriage". A sop to those that feel marriage is only valid between members of the opposite sex. Had the proposed law not contained that point, would there be much argument? Oh, those opposed to any sort of acknowledgement of homosexual liasons would be out marching, of course. But in the sense that a "civil union" was to have exactly the same force as a "civil marriage" within the boundaries of the state of Massachusetts, it would then be the equivalent. That it would not be honored outside of the boundaries of the state or by the federal government relegate any such couple to "secondary status" regardless of what that union is called.

I see no admonishment that requires two similar things to have the same name. Particularly if there is some substantive difference. If those arguing that they are exactly the same (or should be) when two individuals make a formal bond and enjoy the benefits of such a union, they do so only so far at the state can provide them. And the state can not provide them the same or equivalent benefits in total that a heterosexual couple will enjoy. It is not within the state's power to do so. The moment the homosexual couple steps outside the boundaries of Massachusetts or deals with a federal entity, they are deprived of those benefits and they are currently deprived of them legally.

So does the concept of "civil marriage" for heterosexuals and "civil union" for homosexuals, by it's nature create second class status within the state of Massachusetts? If the benefits (as far as the state is concerned and limited only to the boundaries of its jurisdiction) are identical and have exactly the same force of law, where is the second class status?

I do think that the rebuke by the court for the states attempt to create a "marriage that may not speak it's name" (a pun on an old term for homosexuality) was completely justified. Remove that prohibition from the statute and I think that horse will run.

The day that all states acknowledge "marriage" or "union" between same sex partners, and the federal government does as well, the argument may well be gone, the differences lost in history and a single term will suffice, but that day has not yet arrived.

And I do look forward to your view on this and particularly which parts of the decision you found most persuasive, mrmnp.

Jeepz

[mrmnp]

But in the sense that a "civil union" was to have exactly the same force as a "civil marriage" within the boundaries of the state of Massachusetts, it would then be the equivalent. That it would not be honored outside of the boundaries of the state or by the federal government relegate any such couple to "secondary status" regardless of what that union is called.

Jeepz, you are indeed persuasive but I call attention to your quote. Brown v. Board of Education, a U.S. Supreme Court decision eliminated segregaton in schools, declaring that "separate is not equal" and the clear physical difference(skin color) between citizens cannot be used to establish a class by constituonal mandate. Likewise, no separate class can be created for women, even though there is a sexual and physical difference with men. While the court was willing to allow separate classes for purposes of employment for a number of years in an attempt to "make up" for years of discrimination, they no longer recognize that separate class in employment cases.

As to the effect of a same-sex marriage outside of Massachusetts, not only do most states and the federal government not recognize such a Massachusetts mariage, the Massachusetts law states that any marriage that is performed in Massachusetts, that is not legal in the state of the participants residency, said Massachusetts marriage is void.

What is going on in San Francisco and now in New Mexico may well make those state's Supreme Courts rule on the issue, and as I have previously predicted, California will end up with a Massachusetts type ruling.

The U.S. Surpeme court is clearly conservative and when it is inevitably presented with this issue may go down the "states rights" path, a darling of the conservative right, thus ruling that individual states may do anything they want about same-sex marriage and the federal government is not obliged to follow suit.

They also could go the way of the anit-segregation and race-marriage rulings, but the chances are slim in my view that the court as presently constituted would ban anti-same sex-marriage laws. Rest assured witha change of administration and a more liberal court, the issue will eventually be decided along true constitutional guidelines that anti-same-sex marriage laws violate the "equal protection" provisons of the U.S. Constitution by establishing a separate class of ciitzens based on gender guidelines, ala women before they achieved equality, blacks before they attained equality under the law, and non-same race individuals before they were granted the right to marry.

When women achieved partial equality with men in the 20's and all the decisions since that have equaled the playing field, the rationale was always that sex differences shall not be a criteria for establishing a separate class legally.

Thus, sex difference or lack of difference cannot legally be used to create a separate class. It is the reverse, ie same sex as a criteria for creating a class as oposed to the opposite sex issue in the equality of women.

I am awaiting your "reasons", if any, why marriage should be reserved exclusively for opposite-sex couples. That should be the nitty-gritty of our disscussions to date.

[Jeepz]

mrmnp~

Very persuasive yourself. As I stated back toward the beginning of this discussion, I'm not particularly opposed to marriage for same sex couples. And I am not convinced that there are valid reasons for a prohibition of same sex marriages on any current constitutional grounds. My position is more political than constitutional.

If, as it has been reported, the majority of the citizens in the USA oppose same sex marriage, it is unlikely that they will be allowed. What that does is continue the current enviroment where same sex couples have little protection under the law.

As you pointed out, the law in Massachusetts does not allow marriages that are not legal in the state of residency of the individuals marrying. That simply precludes people outside of Massachusetts visiting to get married. Perhaps a lucrative trade in Las Vegas, but doubtful a source of great revenue for the state of Massachusetts. A civil union or marriage between same sex couples would carry a residency requirement and as mentioned previously, would offer benefits only as far as the state borders reached and none with respect to the federal government.

If I recall history correctly, neither the abolition of slavery nor the suffragette movement succeeded in a single stroke. Slavery was limited and then abolished piecemeal initially. Women's right to the vote was gained in various localities and as time passed and the acknowledgement of the public grew. Ultimately they were ruled on constitutionally but both had to make headway in smaller steps at first.

If a same sex civil union was recognized as the equivalent in all things as marriage for the citizens of any particular state, does that not improve those individuals circumstances, so far as that state is concerned? The state cannot dictate beyond its borders. And once one state does grant legal status, then another state will follow.

The "all or nothing" formula may succeed at some point. But that point will be a long time in coming. And I personally think that point not only might be, but would be hastened by chiseling the objections to same sex unions away where and when it can be done now.

So to me, it is how do you make an action palatable to a majority that is opposed to it? I would start by acknowledging their concerns while still attempting to gain the protection necessary. After discussing this you and reading some background material, I will say that I am opposed to "prohibition on same sex marriages" in either a states or the federal constitution. But I remain convinced that an equivalent "civil union" is less a step toward second class status than it is a step toward full protection of same sex partnerships.

Jeepz

[mrmnp]

jeepz, you silver tongued rascal. Very persuasive. the "half-a-loaf makes alot of sense to me as a college educated political scientist and was were I was on the issue before reading the Massachusetts decision, then the the legal reasoning took over.

Your political instincts are great and I agree with them. Politically, the will of the majority should prevail unless it becomes a tyranny, as was the case in the other civil rights cases that we have discussed and which required court action to correct.

One of our forum moderators, merudel, probably not spelled right. posted a new subject about Arnold Schwarznegger and his reaction to a political firestorm over this issue. Check out his post and my reply and let me know if my political instincts are correct.

For a "white house warrior" George Bush is treading on eggs in his "look at the polls first" approach to responding to the issue. Unlike Schwarznegger who can use his office to issue orders, which is his duty, Bush cannot comment through the color of office. This "hot potatoe" has really caught him in mid-stride toward the middle in time for the fall election. While the religious right may be manageable, his neo-cons are state's rights ideologs who might hate the idea of same-sex marriage but must ideologically support individual state's rights to declare the ban as unconstitutional.

You bet it is a hot political issue. When you speak of the majority of americans who are anti-same-sex marriage, my guess is that the polls sample feelings or attitudes, which can change dramatically. The majority is a narrow one, but the religious right and the conservatives will undoubtedly act as if this narrow majority is a mandate as Bush has done with his narrow electoral margin.

Neo-cons are very opposed to amending the constitution and are faced with that ideological imperitive as well. They very may well act to keepanti-same-sex marriage from becoming an ammendment to the U.S. constitution.

Back to the legal side for a moment, whould you support civil unions for same-sex couples carring all the rights, priviliges and benefits of marriage becoming Federal law? Those who are anti-same-sex marriage have thrown that bone to the same-sex couples seeking marriage rights. In California, 2005 will see such a law take effect, even "updating" prior civil unions(they call them domestic partnerships) which were previously provided but with not all the marriage rights.

I hope you can appreciate how difficult it is for me to support a "political" solution when the legal case is so strong. I agree that if we await a political solution it will be years or decades coming. The legal mandate of "equal protection" will put the issue before the states courts within the year and the U.S. Supreme Court in no more than two or three years, I submit.

As an aside, I saw on televsion today, the lady plaintiff for which the abortion case of Roe v. Wade was fought. She has been "reached" and is now calling for its repeal. An opportunist perhaps, someone who went along with the pro-abortion people years ago and now. for whatever reason, is swinging the other way. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rely on precedent, if the case ever gets there. Can you imagine abortion becoming the law of the land through legislative action or referendum, not likely.

It might be helpful to get your opinion on what is often labeled by the right as "activist judges" v. the "will of the people". I am sure you saw some of that language in the Massachusetts minority opinions. Such decisions are supposedly made on rational legal reasoning as opposed to judicial meddling in the legislative process. My view is that if the courts waited for the political process to take place and the will of the people to prevail, most civil rights would not be in place. Your right, I think, when you state that, politically, same-sex marriage will lose everytime, although you were kind enough to offer hope by putting its occurance into the far distant future.

[Jeepz]

mrmnp~

It would be disingenuous to argue that civil rights are often the reward of gentle persuasion. From that grassy meadow by the River Thames in 1215 to the crisp January morning that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, the development of civil rights has been tempestuous.

My position is that the recognition of same sex civil union by a number of states will have the effect, in time, of allowing the majority of US citizens to see that the effect of such a union is not detrimental to them or destructive to the fabric of society. And that will move the issue toward resolution on the federal level. Of course I support a federal recognition of "civil unions" or "civil marriage".

I am a bit surprised by your statement: Those who are anti-same-sex marriage have thrown that bone to the same-sex couples seeking marriage rights. In California, 2005 will see such a law take effect, even "updating" prior civil unions(they call them domestic partnerships) which were previously provided but with not all the marriage rights.

If I understand the statement, that bone is pretty much what is generally desired, the acknowledgement by the state of your rights at least equivalent to "civil marriage". Or have I misconstrued the intent of the words?

Your point that: The legal mandate of "equal protection" will put the issue before the states courts within the year and the U.S. Supreme Court in no more than two or three years, I submit. could very well be correct. And perhaps the Supreme Court will redefine "civil marriage" along the lines you envision. But they well may not. That is the problem with attempting it all in one shot. A decision against the extension of those rights to same sex couples will set back that progress for at least a decade.

As you mentioned Roe v Wade, it has been three decades and now it is to be reheard in federal (not Supreme) court. I cannot peer into the heart of the woman. That her change in viewpoint is selfserving may be true, or it may be the consequence of aging. What we so most earnestly desire in our youth occasionally pales as we consider our mortality. And I suspect that courting by the religious right along with her sense of place in history (and mortality) has a lot to do with her reversal. Not that I agree with her, but I am more than a little aware that remorse is a very human quality.

That "Arnie" and the Attorney General are in the news is not surprising. They are political animals to begin with. It is their job to do so, as well. My initial post was somewhat critical of the Mayor of San Francisco simply because he has chosen to use his position to break the current law. I am familiar that his argument is that the law is illegal, it goes against the California constitution. Which pretty much means he is usurping the courts jurisdiction.

No Governor could ignore similar actions. If each governmental organization was allowed to ignore laws it disliked and enforce only those that it was comfortable with, there would not be a rule of law, but a rule of like. "I like that law, let's enforce it" so to speak.

Utimately, I think it will be an activist judicial decision that will accord same sex couples the extension of federal coverage. I don't think it will occur with the current court however. My view is that "civil union" extended to same sex couples and acknowledged by a growing number of states will change the playing field. That will take time, but it will also allow the general public (read heterosexuals) to become comfortable with concept and to see that it is not a particularly threatening trend to the fabric of society as I said above.

If, as you believe, that it is only a narrow majority that are anti-same sex marriage, then I may be wrong. The timeline may be much shorter. But I suspect that once in a voting booth, many heterosexuals that say they are okay with same sex marriage might not be willing to vote for it. I am very familiar with a number of heterosexuals that are at least superficially civil to homosexuals, particularly in the workplace. But they are much less accomodating to them privately, particularly in a group of other heterosexual men. That is simply the normal hypocrisy of human existance.

Times have changed since I was young. And that is a good thing. But they may not have progressed so far as you want. Living on the west coast as I do, in a fairly pluralistic society, it is hard for me to judge the tenor of the midwest and the south, which are much more "bible belt" areas and I suspect much less willing to accomodate this change.

We will see how it sorts out. Ultimately, state and federal protection to all citizens is what is desired. Stable relationships that provide for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what is about. (Okay, maybe not until after your early twenties, but it has to stablize at some point, right? )

Jeepz

[mrmnp]

Wow jeepz, what a great post. I am copiyng it to my file on quotes as it is the best exposition of the political solution to a difficult issue facing all AmericansI have read to date. I have always believed in evolution vs. revolution. I am sure you can uncerstand how the legal mind can immerse itself in the legal issues involved without a balanced view of the social consequences of an issue. Perhaps "activist" judges are guilty of nothing more than that.

We may have reached a reproachment on our legal vs. political/social approaches to same-sex marriages through our discussion and I am grateful to you.

I attach Christian based arguements against same-sex mariage and I humbly ask you or any others reading this post to point to any arguements contained therein that you/they feel have merit.

____________________________________________________________________

Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful

Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society.

By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott | posted 02/19/2004

Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?

The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?

It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and individual aberrations became a torrent.

Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.

But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad for children, and 3) bad for society.

1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition. The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay marriage.

Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. … Something of the gay relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."

The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."

A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their "monogamous" relationship.

In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.

Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.

Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.

Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.

3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.

In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and possibly dangerous.

In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously harm Americans—including those in heterosexual marriages—over the long run. Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.

Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage, let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals.

Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott, who both teach religion at Roanoke College, wrote an earlier version of this article for the Public Theology Project. Viewpoints published in "Speaking Out" do not necessarily represent those of Christianity Today.

Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

[mrentoul]

I'm told by the end of the

week over 3,000 gay

couples are expected to tie

the knot. You know, you

gotta love California. This

is the only state where you

can marry your gay lover,

take a hit from a bong of

medical marijuana, be a

celebrity who shoots his

wife and not get in any

legal trouble at all until

you step outside and try to

light up a cigarette. - Jay Leno

[Jeepz]

Pretty hard for me to comment upon the Christian viewpoint, even if I am tacitly one. None of the points raised are of constitutional issues, but they seem to believe along the lines that you have articulated, that there may be a constitutional defense of same sex marriages.

Some of their points are ones that do concern heterosexuals. And some are interesting, if for no other fact than I'd never considered them before. The argument that gay marriages are open was or is new to me. Now there are some number of heterosexuals that have open marriages or are swingers (that is faint distinction at best) and no one has proposed ending marriages because of it, or even outlawing those that indulge in them.

And I noted that their discussion of that point used an example from the Netherlands citing "couples" but it didn't define those couples as "married" which is what I'd be wanting to see. I wouldn't personally support open marriage as a good enviroment for child raising. Others might, but I don't see it as a stable home for children.

The point about children and a sense of sexual identity is problematic. One study is by no means enough to make a case for or against same sex partnerships. It will be a point of concern (as it should be) to all people concerned about children having a stable enviroment and being able mature with their natural sexual orientation. I can but leave that as an open question for the moment.

The extension of marriage to polygamy is a bit of red herring. I've seen individuals (on TV) that participated in such relationships and, of course, there is the older, now outlawed, mormon based splinter groups that still practice it. I don't know if that argument would "play" so to speak. It sounds more like mud throwing, hoping something will stick.

To be honest, I felt that most of their arguments were the sort that "civil unions" would deal with. They are most concerned about the "sanctity" of marriage and its effect on the institution of "family" would be. That is what the greatest concern to the public at large is going focus on.

In fact, an activist ruling and/or the strident call for "marriage" by same sex couples may have a negative effect ultimately. If a large enough majority of the public feel that same sex marriage is forced upon them, then the backlash may be a constitutional amendment that would preclude same sex marriages. Exactly how that would be worded, or the process and accompanying legislation that would make it acceptable under the constitution, I have no idea. But there are lots of lawyers that around that will happily spend hundreds of hours figuring it out. As long as they get to bill their time, that is.

The best way to negate those fears, given that same sex couples are in fact no threat to stable families or well raised children, is to demonstrate that. Civil unions that do not threaten the current view of "marriage" but that do provide the same legal protection for it's participants would be the logical step.

But I have no magic eight ball or rather crystal ball. A ruling in favor of same sex marriage may bring the rights and protection necessary, the backlash may be much smaller than I foresee. The erosion of heterosexual marriage is more likely an effect of no-fault divorce (basically a way of making it an easy option to get out of) than the genders of the individuals involved. That would seem to me a more worthy point of their fears than recognizing long term same sex relationships legally.

Jeepz

[mrmnp]

The erosion of heterosexual marriage is more likely an effect of no-fault divorce (basically a way of making it an easy option to get out of) than the genders of the individuals involved. That would seem to me a more worthy point of their fears than recognizing long term same sex relationships legally

.

Please see my post on the new post re:monogamy and the emancipation of women as the cause of the divorce rate.  Also, what about children being better off  comming from a broken home than living in one. Comments?

The best way to negate those fears, given that same sex couples are in fact no threat to stable families or well raised children, is to demonstrate that. Civil unions that do not threaten the current view of "marriage" but that do provide the same legal protection for it's participants would be the logical step

I cannot rebut, what is clearly, from a political point of view, unassailable. I can only agree with respect.

Once again, you correctly put the issue in perspective. If the U.S. had a diest or rational religious heratige, we would not be having this discussion. However, the Christian-Judean yoke is upon the nation and to ignore it in a legal vacum is not realistic.

The book on the history of homosexuality, reviewd in the Bangkok Post yesterday, correctly points out that homosexuality was not demonized until the Palestinians incorporated it into their legal code, pre-bible days and pre-Jesus, while it was, at the same time, widely practiced in Rome. It is that yoke of which I speak. It wasn't until many centuries later, when the Roman emperor, who was converted to Christianity, changed Roman law to incorporate prohibitions, that the criminality and the general prohibitions became a matter of widespead culture.

[Jeepz]

I agree with your point about the women having more earning power and therefore more independance. That is another driving force in the upward spiral of divorces. But one that I applaud actually. I am not in favor of economic serfdom even with the benefit of matrimony.

I am less sure of your point about broken homes. I don't defend keeping children in an abusive enviroment. I don't think that is the right thing to do. But the broken homes argument begs the question in my experience. Relationships, like people, go through strong and weak periods. People have problems, and normally, they will deal with them at some point. But instead of dealing with the problem, sometimes people choose to walk out the door.

That is obviously no fix for the partner's original problem and the one leaving usually seems take some baggage with them. Now this is pretty broad brush I'm painting with here. There are any number of situations that I think grabbing the door knob is the right thing to do. But there are lots of them that don't require it.

And perhaps this is just my personal view. But it's not based on simply my experience. I've known guys that regret divorces from women that I thought must have been blood kin of a harpy. I've known one guy that got shotgunned by his spouse when he came staggering back home drunk. Like I said, sometimes I think the door knob is by the best choice.

An interesting point that you brought up in terms of ancient Rome and homosexuality. As I recall, Julius Caesar's detractors called him a "man among women and a woman among men". While homosexuality might have been common, it was apparently more acceptable to be the top and not nearly so acceptable to the bottom.

And as you noted that many cultures accepted homosexuality, many of them also saw women as chattel. The value of daughters negligible to that of a son. These are not something spawned by judeo-christian tradition. Historical precedent is a slippery slope, since everyone seems to find justification for almost everything, historically.

I was, I must admit, somewhat taken back by a separate thread you have running with ChrisP. That was concerning the open nature of same sex relationships between men. If the majority, or the norm, or whatever description that fits, accept occasional outside partners, it makes me rethink my position. If it is something that occurs only occasionally, as it does among heterosexuals there is no particular need to raise the issue. But if it is common, then same sex marriage between males might consist of emotional and economic support, but does not expect fidelity. And that will make most heterosexuals think twice about ascribing "marriage" to such a union.

The thread basically stated that men have a lower (or easier) threshold of sexual activity and therefore increased activity and more open partnering was to be expected and was, in fact, accepted among gay men in relationships. I'm curious about your thoughts and experiences with your friends along this line.

Jeepz

[mrmnp]

In my defense, jeepz, I must point out my introductory caution that sweeping generalities are dangerous and the one generality was the one point that you drove your truck through.

My point about a lower sex threshold in men .I will stay with. When two men get together you have two lower thresholds. I will stick to that. What I next said was two men together must make an early agreement about extra-marital relationships based upon the increased danger of their joint lower thresholds.

I think in same-sex male marriages, if ever permitted, the capacity to be monogamous would depend on the individuals involved. Same-sex mariage could only increase the rate of monogamy among men because of the community support for the relationship that would ensue.

I also made a bald face assertions that men are not monogamous by nature and that around the world, including Thailand, monogamy is in the minority. This I don't know for sure. Perhaps I have seen too many movies lately, or have read too many biographys where in the male subject is rarely monogamous. I have also formed an opinon that highly driven men, national leaders, politicians, CEO's etc have high testosterone levels from which they draw for their incredable energy. Do I think Reagan had a outside affair, no, but most Presidents have.

Women who are hit on by married men may well have the opinion that most married men, except their husband, are not monogamous. I always have been monogamous without difficulty, as have most of my married friends.(I haven't had any male friends in adulthood who would reveal philandering to me in any case).

It is the history books and the biographies written when the subject is dead and the truth comes out that reveals the philadering. What do you think. Don't most men "slip" at least once in a 30 year marital relationship?

[Jeepz]

I do see your "qualifier" about sweeping generalities. I cited your comments because "sweeping generalities" are often the "impression" one group will have of another group of people. That impression often has quite an impact on decision making.

Since our discussion has been pointed toward the "rights" of a specific group of individuals, which are exercised by individuals, but are granted to groups of individuals, I thought it a viable area of discussion and a point of concern to heterosexuals in general.

If the proposition is that gay male couples experience "cheating" relatively similar to heterosexual couples, I'd see no problem there. If, however, the general rule of thumb was gay male couples normally define their relationship as "open" in terms of other partner experiences, then there is a fundamental shift of attitude about what is expected in a relationship.

Obviously, as a heterosexual, I can only ask. And I do agree that some, perhaps many, heterosexual men tend to stray (or look for stray, as we used to say). But the expectation going into the majority of relationships is that the man will not stray. Few women, except in novels and tv soap operas, blithely accept philandering by their partners, at least in the USA.

I agree with you, the actions of individuals will be just that, individual. But it won't play to say (and I am making these numbers up) 20% of gay couples are monogamous, and the remainder are discreet. And then to expect the exact same rights as heterosexuals. It would be tantamout to expecting the majority of the culture to redefine marriage as a non-monogamous relationship of mutual support.

I don't really want to beat this to a pulp. And my instincts are that committed gay couples, particularly as they mature, tend to be monogamous for various reasons. So, yes, straights cheat, guys cheat more, women cheat too, but not as often (or so they say).

I will park my truck and wait for a sunny day to give it a wash.

Jeepz

[mrmnp]

Ah, Jeepz, it has been so many years since I have had the opportunity to discuss things with a college prof and I have missed it. There is a gentleness and supportive nature to your rhetoric that really is wonderful. Thank you for your last post, a truly healing approach.

Andrew Sullivan is a Time Magazine essayist,the Feb. 16 issue has an essay on our subject here from a strictly personal point of view. It is moving. He is a senior editior of the New Republic and his polilitics are a mystery to me. Perhaps you can tell this expat what bend there is to the New Republic. Sullivan seems to be a conservative who is liberal on social issues. Anyway, I urge you to check his web page which is very topical and very, very, political. He seems to know what is going on in Washington's cloak rooms. andrewsullivan.com..

He included the following emails on his page today:

MORE EMAILS:

"While it may mean little in the face of the hatred and discrimination expressed by our nation's leader today, I want you to know you have my wholehearted support. How can it be that two people expressing their love for each other and asking society to recognize that love be a bad thing? How can a couple choosing to spend their life together in a bond of love possibly harm our society? It is beyond my apparently meager comprehension to anticipate the consequences that allowing gay marriage will bear. All I can anticipate is love and acceptance.

It shouldn't be an important fact, but I am straight. One of my close friends is gay. I've watched him experience heartbreak, hope and love over the last few years. His emotions are no less real than mine. His love is given as truly as mine is. Why should we not recognize this? And how dare we amend a document that gives hope and freedom to the world to deny hope and freedom to a group of our own citizens?

It offends me as a straight man, as an American citizen, but more importantly as a human being who believes that each one of us deserves equal dignity, that our president seeks to cloak a beacon of liberty with a veil of intolerance and discrimination. I only wish that President Bush would have turned to the words of a great Republican president and heeded the better angels of his nature to oppose this amendment. It saddens me that his actions do not come as a surprise."

"What a strange juxtaposition, almost surreal. Today we get "The Passion of Christ" delivered. A bloody, gory, historically inaccurate film sure to stoke religious fundamentalism in America, ironically the same folks who refuse to accept modern science and any notion that homosexuality is anything but a behavioral choice. We get Bush calling for a Constitutional amendment to "protect" marriage. It does not outlaw no-fault divorce, or cheap 5 minute weddings performed by Elvis in Las Vegas. Instead it is a cheap political exploitation, but unlike most others (from both sides of the isle) would attempt to enshrine in the Constitution religious fundamentalism. And finally, we get two new Al Qaeda tapes. How ironic that those fundamentalists in the Arab world may have a more positive view of America because its President will now push to permanently stigmatize gays as inferior and not worthy of full citizenry? Those who really believe in the ideals of this country must now speak up."

On monogamy, dear Jeepz, your last two posts only reinforced my feeling that same-sex marriage will only strengthen relationships, reinforce monogamy, and make gays and lesbians better citizens. As one who has taken the political view in our discussions to date, what is your political take on Bush's constitutional ammendment approach to same-sex marriage? (hereafter SSM)

One writer quoted by Sullivan, said in effect, Bush previously gave lip service to the religious right while moving meaningfully toward the center and now he is giving lip service to the center while moving strongly towards the religious right.

P.S. There is a survey of members of thaivisa.com on monogamy that is currently running at 65% and an excellent article at the head of the thread that indicates 76% of Thai men are unfaithful. I suspect the U.S. statistics on monogamy are much lower, as the farangs statistics in the forum seem to indicate.

Christian-Judean heritage? Muslim monogamy may be quite high because of the cloistering of the wowen, or am I wrong. I have no information of the availability of prostitution in muslim countries?

[mrmnp]

Here is that Andrew Sullivan essay from Time 2/16/2004 before Bush's statement of 2/24 about using the Constitution to solve a social issue.

The 'M-Word'

Why It Matters To Me

What's in a name?

Perhaps the best answer is a memory.

As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was. I grew up in a traditional home - Catholic, conservative, middle class. Life was relatively simple: education, work, family. I was brought up to aim high in life, even though my parents hadn't gone to college. But one thing was instilled in me. What matters is not how far you go in life, how much money you make, how big a name you make for yourself. What really matters is family, and the love you have for one another. The most important day of your life was not graduation from college or your first day at work or a raise or even your first house. The most important day of your life was when you got married. It was on that day that all your friends and all your family got together to celebrate the most important thing in life: your happiness, your ability to make a new home, to form a new but connected family, to find love that puts everything else into perspective.

But as I grew older, I found that this was somehow not available to me. I didn't feel the things for girls that my peers did. All the emotions and social rituals and bonding of teenage heterosexual life eluded me. I didn't know why. No one explained it. My emotional bonds to other boys were one-sided; each time I felt myself falling in love, they sensed it, pushed it away. I didn't and couldn't blame them. I got along fine with my buds in a non-emotional context; but something was awry, something not right. I came to know almost instinctively that I would never be a part of my family the way my siblings one day might be. The love I had inside me was unmentionable, anathema - even, in the words of the Church I attended every Sunday, evil. I remember writing in my teenage journal one day: "I'm a professional human being. But what do I do in my private life?"

So, like many gay men of my generation, I retreated. I never discussed my real life. I couldn't date girls and so immersed myself in school-work, in the debate team, school plays, anything to give me an excuse not to confront reality. When I looked toward the years ahead, I couldn't see a future. There was just a void. Was I going to be alone my whole life? Would I ever have a "most important day" in my life? It seemed impossible, a negation, an undoing. To be a full part of my family I had to somehow not be me. So like many gay teens, I withdrew, became neurotic, depressed, at times close to suicidal. I shut myself in my room with my books, night after night, while my peers developed the skills needed to form real relationships, and loves. In wounded pride, I even voiced a rejection of family and marriage. It was the only way I could explain my isolation.

It took years for me to realize that I was gay, years later to tell others, and more time yet to form any kind of stable emotional bond with another man. Because my sexuality had emerged in solitude - and without any link to the idea of an actual relationship - it was hard later to reconnect sex to love and self-esteem. It still is. But I persevered, each relationship slowly growing longer than the last, learning in my twenties and thirties what my straight friends found out in their teens. But even then, my parents and friends never asked the question they would have asked automatically if I were straight: so when are you going to get married? When is your relationship going to be public? When will we be able to celebrate it and affirm it and support it? In fact, no one - no one - has yet asked me that question.

When people talk about "gay marriage," they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses - available to atheists as well as believers. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category - civil unions, domestic partnerships, civl partnerships, whatever - may alleviate real human needs, but, by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their own families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

It's too late for me to undo my own past. But I want above everything else to remember a young kid out there who may even be reading this now. I want to let him know that he doesn't have to choose between himself and his family any more. I want him to know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. Only marriage will do that. Only marriage can bring him home.

February 10, 2004, Time.

copyright © 2000, 2004 Andrew Sullivan

[mrentoul]

Bush Presses for Ban on Gay Marriages

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush urged approval of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages on Tuesday, pushing a divisive social issue to the center of the election campaign and setting a clear policy contrast with Democratic challengers John Kerry (news - web sites) and John Edwards.

Bush said "activist judges and local officials" from Massachusetts to San Francisco to New Mexico were attempting to redefine marriage and "change the most fundamental institution of civilization" by allowing same-sex weddings. "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard," he said.

Democrats accused Bush of pandering to right-wing supporters and tinkering with the Constitution to divert attention from his record on jobs, health care and foreign policy. "He is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people," Kerry said.

Both Kerry and Edwards said they oppose gay marriages but would not support a constitutional amendment.

Banning gay marriage is a top priority for Bush's conservative supporters, particularly those among religious and family-oriented groups. But while a majority of Americans — sometimes by as much as a 2-1 margin — oppose legalizing gay marriages, Bush's move could hold political risks, particularly if voters see him as intolerant or question his self-description as a "compassionate conservative."

"The president needs to worry about fair-minded swing voters in America, not a Republican base that he has locked up," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans (news - web sites), a gay GOP group.

Mindful of the high emotions and clear differences on the issue, Bush said, "We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger."

Conservatives were delighted Bush had plunged in. "There is no more important issue for our nation than the preservation of the institution of marriage," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation, a family advocacy group.

Momentum for a constitutional amendment has grown as San Francisco officials have performed thousands of same-sex marriages and have challenged their state law barring such unions. In Massachusetts, the state's highest court has ruled that a state law falling short of allowing full-fledged marriage for gays would be unconstitutional.

Bush softened his announcement by leaving the door open for states to legalize civil unions, which gay rights groups say is an insufficient alternative to marriage. "The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage," said Bush, who had opposed legalizing civil unions when he was governor of Texas.

Republican officials said there was no rush to bring an amendment to the floor in the House. Some conservatives want a broader approach than Bush supports, and others oppose federalizing the issue, at least for now.

"The groups that are for a constitutional amendment are split over what it should be," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "We are trying to bring them all together and unify them."

California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.

"I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue," said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary." Lewis said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, said she would fight any amendment. "Never before has a constitutional amendment been used to discriminate against a group of people, and we must not start now," she said.

Amending the Constitution is not quick or simple. A two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate must pass an amendment, and then it would be sent to the states for ratification. It must be approved by three-fourths, or 38 of the 50. Bush's father pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning but it was not approved.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that amendment legislation submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular legislation.

Bush's call for a gay-marriage amendment came as the president sought to regain his footing after he was thrown on the defensive about issues ranging from his Vietnam-era military record to missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news - web sites).

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said.

Answering Bush, Kerry said, "All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign."

"I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions," Kerry said. "I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states"

Edwards, campaigning in Georgia, where the state legislature is debating its own ban on gay marriage, said, "I don't personally support gay marriage myself. My position has always been that it's for the states to decide."

ends