Gay Marriage Watch

Same-sex marriages face a religious obstacle.

By Harold Jackson

Editor of the Editorial Page

It seems like a more recent event, but it was 12 years ago that I received the phone call.

I was at work in Baltimore. Suddenly, on the line was a voice I didn’t know telling me something I didn’t want to hear. He explained that he was a friend of my brother’s who lived in San Francisco. He said Calvin was dying of AIDS and didn’t want his family to know.

It had been an easy secret to keep. Calvin had moved to the other side of the continent after graduating from a Midwestern university. We typically saw him once a year, at Christmas.

By the time I received the phone call, Calvin was bedridden, in the last stages of the disease. Of course, I kicked myself for not picking up any signs. But sometimes you see only what you want to see. I never questioned it whenever Calvin would shake off not feeling well as the onset of the flu or a cold.

That last Christmas, I did notice his somberness (we usually kidded each other unmercifully), but attributed it to the emphasis on faith he said he had added to his life. I remember his trying to teach my children a Gospel song he said he had made up himself.

When the phone caller told me Calvin was sick, I immediately made plans to go see him. There, I met the “roommate” who I then knew was Calvin’s partner - the man who made sure he received the best home hospice care available. Only months later, Calvin died. I was glad he had someone who loved him with him during the ordeal. No one should be alone knowing death is so near.

I think of Calvin often. But he’s come to mind a lot more in recent weeks, amid news that a bill to ban gay marriage in Pennsylvania is advancing in the legislature.

It would take a change in the state constitution to make same-sex marriage illegal, an arduous process that may not be achieved. The bill’s sponsors don’t seem to care. They want to discourage any counter attempt to legalize gay marriage in Pennsylvania.

Only Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, but several states, including New Jersey a year ago, have granted same-sex couples civil-union rights.

Civil union, though, often is no substitute for marriage. That was the finding in February of a New Jersey commission that conducted three public hearings to find out how the more than 2,000 couples who had received civil-union licenses have fared. Their anecdotes revealed common problems. For example, same-sex couples are often denied health benefits because of a provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In numerous situations, hospital or social-services personnel either don’t know that they should - or simply refuse to - provide important information or assistance to a spouse in a civil union.

Perhaps, over time and with enough public education, some of these problems would go away. But homosexual couples who don’t want to wait say the real answer is marriage.

And they want it now.

Based on the way I read the Bible - which may not be the way other Christians read it - I could not accept a same-sex couple as being married in the eyes of God. But the Bible also tells me not to mix religion and government. Matthew 22:21 says: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

For government, marriage represents a contract between two adults who have agreed to share a household and attendant responsibilities. There’s nothing particularly holy about having a justice of the peace in a courthouse tie the knot. It’s a legal proceeding that’s called marriage.

A religious ceremony conducted by a member of the clergy under the authority of God is more than a legal proceeding. But it’s called a marriage, too.

My church would not marry same-sex couples, and should not be forced to by government edict. But, to me, that doesn’t mean gay couples should be denied a nonreligious marriage.

Neither I nor my church would recognize them as married under God, but they don’t care about us. They care about getting the taxation, insurance and government-services benefits of being a legal pair.

Some would argue that to condone same-sex marriage in any form is to condone sin. I am no theologian, no preacher, but I do believe that we all sin and that all who don’t repent and put their faith in Christ for salvation will face the same fate. That’s gospel.

That our government gives us the freedom to sin does not absolve us from responsibility for our actions.

Even in those countries we look down on for mixing government and religion, there are sinners. Governments try, but they really can’t legislate what they believe to be moral behavior. Each person will decide what is right, what is wrong, and which path he or she prefers. No government edict will make homosexuality go away. Neither will it be discouraged by ineffective “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rules.

I didn’t think of Calvin and his partner as married, but I never questioned that his partner should be bequeathed whatever Calvin wanted him to have. They had an understanding that was clear to me. I would never use marriage to describe their relationship, but if that’s the word needed for government to recognize a same-sex couple as a legal pair, then let it be. But leave the churches that don’t recognize those “marriages” alone.
Source: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/harold_jackson/20080423_Under_the_Sun__Practical_solution_is_needed.html

Christopher P. Latimer / Guest Column

John McCain is certainly not perfect on gay issues. Even though the senator has been ordained a “maverick,” which occasionally places him at odds with the religious right, gay voters should still maintain a healthy skepticism concerning him.

McCain’s reputation as a maverick is well deserved when one considers the response by conservatives to his status as the Republican presidential nominee. Ann Coulter lambasted McCain as a traitor to conservatives, so much so that she would campaign for Hillary Clinton if he were nominated. Rush Limbaugh has also weighed in on McCain by declaring that his nomination would destroy the Republican Party. And James Dobson, a prominent evangelical Christian leader, said he could not “in good conscience” vote for McCain. Collectively, these comments may provide a basis for the gay community to take a second look at a possible McCain presidency.

McCain has also taken what has been characterized by some in the gay community as a “courageous stand” on a very important gay related issue: same-sex marriage. McCain opposed a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. As a result, evangelical Christians within the Republican Party have used this to attack McCain’s conservative credentials. McCain’s opposition however was not based on any sense of fundamental fairness, equality, or individual rights, but primarily on his long support for state’s rights — a classic conservative stance. Such a position fails to provide any assurances or foundation for protecting LGBT rights.

Acknowledging that McCain supported Arizona’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, James Kirchick in a guest column in April’s The Advocate characterized his position as “regrettable,” but “less relevant” for a senator or president who operates on a national level. This point is debatable, however, as it fails to recognize one of the lesser-discussed constitutional powers provided to the president under our Constitution. The presidential power of appointment under Article II would have greater ramifications for the LGBT community on both the state and federal level. Let me explain. Even if McCain is not actively hostile toward the LGBT community, his cabinet and judicial appointments could have a far greater impact than opposition to a ban on same-sex marriage.

McCain’s selection of attorney general would be significant. The attorney general is the final arbiter when it comes to pursuing legal discrimination claims. Given McCain’s opposition to adding sexual orientation to the Federal Hate Crimes Bill or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act this could have far reaching effects.

The singular most important difference between a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton presidency vs. a McCain presidency concerns the Supreme Court. McCain has expressed his disdain for activist judges and has praised President Bush for nominating individuals who strictly interpret the Constitution. This is code for conservative. McCain has also taken the mandatory pledge to nominate justices who resemble Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Roberts and Alito have yet to rule on a case concerning sexual orientation but it is well known that Scalia and Thomas have been hostile toward gay rights. Both dissented in the landmark case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down same-sex sodomy laws. A McCain nominee has the potential to be on the court for 30 to 40 years.

As a gay Republican, I often get asked why I belong to a party which is openly hostile toward gays. My response is that change will be more likely to occur from within. A McCain presidency would represent a shift from an administration that used gay rights as a campaign tactic to scare moderates and galvanize the Christian right. However, I am not so sure that a more neutral tone would represent a net benefit for us. This doesn’t mean that as a community we should blindly support the Democratic nominee for president, but let’s not be naïve in our evaluation of McCain and what his presidency could do or fail to do for gay rights in America.

Source: http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/OPINION02/804230303

A gay rights organization has withdrawn from a July event scheduled for the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego because owner Doug Manchester is helping fund an initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, known as GLAAD, said it will continue to participate in “Pride Rocks” events at other Hyatts nationwide, but not at the Manchester-owned hotel. The event celebrates gay pride.

Manchester contributed $125,000 to a drive to put a same-sex-marriage ban before voters in November.

Neil Giuliano, president of GLAAD, said in a news release that Manchester’s decision to fund an initiative that would “hurt loving, committed gay couples makes it impossible for us” to take part in an event that promotes his hotel.

Manchester, in a previous interview, said he feels strongly that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but that he welcomes gays and lesbians to his hotel and restaurant. –B.A.

Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080423-0645-1bo23gayrightsmanchester.html

BOOK REVIEW Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law
Special to the Online Edition
by Yasmin Nair
2008-04-23

Written by Nancy D. Polikoff. $24.95; Beacon Press; 259 pages

Vega, a lesbian, left her job to move with her partner, Mala, to Washington. She remained uninsured for five months as she looked for employment; Mala’s job didn’t provide her any insurance because they weren’t married.

Proponents of gay marriage claim that such cases prove why gays should be allowed to marry—in order to access their partners’ benefits. Nancy Polikoff debunks that logic in the simplest terms: “Marriage is not the solution. … The solution is universal health care.”

We have reached a point where the feminist-queer critique of marriage is barely a distant memory. Polikoff points out that, “The shift is so pervasive that the generation of gay and straight young adults who have grown up during the culture war over same-sex marriage has no idea that the gay rights movement was once part of coalition efforts to make marriage matter less.”

Over the last few years, there has been wider resistance to gay marriage in the queer community. Many among us have argued that marriage shouldn’t be the guarantor of something as basic as health care, and that queer commitment is no more special than the worlds that the uncoupled have created for themselves. They can now resort to Nancy Polikoff’s detailed book for supporting counterarguments against the gay marriage crowd, as well as ways in which to craft a system that guarantees basics like health care to everybody, not just the coupled and married.

Beyond ( Straight and Gay ) Marriage is also a history of how marriage, in the United States, came to represent much more than a social or emotional bond. Given her background ( as a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law ) , Polikoff’s more comfortable with legal argument than cultural analysis, but the book is lively and accessible to a general reader. Given the gay marriage movement’s constant use of emotion; panic; and charges of homophobia to bolster support for its cause, her legal depth is both timely and important.

Polikoff takes her microscope to every conceivable situation raised by the gay-marriage crowd, and shows what solutions ( like domestic partnerships that don’t privilege straight or gay ) might have worked already, and what others could be crafted. She reminds us that the gay marriage movement frequently echoes the Right’s agenda about an institution which only grants more powers to the state and patriarchy. So, for instance, gay marriage supporters insist that marriage would mean that their children could grow up in loving and stable homes. How is that any different from the Right’s relentless argument that single mothers and unmarried people will bring about civilization’s end?

It would be one thing if marriage were simply part of the ordinary social relations through which people carry on their lives. The problem begins when so much else of the state’s benefits only go to those who are married. Canada, it turns out, isn’t just the Shangri-La to the north of us with universal health care. Since 2002, Alberta residents have been able to avail of something called the Adult Interdependent Act, where two people in a close relationship ( friends, for instance ) may designate each other as decision-makers in the case of organ and tissue donation, or receive each other’s extended healthcare benefits. And all that’s without a sexual relationship between them. Through a myriad such examples, Polikoff shows why it’s necessary to separate marriage from the state’s responsibilities.

Ultimately, Polikoff tends to privilege institutions like the family and non-profits over and locates resistance only in their terms, as in her mantra that we need to respect all families. While she’s occasionally critical of Lambda Legal and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in their support of gay marriage, she doesn’t extend that critique too far. Yet, these two key queer organizing groups, which supposedly present a progressive alternative to Human Rights Commission on, have greatly enabled the gay marriage agenda and that speaks to the role such organizations play in contemporary queer politics.

Meanwhile, queer independent groups like San Francisco’s Gay Shame or individuals like Mattilda Sycamore Bernstein, who go unmentioned in her book, have constantly resisted that agenda—most significantly in response to Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose politics around marriage disguised his conservative politics around gentrification. Given its deep embededness in formal institutions ( like the law! ) , this is a neoliberal book, but it’s also an important critique of the idea that marriage should organize our lives and our access to the basics.

Nancy Polikoff is appearing at Women and Children First, 5233 N. Clark, Thurs., April 24, at 7:30 p.m.

Yasmin Nair can be reached at welshzen@yahoo.com . She also blogs at www.bilerico.com .

Source: Windy City Times

Florida gay marriage foes launched a 10-city campaign in support of a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in the state, according to the Sun-Sentinal. Amendment 2, which would define marriage as between a man and a woman, will appear on the November ballot. Conservatives are traveling the Sunshine State, primarily visiting Baptist churches in the hopes of garnering additional support. So far, 27 other states in the U.S. have passed anti-gay marriage amendments.

Same-sex marriage in Iowa would increase the state budget by over $5 million each year, according a recent study. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law released research that estimates that permitting same-sex marriage in the Midwestern state would have a positive impact on the state budget—roughly $5.3 million each year due to increases in state income and sales tax, as well as cost savings. Read about the study at www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute .

Source: Windy City Times

Wednesday Apr 23, 2008
Staff of gfn.com

Anti-gay marriage lawmakers won a crucial victory in the Arizona House, where lawmakers on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to a measure to constitutionally define marriage as solely between one man and one woman. If the bill is approved in the state Senate it will appear on the ballot in November.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal under Arizona law.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D) added a clause to the bill that would have granted unmarried couples, both same and opposite-sex, many of the rights of marriage but without the name. Sinema clause stated that gay couples in Arizona “have the right to health care facility visitation, medical decision-making, funeral and burial arrangements, and inheritance.” The clause was later dropped after anti-gay legislators balked.

A final House roll-call vote scheduled for later today will send SCR 1042 to the Senate, which has not yet debated the issue this session.

The procedure maneuver used by supporters of the new version of the gay-marriage ban effectively blocks opponents from trying to amend the measure in the Senate.

The verbiage is attached to an unrelated bill that already has been approved by the Senate. That means senators have only two choices: Approve the House-passed version of the measure or reject it, with no opportunity to amend it.

Voters narrowly rejected a similar measure in 2006, a measure that would have gone well beyond just banning same-sex marriages.

It also would have prohibited governments from providing benefits to the domestic partners of their employees and barred the courts or lawmakers from recognizing “civil unions.”

Tuesday’s action is an important move to putting the issue on the ballot in November.

Source: GFN

Wed, Apr. 23, 2008 Posted: 11:05:08 AM EST

SAN FRANCISCO – A coalition of pro-family groups have achieved their goal of gathering 1.1 million signatures to petition for a measure that would effectively outlaw same-sex “marriage” in the state of California.

The petition drive campaign started earlier this year after the California Supreme Court began to hear the legal arguments for same-sex “marriage.”

If 700,000 signatures are verified by local county registrars, voters will have the option to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a “union between a man and a woman” during the upcoming election in November – effectively nullifying any decision regarding the issue by legislators or courts.

Pro-family groups are optimistic and believe that the majority of voters will decide in November to firmly stand for traditional values and save the institution of marriage.

“We have gone against tremendous odds to do this, and now the voters in California will have the chance to protect marriage,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the California office of the National Organization for Marriage, according to The Associated Press.

“We shouldn’t have to be guessing. This shouldn’t be something left to the court either now or in the future. The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people,” he added.

Many pro-family groups refer to Proposition 22 – a measure approved by over 60 percent of California voters back in 2000 that defined marriage as a “union between a man and a woman” in the state Family Code – as proof of their popular backing, though the measure proved to be dull without a constitutional amendment.

Efforts by pro-family groups will not be entirely without hindrance, however.

Most recently, during a gathering with a group of gay republicans, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that a ballot initiative on same-sex “marriage” was “unnecessary,” and indicated he would do everything within his power to oppose it.

In response, Protect Marriage, a coalition of pro-family groups and a key sponsor of the gay “marriage” ban, accused Schwarzenegger of “flip-flopping.”

“Governor Schwarzenegger’s flip-flopping reveals his false regard for the will of the people of California. More than 61% of California’s voters defined legal marriage as only between a man and a woman with the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000. However, the Legislature’s devotion to special interest groups forces citizens to pursue a constitutional amendment to protect marriage,” the group said in a statement.

“A constitutional amendment is the only way to stop the courts from overturning the will of the voters on this issue. If the Governor truly supports the will of the voters, he would back the amendment. Perhaps he’ll come to realize that we are just protecting the current definition of marriage,” the group added.

So far, 26 other states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex “marriage.”

Massachusetts is currently the only state to allow it.

Alexander J. Sheffrin

Christian Post Correspondent

Source: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080423/32069_Pro-Family_Groups_Make_Way_for_Calif._Gay_’Marriage’_Ban.htm