HONOLULU (AP) Starting Wednesday, many of the benefits available to married people in Hawaii will also be offered to gay couples, siblings and roommates, under a first-in-the-nation law that was enacted to head off homosexual marriages.

Gov. Ben Cayetano allowed the bill to take effect at midnight without his signature.

The law would give any two adults who can’t legally marry the right to share medical insurance and state pensions. They would also get inheritance rights, the right to joint property ownership and the right to sue for wrongful death.

“This is an unprecedented move. It’s the broadest recognition of untraditional marriage ever. But this is not exactly what the gay and lesbian community asked for,” said civil rights attorney Dan Foley, who represents three homosexual couples who are suing the state for the right to marry.

That lawsuit led to a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling in 1993 that it is unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In response to the ruling, the Legislature passed the same-sex benefits bill along with a proposal that would negate the Supreme Court ruling by amending the state constitution to ban gay marriages.

Under the same-sex benefits law, couples don’t even have to know each other, live together, or be state residents to apply. They only have to be 18 and legally barred from marrying each other.

That makes a vast number of people eligible for the benefits, and that’s creating confusion.

“The issues are coming fast and furious on this one,” said Patrick Johnston, spokesman for the state Health Department, which has begun processing applications. “The latest wrinkle is how it affects some federal laws.”

The state expects thousands of couples to apply over the next few months.

Businesses are panicking over how much money they will have to pay for extra medical insurance costs.

The first 25 couples who have applied will receive their benefits certificates this week. A large majority of the couples so far are same-sex.

======================================

New insurance company helps gay couples get marriage benefits (970902)

HONOLULU (AP) — If Dr. Robert Jenkins just mentioned the words gay and lesbian, insurance company doors slammed shut.

Few would take his pink business card. Few would return his phone calls.

As head of an agency trying to help same-sex couples obtain insurance benefits under Hawaii’s new reciprocal benefits law, he’s seen discrimination firsthand.

With a colorful rainbow as its logo, Hawaii-based Pride Insurance & Financial Services Inc. opened for business this summer, just as the new law — the nation’s first — came into effect, giving couples who can’t legally marry a taste of the married life.

A major provision of the law grants insurance benefits to same-gender couples.

So all summer, Jenkins and his nine employees have been on the hunt for companies that will help gays and lesbians who want to sign up for joint life, health and homeowners’ insurance.

So far, they’ve found 16 in the entire nation. The number is small, but it’s enough of a start, Jenkins said.

“A lot of insurance companies won’t even touch gays and lesbians. Let’s just be honest about this. It’s a capitalist society. They don’t have to do anything they don’t want to do,” Jenkins said. “But, we’ve found some insurance agencies that are sympathetic and willing to truly not discriminate.”

But the quest for business has been tough. The first company that Pride Insurance asked to cover homosexual couples, located in Montgomery, Ala., gave it a cold, hard slap in the face, agent Steven Tseu said.

“Their response was we’re Southern rednecks and we frown on that kind of behavior. The next day they called and canceled their contract with us,” Tseu said. “When they turned us down like that it was very discouraging.”

For the last 10 years, Jenkins, who is a gay, was the primary physician for AIDS patients in Los Angeles and saw for the first time how insurance companies discriminate.

His days were filled with finding ways to sneak AIDS patients on some kind of health insurance.

“We can still do that (for gays and lesbians), but let’s not go that way. Let’s just be up front and give the business to companies that truly don’t discriminate,” said Jenkins.

About two clients a day come in to inquire about insurance or how to sign up as beneficiaries under the new law, he said.

The law grants any adult couple who can’t legally marry — gays and lesbians, parent and adult child, siblings and roommates — about 45 of the 400 legal benefits of marriage.

One Pride Insurance client, Daniel Peralta, a 35-year-old contractor employed part-time with the state, said he couldn’t wait to sign up after the law passed. He had no medical insurance and was desperate to be covered under a policy with his partner, Michael Graves.

However, he hit a wall because he had no idea how to go about doing it.

“I tried to look into it on my own. But I thought where do you go? Who do you call?,” Peralta said. Once he was referred to Pride Insurance, everything went smoothly.

“They outlined everything in simple terms, thank God,” he said.

Pride Insurance, which is opening offices in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco, also helps same-sex couples in other states and countries apply to become reciprocal beneficiaries under the Hawaii law, which has no residency requirement.

Having that document can help couples get domestic partnership benefits at work, get hospital visitation rights when a partner is sick, and other benefits, Jenkins said.

The company has begun advertising its services in several gay and lesbian publications across the country.

“It’s sad to need a separate agency for gays and lesbians, but some people are uncomfortable going into an agency where someone says, ‘What about your wife and kids?,’ and you have to say, ‘Well, it’s my boyfriend and my dog.’ Who knows how an agent is going to respond,” Jenkins said.

“Here they know they’re going to be totally accepted,” said Jenkins, who moved from California back to his hometown in Hawaii in April. “It feels good to come home and be out. And to make no apologies.”

======================================

Same-sex couples win court victory (Globe & Mail, 971003)

Judge says insurer must pay life benefit

TORONTO —Gay and lesbian couples scored an important victory yesterday when an Ontario judge declared it is unconstitutional for the survivor of a same-sex couple to be denied life-insurance benefits.

After her companion was killed in a 1993 accident, Kelly Kane challenged an Ontario law that denied her life-insurance benefits.

The law, which mandates a $25,000 benefit be paid to the spouse of someone killed in a motor vehicle accident, excludes couples of the same sex.

A lawyer representing the Attorney General of Ontario defended the law in court last week, arguing that the prohibition was justified because gay couples are less likely to be parents. Therefore the surviving partner would have less need of financial support if one partner is killed.

He also cited recent Supreme Court rulings that limited the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.

But Mr. Justice Douglas Coo, of the Ontario Court, General Division, accepted the argument of Ms. Kane’s counsel that discrimination against same-sex couples could not be justified as reasonable and necessary under the Constitution.

“The denial of equal benefit contained in the legislative provisions is deliberately based only on sexual orientation and runs against the preservation of human dignity and self worth for part of our society,” Judge Coo wrote in his six-page decision.

The legislation “simply carries forward and nurtures now-abandoned stereotypical concepts that have no place in the fabric of our community.”

He also dismissed arguments that some homosexuals would not welcome being granted the same rights and obligations as heterosexual couples. “The fact that some might not want or support the provision of a benefit is neither here nor there,” he declared.

Judge Coo’s decision represents the latest in a confusing series of judicial decisions related to same-sex rights. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that an opposite-sex-only definition of spouse was valid for old-age security. The Ontario Court General Division has upheld the same definition for private pension benefits. But the Ontario Court of Appeal recently ruled a same-sex spouse could be obliged to pay family support.

Judge Coo ordered that Axa Insurance pay the $25,000 benefit, and that the attorney general pay a portion, probably in the range of 40 to 50 per cent, of Ms. Kane’s legal costs. The decision also opens the door for similar couples who have lost a spouse in a motor vehicle accident to receive the benefit.

The decision, if upheld, could have important implications for provincial and federal governments. There are at least 90 statutes in Ontario alone —regulating pensions, employment benefits and government programs —that define a spouse as a member of a heterosexual couple.

If Judge Coo’s reasoning survives appeal, Ontario and other governments across Canada might have to rewrite their laws to include same-sex couples in the definition of spouse.

Barry Wilson, an assistant to Attorney General Charles Harnick, acknowledged yesterday that that “all jurisdictions are struggling with this particular issue in an attempt to find a workable solution for everyone.”

He would not comment on what action the government might take, except to say government lawyers were reviewing the decision and would determine whether to appeal.

The Ontario law was created to cut down on litigation and insurance costs. It specified that all car-insurance policies must contain a $25,000 benefit to be paid to the spouse if the insured was killed in an accident.

Ms. Kane and Ms. Black had lived together for six years and considered themselves spouses. But when Ms. Black was struck and killed by a truck while riding her bicycle, Ms. Kane discovered she was ineligible for the benefit because the law specified only heterosexual couples were entitled.

For Ms. Kane, the decision represented “one step towards the end of a really long fight to gain recognition for my partner and me in our relationship.” Her lawyer, Cynthia Petersen, hoped that, rather than fighting on a case-by-case basis, “the Ontario government will look at this, see that they’re not going to win these battles, and maybe change those 90 other statutes.”

The government argued that expanding insurance benefits to same-sex couples could raise insurance premiums and cost billions of dollars if the new definition is applied to scores of other programs throughout the government.

“If the applicant’s legal position were broadly accepted, it would result in massive new costs for government, private business, and Ontario taxpayers,” government lawyer Peter Landmann maintained during the hearing.

But Judge Coo said his judgment applies only the the auto-insurance law, and maintained the increase in premiums needed to cover same-sex couples would be “minimal.”

======================================

Gay workers have no right to equal benefits (London Times, 980217)

A lesbian couple’s fight for the same perks as others received a setback in the European Court yesterday.

A LESBIAN couple have lost their attempt to have the European Court of Justice extend equal employment rights to homosexuals. The judges said no EU law guaranteed equal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.

The ruling was a surprise to Lisa Grant and Jill Percey because an initial finding from the Luxembourg court in September had upheld the couple’s complaint that South West Trains, Ms Grant’s employer, had wrongfully refused spouse’s travel perks to her partner.

However, the effect of the yesterday’s decision could be temporary, the judges noted, because the Treaty of Amsterdam, not yet ratified, sets the stage for new laws against a much wider range of discrimination, including sexual orientation. The European Commission said yesterday that it was reviewing options for new laws, but realism was needed since all 15 member states had to approve legislation and there were wide differences in attitudes to homosexual partnerships.

Ms Grant, 30, from Eastleigh, Hampshire, said: “It is now up to national governments to change legislation. We believe this was a straightforward case of sex discrimination.” Stonewall, the homosexual rights group that backed the couple, said it was bitterly disappointed. “We think it is wrong, but there is no appeal open to us,” a spokeswoman said. The group would now campaign for a British law outlawing discrimination over sexual orientation, as promised by the Labour Party in its election manifesto, she said.

The Luxembourg judges rejected the argument put by Cherie Booth, QC, acting for the women, that Ms Grant had suffered sexual discrimination when the railway company refused to give travel rights worth about £1,000 to her partner of two years. Unmarried partners of the opposite sex received the benefit. In a speech to the court last July, Ms Booth appealed to the judges to extend to homosexuals the force of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, which covers equal pay for men and women. “The right to human intimacy is a basic human right,” she said.

The court endorsed the argument put by Patrick Elias, QC, the Government’s barrister, that it did not have the power to stretch EU law into a controversial area. “Community law as it stands does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation,” the judgment said.

The court made clear that it was up to governments, not judges, to push the frontiers of EU law into such a delicate area. Only a handful of states gave any form of legal recognition to homosexual partnerships, the judges noted. “In the present state of the law, stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages or stable relationships outside marriage between persons of opposite sex.”

Nicholas Underhill, QC, for South West Trains, said the court had clearly been conscious of the risk of overstepping its powers under the treaty. “It was a bridge too far and they weren’t going to cross it,” he said.

In Ms Grant’s case, no sexual discrimination in the legal sense applied because the railway company also refused travel perks to partners of gay men, the judges said. The case now returns to an industrial tribunal in Southampton which had sought the court’s ruling on the point of European law.

South West Trains said it would discuss the decision with the Association of Train Operation Companies, which represents all the privatised rail firms and is responsible for issuing guidelines on staff travel. “We were seeking the law’s guidance for the whole industry,” a spokeswoman said.

======================================

Gay public servants cheer benefits victory in Canada (960614)

The issue: Employment benefits for homosexuals in the federal government.

What’s new: A human rights tribunal has ruled the government must provide the same medical, dental and other benefits to same-sex couples as it gives opposite-sex couples living common law.

What’s next: Justice Minister Allan Rock must decide whether to appeal the ruling to the Federal Court. If not, it is expected to apply in federally regulated industries, such as banks, railways and airlines.

Ruling expected to have impact in private sector

By Kathryn May and Stephen Bindman Citizen staff and Southam News

A landmark ruling on Thursday does far more than just guarantee gay public servants the same benefits as heterosexual common-law couples.

To Linda Wilson, a gay scientist at Natural Resources Canada, “It allows us to put humanity in our lives and actually perform the responsibilities of taking care of our families.”

To opponents of gay rights, it is confirmation of their fears that a recent amendment to human rights law would lead to a redefinition of the traditional family.

The decision by a Canadian human rights tribunal, if not successfully appealed, will likely also apply to federally regulated businesses such as banks, railways, airlines and telecommunications firms, lawyers say.

It does not cover pensions, the subject of a separate court battle.

The three-member panel said it is now “crystal clear” that it is illegal to deny the same benefits to same-sex partners that would be provided to opposite-sex common-law spouses.

Within 60 days, the federal government must prepare an inventory of all laws and regulations that discriminate against same-sex common-law couples. It must also prepare a “proposal for the elimination of all such discriminatory provisions.”

The sweeping ruling is likely to reignite the debate over gay rights.

Last month, over the objection of many Liberal backbenchers, the Commons voted to add sexual orientation to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in the federal human rights law.

Thursday’s ruling did not specifically involve that amendment. But many of the amendment’s opponents argued that it would inevitably lead to same-sex benefits and a redefinition of the traditional family.

“I said the night after the vote passed I hoped I was wrong,” said Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who voted against the amendment. “I guess today I’m right, and I’m not a happy camper.”

The battle for same-sex benefits in the public service has dragged on for more than a decade. The issue, which proved divisive among union ranks, was fought over at the bargaining table and was the subject of grievances and complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The decision came in test cases involving two public servants:

Dale Akerstrom, an Immigration employee who was denied health and supplementary death benefits in 1992 for his partner, Alexander Dias; and Stanley Moore, a Foreign Service officer who was denied relocation costs for his partner, Pierre Soucy, when he was posted to Indonesia in 1991.

“They were quite willing to pick up these expenses for my cat, Lady Jasmine, but they refused to cover any of the expenses whatsoever of my partner,” said Moore.

“I find that a very sad comment on how they feel about gays and how gays bond with one another.”

There are more than 100 other same-sex benefits cases awaiting hearings by human rights tribunals. The exact scope of Thursday’s ruling, especially for non-government employers, may have to be fleshed out in future cases.

For years, opponents argued that extending benefits to homosexuals would add substantially to the payroll. But Treasury Board estimates it will add only $1.2 million to $2.4 million for health care, and $650,000 to $1.3 million for dental care, to the $10-billion federal wage bill.

Some fear the government could force workers to pay the price in upcoming contract negotiations. Treasury Board has already warned unions that rising medical and dental costs must be reined in or workers could face lower wage increases.

But one Treasury Board official dismissed those fears.

“I would like to think we wouldn’t hammer them on cost because of evolving social justice.”

In November, the government decided to extend some low-cost spousal benefits, such as bereavement, relocation and family leave, to same-sex couples, but withheld the costlier medical, dental and pension benefits.

“Now comes the pensions,” says Joan Cotie, an employee with the Northwest Territories government and a lesbian activist at the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

“Until we are equal with everyone else, we have to keep chipping away at the resistance until we have all the same benefits -and equality,” Cotie said.

Cotie is the partner of a federal public servant who will now be covered by her benefit plans.

“But this was never a money thing ... What makes me so happy is that we will be treated the same as everyone else.”

Cotie says winning benefits won’t change attitudes.

“Just because we receive the same benefits doesn’t mean it will change how we’re treated by co-workers, managers and employers ... and there’s a lot of homophobia still out there.”

Tim Wilson, a Senate committee clerk, said the ruling won’t be enough to bring gays out of the closet because homosexuality “is still a career-limiting move -especially the higher you go.”

Linda Wilson said: “I hope to live with my partner until we’re little old ladies and if society doesn’t help me take care of her it will end up costing society more to do it.”

======================================

Same-sex partners declared ‘spouses’ (Ottawa Citizen, 990521)

Top court ruling expected to topple hundreds of laws

Hundreds of laws denying equality to gays and lesbians are expected to come crashing down across Canada following a Supreme Court ruling yesterday that effectively changes the meaning of spouse to include same-sex couples.

Denying homosexual couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals is an affront to “human dignity” and sends a misguided message that gay relationships do not deserve respect, the court concluded.

The judges, in an 8-1 ruling, struck down as unconstitutional an Ontario family law barring gays and lesbians from seeking alimony when relationships collapse.

“Certainly, same-sex couples will often form long, lasting, loving and intimate relationships,” wrote Justice Peter Cory in what is likely his last ruling before he retires next week.

“The choices they make in the context of those relationships may give rise to the financial dependence of one partner on the other. When a relationship breaks down, the support provisions help to ensure that a member of a couple who has contributed to the couple’s welfare in intangible ways will not find himself or herself utterly abandoned.”

Gay-rights activists embraced, cheered and talked of popping champagne corks in celebration of what they described as the most significant declaration in favour of homosexuals ever handed down by the high court.

“Welcome to a more equal Canada,” a beaming John Fisher, of the group Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, said in the foyer of the Supreme Court with his partner of four years at his side.

The ruling was a defeat for the Conservative government of Mike Harris, who immediately promised to rewrite Ontario family law to abide by the decision. The court gave the government six months to overhaul its impugned family laws.

“It’s not my definition of family,” Mr. Harris said in Hamilton, where he was campaigning for the June 3 election. “But it is others, and the courts have ruled that’s constitutional.”

The decision, the culmination of a seven-year battle between two lesbians from Toronto known as M and H, is expected to affect everything from pensions to property and alimony to adoption across the country.

Several other premiers, including Saskatchewan’s Roy Romanow and Manitoba’s Gary Filmon, also said at a meeting of western premiers that they will go along with the ruling.

British Columbia is the only province that includes same-sex couples in the definition of spouse. Quebec has tabled similar legislation.

The federal government, battered by losses in the lower courts, also is planning to amend 58 statutes at an estimated cost of up to $14 million.

Justice Frank Iacobucci, who wrote the majority opinion with Judge Cory, cautioned that the ruling does not go as far as recognizing gay marriages, but is only intended to put homosexual couples on the same legal footing as common-law couples.

As well, Judge Iacobucci said, the decision does not amount to instant alimony for estranged homosexual couples, but only allows them through the doors of the family courts to seek redress instead of being forced on to welfare.

That, he concluded, is more important that ever, since gays and lesbians are increasingly raising children.

“Although their numbers are still fairly small, it seems to me that the goals of protecting children cannot be but incompletely achieved by denying some children the benefits that flow from a spousal support award merely because their parents were in a same-sex relationship,” said the 182-page ruling, the longest handed down in years.

Justice Charles Gonthier, the lone dissenter in the case, sided with the Ontario government, which had argued that alimony should be reserved for heterosexual relationships to protect women who stay at home to raise children.

“While long-term same-sex relationships may manifest many of the features of long-term opposite-sex relationships, the same dynamic of dependence is not present,”he wrote.

Judge Gonthier, who described the ruling as a “watershed,” disputed his benchmates’ contention that their decision will not open the family courts to other non-traditional couples who live together, such as siblings and friends.

“I believe that the stance adopted by the majority today will have far-reaching effects beyond the present appeal,” he warned. “The majority’s decision makes further claims not only foreseeable but also very likely.”

The decision no longer affects M and H, who had lived together for 10 years before they split up in 1992.

M, who had less than $10 in her bank account when they separated, found she couldn’t sue for support from the wealthier H because Ontario’s Family Support Act defines spouse as a partner of the opposite sex.

The estranged couple settled before the Ontario government took the case to the Supreme Court last year, so the ruling no longer affects them.

M, who considers the decision a symbolic victory, described herself yesterday as an “accidental activist.”

“At the end of the 20th century it is long overdue that lesbian and gay people are not just tolerated in Canadian society, but are recognized and included as full, valuable, participating members,” she said in a statement that her elated lawyer, Martha McCarthy, read at a Toronto news conference.

H also claimed victory because the Supreme Court handed gays and lesbians the right to strike written agreements to opt out of the alimony obligations.

Ontario’s former NDP government had supported M, who had won in the lower courts, but the Tory government, after coming to power, decided to appeal.

Despite pleas yesterday from church groups and others opposed to the decision, Mr.Harris said he would not use the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to override the ruling.

==============================

Landmark gay ruling could affect 1,000 laws Same-sex couples win major victory in Supreme Court (National Post, 990521)

In a landmark ruling that throws an estimated 1,000 laws across the country into question, the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday declared Ontario’s Family Support Act unconstitutional because its definition of a spouse excludes men and women involved in same-sex relationships.

The eight-to-one majority decision, which came after 14 months’ deliberation, upholds an earlier Ontario Court of Appeals finding in favour of a Toronto lesbian known only as M. The woman had argued she was being discriminated against because she did not have the legal right to sue H., her former lover of 10 years, for support.

“The legislation has drawn a formal distinction between the claimant and others, on the basis of a personal characteristic, namely sexual orientation,” Justices Peter Cory and Frank Iacobucci wrote for the majority.

“The exclusion of same-sex partners from the benefits of [the Family Law Act] promotes the view that M., and individuals in same-sex relationships generally, are less worthy of recognition and protection.

“It implies that they are judged to be incapable of forming intimate relationships of economic interdependence compared to opposite-sex couples, without regard to their actual circumstances. Such exclusion perpetuates the disadvantages suffered by individuals in same-sex relationships,” the judges said, ruling the legislation violates the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Martha McCarthy, M.’s chief counsel, hailed the decision as a major victory for all Canadians, not just gays and lesbians.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the equal rights of same sex couples once and for all,” a jubilant Ms. McCarthy told a crowd of supporters and media at a Toronto hotel.

“It is a day for celebration . . . for everyone who cares about the cause of social justice and equality in this country.”

The lawyer compared the decision to landmark civil rights victories for blacks in the United States and women in Canada.

She said the high court’s clear and unequivocal pronouncement in support of homosexual rights sets a precedent that greatly favours future Charter challenges against laws that differentiate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Ms. McCarthy said her client, who has chosen to remain anonymous, is relieved to finally see the end of her six-year legal struggle.

In a written statement, M. described the case as the culmination of her lifelong battle against prejudice.

“At the end of the 20th century, it is long overdue that lesbian and gay people are not just tolerated in Canadian society, but are recognized and included as full, valuable, participating members,” she wrote. “This decision will bring us one step closer to that goal.”

In the wake of the ruling, organizations representing gays and lesbians called on all governments in Canada to bring their family laws into line with the spirit of the judgment. After an almost unbroken series of significant court victories for those seeking equality for homosexuals, politicians can no longer duck their responsibility to reform legislation that treats same-sex couples differently from heterosexual ones, they said.

“Where are the politicians?” asked Michelle Douglas, president of the Foundation for Equal Families, a national group that launched a Charter challenge against 58 federal laws this winter. “It’s perplexing to us. How many more times do we have to come to them? How many more times do we need these strong, decisive decisions of the Supreme Court?”

Despite the ringing claims of victory, however, the immediate and long-term effects of the ruling are still far from clear.

While the Supreme Court accepted M.’s lawyers’ claim of discrimination, it stopped short of agreeing to their demand that it rewrite the definition of spouse to include gays and lesbians. Instead, the justices have temporarily suspended their decision to strike down the law for six months to give Ontario legislators time to amend the offending section of the legislation.

Mike Harris, the Ontario Premier, said he has discussed the case with the other first ministers, adding that all provincial governments will respect the ruling.

“We indicated we will comply and we will,” said the premier. “We’ll respect the Constitution.”

Mr. Harris refused to offer any insight as to whether his party intends to modify the 90 or so other provincial statutes, including adoption, marriage, and pension laws.

At the Western Premiers’ Conference in Drumheller, Alta., Gary Filmon, the Manitoba Premier, said: “I don’t think it’s a hot button issue in Manitoba but we will respect the Supreme Court’s views and implement whatever changes need to be made if any.”

Roy Romanow, the Premier of Saskatchewan, said his province is already “ well along the lines of complying” with the decision.

“I think it’s very good news,” said Glen Clark, British Columbia’s Premier. “It’s 1999 and it’s time we treated people with equity and dignity regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Martha Bailey, a Queen’s University professor of family law, said provincial governments are faced with two options —they can follow the narrowest possible interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision and modify only their family support laws, or they can read the writing on the wall and make the broader changes suggested by the spirit of the ruling.

“Legislators across the country have been very reluctant to act in this area because it has been considered politically risky,” said Prof. Bailey.

But yesterday’s decision might be too clear to ignore, she added.

“M. v. H. certainly puts the pressure on,” said Prof. Bailey. “I think it’s adding to the conversation at a time when societal attitudes are changing.”

Not everyone was pleased with the ruling, however. Some things are not meant to be changed, said advocates for the traditional family.

“We don’t believe that the court . . . should be deciding on matters of fundamental social policy,” said Peter Stock of the Canadian Family Action Coalition. “There are good reasons that society has for imposing these restrictions. The primary one, the most important one, is for the protection and promotion of good child-rearing. The husband and wife family situation is the best environment in which to be raising children.”

==============================

Dissenting judge shies away from spotlight Justice Gonthier (National Post, 990521)

Elena Cherney

Until yesterday, Justice Charles Gonthier, while more conservative than most of his peers on social issues, stood solidly in the middle of a bloc of justices who were not yet ready to grant gay couples equal rights.

But yesterday, the Montreal-born judge known for his caution showed his hesitation to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to override legislation and became the court’s lone opponent of equal status for gay couples.

Justice Gonthier’s position on the landmark M. v. H. case surprised some court-watchers, in part because they say the judge is not known for striking out on his own, noted Peter McCormick, a political science professor at the University of Lethbridge.

“He hasn’t authored as many judgments” as most other justices, said Carl Baar, a professor of political science at Brock University. “But he’s very active intellectually.”

In 1993, when the Supreme Court issued its first ruling on gay rights, Justice Gonthier concurred with the majority that Brian Mossop, a gay federal employee, did not face discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act when Ottawa failed to give him a paid day off to attend his partner’s father’s funeral. At that time, only three Justices, Claire L’Heureux-Dube, Peter Cory, and Beverly McLachlin, dissented from the majority opinion.

The court’s opposition to granting gay couples equal rights began to crumble with the Egan-Nesbit case in 1995, said Prof. McCormick.

While the long-time male partners lost in their attempt to gain the same spousal pension benefits as heterosexual couples, four justices —L’Heureux-Dube, Cory, McLachlin, and Frank Iacobucci —dissented, affirming their recognition of gay rights and creating a bare 5-4 majority against the two men.

But several strong voices on the bench rose to make a case against recognizing gay relationships. Justice John Sopinka argued that treating homosexual and heterosexual couples alike is “a novel concept” in the public mind and that it was therefore reasonable for the court to maintain the status quo.

But the death of Justice Sopinka and the retirement of Justice Gerard Laforest —who once wrote that a heterosexual couple has a special status because family law is grounded in the reproductive unit —altered the balance on the court, said Prof. McCormick.

“The old minority of the court” —those already prepared to see homosexual couples placed on equal footing with heterosexuals —”has won over the newcomers,” said Prof. McCormick. New justices Ian Binnie and Michel Bastarache concurred yesterday with the majority opinion, which was written by Justices Cory and McLachlin.

The same two justices also wrote the opinion in last year’s ruling on a Alberta teacher who was fired because he was gay. In the Delwin Vriend case, the court unanimously ruled that Alberta evaded its Charter duty to prevent discrimination against gays.

But that case, noted Prof. Baar, did not deal with the relative rights of homosexual and heterosexual couples. And when it comes to homosexual couples, Justice Gonthier departs from his colleagues to argue that gays are not entitled to all of the same consideration as heterosexuals.

Child-bearing, opposite-sex relationships, Justice Gonthier argues, are “fundamentally different” from same-sex relationships.

That argument recalls a concept which Justice Gonthier espoused during his tenure on the bench of the Quebec Superior Court and Quebec Court of Appeals.

Justice Gonthier was a proponent of the “similarly situated” test for equality, said Julius Grey, a Montreal constitutional lawyer and McGill University law professor. According to that standard, discrimination can only be seen to have been perpetrated if the alleged victim was “virtually the same” in every respect as those who were allegedly favoured.

Justice Gonthier, who was named to the Quebec Superior Court bench in 1974, displayed a typical Quebec preference for allowing legislators rather than judges to change laws. “He has less of a tendency to insert the Charter into areas where it had not been before,” said Prof. Grey.

The Quebec government is expected to introduce broad legal changes next month to expand the legal rights of gays and lesbians.

While Justice Gonthier tends to be socially conservative, and writes mostly on tax, insurance, and corporate matters, he could not be classified as extreme in his positions, said Prof. Baar. When the Supreme Court was called to convene an emergency summer panel to consider the case of Chantal Daigle, the Quebec woman whose former boyfriend had obtained an injunction barring her from aborting his child, Justice Gonthier chaired the panel, and the injunction was overturned.

Justice Gonthier would never be swayed by the opinions of other justices or the mood of the public to support a position with which he disagreed, said Judge Joseph Mendelson, a McGill University law school classmate of Justice Gonthier.

“He’s a man that has always had a mind of his own,” said Judge Mendelson. “He didn’t go with the mob.”

==============================

The legal evolution of same-sex spousal rights (National Post, 990521)

Elena Cherney

The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly been moving toward granting gay couples the same rights as heterosexual ones over the last decade, according to legal experts.

“The Supreme Court has done a good job on gay rights in signalling where they’re going,” says Peter McCormick, a political science professor at Brock University.

Lower courts, provincial legislatures, and various other bodies have been moving in the same direction.

It was the Ontario Court of Appeal that began the process of recognizing gay couples in August 1992, when it ruled in the case of Graham Haig and Joshua Birch. The court decided the federal government’s refusal to provide legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation infringed upon equality rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Less than one month later, a human rights tribunal ruled that same-sex spouses are entitled to collect survivor pension benefits. In that instance, Michael Leshner, a gay lawyer with the Ministry of the Attorney General, had filed a complaint on behalf of his live-in partner.

An Ontario provincial court judge also beefed up the rights of gay couples by finding Ontario’s legal definition of “spouse” to be a violation of the charter and then granting adoption rights to four lesbian couples.

But the judgment that really prepared the ground for the M. v. H. ruling, says David Rayside, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto and author of On the Fringe: Gays and Lesbians in Politics, was in the 1995 Egan-Nesbit case.

The gay couple had been together since 1947 and sued the federal government to obtain the same old-age benefit rights as heterosexual couples.

While the court called the discrimination justifiable because equating homosexual and heterosexual unions was “a novel concept,” the justices agreed the British Columbia couple was discriminated against; even the four dissenting judges wrote that they recognized the rights of gays and lesbians.

“Egan and Nesbit was the set-up for M. v. H.,” says Prof. Rayside.

While yesterday’s ruling in M v. H grants gay couples a new legal standing, it will not necessarily encourage homosexual couples to press for the right to marry, says Prof. Rayside.

Common-law heterosexual relationships have gained such widespread legal and social acceptance in Canada that few gays see the need to lobby for gay marriage ceremonies, he says.

==============================

Ruling alters way marriage viewed:family law expert Implications seen for adoptions, pensions, property rights (National Post, 990521)

Anne Marie Owens

The Supreme Court is engaging in “massive social engineering” in a landmark gay-rights ruling that could trickle down to property rights, adoption, and possibly even a redefinition of marriage, a family law expert says.

“What the court is doing with nine people is changing the way we view a socially valued institution,” said James McLeod, a lawyer with a family law practice in London, Ont., who also teaches at the University of Western Ontario.

Mr. McLeod said this judgment, and several others by the Supreme Court, shows the law is increasingly concerned with making sure people live up to their obligations to their families, while at the same time extending and drastically altering the very definition of the family.

Interpreted broadly, the judgment —which says that “spouse” should be defined as including same-sex partners —has far-reaching implications for property rights, custody and support, adoption, pension, and all manner of employment benefits, he said.

And, at its extreme, it could even change the rules about who is eligible to get married.

“Right now, if you are a same-sex couple, you can’t get married,” said Mr. McLeod. “This puts that into debate.”

The ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday found Ontario’s Family Law Act unconstitutional in denying homosexual couples the right to apply for alimony.

And although the majority decision is careful to point out that the ruling “does not challenge traditional conceptions of marriage,” it has provoked speculation among family law experts and traditional family values groups about the fate of the institution.

“This is not something that the average Canadian is clamouring for,” said Diane Watts, a spokeswoman for REAL Women.

Bob Glossop, spokesman for the Vanier Institute of the Family, said this ruling could force an even wider gulf between what he calls the “functional definition” of spouse and what it means to be married in a traditional sense.

He cited the example of other countries, which use terms such as “domestic partnerships” for all legal definitions in regards to relationships, and then leave to the churches and other traditional authorities the ability to confer marriage.

“It’s an evolution that’s been apparent for the last 20 years, this move from spousal as a definition apart from marriage,” Mr. Glossop said.

In fact, he said, the definition of marriage, and the rules accompanying who is eligible and who is not, could end up being a bargaining chip to protect the institution from a growing wave of erosion of traditional rights.

“This could be an out in that: ‘If we give you all the legal rights of a married person, are we allowed to retain the institution of marriage?’ “ suggested Mr. McLeod.

Joel Miller, another lawyer who specializes in family law, said the distinctions between the rights of same-sex couples and heterosexual couples —rights that include pensions, insurance claims, and a wide range of employment benefits —have been gradually narrowing, until the distinction now is quite small.

He said one of the key issues that remain is property rights, a distinction that will become increasingly difficult to justify in the context of this ruling.

“There will now be more concern by family values and religious groups because property rights may be the last legal distinction,” he predicted.

Another side effect of the ruling is that any government or institution that is reluctant to extend rights to homosexual couples, may now be just as reluctant to extend any rights to heterosexual couples, because the two have become so linked by this judgment.

Mr. McLeod said that even though this ruling focuses solely on one aspect of Ontario’s family law, it has massive implications for all family law in Ontario and other provinces, and even for federal laws dealing with family issues.

He calls it the homogenization of law, because of the way that federal rulings are increasingly dictating provincial court rules.

==============================

High court reopens battle between judges, politicians Ruling reignites debate over court’s role in setting law (National Post, 990521)

Luiza Chwialkowska

By ordering the Ontario government to extend the legal definition of spouse to include same-sex partners, a move that the Ontario Legislature debated and rejected five years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada has engaged in the most flagrant example of “judicial activism” to date, critics say.

The M. v. H. decision yesterday reignited a debate among legal scholars over whether the court is motivated more by the judges’ personal political views than by the law.

“It certainly is judicial activism,” said Rainer Knopff, a law professor at the University of Calgary. “The court is effectively doing what the Ontario Legislature refused to do.”

A debate over the balance of power between courts and legislatures has emerged since the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms gave courts the right to strike down legislation. The exercise of this power aroused much controversy when, for example, a B.C. court ruled that possession of child pornography was protected under the Constitution, and when the Supreme Court ordered Alberta to extend human rights protection to homosexuals.

Defenders of the court say it’s the subject matter of such decisions, and not the rulings or the process, that create the controversy.

“Every time the Supreme Court hands down a decision that a certain part of the community doesn’t like, they call it judicial activism,” says Errol Mendes, director of the Human Rights Research Centre at the University of Ottawa.

“There are no raving political dictums being thrown into this decision,” says Mr. Mendes. “It’s based on fine legal analysis.”

Lorraine Weinrib, a University of Toronto law professor, says the Ontario Legislature created a liberal policy when it made spousal support obligations applicable to common-law relationships, and binding on both men and women.

“It is the Ontario Legislature that created this support obligation as gender neutral, and arising outside of marriage, and did not tie it to whether there were children in the relationship,” she said. “All the court is doing is superimposing on the legislation the charter requirement of equality,” she said.

But critics say since gay rights are not explicitly written into the charter, the judges exercised a good deal of discretion.

“I don’t believe that the charter is clear on this issue. One could have easily interpreted the charter to sustain the law,” says Prof. Knopff. “Of course [the judges] are reading their own predilections into this.”

As recently as 1995, the court decided not to extend spousal rights to a same-sex couple. Since then, the composition of the court has become more liberal-minded, says Ted Morton, a political scientist at the University of Calgary.

“What has changed since 1995 is the judges. One has died and one has retired, and they have been replaced by people with different views on gay rights,” he says.

“It’s now obvious for all to see that these decisions have nothing to do with the Charter of Rights, and everything to do with the judges,” said Prof. Morton. “There’s never been a more undemocratic decision than this . . . I think this is probably the most activist decision to date.”

Prof. Knopff says the judges might have prematurely pre-empted the electorate on redefining gay rights.

“There is a policy debate going on about the extent to which benefits that married couples have should be extended to non-married folk. The danger of this ruling is that it risks derailing the debate,” says Prof. Knopff.

But not all decisions can be left to politicians, says Patrick Monahan, professor at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University.

“The idea inherent in having an entrenched charter is that there has to be more than a majority vote in a legislature [to limit minority rights]. There have to be principled arguments as to why same-sex spouses should not be treated differently,” said Prof. Monahan. “Now the court’s assessment of the justification for limiting same-sex rights has changed,” he said.

==============================

The majority opinion (National Post, 990521)

Karina Roman

“The definition [of ‘spouse’] clearly indicates that the legislation decided to extend the obligation to provide spousal support beyond married persons . . . The obligation was extended to include those relationships which: Exist between a man and a woman; Have a specific degree of permanence; Are conjugal . . . Same-sex relationships are capable of meeting the last two requirements. Certainly same-sex couples will often form long, lasting, loving, and intimate relationships. The choices they make in the context of those relationships may give rise to the financial dependence of one partner on the other . . . Although there is evidence to suggest that same-sex relationships are not typically characterized by the same economic and other inequalities which affect opposite-sex relationships, this does not explain why the right to apply for support is limited to heterosexuals . . . Discrimination exists because of the exclusion of persons from the regime on the basis of an arbitrary distinction, sexual orientation . . . It would be consistent with Charter values of equality and inclusion to treat all members in a family relationship equally and all types of family relationships equally . . . this appeal does not challenge traditional conceptions of marriage, as Section 29 of the Act expressly applies to unmarried opposite-sex couples.”

==============================

The dissenting opinion (National Post, 990521)

“The statute’s preamble refers to the desirability of encouraging and strengthening the role of the family and recognizing marriage as a form of partnership. The statements made in the Legislature when amendments were introduced to extend support obligations to certain unmarried cohabiting opposite-sex couples indicate that these were premised on the social reality that such relationships exhibit a dynamic of dependence, which often arises because the couple has children and the mother is the primary caregiver . . . While long-term same sex relationships may manifest many of the features of long-term opposite-sex relationships, the same dynamic of dependence is not present. Lesbian relationships are characterized by a more even distribution of labour, a rejection of stereotypical gender roles, and a lower degree of financial interdependence than is prevalent in opposite-sex relationships . . . Cohabiting opposite-sex couples are the natural and most likely site for the procreation and raising of children. This is their specific, unique role . . . While individuals must be treated with equal respect and must not be discriminated against on the basis of the stereotypical application of irrelevant personal characteristics, the state is not barred from recognizing that some relationships fulfil different social roles and have specific needs .”

==============================

California voters pass ban on same-sex marriage (CNN, 000308)

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California voters Tuesday passed a measure that said only marriages between men and women would be recognized in their state, a step that gay activists slammed as an assault on human rights.

Exit polls showed a 58 to 42% victory for supporters of “Prop. 22” who maintained that it preserved the traditional family. The proposition amends the state’s Family Code to say that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The ballot measure sparked one of the bitterest fights of the campaign in California, which became the latest of some 30 states to explicitly ban same-sex marriage.

Known as the “Knight Initiative” after its sponsor, Republican state Sen. Pete Knight, Prop. 22 was cast as an effort to protect California from court moves in other states — notably Vermont — which could lead to legally recognized same-sex unions.

Supporters, which included Catholic and Mormon groups, Republican leaders and some Hispanic organizations, took pains to avoid explicitly anti-gay rhetoric, saying instead that they were simply seeking to ensure the survival of the traditional family.

“If you define marriage as being between two men, you really have to take the next step and define it as being whatever people want it to be,” said Brian Kennedy, a political analyst at the conservative Claremont Institute.

“If you say to the polygamist you cannot have two wives and two husbands, they’ll say based on what?”

But gay activists and other opponents said the measure was really an attempt to promote anti-gay discrimination, arguing that defining gay relationships as second class by law would promote fear and violence toward gay people.

With gay marriage already ruled out under the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act, there was no need to do the same thing under California state law, they said.

“Anti-gay violence does not happen in a vacuum. It happens in a climate of fear, ignorance and intolerance — the very climate the Knight Initiative fosters,” Judy Shepard, whose gay son Matthew was beaten to death on Wyoming in 1998, said in a statement condemning the measure.

==============================

B.C. fights ban on gay marriage Decision may lead to overturning of federal law (National Post, 000721)

VANCOUVER - British Columbia’s NDP government is asking the B.C. Supreme Court to declare that same-sex couples can marry — the first province to formally challenge the federal government on the issue.

A successful ruling could knock down federal legislation barring same-sex marriages and would force the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on the matter.

As recently as May, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada suggested the rights of gays and lesbians should be the same as those of heterosexual couples.

British Columbia yesterday filed its petition seeking the declaration, prompted in part by two Victoria women who were denied a marriage licence in May.

One of those women, Cynthia Callahan, sits on the board of directors of the national organization Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, which announced yesterday that it would be jointly filing a petition on the issue before the B.C. Supreme Court.

Unlike the province, the EGALE petition names the federal government as a respondent. That will force Ottawa to send a representative to court to speak to the issue.

“It’s clear the time has come for same-sex couples to be recognized equally in all aspects of our lives. That includes the right to [marriage],” said John Fisher, executive director for EGALE.

Andrew Petter, Attorney-General of British Columbia, said yesterday that the province is simply following through on legislative changes it has enacted to support same-sex couples.

“We are a society that prides [itself] on a value of equality apart from the law. To deny same-sex couples the same opportunity to enter into a civil relationship afforded couples of the opposite sex seems a simple denial of fundamental equality,” said Mr. Petter.

However, some observers suggested yesterday that the NDP government, lagging in the polls and facing an election within a year, is trying to rally its traditional supporters to shore up the political base it will require by voting day.

Dr. Norman Ruff, a political scientist at the University of Victoria, said the NDP seems to be working a “hot button” issue to cause trouble within the ranks of the provincial B.C. Liberal party, whose members include many social conservatives. “It’s an issue that helps clearly demarcate the NDP from the Liberals, and creates mischief in the Liberal coalition,” said Dr. Ruff.

Barry Penner, deputy justice critic for the B.C. Liberals, said the issue will not divide the Liberal caucus. “We won’t allow it to,” he said. “We respect each other’s point of view.”

When Ms. Callahan, 36, and her partner Judy Lightwater, 49, sought a marriage licence their application was deferred while the director of vital statistics for Victoria sought legal clarification. Eventually, he concluded they could not get married due to the current common law.

The couple are still headed for the altar. They have scheduled a July 29 ceremony. Ms. Callahan said she expects the B.C. court challenge to prevail and that she and her partner will marry again in a legally sanctioned ceremony.

British Columbia is arguing that federal common law defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. However, this definition is likely to be changed by the courts due to recent equality decisions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the province argues.

==============================

‘Gay marriage’ law outrages Vermont voters Governor faces backlash (National Post, 001000)

LYNDONVILLE, Vt. -Vermont’s decision earlier this year to become the first U.S. state to give gay couples many of the same rights as married people has sparked a growing rebellion that could end up costing the Governor and much of the legislature their jobs.

Howard Dean, the Governor, is trying for his fifth two-year term. But everywhere the Democrat goes he is greeted by signs saying, “Take Back Vermont” and “Howard the Coward” as outraged voters protest the new law.

“We’re going to vote out all the people who voted for this bill,” vowed Clayton Placey, 76.

Recent polls show slightly more than half of voters oppose the law, and five Republicans who supported civil unions were defeated in primaries.

Mr. Dean is locked in a tight race with Ruth Dwyer, a conservative Republican who is adamantly opposed to civil unions. The outraged reaction to civil unions is a surprise to many because Vermont has long had a reputation of quirky exceptionalism.

The state is represented by the only Socialist in the House of Representatives, who also happens to be a gun-control skeptic. Its Republican senator is one of the most liberal members of the Grand Old Party.

Much of the state’s leftward tilt comes from a flood of well-heeled, tie-dyed refugees from other states —known pejoratively as flatlanders —who have tried to remake the Green Mountain State in their own image. Outsiders now make up 40% of the state’s population, including all three candidates for governor.

It is one of the most environmentally aware U.S. states, where cellphones barely work because of restrictions on mountaintop transmission towers, where the tacky billboards that line highways elsewhere are unknown, and where an attempt by Wal-Mart to open a store was greeted with years of fierce litigation.

But now the old Vermonters are fighting back and using the issue of civil unions to protest everything they do not like about the way their state has changed, from rising real estate prices to a statewide property tax to fund education.

“Vermont has slowly changed from a very conservative state to a liberal fascism kind of government where everyone wants the government to do everything,” said Ken Davis, a 50-year-old contractor who was hauling “Take Back Vermont” signs out of his red pickup at the site of a recent gubernatorial candidates debate.

The civil union issue was foisted on the government by the state Supreme Court, which ruled last year it was a violation of the state constitution to deny same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

The ruling provoked an outcry. Twenty-five thousand Vermonters signed a petition against civil unions. When town meetings were held, not a single town supported civil unions.

Despite the backlash, the legislature passed a compromise that gave gay couples many of the same rights without calling their new status marriage.

“Howard Dean and the legislators who pushed the bill through are responsible for a condescending and fundamentally undemocratic act,” said Frank Bryan, a political science professor at the University of Vermont.

But for the minority that supports civil unions, the law is simply another in a long line of civil rights firsts that began when Vermont became the first state to outlaw slavery.

“I just think it was an amazing, courageous thing for the state of Vermont to do,” said Paul Amell, a 42-year-old gay who testified before the state legislature on the subject.

“Someone finally had the balls to stand up for what they believe in.”

The new law has been a hit with gays around the United States, who have streamed to Vermont to give their relationships official sanction.

Since the law was passed, more gay couples have obtained civil union certificates than heterosexual couples have been married, and three-quarters of the same-sex couples are from out-of-state.

Mr. Dean stresses that many European countries, including the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark already have similar laws. In Canada, the Supreme Court has suggested the rights of gays and lesbians should be the same as those of heterosexual couples.

But Vickie Hall, a town clerk, said she would still refuse to issue a licence to a gay couple, although so far no same-sex ceremonies have been performed in her rural part of the state.

For the moment, the civil union law is here to stay. Even if Mr. Dean loses and the legislature becomes Republican, the Supreme Court is unchanged, meaning the original ruling on treating gays and heterosexuals equally still stands.

==============================

Loophole may allow world’s first gay marriage ‘No gender distinction’: Tradition of banns will legalize unions, Toronto church says (National Post, 001205)

An Ontario church is using an ancient Christian tradition in a bid to make Canada the first country in the world to legalize a homosexual marriage.

The Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto is using the tradition of publishing marriage banns so it can marry a same-sex couple.

The church believes it can carry out the marriage legally using a loophole in the Ontario Marriage Act that allows people to be married in two ways.

The customary practice is to obtain a marriage licence from City Hall and be married by a justice of the peace or a clergyman.

But under Section 5 of the Act, a couple can go to their local parish and be granted a marriage licence through the publication of marriage banns.

The banns involve publishing the names of the intended couple on the three Sundays preceding a marriage.

The strategy turns on one word in Section 5, which states: “Any person who is of the age of majority may obtain a licence or be married under the authority of the publication of banns, provided no lawful cause exists to hinder the solemnization.”

Douglas Elliott, president of the International Lesbian and Gay Law Association and legal counsel for the church, said, “You’ll notice that there is no gender distinction there. It’s any ‘person.’ “

Mr. Elliott believes it is this loophole that will allow a same-sex marriage to be performed at the church.

By using the strategy, the Metropolitan Community Church hopes to make Canada the first country to legally marry a same-sex couple.

While same-sex couples are recognized in Canada as having all the rights and obligations of common-law partners, they cannot legally marry.

In Vermont, same-sex couples can obtain a civil union, bestowing only some of the rights a marriage would, but such a civil union is not recognized federally or outside the state.

When Rev. Brent Hawkes, of the MCC, made the announcement about his plans for issuing same-sex marriage licences during the 11 a.m. service last Sunday, the entire MCC congregation —450-plus parishioners, 85% of whom are homosexual —broke into applause.

“Until now we have felt restricted from acting on our beliefs by what we thought was a legitimate impediment regarding same-sex weddings,” Mr. Hawkes said. “Being called by God to marry same-sex couples, we recently sought legal advice and as a result we have changed our position on the legality of same-sex marriages.

“Marriage banns mean that for the three Sundays preceding the date of the ceremony the church would announce that so-and-so and so-and-so are getting married, and ask, ‘Does anyone have any objections?’

“I don’t expect to get any objections,” Mr. Hawkes said. “The purpose of the banns is to see if there are cases, for instance, where someone is known to already be married and not divorced. Or is marrying their father or mother. The objections must be based on legal grounds,” he said.

The marriage banns and marriage also have to take place in a church one member of the couple attends.

“So Toronto would not become the Reno of same-sex marriages, as I heard suggested this morning,” Mr. Elliott said.

Mr. Hawkes added, “If someone gets up and says I object to this marriage because I think it’s wrong for homosexuals to marry, that’s not a legitimate objection. I would not treat that as valid and we would proceed with the ceremony.”

Mr. Elliott said the Netherlands was the most progressive society regarding same-sex marriages, where a bill allowing homosexual marriage has passed through the initial stages of Parliament and is awaiting assent in the Senate.

“People in the Netherlands will be getting marriage licences next year,” Mr. Elliott said. “[The MCC] hopes to beat them to the punch and to be the first.”

Brenda Cossman, a professor of law, specializing in family law, from the University of Toronto, said, “The history of the publication of the banns was to maintain the jurisdiction that the churches always had over marriage.

“My own thinking on this was that it was only a question of time before somebody thought to try to use the publication of the banns to recognize same-sex marriage. Because all you have to do is get a church to say they are prepared to marry these folks, they would issue the banns, and that would be it, they would be married.

“But this is where marriage law gets a little bit complicated because the province doesn’t really have very much jurisdiction over marriage, the federal government has most of the jurisdiction but has never used any of that jurisdiction.”

The federal and provincial governments are now arguing about who has responsibility as well as the definition of “person.”

“I’ve asked the legal branch of the ministry to give me some advice,” said Bob Runciman, Minster of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the branch of the Ontario government responsible for marriages.

“[The church] is trying to push the envelope and bring attention of this issue. But they are pushing the envelope with the wrong people because it is a federal matter,” Mr. Runciman said.

“[The provincial government] presides over the solemnization of marriage —performing the ceremony, who will marry you and how. But in terms of who has the right to marry, that falls under the federal jurisdiction and we take our direction from the federal government on that matter.”

The Department of Justice Canada, however, insists that it is an Ontario law that is in question and the federal government therefore will not get involved in clarifying its legality.

“I wouldn’t say it was legal or illegal,” said Farah Mohamed, spokeswoman for the federal Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan.

“In bill C-23, extending benefits and obligations to same-sex couples, the federal government has been very, very clear about the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman ... You would have to ask the Ontario government about the definition of person.”

The Metropolitan Community Church has existed in Toronto for 26 years and is a member of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, established in Los Angeles in 1968 by Rev. Troy Perry when he was removed from his Pentecostal church for being gay.

==============================

Traditionalists fear same-sex unions legitimize polygamy (Washington Times, 001213)

Will Vermont’s civil-union law open the door to alternative unions, such as polygamy, in America?

Some trend-watchers say yes; that once the one-man, one-woman model of traditional marriage is broken, anything — same-sex “marriage,” polygamy, group marriage — is possible.

“Once gay male couples with open sexual relationships or lesbian couples with de facto families are legally ‘married,’ the way will be open to even more imaginative combinations,” Hudson Institute scholar Stanley N. Kurtz wrote in September’s Commentary magazine.

“On what grounds, for instance, could the sperm donor and aging rock star David Crosby be denied the right to join in matrimony with both the lesbian rock singer Melissa Etheridge and her lover, Julie Cypher, the ‘mothers’ of his child?” asked Mr. Kurtz, an anthropologist who predicted that supporters of “polyamory” or group marriages, would soon seek legal recognition for their relationships.

Other trend-watchers reject such scenarios.

There’s a trend toward recognizing family diversity, but the “slippery-slope argument” — that same-sex “marriages” will lead to polygamous marriages — “is flawed,” said Dorian Solot of the Alternatives to Marriage Project in Boston.

“I think the idea that there is some kind of slippery slope here is silly,” said Matt Coles, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project in New York.

Blacks and interracial couples were once forbidden to marry in this country, but Utah had to outlaw polygamy before it could be admitted as a state, said Mr. Coles.

“So what our history says to us,” he said, “is when we rethink the law and relationships, we do it intelligently, looking at the specific issue in front of us. Doing one thing doesn’t lead to sliding down on all sorts of others.”

“When gay men and lesbians seek the equal right to marry, they seek access to the same institution that the government has set up for heterosexual couples . . . and that’s a loving, committed relationship between two people,” said Ruth E. Harlow of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Moving from a dyadic or pair relationship to a poly-relationship isn’t at all likely, she said, adding that “people who voice these sentiments are not giving the American people enough credit.”

Polygamy is, in fact, more common historically than monogamy, said David Murray, an anthropologist at the Statistical Assessments Service (STATS) in the District.

In the last century, as countries have modernized, moved away from agricultural cultures and/or accepted Christian influences, they have “moved in the direction of the monogamous nuclear family,” said Mr. Murray.

However, until the 1900s, about 75% of the world’s 5,000 societies were polygamous “if not in practice, then at least in ideal,” he said.

In the United States, polygamy is illegal, but it exists unofficially, with an estimated 30,000 to 80,000 people living as polygamists in the West.

Typically, these families are Mormon fundamentalists or Christian patriarchal groups that maintain polygamy is a time-honored and scriptural practice.

The Mormon church once practiced polygamy, but officially disavowed it in 1890.

Utah law enforcement officials are cracking down on polygamous families and have charged one Utah man, Tom Green, of bigamy, criminal nonsupport and child rape.

Mr. Green, 52, who has gone on TV talk shows to talk about his multiple wives and 28 children, says he has done nothing wrong because the women are his “spiritual” wives.

It’s families like Mr. Green’s that some people fear will become accepted as a result of Vermont’s civil-union law, which gives homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples in Vermont.

Since July 1, Vermont has issued civil-union licenses to 340 Vermont couples and 1,099 couples from out-of-state, a spokeswoman in the Vermont Vital Records office said last week.

It is widely expected that some of the non-Vermont couples will sue to have their civil unions recognized in their home states.

If they are successful, civil unions could become legal across America, and this, warns Mr. Kurtz and others, is what paves the path for other nontraditional unions.

In October 1999, for instance, California businessman Ron Unz used this argument to persuade Californians to vote for a law to limit marriage to a man and a woman. “Legalizing gay marriages today means legalizing polygamy or group marriages tomorrow,” Mr. Unz said in the San Francisco Chronicle.

In 1996, when “marriage” between homosexuals was being debated in Congress, William J. Bennett, co-director of Empower America, said that if marriage was expanded to allow same-sex unions, “new attempts to expand the definition still further would surely follow.”

Canadian ethics scholar Dan Cere, who recently wrote a paper on emerging forms of male-female relationships, agrees that changing the traditional marriage model could lead to new combinations.

“If we go the route to redefine marriage, why just recognize dyadic relationships?” asked Mr. Cere. “Why not a diversity of types, multiple human intimacies? It’s part of an inevitable package.”

Meanwhile, “poly people” aren’t necessarily eager to go legal, say women associated with such multi-partner groups.

Yes, some polyamorous people “would love to be able to legally marry more than one person,” said Ryam Nearing, editor of Loving More, a publication for polyamorous people in Boulder, Colo.

“A very common form is a triad — three adults who love each other and live together,” she said, adding that, “they want legal marriage for all the same reasons that [homosexual, bisexual and transgendered] people do — the 1,000 rights of legal marriage.”

However, many “poly folks” aren’t interested in legal marriages, said Ms. Nearing. These are the “libertarian types, who don’t want the government involved in any intimate relationships and would prefer them to be governed by individual contracts.”

This is the view of many polygamous groups, said Vicky Prunty, a former “plural wife,” and director of Tapestry Against Polygamy, a Salt Lake City group that assists women leaving the lifestyle.

Polygamists “want polygamy decriminalized,” but “no way” do they want it legalized, she said.

If polygamy were legalized, she explained, there would be standards and guidelines that people would have to follow. “That means that their marriages would have to be down on paper, and they don’t want any kind of government intervention,” she said.

So, in the end, is America going to allow poly-marriages?

“It’s not clear to me that we would necessarily go down the slippery slopes just because we can,” replied Mr. Murray, the anthropologist at STATS.

That said, he mused, “everywhere I look in American life, there is no slippery slope left unslid.”

==============================

Gay marriage an idea whose time has come (Vancouver Sun, 001208)

Pick your sides now, because Canada is about to embark on another rip-roaring debate on homosexual rights. This time, the issue will be whether gays and lesbians should have the legal right to marry.

The question essentially is one of principle; it would not at this point have any practical implications.

That’s because the federal government has enacted legislation conferring on gay couples the identical financial obligations and benefits as heterosexual couples. In other words, giving state sanction to gay marriages wouldn’t cost a plugged nickel.

The debate about gay wedlock arises anew this week following word from the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto that it plans to begin legally marrying homosexual and lesbian couples in the new year.

The church has found a loophole in the Ontario Marriage Act —a reference to “persons” rather than specifically to men and women, which will enable the church to issue marriage licences regardless of sexual proclivity.

The only provisions are that notice of the intended union would have to be published on three Sundays before the marriage —a process known as publication of marriage banns —so anyone objecting for a legitimate reason (say, if one of the individuals is already married) can intervene. And one of the betrothed must be a member of the Toronto church.

==============================

Marriage-Strengthening Constitutional Amendment Proposed (Foxnews, 010713)

A group of clergymen and scholars has proposed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as “a union of a man and a woman,” an effort a critic termed “the nuclear bomb” of anti-gay measures.

The proposed amendment by the Alliance for Marriage states: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

While claiming support in Congress, Matt Daniels, executive director of the Alliance for Marriage, would not release the names of any members of Congress who support the amendment.

Daniels argued that the amendment would strengthen the sanctity of traditional marriage, and would preclude “the courts from distorting existing constitutional or statutory law” to require that “other pairings and groupings” get the same legal benefits as married couples.

Bob Laird, of the Office for Family Life in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington, Va., and member of the Alliance’s advisory board, charged that “the courts in America are poised to erase the legal road map to marriage and the family from American law within this decade.”

But Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed amendment would actively cut citizens off from benefits and protections and would be using the U.S. Constitution to wield a discriminatory sword against members of certain groups.

“The few amendments to the Constitution that have been adopted in the last two hundred years are the source of most of the Constitution’s protections for individuals rights,” Anders said. “The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of families.”

“This amendment is the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb,” Anders added. “It will wipe out every single law protecting gay and lesbian families and other unmarried couples. It’s a problem for anyone who is in a relationship they’re not married into.”

Walter Fauntroy, a member of the Alliance’s board of directors, who is also pastor of a Washington, D.C. church and a former District of Columbia delegate to the House of Representatives, insists the proposed amendment is not discriminatory and would not preclude state legislatures from recognizing civil unions.

“As a black man,” Fauntroy stressed, “I am fierce about protecting the rights of everyone.” But he argued that same-sex unions “tamper” with the institution of marriage.

Some constitutional scholars have reservations about such an amendment.

“We don’t like amending the Constitution often,” said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University Law School in Malibu, Calif., “and especially for specific subjects. States are capable of resolving this themselves.”

Kmiec says he personally believes marriage between a man and a woman is “sanctionally unique.” But he adds, “I don’t want this constitutional amendment used to hate or discriminate” against gays and lesbians.

“If it’s constitutionally unnecessary, then you run the risk of being discriminatory,” he said.

Thirty-four states have adopted “defense of marriage” laws that restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, assures that no state is obligated to recognize the legal status of civil unions or other same-sex partnerships granted in other states.

But dozens of cities have adopted civil-union laws extending protections and benefits to same-sex couples, and Vermont became the first state to pass such a law last year.

Since then, 2,300 same-sex couples, many of them out-of-state residents, have been bound in Vermont in formal ceremonies.

There are 27 amendments to the Constitution, with only one having been added in the past 30 years. Successful amendments must be ratified by two-thirds majority votes in both houses of Congress and simple majority votes in 38 state legislatures, three-quarters of the total.

If an amendment is not ratified by the states within seven years of its passage by Congress, it expires, as did the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982.

==============================

In future, will only gays get married? (National Post, 020715)

Andrew Coyne

Talk about being left at the altar: Just as gays are finally to be allowed into the house of marriage, everyone else is departing.

In the very week that an Ontario court found that Canada’s historic definition of a marriage as the union of a man and a woman was unconstitutional, preparing the ground for a Supreme Court challenge that will almost certainly end in the same result, Statistics Canada reported that a majority of couples under 30 are now choosing to live common-law, rather than marry.

There are now nearly 1.2-million common-law couples in Canada, four times as many as there were 20 years ago. Partly in consequence, the fertility rate has dropped to an all-time low, since common-law couples are less likely to stay together or to have children if they do. But with proportionately fewer couples choosing to marry, the number of children born out of wedlock, as a share of all births, is rising.

And why not? A stream of decisions, issuing from both the courts and the legislatures, have steadily eroded whatever legal distinctions may once have existed between marriage and common-law unions. Indeed, in some ways living in sin may now be the smarter choice, whether in terms of liability for taxes or eligibility for benefits.

So the formal legal status to which gay couples have long aspired — some of them, at any rate — is one that has been largely emptied of meaning. As it has been said, about the only privilege still reserved to lawful matrimony is the right to get divorced — a right to which an ever increasing number of married couples are resorting.

Conservatives will be inclined to view gay marriage as simply another in the long list of indignities visited upon the institution, if not somehow responsible for the rest. The truth is altogether different. It was in a tortuous attempt to avoid sanctioning gay marriage that our legislators were driven to erase all distinctions between marriage and common-law.

Consider the case of Bill C-23, “An Act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.” Passed two years ago, the legislation was supposed to bring federal laws into conformity with several Supreme Court rulings, which held that denying gay couples access to spousal benefits was discriminatory.

But the government was caught in a dilemma. How could it, on the one hand, claim to be eliminating discrimination against homosexuals, and on the other, leave intact the biggest single act of discrimination, at least in symbolic terms, that of reserving the “honourable estate” of marriage to heterosexuals?

Yet as radical as it was in altering spousal benefits to include gay couples, it dared not extend this quest for equality all the way to the definition of marriage, and for the same reason: while the public was sympathetic to the first cause, it was wary of the second. Instead, another solution was devised. Along with treating all unmarried couples alike, regardless of their sexual orientation, the legislation extended substantially all of the benefits and obligations of married couples to any “conjugal relationship.” Even the definition of common-law was relaxed, from three years’ cohabitation to one.

Rather than put gays on an equal footing with straights, in other words — in marriage as in other areas — the legislation equated marriage with shacking up. Had the government chosen to legalize gay marriage, it could have easily justified maintaining a separate legal status for married couples, as opposed to common-law: There is, after all, a world of difference between a formal commitment to live as one “till death do us part” and the mere fact of having shared a bed for 12 months. Instead, it sacrificed the supremacy of marriage to preserve a specious equality, even as it left a flagrant insult to gays on the books.

And now even this vandalism will be for naught, as the government must have known it eventually would be: It will have to change the definition of marriage anyway. Good. Maybe with the issue of discrimination against gays out of the way, we can get back to discriminating in favour of married people.

The conservative case for gay marriage has until now focused on what it might mean for gays: that with the social legitimacy the institution implies, gays might be encouraged to, as it were, “come in,” adopting the behavioural norms of society at large. The promiscuity to which so many gay men, in particular, seem to be drawn, may in part be a function of their marginalization.

But there’s an argument to be made that gay marriage may in fact be good for the institution of marriage. Perhaps, seeing the determination of a minority among us to be admitted within its confines, we will be more appreciative as a society of its virtues. Perhaps we can learn something from them.

The house of marriage is in some disrepair. Maybe they can fix it up a little.

==============================

Liberal MP warns against gay marriages (National Post, 020718)

Government urged to appeal recent court ruling

OTTAWA and TORONTO — The federal Liberals are setting themselves up for electoral defeat if they allow gays and lesbians to marry, a Liberal MP warned yesterday.

Tom Wappel, a Toronto MP who ran for the party’s leadership in 1990 on a pro-life platform, said he has yet to speak with a Liberal MP who would vote in favour of same-sex marriages. He urged his government to appeal a recent Ontario court decision that lifted the ban on same sex-marriages in Ontario and gave Ottawa two years to rewrite its marriage laws. If the government does not move by then, the definition of marriage will be changed to the union of “two persons.”

Wappel said the government must fight the decision all the way to the Supreme Court, and, if unsuccessful, use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to override the court. Otherwise, many Liberal MPs will have a hard time getting re-elected, he said.

“Who’s going to vote for a government that destroys the traditional definition of marriage? I wouldn’t want to go into the next election wearing that,” he said.

“My view is that the Supreme Court of Canada will overturn the court of appeal. If they do not, then it is time for the Parliament of Canada to overturn the Supreme Court of Canada by using the Charter.”

Wappel also criticized Ernie Eves, the Ontario Premier, who said yesterday he has no objections to same-sex marriage.

“It’s fascinating that when somebody like me says I’m personally against abortion, then I’m told my personal views have no business in the public arena,” Wappel said.

The issue of equal rights for same-sex couples has been an explosive one in Parliament. In 1999, Mr. Wappel was one of six Liberals who voted against legislation granting survivor benefits to gay and lesbian partners of federal employees; it passed 137-118. In 2000, the government amended 68 federal statutes to give same-sex couples the same status and rights as common-law heterosexual couples. That bill also passed easily, thanks in part to an amendment in the bill’s preamble that defined marriage as the “lawful and voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” The amendment was seen as a move to keep dissenting Liberal backbenchers on side.

On Tuesday, Martin Cauchon, the Minister of Justice, said his department is studying the decision, but he spoke highly of a recent Quebec ruling that removed an opposite-sex reference from its provincial code.

This week, Ralph Klein, Alberta’s Premier, restated his government’s position that “most Albertans believe marriage is fundamentally a union between a man and a woman.”

According to a Canadian Press/Leger Marketing survey of 1,507 people in June, 2001, 65.4 per cent of Canadians approve of same-sex marriage, while 18.6 per cent opposed extending such rights to homosexuals.

George Smitherman, a gay MPP in the Ontario legislature, said Eves’s tacit approval of same-sex marriage is “something to celebrate.”

“It’s an exciting time when Canada’s most populous province can have three political parties all supporting the principle of gay marriage — endorsing the concept that all people should be allowed to express their love for one another in the most significant way our society knows,” said Smitherman, a Liberal.

==============================

One man, one woman: Formalized same-sex bond should not be called a marriage (Calgary Sun, 020718)

Same-sex couples have every right to live together in a committed relationship. But the institution of marriage should retain its historic meaning as the exclusive union of one man and on woman.

That’s why Premier Ralph Klein is right in insisting the province will use whatever legislative tools are necessary — including the notwithstanding clause, if it is available — to protect the traditional view of marriage.

Although support for same-sex marriages is strong in some provinces, notably Ontario and Quebec, more than 56 per cent of Albertans are opposed, according to one national poll. This was reflected in the passage of Alberta’s Marriage Act last year, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Ottawa passed a similar piece of legislation in 2000.

Last week, the Ontario Superior Court declared the common-law definition of marriage as “the lawful and voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” to be constitutionally invalid.

If the Supreme Court of Canada upholds this judgment — and the federal government has yet to announce whether it will seek leave to appeal — both laws will be threatened.

Yet Albertans are right to view such a fundamental change to society with caution. There are occasions when the extension of rights for one party means their loss for another.

For example, an Ontario Catholic school board found its right to base its rules on biblical principles trumped by a gay-rights argument when a court found in favour of a young man wishing to bring his boyfriend to a prom. Without specific protections, it is easy to imagine a church being sued for its refusal on principle to marry a same-sex couple.

Same-sex couples living in de-facto unions have legitimate concerns, especially over property rights in the event of a breakup of the relationship. Legislation can address such concerns without expanding the concept of marriage. To assure fair treatment, Alberta has introduced the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act to define the mutual responsibilities of unmarried people living together.

The province might even wish to define a marriage-like condition — call it a registered domestic partnership, perhaps — that would give status to same-sex relationships and recognize the commitment behind them. It would even be no business of the state if a same-sex couple thereafter found an institution prepared to put them through a symbolic commitment ceremony.

Marriage has historically been a union between a man and a woman, often with the intention of procreation. Thus, the idea of expanding the definition of marriage alters its meaning for those who have held on to the traditional structure. If such a key foundation of society is to be redefined, it should not be through a court, but through the elected representatives of the people. And they have already spoken.

If Klein has to say it again, he should do so loudly.

==============================

Ottawa eyes quick end to gay debate (National Post, 020808)

Liberals to consult with public on marriage laws amid ferment of competing solutions

OTTAWA - Jean Chrétien announced yesterday that Canadians will be asked for their views on same-sex marriages, but refused to reveal his own feelings on the subject.

The Prime Minister and Martin Cauchon, the Justice Minister, said a public consultation will begin next month with the aim of coming to a speedy conclusion.

A parliamentary committee will hold public hearings and the Justice Department will release a public discussion paper in September, Mr. Cauchon said.

He said he wants the committee to reach a “rapid” conclusion so that the government can quickly decide what to do.

Mr. Chrétien described the debate over gay and lesbian marriage as a “social problem” while keeping his personal thoughts under wraps.

“I want you to tell me yours and after that I will tell you [mine]. Because my views are one thing, but I’m the Prime Minister of Canada,” he told reporters after a Cabinet meeting in Ottawa yesterday.

“I could decide tomorrow, but that’s not the process.”

Sources say possibilities under consideration by the government include: broadening the definition of marriage to cover same-sex couples, taking the government out of the marriage business and leaving it to the churches, or affirming marriage as an opposite-sex union while creating a parallel civil union for gays and lesbians.

One choice to be presented to the public is rejecting gay and lesbian marriage by continuing the legal battle against an Ontario court ruling last month that recognized same-sex marriage for the first time in Canadian law.

The Prime Minister defended the government’s decision to appeal the ruling, which found the federal definition of marriage violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying same-sex couples the right to marry. The ruling gave the federal government two years to change its definition. Mr. Chrétien said the government often appeals court decisions and also rewrites laws after rulings by tribunals.

“When you look at the situation in France, they didn’t change the definition of marriage, but they made the social contract that other provinces are making in Canada. So it’s an extremely complex problem that needs study. So we’re studying,” he said.

In the past week, three senior Cabinet ministers, Sheila Copps, the Heritage Minister; Bill Graham, the Foreign Affairs Minister and Allan Rock, the Industry Minister, have come out in favour of same-sex marriage.

Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), a gay-rights lobby group, said it expects the support of at least seven Cabinet ministers, including Jane Stewart, the Human Resources Minister; Paul DeVillers, the Amateur Sport Minister and Jean Augustine, Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

Yesterday was the first Cabinet meeting since the government’s decision to appeal the ruling, but Mr. Cauchon brushed off suggestions his colleagues are divided.

The government is appealing the decision because it believes the court “wasn’t right in law.”

“There is major legal concern and we have to keep going on that side, but also at the same time, as Justice Minister, I wanted to keep all options open,” Mr. Cauchon said.

“I do believe it’s a question of law, but it’s a very important question of social issue.”

Taking the issue to the Supreme Court is not a priority for the government, he said, because it is a decision that must be made by the government and Parliament. He also pointed out that the same Ontario tribunal that ruled against the federal definition of marriage had in fact supported the definition in a 1993 decision.

Both the Canadian Alliance and EGALE said they support the government’s decision to study the issue further. The Alliance maintains its support for the current definition of marriage, however, while EGALE sees the study as a first step toward recognizing same-sex marriage.

“They’re showing what I would call cautious leadership,” said John Fisher, EGALE’s executive director. “Leadership in our view involves actually taking action rather than just talking about taking action. This is the opening of a dialogue and it’s a dialogue that we feel leads down an inevitable path toward one conclusion, which is the equal treatment of same-sex couples within marriage.

“We hope that this will not become a prolonged and endless circular debate.”

The government has yet to decide which committee will study the issue, but Andy Scott, the Liberal MP who chairs the House Justice committee, said he has already told Mr. Cauchon his committee can handle the job.

“I would anticipate a great deal of interest in this,” he said.

==============================

Vermont’s top court backs rights for same-sex couples (Foxnews, 991220)

MONTPELIER, Vermont — The Vermont Supreme Court ruled Monday that gay couples must be granted the same benefits and protections given married couples, a decision called the first of its kind in the nation.

The court said the Legislature will determine whether such benefits will come through formal marriage or a system of domestic partnerships.

“We hold that the state is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law,” the Vermont court’s decision said.

“Whether this ultimately takes the form of inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel ‘domestic partnership’ system or some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with the Legislature,” the ruling said.

“Whatever system is chosen, however, must conform with the constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and security of the law,” the ruling added.

A controversial issue on the court

All five justices agreed that gay couples should receive the same benefits as granted married couples, but the chief justice’s reasoning divided the court.

The decision, written by Chief Justice Jeffrey Amestoy, acknowledges the controversy swirling around the issue of same-sex marriages.

It is “a question that the court well knows arouses deeply felt religious, moral, and political beliefs,” the justices said in their decision.

But three of the justices joined a concurring opinion written by Justice John Dooley that challenged the reasoning behind Amestoy’s decision.

And Justice Denise Johnson wrote a separate opinion saying the court had not gone far enough. She said the court recognizes that gays are entitled to certain rights and “yet declines to give them any relief other than an exhortation to the Legislature to deal with the problem.”

Johnson said she would require town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Monday’s ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court since the Vermont court based its decision on the state constitution. The Vermont Supreme Court is the state’s only appeals court.

Attorney: We ‘can’t be denied full range of protections’

Advocates of same-sex marriage had high hopes for the Vermont case because the state is considered a leader in laws protecting gay rights. Vermont has passed laws prohibiting discrimination against gays in employment, housing, and public accommodations and a law that punishes hate crimes against homosexuals.

Jennifer Levi, a lawyer at Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in Boston who worked as co-counsel on the Vermont case, said that “what the court seems to be saying is that our families can’t be denied the full range of protections that come along with civil marriage.”

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed arguments opposing gay marriage, said the court “left open the possibility that we will see a marriage statute in Vermont that will impact this kind of arrangement or this kind of relationship.”

“This is the first appellate court that has said there is a state constitutional right for same-sex marriage,” he said.

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has declined to state a position on same-sex marriages, saying that he was awaiting the decision of the court.

But the lieutenant governor, Douglas Racine, and the speaker of the Vermont House, Michael Obuchowski, have said they favor same-sex marriages.

‘97 filing spurred decision

The ruling stems from a suit filed in July 1997 by three couples — one of gay men and two of lesbians — after they were denied marriage licenses by their local town clerks. The clerks acted on the advice of the state attorney general, who relied on a 1975 opinion by a predecessor calling same-sex marriages unconstitutional.

The three couples filed suit in Chittenden County Superior Court, but a judge rejected their claims. The couples then appealed to the state Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case 13 months ago.

The couples argued that their inability to get married denied them more than 300 benefits at the state level and more than 1,000 at the federal level.

The court acknowledged that the benefits included “access to a spouse’s medical, life, and disability insurance, hospital visitation and other medical decision making privileges, spousal support, intestate succession, homestead protections, and many other statutory protections.”

Same-sex union issue was on the table in Hawaii

Hawaii once had been considered the most likely state to legalize same-sex unions.

In 1993, Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled that the state’s failure to recognize gay marriages amounted to gender discrimination.

The ruling set off pre-emptive legislating around the nation. Lawmakers feared that gay couples would fly to Hawaii to get married and that the 49 other states would then have to recognize those marriages.

At least 30 states banned gay marriages, and Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of homosexual marriage and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere.

Earlier this month, Hawaii’s Supreme Court slammed the door on gay marriages in that state. The high court said the issue was resolved by a 1998 amendment to the state constitution against gay marriages.

Vermont was the only other state whose top court was considering the issue, and Monday’s ruling had been anxiously awaited by both sides in the highly charged debate over same sex marriages.

==============================

California voters pass ban on same-sex marriage (Foxnews, 000308)

The ballot measure sparked one of the bitterest fights of the campaign in California, which became the latest of some 30 states to explicitly ban same-sex marriage.

“If you say to the polygamist you cannot have two wives and two husbands, they’ll say based on what?”

With gay marriage already ruled out under the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act, there was no need to do the same thing under California state law, they said.

==============================

Ottawa finds flaw in gay marriages: No offspring (National Post, 020916)

OTTAWA — The Justice Department is advancing the argument that gays and lesbians do not meet the “core opposite-sex requirements” of marriage that are based on procreation and raising children.

The assertion is contained in a written legal submission that Justice lawyers have filed in the Ontario Court of Appeal in a challenge to same-sex marriage.

This is the first time the government has made public the argument it will use in seeking to appeal a July court ruling that stated banning gay and lesbian marriage violates the equality rights guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court gave the federal government two years to change its marriage laws.

Martin Cauchon, the Justice Minister, has said the government is seeking leave to appeal the Ontario court ruling to keep its options open while he decides what to do.

In its brief, the government says allowing gays and lesbians to wed violates longheld societal views that are rooted in religion, history and anthropology.

“This understanding of marriage views the institution as a special kind of monogamous opposite-sex union with spiritual, social, economic and contractual dimensions,” lawyer Roslyn Levine writes.

“Historically and across major religions and cultures worldwide, the purpose of marriage has been the uniting of the two opposite sexes for the purpose of procreation, the raising of children from the marriage and companionship.”

The government says the Ontario Divisional Court made a legal error in its ruling. Denying marriage to gays and lesbians is nothing personal, the written submission says. Rather, they do not qualify because of the “fundamental objective” of marriage.

“The fact that same-sex couples do not come within the current meaning of marriage ... relates to the fact that their unique relationship does not meet the core, opposite-sex requirement of marriage.”

The Justice Department’s court challenge against same-sex marriage coincides with public consultations that will begin this month. Canadians will be asked their views and an all-party justice committee of the House of Commons will hold public hearings.

The Liberal Cabinet is divided on the issue, as several senior ministers have publicly stated they support same-sex marriage.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has not yet ruled on whether it will hear the case. The government argues the court should take on the issue because of its “profound importance.”

In the coming discussion paper, Canadians will be asked their opinions on several possibilities, including whether the government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to churches.

Such a move could dovetail with the establishment of a civil registry system that would give all couples, including gays and lesbians, the option of registering with the state. Such a system already exists in Nova Scotia and Quebec.

The two other choices that will be presented to the public are embracing gay and lesbian marriage or rejecting it outright and continuing to fight it as far as the Supreme Court of Canada.

The government says in its court submission it is seeking legal clarity because the ruling conflicts with another decision from the same court in 1993 and a 2001 judgment by the British Columbia Supreme Court.

The government’s submission is dated Aug. 30, just a week before the Quebec Superior Court handed down a ruling in favour of same-sex marriage.

Public opinion surveys indicate Canadians are almost evenly divided on whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed.

Cauchon says the government has already shown its commitment to same-sex equality by amending 68 federal statutes two years ago to include gays and lesbians in everything from pension benefits to income tax laws.

==============================

Court, states consider same-sex unions (Washington Times, 030224)

Legally recognized same-sex unions and “expanded” domestic partnerships are up for debate in Connecticut and California legislatures, and a lawsuit with national implications for recognizing same-sex unions has a hearing next week.

At noon today, hundreds of people are expected to jam a hearing room of the Connecticut General Assembly Judiciary Committee to testify about three bills associated with marriage.

One bill, which has numerous Republican co-sponsors, affirms traditional marriage between a man and a woman. The other two bills, introduced by a Democrat, would either allow same-sex couples to “marry” or enter into a civil union that provides marriagelike rights and responsibilities.

Committee co-chairman state Rep. Michael Lawlor, who has considerable power over which bills make it out of committee, supports legally recognizing same-sex unions. However, the debate over traditional marriage versus same-sex unions is likely to continue “until one or the other is passed,” state Rep. T.R. Rowe, a co-sponsor of the traditional marriage bill, said Friday.

An even bigger audience is expected March 4, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court hears arguments on a lawsuit many believe could affect marriage on a national basis.

The lawsuit, Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, is brought by seven same-sex couples who say they were unfairly denied the right to marry. They are represented by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the Boston law firm that won a similar lawsuit in Vermont that led to the creation of civil unions.

If the Massachusetts high court legalizes same-sex unions for its residents, it’s inevitable that some couples will seek marriage recognition in other states. Homosexual activists also are expected to use a favorable Massachusetts ruling to challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts federal spousal benefits to married couples.

The Boston Bar Association has urged the high court to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that same-sex couples cannot get legal protections for their relationships without marital rights.

However, the attorneys general of Utah, Nebraska and South Dakota have urged the high court to reject a “radical redefinition of marriage” because “it will be aggressively exported and used to try to force other states to recognize same-sex marriage.”

Meanwhile, another battle is shaping up in California, where lawmakers have a bill that greatly expands the state’s domestic-partnership registry to include marriage-related benefits.

A hearing is scheduled for March in the California Legislature Judiciary Committee on AB 205, introduced by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, Los Angeles Democrat. The bill would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, assign child custody, file joint state tax returns and share debt. The bill makes so many changes that if it becomes law, California’s 18,000 domestic partners probably would have to re-register, Miss Goldberg said.

Opponents of legally recognized same-sex unions say AB 205 is an end run around the voter-approved Proposition 22, which says that marriage in California is the union between a man and a woman.

Miss Goldberg counters that her bill doesn’t interfere with Proposition 22 because it affects the rights of registered domestic partners and “does not in any way amend marriage.”

==============================

Texas Gov. Signs ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ (Foxnews, 030528)

AUSTIN, Texas — Gov. Rick Perry signed a law preventing Texas from legally recognizing same-sex unions that are formed in other states.

Tuesday’s signing of the Defense of Marriage Act makes it the 37th state to enact such a law, said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Plano-based Free Market Foundation, a group that describes itself as dedicated to strengthening families.

Already, Texas only permits marriage between a man and a woman.

“What this does, it protects your state from having a different definition forced on you from another state,” Shackelford said.

Critics say the bill represents a right-wing agenda of intolerance.

“It’s about politics. It’s about scapegoating gays and lesbians,” said Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.

Ellis said the act was unnecessary because existing statutes specify that, in Texas, state laws apply even to marriages performed elsewhere.

Supporters said the act was needed to protect Texas from the decisions of judges in other states where same-sex unions could be recognized.

“Like the vast majority of Texans, I believe that marriage represents a sacred union between a man and a woman,” Perry said in a statement. “With passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, Texas now joins more than 30 states in reinforcing that basic belief.”

==============================

Gay couples can marry: Ontario Appeal Court (National Post, 030610)

TORONTO — The right to marry should be extended to same-sex couples, Ontario’s Appeal Court ruled Tuesday in a decision that effectively deems Canadian law on traditional marriage unconstitutional.

“The existing common law definition of marriage violates the couple’s equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under (the charter),” the 61-page written ruling said.

The court also declared the current definition invalid and demanded the law be changed. It ordered the clerk of the City of Toronto to issue marriage licences to the same-sex couples involved in the case.

The ruling came after a federal government lawyer argued that marriage is a universal concept based on the union of man and woman that cannot be extended to gay and lesbian couples.

Roslyn Levine, on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, said the concept of marriage has always been based on two genders brought together, built on the ideals of children, permanency and fidelity.

Ottawa was challenging a controversial lower court ruling that said Canadian law is unconstitutional because it recognizes only opposite-sex unions. Common law defines marriage as “the union of one man and one woman” — a violation of the equality section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the divisional court said.

The court then gave the federal government two years to revamp its laws, in effect clearing the way for same-sex marriage.

Ontario’s Appeal Court decision joins court rulings in British Columbia and Quebec that also back same-sex unions.

The B.C. Appeal Court said May 1 that governments should recognize gay marriage when it overturned a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that said marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals. It gave Ottawa until July 12, 2004 to change the law preventing gays and lesbians from marrying.

Justice Minister Martin Cauhon has until June 30 to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to review the B.C. ruling or the decision will stand.

A Quebec court has also backed same-sex marriage rights and asked Ottawa to re-examine marriage laws.

An all-party committee is drafting a much-anticipated report on how Parliament should handle the difficult social issue.

Polls indicate a slight majority of Canadians favour legalization of same-sex marriages.

==============================

Gay Marriage in Canada (NRO, 030611)

by David Frum

Gay marriage arrived at least temporarily in Canada yesterday. There’s much to be said about this, and - although it’s unblog-like - I’m going to need 24 more hours to say it. But two quick thoughts:

1. It’s important to understand that gay marriage in Canada is a pure matter of judicial fiat. The last time elected officials tried to push the idea - a socialist government in Ontario a decade ago - they were so badly singed by public opinion that they instantly dropped the idea. Gay marriage in Canada has not been produced by the allegedly more permissive values of Canadians - it has been imposed by one of the world’s most high-handed judiciaries.

2. It’s important to understand too that gay marriage has arrived in Canada just as conservatives warned: as part of a dissolution of the institution of marriage in general. Those same judges have worked for ten years to equate marriage and cohabitation. The gay marriage decision is just part of that larger social revolution - and must share responsibility for that revolution’s results, including an out-of-wedlock birth rate now as high as that of the United States, in a country that has until recently prided itself in avoiding America’s social troubles.

==============================

Let gays marry now, court says (Ottawa Citizen, 030611)

Ontario ruling sets off rush to licence offices; federal minister considers appeal

Gay and lesbian couples raced to obtain marriage licences yesterday in a bid to pre-empt any attempt by the federal government to continue its flagging legal fight against same-sex marriage.

The rush to legal matrimony followed a ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which yesterday went farther than any court in Canada by changing the definition of who can marry, effective immediately.

Previous court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia had given the federal government until July 2004 to change its law.

The first gay couple to legally become newlyweds were Crown prosecutor Michael Leshner and his partner Michael Stark, in a civil ceremony before a judge at a downtown Toronto courthouse.

“Today is the death of homophobia in the courtroom as we know it,” declared Mr. Leshner, as he embraced and kissed his legal spouse.

As Mr. Leshner and Mr. Stark exchanged rings and sipped champagne, several other couples picked up marriage licences, after the court ordered Toronto city hall to issue them.

In Ottawa, longtime partners Lisa Lachance and Heather Gass said that were hoping to obtain a licence this morning and possibly “do the deed” tonight.

The federal government, which until yesterday had had more than a year’s grace period to recraft its law, scrambled to decide what to do next.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon met with senior cabinet ministers to discuss his plans, which he will announce today after presenting them to the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Cauchon, however, hinted that the government’s fight is not over yet.

“We really need a national solution,” he said, stressing that Parliament should also have a role to play instead of leaving the “important social issue” entirely up to the courts.

“Having said that, we see the direction that the courts are taking now,” Mr. Cauchon said.

The government could move as early as today to seek a stay of the court decision, pending a Supreme Court decision.

An appeal would buy time for the Justice Department, but even the Liberals’ own research bureau has warned that the government will ultimately lose the fight.

If the high court agrees to hear the case, it could take another two years before making a decision. The case could become moot in the meantime, considering Paul Martin, the frontrunner to replace retiring Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, has said that it’s time for the government to stop appealing.

The court, instead of telling the federal government to change its law, struck down the existing definition of marriage in Canada — “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The new definition is “the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others,” the court said.

“Exclusion perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite sex relationships,” the court said in a unanimous, 61-page written ruling.

“In doing so, it offends the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships.”

The federal government is responsible for the definition of marriage and the provinces oversee the solemnization, including the marriage registration. The decision, which dealt with seven Ontario couples, ordered the provincial government to register marriages.

Ontario Attorney General Norm Sterling said he would not stand in the way of the court’s ruling. “If the decision today says that two people of the same sex can get married, that is the law of the land, then we will register,” he said.

But Alberta Premier Ralph Klein promised to do everything in his power to block the decision and his officials urged the federal government to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to be the final arbiter in the case.

Gay and lesbians activists, along with several MPs, urged the federal government to stop the legal fight.

“I am calling on Jean Chrétien, the prime minister, as part of his legacy, to leave a legacy of respect,” said New Democrat MP Svend Robinson, who is gay.

“Stop the appeals, stop the obstruction, stop the waste of taxpayers’ money.”

The ruling orders the Ontario government to register the January 2001 marriages of Joe Varnell and Kevin Bourassa and Elaine and Anne Vautour.

The couples married in ceremonies in January 2001 at the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, using an ancient Christian tradition that allowed them to avoid having to get city-issued marriage licences.

The court decision dismisses every argument from the federal Justice Department, including its contention that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

The court also rejects the fear of churches that gay marriage infringes on religious freedom because it would force them to conduct ceremonies against their will.

“This case is about the legal institution of marriage,” the court said.

“We do not view this case as, in any way, dealing or interfering with the religious institution of marriage.”

As Mr. Cauchon considered his options, an all-party parliamentary committee met behind closed doors yesterday to put the finishing touches on a report, crafted from months of public hearings on whether gays and lesbians should be permitted to wed.

Mr. Cauchon said he wants to consider the report’s recommendations.

But there were complaints among committee members that the political process has been usurped by the courts.

“We apparently have judge-made law in this country and we’re just here for decoration,” said John McKay, a Liberal MP who opposes same-sex marriage.

Vic Toews, justice critic for the Canadian Alliance, called on the federal government to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Toews also says that the government should not be shy about using the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause, a safety valve that allows politicians to override unpopular court decisions.

==============================

It’s Over? the fine print (NRO, 030618)

by David Frum

“It’s over,” is Andrew Sullivan’s verdict on the Canadian government’s decision not to appeal the Ontario court of appeal’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. If Andrew means that what Canadians – and civilized human beings generally – have known as marriage is over, then yes, he is exactly correct. But if he means that the upheaval in Canadian society is over, he is wholly wrong: It has barely begun.

Listen to this statement on the decision by Prime Minister Jean Chretien:

“We won’t be appealing the recent decision on the definition of marriage. Rather, we’ll be proposing legislation that will protect the right of churches and religious organizations to sanctify marriage as they define it.”

Those words are extremely important, because it is something close to an iron law of the gay-marriage battle in Canada that whenever the authorities state the such-and-such a thing will never happen, that such-and-such will turn out to be the very thing they concede next.

So today Chretien promises that his government will never compel churches, synagogues, and mosques to sanctify same-sex marriages. That would be more reassuring if

1) the Ontario human rights commission had not ruled in 2000 that religious conviction was no defense against a charge of discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation;

2) a Saskatchewan court had not held in 2002 that a man could be punished under the province’s hate-crime statute for publishing a newspaper ad in which the only text were four verses from the Bible condemning homosexuality;

3) and a bill were not pending in the Canadian House of Commons write now to make anti-gay “propaganda” a criminal offense.

In other words, Canadians can expect new battles in the years ahead as the authorities impose ever stricter restrictions on their freedom to express traditional views of homosexuality. And while the pressure groups and the courts may exempt the churches at first, it is hard to imagine that they will exempt them for long. The Canadian churches receive, after all, all kinds of public support. Not only are they exempt from taxes, but Catholic schools are subsidized from public funds. Would we permit people who receive public money to refuse to marry inter-racial couples? Hardly! So how can we allow them to persist in refusing to marry same-sex couples?

Nor is marriage the end of the story. There are battles ahead too over adoption, over new reproductive technologies, even over language – it’s already true, for example, that progressive-minded Canadians eschew the words “husband” and “wife,” with their heterosexist connotations, in favor of the gender-neutral “partner” or “spouse.”

So it’s not over. It’s far from over. And it’s coming your way.

==============================

Ottawa to legalize gay marriage (National Post, 030618)

Impending bill would permit churches to opt out: ‘We have recognized the definition that has been developed by the courts,’ Cauchon says

OTTAWA - The federal government says it will draft a law in the next few weeks to legalize homosexual marriage, making Canada only the third country in the world to sanction same-sex matrimony.

Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, and Martin Cauchon, the Justice Minister, said yesterday they will not appeal last week’s Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that allowed gays and lesbians to be wed, effective immediately.

“Not to appeal means that we have recognized the definition that has been developed by the courts,” said Mr. Cauchon, whose proposal was approved yesterday at Cabinet’s final meeting before the summer break.

The legislation is to be sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for a reference — a non-binding opinion on the constitutionality of the bill — before being put to a free vote in the Commons.

Alberta continued its steadfast resistance to the idea of gay marriage, warning it will fight attempts to force it to recognize same-sex unions in court.

Dave Hancock, Alberta’s Justice Minister, said the federal government should have appealed the Ontario ruling. “Alberta is very disappointed,” he said. “It would have been an opportunity to go to the Supreme Court so all jurisdictions could have been involved in the discussion.”

Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance justice critic, accused the government of abdicating its responsibility and making a “grave error in judgment” by allowing the courts, rather than Parliament, to redefine the traditional definition of marriage.

If the proposed law is passed, Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands as the only countries allowing gay and lesbian weddings.

While several church groups slammed the government’s move, others, such as the United Church of Canada, have already said they would perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

But the Prime Minister made it clear Ottawa will not impose the law on religious groups, who will be able to refuse to perform same-sex weddings. A draft of the bill will be made public within weeks, he said.

“What we’re doing at this moment might put Canada at the forefront of any solutions that exist,” Mr. Chrétien said after the long Cabinet meeting. “What is important for me is the freedom of the churches to interpret according to their faith.”

Ottawa’s decision not to appeal the Ontario ruling to the Supreme Court means same-sex marriages will continue to be legal in that province, where more than 100 gay couples have obtained marriage licences or have legally wed since the ruling.

Mr. Cauchon said homosexuals in other provinces will have to wait, but gay-rights advocates and constitutional experts said gay couples across the country have a persuasive legal argument to be allowed to marry immediately.

“It seems to me that someone in another province would be able to get a court order on the basis that the government is conceding,” said Patrick Monahan, a constitutional expert at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

“If I had a client who was in B.C. or Manitoba, I would be slamming down the door of the city clerk’s office to make sure I got a licence,” added Toronto lawyer Martha McCarthy.

Although Ralph Klein, the Alberta Premier, has threatened to block any move to legalize gay marriage, the definition of marriage is federal jurisdiction. Provinces are responsible for the solemnization, which includes registering the unions.

Courts in British Columbia and Quebec also have recognized same-sex marriage, but they gave the government until July, 2004, to bring its laws in line with the Charter of Rights.

Both Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Cauchon said they were comfortable with the decision not to appeal.

“For me, we have a Charter of Rights, there is evolution in society, and according to the interpretation of the courts, they concluded these unions should be legal in Canada,” Mr. Chrétien said.

While the Justice Minister said he would like a vote to be held before Mr. Chrétien retires next February, the Supreme Court could easily take at least a year to issue an opinion.

Paul Martin, the top contender for the Liberal leadership, has already said he will accept the Ontario decision and would craft legislation that would also “affirm that no church, synagogue, mosque or religious institution [has] to act outside its faith.”

Courts across Canada, including the Supreme Court, have widely acknowledged the religious freedom guarantees in the Charter of Rights.

As it stands, churches already have final say on who can marry. For instance, the Catholic church does not marry people who have been divorced.

Svend Robinson, a gay New Democrat MP, was elated with the government’s decision and predicted the vote will easily pass Parliament, given that it has the support of the federal Cabinet.

“I feel very proud as a Canadian to live in a country that has sent such a clear signal to gay and lesbian people,” Mr. Robinson said.

Many Liberal backbenchers, however, are opposed to the idea of gay marriage. The Canadian Alliance is strongly opposed as well. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP support the initiative and the Conservatives are divided.

The federal government last took a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada almost six years ago when it asked the judges to rule on whether Quebec had the unilateral right to separate from Canada.

There have been about 75 references by the federal government to the Supreme Court since 1892. In 1981, for example, the top court was asked to decide whether Ottawa could patriate the Constitution without the consent of all the provinces.

Only Ottawa can make a reference directly to the top court, although provincial governments can refer questions to their provincial courts of appeal and then appeal to the Supreme Court, as Alberta did in an unsuccessful challenge to the federal gun registry.

==============================

Pope to MPs: Stop gay marriage (National Post, 030729)

Cauchon undeterred: Vatican directive comes as Commons to hold free vote on new marriage law

OTTAWA - The Vatican is calling directly on Catholic politicians around the world to be true to their faith and reject the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops predicted yesterday the appeal may give pause to the federal Parliament as it considers just such legislation.

Catholicism is the dominant religion among federal politicians, as it is in Canadian society.

“What it may do is that it will cause some conscience problems for several MPs,” said Monsignor Peter Schonenbach, general secretary of the conference.

But a spokesman for Martin Cauchon, the Justice Minister one of many Catholic MPs, said that Minister will base his vote on equality rights, not religion.

“His personal religious beliefs are not the issue here,” said Tim Murphy. “He is the Justice Minister for all Canadians. The key things we have pointed out is that this is a fundamental issue of equality and there will be protection for religious freedom.”

A federal bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and stating that religious institutions will not be forced to perform ceremonies, has been sent to the Supreme Court to determine whether it complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Liberal government has promised a free vote on the issue, meaning MPs can vote their conscience instead of along party lines. Several Liberal MPs have already expressed their opposition to gay marriage.

Same-sex marriages have been considered legal in British Columbia and Ontario since courts in those provinces ruled prohibiting the marriages violates the Charter of Rights.

On Thursday, the Vatican will release new instructions for Catholic politicians to oppose same-sex marriage, which has already been adopted in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Msgr. Schonenbach described the 12-page document, which is devoted entirely to the issue of same-sex marriage, as “a general reflection that pulls together things that have been said before.”

Although the instructions do not specifically mention Canada, Msgr. Schonenbach noted that this country’s plans have drawn significant attention from the Church and likely played a role in the Vatican’s appeal. He noted he has done interviews with Vatican Radio on the issue.

The document builds on the Pope’s approved guidelines for politicians, issued last January, calling on them to oppose abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.

Those guidelines said laws safeguarding marriage between man and woman must be promoted and that “in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.”

Jason Kenney, a Canadian Alliance MP who is Catholic and against gay marriage, said he doesn’t think the Vatican’s call will make much difference.

“Politicians who come from the Catholic tradition whose convictions are formed in part by their faith, this should be nothing new to them and they should already have taken that into consideration,” Mr. Kenney said.

“They’re all free to decide whether or not, and to what extent, they will form their conscience and actions in accordance with the Church teaching. It’s up to each individual.”

Mr. Kenney acknowledged that few politicians publicly declare their religious affiliation and are therefore not in a position where they have to answer to voters about faith. The appeal from the Vatican is not expected to sway other powerful Catholics in the Liberal government, including the Prime Minister and his heir apparent, Paul Martin, who intend to vote for the bill.

Mr. Chrétien, Mr. Martin and Mr. Cauchon all come from pre-dominantly Catholic Quebec, where the Church has a loose grip on the province’s largely liberal society.

Mr. Chrétien has already come under fire from Marcel Gervais, the Archbishop of Ottawa, over the clash between his Catholic religion and his views on social issues. Most recently, the archbishop denounced the Prime Minister’s pro-choice position on abortion.

The Vatican’s directive, titled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, expands on an appeal from religious institutions across Canada for the federal government to reject same-sex marriage.

As in the Canadian population in general, the Catholicism is the dominant religion in the federal Parliament, although exact records are not kept.

In the general population, 43.2% of Canadians identified themselves as Catholic in the last federal census, which makes the religion by far the most common. In second place was United, the declared faith of 9.6% of Canadians.

This month, a leading German cardinal condemned Germany’s same-sex marriage law after it was upheld by the country’s supreme court, calling it a blow to the family.

“Now the associations of homosexuals have a potent arm to obtain further concessions on the road toward full equality with married couples, including the right to adoption,” Karl Cardinal Lehman complained in a Vatican Radio interview.

The Vatican is particularly worried about the waning influence of the Church in Europe. Drafters of a proposed constitution for the European Union ignored Vatican requests to include explicit mention of Europe’s Christian roots.

On Sunday, the Pope lamented that the Church’s message was being watered down in Europe.

==============================

Vatican leans on Canadian politicians (Ottawa Citizen, 030729)

Catholic MPs urged to fight same-sex marriage. Church of Chrétien, Cauchon, Martin opposes policy

The Vatican is raising the stakes in Canada’s plans to legalize same-sex marriage by issuing a directive for Catholic politicians around the globe to make their politics consistent with their faith.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops predicted yesterday the appeal may give pause to Parliament, where Catholicism is the dominant religion.

“What it may do is that it will cause some conscience problems for several MPs,” said general secretary Msgr. Peter Schonenbach.

But a spokesman for Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, one of many Catholic MPs, said the minister will base his vote on equality rights, not religion.

“His personal religious beliefs are not the issue here,” said Tim Murphy. “As minister of justice, he is the justice minister for all Canadians. The key thing we have pointed out is that this is a fundamental issue of equality and there will be protection for religious freedom.”

A federal bill legalizing same-sex marriage, while stating that religious institutions will not be forced to perform ceremonies, has been sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for a legal opinion on whether it complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. MPs will then be told to vote with their conscience instead of along party lines.

On Thursday, the Vatican will release new instructions for Catholic politicians to oppose same-sex marriage. The right already has been adopted in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Msgr. Schonenbach described the 12-page document as “a general reflection that pulls together things that have been said before.”

Although the instructions do not specifically mention Canada, Msgr. Schonenbach noted that this country’s plans have drawn significant attention from the church internationally and likely played a role in the Vatican’s appeal. He said he has done interviews with Vatican Radio on the issue.

The document, titled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, builds on the pontiff’s approved guidelines for politicians, issued last January, calling on them to oppose abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.

Jason Kenney, a Catholic Canadian Alliance MP who is against gay marriage, said he doesn’t think that the Vatican’s call will make much difference.

“They’re all free to decide whether or not, and to what extent, they will form their conscience and actions in accordance with the church teaching. It’s up to each individual.”

Mr. Kenney acknowledged that few politicians publicly declare their religious affiliation and are therefore not in a position where they have to answer to voters about faith.

The appeal from the Vatican is not expected to sway other powerful Catholics in the Liberal government, including Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his heir apparent, Paul Martin, who intend to vote for the bill.

Mr. Chrétien, Mr. Martin and Mr. Cauchon all come from predominantly Catholic Quebec, where the church has a loose grip on the province’s largely liberal society.

Mr. Chrétien has already come under fire from Marcel Gervais, the archbishop of Ottawa, for the prime minister’s social views clashing with his Catholic religion. Most recently, the archbishop denounced the prime minister’s pro-choice position on abortion.

The Vatican’s directive expands on an appeal from religious institutions across Canada for the federal government to reject same-sex marriage.

As in the Canadian population in general, Catholicism is the dominant religion in the federal Parliament, although exact records are not kept.

In the general population, 43.2 per cent of Canadians identified themselves as Catholic in the last federal census, which makes the religion by far the most common. In second place was the United Church, the declared faith of 9.6 per cent of Canadians.

==============================

Vatican Launches Global Campaign Against Gay Marriages (Foxnews, 030731)

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was “gravely immoral” and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive.

The Vatican’s orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America.

“There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family,” the document said. “Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.”

The issue is particularly charged in the United States, where some lawmakers in the House of Representatives have proposed a constitutional ban on gay marriages to counter state laws granting legal recognition to gay unions.

President Bush said Wednesday that marriage was defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman and said he wants to “codify that one way or the other.”

The Vatican document, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,” sets out a battle plan for politicians when confronted with laws or proposed legislation giving homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexuals.

It also comes out strongly against allowing gay couples to adopt, saying children raised by same-sex parents face developmental “obstacles” because they are deprived of having either a mother or a father.

“Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development,” it said.

The document says Catholic politicians have a “moral duty” to publicly oppose laws granting recognition to homosexual unions and to vote against them if proposals are put to a vote in legislatures.

If the laws are already on the books, politicians must speak out against them, work to repeal them and try to limit their impact on society, it said.

“To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral,” the document said.

The document doesn’t provide for specific penalties for Catholics who fail to oppose such laws, saying only that the lawmakers had a “moral duty” to vote against them.

The Vatican said its guidelines were not only intended for Catholic lawmakers but for non-Christians and everyone “committed to promoting and defending the common good of society” since the issue concerned natural moral law, not just Church doctrine.

The document doesn’t contain any new Church teachings on the issue, repeating much of the Vatican’s previous comments on homosexuality and marriage, which it defines as a sacred union between man and woman designed to create new human life.

It said homosexuals shouldn’t be discriminated against, but said denying gay couples the rights afforded in traditional marriages doesn’t constitute discrimination.

In a footnote citing a 1992 comment on the topic, the document also noted that there was a danger that laws legalizing same-sex unions could actually encourage someone with a homosexual orientation to seek out a partner to “exploit the provisions of the law.”

On Thursday, a small group of demonstrators from Italy’s Radical Party held up banners at the edge of St. Peter’s Square to protest the document. The banners read “No Vatican, No Taliban,” and “Democracy Yes, Theocracy No.”

Other opposition to the document came from the Green Party in predominantly Catholic Austria. Ulrike Lunacek, a party spokeswoman, said Catholic politicians should follow human rights conventions, “not the old-fashioned views of the Vatican.”

“This hierarchy, which also rules on other issues like forbidding the use of condoms to avoid AIDS, is far from reality,” she said in a statement issued earlier this week after the Vatican announced the document’s release.

==============================

Vatican raises stakes in gay debate (National Post, 030801)

Same-sex marriage ‘immoral’; adoption ‘does violence’: Federal Tory leader says MPs deluged, Canada ‘becoming increasingly polarized’

Catholics around the world and Catholic politicians in particular must fight the legalization of gay marriage, the Vatican urged yesterday in a document that describes homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered” and “immoral.”

“When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral,” reads the document, titled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.

The document is the Holy See’s latest salvo in its fight against the growing momentum to legalize gay marriage in Europe, North America and Latin America. It comes as the Supreme Court of Canada prepares to consider whether draft legislation that would legalize such unions complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“Most of the bishops are very happy about the separation of church and state, but that doesn’t mean that the church should be muted; the church is also part of the whole democratic process,” said Monsignor Peter Schonenbach, general secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. “We hope that in the next few weeks that also a lot of Catholics ... will also speak very strongly to their Members of Parliament.”

The Vatican missive is signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Catholic Church’s chief doctrinal enforcer. It was approved by Pope John Paul II in March at a session of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. It does not contain new doctrine, but is meant as a reasoned guide to intervening against same-sex marriage laws.

It describes homosexual unions as “totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis ... for granting them legal recognition.”

It dismisses the idea of artificial reproduction to bring children into such unions, saying such medical practices involve “a grave lack of respect for human dignity.” Adoption is also ruled out on the grounds that raising children in gay marriages “creates obstacles to their normal development.”

“It’s a fairly blunt, straightforward message that the Pope and the Vatican are sending,” said Peter MacKay, the leader of the federal Conservatives. “It’s becoming increasingly polarized. I know that many [MPs] are hearing from their constituents on this.”

Mr. Mackay says he believes marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman. Party members will be permitted to vote with their conscience on the matter.

Jean Chrétien has said he intends to vote in favour of the bill legalizing same-sex marriages. Yesterday, a spokesman from the Prime Minister’s Office pointed out that the Supreme Court is also being asked to consider whether the proposed legislation would affect the rights to freedom of religion guaranteed by the Charter. The Prime Minister wants to ensure that churches are not forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

“We all know that the Prime Minister is a Roman Catholic, it’s common knowledge,” said PMO spokeswoman Thoren Hudyma. “It’s also common knowledge that the Prime Minister has said on several occasions that it is important that there is a division between the church and state.

“The position of the government of Canada has been made clear several times and it really is important that the government of Canada protects the equality of all Canadians.”

Speaking for the Canadian Alliance, MP Jason Kenney said yesterday that his party’s position is that Parliament, and not the courts, should make decisions about sensitive social issues.

“I believe that democratically elected representatives who are accountable to Canadians should be making these decisions and not unaccountable judges,” he said, referring to the two court decisions, one in B.C. and one in Ontario, that effectively legalized same-sex marriages.

Canadian Catholics have recently been urged from the pulpit to register their displeasure at the proposed change to the definition of marriage.

In a homily on July 20, Ottawa Archbishop Marcel Gervais urged followers to make every representation possible to elected officials to ensure that the definition of marriage is not expanded to include unions between men and women. In a homily broadcast in July, Father Tom Lynch of St. Augustine’s Seminary told listeners that taking no action in public affairs is a sin. Bulletin inserts, to be included in handouts to worshippers on Sunday, were distributed to parishes in the archdiocese of Toronto last week, defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Not all bishops support the call to action.

“The Catholic Church is a faith community, not a pressure group,” said Monsignor Louis Dicaire of the Assembly of Quebec Bishops. He said Quebec churches won’t mobilize their members against same-sex marriage.

Belgium and the Netherlands have legalized same-sex marriages. The first legal gay marriage took place in Buenos Aires in July. The U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned a Texas law banning sodomy, but in the face of a judicial system increasingly sympathetic to the rights of homosexuals, George Bush, the U.S. President, has said government lawyers are looking for a way to legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Gilles Marchildon, executive-director of the gay rights group EGALE, said the Church is wrong to meddle in a civil matter.

“If they’re wanting to be involved in defining civil marriage, why wouldn’t the state be involved in defining who gets communion,” he said. “I don’t think we want to be in a situation where those lines are blurred.”

==============================

Vatican: gay unions ‘gravely immoral’ (Ottawa Citizen, 030801)

Church attempts to recruit Catholic politicians to stem legalization trend

The Vatican took the offensive against same-sex marriage yesterday and warned Roman Catholic politicians around the world that legalizing such unions would be “gravely immoral.”

In an attempt to stop the growing movement towards legalization of same-sex unions in Europe and North America, the Vatican said “no ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.”

Msgr. Peter Schonenbach, the general secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, said yesterday the Vatican’s statement on same-sex marriage “ratchets up the public debate” in Canada.

He said the bishops did not appreciate Justice Minister Martin Cauchon’s “hypocrisy” in sending the government bill proposing to legalize same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court for an opinion, while, “on the other hand, telling the provinces to go ahead and do it” (perform same-sex marriages).

In yesterday’s 12-page rebuttal of arguments in favour of same-sex marriage, the Vatican says “society owes its continued survival to the family, which is founded on marriage.”

The document was approved by Pope John Paul II and calls on Catholics around the world to oppose not only the legal recognition of same-sex unions but also the adoption of children by gays.

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.

Allowing the children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children,” says the Vatican.

The document, titled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, reiterates positions long held by the Catholic church.

But it is clearly aimed at providing politicians with rational arguments to oppose same-sex unions.

The Vatican says that while Catholic politicians have a moral duty to vote against the legalization of gay marriages, everyone committed to promoting and defending the common good of society should speak out against it.

The document says there is an important difference between homosexual behaviour as a private act, and the recognition that makes homosexual unions a legal institution. According to the Vatican, “this second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good.

“Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage,” it says.

“Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfill the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

“There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law,” says the Vatican.

Yet it says that while “Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as a serious depravity,” homosexuals must be treated with respect and sensitivity, and protected from unjust discrimination.

Belgium and the Netherlands have already legalized same-sex marriages, and Germany, France, Sweden and Denmark have passed legislation granting recognition to same-sex unions as “civil unions.”

The issue has also become a hot one in the United States, where some members of Congress have proposed a constitutional ban to bar state governments from legally recognizing same-sex unions. Vermont has already passed a law granting same-sex couples the right to a “civil union” with much of the same recognition as traditional marriage, and Massachusetts’ highest court is also considering legalizing such unions.

Ontario’s Court of Appeal opened the door to the legalization of same-sex marriages in Canada on June 10. It ruled that the historic understanding of marriage “offends” the dignity of same-sex couples and deprives them of the equal treatment guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A week later, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who himself is Catholic, announced his government would accept Ontario’s definition of marriage as the union of two persons, despite the House of Commons’ pledge in 1999 to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And British Columbia’s courts followed Ontario’s lead in pronouncing same-sex marriages legal.

Ottawa’s Archbishop Marcel Gervais has written Mr. Chrétien a letter warning that as a Catholic he has lost his way if he supports same-sex marriage, and Calgary’s Bishop Fred Henry told a Toronto paper this week that Mr. Chrétien risks burning in hell if he legalizes same-sex marriage.

Msgr. Schonenbach said most Canadian bishops would not agree with Bishop Henry, but said yesterday’s Vatican release of the document on same-sex marriages had little to do with the Canadian debate on the issue. He said the world’s Catholic bishops have known for six months that the document was being prepared. The Pope signed the document on March 28, long before the Ontario Court of Appeal’s approval of same-sex marriage.

However, the document was officially dated June 3, the feast day on which Catholics remember Saint Charles Lwanga, a Catholic servant of the king of Uganda, who was beheaded for protesting the king’s homosexual practices and his corruption of young pages.

==============================

No Surprises: The Vatican issues gay-union directives (NRO, 030801)

Doomsayers claimed the Catholic Church would never recover from the recent sex scandals; they also insisted she had lost her moral authority. Yet, despite vital reforms and healing that still needs to be done, she has continued to minister to her children, and to all the world. In Thursday’s release of the document regarding the legal recognition of homosexual unions (“Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons”), we find the Catholic Church standing up for all the faithful, regardless of their sexual orientation.

With most topics of emotional impact, the real issue inevitably gets muddled. People are willing to talk about all sorts of things tangential to homosexual unions, but they rarely address the union itself. The newly released document provides crucial leadership, first by addressing the nature of homosexual unions and then by articulating the responsibilities of the faithful — among them, those politicians who identify themselves as Catholic.

Homosexual culture has become more and more mainstream. As a result, there are many more people today who identify themselves as homosexuals. In countries like the United States, numbers play a great role in our understanding — the culture seems to live by polls. If a large number of people accept something, then (so it’s felt) it must be true and good. Consider television programming. Sexual orientation has become a significant part of many major shows. Stories about people have largely been reduced to statements about their sexual orientation — end of story.

And because “everyone’s doing it,” the idea gradually gains greater acceptance. Since homosexuality ties into every other story, the reasoning goes, it must also play into the story of marriage. Not so, cautions the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Catholic Church does not deny that the homosexual orientation exists. Nor does she deny that individuals with this orientation engage in relationships that are intimate and personal. But the church is also willing to call a spade a spade. Despite the growing acceptance of homosexual relationships, homosexual unions are simply not the same as the heterosexual unions that form marriages.

“Marriage,” the document explains, “is not just any relationship between human beings.” A unique relationship, marriage exists not only for the union of the couple, but also for the good of the children who naturally proceed from marriage. As Notre Dame law professor Gerry Bradley recently noted, classic legal parlance identifies children as the “issue” of the marriage. From the marriage itself, children are born; they are a real extension of the love existing between the parents. Homosexual acts will never have an “issue”: They will never generate a child.

Same-sex unions are thus inherently different from the heterosexual unions that are essential for marriage. They do not reflect the complementarity of man and woman and, in and of themselves, their sexual acts do not participate in the generation of children. Whatever one’s personal beliefs on homosexuality, the simple, biological fact remains: Homosexual unions are intrinsically different from heterosexual unions. The fact that the conjugal nature of marriage does not extend to homosexual unions is not a matter of opinion. To equate the two would be to misunderstand and deny the nature of each.

The Catholic Church has made no secret of the fact that it considers homosexual acts to be gravely disordered. No one expected this document to say anything new in that regard. It is one thing to tolerate behavior — the church’s document calls for respect and compassion — and another to legitimize it. The agenda to recognize same-sex marriages is an attempt to legitimize a particular behavior. Moreover, legitimizing it would implicitly endorse the notion that the union of a man and woman is merely a variation, one particular type of “marriage.” In other words, marriage — the foundation of society — would no longer be marriage.

Perhaps the new twist in this document is the section directed to Catholic politicians. Last January, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a document concerning the participation of Catholics in political life. That same exhortation takes hold in today’s document: “Faced with legislative proposals in favor of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications…”

The language here is not a mere suggestion or recommendation for Catholic politicians. The church is telling Catholic politicians that they must reflect both the faith they profess and their responsibility as politicians. The Catholic politician can’t hide behind the veil of so-called “personal belief” and not articulate opposition to laws supporting same-sex unions. Politicians who wish to publicly identify themselves as Catholic must be accordingly open about their Catholic beliefs, and they have to vote accordingly. Being Catholic carries with it a responsibility to reflect one’s faith.

At stake in the marriage debate is marriage itself. The view of the Catholic Church is explicit on this: Catholic politicians have an obligation to defend marriage because the good of every man and woman depends upon it.

— Pia de Solenni is a fellow at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. She is also a moral theologian.

==============================

The light that failed (David Warren, 030629)

What do I think about “gay marriage”? In last week’s Spectator, I entered my protest against the way a provincial Court of Appeal overturned common law pertaining to marriage that had been in force throughout the time since our Confederation. Thanks to Trudeau’s Charter of Rights, which was embedded in our constitution by means of a 1982 stunt that I and many Canadians have never accepted as valid, we now live within a perpetual, court-ordered revolution.

For our courts have been allowed to seize the legislative prerogative of Parliament. They no longer apply law, but write it themselves, to suit the convenience and ideology of a narrow elite from Canada’s law schools. Parliament is being reduced to the function of rubber-stamping the courts’ decisions — and the principle of responsible government in this country has been overthrown.

That was the big, immediate issue. I now turn to “gay marriage” itself as only an example of the sort of thing we had better get used to, since our opinions as a people are no longer solicited on any important question. As the courts continue to realize the extent of their power, they will legislate more and more surprising things, that will fall on us, like this has, without public warning.

First the shriek, and then the pinprick: we now have a Red Queen system of governance. First the decision, then the discussion — moderated by the hosts of Cross-Canada Check-Up on the subsequent Sunday, empowered to keep order through the judicious use of such mallet-whacking terms as “homophobic”.

A similar attempt is being made in the United States, to get the courts to order “gay marriage”. We await a try-on judgment from the Massachusetts Supreme Court — a bench loaded with Canadian-style left-libertines. They will probably cite the Canadian decision, in the cause of hot-wiring their own constitutional vehicle. And according to Justice Scalia’s dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court’s strikedown of the Texas sodomy law on Thursday has already provided the reasoning to uphold any Massachusetts challenge.

The “right” in the U.S. are anyway divided among themselves — the more libertarian of them assuming that “gay marriage” is a matter of little consequence, and only the “social conservatives” seriously vexed. The extent to which the broad majority of Americans are socially conservative has never been fully tested; but since they couldn’t stand up to Roe v. Wade, I don’t expect them to stand up to this.

Marriage itself is hardly unimportant; but we must see from the above that the institution is indefensible. This isn’t a fight I’m expecting to win, and I must write, if at all, in the spirit of the Elizabethan churchman, Richard Hooker, “Though for no other cause, yet for this; that posterity may know we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream.”

In reducing the question of marriage, and the institution of family that depends on it, to the lowest common denominator of “equality rights”, we commit a terrible and unthinking act of barbarism. To understand what marriage is, and how it has evolved, is to follow the course of the rise of civilization. We became what we are today — so far as we remain civilized — because of certain norms our ancestors established, and alternatives that they rejected, in the very cause of raising the standards of our moral life above those of the mere human animal.

Here is the question of what is natural: and it is a question deeper than law. It may be argued, for instance, that homosexual unions are “natural” among the apes. They were certainly “natural” among the nomads of our prehistory — and for them, and even for the ancient Greeks, sodomy was a part of man-boy mentoring. It does not follow that homosexual unions are “natural” to a species raised above the apes, or above the last vestiges of our own primitive warrior tribalism.

Now that was a hard saying, and I want to qualify it. I could say, truly, that I have known of several homosexual unions that would be a good example to any couple; including one quite extraordinary. (God moves in mysterious ways.) And not only are some of my closest, most beloved friends homosexuals, but the person who has taught me most about the social evolution to which I just referred, is himself a homosexual, “living in sin”. He is one of those remarkable, independent scholars, who studies history and philosophy not with a view to vindicating his own interests — but instead to learn, whatever they will teach, including the uncomfortable truths.

And it is he who has brought home to me the difference between tolerance and approval. We must never, ever again, persecute homosexuals; we must live and let live. But the institution of marriage confers not tolerance, but public approval.

The idea of marriage, as a permanent, socially-sanctioned relation between one man and one woman — rejecting homosexuality, rejecting polygamy and polyandry, and further rejecting marriage between close relatives within the family — was itself the project not merely of centuries but of millennia of human trial and error, whether or not we conceive that history as having been divinely guided. The “norm” of the “nuclear”, “heterosexual” family was hard won; but it became written into the fabric of society, as part of our very strategy of survival. It is, or was, the via media itself.

That is not an opinion but a warning: we are tampering with things deeper than our own understanding, and which will have huge consequences over time. There are reasons why the Hebrews outlasted rival ancient tribes; why the Romans succeeded the Greeks; why the West rose over the East. And what we consider in our society to be “normal” goes to the heart of these reasons.

But the attack, through the state, on marriage and the family, did not begin yesterday. In Canada it began in the 1960s, with the “liberalization” of the divorce laws; and then the overturning of all penalties against abortion. For to mean something, marriages had to be nearly indissoluble, and the children of those marriages secure. Spouses could be separated; but to allow too casual divorce and remarriage was to make marriage itself an inconsequential bond, and thus the family inconsequential.

Now, we are riding a little farther into the sunset. I fear the day is behind us, and the uncharted night ahead.

==============================

Men & women (David Warren, 030713)

For the last three Sundays, I’ve been writing in the shadow of the Ontario Appeals Court decision that, in combination with our government’s cowardly refusal to challenge it, made “same-sex marriage” a fait accompli in Canada. I cannot apologize for dwelling on this, instead of turning to lighter subjects, as the summer glides along. Nor am I unaware that I speak for a minority of readers, and Canadians, nor that glibber views prevail among the majority, who think the matter is settled and are glad to put it away. For they have no idea what the consequences will be of inserting this latest dagger into the body of our society.

For our country and our culture is already changed, since my own childhood, more fundamentally than through all the centuries since European civilization was first brought to these shores. We have appeared to progress, only in the sense that a superficial prosperity — itself the product of mere technological developments — has not halted, and does not threaten to halt. There are ever new forms of bread and circuses to entertain our masses.

But from the things that bring true joy to human souls, from the things that give meaning to our lives, and can adorn our world with beauty and ennoble it, we have progressed into a hole. Our very idea of freedom is now reduced to the opposite idea of equality, as the distinctions upon which our civilization was founded have been hacked away.

Consider, for instance, only the immediate consequences of the ruling that destroyed the institution of marriage. Think for a moment on all the meaning that was contained in the words “husband” and “wife”; in the words “father” and “mother”; even in the words “son” and “daughter”. Think, if you can, how deeply these stations, and the duties and loyalties associated with each, were rooted in our experience as civilized men and women.

These are relations that can no longer exist in law, and which are already being stripped from public usage. The marriage of men to men, and of women to women, makes it impossible to maintain any distinctions of the kind.

Sex — what is male and what female — was written into each of them; and in extracting it, all intra-familial relations were thus abrogated. There can only be “partners”, henceforth; and as the whole notion of “parentage” was founded in the “heterosexual monopoly” on childbirth, children themselves can only have “guardians”. The common paternity and maternity of brothers and sisters may continue to exist as fact (progressively undermined by new technology). But by degrees such facts must cease to be publicly acknowledged.

This is not alarmist. No other possible course is available, in the logical wake of the “same-sex marriage” ruling. It leaves no way back. In Canada, the Charter of Rights has empowered our courts to strike down, successively, every attempt to maintain such distinctions.

The family itself has thus been driven underground. It can now exist only by the private consent of its members, on extra-legal terms. It most certainly no longer exists as a model or example, binding one generation to another.

My more libertarian friends seem convinced, after very little reflection, that the effect of “same-sex marriage” must be to make the “gays buy into bourgeois family values”. This is why they support it, or at least, don’t object. Their fallacy is to assume that marriage and family continue to be the same for the majority who are not “gay”. But this assumption cannot hold, when the very distinctions upon which “straight” marriage and family are built, must be stripped away to accommodate “gay” partners.

What we are much more likely to see is a movement of the “straights” towards the values pioneered among the “gays”. For what we now have, if you think it through logically, is not “straight” marriage extended to admit “gays”, but rather marriage itself entirely redefined. From now on everyone is in a “gay marriage” — all married are “partners”, neither husbands nor wives. The components have become interchangeable, and the effect is unambiguously to make “straights buy into gay values”.

This was anyway the direction in which our society was “evolving”. The reduction of every issue to “equality rights” had already made men interchangeable with women, for any social purpose. While they continue to be distinguished at the lowest, animal level — the level of outward differences in anatomy — they may not be distinguished in anything deeper or higher. “Same-sex marriage” thus confirms this societal groping — towards a monstrous lie.

For there can be no such thing as a human who is neither male nor female. A “person” who is neither is not a human, but something else: an imaginary creature struggling to be realized in human flesh. And our laws now serve exclusively that class of “persons” whose most essential human characteristics have been stripped away.

They were the Jews, in ancient times, who fully realized the significance of this fact: that God “had made them male and female”. Who realized, in a theological development of the idea of marriage, the deep truth of this anthropological fact. The deep truth that men and women are necessary to the completion of each other, that “man” in the male aspect of Adam, cannot be alone. That “man” in the sense of human, was Adam completed by Eve. This is the “beast with two backs”, of Shakespeare’s droll image — the one animal in nature who embraces face-to-face.

And I know this last paragraph will be lost on many readers. For it says something that now requires serious and patient thought. Whereas, until very recently in our culture, it was an insight, into reality itself, that we carried in our hearts, through Christian inheritance of ancient Hebrew revelation. We knew, if only by the grace of this inheritance, that there is more in the meeting of man and woman than the animal begetting of children; that in their coming together — in their mutual completion — was the foundation of civilization itself.

This insight is replaced in our time by something intellectually trite: with an idea of equality which removes all the difficulties in its way by denying the most fundamental human distinction. What a paradox that a society so rife with pornography should have abolished sex!

==============================

Homosexual “Marriage”: What Will It Take To Stop It? (Free Congress Foundation, 030624)

So Canada is now going to recognize homosexual “marriages.” And what will happen when homosexual couples rush to Canada to get “married” and then return to the United States as “Mr. and Mr.” So and So? Right now we would have to accept them as a married couple because the United States recognizes Canadian marriages.

More importantly, what will happen if the Massachusetts Supreme Court, as expected, mandates the acceptance of homosexual unions in a decision expected any day? In Vermont, there is something called a “civil union,” which is sort like a marriage but isn’t really. (By the way, in a remarkable backlash against that law, Republicans took the Vermont House of Representatives for the first time in ages and thus elected a Republican governor when no candidate received a majority of the votes cast in the 2002 elections.)

Well, the United States had better deal with the problem swiftly. Not only is there the reality of Canada and what is almost certainly to become a reality in Massachusetts. There is the very likely probability that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. So-called homosexual marriage in this country could soon be upon us.

Fortunately for all of us, a fellow by the name of Matt Daniels who is the Founder and President of the Alliance for Marriage (www.allianceformarriage.org), saw this coming. He prepared a Constitutional amendment which would enshrine in our Constitution the fact that marriage is between one woman and one man.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) is going to be the lead sponsor of the bill in the House of Representatives. She is a very articulate woman who carried much of the pro-family legislation when she was in the Colorado legislature. She is also fearless, and she will have to be, considering the intensity of the homosexual lobby in smearing those who openly advocate the preservation of traditional values.

In the Senate, it isn’t absolutely clear yet if either Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) or Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) will be the lead sponsors. Santorum is Chairman of the Senate GOP Conference and Kyl is Chairman of the Senate GOP Policy Committee. The amendment will have the support of Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), the Senate Majority Leader.

The amendment is simple and straight-forward and has an excellent chance of garnering the two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress necessary for passage.

Unfortunately, there is a fly in the ointment. The leader of one conservative group is shopping around a much broader amendment than Matt Daniel’s Federal Marriage Amendment. I hope he can’t find sponsors for the legislation.

It will be a disaster if that amendment is introduced. I recall when we were faced with a similar situation. When Roe vs. Wade came down in 1973, almost immediately Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) introduced a Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. That was the bill that the pro-life movement rallied around until 1981 when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced another type of Constitutional amendment. That amendment immediately split the pro-life movement with some groups supporting the Helms amendment and others supporting the Hatch amendment. For a decade or more, the pro-life cause made little progress because of that split. Time and time again we heard from the White House, from the Senate leadership, from Senate candidates: “When you in the movement get your act together, we’ll act. But as long as you’re split don’t look to us to resolve your differences.”

It was a phony excuse for inaction but it worked for them. It was an utter disaster.

The exact same thing would happen if there were rival amendments. To be blunt about it, there are many in key positions in this town who wish this issue would go away. If the movement is united, there is no way they can avoid action. If the movement is split, then we may as well reconcile ourselves to the idea that homosexual “marriage” will be legal and part of the culture.

Bill Wichterman, policy advisor to Majority Leader Frist, has this fear as well. He said it is conceivable that some Democrats could vote for the broader amendment and against the Federal Marriage Amendment, thereby having it both ways. They could say to their pro-family constituents that they voted for the broadest and most expansive bill possible. Then they could oppose the amendment that has a chance to pass. Indeed, they might bring it down so they could tell their homosexual constituents that they served them well.

Wichterman, who is widely respected on the Hill, also contends that two amendments muddies the media message. He is so right about that. Much of the media is very pro-homosexual in its reporting. Any opportunity they would have to confuse the situation is most certainly one they would seize.

Let us hope and pray that wiser heads will prevail and that Congress, both the House and the Senate, will be faced with a single remedy to prevent this once great nation from granting homosexuals the right to “marry.”

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

==============================

Homosexual unions last only 1.5 years, says new study (Catholic World News, 030715)

Washington, DC, Jul. 15 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - As Canada and several US states move toward the legalization of so-called homosexual “marriage,” a new study has found that homosexual partnerships last, on average, only one-and-a-half years.

The study is based on the health records of young Dutch homosexuals by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service and published in the May issue of the journal AIDS. It also found that men in homosexual relationships have an average of eight partners a year outside their main partnership, adding more evidence to the “stereotype” that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous.

The findings are “proof positive that these relationships ... will never be as stable as a normal heterosexual relationship regardless of what institutions or laws are changed,” said Pete LaBarbara, senior policy analyst at Concerned Women for America’s Culture and Family Institute, who predicts that homosexual promiscuity will remain “rampant.”

According to the US National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 67% of first marriages last 10 years and 50% last 20 years.

==============================

Majority Opposes Same-Sex Marriage (Foxnews, 030826)

Six in 10 Americans oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry and a majority favors passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

A recent FOX News national poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation, finds that 26% of Americans favor but 62% oppose same-sex marriage, and almost as many would ban it through a constitutional amendment. Over half (58%) favor passing an amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

In general, young people, Democrats, and those who have a friend or relative who is gay, are most likely to favor allowing same-sex marriage. And while women are somewhat more inclined than men to favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry a partner of the same sex, young people are more than three times as likely as older Americans to favor it. About twice as many Democrats and independents are in favor of same-sex marriage than are Republicans.

Public opinion today is only slightly more accepting of same-sex marriages than it was seven years ago. When the question was asked on a June 1996 FOX News poll, 22% of Americans were in favor and 65% opposed to allowing gays to marry.

The new poll also finds that a majority of the public (56%) opposes allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly as priests, ministers or rabbis, with a third in favor of gays serving in these roles. Conversely, a majority accepts having gays and lesbians serve openly in the military, with 64% in favor and 25% opposed. Again, young Americans, Democrats, independents, and those with a gay friend or family member are most supportive of gays on these issues.

1. Recently there has been a lot of talk about allowing gays and lesbians to marry a partner of the same sex. Do you favor or oppose same-sex marriage?

		Favor	Oppose	(Not sure)
12-13 Aug 03	(All)	26%	62	12
	Female	28%	60	12
	Male	23%	65	12
	Age 18-34	48%	42	10
	35-50	25%	62	13
	51-59	26%	63	12
	60-70	15%	76	10
	Over 70	14%	71	15
	Democrat	36%	51	13
	Republican	15%	76	10
	Independent	29%	58	13
	Have gay friend/family	39%	49	12
	No gay friend/family	15%	74	11
26-27 Jun 96		22%	65	13

2. Would you favor or oppose passing a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman?

	Favor	Oppose	(Not sure)
All	58%	34	8
Female	54%	38	8
Male	62%	30	8
Age 18-34	46%	50	4
35-50	61%	32	7
51-59	51%	43	6
60-70	68%	27	5
Over 70	63%	22	15
Democrat	48%	44	8
Republican	69%	25	6
Independent	54%	37	9
Have gay friend/family	47%	48	5
No gay friend/family	68%	24	9

3. – 4. Do you favor or oppose: Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly as priests, ministers or rabbis?

	Favor	Oppose	(Not sure)
All	33%	56	11
Female	38%	50	12
Male	27%	63	10
Age 18-34	41%	52	7
35-50	32%	57	11
51-59	39%	52	9
60-70	33%	57	10
Over 70	20%	60	21
Democrat	43%	46	12
Republican	22%	67	11
Independent	38%	55	7
Have gay friend/family	46%	45	9
No gay friend/family	22%	66	12

==============================

The End Of Marriage? (Worldnetdaily, 030902)

WND special report exposes campaign

to radically redefine, destroy family

The September issue of WorldNetDaily’s acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine is a powerfully insightful look at the institution of marriage – and the rapidly expanding movement to radically redefine, and many say, destroy it.

“This wonderful issue of Whistleblower is both a celebration of real marriage, and a devastating expose of what’s wrong with same-sex marriage,” said WorldNetDaily and Whistleblower Editor Joseph Farah.

Indeed, titled “THE END OF MARRIAGE?,” the September edition takes an unusually fresh and penetrating look at the “divine institution,” going well beyond the usual arguments in defense of marriage and in opposition to same-sex unions.

Included in the issue:

# “Nuking the nuclear family,” by Joseph Farah, which gives a disturbing glimpse of America’s future if same-sex marriage becomes legal.

# “The tragedy of love American-style,” citing how and why so many young people today are seeking, as one study put it, “sex without strings, relationships without rings,” by Joseph Farah

# “Marriages made in heaven – and in hell,” a thought-provoking exploration of the mystery of man and woman becoming “one flesh,” by David Kupelian

# “The end of marriage?” by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, a comprehensive and definitive look at the ‘gay-union’ juggernaut and the radical agenda behind it.

# “Talking points on marriage,” by Robert H. Knight, distilling the powerful reasons marriage shouldn’t encompass any arrangement other than “one man marrying one woman.”

# “In their own words” – homosexual activists’ own statements about redefining marriage and family, revealing more clearly than anyone else could, what’s at the root of the effort to redefine marriage.

# “Homosexual relationships average 1-1/2 years,” about a European study revealing that even “committed” same-sex unions tend to be short-lived.

# “Bush, Vatican vow to block ‘gay’ marriage,” laying out the positions of both the American president and the pope with regard to homosexual marriage.

# “2 out of 3 Americans reject ‘gay’ marriage,” by Jon E. Dougherty, showing that America’s courts are far out of step with its citizens on same-sex marriage.

# “Bridal magazine promotes homosexual weddings,” revealing how America’s premiere bridal magazine is now promoting homosexual marriage – a shift that occurred following inclusion of same-sex ceremony notices in the New York Times.

# “U.S. ‘gay’ activist touts Canadian ‘marriage,’” describing a radical campaign to encourage homosexuals to get “married” in Canada and then challenge U.S. courts.

# “Trifling with eternal justice - inviting impeachment and obscurity,” by Jan LaRue, a pro-family lawyer’s look at a landmark Massachusetts case that may herald the era of same-sex marriage throughout the nation.

# “Ain’t nothin’ like the real thing,” in which a former homosexual explains, from personal experience, how same-sex “unions” and “committed relationships” are “just playing house,” a sad “counterfeit” of real marriage.

Each month, Whistleblower focuses on one topic – typically a topic of great, even crucial, importance to Americans, yet one all-but-ignored by the mainstream press. It is also the prime source of support for WorldNetDaily.com.

“‘THE END OF MARRIAGE,’” said Farah, “is a beautiful, powerful journalistic blockbuster on perhaps the most important — and now, the most threatened — institution known to man.”

==============================

Same-sex marriage: to divide another day (National Post, 030917)

OTTAWA - Well, bring on the gay rights election.

In a House of Commons split down the middle on a motion to ban same-sex marriages — a 134-134 tie on a pivotal amendment which forced Speaker Peter Milliken to cast the deciding kill vote — a nation-splitting issue is now deferred to divide another day, another prime minister and another Parliament.

The final vote on the Canadian Alliance’s push to apply Noah’s Ark entry conditions on marriage ceremonies — one of each gender — was 137-132, a squeaker which left the ruling Liberals the most divided of the five parties with a final split of 97-53 against the motion, if my count is correct.

In what passes for riveting political theatre — this is, after all, just a non-binding motion of simple intent without legislative detail or force — a day of stark debate became an evening vote which divided MPs right and left, gay and straight, religious and atheist and, most obvious of them all, Quebec MPs (who cast almost half the nay votes) versus the rest of Canada.

Only the New Democrats applied the whip to their 14 MPs, forcing them to stand against the motion and driving a lone dissident away from the vote. The Liberal Cabinet was ordered to vote as a unit against the motion and did so with the notable and convenient exception of Alberta MP David Kilgour, last heard from shivering during a fact-finding mission to Mongolia, and Vancouver’s Stephen Owen, who was having neck surgery.

The rest of the MPs were free to vote according to their conscience or constituents’ orders. The result was an eerily accurate reflection of the public mood, which has pitted Canadian extremes against a soft and fuzzy middle of equally divided opinion.

The great divide no doubt explains why Paul Martin looked so uncomfortable as he climbed on to a fence post for a well-scripted encounter with reporters two hours before the voting began.

It was his first appearance of the sitting, an almost obligatory appearance to explain his same-sex marriage position. Position might be too strong a word for it, except as a veritable Kama Sutra of same-sex positions.

The incoming prime minister contorted himself into a policy pretzel, trying to offend the least number of Canadians by taking a black and white declaration and turning it into mush.

Martin, it seems, eagerly supports more debate on the issue, even though he refused to participate in Tuesday’s day-long gabfest himself. He apparently doesn’t believe there was enough input from the 400-plus speakers appearing in front of a roving justice committee studying the issue.

Martin also supports exploring all the options, although he struggled to articulate one. Frankly, none of his duck-for-cover alternatives — such as turning all non-religious ceremonies into domestic partnership unions, getting government out of the marriage business altogether or giving marriage its own same-sex name (I personally favour calling it an “alliance,” if only to drive Opposition Leader Stephen Harper crazy knowing gay weddings are henceforth known as “Canadian alliances”) — will pass the legal equality rights smell test and most would probably fall into an area of provincial jurisdiction anyway.

All we know for sure is that Martin will be haunted on the hustings by this issue.

He signalled every intention to delay tabling a bill until after the next election. There is in fact some doubt he’ll even craft legislation. When pressed to promise that an actual bill would be produced under his reign, he gave this bafflegab:

“I think quite clearly this is an issue that has to be dealt with, but I think it’s only an issue that should be dealt with after all of the options have been considered and everybody has been given the chance to essentially have their point of view expressed.”

In other words, talk out the clock until the court decisions in favour of same-sex marriages rule the land and there’s no point in trying to go back through time. And when, or if, a bill does come before the House, he promises a free vote. Thus, every MP is going to endure the same proposition on every doorstep: Same-sex or traditional?

All in all, there’s an interesting parallel between this defeated motion and the exact replica which passed on June 8, 1999.

On that date, Canada’s front pages featured the damage from a violent storm lashing southern Ontario, and set the scene for a stormy vote in the Commons to declare marriage a happy, but definitely not gay, state of opposite-sex togetherness.

Exactly 1,513 days later, specifically yesterday, Ontario found itself bracing for the remnants of Hurricane Isabel — and the same-sex storm raged anew in the House of Commons.

==============================

Traditional marriage defeated (National Post, 030917)

Motion fails by 137-132

OTTAWA - Parliament endorsed gay marriage yesterday, rejecting by a tiny margin a 137-year-old definition that preserves the institution for “one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

MPs voted 137-132 against a Canadian Alliance motion to maintain the traditional meaning, despite a string of court rulings to let gays and lesbians wed.

The vote is not binding, but it is considered significant because it is the first test of a federal bill that would make Canada only the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage, after Belgium and the Netherlands.

All 63 Alliance MPs voted to keep marriage the way it is. They were joined by 53 of the 150 Liberals who turned up to vote, 10 of 14 Tories, three of 23 Bloc Québécois MPs and three of four independents.

Twenty-nine MPs did not vote. For example, Bev Desjarlais, NDP MP for Churchill and an opponent of gay marriage, stayed away to avoid breaking ranks.

The 53 Liberal MPs who voted for the motion ignored last-minute pressure from Jean Chrétien and Martin Cauchon, the Justice Minister, to side with the government.

“You can no longer bully the caucus and you have to persuade them and if you cannot persuade them, you’re going to have some difficulty with legislation,” said John McKay, the Liberal MP for Scarborough East.

Mr. Cauchon appeared undaunted by the fault lines in the Liberal caucus. “We’ve won the vote, I think it’s one of confidence in the process we’ve taken,” he said. “Society evolves and tonight you have a good demonstration.”

Paul Martin, who is expected to replace Mr. Chrétien as prime minister early next year, was among those who voted against the motion. “This is an issue that I’ve had to wrestle with and I must say this has not been an easy decision,” said Mr. Martin, a devout Catholic.

“What has certainly tipped the balance as far as I’m concerned is the decision that the courts have taken is that this is a rights issue and you cannot discriminate.”

Mr. Martin said he does not believe marriage will be eroded by including homosexuals.

Mr. Chrétien voted for an identical Alliance motion four years ago, as did most Liberal MPs, including Mr. Cauchon. That vote passed by 216-55.

When asked yesterday why he had changed his vote, Mr. Chrétien said: “On ... equality of rights, the courts spoke. I am a great defender of the Charter of Rights.”

The Alliance failed in a last-minute bid yesterday to remove a contentious clause urging Parliament “to take all necessary steps” to keep the traditional definition of marriage.

A vote to soften the motion failed 135-134, after the Speaker of the House of Commons broke a tie for the first time in 40 years.

Mr. Chrétien had used the clause to persuade Liberals to defeat the motion, warning it would amount to authorizing Parliament to use the Constitution’s controversial notwithstanding clause, which allows politicians to override court rulings dealing with the Charter of Rights.

But Stephen Harper, the Alliance leader, said of the bill: “If it does not pass today, it will tell the people of Canada they need a new government.”

Mr. Harper speculated that his party might have secured enough votes to win, if it had succeeded in its attempts to water down the motion.

“We know that the opinion of the country is divided, and I think that’s reflected somewhat in the vote,” Mr. Harper said. “The other thing to note is we didn’t win because some of the well-known supporters of our position didn’t show up to vote as well, and I think there’s going to have be some accountability.”

While the Alliance accused the Liberals of changing their political stripes with ease, many government members said they switched sides because they have been swayed by court rulings.

Courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec have struck down the federal ban on gay marriage as a violation of the equality guarantees in the Charter.

A federal bill legalizing same-sex marriage has been sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for a legal opinion on whether it passes constitutional muster before it is introduced in the House of Commons.

The traditional definition of marriage is based on an 1866 court ruling in England, in which Lord Penzance wrote: “I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may ... be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”

Despite Mr. Martin’s vote, he refused to commit to the bill legalizing gay marriage, should he become prime minister.

“There are a number of options that have been put on the table,” he told reporters.

He said that final answer must comply with the Charter of Rights, which rules out a “separate but equal” regime for gays and lesbians.

Mr. Martin did, however, muse about registered civil unions, but the prospect already has been rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal on the grounds that it still shuts same-sex couples out of marriage.

Some proponents of civil unions have suggested the government should get out of the marriage business altogether by bringing in civil unions for everybody who does not choose to marry in a church.

Mr. Harper kicked off yesterday’s divisive debate by rejecting Liberal claims that gay marriage is a civil rights issue akin to racial segregation.

“For the Liberals or anyone in the Liberal party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting,” said the Alliance leader, who was accused by his political opponents of being homophobic.

In another bitter exchange, Vic Toews, the Canadian Alliance justice critic, denounced the strong views of gay MP Svend Robinson by saying “his ideology is fascism, not free speech.”

==============================

Gay unions: the vital non-issue (Ottawa Citizen, 030919)

The province can’t do a thing about it, but voters are keying on same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage has become the sleeper issue of the Ontario election campaign, despite attempts by Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty to keep it off the radar screen and an acknowledgement by the Conservatives that they could do nothing to stop it if re-elected.

Candidates and staffers from all parties say same-sex marriage is the deciding issue for some voters, even though Ontario has no power in the matter. Many say it comes up regularly on doorsteps and over the phone, often overshadowing other issues. Some voters tell candidates they will not vote for them because of their stand on the issue.

And yesterday, a group calling itself Action Marriage Ottawa South said it plans to hand out 20,000 brochures in Ottawa South attacking Mr. McGuinty’s stand on same-sex marriage.

“I understand there are deeply felt emotions on both sides of this,” Mr. McGuinty said yesterday.

“I respect that, but I think the people of Ontario and the people of Ottawa South in particular are entitled to know where I stand on this issue. I support it. I think it is the right thing to do.”

Mr. McGuinty’s attempt to keep the divisive issue out of the provincial campaign by asking Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to delay federal same-sex legislation until after the provincial election, has apparently had little effect. It was reported yesterday that Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Chrétien had a discussion about the issue and Mr. Chrétien agreed to delay moving forward with the federal legislation until after Oct. 2.

There were also questions raised yesterday about whether Mr. Eves had talked privately to Mr. Chrétien about same-sex marriage, but that was denied by the premier’s officials and by the Prime Minister’s Office.

But late last night, the Eves campaign released a statement saying Eddie Goldenberg, the prime minister’s chief of staff, confirmed “there have been no private conversations between Prime Minister Chrétien and Premier Ernie Eves on the issue of same sex marriage.”

Still, if anything, same sex marriage seems to be a growing issue in the provincial campaign. And some are asking how a mainly federal issue has come to be so dominant in a provincial election with no shortage of pressing issues.

Leeds-Grenville Conservative MPP Bob Runciman, who opposes same-sex marriage, said he thinks the issue is deeply symbolic for many voters, no matter which level of government they are voting for.

“I think it’s a test of the character of the person they are voting for, regardless of their political stripe,” Mr. Runciman said.

But the debate about same-sex marriage is little more than symbolic in Ontario, it appears. Mr. Runciman revealed yesterday that the provincial Tory caucus was advised earlier this summer that Ontario has no legal grounds on which to fight same-sex marriage.

“I think we would have seriously considered invoking the notwithstanding clause,” he said. “It was seriously discussed within our caucus, but we can’t.”

Mr. Runciman said caucus was given that advice by the ministry of the attorney general and then sought a second opinion from outside counsel and got the same advice — Ontario has no legal grounds to fight same-sex marriage. Alberta has said it would invoke the notwithstanding clause to fight any federal law on same-sex marriage. Mr. Runciman said the case “won’t stand up.”

Mr. Eves has said he personally opposes same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, an Ottawa-area Liberal candidate who opposes the provincial party’s stand in favour of same-sex marriage said he now regrets being so forthcoming about his opinion.

“I suppose if I got the political advice before, I would have stayed away from the issue,” said Ottawa-Orléans Liberal candidate Phil McNeely, “But I haven’t been one to hide my views and opinions and feelings.”

Mr. McNeely said he was called homophobic by some angry callers after his view on same-sex marriage was made public. “I don’t feel I am. I have full respect for gays and lesbians. I want them to have the rights and the respect and everything else. It’s a difficult position, because you hurt people ...” he said.

“I just figured it was a question they could ask me. I didn’t use the federal dodge. I just answered it. In retrospect, I would probably use the federal dodge. Why should they ask me? It’s not a provincial matter.”

Ottawa Centre Liberal candidate Richard Patten said the issue comes up fairly regularly when he talks to voters. “I have to clarify it for them, in some cases. I say ‘I have no vote on this’ and they say ‘Yeah, right.’ But they are still curious what your view is.”

Mr. Patten said it can be frustrating, at times. “There are plenty of provincial issues we need to talk about and explore.”

Wilfrid Laurier University political science professor David Docherty agrees. “It would be sad if same-sex marriages became the issue which this campaign revolved around. We’ve got economic questions about whether the budget is balanced, larger questions about the future direction of the province ... safe food, safe water, hospitals. If the election turned on whether or not my friends can get married because they happen to be gay, I think that would be a sad thing.”

And Mr. Docherty said it is disingenuous of Conservative candidates, such as London-Elgin-Middlesex Conservative candidate Bruce Smith, to campaign on the issue of same-sex marriage, because they have not said what they could do about the issue if they were elected. And it appears there is nothing a provincial government could do.

Still, Mr. Docherty said he predicted same-sex marriage would be the “sleeper” issue of the campaign because people have been talking about it and are angry about it.

==============================

Marriage Protection Week (Free Congress Foundation, 031007)

Next week represents a major test for those who believe it is essential to stand up in support of traditional marriage.

For too long, this important institution has been devalued in our society, undermined by the news media, special interest groups, academia, and even by the government itself. The result is that a very important part of American society — the traditional family — is being torn away at the seams.

A lifelong commitment to a marriage benefits all of society. Conversely, when young couples fail to marry or fail in marriage, they fail us all. When they do not recognize the importance of the marriage commitment, their children, their communities and their country feel the effects. All too often, the nation at-large has to pick up the tab for the broken home — in terms of the welfare and the social services frequently needed by single parents and their children.

Sadly, marriage is often treated as a contract of convenience rather than an irreplaceable building block of society. Social services are a poor substitute for a unified family. No counselor, no food or rent assistance package can fill the gaps created by a broken home.

Now we see exponential pressure being exerted by an increasingly vocal, even belligerent, homosexual rights movement that is intent on bending the definition of marriage to fit its own desires. These homosexual activists are lobbing our politicians and even using the courts to try to obtain what they want. Indeed, this movement is intent on requiring every state to provide legal sanction to same-sex marriages.

It’s very clear that our country is rapidly approaching a crossroads. A choice must be made. Either we will hurtle down the path that will lead to further diminution of the traditional view of marriage, or we will regain our senses and take the high road that will preserve our traditional view of marriage and recognize its importance in providing a stable family life in which to rear children and upon which to build strong communities.

Many Americans who believe in the preservation of traditional values have come to the conclusion that a Constitutional Marriage Amendment is needed to make it clear that marriage shall only be viewed as a union between one man and one woman. Furthermore, it is necessary to make it clear that our courts should not confer marital status upon unmarried couples or groups.

President Bush has declared next week to be Marriage Protection Week. This provides an excellent opportunity for the grassroots to weigh in with their Members of Congress on the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment that will protect the traditional concept of marriage from the legal assault of the homosexual movement. Get those phones, faxes and mail carriers moving. Letters to editors will also help. No stone should go unturned in this united effort to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

This issue presents an excellent opportunity to find new friends. Groups that have not traditionally been interested in our movement are now joining us on this issue. Many important Jewish, Black and Hispanic leaders support the raditional view of marriage. They should be warmly welcomed into the coalition. Secular conservatives who want the best for our society also recognize the importance of marriage and should also be included.

Use this advance notice to let your friends, neighbors, fellow worshipers, and co-workers know that their efforts are needed.

Nothing motivates Congress more than hearing from the grassroots. Our numbers are so strong that if we speak up, our senators and congressmen will either have to listen and heed our message or they will have to think about the consequences next November.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

==============================

Mass. Court Says Gay Marriage Can’t Be Denied (Foxnews, 031118)

BOSTON — The highest court in Massachusetts ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny gay couples there the right to marry.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state Constitution, but stopped short of immediately allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.

Massachusetts may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry,” the court ruled, according to a posting on its Web site.

The court is giving the Legislature 180 days to “take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this decision,” which means the decision will not take affect until then.

“Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. It brings stability to our society,” Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the long-awaited ruling.

“For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits. In return, it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations.”

The ruling was 4-to-3 in a case that has become the focus of international attention. Advocates on both sides are predicting the court could make Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage.

“They said, basically, to the Legislature, ‘we really think this is your job,’” Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor and victims advocate, told Fox News, adding that the court took an activist role in its decision but backed up enough to give the Legislature the authority to make same-sex marriages legal.

The lawsuit was filed by seven gay couples who sued the state Department of Public Health in 2001 after their requests for marriage licenses were denied. They argued they had the right to marry under the state Constitution and said that forbidding homosexuals to marry is discrimination along the same lines as forbidding interracial couples to marry.

But a Superior Court judge dismissed their suit in May 2002, ruling that state law does not convey the right of marriage to gay couples, and the couples appealed.

Because of Article 4 in the U.S. Constitution, known as the Full Faith and Credit clause, other states would have to honor marriages performed in Massachusetts under a reciprocity agreement.

In other words, if a gay couple got married while on vacation in Massachusetts, their home state would also have to consider them married — unless those states had a so-called defense of marriage act, which explicitly defines marriage as only being between a man and a woman. Thirty-seven states have such laws.

The high court heard arguments in March, and hundreds of organizations and individuals across the country filed briefs on both sides of the argument.

The court had three options: instructing the state to give marriage licenses to the seven couples; upholding the state’s authority to deny same-sex couples the right to wed; referring the matter to the Legislature. The Legislature is already considering various competing proposals to outlaw or to legalize gay marriages or civil unions.

Many legal experts had thought the court would pass the political hot potato to the Legislature for a final decision.

“They did, in a very activist style, sort of trump the power of the Legislature,” Murphy said. “This is a very important decision.”

The big question that looms now is whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue and/or step in on the Massachusetts case.

“The United States Supreme Court, at this point, doesn’t really have a voice, it doesn’t really have a decision” in the Massachusetts case, Murphy said. “There really are no federal issues.”

Courts in Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont have previously ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, but no American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license to gay partners, effectively legalizing gay marriage.

The ruling closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision which led to its Legislature’s approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage.

Under the Supreme Judicial Court’s internal guidelines, a decision would have been due in early July. But the court waived that rule, leading to a monthslong wait for a verdict.

The Massachusetts Legislature had been considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that marriage should be preserved as a union between a man and a woman, but has declined recently to comment on what he would do if gay marriages were legalized. On the campaign trail last fall, Romney said he would veto gay-marriage legislation.

State Speaker of the House Tom Finneran of Boston had endorsed a defense of marriage act, and the Legislature last year defeated a gay marriage initiative.

“If there is huge public outcry about this and the public says, ‘Look, let’s amend the Constitution so this decision never takes effect,’ then the Legislature can do this. I don’t think they will,” he said.

A poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that opposition to gay marriage has grown since midsummer, with 32% favoring it and 59% opposing it. In July, 53% said they opposed gay marriage.

The gay community has been victorious recently, with the Supreme Court deciding to strike down anti-sodomy laws, the ordination of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church and a Canadian appeals court ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples.

Belgium and the Netherlands have also legalized gay marriage.

==============================

Advocates, Foes Spar Over Gay Marriage (Foxnews, 031118)

Editor’s note: This is part one of a three-part series investigating the issues currently surrounding marriage in America.

Cathy Renna is getting married next week. Like other brides, she’s taking off time from work for an extended honeymoon away from cell phones, e-mail and any contact with the outside world.

But unlike other brides, Renna’s marriage won’t be licensed by city hall or sanctioned in church — she is taking vows with her longtime girlfriend.

“We’re obviously not getting married in the sacramental sense,” said Renna, spokeswoman for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, one of the largest gay and lesbian rights organizations in the country.

GLAAD is among a handful of organizations seeking to secure the right of all gay and lesbian couples to marry. Renna said the fight is not about getting a religious blessing, but civil recognition of the union, including all the legal benefits and protections afforded to heterosexual married couples by local, state and federal governments.

“What we are finding is people are making that distinction ... between the religious ritual and the civil protection that a couple gets when they legally marry,” she said. “I think wherever people stand on gay marriage, they are against discrimination.”

Being recognized as the next of kin, sharing employer health insurance, visiting a partner during an emergency hospital stay, having a say in hospital care, being able to pass along Social Security and pension benefits after death — these are among the more than 1,000 benefits that gay rights groups say heterosexual married couples take for granted but same-sex partners are denied.

“These are shared values, these are things that everyone understands,” said Mark Shields, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign.

Opponents say they do understand, but don’t buy it. The anti-discrimination argument is a canard to force all Americans to recognize gay marriage on the same social and moral plane as the centuries-old union between men and women, and that’s never going to happen.

“This is a social weapon of mass destruction,” said Rev. Lou Sheldon, director of the Traditional Values Coalition, whose predominant mission is to pursue an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman only. Already 37 states have passed similar amendments to their constitutions and are fighting efforts to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights as heterosexual pairs.

“It would destroy civilization as we know it,” Sheldon said.

“The radical gay activists have to overcome two things — public opinion and the democratic process. They only way they can do this is to manufacture a constitutional right,” said Matt Daniels, spokesman for the Marriage Alliance, which is also seeking an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prevent gay marriage.

“We did not come to a federal marriage amendment as a vehicle for anything but a last resort,” he said.

Based on the 2000 census, an estimated 594,691 same-sex unmarried households exist in the United States. Further surveys by pro-gay groups suggest that is a conservative number.

A Gallup Poll conducted in late October found that 64% of registered voters over the age of 30 think that homosexual marriage, with rights afforded to traditional married couples, should not be recognized. The poll found 32% said it should.

But a Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll in September showed 46% of respondents would support civil unions as opposed to 44% who would not.

Gary Gates, a demographer with the Urban Institute, said that as tolerance grows for same-sex unions, he expects the numbers of gay households to increase and the relationships themselves to be strengthened by public confidence in them.

“As policies and attitudes improve around acceptance of same-sex couples, you will have the likelihood of more people coupling and longer relationships,” he said.

So far, Vermont is the only state to have granted civil union status for gay and lesbian couples. While gay couples get no federal benefits and their unions are not recognized beyond state lines, they are afforded the same state protections and benefits heterosexual married couples get.

To date, 10 state governments and 161 local municipalities extend some degree of benefits to employees’ partners regardless of the type of relationship, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Several other states are in the midst of deciding whether to recognize same-sex unions as legally-protected entities.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny marriage of same-sex partners, in effect making Massachusetts the first state in the union to permit gay marriage. Earlier this month, a New Jersey state Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit by seven homosexual couples seeking the right to marry. The couples are considering an appeal.

The fronts in this fight are not only in the courtroom and the statehouses. Currently, 202 Fortune 500 companies extend benefits to domestic partners of their employees, as do 5,275 smaller companies and non-profit organizations.

Hundreds of churches, church councils and dioceses are currently performing same-sex marriage ceremonies. On the flip side, the U.S. Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops passed an edict last week disapproving same-sex marriages and civil unions.

“The union of a man and a woman is sacred and it is from them that the procreation of children comes about,” said Bob Laird, director of the Office for Family Life at the Arlington, Va., diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. “That makes it a societal issue. You need children to continue the society. And a lot of people say if marriage goes, so goes the society.”

An Adoption Institute study released Oct. 29 shows 60% of public and private adoption agencies in the United States accept applications from homosexuals, and about 40% of those agencies have already placed a child with a homosexual couple.

Twenty-seven states allow gay individuals to adopt, and eight states — California, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont — guarantee joint adoption. That gives both parents legal rights over the child and gives the child the opportunity to receive inheritances and other benefits from both parents.

Mississippi bans adoption by gay couples and Utah forbids adoption by any unmarried couple. Florida bans adoption by any gay person, but the law is currently being challenged in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a ruling is due at any time.

==============================

Candidates, Lawmakers Resist Marriage Ruling (Foxnews, 031119)

WASHINGTON — Hours after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled a state ban on gay marriages is unconstitutional, presidential candidates and lawmakers on Tuesday expressed their reservations about a law allowing same-sex marriages.

Still, Democrats on the campaign trail said they would support measures to give gay couples similar legal rights to those enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

“The state should afford same-sex couples equal treatment under law in areas such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights,” said Howard Dean, who as governor of Vermont signed the first law allowing civil unions, which offers equal treatment for same-sex couples without calling it marriage.

“As a society we should be looking for ways to bring us together and, as someone who supports the legal rights of all Americans regardless of sexual orientation, I appreciate today’s decision,” said Wesley Clark. “As president, I would support giving gays and lesbians the legal rights that married couples get.”

Following decisions in Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont, the Massachusetts high court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state Constitution, but it stopped short of immediately allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.

The court is giving the Legislature 180 days to “take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this decision,” which means the decision will not take affect until then.

The Massachusetts Legislature had already been considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

State Speaker of the House Tom Finneran of Boston had endorsed a defense of marriage act, and the Legislature last year defeated a gay marriage initiative.

On the campaign trail last fall, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he would veto gay-marriage legislation.

“Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman,” the Republican governor said in a statement Tuesday.

Currently, 37 states have “defense of marriage” amendments to their constitutions, specifically defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law a federal Defense of Marriage Act. Following Tuesday’s ruling, some Republican members of Congress said they would seek a federal constitutional amendment to strengthen that law.

This bill provides a further push for Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who has pushed for the amendment in the Senate.

The ruling is “just one more assault on the Judeo-Christian values of our nation,” added Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C.

An amendment to the Constitution would require two-thirds support from both chambers, the president’s signature and ratification by three-quarters of the states, which seems possible considering the number of state constitutional amendments on the books.

President Bush suggested Tuesday that he could support such a plan.

“Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today’s decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage,” Bush said in a statement while traveling to London for a three-day visit.

But congressional action this year on any legislation is highly unlikely. Lawmakers are looking to adjourn this year’s session by Thanksgiving, and House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R- Wis., probably wouldn’t call a hearing on the proposed constitutional amendment or other gay marriage legislation in his committee this year.

On the campaign trail, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, another Democratic presidential candidate, warned against trying to pass a constitutional amendment.

“It is my hope that we don’t get sidetracked by the right wing into a debate over a phony constitutional amendment banning gay marriage,” said Gephardt, whose daughter is gay. “I strongly oppose such an effort as purely political and unnecessarily divisive at the expense of those who already suffer from discrimination.”

However, Gephardt, along with candidates Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and John Edwards issued statements Tuesday restating their opposition to gay marriage. Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, said the decision calls on the legislature in his state “to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples.” He avoided specifying what that action should be.

Only three candidates — Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun — said they would support laws that allowing same-sex couples to wed.

“Separate is not equal,” Kucinich, a Ohio representative in Congress, said. “The right to marry is a civil right that should not be denied.”

==============================

Support for Federal Marriage Amendment (NRO, 031130)

David Frum

Alas, George Will has declared against the Federal Marriage Amendment. It’s sad and demoralizing that the American journalist who has most closely studied - and thought hardest about - the data on the decline of the American family should have decided against joining the most pressing battle in its defense.

Will cites federalism as his main grounds for opposing the FMA: “It would be especially imprudent to end state responsibility for marriage law at a moment when we require evidence of the sort that can be generated by allowing the states to be laboratories of social policy.” But in this case, the federalism argument doesn’t work.

The weakness in Will’s federalism argument becomes clearer when Louis Brandeis’ famous words about state experimentation are quoted in full: “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system,” Brandeis wrote in his 1932 dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann “that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” But the citizens of Massachusetts chose nothing. If the states are in danger of becoming labs for the redefinition of marriage, it is not because of their peoples’ “courage,” but because of the ambitions of a handful of judicial mad scientists.

Besides, notice Brandeis’ final words: “without risk to the rest of the country.” The particular experiment he was defending in 1932 was one that involved licenses for would-be distributors of ice. It is extremely unrealistic to imagine that the states will long be allowed to be “laboratories” for radically different definitions of marriage. The experiment George Will celebrates will last for about eighteen minutes. Is it possible that a couple traveling from Boston to Miami down the I-95 might be married in Massachusetts, unmarried again in Connecticut, remarried in New York, unmarried in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, remarried for a third time in Maryland, unmarried in Virginia and points south? It can’t work, and it won’t work. The experiment will last less than a decade. By the end of that time, the country will be all one way or all the other.

==============================

Gay ‘marriages’ tangle European laws (Washington Times, 031208)

PARIS - If you’re married in Holland, are you still married when you move to Austria? Not if it’s a homosexual union.

More than two years after the Netherlands became the first nation to permit same-sex “marriage,” Europe is mired in a confusing tangle of laws complicating legal and family issues for homosexual couples.

“Married” homosexuals in the Netherlands enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, including custody of children, inheritance of property and hospital visitation rights should their partners fall ill.

Yet, as they move around within an enlarging European Union which will have 10 more nations after next year many find themselves losing some of those rights, even in member states that recognize same-sex unions.

Homosexual partners in the United States could have to deal with similar confusion if other states follow the example of Massachusetts, where the state’s highest court recently ruled that homosexual couples have the right to “marry.”

“There is a lot of legal uncertainty” in Europe, says Katherina Boele-Woelki, a professor of private international law at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, author of a new book on the legal recognition of same-sex “marriages” on the continent.

“All the countries introducing registered partnerships do not care about cross-border situations” she writes. “They do not introduce rules on what would happen to those going abroad or coming from abroad with a different legal status. And that’s the problem of private international law.”

The Netherlands and Belgium are the only countries in the European Union where same-sex “marriage” is legal. However, about 10 other EU member states recognize same-sex partnerships with varying rights.

France, Germany and the Scandinavian countries allow forms of “registered partnerships,” and Britain recently enacted a law enabling homosexual couples to register in “civil partnerships.”

However, Miss Boele-Woelki says: “If you compare registered partnerships in the Netherlands, it’s different from registered partnerships in Germany. In Germany, you have less far-reaching legal consequences. And this causes more and more problems. What will happen to registered partners if they move from Holland to Germany? How would they be recognized?”

The European Union has never tried to establish a single set of guidelines for member nations.

“We don’t have any competence on marriage, it’s entirely in the hands of the member states,” says Pietro Petrucci, spokesman for Justice and Home Affairs at the European Commission. “Each state is free to legalize same-sex partnerships the way its parliament prefers. So, if a Belgian homosexual couple moves to Austria, it is up to the court in Austria to apply entirely or partially or not at all, the Belgian law.”

Laws on adoption and child custody are similarly varied. In the Netherlands, homosexual couples are free to adopt, but foreign children cannot be subject to adoption. About 20,000 children there are being raised in such families where both partners share custody of the children.

In Belgium, however, homosexual couples are forbidden to adopt children. In a lesbian “marriage,” for example, the actual mother is considered the sole parent. If she dies, the surviving partner has no rights to the child.

Miss Boele-Woelki envisions even more complicated problems for Americans, who, unlike Europeans, are bound by the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits recognition of same-sex partnerships on a federal level.

“Like Europe, in the U.S., you have free movement of persons,” she says. “If you apply this rule, you are urged to recognize what will happen in other states. The fact that in Europe so many forms of same-sex registered partnerships, marriages and civil unions came into force is not a really good example of how we should deal with the problem at all. We should have come together to discuss and draft the rules and legislation in this field.”

Mr. Petrucci says the European Commission was unlikely to address the matter on a community-wide basis any time soon. “As far as homosexual marriages are concerned, there is little experience. The idea is to extend what we have been legislating to the widest possible area. So, when homosexual marriage becomes a common practice in the Union, we will extend the legislation.”

The European experience suggests that Americans who support a constitutional amendment barring same-sex “marriages” had best act quickly. “There is a tendency in the direction of more and more recognition of same-sex couple status,” says Miss Boele-Woelki. “If we talk within five years from now about the EU, major changes will take place.”

European opponents of same-sex “marriage” agree.

“When one country starts with it, you will see it opening for other countries as well,” says Menno de Bruyne, spokesman for the Reformed Political Party, a Christian party in the Netherlands that fought against the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

“This is what we feared and this is what is happening. After Holland, we had Belgium, and now other countries are discussing it.”

==============================

Bush Says He Would Support Gay Marriage Ban (Foxnews, 031217)

WASHINGTON — President Bush said Tuesday that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court last month struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional and giving state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to wed.

Bush has condemned the ruling before, citing his support for a federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. On Tuesday, he criticized it as “a very activist court in making the decision it made.”

“The court, I thought, overreached its bounds as a court,” Bush said in an interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer. “It did the job of the Legislature.”

Previously, though Bush has said he would support whatever is “legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage,” he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition.

But on Tuesday, the president waded deeper into the topic, saying state rulings such as the one in Massachusetts and a couple of other states “undermine the sanctity of marriage” and could mean that “we may need a constitutional amendment.”

“If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that,” he said. “The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they’re allowed to make, so long as it’s embraced by the state or at the state level.”

Bush said he believes his view on the topic does not make him intolerant.

“I do believe in the sanctity of marriage ... but I don’t see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person,” he said.

His remarks drew criticism from gay rights groups.

==============================

In Iowa, Gay Marriage Illegal, Divorce OK (FN, 031218)

WASHINGTON — Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act guarantees that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that didn’t stop a state district court judge last month from granting a divorce to a lesbian couple joined in a Vermont civil union last year.

Now, a conservative family advocacy group has filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, saying Judge Jeffrey A. Neary’s Nov. 4 decision overstepped his judicial role, and he acted as a legislator in his ruling.

The Iowa Family Policy Center — whose legal arm, the Iowa Liberty and Justice Center, filed the appeal on behalf of six Iowa lawmakers, a U.S. congressman and a church pastor — also claims that same-sex divorce can’t exist if same-sex marriage doesn’t.

“We’re a pro-family organization that believes that marriage is between one man and one woman,” IFPC President Chuck Hurley told Foxnews.com. “So when a Sioux City judge ruled that two women were married and could be divorced, we had two issues. One was judicial activism. The other was more specific. We don’t think that same-sex marriage or polygamy or pederasty is healthy for society or for the individuals in that situation.”

“This situation paints a clear picture of why we need to rein in renegade judges legislating from the bench,” said Republican U.S. Rep. Steve King, who joined the appeal.

“Unless I’m mistaken, it was in Vermont, not Iowa, that Howard ‘the Coward’ Dean slyly signed midnight legislation making same sex unions legal. Unicorns, leprechauns, gay marriages in Iowa — these are all things you will never find because they just don’t exist. But perhaps Judge Neary would grant divorces to unicorns and leprechauns too,” King said in a statement.

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, signed into a law a civil unions bill in April 2000. The measure does not provide all the same rights as marriage, but gives gay partners, among other things, the right to hospital visitation, health insurance coverage and the power of attorney to settle a partner’s affairs after his or her death.

In reaction to the civil unions legislation, 37 states passed Defense of Marriage Acts, which recognize unions as only those between a man and a woman. Four of those states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — have included the language in their constitutions.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been mulling for years whether to pass a federal Defense of Marriage Act. President Bush told a television interviewer earlier this week that he could be convinced to sign such a law.

“If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that,” he said.

The case in Iowa isn’t the first of gay couples seeking divorce. A same-sex couple in Connecticut never received a divorce decree after an appellate court ruled that a civil union — even one in Vermont — is not the same as a marriage and therefore cannot be dissolved. Texas came to the same conclusion in a separate case.

Neary told the Sioux City Journal that he did not notice that the divorce was between two women until after he issued a dissolution decree. Reflecting on his decision, the judge said that had he known that the pair requesting a divorce were both women, he likely would not have changed his mind.

Hurley said he finds it hard to believe Neary didn’t realize the divorce involved two women.

“Either he’s lying or he’s committed malfeasance,” Hurley said, adding that each document in the file has the two litigants’ names, Kimberly Jean Brown and Jennifer Sue Perez, clearly printed on it.

Hurley also suggested that Neary has a reputation in some circles as being a liberal activist. He said he is optimistic that ultimately ILJC will win the appeal.

==============================

Calif. judge allows gay ‘marriage’ law (Washington Times, 031220)

A California judge has ruled that the state can begin implementing its sweeping domestic partnership law next month, despite legal protests that the new law illegally creates same-sex “marriage.”

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Thomas Cecil’s decision Thursday was hailed as a victory by homosexual rights groups. But traditional values groups, which are suing to block the new law, were heartened that Judge Cecil did not throw out their case altogether.

“We are pleased the judge did not dismiss the case. It is proceeding,” said Joseph Infranco, vice president of the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz.

He said that the next legal arguments before Judge Cecil would likely be in the spring.

At issue is AB 205, which was signed in September by former Gov. Gray Davis. The new law extends “the rights and duties of marriage to persons registered as domestic partners on and after Jan. 1, 2005.” The new rights include child custody, child support, court immunity, medical leave and debt liability.

Homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals over age 62 can register as domestic partners in California.

State officials were making plans to mail information about the new law Jan. 1 to registered domestic partners when two traditional values groups sued to stop them.

The first goal is to stop the government from spending funds “to publicize ‘gay marriage by another name,’ “ said Randy Thomasson, executive director of the Campaign for California Families.

Mr. Thomasson and his group, which is represented by Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel in Florida, say AB 205 violates the voter-approved Proposition 22, which says the “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Proposition 22 “was intended to protect the institution of marriage, including all rights, benefits and duties of marriage,” says the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing state Sen. William “Pete” Knight, lead sponsor of Proposition 22, and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund in a separate but similar lawsuit.

Homosexual rights groups applauded Judge Cecil’s decision to deny the plaintiffs’ request to block California from implementing the new law.

The ruling “is a victory not only for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, but for all fair-minded Californians who believe that families should be treated equally under the law, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of family members,” said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California.

Equality California and 12 homosexual couples who are registered as domestic partners joined the lawsuit to defend AB 205. Los Angeles lawyer David Codell, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal are also participating in the suit.

Said Mr. Codell: “It’s great news for all the California couples who need these protections that the court does not think challenges to the law are likely to succeed.”

==============================

The Death of Canadian Democracy and the Birth of Judicial Unilateralism (Sierra Times, 040101)

Pete Vere and John Pacheco

As Canadian university students during the early 90’s, the current authors survived the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. The purpose of this constitutional accord had been to accommodate Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. In the aftermath of this failed referendum, we witnessed a divided country, the near-extinction of Canada’s oldest political party, and the re-birth of a nearly successful Quebec separatist movement. Never could we imaging that we would live through another event that so affected the psyche of our nation.

And yet, for the American reader, this blow to the psyche of Canadian social conservatism is precisely what happened recently. As reported in the July 10th edition of LifeSiteNews.com, “The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled this morning that homosexual ‘marriage’ is now a right guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, and thus re-wrote Canadian law on the matter. The court rendered invalid the existing definition of marriage to the extent that it refers to ‘one man and one woman’ and reformulated the definition of marriage as ‘the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others’. The justices ordered their redefinition of marriage to have ‘immediate effect’.”

Not surprisingly, within days of this ruling Canada’s Prime Minister provided the following sterile reaction: “We will not be appealing the recent decision on the definition on marriage, rather we will be proposing legislation,” Jean Chretien stated, “we will ensure that our legislation includes and legally recognize the union of same-sex couples. As soon as the legislation is drafted it will be referred to the Supreme Court.”

Thus the Ontario Court of Appeals, through judicial fiat, legalized so-called same-sex marriage. And as the shock sets in, Canada once again finds itself transformed from a generally relaxed and polite people into an angry and divided nation. America may share in many of our social ills - rampant divorce and abortion come to mind - but at least she still fights the culture war. Canadians, on the hand, have all but surrendered to the pan-sexualist social agenda of our judicial activists. Unfortunately, most elected Canadian politicians are content to allow the judiciary to usurp parliament’s legislative power. For if a controversial ruling come from the courts, then the average Canadian is less likely to take out his frustration at the ballot box. This allows Canada’s politicians to have their cake and eat it too.

Yet despite the fact our beloved Maple Leaf now symbolizes Canada’s role as the red light district of the global village, the problem does not cease at the Canadian border. Ontario lacks any residency requirement for issuing marriage licenses, therefore this same judiciary will marry homosexual couples from other countries as well. Less than a month after the Ontario Court ruling, over 300 same-sex couples have already entered into civil marriages in Canada. Mainstream Canadian news agencies report anywhere between ten to twenty percent of these couples are Americans who crossed the border to take advantage of the Canadian situation. This is rather shameful considering that just a few months previous to the Ontario Court ruling, the Canadian government had voiced strong opposition to American and British unilateralism in the Iraqi War. Regardless of one’s feelings toward the war, however, such unilateralism cannot even begin to compare with Canada’s present unilateralism in attempting to redefine an institution that almost every nation throughout time has accepted as an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. In fact, the present authors consider the unilateral arrogance of our Canadian judiciary second only to the unilateral cowardice of our elected officials in refusing to defend their legislative role within the Canadian government. Yet returning to our original point, Canada now finds itself exporting its new definition of marriage without first having consulted the international community.

While these same-sex marriages currently have no standing in the United States, Americans should anticipate a number of court-challenges in coming months as the homosexual lobby seeks to advance its agenda south of the border. Despite the fact that marriage predates both Church and State, and despite the fact that just a few years ago the Canadian House of Commons - reflecting the will of the vast majority of Canadians - opposed extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, in the battle between the Culture of Life and the culture of death, the homosexual lobby has discovered their greatest ally among an activist judiciary.

Fr. Alphonse de Valk is the founder and publisher of Catholic Insight. This monthly magazine chronicles the culture war in Canada from the Catholic moral perspective. Archived at www.CatholicInsight.com one finds numerous responses to recent court cases where, in the name of sexual pluralism, judicial activism among the Canadian courts has seriously undermined the democratic process, religious freedom, and the Culture of Life. For example, Marc Hall attended a Catholic high-school in Oshawa, Ontario. Marc invited his boyfriend to the prom. In keeping with the traditional principles of Catholic moral theology, the Catholic school board prohibited Hall from bringing the boyfriend to the graduation dance. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion came to naught as the civil courts ruled that the Catholic school had discriminated against the rights of Marc Hall.

On June 15th, 2001, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry fined Hugh Owens, an evangelical Protestant, and the Saskatoon Star Phoenix $1500 for violating the equality rights of three gay men. Mr. Owen’s crime? He expressed his opinion on gay and lesbians sex through an advertisement in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix. This advertisement consisted of a pictograph of two men holding hands superimposed with a circle and slash- the symbol of something forbidden-and a list of Bible verses condemning the practice of homosexuality. While Mr. Owens is currently appealing this ruling, if he loses and still refuses to comply with the Board of Inquiry, he will potentially find himself charged with contempt of court. If convicted, he will likely find himself consigned to jail as the first prisoner of conscience in the war between sexual plurism and religious plurism.

Yet such cases are not confined to the Province of Saskatchewan, which is currently governed by the New Democrat Party (NDP) - Canada’s main socialist party. Over in Ontario, where the Progressive Conservative Party is in power, Scott Brockie is the conscientious born-again Christian owner of a Toronto print shop. After refusing a request from gay rights activist Ray Brilliger to print material for the Canadian Lesbians and Gay Archives, Mr. Brockie found himself hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Board of Inquiry - the Ontario counterpart to the Saskatchewan board that had fined Hugh Owens $1500.

One would think that a quasi-judicial apparatus operating under the aegis of a conservative government would be more sensitive to judicial encroachment on religious freedom than its counterpart operating under a socialist government. But such is not the case in Canada. Thus the Ontario Human Rights Board of Inquiry ordered Mr. Brockie to pay $5000 in damages to Ray Brilliger. While Heather McNaughton, the adjudicator assigned to this case, acknowledged the sincerity of Mr. Brockie’s religious convictions in her ruling dated February 24th, 2000, she nevertheless stated: “In fact nothing in my order will prevent Brockie from continuing to hold and practice his religious beliefs. Brockie remains free to hold his religious beliefs and to practice them in his Christian community.” Mr. Brockie is appealing this ruling, but it is not inconceivable that he too may find himself joining Mr. Owens as a prisoner of conscience in Canada’s culture war.

As Canada moves to legalize same-sex marriage across the nation, these aforementioned examples of the Canadian judiciary suppressing the right to act upon one’s religious conviction now loom in the mind of every Canadian religious and social conservative. Again, Catholic Insight finds itself raising a number of troubling questions at the forefront of the debate. When asked about his stance on same-sex marriage, the Canadian Prime Minister reportedly replied: “It is religion that is the problem.” And while the Prime Minister has subsequently reassured religious entities in Canada that they will be exempt under proposed federal legislation recognizing same-sex marriage, the question remains “for how long?”

As the aforementioned cases show, Canada’s current judicial culture basically upholds a doctrine of religious freedom in which an individual possesses the right to believe what he wants, so long as this belief is never communicated in public or put into practice. Additionally, when for all practical purposes the law is legislated by activist courts rather than elected members of parliament, how much confidence can religious and social conservatives place in the word of our highest elected official? Especially when Canadians are notoriously complacent when it comes to politics. Can religious and social conservatives seriously trust a Prime Minister whose entire political legacy intertwined with his failure to hold judges to their traditional role as arbiters of law rather than as makers of law?

Already, Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary and Bishop Jean-Louis Plouffe of Sault Ste. Marie have come under fire from Canada’s homosexual lobby. As the August 5th edition of LifeSiteNews.com reports, “Calgary Bishop Fred Henry has not been daunted by politicians and newspapers attacking him as a hatemonger and worse for his clear defence of Catholic teaching on homosexuality and his daring to call to account Prime Minister Jean Chretien who calls himself ‘Catholic’...The Bishop also noted that he would refuse Chretien communion. ‘Given his status, if the prime minister were to come to Calgary and line up for communion in the ranks at the cathedral and I were the celebrant I would probably refuse him and give him a simple blessing. I don’t want to embarrass anyone publicly but at present he is not in communion with the church. I don’t intend to threaten the prime minister but I think his eternal salvation is at risk and I pray he experiences some kind of conversion and enlightenment and mend his ways.’” This was merely a repetition of Bishop Henry’s comments during the previous month, when the Bishop had warned the Prime Minister that in supporting same-sex marriage, Canada’s highest elected official was “endangering his salvation.”

As to be expected, a number of Catholic politicians balked at the forcefulness of Bishop Henry’s statements. Several appealed to the notion of separation between Church and State. In the August 1st edition of the Globe and Mail, one of Canada’s largest national newspapers, Kim Lunman and Campbell Clark reported the reply of at least one bishop. “I don’t think a man can allow himself to be divided by his convictions,” the Globe and Mail quotes Bishop Plouffe as having said. “A politician cannot be totally schizophrenic. If he is, he is not being real [...] I would expect a Catholic politician would not push away his Catholic convictions because he’s a politician. I would expect him to be authentic.” Most Catholic commentators who follow Canada’s ecclesiastical politics would describe Bishop Plouffe as a moderate progressive. He is hardly an icon of Canada’s religious right.

And yet, according to the same Globe and Mail article, “The comments by Roman Catholic Church leaders have angered gay-rights activists and other religious groups. ‘It’s just appalling,’ said Michael Leshner, who legally wed his partner, Michael Stark, in Toronto in June, Canada’s first same-sex marriage. ‘It’s sickening, it’s obnoxious and it’s got to stop.’ [...] He accused the Catholic church of preaching ‘religious intolerance,’ adding, ‘The Charter of Rights trumps the Bible.’”

Let us set aside for Mr. Leshner’s arrogance in asserting a sexual legal positivism over the wisdom and tradition of the Natural Law. While some might dismiss Mr. Leshner’s threats as empty, the present authors cannot share this optimism. After all, Mr. Leshner is a Crown Attorney, which is the equivalent to a District Attorney in Canada’s judicial system. He holds this position in Toronto - Canada’s largest city, and one of its most politically influential ones. As such, Mr. Leshner is part of the judicial culture that, in usurping the role of our democratically elected legislature, brought about the legalization of so-called same-sex marriage. Thus Canadian religious and social conservatives cannot dismiss Mr. Leshner’s threats as those of your average homosexual activist.

One can understand why the homosexual activists are upset with Bishop Henry. Of course, Bishop Henry merely states the obvious when he points out the potential eschatological consequences of the Prime Minister’s actions, but this is besides the point. Jean Chretien and the rest of Canada’s political leadership assured Canadians that same-sex marriage and homosexual rights would not interfere with religious liberty in Canada. Yet Canada’s most successful homosexual legal activists disagrees.

And what about Bishop Plouffe? Certainly, his words are nowhere as politically incorrect as those of his counterpart in Calgary. Nor is Bishop Plouffe, like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, encouraging his flock to picket homosexual funerals with “God hates Fags” placards. Well-placed contacts in Bishop Plouffe’s diocesan curia assure the authors that His Excellency condemns such religiously inspired hatred, as the Christian Gospel calls all people to conversion.

If one reads Bishop Plouffe’s statement carefully, he simply reminds Catholic politicians of their moral obligation to uphold Catholic moral teaching in the legislature. Unfortunately, in the opinion of same homosexual legal activist who brought about same-sex marriage, Bishop Plouffe’s words now constitute religious intolerance under a man-made system of law that sees itself as superior to the law of God. Again, what happened to our Prime Minister’s promise to protect religious freedom in Canada?

Canadian social and religious conservatives should keep this in mind as Bill C-250 comes to the floor for its third parliamentary reading. For our American audience, Bill C-250 is a private member’s bill introduced before Canada’s House of Commons by Svend Robinson. Mr. Robinson belongs to Canada’s socialist NDP. He also shares the dubious distinction among social and religious conservatives as being Canada’s first openly homosexual Member of Parliament. According to an official press release on Mr. Robinson’s government website, the purpose of Bill C-250 is, “to include ‘sexual orientation’ in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code of Canada.”

Most private member’s bills in Canada ultimately die before making it to the floor. Having already passed two readings, however, Bill C-250 looks to be the exception. Yet Mr. Robinson is not taking any chances. In an urgent call-to-action to his constituency - the text of which is also available on his website - Mr. Robinson warns: “WE ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING THIS BILL because of the flood of e-mails and letters coming in to MPs from those who oppose the bill, mainly from the religious right. As well, Canadian Alliance MPs (who have voted against every bill that has ever come before the House to extend equality to gays and lesbians) are fanning the flames with outrageous attacks on the bill. They claim that the bill would make religious texts like the Bible illegal. This is absolutely false: both the Charter of Rights and the Criminal Code already protect freedom of religious expression.” As both Mr. Owens and Mr. Brockie discovered, the Canadian Charter of Rights and the Criminal Code of Canada certainly did not protect their freedom of religious expression. Additionally, Mr. Leshner’s assertions in the Globe and Mail do not give the impression that religious expression will be protected.

Yet beyond the political consequences of an activist judiciary usurping the legislative role of parliament, lay some troubling moral questions raised by social and religious conservatives in Canada. Returning to the subject of same-sex marriage, despite our efforts, it does not matter whether we seek to change man’s image. The image of man has already been set. We cannot change it. If our Canadian judiciary attempts to do so, we cannot but anticipate the disintegration and degeneration of Canada - both as a culture and as a nation. And this is a sober reminder to our social engineers who spare not a moment in cheaply wrapping themselves in the Maple Leaf.

Marriage and its natural extension, the traditional family, provide the very reason why the government exists. As this foundation comes under attack and begins to disintegrate, the social consequences will play out within our political institutions. In terms of the Canadian experience, if marriage is just another relationship between two individuals that can be contracted and broken at will, then what makes us foolishly think that our country will stay together when our marriages cannot? And if we tell ourselves, contrary to the Natural Law Tradition of our Judeo-Christians roots, that abortion is a “noble choice”, then how can we continue to naively believe that our whole federation cannot be dismembered alongside our children in the womb?

And if we can tell ourselves that a man can marry a man, why could he not marry two men or three? Or why could he not marry his son or nephew when the latter comes of age? Or will age continue to matter? In a culture where virginity is ridiculed and pregnancy is so easily disposed of, it is simply a matter of time before so-called “inter-generational sex” - that which polite cultures and moral societies use to condemn as incest - is pronounced a right between a parent and their consenting child.

As shocking as it sounds to us today, such a putative right would be consistent with a Canada that currently affords little legal protection to children in the womb. It is consistent with a judiciary that undermines and legally manipulates marriage. We Canadians have turned our backs on the Judeo-Christian heritage that built this great nation, and if history is consistent, God will punish our society by granting us our request. In short, Canada will become the sexually hedonistic nation to which she aspires, and it will mark the death and annihilation of Canadian democracy as the judiciary asserts its new role as the arbiters of the pan-sexualist agenda - over and above the democratic will of the people along with other individual civil liberties. For our current Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, seems intent upon finishing the sexual-political revolution begun by his predecessor Pierre Trudeau.

(This article first appeared in Culture Wars and is reprinted with the permission of the authors. Pete Vere is a Catholic political and social commentator from Sudbury, Canada. John Pacheco is a financial analyst and a Catholic author from Kingston, Canada. Pete and John collaborate through Catholic-Legate.com)

==============================

Boston Catholic Archbishop Blasts Gay Marriage (FN, 040112)

BOSTON — The leader of Boston’s Roman Catholic Archdiocese asked Catholic lawyers and judges to oppose gay marriage in order to help protect what he called the beleaguered institutions of marriage and family.

“The social cost of the breakdown of family life has already been enormous,” Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley said Sunday at the annual Red Mass, which is dedicated to those in the legal system. Marriage and the family are “threatened as never before” in America, he added.

O’Malley, who has led the Boston Archdiocese since July 30, didn’t specify what legal professionals should do to protect marriage and the family. But afterward, he said in a brief interview, “We hope that they will use their profession and their understanding of the law to defend marriage.”

“They’re in a better position than any of us to understand what needs to be done to correct a very complicated situation that the court has put us in,” he said.

The activists who pushed for the landmark Supreme Judicial Court ruling said they remained baffled by claims that their desire to make their partnerships legally binding is threatening marriage and the family.

Hillary Goodridge, 47, a lead plaintiff with partner Julie Goodridge in the lawsuit that resulted in the recent ruling, said by phone that the issue at the core of the lawsuit was not morality, but “licenses handed out by the government.”

“It’s impossible for me to understand how Julie and I being married contributes to the breakdown of anything. It contributes to our economic and social well-being, it certainly contributes to the strength of our family and our enduring love for each other,” she said.

Gay marriage has become a hot political issue in Massachusetts since the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians was unconstitutional.

Gay and lesbian rights activists and their supporters applauded the ruling as a civil rights milestone. Plaintiffs in the suit were ecstatic, celebrating with immediate proposals of marriage to each other.

The ruling has also had critics, including the Catholic church. Some state lawmakers, who have until May to come up with legislation that complies with the court ruling, have been looking into whether the court would be satisfied by the passage of a “civil union” law like that passed in Vermont.

After the Mass, Former Supreme Judicial Court Justice Joseph R. Nolan, president of the Catholic Lawyers Guild, said he was “delighted” by O’Malley’s words and called gay marriage an “abomination.”

“We should speak against it. We should have the courage to speak against it,” he said.

The Mass was followed by a Catholic Lawyers Guild luncheon at a Boston hotel. After the luncheon, former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork assailed the court ruling, saying it was “untethered from the state and federal constitutions.”

“If anything justifies the term judicial tyranny, this one does,” said Bork, 76, who converted last year to Catholicism, his wife’s religion.

But Bork predicted that eventually, the Supreme Court will “go in the direction of” the Massachusetts court, and that gay marriage would become legal nationally.

==============================

Gay and lesbian activists warn Liberals not to backtrack on same-sex marriage (CBC, 040109)

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin is refusing to rule out the possibility that his government will change the Supreme Court reference on same-sex marriage.

When the question came up after Friday’s cabinet meeting in Ottawa, Martin said the issue wasn’t discussed. But sources say the government is preparing other options to draft legislation that would re-define the traditional, heterosexual definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians.

The prime minister fielded questions on a variety of subjects, but when asked repeatedly whether his government intends to amend the reference case on same-sex marriage, Martin said, “This is basically a decision that will be taken by the minister of justice.”

The Chrétien government proposed to change the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for a constitutional opinion.

But Liberal MPs are badly split on the issue. Many want Martin to ask the court’s opinion on creating a new category of civil unions for same-sex couples and Justice Minister Irwin Cotler is on record as a backbench MP saying there should be another option to same-sex marriages. Now he wants to consult with Canadians and Liberal MPs before making a decision.

“The one thing I have to do is certainly canvass the views of my colleagues to ensure that I give expression and reflection to their views prior to telling the media, or anyone else, what my views would be,” Cotler said.

Courts in Ontario and British Columbia have ruled that the traditional definition of marriage violates equality rights guaranteed in the Charter. The Chrétien government didn’t appeal those rulings and drafted legislation to legalize same-sex marriages.

John Fisher a spokesman for EGALE, a gay and lesbian lobby group, says Martin needs to state clearly, that he supports the right of same-sex couples to marry.

“The debate has happened. It’s over. There were parliamentary hearings across the country and the government decided not to appeal the court case in favour of equal marriage,” he said.

Cotler isn’t saying how long his consultations will take, but gay rights activists are nervous. So are Liberals opposed to same-sex marriage.

The reference case is scheduled to be heard April 16. That will likely fall in the middle of a federal election campaign, and many Liberal MPs worry the hearing will re-kindle the controversy over same-sex marriage and make the issue a flashpoint for voter discontent.

==============================

Ottawa drafts same-sex marriage law (CBC, 040100)

KEY DOCUMENTS

On July 17, 2003, the federal government revealed the wording of legislation that allows gay couples to marry.

The Act Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage was sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for review. The following is the wording of the draft bill.

From the Department of Justice

Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes

WHEREAS marriage is a fundamental institution in Canadian society and the Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to support that institution because it strengthens commitment in relationships and represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians;

WHEREAS, in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, access to marriage for civil purposes should be extended to couples of the same sex;

AND WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;

NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Consequential amendments will be added in the bill that is introduced in Parliament.*

Questions for the Supreme Court

In the Reference, the Government of Canada has asked the Supreme Court of Canada the following three questions about the draft bill:

1. Is the draft bill within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada?

2. Is the section of the draft bill that extends capacity to marry to persons of the same sex consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

3. Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Charter protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs?

==============================

Ohio Lawmakers Approve Gay Marriage Ban (FN, 040121)

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a measure banning gay marriage and prohibiting state employees from getting benefits for domestic partners.

The bill is considered among the most far-reaching in the nation because of the benefits ban, which applies to unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples.

The Senate passed the legislation on an 18-15 vote Wednesday. The House has already approved the bill and Gov. Bob Taft has said he will sign it, pending a legal review.

The measure says same-sex marriages are “against the strong public policy of the state,” and aims to counter a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring states to recognize marriages from other states in most circumstances.

Thirty-seven states have passed laws recognizing marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Ohio’s measure is particularly restrictive because it would prohibit benefits for state employees’ unmarried partners, said Seth Kilbourn, national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based gay and lesbian lobbying group. Nebraska has a similar ban.

Ohio lawmakers struggled with the issue for seven years, when then-Rep. Jay Hottinger introduced a bill in the House. Hottinger, now a senator, said the bill was not an attack on homosexuals but rather meant to protect a traditional definition of marriage.

“Ohio must be able to clearly establish and define our own laws rather than have another state or country define something as important as marriage,” said Hottinger, a Republican.

Sen. Eric Fingerhut, a Cleveland Democrat, said the bill will hurt Ohio by limiting the ability of businesses and universities to attract talented people.

“If we pass this bill, get up tomorrow and look in the mirror,” Fingerhut said. “Smiling back at you is someone who has slowed Ohio’s progress by putting up a sign to people that says, ‘We don’t want you here.”‘

The vote came despite opposition by some large companies. Dayton-based NCR Corp. sent a letter to lawmakers Dec. 12 saying the bill could hurt the company’s ability to attract and retain employees.

Similar bills have been introduced in each session since Hottinger first introduced the legislation. But former Senate President Richard Finan, a Republican, blocked its passage. He said state law already took care of the matter.

==============================

Several States Seek Tough Bans on Gay Marriage (Foxnews, 040123)

Despite laws on the books already barring gay marriage, legislators in at least nine states are pushing for new, more sweeping measures in hopes of preventing any ripple effect from laws and court rulings elsewhere.

In most cases, Republican lawmakers in states with existing Defense of Marriage acts seek to go a step further by amending their constitutions to specify that marriage must be heterosexual. State Rep. Bill Graves, a bill sponsor in Oklahoma, wants to stipulate that same-sex unions are “repugnant to the public policy” of the state.

Supporters say the constitutional amendments are necessary to ensure that legislation and court judgments in other states — such as the recent ruling in favor of gay marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court — will not compel recognition of same-sex unions in their own states.

Gay-rights activists see the amendment campaign as vindictive and partisan.

“This is a political attack, motivated by fierce anti-gay opponents who want to slam us again and again,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. “They are not just looking to suppress gay marriage, but to deny gay people any measure of legal protection and human dignity.”

In all, 37 states and the federal government have Defense of Marriage acts that say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Ohio may soon become the 38th state; its Senate approved one of the most far-reaching gay marriage bans in the nation Wednesday, making only minor changes in a House-passed version. Going further than the laws in most states, Ohio’s bill also would prohibit state employees from getting benefits for domestic partners, whether gay or straight.

Proposed constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage have been introduced in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Michigan; one is expected soon in Alabama. An Idaho Republican, Rep. Henry Kulczyk, plans to introduce a similar measure there, to the dismay of some Democrats.

“We’ve got enough contention to deal with rather than going through a litmus test for the reactionary right,” said Senate Minority Leader Clint Stennett.

Massachusetts does not have a Defense of Marriage Act, but the high court ruling there has sparked vociferous public debate and an anti-gay marriage amendment has been proposed by its lawmakers as well.

In Virginia, the House of Delegates overwhelmingly approved a resolution Friday urging Congress to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual. The resolution now goes to the Senate.

“We don’t want to be left in the lurch where the measure we passed overwhelmingly several years ago is stricken down by the high court of this country,” said the resolution’s sponsor, Robert McConnell, referring to Virginia’s existing Defense of Marriage Act.

Georgia’s proposed amendment — which could go on the November general election ballot — was presented Wednesday in the state Senate. Any change to traditional marriage “begins to tear at the foundations of our institutions,” said Senate Republican Leader Bill Stephens.

Gay-rights advocates and some Democratic lawmakers denounced the measure as politically motivated.

“The purpose of amendments is to create protections for the citizens of Georgia, not to write discrimination into the constitution,” said Allen Thornell, executive director of the gay-rights group Georgia Equality.

The American Friends Service Committee — a Quaker social justice group — this week joined the campaign against the proposed amendment in Michigan. In Kentucky, about 30 gay-rights supporters protested Wednesday at the state Capitol, many carrying signs saying, “Anti-marriage amendments hurt my family.”

Two Kentucky legislators who oppose the amendment are sponsoring a counterproposal that would outlaw discrimination against gays.

“There’s no excuse why fairness cannot be passed,” said Democratic Rep. Kathy Stein. “Other than the fact that, unfortunately, a number of my colleagues ... are afraid to think about it.”

Pending final resolution of the Massachusetts court ruling, no state allows full-fledged same-sex marriages. Vermont recognizes marriage-like civil unions, while California, Hawaii and New Jersey grant various rights to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners.

Legislators in Maryland and Colorado hope to get civil union legislation considered by their colleagues this session.

In his State of the Union speech Tuesday, President Bush indicated he would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit marriage to a man and a woman. He suggested this option would be needed only if “activist judges” overruled existing federal and state Defense of Marriage laws.

If Ohio enacts its pending Defense of Marriage act as expected, only 12 states, including Massachusetts, would be without one. The others are Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

==============================

Legislators Trying to Circumvent Gay Marriage Ruling (FN, 040205)

BOSTON — Despite Massachusetts’ highest court allowing same-sex marriages by summer, legislators opposed to the concept were weighing options to try to circumvent the ruling — either through a law or a constitutional amendment.

“The court has overstepped its boundary and has not let the legislative process to unfold the way it has on other issues,” said Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty.

The 4-3 advisory ruling Wednesday by the Supreme Judicial Court creates a legislative dilemma that could force many uneasy lawmakers to choose sides on a contentious social issue.

The court Wednesday doused one compromise option, ruling that gay couples were entitled to all the benefits of marriage and that Vermont-style civil unions don’t go far enough.

But some gay marriage opponents, including powerful House Speaker Thomas Finneran, said they haven’t closed the door on other legislative responses.

“I intend to closely study today’s advisory opinion,” said Finneran. “I will refrain from any comment until I have thought through the options which remain for the people of Massachusetts and their elected representatives.”

Opponents of gay marriage pin their hopes on part of the court’s original ruling that said state law provided no “rational” basis for prohibiting same-sex couples from the benefits of marriage.

Some lawmakers, including Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty, hope to craft a bill providing a rational basis for the exclusion of gay couples from marriage while conveying some new benefits to same-sex couples.

“The court has overstepped its boundary and has not let the legislative process to unfold the way it has on other issues,” O’Flaherty said.

The much-anticipated opinion came a week before next Wednesday’s Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment backed by Gov. Mitt Romney that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

“The spotlight is now shining brightly on the Constitutional Convention. I can’t believe any lawmaker would want to run from this,” said Rep. Philip Travis, who sponsored the amendment.

The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that the nation’s first gay marriage could take place in Massachusetts as soon as May.

“We’ve heard from the court, but not from the people,” Romney said in a statement. “The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage.”

Senate President Robert Travaglini, who will preside over the Constitutional Convention, said he needed time to talk with fellow senators before deciding what to do next.

“I want to have everyone stay in an objective and calm state as we plan and define what’s the appropriate way to proceed,” said Travaglini. “There is a lot of anxiety out there obviously surrounding the issue but I don’t want to have it cloud or distort the discussion.”

The advisory opinion was issued about three months after the court’s original ruling that same-sex couples were entitled to all the benefits of marriage. That ruling prompted the Senate to ask if civil unions would satisfy the court.

Wednesday’s opinion left no doubt.

“The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal,” four justices wrote in Wednesday’s opinion. “For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain.”

Lawmakers who cheered the ruling said they welcomed the chance to stand up and be counted. Sen. Jarrett Barrios, a supporter of gay marriage, said the opinion treats gay and straight couples equally.

“Whatever your view is of marriage, it’s my belief that fair-minded people oppose writing discrimination into the constitution,” said Barrios, who is gay.

A marriage amendment will require the support of at least 101 members of the 200-member Legislature during the current legislative session and the same number in the new, two-year session that begins in January before going on the ballot.

There’s no guarantee the question will even come up next week. The question is eighth on a list of 11 proposed amendments. Ahead of it are other controversial proposals, including one lengthening the term of lawmakers from two to four years.

At least one aspect of the case may still be subject to debate: Would marriages in Massachusetts have to be recognized legally in other states or by the federal government?

The federal government and 38 other states have enacted laws barring the recognition of any gay marriages in other jurisdictions. The Massachusetts court decision will likely lead to multiple lawsuits about whether gay marriage benefits can extend beyond the state’s borders.

President Bush, reacting to the court ruling, said a constitutional amendment will be necessary to ban gay marriages if judges persist in approving them. The issue has the potential to become a hot factor in the presidential campaign.

==============================

Gay Marriage Ruling Likely to Be Campaign Issue (Foxnews, 040205)

The Massachusetts court ruling demanding the approval of same-sex marriages is bound to have political implications on the campaign trail as Democratic contenders continue to vie for their party’s nomination to run against President Bush in November.

“I would think this will be the hot button social issue of this campaign,” said Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano. “Like a lot of these social issues it will wind up in the Supreme Court.”

In his State of the Union address last month, President Bush essentially promised to use the Constitution to knock down any court rulings allowing same-sex marriages.

“I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization,” Bush said. “The only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage,” he said.

In a December interview with ABC News, Bush criticized the Massachusetts court’s original decision in November when it said that denying gay couples the right to marry was unconstitutional. In its follow-up decision Wednesday, the court said that only marriage — and not the concept of civil unions — would be acceptable to satisfy its constitutional concerns.

“The court, I thought, overreached its bounds as a court,” Bush said. “It did the job of the Legislature.”

In the Democratic race for president, front-runner John Kerry, has stopped short of endorsing gay marriage but has supported gay civil unions and called for states to determine the issue for themselves, rather than the federal government.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator who has won seven out of nine primaries and caucuses so far this primary season, voted against the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Known as DOMA, the law denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

“I strongly support civil unions. I believe same-sex couples should be granted full and equal protection under the law, including access to health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families deserve,” Kerry has said in interviews.

Michael Meehan, a senior adviser for the Kerry campaign, told Fox News that although Kerry has opposed gay marriage, “he thinks there’s a lot of gay bashing going on and he won’t stand for that. He believes there’s a lot of rights that need to be protected.”

Some political experts said Kerry could be particularly vulnerable on the gay marriage issue because he is from Massachusetts and Boston is the location for the Democratic national convention this summer.

“I’m willing to guess that the opposition will try to make this a significant issue and will try to pin that issue on him [Kerry] as the donkey,” Richard Fisher, a former U.S. trade deputy, told Fox News on Wednesday.

Jim Lake, a Republican pollster, said although Kerry has not yet issued a formal response to Wednesday’s decision, he has in the past supported Massachusetts statutes.

“But the American people, it’s not just Democrats … all across the board are going to be incensed by it [Massachusetts court decision] and it will be heightened in its tension at the convention and I think there’s going to be a price to pay for Kerry,” Lake said.

A majority of Americans continues to oppose same-sex marriage, and nearly half oppose civil unions, according to a FOX News poll conducted in the days following the Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts.

That poll showed that 66% of Americans oppose and 25% favor same-sex marriage.

North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who beat Kerry in Tuesday’s South Carolina primary, has said same-sex marriage decisions should be left up to the states and that he supports partnership benefits. He opposes gay marriage, however.

“I believe in the equal dignity of all Americans and support partnership benefits for gays and lesbians in long-term relationships,” Edwards has said. “States should be free to decide if they want to create civil unions with benefits akin to marriage. If states establish these civil unions, then the federal government should respect their decision and offer benefits along these lines.”

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, who won Oklahoma’s primary Tuesday night, welcomed the original Massachusetts court decision.

But the former NATO commander has said that whether civil unions are defined as a “marriage” or not is up to state legislatures and churches to decide. He wants to give same-sex couples legal rights and federal employees the right to declare same-sex partners as beneficiaries.

“Equal rights under the law is one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy,” Clark has said. “Moreover, it is in the best interest of America to promote stable communities and families - this includes both heterosexual and same-sex families.”

Howard Dean, who is lagging in the polls, supports same-sex civil unions and argues that gay marriage is not an issue for the federal government to decide. He opposes the Defense of Marriage Act. While he was governor of Vermont, Dean signed the landmark bill legalizing civil unions for gay couples.

“The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component to it,” Dean said in a newspaper interview last month. “From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.”

==============================

Bush: Gay-Marriage Ruling ‘Deeply Troubling’ (Foxnews, 040205)

WASHINGTON — President Bush, reacting to a new Massachusetts state court ruling, says a constitutional amendment will be necessary to ban gay marriages if judges persist in approving them.

In a written statement late Wednesday, Bush termed “deeply troubling” the decision that same-sex couples in Massachusetts have a right to marry — not just form civil unions — and reiterated a position staked out in his State of the Union speech last month.

“Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,” he said in the statement. “If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”

The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s advisory opinion that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage set the stage for the nation’s fi1rst legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.

The issue has the potential to become a hot factor in the presidential campaign.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in his own statement: “I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples — from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court’s decision.”

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another Democratic presidential candidate, said: “I leave that to the states and the courts — whether you call it a marriage or not, I leave up to the states and churches and synagogues and mosques.”

Bush’s statement was similar to his remarks in his Jan. 20 State of the Union address in which he said that if judges “insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.”

Conservative activists and religious groups, banding together under the name the Arlington Group, gathered in Washington this week to plot strategy. Some participants said they left with a White House commitment to fight for a constitutional amendment.

“We were given direct assurances from the very top,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation. “There’s no doubt. It’s our understanding that the president is waiting for a day when there is not a massive news story to do it himself.”

Another group, the Alliance Defense Fund based in Scottsdale, Ariz., sent out an e-mail asserting, “This morning, President Bush agreed to join the effort to push for the passage of this amendment.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading group of social conservatives, said, “I would not be surprised at all to see the president come out very soon calling on Congress to act.” He said he could not speak for Bush but that “it appears that things are falling in line for that to happen.”

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a conservative who is close to the White House, said a constitutional amendment “is what you’d expect the president to do. ... They are forcing the president’s hand — if you say only an amendment can fix this, guess what, you’re going to get an amendment.”

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration would review the Massachusetts’ opinion.

Recalling Bush’s remarks in his State of the Union speech, McClellan said, “What he said at that time, that if judges continue to force their arbitrary will upon the people, that the only alternative to the people would be a constitutional process. And that remains his view.”

==============================

Consolation Prize: The supreme court in Massachusetts gets one thing right (National Review Online, 040205)

There they go again: the “band of four,” the slim majority of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the band that took it upon itself to remodel the laws of marriage in Massachusetts.

In November the court had proclaimed that there was no rational basis for the laws that, for centuries, have restricted marriage to a couple drawn from the two sexes. The majority on the court had been candid enough to admit that neither the constitution nor the laws of Massachusetts had ever contemplated the possibility that “marriage” could encompass two people of the same sex. In order to reach its result, the court had to invoke a federal case: one decided last year, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy statute. Strictly construed, the decision had overturned a law that attached criminal penalties to sodomy in private settings. But that decision has been taken to mean that it is wrong to cast any judgment, or draw any adverse inference, from private sexual acts. This sweeping rhetoric will come down to earth before long when a court has to decide whether the custody of a child may be awarded to a father who has shown, in private, a profound taste for sado-masochistic sex, or even alliances with animals. But the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts was willing to soar for a while in the currents of sentiment and classify as irrational and unconstitutional the laws that have governed marriage in Massachusetts as long as memory has runneth.

There is a novelty, though, under the laws of Massachusetts: A house of the legislature may actually come before the state supreme court with the draft of a bill, and seek an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of the measure. That kind of arrangement may effectively constitute the court as a third chamber of the legislature — though the way things are going of late, the court may take that as a demotion. The supreme court had given the legislature 180 days to provide some plausible alternative to same-sex marriage, and the senate, eager to please, tried out a scheme of “civil unions”: Every benefit of marriage, in taxes or property, could be conferred, and the only thing held back was the name of “marriage” itself. The whole thing had the aspect of a contrived caper, concealed as a maneuver to avoid same-sex marriage. In point of fact, the aim of the bill seemed to be to “sap” or undermine the conviction that supported the traditional laws of marriage. If a legislature talked itself into conferring on couples of the same sex virtually every benefit and privilege associated with marriage, it would seem in time only a carping, curmudgeonly refusal to recognize, in name, what had been recognized fully in substance.

The majority on the Supreme Judicial Court picked up on that matter at once. But instead of using that offering as an artful device to impose, in steps, its own policy, the majority rejected the proffer with a certain contempt. “Segregating same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions,” said Chief Justice Marshall, “cannot possibly be held rationally to advance or ‘preserve’...the Commonwealth’s legitimate interests in procreation, child rearing, and the conservation of resources.” The majority apparently thought it could turn away from the finesse, the peace offering, and go for bigger stakes. In that move, the band of four might have overplayed its hand. But the judges also wrought better than even they knew, for they also delivered themselves here of the most searing criticism that has yet been made of the whole scheme for contriving “civil unions” as a surrogate for marriage. The argument might be condensed in this way: If the legislature is willing to grant every legal benefit and attribute of marriage to a couple, but simply holds back the name of “marriage” for couples of the same sex, the implication should be clear: There is something in that class of persons not exactly worthy of the name of marriage. Consider how the same legislation would have appeared if the substance of marriage were given to couples, but only “civil unions” given to dwarves. Or people with disabilities. Or Jews and blacks. In other words, it is precisely the scheme of creating the parallel substance of marriage, and withholding the title, that picks out classes of people in a demeaning way. And the truth that comes crashing through in this clumsy opinion is this: that the scheme of “civil unions” is simply geared to keep generating invidious distinctions, in the way that the traditional laws on marriage do not. Brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters were not demeaned when they were barred from marrying one another. Nor were two men, seeking to marry each other. The laws that prohibited these unions implied no vilification of men or fathers, brothers and sisters as individuals.

Justice Martha Sosman, in dissent again, and ever clear-headed, pointed out the serious barriers in the landscape to same-sex marriages created in Massachusetts. Thirty-eight states now refuse to honor those marriages; their courts will not be available to enforce the obligations of those unions, or deal with their dissolution. Several years ago some of us worked on the Defense of Marriage Act for the federal government, an act that simply refused to consider, as a marriage, anything but the union of a man and woman. As Sosman points out, that modest measure offers the most severe impediment: Same-sex couples will not be able to file joint tax returns, or claim any of the benefits that may flow to spouses through the mass of federal programs. She suggests that even a facsimile of marriage, in a civil union, might provide then a route for benefits that the claim of marriage would foreclose. And in that sense, the legislature may have a “rational” enough basis for justifying this marriage in camouflage.

In the meantime, it might be said that the court itself has offered a series of slogans searching for a principle; and yet that may impute too high a reach to Chief Justice Marshall and her colleagues. The judges in the majority were mainly making it clear that they were in charge, and would have nothing less than what they had “invited” the legislature to produce. Those folks seasoned in the legislature must retain some ordinary reflexes found among ordinary human beings, and if they retain at least some minimal self-respect, this gesture of contempt by the court should be enough to push them over the edge. It is not enough to put off for two years a constitutional amendment. There are things to be done even now. The governor seems to be studying again the lessons taught by Lincoln on the limits of the court and the constitutional responsibilities of the political branches. As Lincoln reminded us, the executive and the legislature could respect the disposition of any case in regard to the litigants, but they may not be obliged to accept the principle articulated by the court. The court might issue injunctions to registrars throughout the state, ordering them to give marriage licenses to people of the same sex.

But the constitution of the state is clear that the laws on marriage belong mainly in the domain of the legislature, and the legislature has the decisive authority to determine the terms on which courts may issue injunctions. Exercising that power in the past, the legislature had diminished the authority of the judges to intervene in labor disputes, and leap in with injunctions to break strikes. By any reckoning, the laws of marriage would be at least as fundamental as the laws on labor and servants. The powers are there to be used. The main question then is whether the legislature of Massachusetts, happily composed as it is of members drawn from both sexes, can summon either the testosterone or the simple nerve to take their responsibility, and to vindicate “the right of a people to govern itself.”

— Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College (Kwing Hung: a very liberal college but apparently with at least one conservative professor).

==============================

Gay-Marriage Movement Held Up in Calif., Mass. (FN, 040312)

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court halted gay weddings in San Francisco, but only so it can take the time to decide whether they are legal.

Across the country in Massachusetts — where the state’s high court has already ruled that gays can marry — lawmakers returned to the Capitol to consider undoing the justices’ mandate with a constitutional amendment.

California’s high court now must decide in May or June whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The city has responded by filing a lawsuit demanding a judge declare the marriages constitutionally permissible, a question that could take at least another year to decide.

“I’m pleased the process is working as well as it is,” Newsom said Thursday. “Now we will be getting to the Supreme Court and making our argument.”

Minutes after Thursday’s ruling, teary-eyed couples were turned away at San Francisco’s City Hall, where 4,161 gay weddings have been performed since Feb. 12.

“We were filling out the application and they told us to stop,” said Art Adams, who was the first to be denied along with partner Devin Baker. “It’s heartbreaking. I don’t understand why two people in love should be prevented from expressing it.”

The court did not void those marriages, leaving the gay newlyweds in legal limbo.

Newsom’s defiance of California law sparked a host of other municipalities across the nation to follow suit.

“They restored order to chaos in San Francisco,” said Joshua Carden, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, one of two conservative groups that went to court to block the marriages.

Massachusetts lawmakers ended their impasse Thursday with a recess until March 29, stopping just short of final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but make Massachusetts the second state to grant civil-union benefits.

The civil unions provision was little solace to gay-rights advocates, who want lawmakers to uphold the full marriage rights accorded by the Supreme Judicial Court in November.

“For many legislators, prejudice won out over equality,” Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said after the current version of the amendment survived through three rounds of votes Thursday.

Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini expressed optimism that after weeks of intense debate and failed compromises, lawmakers were headed toward consensus.

“I believe we’ve overcome significant hurdles to get to this point,” Travaglini said. “I would hope that the road gets somewhat smoother and that we have encountered all of the bumps along the way, as of today.”

If approved later this month, the constitutional amendment would then proceed to the next step in the convoluted process, which would take effect in 2006 at the earliest.

In the interim, the nation’s first gay marriages are scheduled to take place May 17, although some legislative leaders have said they would try to block them.

While the national landscape has shifted dramatically since lawmakers last convened, with gay marriages occurring across the country and President Bush endorsing a federal amendment, the spotlight remained on Massachusetts because of its unique status as the only state where the marriages are legal.

“No Hatred. Just loving biblical truth,” read posters held by some of the opponents of gay marriage who gathered on the Statehouse steps.

Lynn Tibbets, 50, of Boston, held a sign urging “No discrimination in the constitution.”

“It used to just make me mad — the people on the other side. Now it just makes me sad,” Tibbets, a financial management consultant, said as she choked back tears.

In other developments Thursday:

— In Wisconsin, the state Senate approved a constitutional amendment early Friday that was earlier passed by the Assembly. If lawmakers approve the legislation again during the January session, it will go before voters on the April 2005 ballot.

— In Kentucky, the state Senate passed a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages and ignore civil unions. A similar amendment has been introduced in the House.

— New Paltz, N.Y. Mayor Jason West, who performed 25 same-sex marriages last month, met face-to-face with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. West, now under a court order to temporarily stop the marriages, had hoped to win over Spitzer, who reiterated his position that state law prohibited gay weddings.

==============================

Black Clergymen Come Out Against Gay Marriage (FN, 040323)

ATLANTA — More than two dozen black pastors added their voice to the critics of same-sex marriage, attempting to distance the civil rights struggle from the gay rights movement and defending marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

“When the homosexual compares himself to the black community, he doesn’t know what suffering is,” said the Rev. Clarence James, an African-American studies professor at Temple University.

Jones and 29 pastors rallied late Monday with their supporters at an Atlanta-area church where they signed a declaration outlining their beliefs on marriage and religion.

The declaration is meant to pressure state representatives to approve a constitutional ban on gay marriages, which will be considered again by the Georgia House as soon as this week.

The declaration, to be presented to state leaders Tuesday, says same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and marriage between a man and a woman is important because it’s necessary for the upbringing of children.

“To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement,” the statement said. “People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong.”

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Georgia, but supporters of the ban say the constitution needs to be changed to make sure a judge does not direct Georgia to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

“It is a threat to who we are and what we stand for,” said Bishop William Shields of Hopewell Baptist Church. “If nothing else gets us out of the pews, this ought to.”

But the Rev. Paul Turner, a gay pastor from Atlanta who helped organize a pro-gay marriage rally last month outside the Georgia Capitol, disagreed: “How do they figure that it’s not a civil rights issue?”

“This is just a way for those conservative leadership in the black community to say, ‘Look, this isn’t a matter of civil rights because we’re black and we didn’t have a choice in being black.’ And they think gays do, and that’s not true,” Turner said.

Elsewhere Monday:

— In Oregon, the county that was poised to become the state’s second to allow gay marriage backed off until courts intervene. Commissioners in Benton County, home to Oregon State University and the liberal city of Corvallis, decided to stop issuing all marriage licenses until there is a court ruling on whether gay marriage is legal in Oregon.

— In St. Paul, Minn., supporters of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage gathered by the thousands in one of the largest Capitol rallies in memory, waving hundreds of signs on the Capitol steps and spilling over onto the lawn and parking lot. The House is expected to pass the bill Wednesday, with a Senate committee planning to take up the measure later in the week.

— In New York, two Unitarian Universalist ministers facing criminal counts for officiating at same-sex weddings pleaded innocent. Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged after marrying 13 gay couples during a public ceremony in New Paltz, but the district attorney has said he does not expect to seek jail time.

— In North Carolina’s Durham County, a gay couple filed a lawsuit after being denied a marriage license. State law invalidates any claim of marriage between people of the same sex. Register of Deeds Willie Covington said the law gave him no choice.

==============================

Calif. High Court Won’t Halt Gay Weddings (FN, 040227)

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court declined a request by the state attorney general Friday to immediately shut down San Francisco’s gay weddings and nullify the nearly 3,500 marriages already performed.

The decision marked yet another setback to conservatives in their fight to block the rush to the altar by gay couples in San Francisco. More than 3,400 couples have tied the knot since the city began issuing marriage licenses two weeks ago, under the directive of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

At the prodding of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked the justices to intervene in the emotionally charged debate while they consider the legality of the marriages. But the justices declined, and told the city and a conservative group that opposes gay marriages to file new legal briefs by March 5.

Without taking a position on whether same-sex marriages should be deemed constitutional, Lockyer told the justices it was a matter for the courts — not the mayor — to decide.

“The genius of our legal system is in the orderly way our laws can be changed, by the Legislature or by a vote of the people through the initiative process, to reflect current wisdom or societal values,” he wrote.

Regardless of the Friday order, the San Francisco-based court did not indicate whether it would decide the issue. The seven justices usually are reluctant to decide cases until they work their way up through the lower courts, which this case has not.

“It’s a matter of statewide concern and voters want to know, Californians want to know and couples that participated in ceremonies need to know the status of their relationship,” Lockyer said.

The court challenge came as 25 gay couples exchanged wedding vows Friday on the steps of village hall in New Paltz, N.Y., opening up another front in the growing national debate.

A county clerk in New Mexico issued 26 licenses earlier this month before the state attorney general declared them invalid. More than 30 gay couples in Iowa City, Iowa, were denied marriage licenses Friday by an openly lesbian county official who said she must uphold the law.

“What we’re witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country’s had in a generation,” said New Paltz’ Green Party mayor, Jason West.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer refused a request for an injunction against the New Paltz ceremonies, noting that such a measure should only be a last resort. He did not issue an opinion on whether the marriages were legal.

“The validity of the marriages and the legality of the mayor’s action will be determined in due course in the courts,” Spitzer said.

This month’s gay marriage push is rooted in a November decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated that state’s constitution. The court reaffirmed the decision this month, clearing the way for full-fledged gay marriages by mid-May.

The issue has sparked intense debate nationwide and spilled into the presidential race. President Bush, citing the Massachusetts decision and the parade of weddings in San Francisco, backed a federal constitutional amendment Tuesday to bar such marriages. “A few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization,” Bush said.

In statehouses nationwide, lawmakers are taking a closer look at their constitutions to see if they could be construed to permit same-sex marriages, even in states where laws now bar them. Massachusetts is one of many states where lawmakers are considering a constitutional amendment to bar the marriages.

The San Francisco mayor sued the state last week on grounds that California’s marriage laws violate the state constitution’s equal-protection clause. Pressure on Lockyer to act intensified when Schwarzenegger directed him to “take immediate steps” to halt San Francisco’s marriage march.

Supporters of the marriages have criticized Lockyer for rushing the issue to the state’s highest court, while gay marriage opponents have criticized Lockyer for not acting sooner.

The California Supreme Court has a history of addressing marriage and gay rights cases. It was the first state high court in the nation to legalize interracial marriage 56 years ago. Twenty-five years ago, the court upheld gay rights by saying businesses could not arbitrarily discriminate against homosexuals.

Meanwhile, Republican activists who helped mount the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis last year have announced plans to seek the removal of Lockyer, who they say has “neglected his duty” to enforce state marriage laws.

In another development related to the weddings, the Social Security Administration has told its offices nationwide not to accept marriage certificates from San Francisco as proof of identification for newlyweds looking to make name changes on Social Security cards.

==============================

The Real Impact Of Gay Marriage On Society (FN, 040319)

WASHINGTON — Legalized gay marriage may never cause the transformation of society that some have predicted, given that it is likely to affect less than one in 100 U.S. married couples in the United States today. But culture warriors say the small numbers aren’t reason to ignore the issue.

“While I don’t think, just because this is a small group of people, that it is not worthy of the attention in the public discourse it’s getting,” said Gary Gates, a researcher with the Urban Institute in Washington D.C., “the reality is the impact on marriage numerically is that gay couples will still make up a tiny fraction of married couples.”

Analysts use the 2000 Census to derive an official count of the number of possible gay unions in the United States — 595,000 households headed by same-sex partners. Others say that figure may be a conservative one given that many such couples aren’t particularly open about their relationships.

But while the ratio is minuscule compared to the number of heterosexual married couples – about 56.4 million according to the 2000 census – analysts are torn over the impact legalized gay marriage will have on the way Americans view the institution and the way they look at homosexuality.

Maggie Gallagher, co-author of “The Case for Marriage,” recently testified in front of the Senate that gay marriage activists are misrepresenting the impact gay marriage will have.

“Is this a small add-on that will only affect a small number of children living with same-sex couples? Or will changing the legal definition of marriage change the way marriage will mean to everyone?” she asked. “I think the same-sex marriage advocates are not being clear or honest about what a big change this will be. We are all going to have to be re-educated.”

Gallagher claims that with the legal onset of gay marriage, governments will be in the position of forcing onto citizens a belief system that equates homosexuality with heterosexuality — through public schools, taxpayer-funded programs like charities and non-profits, workplaces and even faith-based organizations that receive public dollars.

“It will be a new legal and social norm and the law is going to enforce this new social and legal norm on people,” she said.

So far, Massachusetts is the only state considering legal gay marriage. Its Supreme Judicial Court ruled it unconstitutional for the state to deny marriage licenses to gay couples. The Legislature there is now debating whether to change its constitution to ban such marriages but the licenses are already being distributed and a constitutional amendment would not be ratified before the May date the court set for allowing gay marriages.

Mayors in California and New York have defied their state laws and begun marrying gay couples. Federal lawmakers are debating whether to try to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman and protect states from having to recognize gay couples married in states that allow gay marriage.

There is a debate over whether the issue will land in the lap of the U.S. Supreme Court, and if so, whether the high court will insist that states recognize marriage laws in other states.

Jonathan Rauch, a writer for the National Journal and author of the upcoming “Gay Marriage: Why it’s Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America,” said he doesn’t think a constitutional amendment is coming, and believes that over the long-term, states will expand marriage rights to homosexuals and the number of hold-outs will dwindle.

“My personal view is gay marriage will have a significantly positive effect on gay people, non-gay people and on marriage,” he said. “For gay couples, it will bring the stability and healthiness and happiness that marriage uniquely provides. For straight people it will bring all of the benefits of social stability that goes with marriage.”

Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, couldn’t disagree more. He said the state of marriage in American society is already undermined by high cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth rates.

Gay marriage, he said, will reinforce the idea that traditional marriages formed for the purpose of having children and providing a healthy mother-father environment is out, and alternative partnerships are in. He points to a decade of legalized gay unions in Scandinavia, where marriage rates have declined as the number of babies born to cohabitating has risen.

“The idea of marriage is outdated,” he said. “Parents lost the sense that marriage was about being a parent.”

Kurtz said he does not anticipate a future “patchwork” of state laws in which some will be gay marriage-friendly while others will not recognize the unions. Either a uniform definition of marriage between a man and a woman will be affirmed or not. In the case of the latter, he warned, “We will eventually turn into Scandinavia.”

Rauch balked at this idea, pointing out that Scandinavia does not recognize gay marriage, just civil partnerships. He said that country doesn’t encourage marriage at all, which has contributed to the institution’s decline. That is why the argument for gay marriage works – it will encourage marriage and hold it up as a “gold standard for stable relationships.”

“I think Kurtz’s argument is exhibit A for why conservatives should insist on gay marriage and not a substitute,” he said. “What I think is irrational is the notion that [gay marriage] will surely fail and all the effects will be negative so we shouldn’t try it at all.”

==============================

Justices Told to Comply With Gay Marriage Law (FN, 040426)

BOXBORO, Mass. — Gov. Mitt Romney’s top legal counsel told the state’s justices of the peace Sunday to resign if they are unwilling to preside over same-sex marriages beginning next month.

Daniel Winslow said Romney expects the justices to comply with the law, even though the Republican governor opposes gay marriage and has sought to delay its court-ordered legalization on May 17.

“Gov. Romney understands and respects that people have very strong personal views both for or against same-gender marriage,” Winslow told justices gathered to learn about the impending changes. “But on this point, the law is clear.”

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November the state must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples by mid-May, which means changes for clerks and justices of the peace.

Refusing to marry gay couples could leave justices individually liable and raises the possibility of punitive damages in court, said David Fried, enforcement chief for the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, who also addressed the gathering.

“To the extent that the justices of the peace have taken an oath to follow the law, it seems to me both appropriate and wise to do so,” Fried said.

Nelson Goldin, one of the state’s approximately 1,200 justices of the peace, said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman only.

“But I took my oath of office and told them I will marry anyone who the commonwealth of Massachusetts says has the right to be wed,” he said.

Meanwhile, Romney said same-sex couples who live outside the state will not be allowed to marry in Massachusetts when the law takes effect. He cited a 1913 law barring unions that would not be legal in the couples’ home state.

“Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage,” he told The New York Times for a story in Sunday’s editions. “We do not intend to export our marriage confusion to the entire nation.”

Supporters of gay marriage say the 1913 law is discriminatory and was never envisioned to block same-sex marriage. They criticize Romney for adopting the broadest interpretation possible for the law.

Romney ordered changes to the state’s marriage application, including now asking applicants for evidence of where a person resides and intends to reside. It warns out-of-state couples that if they do not intend to reside in Massachusetts, the marriage “shall be null and void.”

==============================

Dems Look to Bank on Gay Marriage Issue (Foxnews, 040513)

WASHINGTON — Wanted: Gay Democrats.

Democratic parties in 15 states and Puerto Rico have set numerical goals for gays and lesbian delegates at the party’s national convention this summer, double the number that set a standard in 2000.

The effort comes as gay marriage has emerged as a divisive political issue, particularly in Massachusetts where Democrats will gather in July to choose their presidential nominee. Barring a last-minute ruling, gay marriages will be legal in the state beginning Monday.

Both President Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry oppose gay marriages, although the Republican incumbent has backed a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex nuptials. Kerry supports civil unions.

Democrats are determined to ensure that gays and lesbians are part of their convention ranks. Delegates should “look like the nation as whole,” said Winnie Stachelberg, political director for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group.

According to the Democratic National Committee, 212 delegates, or roughly 5%, of the more than 4,300 at the party’s 2000 convention in Los Angeles were gay or lesbian. They came from seven states with numerical goals, as well as states without.

The increase in 2004 is in part “a signal of growing acceptance of gays and lesbians nationwide,” said Eric Stern, who directs the DNC’s outreach efforts to those groups.

Democrats have courted aggressively gay voters and their campaign dollars — with a significant amount of success. In 2000, exit polls showed Al Gore got 75% of the votes cast by self-identified gays and lesbians, compared to 25% for Bush.

National convention delegates formally choose a party’s presidential nominee. Among Democrats, a DNC panel signs off on a state delegate selection plan, including diversity goals that can range from the number of blacks and Hispanics to age breakdown.

In California, the target is 22 gays and 22 lesbians among the 440-member delegation. Rhode Island is seeking one gay or lesbian among its 32 delegates.

Officials are quick to point out that the goals aren’t quotas. Neither a state nor a presidential campaign is penalized if they do not reach these goals. However, state delegations are required to have equal numbers of men and women.

Party and Kerry campaign officials say they haven’t had problems filling goals. In many cases, parties coordinate with local chapters of gay advocacy groups such as the National Stonewall Democrats to recruit potential delegates.

Karen Hammer, chair of that organization’s Colorado chapter, will be part of her state’s 64-member delegation to Boston. The state party this year added the goal of three gay or lesbian delegates.

“We decided we should be getting some of those seats because of our status needing protection for equal rights ... should be on par with other groups,” said Hammer, who is pledged to support Kerry.

Rachel Morse, a social worker from Oklahoma City, is another Stonewall Democrat member and Kerry delegate. Oklahoma does not have a delegate goal for gays or lesbians.

Generally, application forms to become a delegate include questions about sexual orientation that help state parties and campaign officials determine if they fit a diversity need. Answering is optional, officials say, but people like Morse add that privacy isn’t an issue for many delegates who already are politically active and whose backgrounds are well known.

Rules for the Republican National Convention, to be held in August in New York City, state that participation in primaries and the delegate process “shall in no way be abridged for reasons of sex, race, religion, color, age or national origin,” while encouraging the “broadest possible participation” among all groups.

But, for the most part, numerical goals for delegations to the Republican convention do not exist.

Gay and lesbian delegates attended the party’s 2000 convention in Philadelphia, said Chris Barron, political director for the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay political group. He did not have precise numbers.

“We’re happy at the number we are going to have at (this year’s) convention,” Barron said. “We want the delegates there to be there because of who they are, and not an arbitrary status” like sexual orientation, race or religion.

==============================

Gay Couples Begin to Wed in Massachusetts (FN, 040517)

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Gay couples began exchanging marriage vows in Massachusetts on Monday, marking the first time a state has granted gays and lesbians the right to marry and making the United States one of at least four countries where homosexuals can legally wed.

Tanya McCloskey, 52, and Marcia Kadish, 56, of Malden went at a breakneck pace to fill out paperwork, get a waiver from the three-day waiting period, then return to city hall — where they got their marriage license and exchanged vows.

At 9:15 a.m., Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury told the couple: “I now pronounce you married under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

It was among the first — if not the first — same-sex weddings taking place throughout the state on Monday, the day that same-sex couples could wed under a court order.

“It was really important to us to just be married. We want to be married as soon as we possibly can. Part of it is, we don’t know what the Legislature is going to do,” McCloskey said.

In Boston, David Wilson and Robert Compton became the first of the seven couples who sued the state to be married. At the Arlington Street Church, Wilson and Compton exchanged vows under a rainbow flag and to the strains of the Boston Gay Men’s Chorus singing “Marry Us.” An excerpt from the landmark Supreme Judicial Court decision that legalized gay marriage was read as an invocation at the Unitarian Universalist church.

They were pronounced “partners for life” at the end of the ceremony.

The six other plaintiff couples planned to marry later Monday.

There were scattered protests amid a largely festive atmosphere.

About 15 protesters, most from Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church, stood near Cambridge City Hall carrying signs with anti-gay slogans Sunday night. The group, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., travels around the country protesting homosexuality.

But Ray McNulty, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Family Institute, one of the leading organizers of opposition to same-sex marriage, criticized some of the protesters, saying there was no need for hateful speech.

“What’s going on down there is legal, and as far as I’m concerned, give those people their happiness for the day,” McNulty said.

Massachusetts was thrust into the center of a nationwide debate on gay marriage when the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 in November that gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.

In the days leading to Monday’s deadline for same-sex weddings to begin, opponents looked to the federal courts for help in overturning the ruling. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.

The SJC’s ruling also galvanized opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts, prompting lawmakers in this heavily Democratic, Roman Catholic state to adopt a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but legalize Vermont-style civil unions. The earliest it could wind up on the ballot is 2006 — possibly casting a shadow on the legality of gay marriages taking place in the intervening years.

The city of Cambridge, a liberal bastion that’s home to Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, opened its doors to couples at midnight, and remained open until about 4:30 a.m. Monday.

The first couple to receive marriage paperwork was Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, of Cambridge. After 27 years together, they sat at a table across from a city official shortly after midnight, filling out forms as their adult son looked on.

“I feel really overwhelmed,” Hams said. “I could collapse at this point.”

Out-of-state gay couples are likely to challenge Massachusetts’ 1913 marriage statute, which bars nonresident couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would be illegal in their home state. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes gay marriage, has said that clerks who give licenses to nonresidents may face legal implications.

“All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people,” he said Monday. “Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.”

Still, officials in Provincetown, Worcester and Somerville, have said they will not enforce Romney’s order and will give licenses to any couples who ask, as long as they sign the customary affidavit attesting that they know of no impediment to their marriage.

Sure enough, Chris McCary, 43, and his partner of six years, John Sullivan, 37, of Anniston, Ala., were first in line outside town hall in Provincetown on Monday morning.

“This is the most important day of my life,” said McCary.

The SJC’s ruling touched off a frenzy of gay marriages across the country earlier this year. Even though courts ordered a halt to the wedding march, opponents pushed for a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage, which President Bush has endorsed.

Both sides in the debate say the issue may figure prominently in the November elections across the country.

Candidates for Congress could face pressure to explain their position on the proposed federal constitutional ban, and voters in several states will consider similar amendments to their state constitutions.

In Massachusetts, married couples are entitled to hundreds of rights under state law. But federal rights are not available to gay married couples because federal law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Canada’s three most populous provinces are among the only places in the world where gays can marry.

==============================

Gay Marriage Likely to Be Election Issue (Foxnews, 040518)

BOSTON — With gays and lesbians now legally wed in Massachusetts, foes of gay marriage vowed Tuesday to campaign hard, in state and national elections, for candidates willing to reverse the tide.

“It’s very difficult, once a right has been claimed in law, to reverse that right, but we’re going to try,” said the Rev. Christopher Coyne, spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

The election battle will be waged on two main fronts: an effort nationally to elect congressional candidates supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and an effort in Massachusetts to tilt the balance in the Legislature by ousting 10 to 20 lawmakers who opposed a state ban.

“We’re not going to let this issue go away,” said Kristian Mineau, president of the conservative Massachusetts Family Institute. “Our theme is ‘Remember in November.’”

More than 1,000 same-sex couples — including scores from other states — have obtained marriage licenses since Massachusetts on Monday became the first state to allow gays to wed.

Protests were few, and sparsely attended, but Mineau said that reflected a deliberate decision by his group and others to avoid confrontations and to focus their energy against politicians, not gay couples.

“Homosexual couples are not the enemy,” said Raymond Flynn, a former Boston mayor and foe of gay marriage. “The enemy is the legislators who ignored and betrayed the people of Massachusetts by not giving them an opportunity to express their point of view.”

Legislators wrangled for months after the state Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 decision last November, ruled that gay couples were entitled to marry. Eventually, in a compromise that dismayed activists on each side, lawmakers took the first step toward letting voters decide in 2006 if they want to amend the constitution to ban gay marriages and allow gay couples enter civil unions.

“Without a change in the makeup of the Legislature, we don’t have an opportunity to get a real amendment passed,” said Michael Carl, president of a political action committee called the Heritage Alliance that wants both civil unions and gay marriage banned. Carl said the alliance has recruited more than 20 legislative candidates “willing to take a courageous stand.”

Coyne said Catholic Church leaders, though avoiding partisan politics, would make clear to Catholic voters that gay marriage is a factor they should consider when casting their votes this fall. However, he acknowledged the task of gay-marriage opponents is now more daunting.

“Obviously the issue has become so much more complex now with the reality of same-sex marriage,” he said. “When you talk about withdrawing that reality from these couples, you’re just opening a whole can of worms.”

Nationally, conservative leaders are working to build support for a proposed federal constitutional amendment — pending in Congress — that would prohibit gay marriages nationwide.

Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, said the amendment is the only sure defense against the expected wave of lawsuits by same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts, then return home to other states and seek recognition of their unions there.

“This issue is boiling,” Perkins said. “It’s gone from an academic debate to a real public policy crisis.”

The federal amendment must first be supported by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, then be ratified by at least 38 legislatures, representing three-quarters of the states.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said he was concerned because several members of Congress told him recently they were getting little pressure from their constituents to push for the amendment.

Another line of attack against same-sex marriage is pending in federal court. An appeals court in Boston is scheduled to hear arguments next month from lawyers contending that the Supreme Judicial Court had no authority to issue a ruling defining marriage in Massachusetts.

Mathew Staver of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, one of the conservative lawyers handling the federal case, said such legal efforts should be complemented by a stronger push from the White House on behalf of the proposed constitutional ban.

“President Bush needs to do more than make a public statement,” Staver said. “He should appoint a pro-marriage advocate to his staff whose sole job is to push forward a constitutional amendment ... to educate, motivate and direct the strategy.”

==============================

Gay Marriage Opponents Enlist Faithful (Foxnews, 040618)

BEAVERTON, Ohio — Ken Keeley spends his Sunday mornings at church — not just to worship, but to collect signatures for a ballot measure that would amend Oregon’s constitution to ban gay marriage.

Keeley, one of roughly 2,000 members at the evangelical Beaverton Christian Church, describes himself as “not that political.”

But he says the issue of same-sex marriage — and what it means to much of Oregon’s religious community — drove him to join the petiti to churches for support of their efforts to legally define marriage as between a man and a woman, a move that political analysts call savvy.

But some churches that support gay rights are worried the strategy will send the wrong message, while others have questioned the ethics and legality of bringing politics to the pulpit.

In Oregon, the Defense of Marriage Coalition has just two weeks left to collect the 100,840 valid signatures needed to place an amendment banning gay marriage on the November ballot. They’re counting on 1,500 Oregon churches for help.

Organizers won’t say how many they’ve collected so far, because the signature-validation process makes it difficult to get an accurate count.

“We’re optimistic and we’re hopeful,” said Tim Nashif, the group’s political director.

Chris Stewart, whose group, the Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee, is leading efforts to ban gay marriage there, describes the petition drive as a “pre-emptive strike.”

“We have seen what has begun in our culture across the nation,” Stewart said. “And we realize it is coming to ‘a town near you.”‘

Volunteers based in Little Rock, Ark., have already collected 109,000 signatures — 28,250 more than is needed by the July 2 deadline for a ballot measure there. Two church-based groups have yet to turn in about 25,000 more signatures, Stewart said.

In Michigan, volunteers with the Lansing-based group Citizens for the Protection of Marriage had signed up 130,000 people by the end of May. They need 317,000 valid signatures.

And the Montana Family Foundation in Laurel, Mont., has collected more than half of the 41,029 signatures needed to get its constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

Recent polls in Michigan, Montana, and Ohio show voters support a marriage amendment. There has been no such poll in Arkansas, but Stewart says the Bible Belt state doesn’t need one.

Political analysts say visiting churches gives signature collectors access to a friendly, receptive audience.

“It’s a very, very politically astute move,” said Laura Olson, a political science professor at Clemson University in Clemson, S.C. She edited a 2001 book on the role of the clergy in U.S. politics. “You know you’re going to have a particular set of people who are going to be 95% in favor on this issue,” she said.

The gay marriage debate has forged connections among congregations as disparate as Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics, evangelical Protestants and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“Marriage is at the very core of who we are as people of faith,” said Phil Burress, whose Cincinnati-based group, Citizens for Community Values, is leading the petition drive in Ohio. Volunteers there have to turn in nearly 323,000 signatures by Aug. 4.

But Rev. Tara Wilkins, an independent Portland pastor, says the churches’ stance against gay marriage mistakenly gives the impression that no Christian congregations welcome gays.

“It sends the message that there is no room in organized religion for people who are gay, lesbian or transgendered. That’s the wrong message,” said Wilkins, director of the Community of Welcoming Congregations, who attends a local United Church of Christ. Her organization represents 44 congregations in the Portland metropolitan area, ranging from mainline Protestant churches to Jewish synagogues.

Wilkins and her partner, Carol Issacs, were among more than 3,000 same-sex couples who tied the knot in Portland in March and April, after Multnomah County commissioners decided to begin issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.

Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, a Portland-based gay rights group, said the church-based effort “raises questions for me about how appropriate it is for people to use the ballot measure process to advance their religious views.”

But Keeley, the volunteer at Beaverton Christian Church in Oregon, says he has no doubt that the gay marriage ban will reach the ballot.

“People are sincere about their beliefs,” he said. “They want to make a change.”

==============================

Marriage & Stripping: Another split on the social Right (NRO, 040625)

In recent weeks, House Republicans have gotten behind a “two-vote strategy” on same-sex marriage. They want to vote on a bill before voting on a constitutional amendment. “Which bill?” has been the main subject of debate. Some Republicans want to vote on a bill that would block same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. Others are seeking a vote on Indiana congressman John Hostettler’s bill to remove the federal courts’ jurisdiction over the Defense of Marriage Act. Majority leader Tom DeLay is said to fall in the latter camp. But the Family Research Council, one of the strongest social-conservative organizations, is opposed to DeLay’s apparent strategy.

Other social conservatives are behind the Hostettler bill — notably Concerned Women for America and Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum. (Concerned Women for America differs from DeLay, however, in one respect: It does not support the bill as a way of building momentum for the Federal Marriage Amendment. It opposes the amendment on the peculiar theory that it would enshrine civil unions in the Constitution.)

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, has two objections to the Texan’s two-step. The first sounds like an objection to any two-vote strategy. “We’re not in favor of having two measures moving because we feel like it will give some people a way to take cover,” he tells me. “They can vote for one and say that they’ve done what they can do to protect marriage — and not do what needs to be done, an amendment.”

Second, Perkins says that the Hostettler court-stripping bill would accomplish very little. It would block the federal courts from striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. But it would not block state courts from imposing same-sex marriage, as in Massachusetts. Nor would it block federal courts from imposing same-sex marriage: Any federal court could find that current state marriage laws amount to unconstitutional discrimination without touching the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Nor would the Hostettler bill stop federal or state courts from unbundling the elements of marriage and providing them to same-sex couples one benefit at a time.

Perkins emphasizes that he is in favor of court-stripping as a general proposition, and that he does not question the motives of DeLay or like-minded conservatives: “This is a disagreement about strategy.”

There’s another strategic problem with the Hostettler strategy. Let’s assume that Perkins, DeLay, and Schlafly are right and that the political branches should assert their power to regulate the federal courts’ jurisdiction. (I certainly believe that they are right about this specific point.) The propriety of this kind of court-stripping is nonetheless very controversial. Building the respectability of the idea is a long-term project. It would make sense to start with an issue where the public is very strongly on conservatives’ side: Todd Akin’s bill to strip the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. In the case of the Hostettler bill, on the other hand, both the controversy over marriage and the controversy over court-stripping would combine to sink the bill. Many conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage but are conventional in their view of the relationship between the courts and the legislature would vote against it. Conservatives whose main concern is to amend the Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage would not have furthered their goal. Neither would those conservatives whose main concern is reining in the courts.

This objection would not apply to a vote on same-sex marriage in D.C. A bill against that might very well pass, and perhaps build momentum for a constitutional amendment. (Of course, the D.C. vote would bring up the issue of home rule; although that objection probably should carry more weight than the objection to court-stripping, it clearly doesn’t as a matter of practical politics.)

Stuart Roy, a spokesman for DeLay, says that House Republicans have not settled on the strategy. “It’s still very fluid,” he says. “What we don’t want is to throw a constitutional amendment on the floor that fails and takes all the wind out of the sails of the effort to protect marriage. And DeLay believes that there’s a way to build momentum so that we can actually win rather than simply lose and complain about it.”

==============================

Record Number of Signatures for Gay Marriage Ban in Oregon (Foxnews, 040701)

SALEM, Ore. — Opponents of same-sex marriage submitted a record-high number of signatures Wednesday to place a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay nuptials on the ballot.

The 244,587 signatures amassed by the Defense of Marriage Coalition — more than twice the necessary amount — was the highest number of signatures ever submitted for an initiative measure in Oregon’s history.

The signatures still need to be verified by state elections officials by Aug. 1. Only 100,840 signatures need to be valid for the proposed constitutional amendment to be placed on the November ballot.

A gay marriage measure could affect other political races — especially the presidential contest in this battleground state.

Oregon Republican Party Chairman Kevin Mannix has said he believes the hot-button social issue will bring out conservative voters, which could boost President Bush’s chances of defeating presumed Democratic candidate John Kerry in Oregon.

In March, commissioners in Multnomah County, Oregon’s largest and most liberal enclave, directed employees to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. More than 3,000 were issued before a judge halted the process to give state lawmakers and the state’s highest court a chance to weigh in.

Five weeks ago, backers of a law banning gay marriage — similar versions of which already exist in 39 states — launched their drive to place a proposed constitutional amendment on November’s ballot.

Legislatures in five states — Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah — have placed similar amendments on this November’s ballot, while voters in Missouri will consider the issue in August. In Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio and Montana, citizen drives like the one in Oregon are under way.

Basic Rights Oregon, the state’s leading gay rights group, said it will launch a statewide campaign to defeat the measure.

Both sides said they plan to spend at least $1.5 million each to get their message to voters.

==============================

Stay Denied on Same-Sex Marriage Registration in Oregon (FN, 040709)

SALEM, Ore. — Oregon may soon be forced to officially recognize the more than 3,000 same-sex marriage licenses issued this spring in Multnomah County, after the Oregon Court of Appeals on Friday refused to order a hold on registering the licenses.

State recognition of the licenses would presumably entitle gay couples to the same state benefits accorded to heterosexual married couples, from taxes to legal protections.

Kevin Neely, a spokesman for Attorney General Hardy Myers, said that the state might try to avert that though, by quickly appealing the appeals court decision to the state Supreme Court.

A Multnomah County judge had halted any future marriages in April while a lawsuit challenging their constitutionality is pending.

But in the same ruling, Circuit Judge Frank Bearden did direct the state to officially register the licenses from ceremonies already performed, making him the first judge in the nation to recognize the legal validity of gay marriage.

The state had asked the appeals court to halt that decision, but the appeals court turned them down Friday.

Basic Rights Oregon, the state’s leading gay rights group, applauded the appeals court’s action.

“These couples have already done what any other couple seeking to marry has already done to marry in the state of Oregon. It’s only fair that the state register those marriages — and that they are afforded the same protections and responsibilities of marriage that any other Oregon couple is afforded,” said Rebekah Kassell, spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon.

But Tim Nashif, a spokesman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, the group that has led the fight against gay marriage, said that the appeals court decision doesn’t necessarily mean immediate state recognition of the gay marriage licenses.

““We don’t want to comment on this until we know what it all means. It may not necessarily mean that the licenses will be registered tomorrow,” Nashif said.

==============================

Gay Marriage a Thorny Political Issue in 2004 (Foxnews, 040716)

WASHINGTON — To hear President Bush and many Republicans say it, they’re not opposed to gay marriage so much as eager to prevent judges — routinely described as unelected and activist — from weakening one of civilization’s most enduring institutions.

It’s a political straddle in the making, designed to maximize election-year support among conservatives without offending moderate voters wary of any taint of intolerance.

“Gay bashing, plain and simple,” was how Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., this week described a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, unwilling to let the measure’s supporters define it in their own terms.

“Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America,” Bush countered. “And neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts.”

While the early legislative returns are in — the amendment went down to a decisive defeat in the Senate — Republican strategists hope they have laid the foundation for success in November.

“Four million religious conservative voters sat out the last election, so the president’s visible stance on protecting marriage is essential to turning out all of those conservative voters who pulled the lever for him in 2000 and getting those other 4 million to come out for him this year,” said Keith Appell, a conservative strategist in Washington.

Other Republicans say they hope the issue helps Bush with low- and middle-income social conservatives, with Catholics and others, particularly in battleground states such as Ohio and Michigan.

Republicans also note that some black ministers are among the amendment’s supporters.

“I think it’s being used as a wedge issue,” said Alexis Herman, a black former labor secretary who is now an adviser to Bush’s Democratic presidential opponent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Kerry and other Democrats also call the issue a political distraction, an attempt to divert attention from the economy and the war in Iraq.

“The unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs and raising the minimum wage is not getting done,” said the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting.

Whatever it is, the gay marriage issue has surfaced in a handful of congressional races, in South Dakota, Florida and elsewhere, and may emerge elsewhere.

Beyond that, opponents of gay marriage are working to force votes in more than a dozen states this November on proposed state constitutional amendments. The list includes Michigan, Ohio and Oregon, all presidential swing states.

The debate is occurring within the context of a broader campaign conflict over social issues.

But abortion and gun control have been campaign perennials.

Gay marriage emerged as a political issue over the winter after San Francisco began issuing licenses to same-sex couples and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state constitution mandates full, equal marriage rights for gay couples.

Kerry, has worked hard to reassure voters who disagree with him on social issues. An advocate of gun control, he’s been photographed with a hunting rifle in hand.

A career-long supporter of abortion rights, he’s said he might appoint judges to the bench who don’t share his view on the subject.

Like Bush, he’s doing something of a straddle on gay marriage.

He opposes the gay marriage amendment but says he’s against gay marriage itself.

A campaign spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter, says that if Kerry’s home state comes up with a constitutional provision that outlaws gay marriage but protects equal rights and benefits for same-sex couples, he would support that.

To the disappointment of GOP strategists who had hoped to force him to cast a vote, Kerry was absent in the Senate this week for what his campaign aides described as a procedural roll call.

Instead, he issued a statement that criticized Republicans for bringing the issue to a vote. He added, “When I am president, I will work to bring the nation together and build a stronger America.”

That was a charge that the Republicans were attempting to divide the country.

If Republicans are nervous about that, it’s out of concern that they can be depicted as intolerant.

“What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do,” Bush said earlier this week.

The same concern is evident in South Dakota, where Republican senatorial candidate John Thune has been airing radio commercials supporting the amendment that his opponent, Sen. Tom Daschle, voted against.

“This constitutional amendment won’t take away anyone’s rights,” Thune says reassuringly in the ad. “Not a single one.”

==============================

House Considers Gay-Marriage Bill (FN, 040722)

WASHINGTON — No federal court has ruled on state bans on gay marriage, and House Republicans want to make sure none does.

The House was considering legislation Thursday to keep the Supreme Court and other federal courts from ordering states to recognize same-sex unions sanctioned elsewhere.

Continuing their election-year focus on gay marriage, Republican leaders expect the measure to pass easily. Last week, the Senate dealt gay marriage opponents a setback by failing to advance a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.

Supporters said Wednesday the House legislation is needed to protect state bans on gay marriage from federal judges who might rule that a gay marriage that took place in Massachusetts, the only state where it is legal, must be recognized by other states.

“This bill is really a reaffirmation of states’ rights,” said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., chairman of the House Rules Committee.

The Marriage Protection Act would strip federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Democratic opponents said the GOP is pushing ahead with an unconstitutional bill to appeal to socially conservative voters who are a key Republican constituency.

“That’s what this is really all about, working their base to a frenzy for the election,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.

Adding to Democrats’ sense that the House legislation is motivated by politics is that no federal court has yet to rule on the 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act. “The legislation is premature,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., told the Rules Committee.

Nadler said he believes the legislation is unconstitutional, but legal scholars said the constitutional question of stripping jurisdiction from federal courts is unresolved.

“My sense is that Congress has explicit authority in the Constitution ... but it is a largely unexercised power,” said Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University constitutional law professor and former legal adviser to Republican presidents.

While Republicans defended states’ rights, Democrats said the phrase recalled Southern opposition to desegregation, which was propelled by a series of federal court rulings.

“Today, it’s gay marriage. Tomorrow, it could be something else. It’s very dangerous for any Congress to move down this road,” said Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a civil rights leader.

Some Republicans also cited their desire to avoid setting a precedent that could used by a Congress controlled by Democrats to satisfy their allies or by lawmakers who wanted to shield future unconstitutional legislation from federal court review.

However, Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., author of the bill, said the issue is too important to ignore. “Simply put, if federal courts don’t have jurisdiction over marriage issues, they can’t hear them. And if they can’t hear cases regarding marriage policy, they can’t redefine this sacred institution,” Hostettler said when he introduced the legislation in May.

==============================

Gays More Anti-Bush Than Pro-Kerry (Foxnews, 040727)

Senate Rejects Bid for Marriage Amendment

BOSTON — “Si se puede!” former presidential candidate Al Sharpton screamed as he energized the Latinos for Kerry Caucus Monday in the Constitution Ballroom of the Sheraton Boston Hotel. The delegates responded by chanting the Spanish words meaning “Yes, we can.”

Later, in a nearby room, the Service Employees International Union members chanted the Democratic presidential candidate’s name so loudly that the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Caucus that had followed the Latino caucus meeting could hear their enthusiasm through the wall.

But inside the GLBT meeting, the mood was more subdued as delegates decried the actions of President Bush, but also expressed skepticism about the commitment of John Kerry to the issues important to them. Both Kerry and John Edwards opposed Bush’s proposed constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, but, to the dismay of homosexuals, they have said little more than that it is a decision for the states. Homosexuals would like much more. Although they are energized to throw out Bush, a man they see as deeply opposed to gay rights, they wish Kerry would give them more to be excited about.

Democratic National Committee officials, Kerry campaign representatives and others tried to downplay the division within Democratic ranks and stress how bad Bush is on gay issues.

“George Bush has decided that this year you are the scapegoat, and I’m here to tell you that nobody is going to make you a scapegoat,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who received a standing ovation from the caucus and repeatedly drew loud applause by expressing her opposition to Bush. “The choices of this administration are hurtful choices. No one should be rewarded for hurting people.”

Sticking to safe territory, Steve Elmendorf, the Kerry-Edwards deputy campaign manager, focused on slamming Bush rather than touting Kerry’s initiatives. “I don’t think there has ever been a president nearly as bad as this one,” Elmendorf said. “The contrast between John Kerry and George Bush could not be deeper.”

Although both statements received loud applause, the excitement waned when the conversation turned away from Bush and toward Kerry.

As members of the Platform Drafting Committee representing the GLBT community gave presentations to their caucus, delegates became visibly upset.

“It’s not good enough,” yelled out one delegate as Jeff Soref, chair of the DNC’s GLBT Caucus acknowledged that “there are differences between many of us in the room on the platform.”

In fact, the majority of Democratic delegates believe gays should be allowed to marry. A Boston Globe survey of 400 delegates from July 16-21 found that 62% favor gay marriage, while 19% oppose it and 18% said they did not know.

Some Democratic Party operatives acknowledged that the party is not worried about getting these votes, but rather swaying swing voters who may be skeptical of the Democratic Party’s traditional affinity to liberal social issues.

“We didn’t get everything, but we believe we made a very vigorous effort, and they made a good-faith response,” said Roberta Achtenberg, a member of the Platform Drafting Committee and a former San Francisco supervisor who worked for the Clinton administration.

The Platform Committee, which authored the Democratic platform, heard several presentations from gay and lesbian groups, but gay marriage is not mentioned in the platform.

The only mention of gays in the platform is a recognition of their equality.

“We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits and protections for these families,” the platform reads.

In a press conference Monday morning, Alice Germond, secretary of the Democratic National Committee, said the gay marriage issue, prominent in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, “did not even come up.”

Achtenberg confirmed this.

“I think that it’s a pretty strong statement that affirms equality,” Achtenberg said of language in the platform. “Beyond that, that’s not the role of a nationwide consensus-based document.”

Some gay delegates said they understood the political necessity for Kerry not to push the gay marriage issue too far, while praising him for the efforts that he had made.

“The election is so close. Kerry has to appeal to the independent voters. This is not an issue that is necessarily going to appeal to them,” said Troy Liggett, a delegate from Indiana.

Liggett said that he is not at all disappointed in Kerry, in part because “anyone would be better than George Bush on gay issues. I’m so angry at George Bush. … He didn’t need to be at the forefront of stopping progress.”

But other gay delegates said they were feeling marginalized because they believed that their part of the Democratic message was being stifled in favor of this national message.

When Chris DiGiorgio, a delegate from New York, asked convention organizers if they would be able to bring signs supporting gay marriage into the FleetCenter, Soref responded that the convention would be trying to “stay on message,” a statement that met grumbling in the room.

Singer Carole King, who has been campaigning for Kerry, also addressed the audience and acknowledged problems with Kerry’s platform on gay issues.

“I know John Kerry, and I agree with him a lot. I do not agree with him on gay marriage,” she said, as the room erupted in cheers. However, she cautioned the audience that while Kerry may not be perfect, “this is a good man who has been your advocate for many, many years.”

Although not a delegate, David Loper, a homosexual from Alabama, traveled up to the convention and described the DNC-organized activities as “so welcoming.” He praised Kerry for his work opposing the constitutional amendment against gay marriage that failed in the Senate earlier this month. Loper added that gay marriage is only one of many issues that interest gays, while other issues include the concerns of all Americans: the economy and the War on Terror, for example.

Fellow Alabaman, delegate Patricia Todd, said that the DNC has really reached out to the gay community during the convention lead-up. Two hundred thirty-six gay delegates are attending this year, more than any other convention.

“I would like [Kerry] to be stronger on gay marriage, but I understand that this is politics,” Todd said.

==============================

French nullifies country’s first gay marriage (National Post, 040727)

BORDEAUX, France (AP) — A French court nullified the country’s first homosexual marriage on Tuesday, a ceremony that led the government to try to suspend the high-profile Green Party mayor who conducted it.

The couple, Stephane Chapin and Bertrand Charpentier, exchanged vows last month in the Bordeaux suburb of Begles. Their lawyer said the ruling would not take effect pending an appeal.

The court in Bordeaux said in a statement it had “declared the marriage conducted null.”

The couple expressed optimism that the move would be overturned, promising to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

“We are sure that we will win because we’ll take this as far as possible,” Charpentier told reporters after the decision.

Begles mayor Noel Mamere, a leading Green Party lawmaker, officiated the June 5 marriage, defying the government and saying he wanted to take a step toward ending discrimination of all kinds.

In France, mayors carry out civil marriages.

Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin stripped Mamere of his official duties for a month on June 15, basing his decision on a law allowing the suspension of mayors who “gravely misunderstand the duties of their office.”

The exchange of vows between Chapin and Charpentier was recorded by television cameras and journalists. Mamere wore the blue, white and red sash of the French Republic when he married the couple.

==============================

Mo. Voters Approve Ban on Gay Marriage (Foxnews, 040804)

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri voters solidly endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a decision that was closely watched by national groups on both sides of the battle.

With nearly all precincts reporting, the amendment had garnered 71% of the vote, according to unofficial results for Tuesday’s vote. It was the first such vote since the historic ruling in Massachusetts last year that legalized same-sex weddings there.

Although the ban was widely expected to pass in conservative Missouri, experts said the campaign served as a key barometer for which strategies work as at least nine other states, and perhaps as many as 12, vote on similar amendments this year.

Missouri and 37 other states already have laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. But amendment supporters fear a court could toss aside the state law, and they believe the state would be on firmer legal ground if an outright ban is part of the Constitution.

“I’m very gratified and encouraged and thankful that the people of this state understand our current policy’s a wise public policy and they want to see it protected from a legal challenge,” said Vicky Hartzler, a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri.

Opponents said the amendment was unnecessary and discriminatory, but knew they faced an uphill battle in Missouri.

“We’re already reaching out to these other states, sharing with them what we learned, what worked, what didn’t work, and we’ll move on,” said Doug Gray, campaign manager for the Constitution Defense League. “Ultimately we’re right and they’re simply wrong.”

Supporters and opponents of the amendment have used grassroots campaigns, knocking on doors and making phone calls to tell people about the issue. The group fighting the amendment, the Constitution Defense League, raised more than $360,000, largely from national gay-rights groups, and ran a television ad in the final days before the vote.

The group favoring the amendment, the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, spread the word through churches and community events, raising just a few thousand dollars but saying public sentiment in Missouri was on their side.

Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

==============================

New judges favour same-sex rights (National Post, 040825)

Justice Minister denies that was deciding factor in their appointments

OTTAWA - The federal government yesterday nominated two prominent women, both of whom have written controversial judgments extending spousal rights to same-sex couples, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The appointments of Justice Louise Charron and Justice Rosalie Abella from the Ontario Court of Appeal — to be reviewed publicly today in an unprecedented hearing by a committee of MPs and members of the legal community — will raise the number of women on the nine-member Supreme Court to four for the first time in its history.

Judge Abella has been an outspoken advocate of civil and human rights, while Judge Charron is a former prosecutor considered an expert in criminal law and procedure, evidence and civil law.

Despite past rulings and statements that show both judges to be strong advocates of the Charter of Rights and likely favourable to protection for gay marriage, Irwin Cotler, the Justice Minister, denied that was the deciding factor in selecting the two jurists.

One of the most contentious issues the court faces when it begins its fall sitting in October will be a reference from the federal government asking for a decision on the constitutionality of its proposed legislation pertaining to same-sex marriage.

“It was merit that determined the two outstanding nominees whose names I share with you this morning,” Mr. Cotler told a news conference. “We did not inquire into issues of ideology or gender or whatever.”

Mr. Cotler also denied he nominated women for both vacancies in order to improve gender balance on the high court.

“They were not chosen because they were women; they were chosen because they are outstanding,” he said.

Two Conservative MPs, whose party wants a free vote in Parliament on the issue of same-sex marriage instead of leaving it to the court to decide, refused to comment on the nominations and instead accused the Prime Minister of failing to live up to a promise that MPs would be able to directly screen Supreme Court appointments before they are made.

Under a formula all opposition parties accepted for these two appointments, MPs on the committee, which will also include Julian Porter from the Law Society of Upper Canada and Federal Court of Appeal Chief Justice John Richard, will only be able to question Mr. Cotler about the nominations. The two candidates will not be present for the televised hearing and questions will be limited to areas that relate to the professional capacity of the candidates and personal traits, such as honest, integrity, fairness and common sense.

The MPs and legal experts on the committee will not have the power to veto the appointments, which will be a Cabinet formality after the committee comments on the appointments tomorrow.

Vic Toews, the Conservative justice critic, and Peter MacKay, the party’s deputy leader, said they accepted the government proposal for a limited review so they would have the opportunity to draw public attention to Paul Martin’s failure to allow direct screening and questioning of the candidates.

At the same time, Mr. MacKay and Mr. Toews said they were not arguing that Parliament’s consent should be required for the appointments.

“Canadians are entitled to look these individuals in the eye and ask them, ‘What do you bring to the table?’ “ said Mr. Toews, a former Manitoba attorney-general and one-time Crown prosecutor.

Mr. MacKay, also a former prosecutor, denied the Opposition would attempt to exploit the direct screening of judicial appointments for partisan purposes over such issues as gay rights and same-sex marriage. “Politicians would do so at their peril,” he said.

Mr. Cotler said Cabinet is obliged to appoint Supreme Court judges and cannot legally allow the kind of legislative veto that the U.S. Senate has for presidential appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. He added the type of review the government is testing will avoid the “spectacle” of potential justices being “cross-examined” on personal matters before their appointments are approved.

“Yes, their role is advisory, but that role could not be otherwise under the Constitution,” Mr. Cotler said.

“We intend to strike a balance here, a balance between the need for openness and transparency and accountability on the one hand and protecting the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the judges’ reputations on the other,” he added, saying the government is open to changes in the future.

Regina lawyer Bill Johnson, a past president of the Canadian Bar Association who has led the association’s call for an advisory committee of MPs and members of the legal community to guide the government on Supreme Court appointments, said the review Mr. Cotler designed is a “seat-of-the-pants” proposal that falls short of the association’s desire for meaningful participation before appointments are made.

The bar association proposed a committee that would present its recommendations and advice to government behind closed doors to avoid politicizing the appointments process.

“This ad hoc committee is not an advisory committee; it’s a listening committee,” said Mr. Johnson, who voiced concern that the public hearing, even without the power to affect the appointments, could infuse the process with partisan politics and perhaps even taint the appointments by subjecting them to political debate.

He nonetheless welcomed the hearing as an opportunity to acquaint the public, through MPs, with the Supreme Court appointment process.

Mr. Cotler said he consulted widely with members of the legal community before selecting Judge Charron and Judge Abella. This year, Mr. Cotler for the first time released details of the Supreme Court appointment process to the Commons justice committee.

Judge Charron, who was born in Ottawa and named to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1995, wrote the majority judgment in a case that allowed same-sex partners to seek alimony.

Judge Abella, the daughter of Holocaust survivors, came to Canada as a refugee child in 1950. She became the youngest judge in Canadian history when she was appointed to the Ontario Family Court in 1976 at age 29. She wrote a watershed judgment that said the word “spouse” in the Income Tax Act includes same-sex partners.

==============================

Manitoba legalizes same-sex marriage (CTV News, 040916)

Manitoba has become the fifth jurisdiction in Canada to legalize same-sex marriage.

Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Douglas Yard ruled Thursday morning that the current definition of marriage in provincial law is unconstitutional.

“The traditional definition of marriage in Manitoba is reformulated to mean a voluntary union for life of two persons at the exclusion of all others,” Justice Yard said in his decision.

Gay rights groups say they expect the first same-sex wedding to be performed in the province by the end of the week.

The case was brought forward by three same-sex couples who argued for the right to marry.

The couples sued the provincial and federal governments asking that the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman be declared contrary to the equality provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawyers for the federal government, which has jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, did not oppose the motion. It’s the first time that federal lawyers did not try to fight or adjourn a court battle over same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for the Manitoba government also offered no opposition.

Gay marriages are already legal in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Yukon, after judges in those provinces declared the definition of marriage unconstitutional.

Same-sex couples were legally given the right to marry in the Yukon at the end of July.

Justice Yard said those precedents weighed heavily in his decision Thursday.

“The cumulative effect and the overwhelming effect of that judicial authority is to the effect that the traditional definition of marriage is no longer constitutionally valid in view of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” he said.

The Supreme Court of Canada will begin holding hearings on the federal government’s draft legislation to legalize same-sex marriage across the country.

==============================

Gay Marriages Issue Motivates Christian Voters (Foxnews, 040926)

WASHINGTON — Christian conservatives are casting a wider net this year in their search for likely voters — especially conservative ones — by asking people on the phone how they feel about same-sex marriage as well as their views on abortion, a standard question in previous election cycles.

“The federal marriage amendment will be an important issue in the states it’s on the ballot,” Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America, said Saturday during an election training conference for activist members. “It will have an impact on us getting out the vote.”

Proposals on amendments on gay marriage are expected to be on the ballot in 11 states, including the swing states of Arkansas, Oregon, Michigan and probably Ohio. Those people who say they are likely to vote and who oppose abortion and favor traditional marriage will be heavily recruited by the coalition on Election Day.

The coalition hopes to help re-elect President Bush and add a handful of conservative U.S. senators who will support its agenda. The ultimate goal is loftier: changing the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.

The coalition is finishing interviews of lawmakers for its voter guides, which national field coordinator Bill Thomson called the “B-2 bomber” in its arsenal. Combs wasn’t ready to say exactly how many coalition voter guides will be printed. The group handed out 70 million in 2000.

Politicians are being asked a number of questions, including whether they support a constitutional amendment that effectively bans gay marriage. Their views on abortion, late-term abortions and measures to protect children from online pornography are being sought as well.

Voter guides don’t advise people how to vote but provide opposing candidates’ positions on issues important to conservative voters.

A more conservative Senate, backed by a second Bush term, could allow the appointment of two or three conservative justices to the Supreme Court to join Justices William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia.

“If you asked people in this group their top priority, the first thing they would say is changing the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Jim Backlin, a legislative lobbyist for the coalition.

“These people want Roe v. Wade overturned and that authority returned to the states,” Backlin said. The case of Roe v. Wade resulted in a landmark ruling in 1973 guaranteeing women the right to abortion.

While many in the Christian Coalition expressed confidence that Bush will win re-election, they’re taking nothing for granted. Those supporting Democratic candidate John Kerry are highly motivated, said Spencer Banks, an Atlanta businessman, so it’s dangerous to assume Bush will win.

Jody Anderson, a nurse from Fort Worth, Texas, said she’s concerned some Christian conservatives may stay home on Election Day because they have been disappointed that Bush hasn’t taken a public stand on some conservative issues like the dispute over displaying the Ten Commandments at an Alabama courthouse.

Thomson, a former Marine, used military imagery to fire up the Christian Coalition activists to get out the vote.

“Never allow the enemy to block you,” Thomson urged them. “Get around them, run over the top of them, destroy them — whatever you need to do so that God’s word is the word that is being practiced in Congress, town halls and state legislatures.”

==============================

House Defeats Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment (Foxnews, 040930)

WASHINGTON — The House emphatically rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Thursday, the latest in a string of conservative pet causes advanced by Republican leaders in the run-up to Election Day.

The vote was 227-186, 49 votes shy of the two-thirds needed for approval of an amendment that President Bush backed but the Senate had previously scuttled.

“God created Adam and Eve, He didn’t create Adam and Steve,” said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., on behalf of a measure that supporters said accused GOP leaders of “raw political cynicism” and said they hoped to “create the fodder for a demagogic political ad.”

Bush issued a statement expressing disappointment with the vote’s outcome.

“Because activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of the country, we must remain vigilant in defending traditional marriage,” the president said.

The measure drew the support of 191 Republicans and 36 Democrats. Voting against it were 158 Democrats, 27 Republicans and one independent.

The debate on the gay marriage amendment came a day after the House voted 250-171 to overturn a 28-year municipal ban on handgun ownership in the District of Columbia. And last week, Republicans forced a vote on legislation to protect the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance from court challenge. It passed, 247-173.

While both of those measures face uncertain prospects in the Senate, they — along with the gay marriage proposal — appeal to voting groups whose support Republicans are counting on in the Nov. 2 elections. Recent surveys in battleground states in the presidential race indicate roughly one-quarter of Bush’s supporters say moral or family values are uppermost in their minds.

The gay marriage amendment said marriage in the United States “shall consist only of a man and a woman.” It also would have required that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state constitution “shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

Even among majority Republicans, the issue generated dissent.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was the principal speaker on behalf of the measure, taking a role that is almost always reserved for the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction. In this case, though, the leadership bypassed the Judiciary Committee, and GOP officials said the panel’s chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., made clear he wanted no part of the debate. His spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment.

DeLay said the need for congressional action was “forced upon us by activist judges trying to legislate from the bench.” He noted that under 1996 legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, marriage is defined as between a man of a woman.

“One would think this would be the end of the story. But it is not,” DeLay said. The law is “under an incessant and coordinated attack in the federal courts,” where he said judges feel a greater “responsibility to their own political ideology than the Constitution.”

“The limitations of traditional marriage rest not on an intent to discriminate, but on what is most beneficial for society and children as evidenced by volumes of social science research,” added Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo.

“Traditional marriage is worth preserving, because the nuclear family is far and away the best environment in which to raise children. Every child deserves both a father and a mother,” said Musgrave, whose persistent advocacy for the measure has gained her national notice unusual for a first-term lawmaker.

Critics saw it differently.

“We feel love and we feel it in a way different than you,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is openly gay. “We feel it with someone of the same sex, male or female, and we look at your institution of marriage and we see the joy it brings. How do we hurt you when we share it?”

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. quoted Vice President Dick Cheney — who has a gay daughter — as saying, “The fact of the matter is that we live in a free society and freedom means freedom for everybody.”

Public polls show strong opposition to gay marriage, but opinion is about evenly divided regarding a federal constitutional amendment to ban it.

At the same time, voters in 11 states will decide the fate of proposed amendments to their state constitutions this fall, and opponents of bans on gay marriage concede they will be difficult to stop.

The issue has gained prominence this year. Massachusetts residents have had first-in-the-nation rights to same sex marriages since May, the result of a ruling by the state’s highest court. A judge in Washington recently struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

==============================

‘Marriage’ issue works its way through courts (Washington Times, 041129)

December will be a busy month for homosexual “marriage” issues as courts in Oregon and California consider the fate of about 7,000 same-sex “marriages” and a Louisiana court considers the legality of a newly passed marriage amendment.

The Louisiana case is up first, with a hearing scheduled for Wednesday before the state Supreme Court.

In October, Louisiana District Court Judge William Morvant ruled that the marriage amendment, which passed Sept. 18, was unconstitutional because it defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibited recognition of “any union of unmarried individuals.”

Judge Morvant agreed with homosexual rights lawyers that the amendment illegally contained more than one subject. Louisiana lawmakers who wrote the amendment say it was legal and have appealed the case.

The case is being watched closely because similar anti-amendment lawsuits have been filed in Georgia, Kentucky and Oklahoma.

Oregon’s case, scheduled for Dec. 15 before the Oregon Supreme Court, also tests a new marriage amendment.

In the spring, Multnomah County officials, citing constitutional equal-rights protections, began marrying couples regardless of their sex. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quickly filed a lawsuit seeking full “marriage” rights for homosexual couples, and traditional values groups countersued to stop the county clerks from issuing such licenses.

In April, Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Frank Bearden stopped the issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses. But he also ruled that the 3,000 same-sex licenses already issued must be registered by the state and that the legislature should resolve the bigger issue of marital rights for same-sex couples.

The Bearden decision was appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. In the meantime, Oregon residents voted Nov. 2 to add a sentence to their constitution saying, “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.”

The high court asked for updates on the ACLU lawsuit, and on Nov. 17, ACLU lawyers said they would ask the high court to legalize some form of civil union — not “marriage” — for same-sex couples.

The state, they added, “is still obligated to fully recognize” the 3,000 Multnomah “marriages,” as the new amendment “cannot retroactively undo these valid marriages.”

Leaders of the conservative Defense of Marriage Coalition want the high court to reverse Judge Bearden’s recognition of the 3,000 “marriages,” because the licenses were issued in violation of state law.

The rest of the ACLU lawsuit should be dismissed, the conservative lawyers said, because the ACLU argued against allowing civil unions in its earlier briefs.

“You can’t change your request two-thirds of a way through a lawsuit,” coalition lawyer Kelly Clark told the Oregonian newspaper.

Finally, in California, on Dec. 22, a lawsuit seeking marriage rights for same-sex couples has a hearing before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer.

This case is expected to reach the California Supreme Court, perhaps within a year. This summer, the high court voided about 4,000 same-sex “marriages” conducted in San Francisco this spring. However, if the high court eventually ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex “marriage,” those couples could reapply for legal licenses.

California doesn’t define marriage in its constitution, but in 2000, its voters passed a law that cannot be overturned by legislators that says that only marriage between a man and a woman can be valid or recognized.

==============================

Protestant Church in Netherlands to Grant “Blessings” to Gay Couples (Christian Post, 041127)

Six months after its formation, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands announced that it would grant “blessings” to gay couples and permit female pastors.

Dutch Protestant church leaders have tilted to more liberal views in recent decades in an attempt to keep pace with society, according to a recent report by the Associated Press. Six months after the Netherlands Reformed Church, the distinct Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, and the nation’s small Lutheran Church merged to form the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, the new church announced that it would grant “blessings” to gay couples and permit female pastors.

Though the Protestant Church in the Netherlands said that it would not force local congregations to accept gay couples blessed by the church, the new decision did not sit well with conservative factions in the three churches, according to AP. At least 15,000 members refused to join the new church and have formed a breakaway group.

It is a scenario that is all but unfamiliar in recent years, and an issue that has surfaced across many congregations in many places.

Most recently, the Episcopal bishop of Los Angeles, Jon Bruno, announced that he would stop blessing same sex unions, in an attempt to win back three conservative breakaway churches that broke ties with the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) because of vast theological differences on issues such as homosexuality.

In June, the Southern Baptist Convention—the largest U.S. Protestant body with 16.3 million members—voted to quit the Baptist World Alliance to protest a perceived liberal shift that included support of female pastors and “gay-friendly congregations.”

And even in nations such as New Zealand, where the Presbyterian Church voted to ban the ordination of active homosexuals in all its leadership positions during the Church’s general assembly on Sept. 24, the issue of gay clergy has divided the Church for decades. Similar to its counterpart in the U.S., the Presbyterian Church USA, the New Zealand church suffered membership losses because of its “midway” stance on the issue.

In January 2005, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, whose policy states that ordained ministers are to refrain from engaging in homosexual sexual relationships, will release a four-year study that primarily deals with “the blessing of same-gender unions and the rostering of persons in committed gay or lesbian relationships.”

==============================

The Future Is Uncertain (National Review Online, 041201)

On the future of gay marriage, your guess is as good as ours.

Last spring, Jason West, the mayor of New Paltz, New York, made what became the single most important and powerful argument for gay marriage: It’s inevitable. “It’s inevitable that we’ll have same-sex marriage in this country, because it’s a generational question.... Give it ten or 20 years when we’re holding state legislatures and Congress. It will just be a non-issue.” Jonathan Rauch agrees: “Young voters are pro-gay marriage.” Just last month at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention Anthony Romero of the ACLU argued that those opposing gay marriage are “on the wrong side of history.”

Are they right? Is the gay-marriage debate over because the omnipotent young have made up their more flexible minds? Many intellectual elites think so, primarily because (we suspect) their own kids are so pro-gay-marriage. A majority of college students now favor gay marriage, and elite student opinion is pretty one-sided on this question, in part because elite opinion generally has been so lopsidedly and unreflectively pro-gay-marriage. But a detailed look at recent polls suggests a different picture for the next generation as a whole.

Do a majority of young adults favor gay marriage? It depends on how the question is asked. Over the past year, polls by reputable polling companies have found the proportion of adults ages 18-29 who favor gay marriage ranging from 40% to 63%. Conversely, the proportion of young adults opposed to gay marriage has ranged from 36% to 54%.

For example, separate polls conducted just two weeks apart last spring found radically different results: A March 2004 ABC News poll found 63% of young adults agreeing that “it should be legal...for homosexual couples to get married” (36% thought such marriages should be “illegal”). Meanwhile, the Annenberg Public Policy Center found young adults opposed to gay marriage (“a law...that would allow two men [or two women] to marry each other”) by a margin of 52 to 41%.

Why? Respondents may be uncertain about what making gay marriage “illegal” would mean, especially compared to the status quo. Does “banning gay marriage” or making it “illegal” entail criminalizing gay people who live together as married, or who go through private or religious wedding ceremonies? If so, the greater support for gay marriage shown in these polls may reflect younger Americans’ opposition to criminalizing gay unions, rather than their support for a new legal definition of marriage that includes same-sex couples.

Nor does young-adult opinion appear particularly fixed. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in Goodridge, opposition to gay marriage among adults skyrocketed. In June 2003, according to Gallup, young adults favored gay marriage 61 to 36%. By December 2003, opposition among young adults had jumped 17%age points (more than twice the 8%age-point shift among all adults), resulting in 53 to 44% opposition to gay marriage.

Perhaps most surprising (and completely unreported), is that the next “next generation” is growing increasingly opposed to gay marriage. Since 2001, Gallup has asked teenagers (ages 13-17) whether they “approve or disapprove of marriages between homosexuals.” Between 2003 and 2004, teens’ approval of same-sex marriage dropped 6%age points, while the proportion that disapproved rose 8%age points. In the most recent poll (August 2004) American teens opposed gay marriage by a 27-point margin, 63% to 36%. Teens’ disapproval of gay marriage has now risen to about the same level as adults’.

What explains teens’ increasing disapproval of gay marriage? Most likely, as more adults voice firm objections to gay marriage, they appear to be having an impact on their children’s attitudes and values.

Will young adults who currently favor gay marriage continue to do so, even as opposition to gay marriage continues to be voiced and as they move through the lifecycle, marrying and becoming parents themselves? Will teenagers’ current high levels of opposition survive the college experience? The answer to both questions is: We don’t know. And that’s the point.

Don’t let them fool you. The future of gay marriage is undiscovered territory. Or as Peter O’Toole put it in Lawrence of Arabia, “Nothing is written.” Together, we are making up the future.

— Joshua Baker is policy director and Maggie Gallagher is president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. For a roundup of next-generation opinion polls, e-mail info@imapp.org.

==============================

Canadian High Court Approves Gay Marriage (Foxnews, 041209)

[Kwing Hung: a day of shame for Canada, anyone should be shameful as a Canadian.]

TORONTO — Canada’s highest court said Thursday the government can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but it added that religious officials cannot be forced to perform unions against their beliefs.

The ruling by the court in Ottawa brings to the final stages a long, bitter fight over whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry in Canada.

Judges in six provinces and one territory have already overturned the traditional definition, allowing thousands of same-sex weddings.

Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands in allowing gay marriage if the government acts to make it legal nationwide. To pass in the House of Commons, the legislation needs the approval of about 44 of the 95 Liberal backbench members of Parliament to obtain a 155-vote majority.

One top Liberal predicted the legislation should pass easily after its introduction, likely early next year. It already has the support of the 38-member Liberal cabinet and virtually all the 54 Bloc Quebecois and 19 New Democrat MPs.

==============================

Supreme Court okays same-sex marriage (National Post, 041209)

OTTAWA (CP) — Canada’s top court says Ottawa has the authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but religious officials cannot be forced to perform unions against their beliefs.

The Supreme Court of Canada refused to say whether the traditional definition of marriage — between one man and one woman — violates equality rights.

It noted the federal government has already accepted lower-court judgments that excluding gays from marrying is discriminatory.

“The government has clearly accepted the ruling of lower courts on this question and has adopted their position as its own.

“The parties to previous litigation have now relied upon the finality of the judgments they obtained through the court process.”

The court says times have changed and the legal definition of marriage should change with them.

“Several centuries ago, it would have been understood that marriage be available only to opposite-sex couples.

“The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today.”

Still, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly protects religious freedom, says the court.

The court’s landmark advisory opinion signals the final stage of a long, bitter fight over whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler predicted Wednesday that the court would give the Liberals a green light to move ahead with a bill to legalize same-sex unions as early as this month.

Same-sex marriage could become legal across the country next year if the minority Liberals win enough support in the divided House of Commons.

It’s expected a vote on legalizing gay weddings would narrowly pass even without the support of several Liberals and the Conservatives.

Judges in six provinces and one territory have already struck down the traditional marriage definition, saying it violates equality rights. Thousands of same-sex couples have already tied the knot.

Should the legislation pass, Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands in allowing gays to wed.

The high court opinion on same-sex unions is strictly advisory.

Still, its political aftershocks will reverberate among pro- and anti-gay marriage factions across Canada.

The high court reference comes 18 months after former prime minister Jean Chretien abandoned his government’s fight against same-sex marriage by refusing to appeal provincial court rulings in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec that declared traditional marriage laws unconstitutional.

His government then drafted legislation that would allow gay and lesbian weddings in city halls, courthouses and in religious institutions that choose to perform them.

To ensure the bill is legally bullet-proof, the Liberal government asked the high court three questions:

— Does the federal government have exclusive authority to define marriage? The question was a pre-emptive strike at any provincial attempt to thwart the new law. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has said he would use the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to cancel the legislation in his province.

— Does the charter protect religious groups from having to perform gay weddings against their beliefs?

— Is the proposed same-sex marriage law constitutional?

Prime Minister Paul Martin expanded the reference after he was sworn in last December, adding a fourth question: Is the traditional definition of marriage — between one man and one woman — also constitutional? This was aimed at clarifying once and for all whether the century-old definition of marriage is flawed.

The federal Conservatives and several Liberal MPs are expected to wage a bitter final battle to preserve marriage for heterosexuals.

Chronology of events leading to the Supreme Court of Canada’s advisory opinion on same-sex marriage Thursday:

1969: Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau passes Criminal Code amendment decriminalizing homosexuality.

June 1999: House of Commons votes 216-55 in favour of preserving definition of “marriage” as union of a man and a woman.

April 11, 2000: Parliament passes Bill C-23, giving same-sex couples same social and tax benefits as heterosexuals in common-law relationships.

May 1, 2003: B.C. Court of Appeal unanimously declares that limiting marriage to heterosexuals violates equality rights; gives Ottawa two years to legally recognize same-sex marriage before judgment takes effect.

June 10, 2003: Ontario Court of Appeal upholds lower court ruling allowing same-sex marriage.

July 16, 2003: Prime Minister Jean Chretien refers three questions to Supreme Court of Canada: Is a draft bill to allow same-sex marriage within Ottawa’s authority? Does it respect Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Does it protect churches from having to perform marriages against their beliefs?

Jan. 26, 2004: Liberals under Prime Minister Paul Martin add fourth question asking high court if limiting marriage to heterosexuals violates charter.

Dec. 9, 2004: Supreme Court says Ottawa has the authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples; says religious officials cannot be forced to perform unions against their beliefs.

==============================

Court Ruling in Canada: Judicial audacity scales new height (Washington Times, 041214)

The Supreme Court of Canada scaled a new peak in hallucinatory constitutional interpretation on Dec. 9, 2004. In an advisory opinion sustaining the Canadian Parliament’s power to recognize same-sex “marriages,” the best and the brightest of Canada’s jurists insisted the nation’s constitution was an organic “living tree,” not a petrified forest incapable of new limbs and climbing treetops. The “living tree” standard of interpretation, the justices say, gives birth to “progressive” laws and policies addressing “the realities of modern life.”

But like the emperor’s new clothes, a “living tree” legal doctrine is naked of substance. It empowers the Canadian Supreme Court to weave its own progressive finery into the Canadian constitution without restraints on personal whims or prejudices. Such judicial abuse and arrogance is what the Democrat Party in the United States champions and hopes to foist on the American people. It speaks volumes that liberal Democrats have not denounced the Canadian judicial frolic, a silence that echoes their unspoken joy over the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s invention of a state constitutional right to same-sex “marriage” in 2003.

Living trees, simpliciter, are not sinister things. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow versified in “The Village Blacksmith,” “Under the spreading chestnut tree the village smithy stands.” The no less “gifted” Barbara Walters pointedly asked honorifics to disclose their arboreal ambitions. But even U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren, during a rare earthbound moment in Reynolds vs. Sims (1964) recognized that unlike people, trees have no representation in legislative bodies. Trees likewise command no role in constitutional thinking, whether weeping willows, giant redwoods or sweet magnolias.

The Canadian Supreme Court did not discover the “living tree” vitality of the constitution in the document itself. Instead, it summoned an encyclical by Lord Sankay speaking for the Privy Council in 1930 that frowned on “narrow and technical” constructions in favor of “large and liberal” interpretations, but within “certain fixed limits.” The “living tree” principle, the justices merrily chorused, enables the constitution to pioneer new vistas of rights and powers unanticipated by the framers without the bother of amending the charter with the people’s consent. The principle, however, is a one-way ideological street. As the justices admonished, a living constitution’s tree trunk sports only “large, liberal, or progressive” branches unblemished by a single conservative limb or twig. The court thus decreed: “In determining whether legislation falls within a particular head of power, a progressive interpretation of the head of power must be adopted.” The justices, of course, make decisions based on their political biases whether a law is a progressive reflection of new thinking or a retrograde endorsement of social Darwinism, i.e., whether it advances the welfare state or rewards individual talent or industry.

Lord Sankay had spoken of latitudinarian interpretations within certain fixed or natural limits. But the Canadian Supreme Court crippled that hedge against judicial creativity by confining the meaning of “natural” to what is universally accepted. With regard to marriage, views differ as to whether same-sex partners are natural. Accordingly, the court reasoned, the constitution must embrace the most ecumenical concept to escape the reproach of liberal historians. Since no idea worth discussing is universally acclaimed, Lord Sankay’s dictum leaves Canada’s Supreme Court omnipotent over the meaning of Canada’s constitution.

The court’s outlandish “living tree” standard of interpretation is twice-cursed. As a judicial doctrine, it is intellectually vacuous and irreconcilable with the rule of law. Constitutional principles aim to dispel doubts and to provide guideposts for the future. The “living tree” standard, in contrast, leaves the Canadian Parliament and subordinate tribunals clueless in assessing the constitutionality of legislation, other than guessing the political prejudices of the justices. Indeed, the “living tree” standard implicates neither judging nor specialized legal knowledge. It entails only a forceful articulation of a political faith.

The standard also enervates democracy. It arrogates to the Canadian Supreme Court power to decide vexing or troublesome policy questions that are the responsibility of the people and their elected representatives.

Responsibility begets maturity and enlightened compromises. It fosters wisdom and a mastery of complexities. It is the alpha and omega of an active citizenry that collectively and individually lives democracy by word and deed in its professional and private spheres.

Without popular responsibility, self-government becomes a shadow of the genuine article. The common citizen becomes inert, passive and aloof from national destiny. The fighting issues of the day are left to judges and lawyers, and government by the consent of the governed becomes more myth than reality.

The Canadian Supreme Court’s domination of Canada under the aegis of “living tree” judicial power will destroy Canada’s democracy and pluckiness on the installment plan. The U.S. Supreme Court should learn by that example.

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer and international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and the Lichfield Group.

==============================

National Vote on Gay Marriage in Canada Rejected (Christian Post, 041213)

The federal government of Canada rejected Sunday the idea of holding a national referendum on same-sex marriage after the Canadian Supreme Court said the federal government had the authority to legalize same-sex marriage across the nation.

Both Prime Minister Paul Martin and conservative leader Stephen Harper has said the issue should be decided by the Parliament.

“I think that this is an issue that parliamentarians ought to decide,” Martin said. “The courts have now given their direction. I think it’s one for Parliament and I think that Parliament ought to accept their responsibility.”

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said last Wednesday that a legislation to legalize gay marriages could be introduced as early as next month.

Liberal sources have said that straw polls of MPs have indicated opponents of the bill would only be able to muster 141 or 142 votes, leaving 25 or more votes over the 154-vote minimum needed to pass the legislation.

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein said he and other Albertans are opposed to gay marriage. Klein is pushing for a national referendum on the issue. Last week, Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens said “the government of Alberta has continually defended the traditional definition of marriage, believing that marriage is deeply rooted in history, culture and religion and is a special bond between a man and a woman.”

Canadian Family Action Coalition, a pro-family group opposed to same-sex marriage, is also collecting signatures for petitions in support of a national referendum.

“Let the real debate begin and Canadians’ opinions be heard on this issue,” said Brian Rushfeldt, CFAC Executive Director, in a press release.

According to the group, when the Supreme Court did not answer the fourth question posed by the Liberal government - Is the traditional definition of marriage between a man and woman constitutional? – it sent a clear message that it is the responsibility of Parliament to legislate on the matter. Therefore, the Parliament cannot say, “The Courts made us to do it,” said CFAC.

“The institution of marriage as man and woman is so fundamental to all major religions that the state should not be allowed to alter it,” said Dr Charles McVety, President of CFAC. “You do not have to desecrate the sacred institution of marriage to protect the rights of others.” He added, “Common law relations already exists for others.”

In response to Martin’s statements saying there will be free vote only for MPs and not cabinet ministers, Rushfeldt said, “Martin is ordering them to vote the party line. That is a corruption of democracy.”

Lower courts in Canada have legalized same-sex marriage in six of the nation’s ten provinces including one territory.

==============================

Homosexual ‘marriage’ debacle (Washington Times, 041231)

With much still to be decided, the homosexual “marriage” debate reached new heights in 2004, starting with President Bush’s State of the Union Address. “Activist judges ... have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will he people and their eqqqlected representatives,” he said. “On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard.” A few weeks later, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that homosexuals have a state constitutional right to “marry.” Shortly thereafter, the mayor of San Francisco, in a particularly disturbing display of civil disobedience, began “marrying” homosexuals, an act a mayor in upstate New York quickly copied. As Mr. Bush forewarned, the public backlash against such reckless disregard for the legal process has been swift and politically brutal.

At this stage, it is worth asking what antagonizes the American people more: Is it the notion that homosexuals can get “married,” or the way in which public officials have allowed them to do so? Advocates of homosexual “marriage” would prefer the debate to focus on the former. If it’s simply a matter of old-fashioned thinking, then public officials have a “moral” duty to act as righteously as they please. Clearly, this helps explain why they chose to run roughshod over any legal impediments, believing their cause to reside on the same pedestal as the abolitionists’ and civil-rights activists’ of America’s past. It has proven to be a tactical blunder and a conceit, to say nothing of a moral misjudgment.

The fact is that a majority of Americans, red- and blue-staters alike, disapprove of homosexual “marriage.” Yet Mr. Bush’s call for a Federal Marriage Amendment in February was in response to the activists’ illegal tactics, as were the 11 state constitutional amendments banning homosexual “marriage” that passed in the election. Advocates of homosexual “marriage” underestimated public support for traditional marriage. Perhaps they will learn the right lessons from it.

It also could be too late. With the institution of marriage under threat, the people’s voice has been heard. Heading into the new year, we urge policy-makers to continue seeking practical policy solutions to preserve and protect marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

==============================

Canada Churches Oppose, Support Gay Marriage Bill (Christian Post, 050126)

The government plan to legalize gay marriage is revealing more clearly the growing theological gap between the ultra liberal and traditional churches in Canada.

The United Church of Canada, known for its liberal stance on homosexuality, supported the government bill that would amend the nation’s marriage law to refer to a union of “two persons” rather than of “a man and a woman.”

In a letter to all members of the parliament, the UCC’s moderator, Rev. Peter Short, said, “The General Council of the United Church of Canada believes that equal marriage is a step on the path to justice, peace, and the common good.”

The UCC, the largest protestant denomination in Canada and one of the most highly criticized by evangelicals, has long since accepted active homosexuals as clergy and blessed same-sex “unions” within its pews.

However, Christians on the more traditional rung of the theological spectrum encouraged the parliament to protect marriage for the sake of family and society.

Same sex marriage could “bring in its wake bitter and unpredictable demographic, social, cultural and religious consequences,” said Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the highest ranking Roman Catholic clergyman in Canada.

Ouellet added that the institution of marriage was for “the procreation and education of children, within the context of the love of a man and a woman,” and he said it provided a guarantee “for the future of society.”

“It is parliament that must decide about this matter of such great importance for the future of our society and of its fundamental values,” he said.

The Canadian Supreme Court last month gave the government the green light to legalize gay marriage across Canada, but stopped short of saying that this was required by the constitution. Currently, gay marriage is “legal” in seven Canadian provinces and one territory. Parliament members will vote on the bill after they return from Christmas break, January 31.

==============================

Canada Lawmakers Unveil Highly Disputed Same-Sex “Marriage” Bill (Christian Post, 050201)

The Canadian government introduced today in Parliament a three-paragraph bill that, if passed into law as expected, will make Canada just the third country in the world to allow same-sex “marriage.” The highly disputed bill, which seeks to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, has received strong objection from the Roman Catholic Church and other conservative clergy.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, who confirmed yesterday he would be tabling the controversial legislation at 10 a.m. today, said the legislation reflected the spirit of Canadian rights and freedoms protected under the constitution, according to the Associated Press. Cotler noted that seven of Canada’s 13 provinces and territories already allow marriage between gays and lesbians, and he said it was time to make the law uniform nationwide.

However, the country is deeply divided on the issue, and the bill’s passage is not assured.

According to AP, the opposition Conservative Party has said it would fight the legislation, which defines marriage as a civil union between two people, as opposed to the current definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

Meanwhile, Roman Catholic Church groups have joined forces with other religious groups to defeat the legislation, with Quebec Archbishop Marc Cardinal Quellet saying the bill “threatens to unleash nothing less than cultural upheaval whose negative consequences are still impossible to predict.”

Cotler, who stressed that polygamy, bigamy and incest would remain illegal, told a news conference, “I appreciate the concern, sometimes even the anguish, that some Canadians feel.”

“Given that thousands of gay couples have already married ... we have a responsibility to enact this legislation,” he said, adding that Canada was built on “a tradition of tolerance and respect”.

But Bruce Clemenger, head of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said Ottawa was hurrying down an unknown path.

“It is a sad day when the language of ‘husband and wife’ is removed from federal legislation. Is this what Canadians want? It is a distorted notion of tolerance and respect that eclipses distinctive relationships,” he said, according to Reuters.

Sources say for the bill to pass, it needs approval from 154 members of the 308-seat House of Commons. If approved, Canada would join Belgium and the Netherlands as the only other countries to embrace same-sex marriage nationwide.

AP reports that the legislation will have to go to committee for study and it could take weeks, or even months, for a final vote.

==============================

Canadian Christians Stand Against Gay Marriage Bill (Christian Post, 050202)

A protestor against same-sex marriage demonstrates in front of the Canadian Parliamentary buildings in Ottawa, February 1, 2005. The federal government tabled draft legislation that would grant gays and lesbians the right to full civil marriages while making clear that religious officials would not be forced to marry same-sex couples. AP Photo by Jim Young

Hundreds of thousands of pro-family and Christian Canadians are expected to join a rally to protest the proposed plan to legalize gay “marriage” in the nation.

“We’re printing half a million brochures so we’re going to help the various organizations with literature... they will be distributed by various entities that are fighting this and that will (include) churches,” said Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition to Reuters.

Tuesday’s same-sex marriage bill, introduced by the Prime Minister Paul Martin, would change the nation’s law from defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman to a union between two “persons”.

According to McVety, the Canada Family Action Coalition is only one of many groups opposing the bill. McVety also leads the Defend Marriage Coalition, which is an organization that is raising money to support several other proponents of traditional marriage such as Concerned Christian Canada. CCC meanwhile has planned a rally in the city of Calgary to protect traditional marriage this Saturday.

The National Post newspaper also revealed statistics on Wednesday, which showed that two thirds of Canadians want a national referendum on the issue, according to the Associated Press.

A similar percentage said they wanted to preserve the definition of marriage, making the Canadian population head-to-head with the American population on the issue.

And although Martin emphasized that the bill will not force clergy to recognize or bless same sex unions, Canada’s 2.5 million evangelicals disagreed.

“With more than 75% of marriages in Canada solemnized by clergy, it is clearly a deeply religious institution. It is naïve and impossible to say that you can change civil marriage without it having an impact on religious marriage and religious institutions,” a statement from Canada’s largest evangelical church group, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, read.

“The Prime Minister has said that this is an issue of fundamental rights. He has said that in redefining marriage, he is defending the Charter,” the statement read. “If that is the case, there is no room for those of us who have a different vision of family life in Canada. We are already being pushed to the margins of Canadian life. We are being made to feel unwelcome.”

“This is not tolerance and it is not upholding the Charter.”

According to Tom Reilly, general secretary of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, the church has been talking with other faith group leaders to join forces on the matter.

“The way they’re set up is not as hierarchical as we are. So you can be talking to a representative of a group but you don’t know if it’s the whole group... we’ll see what ideas we can exchange and if there are areas where we can cooperate,” he told Reuters.

McVety meanwhile said he plans to campaign in and around the Toronto – Canada’s largest city and home to several dozens of Liberal legislators backing the bill.

Said McVety: “The greater Toronto area is where this battle will be won or lost.”

==============================

Britain to allow gay civil unions (Washington Times, 050222)

LONDON — Same-sex partners in Britain will be able to enter into civil unions beginning in December, joining homosexuals in parts of Europe and the United States in obtaining many of the rights enjoyed by married couples, the government said yesterday.

The Civil Partnerships Bill passed by Parliament last year gives same-sex couples the right to form legally binding partnerships and entitles them to some of the same tax and pension rights that married couples have.

Starting Dec. 5, couples will be able to notify the register office at their local council that they intend to form civil partnerships. After a 15-day waiting period, they will sign an official partnership document in front of witnesses.

“This legislation is going to make a real difference to these couples, and it demonstrates the government’s commitment to equality and social justice,” said Deputy Minister for Women and Equality Jacqui Smith.

“It opens the way to respect, recognition and justice for those who have been denied it for too long.”

The government said some register offices have started receiving inquiries from same-sex couples.

Separately yesterday, the armed services said they will allow same-sex couples with registered partnerships to share family quarters.

“We will be complying with the law. We are obliged to give equal treatment to gay and lesbian partnerships” under the new act, said Royal Navy spokesman Anton Hanney, adding that same-sex couples in the armed services already enjoy equal pension rights.

The Royal Navy yesterday also announced a drive to recruit homosexuals into the force. The navy has signed an agreement with the lobbying group Stonewall to promote homosexual rights in the force and is about to advertise in the homosexual press for the first time.

Britain lifted its ban on homosexuals serving in the military in 2000 after a European court ruling that their exclusion was unlawful.

A Ministry of Defense spokesman said the other main branches of the armed forces, the army and the air force, had their own ways of ensuring equal opportunity for homosexuals.

The air force, for example, had joined a pride parade last year to persuade more homosexuals to sign up.

The civil-union legislation does not use the term “marriage,” but among other benefits, it grants same-sex couples rights to their partners’ pensions, gives them next-of-kin status and exempts them from paying inheritance tax on a partner’s home. It also will require partners to provide maintenance for each other and any children in the case of a breakup.

Partners will be able to dissolve the agreement in a form of divorce settlement.

Officials at the Department of Trade and Industry estimate that there will be more than 42,000 same-sex partnership agreements in place by 2050.

“This is the moment we fought so hard for,” said Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall. “At last, lesbian and gay couples can begin to plan their future lives together.”

Nine European Union members allow same-sex partnerships, beginning with Denmark, which legislated for the unions in 1989.

In the United States, more than a dozen states recognize some form of domestic partnerships or civil unions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but 11 states voted in November to ban same-sex “marriage.”

==============================

American, Canadian Conservatives Criticize Gay Marriage Bill (Christian Post, 050127)

Conservative and pro-family leaders across North America have spoken out against a government plan to legalize gay marriage in Canada, siding with traditional Christian leaders who fear the passage of such a legislation would threaten the sanctity of the family in both the US and Canada.

Same-sex marriage “could bring in its wake bitter and unpredictable demographic, social, cultural and religious consequences,” said Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the highest-ranking Roman Catholic clergyman in Canada.

The legislation, backed by Prime Minister Paul Martin, would permit same-sex “marriage” across all of Canada. Currently, only seven of the provinces and one of the territories recognize same sex marriage. In arguing his case, Martin said marriage is a “human rights” issue that can strengthen the unity of the diverse nation.

However, pro-family leaders in Canada pointed to the fact that in legalizing gay “marriage,” it will marginalize the Christians who strive to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

“Regardless of what the government decides to do, there are going to be sizable members of the Christian community that are never going to be accepting of same-sex marriage,” said Derek Rogusky, a spokesman for Focus on the Family Canada. “What kind of space are we going to allow for them?”

Rogusky argued that while Martin’s bill would not require churches to allow same-sex marriages, it may trample on the rights of religious groups that publicly oppose such unions on moral and biblical grounds.

James Dobson, one of the most influential Christian figures in America and chairman of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, said he hoped Christians will stand up for their beliefs in Canada, as did evangelicals in America.

“It is clear here in the United States that the American people do not want same-sex marriage,” said Dobson, during one of his broadcasts. “I would hope that Canadians who also do not want same-sex marriage would be encouraged by what has happened down here.”

Dobson also encouraged Canadians to pray on the issue, and to remember the victory at the U.S. polls last November.

“I am among those who believe the president would not have won re-election if it had not been for the power of this issue to drive conservative voters to the polls,” said Dobson.

Rogusky agreed that evangelical Canadians must and will take action and rally against same-sex marriage in the nation.

“If they think they’re getting a lot of e-mails and letters now, it’s nothing compared to what it’s going to be over the month of February and however long it takes until there’s a final vote,” said Rogusky about the Parliament.

And responding to criticism from liberals who scorned American evangelicals for getting involved with the debate, Rogusky said the issue affects nations outside the Canadian border.

“It is not really a Canadian issue. It is an issue happening around the world.”

“There (are) a lot of voices out there saying that if you oppose redefining marriage that somehow you are an extremist or a bigot,” said Rogusky. “We needed to dispel that and I think hopefully we have done that and that will encourage some people to take some action.”

==============================

The marriage newspeak (townhall.com, 050314)

Jeff Jacoby

Back in 2003, a few days after the highest court in Massachusetts unveiled a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, I ventured a prediction.

“Sooner than you think, it will become improper to speak of unique sex roles in family life,” I wrote. “The meanings and status associated with words like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ will be erased from the law; most likely, the words themselves will be replaced in statutes with the unisex ‘spouse,’ just as ‘father’ and ‘mother’ will give way to ‘parent.’ “

The changes soon began. Massachusetts rolled out a new marriage license shorn of any reference to bride and groom. Couples getting married were now to be officially identified as “Party A” and “Party B.” The department of public health proposed a similar rewrite of the state’s birth certificate, replacing “mother” and “father” with “Parent A” and “Parent B.” To that, Governor Mitt Romney objected, though it is probably only a matter of time until a court orders him to make the change.

Meanwhile, others have gone far beyond Massachusetts in embracing the brave new world of unisex marriage. Last month, lawmakers in Ontario enacted Bill 171, stripping the statute books of all references to gender in connection with marriage. No longer do Ontario’s laws use words and phrases like “husband,” “wife,” “widow,” “widower,” or “persons of the opposite sex.” And it is not just family and marriage laws that have been de-sexed. Bill 171 eliminates the traditional language of matrimony from more than 70 provincial statutes, including the Gasoline Tax Act and the Public Libraries Act.

What is underway here is not simply a tweaking of legal terminology. The crusade for same-sex marriage has never been aimed merely at adjusting the familiar boundaries of married life to make it more inclusive. The real target is the significance of marriage itself — the idea, fundamental to human happiness and all successful societies, that the purpose of marriage is to bring men and women together for their mutual welfare and for the protection and well-being of any children they create or adopt. It is that deeply ingrained belief that the marriage radicals are determined to do away with. One purpose of the official marriage Newspeak is to make such thoughts increasingly unthinkable.

Already it is becoming hazardous to speak of marriage as an opposite-sex institution or to suggest that one of its core functions is to provide children with fathers and mothers. Just ask actress Jada Pinkett Smith or Governor Romney.

When Pinkett Smith received an award at Harvard two weeks ago, she used her acceptance remarks to splash cold water on the idea that family obligations can make it difficult for married women to reach the top of the career ladder — a hypothesis recently voiced by the university’s president, Lawrence Summers.

“Women,” Pinkett Smith told the audience, “you can have it all — a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want.”

That harmless bit of you-go-girl boosterism was all it took to arouse the wrath of Harvard’s Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance. It denounced Will Smith’s wife for her “extremely heteronormative” comments, which “made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable.” The group demanded — and received — an apology. And those who brought Pinkett Smith to campus will now undergo reeducation: The Harvard Crimson reports that the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations is working with the BGLTSA “to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality.” Translation: There will be no more talk of loving men or devoted husbands at Harvard. At least not from married women.

Romney’s offense against the new marital correctness was considerably more serious. In a couple of speeches to Republican groups out of state, he condemned same-sex marriage on the grounds that “every child has the right to have a mother and a father.”

The words were hardly out of his mouth before protesters were at his State House office, blasting him as “mean-spirited.” Editorial writers launched an attack on his “ignorance” and charged him with “stooping to pander to the rigid right.” In the Berkshire Eagle, one columnist slammed his statement of the obvious — that every child deserves a mom and a dad — as “really disturbing” and the brainless “fuzzy stuff of 1940s movies.” He was accused elsewhere of succumbing to the kind of thinking that once barred blacks from white lunch counters.

Be forewarned: This is just the start. The assault is not going to let up until the heteronormative deviants among us have all been silenced. You think the marriage radicals have gone too far? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

==============================

15,000 Canadians Rally For, Against Gay Marriage Bill (Christian Post, 050411)

Thousands rally on Parliament Hill in protest against same-sex marriage. (CP Photo)

Supporters and opponents of Canada’s same-sex marriage bill staged rallies throughout the weekend, as Members of Parliament prepare to vote on the issue on Tuesday.

Headed by Prime Minister Paul Martin, Canada’s Liberal government has proposed Bill C-38 to grant civil marriage rights to same-sex couples. The bill is a result of several court decisions that declare the prohibition of same-sex marriage a violation of equal rights.

On Saturday, around 15,000 people from throughout Canada gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to protest the bill and advocate the protection of traditional marriage.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper rallied the crowd, saying, “Undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on the beliefs of all cultural and religious communities who have come to this country.”

“I am committed, when I am elected prime minister… to bring in legislation that will define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

On Sunday, hundreds of people gathered in support of same-sex marriage in several rallies throughout Canada. Leaders from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and several other faiths joined the demonstrations in an effort to show faith-based support for same-sex marriages.

Reverend Brent Hawkes performed the first legal same-sex marriages in Canada at the Metropolitan Community Church, a non-denominational church where Hawkes serves as pastor. During the rallies on Sunday, Hawkes called on supporters to contact Members of Parliament and sign a petition of support for Bill C-38.

“Support is growing all across Canada and all across the faith spectrum,” said Hawkes.

Currently, courts have allowed same-sex marriage in six provinces and one territory. The proposed Bill C-38 would legalize same-sex marriage across all of Canada. On Tuesday, Parliament will vote on a motion introduced by Harper to refuse a second reading of the proposed same-sex marriage bill in Parliament.

==============================

Gay Marriage Licenses Invalid, Says Oregon Supreme Court (Christian Post, 050415)

In its long-awaited ruling on Thursday, the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples last year, citing Multnomah County with a breach in authority for granting the licenses.

Last April, Multnomah County began to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples until Circuit Judge Frank Bearden halted the action six weeks later. By then, nearly 3,000 marriage licenses had been granted.

The case eventually reached the Oregon Supreme Court when the state’s Defense of Marriage Coalition argued that the marriage licenses were invalid.

The Supreme Court stated in its ruling that the county does not have authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, because marriage laws are under the jurisdiction of the state.

The court’s decision cited a state law and a constitutional amendment passed last November that ban same-sex marriage.

The court’s statement read: “Today, marriage in Oregon – an institution once limited to opposite-sex couples only by statute – now is so limited by the state Constitution as well.”

The court also recognized that decisions on marriage are under the power of the state legislature, opening up the door for lawmakers to decide whether or not to allow other types of unions between same-sex partners.

State legislators will use the high court’s decision to guide their actions on the issue of same-sex couples, an issue that has become the subject of nationwide debate.

On Wednesday, Governor Ted Kulongoski announced a bill legalizing same-sex civil unions. The bill would give same-sex couples the rights and privileges of marriage.

Co-sponsored by Senators Kate Brown (D-Portland), Alan Bates (D-Ashland), Frank Morse (R-Albany), and Ben Westlund (R-Bend), the bill is part of Kulongoski’s promise to protect gays and lesbians in the state from discrimination.

On Wednesday, legislators in Connecticut approved a bill similar to the one proposed by Kulongoski. The amended bill awaits a second approval in the Senate before being sent to the governor.

If it passes, Connecticut would be the first state to allow same-sex civil unions without being prompted by a court order. Vermont recognizes same-sex civil unions and Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage, but in both states the actions were motivated by court rulings.

==============================

Spain Gives Preliminary Approval for Homosexual Marriage (Christian Post, 050422)

The Spanish parliament gave initial approval for the legalization of gay “marriage” on Thursday.

The bill passed by a 183-136 majority, however the Senate needs to approve and the lower house must read the final bill. If the bill becomes law, as it is widely expected to do, it would make Spain the third European nation to legalize same-sex unions.

The bill would give same-sex unions the same status as heterosexual ones. It would give partners inheritance rights, pensions, and the ability to adopt children.

A statement by the bishops of Spain indicated that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” was “damaging to the common good.”

When the decision was made known, the public gallery in parliament erupted with cheers and dozens of activists gathered outside to celebrate.

Activist Antonio Poveda, of the gay rights group Lambda expressed his approval for the measure, saying “I’m going to get married for the sake of activism, for love and for a question of dignity,” according to AP.

Senior Roman Catholic church officials have criticized Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s liberal Socialist Party agenda, which also includes reduced abortion restrictions and permitting stem cell research.

Although Spain is listed as being 94% Catholic, according to the CIA fact book, fewer than a fifth young Spaniards are practicing Catholics according to AP. In a survey last year, 70% of Spaniards said they were in favor of Gay marriage.

Former Pope John Paul issued a statement last year warning that the increasing secularization of Spain was moving the country toward “restriction of religious freedom and even promoting disdain or ignorance of religion.”

==============================

Canada’s Gay Marriage Bill Passes Second Reading (Christian Post, 050506)

A bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Canada passed a second reading in the Commons on Wednesday. Conservatives, meanwhile, vow to defeat the Liberal Government in blocking this measure.

Bill C-38 will grant civil marriage rights to same-sex couples throughout Canada. The legislation was introduced by the Liberal government, headed by Prime Minister Paul Martin, in response to several courts declaring that same-sex marriage prohibition was a violation of equal rights.

Conservatives, who largely opposed the bill, tried but failed to block the bill from getting a reading in the House. On Wednesday, the bill passed the second round by a vote of 164 to 137, with only thirty-five Liberals joining the Conservative Party to go against the bill.

Public hearings will be held before a House-appointed committee, to examine the legality of the bill. In order to become law, the bill must pass the committee and a third reading in the House. It must then pass the Senate before seeking royal approval.

The whole process could take at least a month, enough time for the Conservative Party to take action. Conservatives, led by Party Leader Stephen Harper, plan to force a confidence vote by next week, through which they hope to take control of the government. If they succeed, the marriage bill will most likely die.

“I don’t expect the bill to make it through this Parliament,” said Harper to reporters on Wednesday.

The bill has stirred up controversy and debate across the nation. On Sunday, thousands rallied in a showing of multi-faith unity for traditional marriage. A poll conducted by the Environics Research Group in March showed that Canadians are divided over the issue, with slightly more than half of whom are opposed to the bill.

Currently, six provinces and one territory recognize same-sex marriage. The proposed bill will extend marriage rights to same-sex couples across all of Canada. Currently, only two other countries recognize same-sex marriage on a nationwide scale.

==============================

‘Let us Vote! Let Us Vote! Let Us Vote!’ (Christian Post, 050525)

Recently, hundreds of people gathered on the Halifax Mall at the State Legislature to rally in favor of a State Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in North Carolina. The amendment would clearly define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, preventing rogue judges from foisting a redefinition of marriage on North Carolina citizens. Supporters loudly chanted again and again throughout the rally, “Let us vote! Let us vote! Let us vote!”

A number of nationally recognized speakers — Mike Johnston, Bob Knight, Bill Maier, and Tony Perkins — made critical points concerning the impetus for a state marriage amendment.

Mike Johnson, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, told the enthusiastic crowd: “I’m certainly preaching to the choir, but you all know our country is in big trouble right now. We are all seeing the full effects of the 1960s’ and 70s’ sexual revolution, radical feminism, no-fault divorce laws, and the rejection of moral absolutes — and God’s created order. Forty-five million babies have been murdered by legalized abortion. Pornography and crime have reached crisis proportions. Sodomy is now embraced by our courts, and the radical homosexual agenda is threatening the very definition of marriage. The culture is slipping into chaos and sexual anarchy. And yet, when we take a stand for America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, for morality, for traditional marriage, we are marginalized and persecuted. We are accused of being ‘intolerant’ ... of violating the so-called ‘separation of church and state’ .... Thankfully, God’s people are finally waking up, and we are once again demanding a return to the Founder’s original intent, and to justice and righteousness in the public square .... The truth is religious conviction should influence our thinking on these issues, and on every aspect of our public lives.”

Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, argued this issue is about making sure our government doesn’t put its stamp of approval on wrongful sexual behavior. He said the term “sexual orientation” is a misleading term. “A lot of people misunderstand the term ‘sexual orientation,’ he said. “ ‘Sexual orientation’ was invented in the 1970s by homosexual activists as a radical challenge to the Christian worldview. In essence, ‘sexual orientation’ says you are born with certain desires, are therefore entitled to act on these desires, and this condition is just like skin color or ethnicity, thereby making it a civil right to be enforced against others who disagree. Contrast this with the Christian message, which is that we are all sinners in need of a Savior who offers us redemption. ‘Sexual orientation,’ quite simply, says that we are fine the way we are and don’t need Jesus. This is a terrible lie, and it traps people in sin instead of giving them hope for a better life. This is not about tolerance for homosexuals,” added Knight. “If the homosexual agenda is enacted, we will see the criminalization of Christianity in a few short years. It is already happening in Canada and Sweden, and we now have seen it happen in Philadelphia, where 11 Christians were arrested and jailed for preaching the Gospel at a public park during a homosexual street festival last October ... this should send a chill down the backs of all freedom-loving Americans.”

Bill Maier, vice president for Focus on the Family, told rally attendants “the saddest thing about same-sex marriage and parenting is that it places adult desires above the interest of children.” He added: “Same-sex marriage intentionally creates motherless or fatherless families .... Gay activists will tell you that all children need is two ‘caring adults.’ But children need more than that ... they need a mommy and a daddy. One of Hollywood’s most famous lesbians is comedienne Rosie O’Donnell. Two years ago, the ABC TV news program Primetime did a two-hour special on gay adoption. Host Diane Sawyer interviewed Rosie, who spoke glowingly about her lesbian relationship and the three children that she and her partner have adopted. During the program, Diane Sawyer asked Rosie if her six-year-old son Parker ever asks why he doesn’t have a daddy. Rosie said, ‘Oh yes, all the time.’ Diane seemed surprised by the admission, so she asked Rosie, ‘What do you tell him?’ When Parker asks her why he can’t have a daddy, Rosie said she tells him this: ‘Parker, you can’t have a daddy because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.’ Same-sex parenting really boils down to those two words ... ‘I want.’ It’s not about what Parker wants, or what he desperately needs. It’s about what Rosie and her lesbian partner want.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, contended that the potential for same-sex marriage is an urgent matter. He said many judges are just waiting for an opportunity to redefine the sacred institution. He warned North Carolina lawmakers resisting the push for a state marriage amendment: “Recent elections indicate that those politicians who get cold feet when it comes to giving the people a voice to defend marriage find themselves in the hot seat at election time. The people of North Carolina want to join the marriage march that is moving across this nation, promoting and protecting the institution of marriage.” Perkins called upon North Carolinians that support traditional marriage to do three things: (1) Pray for our leaders and for the promotion of marriage, (2) Don’t grow weary and stay in the battle, and (3) Don’t let America down. He said that North Carolina needed a State Constitutional marriage amendment to help make the case for a federal marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Despite the fact that 18 states in our Union have already approved marriage amendments to their State Constitutions, the leadership in both the North Carolina Senate and House has resisted the hearing of legislation for the same in our state. For two years in a row, bills have been introduced in both chambers that would provide North Carolina citizens with the opportunity to amend its Constitution and clarify by the ballot box that marriage is between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, however, the legislation has been purposely bottled up in committee and left to die.

Although North Carolina’s laws against homosexual marriage are relatively strong, the State is still vulnerable to homosexual activists who would “judge shop” and challenge such laws and prevail in court. The definition of marriage is a matter the people, not the courts, should decide. Every day this matter is delayed is another day the gay rights coalition have time to plan and strategize to redefine the timeless institution that is the greatest pillar of society.

Phone calls need to be made to the office of House Speaker Jim Black (919.733.3451) and Senate President Pro Tempore, Mark Basnight (919.733.6854) asking them to stop playing Russian roulette with marriage and the family. They control what legislation is heard in our State. It’s time they stop stifling legislation for a State Constitutional amendment to protect marriage.

“Let us vote! Let us vote! Let us vote!”

___________________________________________________

Rev. Mark H. Creech (calact@aol.com) is the executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina, Inc.

==============================

Canada’s Senate Debates Same-sex Marriage Bill (Christian Post, 050707)

The debate on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in Canada continues in the Senate this week, bringing up sensitive issues such as religion, race, and civil rights.

Just last week, Spain became the third nation to legalize same-sex marriage, with Canada likely to be a close fourth. Like the House of Commons, the Senate has extended their session into the summer to finalize a decision over Bill C-38, a controversial bill proposed by Prime Minister Paul Martin that would grant marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The Commons approved the bill last week, despite opposition from Conservatives and some members of the Liberal party. The Senate began their debate on the bill last Sunday and approved a second reading by a 43 to 12 vote on Wednesday.

The debate has been heated, with sharp statements from both sides of the issue. Those in opposition to the bill proposed an amendment supporting heterosexual marriage only. The amendment was quickly shot down by supporters of the bill, who likened the struggle for same-sex marriage to the struggle for civil rights for all races.

Senator Anne Cools, who is black, argued that the debate over same-sex marriage is not comparable to the fight for human rights. Cools, who left the Liberal party over the bill, responded that “marriage… has never been a right.”

At one point, a senator posed the question, “What would Jesus do?” One of the Liberal Senators responded that she believed Jesus would approve the bill.

Despite the opposing views among Senators, the bill is expected to pass in the Liberal-dominated Senate. If it does, the bill would then have to be signed by the Governor General before becoming law.

Most provinces already allow same-sex marriage- only Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut do not. Alberta recently announced that it will seek ways to circumvent the law if it is passed.

==============================

Ex-Gay Ministry Head Criticizes Church Promotion of Same-Sex Marriage (Christian Post, 050725)

The largest evangelical network of former homosexuals in the world expressed disappointment with the United Church of Christ’s decision to endorse homosexual unions and said the resolution lacks a “truly compassionate” approach to the issue.

Early in the month, the UCC became the first mainline church to accept same-sex marriage within its pews, which came 35 years after it ordained an openly homosexual minister.

Former homosexual turned president of Exodus International, Alan Chambers, said he agrees the church needs to reach out more to homosexuals who feel alienated and excluded, but added that the United Church of Christ’s recent decision is not the answer.

“Embracing homosexual unions, but abandoning the very truth that could change lives may be politically correct, but it is not true compassion,” said Chambers. “Homosexuals need to know they are welcome at their local church, but they also need to know that hundreds of thousands of us have found freedom from the isolation and emptiness we experienced in gay life through the power of Jesus Christ.”

Chambers added that the existence of ex-gays is living proof that the lifestyle is not an inherited trait.

“Therefore, marriage is not a civil right to be extended to any group of individuals who demand it,” he said.

And that the union set up by God must be preserved as it was intended in the Bible so that those who are confused and questioning their sexuality can find healing.

“As a former homosexual who is now happily married, I am grateful for the laws that protected and esteemed this life-preserving, authentic union,” he said.

Exodus International is a resource and referral organization with over 125 member chapters across North America. The organization has been in existence for 30 years and offers help to the over 400,000 people who contact the ministry each year.

==============================

No Moratorium on Canadian Gay Marriage Blessings (Christian Post, 050428)

Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada agreed not to encourage same-sex union blessings but fell short of placing a moratorium on such ceremonies. The House of Bishops also sidestepped a request that the church voluntarily withdraw from a key international ANglican meeting because of the same-sex marriage blessing issue.

The Anglican Church of Canada, alongside its US counterpart, was asked to refrain from attending the Anglican Consultative Council in 2005 by churches worldwide. The U.S. Church decided to abide by the request last month but the Canadian church had not yet responded.

During the House of Bishops’ meeting in Windsor, Ontario, the Canadian bishops pushed asside the decision on gay marriage blessings to the General Synod - the church’s highest decision-making body, which meets in 2007. The bishops committed themslves “neither to encourage nor to initiate the use of such rites until (the) General Synod has made a decision on the matter.”

Ultimately in the time being, the same-sex marriage blessings within the Canadian Episcopal Church will continue.

“As of now, the rites are continuing. There’s no change indicated,” Neale Adams, spokesman for the Ottowa diocese, told Reuters.

==============================

Canada Legalizes Gay Marriage (Foxnews, 050720)

TORONTO — Canada legalized gay marriage Wednesday, becoming the world’s fourth nation to grant full legal rights to same-sex couples.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signed the legislation making it law, hours after it was approved by the Senate late Tuesday night despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

The bill gives homosexual couples the same rights as those in traditional unions between a man and a woman, something already legal in eight of Canada’s 10 provinces and in two of its three territories.

The legislation drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin’s minority Liberal Party government easily passed the Senate, which essentially rubber stamps any bill already passed by the House of Commons, which passed it late last month.

The Netherlands, Belgium and Spain are the only other nations that allow gay marriage nationwide.

The law comes after years of court battles and debate that divided families, religious groups and even political allies. The Roman Catholic Church, the predominant Christian denomination in Canada, has vigorously opposed the legislation.

But Martin, a Roman Catholic, has said that despite anyone’s personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage.

Alex Munter, national spokesman for Canadians for Equal Marriage, which has led the debate in favor of the law, was triumphant Wednesday: “It is a signal to the world that Canada is an open and inclusive society that believes in the notion of full citizenship for all.”

Churches have expressed concern that their clergy would be compelled to perform same sex ceremonies. The legislation, however, states that the bill only covers civil unions, not religious ones, and no clergy would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies unless they choose to do so.

Charles McVety, a spokesman for Defend Marriage Canada and president of Canada Christian College, said he was “very sad that the state has invaded the church, breached separation of church and state and redefined a religious word.”

McVety vowed his group would work to vote out lawmakers who supported the legislation in the next general elections.

“A new Parliament is going to readdress this issue and common sense ultimately will prevail,” McVety said.

In the United States, Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages; Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.

Though hundreds of foreigners have come to Canada to seek civil ceremonies since gay marriages were first allowed in Ontario and British Columbia in 2003, not all countries or states recognize the unions.

The U.S. government does not recognize same-sex marriage, and most states refuse to acknowledge marriage certificates from gay and lesbian couples, regardless of where they wed.

==============================

Pro-Family Groups ‘Horrified’ at Gay Marriage Bill Approval in Calif. (Christian Post, 050902)

Pro-family groups blasted the California Senate’s passage of a bill Thursday that would legalize same-sex marriage and make it the first legislative body in the country to approve a gay marriage legislation.

“How can God bless California when our lawmakers do this?” asked Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families.

After the state Assembly rejected the bill by a narrow vote in June, the measure made a comeback and passed the Senate by a 21-15 vote.

The proposed act would redefine marriage in California as a union between two persons, making marriage gender-neutral and thereby permitting same-sex marriages in the state.

“A leading California pro-family organization is reacting with horror to today’s passage of homosexual marriage licenses in the State Senate,” stated a CCF news release. “The Democrat-controlled Senate has completely overturned the people’s vote on marriage.”

An overwhelming vote by the people of California opposed gay marriage in 2000 with the passage of Prop 22, which only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman in the state.

While Prop 22 won in 52 of California’s 58 counties, the state senate dropped a bomb on pro-family advocates.

“They’re violating the state constitution, which specifically prohibits the Legislature from repealing voter-approved initiatives!” stated Thomasson.

The measure is now headed for the state Assembly from where it will reach Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk if passed.

Democratic Sen. Debra Bowen said several churches backed the gender-neutral bill, according to the Associate Press.

Nevertheless, opponents are now making efforts to qualify initiatives for the 2006 ballot to ban gay marriages in the state Constitution.

“If the Legislature flushes the people’s vote on marriage down the drain, the people will rise up, override the politicians and the judges, and protect marriage rights for one man and one woman in the state constitution,” said activist Ed Hernandez, a proponent of VoteYesMarriage.com, during a news conference outside the State Capitol.

CCF urges both Governor Schwarzenegger and “every Californian who believes marriage is for a man and a woman” to rise up in opposition to the gay marriage license.

“This corrupt deed by state legislators will energize voters to sign the www.VoteYesMarriage.com petition a month from now, to protect marriage rights for one man and one woman once and for all,” stated Thomasson.

The Vote Yes Marriage amendment is already circulating across the state to place the initiative on the 2006 ballot.

==============================

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill (WorldNetDaily, 050930)

SACRAMENTO, Calif, — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger followed through Thursday on his promise to veto a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, leaving the issue up to voters or judges who will likely face the volatile issue in the next year.

“This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue,” the Republican governor said in a veto message.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger shakes hands with nurse/ student Gina Santa Cruz as he tours the Pasadena Community College Skills Lab’s nursing preparatory class Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2005, in Pasadena, Calif. Gov. Schwarzenegger signed legislation expanding California schools’ vocational education programs which equip students with essential skills and experience to prepare them for various careers in today’s job environment. Nurse students Ketty Ok, left, and Joseph Ganata, middle, look on. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, Pool)

Schwarzenegger had announced his intention on Sept. 7, a day after the Legislature became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing gays and lesbians to wed.

Schwarzenegger said the bill by Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno contradicted Proposition 22, which was approved by voters in 2000 and said only a marriage between a man and woman is valid.

The governor said the state constitution bars the Legislature from enacting a law allowing gay marriage without another vote by the public and that Leno’s bill wouldn’t provide for that vote.

Schwarzenegger noted that a state appeals court was considering whether the state’s ban on gay marriage is constitutional and that the issue would likely be decided by the California Supreme Court.

“If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional this bill is not necessary,” he said. “If the ban is constitutional this bill is ineffective.”

Leno, who is openly gay, said Schwarzenegger had missed a historic opportunity to stand up for civil rights.

“He cannot claim to support fair and equal legal protection for same-sex couples and veto the very bill that would have provided it to them,” Leno said. “Words are cheap. We’re looking for action. We’re looking for leadership.”

In his veto message, Schwarzenegger said he supports the state’s domestic partner laws, which give same-sex couples most of the rights and obligations of married couples, and would oppose efforts to overturn or weaken those statutes.

Leno’s bill was approved by bare majorities in the state Assembly and Senate. It would take two-thirds votes in both houses to overturn the veto and there hasn’t been a veto override in California in more than 20 years.

Eddie Gutierrez, a spokesman for Equality California, a gay rights group that supported the bill, said Schwarzenegger had merely delayed the day when gay marriage is legal.

“We are extremely disappointed with the governor’s decision,” he said. “By denying us marriage equality he has turned a back to our community.”

Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for California Families, a group that opposed the bill, said Schwarzenegger had done the right thing. He also said voters should approve an initiative next year that would put a ban on same-sex marriages in the state Constitution.

==============================

The people’s voice on same-sex marriage (townhall.com, 051007)

When California lawmakers narrowly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage last month, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he would veto it. Not because he opposes legal rights for gay and lesbian couples — he doesn’t — but because he opposes treating California elections as meaningless. Five years ago, Californians went to the polls and approved Proposition 22, a ballot initiative confirming the traditional definition of marriage. Unless they change their minds or are overruled by the Supreme Court, Schwarzenegger said, their decision ought to be binding. As his spokesperson put it in a statement, “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.”

Needless to say, liberal supporters of gay marriage had a fit. “The governor is disingenuously claiming that the Legislature has overturned the intent of voters,” a Los Angeles Times editorial growled. “Does he not believe in the American system of representative democracy?” A letter to the editor mocked a governor who “runs and ducks for cover behind the courts and ‘the people.’ Who’s the girlie man now?”

But it wasn’t Schwarzenegger who was being disingenuous, and it would be no bad thing if more politicians showed comparable respect for laws passed at the polls. Proposition 22 — which read, in its entirety, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” — was ratified by a lopsided majority of California voters, winning more than 4.6 million votes and carrying 52 of the state’s 58 counties. What could the people possibly have done to make their intent any clearer?

In an earlier era, liberalism and respect for the vote went hand in hand. Liberals fought to extend the franchise to women. They were leaders in the civil rights movement, raising their voices — and sometimes laying down their lives — for the right of Southern blacks to vote. A century ago, progressives championed the direct election of US senators, a movement that culminated in the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913.

But today liberalism all too often displays a strong antidemocratic streak, and nowhere is it more blatant than on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Every time voters have been asked whether the fundamental definition of marriage — the legal union of a man and woman — should be radically redefined, they have given the same answer, and generally in a landslide. California is no anomaly. In the past five years, voters in 16 other states have adopted constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage. (Statewide votes are pending in five more states.) Those who believe that gender should be irrelevant to marriage may be passionately convinced of the justice of their cause. But they have not managed to convince a majority of their fellow citizens.

Faced with such strong and consistent electoral opposition, same-sex marriage advocates ought to be reworking their arguments and finding better ways to make their case. They could be trying harder to understand the concerns and depth of feeling on the other side. Or they could decide to wait until public sentiment has shifted, and then go back to the voters with a new referendum.

Instead they seem to have decided that if they can’t win democratically, winning undemocratically will suffice. And so we have seen same-sex marriage by judicial fiat, as in Massachusetts. We have seen same-sex marriage by executive decree, as in New Paltz, N.Y., San Francisco, and a few other cities where marriage licenses were issued to gay and lesbian couples by order of the mayor. And we have seen same-sex marriage by legislative snub, as with the California bill last month.

The marriage radicals are not coy about their willingness to brush democratic scruples aside. When 130,000 Massachusetts voters petitioned state lawmakers in 2002 for a constitutional amendment in defense of traditional marriage, the Legislature’s liberal leadership refused to bring it to the floor. Though the state Constitution required an up-or-down vote before the measure could be sent to the voters, the Legislature simply adjourned, strangling the amendment in its crib. The gleeful reaction of one lawmaker, state Senator Cheryl Jacques, was telling. “I’ll take a victory on this any way I can get it,” she said. Not long afterward, Jacques became executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation’s leading gay and lesbian advocacy organizations.

Same-sex marriage proponents do themselves no favors with this win-at-all-costs, to-hell-with-democracy approach. And it is no defense to say that gay and lesbian marriage is a matter of civil rights, and no one’s civil rights should be put to a vote. Whether same-sex marriage should be thought of as a civil right is precisely the question to be decided. The way to decide it fairly is to decide it democratically.

==============================

New York Court Upholds Traditional Marriage Laws (Christian Post, 051210)

On Friday, a New York appeals court upheld the state’s one man, one woman marriage laws in a 4-1 decision and reversed a lower trial court decision.

The court said that the lower court had created a new constitutional right, exceeding its power by usurping power meant by the legislature. Prior to the Hernandez v. Robles case, three other courts had upheld the marriage laws.

“This court correctly exercised judicial restraint. Judges should not rewrite the law, said Mathew D. Staver President and General Counsel of the Liberty Counsel. “Every time the people speak on marriage, they always choose one man and one woman. Natural marriage is the bedrock of stable and healthy families.”

If the previous ruling had stood, gay marriages would have become legal in New York City. In its ruling the appeals court forbid same-sex marriage and added that the state had a legitimate and rational interest in promoting traditional marriage.

“Marriage promotes sharing of resources between men, women and the children that they procreate,” wrote the panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court. “It is based on the presumption that the optimal situation for child-rearing is having both biological parents present in a committed, socially esteemed relationship.”

“In his decision, Judge Milton Williams should be commended for clearly articulating the importance of the traditional family and the compelling interest of the state in preserving this basic institution of society,” said the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

The suit was filed by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of the plaintiffs against the city clerk who is in charge of issuing marriage licenses, Victor Robles. A lawyer for the plaintiffs said the ruling would be appealed, meaning the suit could go to the New York Supreme Court.

==============================

Controversy over U.K. Civil Partnerships Continues; Opposing Churches Chime In (Christian Post, 060109)

LONDON – The controversy regarding homosexuality in the Church and same-sex civil unions reached new levels over the weekend as one of Wiltshire’s most prominent religious figures took part in a civil partnership ceremony on Saturday.

Canon Jeremy Davies of Salisbury Cathedral formally and legally registered his homosexual relationship in the city, which will see him and his partner given similar legal rights as traditional heterosexual married couples. The Civil Partnership Act came into force in December 2005, and ceremonies have taken place in various sites across England since Dec. 21.

Canon Davies registered his long-term relationship in a ceremony that was held in private, and was combined with the Canon’s 60th birthday celebrations.

The highly controversial law introduced last month means that any homosexual couple that wants to form a partnership recognized by the law, must register their intentions with their local council. However, the legislation stops short of creating a married couple. Therefore, unlike marriages, the signing of the legal papers for a civil partnership does not need to take place in public.

The rights enjoyed by those signing up for civil partnerships include similar tax and inheritance benefits as married couples.

The Church of England, however, still bans same-sex marriage.

Just weeks after the controversial law came into force, Cardinal Keith O’Brien – the most senior Roman Catholic in Scotland – spoke out to accuse cabinet ministers in London and Edinburgh of devaluing family life by allowing the Civil Partnership Act to pass.

O’Brien said that the family remained “the basic social unit,” which should be recognized, protected and promoted a capstone of society.

“When our lawmakers condone and endorse trends in society which are ultimately ruinous of family life, we are entitled to question their motivation and condemn their behavior,” he told his congregation.

At the end of 2005, Pope Benedict XVI also called on the U.K. Government to acknowledge “the indispensable role of stable marriage and family life” for the good of society.

In December 2005, Anglican Mainstream urged the Government to reconsider the Civil Partnerships Act. Dr Philip Giddings and Canon Dr Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream told U.K.-based Christian Today in a joint statement: “Marriage is a God-given institution between a man and a woman in which children are born and nurtured so that human society may flourish. The Civil Partnership Act 2005 is both confusing and unjust. It is confusing because it obscures the vital distinction between same-sex relationships and marriage.

“The rights in law which the Act confers are designed to be the same as the rights which flow from marriage. Yet the government insists that a civil partnership is not marriage. Some people are understandably referring to these partnerships as ‘marriage,’ but calling something marriage does not make it marriage as properly understood.”

Anglican Mainstream said the Act was unjust because it excludes siblings and close relatives who are not married and “yet should surely be eligible for the same rights.”

“By excluding close relatives, the Act clearly identifies the rights it confers on same-sex relationships with those consequent upon marriage,” said Dr Giddings and Canon Sugden. “Civil partnerships are thus a parody of the marriage relationship, which is God’s provision for human flourishing.”

The two men concluded: “The church cannot bless something that harms those we are in God’s name seeking to help. The government would be wise to re-consider this unjust and confusing legislation.”

The Evangelical Council has also warned of the negative consequences of the Civil Partnerships Act following the hundreds of gay civil partnership ceremonies that took place up and down the country.

The Chairman of the Church of England Evangelical Council, the Rev. Dr. Richard Turnbull, warned Christians in particular of the need to uphold the unique position of marriage between one man and one woman.

“We recognize, of course, the need for fair and equal treatment before the law for all people,” he told Christian Today. “However, Christians need to be very concerned indeed at the assertion of moral equivalence between marriage and civil partnerships. They are not of equal moral standing.”

He added that Christians have a unique role to teach others about the sanctity of the traditional family.

The Rev. Turnbull said: “Christians must be clear, while acting with sensitivity and care, to assert the Christian teaching that celibate singleness or monogamous marriage are the ways in which God has provided for the best moral family framework for society. We depart from that at our peril both as a society and indeed as a church.”

==============================

Cultural death wishes (townhall.com, 060120)

by Debra Saunders

When social conservatives argue that legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to legalized polygamy, same-sex marriage advocates either laugh or sneer. It’s a scare tactic, they say. It’ll never happen.

Last year, however, as Canada legalized same-sex marriage, Prime Minister Paul Martin commissioned a $150,000 study to debunk the polygamy argument. Big mistake: The study confirmed the scare tactic by recommending that Canada repeal its anti-polygamy law.

It also suggested that a legal challenge to Canada’s anti-polygamy laws would succeed. “Why criminalize behavior?” asked Martha Bailey, one of the study’s three law-professor authors. “We don’t criminalize adultery.”

Confession time: I am one of those who, for years, has argued that legalizing same-sex marriage would not open the door for polygamy. The limit for marriages would remain two, I argued. Two doesn’t mean three or four.

Wrong. In these politically correct times, do-gooders expand definitions until words — or institutions — lose all meaning. Marriage can mean what you want it to mean.

And: If you don’t prosecute all crimes in a category, you can’t prosecute one.

That’s essentially what Bailey argued.

The study recognized the “strong association between polygamy and gender inequality.” Then the authors apparently decided that Canadian law should eliminate any legal unfairness — in inherently unequal marriages.

One Kuwaiti wife can’t move to Canada to live with her husband and another wife. That’s unfair to the wife and unfair to Muslims. The study noted, “The parties most likely to suffer from this rule are the left-behind wives.” To eliminate that inequity, these professors are ready to provide legal cover for all polygamous (and polyandrous) marriages.

“There’s a logical extension to it,” laughed Rob Stutzman, who worked on the Proposition 22 campaign in 2000, a measure that limited marriage in California to a union between a man and a woman. “If you accept the premise that marriage should be whatever relationships people want to enter into,” he said, polygamy is legit.

Brad Luna of the Human Rights Campaign, which supports same-sex marriage, finds any linkage of polygamy to same-sex marriage “offensive.” He warned against reading too much into one Canadian study. In America, he said, “two people is the defining element in our system of government on contractual marriage.”

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who has pushed for same-sex marriage in California, noted “a unique nature of a relationship with two. If you go beyond two, you can’t draw a line anywhere else that isn’t arbitrary.” I agree, but the Canadian study gives me pause. The authors use a very American argument: that adults already are living in de facto polygamous relationships, so why make their arrangements illegal?

The answer is that even if authorities cannot and should not jail adults for group cohabitation, the state should not extend legal protections to those unions.

Extending marital protections to same-sex couples bestows equality. Extending protections to unequal unions protects inequality.

The Washington Times interviewed polygamous Mormons who argued they lead happy, harmonious lives. That may be, but the practice is poison for cultures at large. Rich men marry many wives. Poor men do not. Women have few opportunities and limited rights. It can’t be good for the kids. Consider polygamy’s most famous son: Osama bin Laden, whose father sired 54 children with 22 wives.

Many elites argue that Canada is 10 years ahead of America when it comes to gay rights. But when legal scholars are so progressive that they are willing to shove marriage back to the Stone Age, they reveal a culture with a death wish.

American advocates for same-sex marriage may want to reconsider supporting civil unions in lieu of same-sex marriage. Or some way to limit marriage to two adults.

==============================

Nigeria Takes ‘Pre-Emptive’ Step to Outlaw Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ (Christian Post, 060121)

The Nigerian government is taking a “pre-emptive step” toward introducing a specific ban on same-sex marriages as Europe and the United States become increasingly pro-gay marriage.

Nigeria’s information minister, Frank Nweke, told the BBC this week that the government was taking the “pre-emptive step” because of developments elsewhere in the world.

“In most cultures in Nigeria, same-sex relationships, sodomy and the likes of that, is regarded as abominable,” said Nweke.

It is already illegal to engage in gay sex in Nigeria. Under a new proposed ban, gay couples who join in a wedding ceremony, as well as anyone who officiates at one, will risk five years in jail.

Justice Minister Bayo Ojo also made clear that homosexuals would not be able to press for any specifically gay rights or recognition, reported AFP.

The Anglican Church in Nigeria has taken a clear stance against same-sex marriage and the ordination of gay priests under the firm leadership of the outspoken Archbishop Peter Akinola.

“The Anglican Church in Nigeria has been in the forefront of condemning the attitude because the Church sees it as an aberration, in other words, we see it as against the norm. We see it as an abomination,” the Rev. Tunde Popoola, a spokesman for the Anglican Church of Nigeria, told Voice of America.

The president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, has given his public support to the Church’s position on homosexuality. “Such a tendency is clearly un-Biblical, unnatural and definitely un-African,” the president told a conference of Nigerian bishops in October 2004.

South Africa became the first African country and fifth country in the world to permit same-sex marriage in December 2005, following the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Canada.

The decision was opposed not only by the vast majority of South Africa’s citizens, but also the rest of Africa where homosexuality is still largely unaccepted.

Christian groups expressed deep concern to the latest move by the court. South Africa’s biggest Christian party – the African Christian Democratic Party – sternly objected the decision. It warned of the disintegration and deterioration that may be resulted when “a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage,” as previous civilizations has showed, according to Reuters.

In addition, Steven Swart, spokesman for the African Christian Democratic Party declared that “we as Christian Democrats believe we should treat all people with compassion, but there are certain guidelines that we stand by; Marriage is a union between a man and woman.”

And Primate of the Anglican Church of the Province of Southern Africa Njongonkulu Ndungane stated that while the Church “valued diversity as expressed in the court ruling,” it would not change its stance against gay marriage.

In his statement released after the Constitutional Court’s ruling, Ndungane said, “We have repeatedly affirmed that we do not regard partnership between two persons of the same sex as a marriage in the eyes of God.”

==============================

Colorado State Prepares for Marriage Showdown (Christian Post, 060120)

Two separate state voter initiatives that could impact gay couples in Colorado may come before voters in November, with one seeking to affirm traditional marriage and the other seeking to give marriage-like rights to gay couples.

A proposal being led in part by evangelical ministry Focus on the Family will seek to collect 68,000 petition signatures to amend the state’s constitution by placing the option to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman in the ballot. The other one, which is being supported by a pair of state legislators, will seek to allow domestic partnerships.

“We are going to do everything we can to make sure marriage is protected in Colorado,” said Jim Pfaff, national representative for family policy at Focus on the Family, according to the Colorado Springs-based Gazette. “It’s our goal to make sure that marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman.”

Focus is working together with other like-minded groups through a coalition called Coloradans for Marriage. They are set to launch their constitutional marriage amendment drive before the end of the month. Similar efforts by traditional marriage supporters have resulted in 19 other states amending their constitutions.

Proponents of such measures seek to keep judges from ruling that state marriage laws are unconstitutional because they exclude homosexual couples. Colorado is just one of several states expected to vote on an amendment this year.

The other voter measure in the works would not change state constitution but would simply add a law to give same-sex couples legal rights currently afforded only to married couples, including medical, tax and inheritance benefits.

Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald (D-Coal Creek), who held a press conference on Tuesday along with other politicians, said that the need for a domestic partnerships measure arose in part because of future legislation that could ban gay marriages.

“Domestic partnerships do nothing to impact my marriage,” added Fitz-Gerald, according to the Gazette. “All it does is give basic human rights to citizens who enter into a lifetime relationship.”

Rep. Tom Plant (D-Nederland), who also supports domestic partnerships, says that the language of the initiative has not been finalized but added that it will not conflict with the marriage proposal.

A spokeswoman for Focus on the Family doesn’t agree with the proposal backed by Fitz-Gerald and Plant because it would only allow homosexuals to file for domestic partnership rights.

“It should be based on need and should be available to anyone based on need,” said Amanda Banks, an analyst with Focus, according to The Denver Channel.

She noted that two friends who live together or a mother and daughter might also want to benefit from the protections offered by domestic partnerships.

Linda Devocelle, executive director of the Pikes Peak Gay and Lesbian Community Center, thinks that domestic partnership rights are insufficient and indicated that “equality” in marriage is what is needed.

“Having both on the ballot gives people an out so they can say they can vote for the amendment and for domestic partnerships and think everything is taken care of,” she said. “But that would deny us equality.”

==============================

Maryland Judge Strikes Down Marriage Law (Christian Post, 060120)

A judge stuck down a 33-year-old Maryland law validating only heterosexual marriages, following a lawsuit by nine gay couples and one individual who said the law violated the state’s constitution.

Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled Thursday that the current law violates the state constitution because it “discriminates based on gender.” City clerks will not be allowed to issue marriage licenses since the decision was stayed, pending an appeal.

“After much study and serious reflection, the Court holds that Maryland’s statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand this constitutional challenge,” wrote Murdock.

The state attorney general had argued for the constitutionality of Maryland’s 1973 law, which only validates a marriage only between a man and a woman.

Currently 19 states across the country have passed amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as being a covenant between a man and a woman, in order to avoid legal challenges. Massachusetts is the only state allowing “gay marriages” due to a ruling by that state’s highest court.

In her ruling, the judge said there is “no apparent compelling state interest” in prohibiting homosexual marriage.

In 1972, Maryland voters passed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which states that the “equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.”

However in 1973, the legislature passed the marriage law making heterosexual marriages the only ones considered valid. The Judge found that the state law violated the ERA.

A spokesman for Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) said the governor had heard of the ruling, but had not seen it, according to the Associated Press.

“It has been forwarded to his legal counsel for review,” spokesman Henry Fawell said. “It would be premature to comment on the ruling at this point, but as the governor has said before, he believes marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Ken Choe, an American Civil Liberties Union Lawyer who argued the case before the judge, referred to two of the plaintiffs he argued for.

“The court was right to conclude that preventing same-sex couples from marrying is sex discrimination,” he said in a released statement. “The only reason Lisa Polyak can’t marry her partner of 24 years, Gita Deane, is because she is another woman and not a man, as the court recognized, is unconstitutional.”

However the Senate President, Thomas V. Mike Miller (D), believed the ruling would be overturned.

“In my opinion, the plaintiffs forum-shopped,” Miller said, according to AP. “I don’t think the same opinion would have been rendered in 90% of the other circuits in the state of Maryland.”

==============================

Friends with Benefits: Shaking up the marriage debate in Colorado. (National Review Online, 060216)

The debate over gays and marriage in Colorado has recently taken a different turn from the national debate. Until a few weeks ago, the debate looked familiar. Gay-rights advocates were trying to get the legislature to enact a bill recognizing civil unions (or “domestic partnerships”) for same-sex couples. Social conservatives were trying to get voters to adopt a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Now conservative state senator Shawn Mitchell has changed the script by introducing legislation that grants some benefits to same-sex couples — with the support of James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

His legislation results from an asymmetry in the debate. One of the reasons many people support civil unions or same-sex marriage is to get certain practical advantages for gay couples. The main reason other people oppose these policies is that they do not want the government to recognize homosexual relationships as marital, or even as akin to marriage.

Mitchell’s idea is to make certain benefits available to gay couples — and to many other pairs of people. His legislation would make it easier, for example, for gay men to arrange to give each other a say in their medical care by becoming “reciprocal beneficiaries.” But two brothers, or a brother and sister, or two male friends, could enter the same arrangement. Thus there would be no recognition of homosexual relationships as such. (Hence Dobson’s support.)

No benefit would be contingent on any assumption by the government that the beneficiaries were involved in a sexual relationship outside traditional marriage. In extending the benefit, the state would be blind to the precise nature of the relationship between the beneficiaries.

Mitchell says that he got the idea for his legislation from an article I wrote in National Review last year. He modified my idea a little. I would have allowed couples who could legally marry to sign up as reciprocal beneficiaries. His legislation forbids them to sign up, presumably out of concern that doing so might keep them from marrying.

I didn’t propose this idea in the expectation that it would resolve the questions surrounding gays and marriage. It doesn’t give people who believe that gay marriage is a matter of civil rights any reason to stop working toward it, and it doesn’t give the opponents any reason to quit, either. It does not, that is, attempt to bring the debate to an end satisfactory to all sides (which would be impossible). But it does solve some practical problems in a way that nobody should find objectionable.

The politics of the proposal will vary sharply with circumstances. In Colorado, which has a Democratic legislature, liberals seem to think that they can get civil unions. Their initial reaction to Mitchell’s bill has therefore been to reject it as insufficient while offering a little praise to Mitchell for being willing to seek compromise. As the debate unfolds, however, it is possible that some Democrats will conclude that Mitchell’s approach offers progress for gay couples at low political risk. In more conservative states, where civil unions are off the table, a bill like Mitchell’s may look positively progressive and Democrats may wish to offer it themselves.

— Ramesh Ponnuru, an NR senior editor, is at work on a book about the sanctity of life and American politics.

==============================

Poll: Opposition to Gay Marriage Declining (Christian Post, 060323)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The public backlash over gay marriage has receded since a controversial decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003 to legalize those marriages stirred strong opposition, says a poll released Wednesday.

Gay marriage remains a divisive issue, with 51% opposing it, the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found. But almost two-thirds, 63%, opposed gay marriage in February 2004.

“Most Americans still oppose gay marriage, but the levels of opposition are down and the number of strong opponents are down,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. “This has some implications for the midterm elections if this trend is maintained. There are gay marriage ballot initiatives in numerous states.”

Gay marriage got intense media coverage in 2004 after the Massachusetts court case, the decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to issue thousands of marriage licenses to gay couples and similar cases. But the intense focus on gay marriage has declined in the last year.

In 2004, opponents of gay marriage were able to pass ballot initiatives banning the practice in 11 states, from Georgia to Oregon. Those gay marriage initiatives also helped conservatives rally their voters to the polls.

The number of people who say they strongly oppose gay marriage has dropped from 42% in early 2004 to 28% now. Strong opposition has dropped sharply among senior citizens and Republicans.

People are now evenly split on allowing adoptions by gay couples and six in 10 now favor allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

Legal challenges of laws on gay marriage could result in more court decisions that stir public opinion, but this midterm election year is starting with far less public anxiety about one of the nation’s most volatile social issues.

The telephone poll of 1,405 adults was conducted March 8-12 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3%age points.

==============================

Gay ‘Marriage’ Numbers Continue To Decrease In Netherlands (Christian Post, 060329)

The number of same-sex “marriages” has stabilized since the introduction of gay marriage in the netherlands five years ago, according to new figures recently released by a dutch governmental institution that gathers statistical information about the western european nation.

Statistics netherlands, or “centraal bureau voor de statistiek” (cbs), said last monday that 1,166 gay and lesbian couples got “married” in 2005, compared with 1,210 the year before. When the netherlands became the first country in the world to introduce same-sex marriage in 2001, some 2,414 gay or lesbian couples married. There was also a rush to the registry office the following year when 1,838 same-sex couples “tied the knot.”

“there was an element of hype in 2001. Lots of people who had already been together for 30 or 40 years got married,” explained demographics professor jan latten at the cbs, according to the report by netherlands-based expatica. The numbers peaked in 2002.

“after that it decreased,” he added. “everyone asked how this was possible because the opening up of marriage seemed to be so popular. It appears this peak was the ‘start-up’ effect. The figures in 2004 and 2005 were roughly equal.”

Dr. Latten expects approximately 1,200 gay or lesbian marriages in 2006 as the marriage rate so far this year is at the same level as this time last year. He also expects the annual marriage rates to be similar from now on.

According to cbs, total number of marriages – heterosexual and same-sex – has fallen noticeably in the last five years. In 2001, 82,091 couples married compared with the 73,861 last year.

The institution also found that divorce rates between same-sex couples did not differ from heterosexual couples, but that lesbian couples who divorced tended to do so earlier than married gay men.

The netherlands is one of a small handful of countries that have passed a law allowing homosexuals to enter a registered partnership since denmark took the first dive in 1989. Others include norway, sweden, germany, belgium, argentina, france, spain, canada, and most recently the czech republic.

==============================

Ireland Prime Minister Backs Legalizing Same-Sex Partnerships (Christian Post, 060405)

DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) - Ireland will legalize civil partnerships for gay couples, Prime Minister Bertie Ahern pledged Monday as he opened new offices for the country’s main gay rights group.

Civil partnerships allow gay couples the same rights to inheritance, state benefits and other financial rights as held by married heterosexual couples.

“Sexual orientation cannot, and must not, be the basis of a second-class citizenship. Our laws have changed, and will continue to change, to reflect this principle,” Ahern told an audience at Ireland’s Gay and Lesbian Equality Network.

Ahern said it would be more difficult to legalize gay marriage in Ireland than it was in the United Kingdom, which approved the civil unions in December. Ireland’s constitution has a clause requiring the predominantly Roman Catholic state to protect the institution of marriage, whereas the UK, which includes neighboring Northern Ireland, has no written constitution.

“This challenge, however, is one that the government is determined to meet. We are committed to legislating on this issue,” said Ahern, who noted that a government-appointed group of experts would recommend several possible options in a report expected in November.

“Although there is a growing climate of equality and support for anti-discrimination action, I also recognize that members of the gay community still face isolation, abuse and victimization on the basis of their sexuality,” Ahern said.

==============================

Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. (Weekly Standard, 060508)

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF BOSTON made the announcement on March 10: It was getting out of the adoption business. “We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples.”

It was shocking news. Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation’s oldest adoption agencies, had long specialized in finding good homes for hard to place kids. “Catholic Charities was always at the top of the list,” Paula Wisnewski, director of adoption for the Home for Little Wanderers, told the Boston Globe. “It’s a shame because it is certainly going to mean that fewer children from foster care are going to find permanent homes.” Marylou Sudders, president of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said simply, “This is a tragedy for kids.”

How did this tragedy happen?

It’s a complicated story. Massachusetts law prohibited “orientation discrimination” over a decade ago. Then in November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered gay marriage. The majority ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently. That same year, partly in response to growing pressure for gay marriage and adoption both here and in Europe, a Vatican statement made clear that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching.

Then in October 2005, the Boston Globe broke the news: Boston Catholic Charities had placed a small number of children with same-sex couples. Sean Cardinal O’Malley, who has authority over Catholic Charities of Boston, responded by stating that

the agency would no longer do so.

Seven members of the Boston Catholic Charities board (about one-sixth of the membership) resigned in protest. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights, issued a thundering denunciation of the Catholic hierarchy: “These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable children. Every one of the nation’s leading children’s welfare groups agrees that a parent’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong, and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith.”

But getting square with the church didn’t end Catholic Charities’ woes. To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination—including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.

Cardinal O’Malley asked Governor Mitt Romney for a religious exemption from the ban on orientation discrimination. Governor Romney reluctantly responded that he lacked legal authority to grant one unilaterally, by executive order. So the governor and archbishop turned to the state legislature, requesting a conscience exemption that would allow Catholic Charities to continue to help kids in a manner consistent with Catholic teaching.

To date, not a single other Massachusetts political leader appears willing to consider even the narrowest religious exemption. Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican candidate for governor in this fall’s election, refused to budge: “I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of the state,” Healey told the Boston Globe on March 2, “and our antidiscrimination laws are some of our most important.”

From there, it was only a short step to the headline “State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business,” which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It’s worth underscoring that Catholic Charities’ problem with the state didn’t hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey’s assessment: “Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples.”

This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve’s marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.

So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?

I PUT THE QUESTION to Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund is widely recognized as one of the best religious liberty law firms and the only one that defends the religious liberty of all faith groups, “from Anglicans to Zoroastrians,” as its founder Kevin J.

Hasson likes to say (referring to actual clients the Becket Fund has defended).

Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage?

“The impact will be severe and pervasive,” Picarello says flatly. “This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations.” Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don’t even notice that “the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it’s easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.”

For scholars, these will be interesting times: Want to know exactly where the borders of church and state are located? “Wait a few years,” Picarello laughs. The flood of litigation surrounding each point of contact will map out the territory. For religious liberty lawyers, there are boom times ahead. As one Becket Fund donor told Picarello ruefully, “At least you know you’re not in the buggy whip business.”

Picarello is a Harvard-trained litigator experienced in religious liberty issues. But predicting the legal consequences of as big a change as gay marriage is a job for more than one mind. So last December, the Becket Fund brought together ten religious liberty scholars of right and left to look at the question of the impact of gay marriage on the freedom of religion. Picarello summarizes: “All the scholars we got together see a problem; they all see a conflict coming. They differ on how it should be resolved and who should win, but they all see a conflict coming.”

These are not necessarily scholars who oppose gay marriage. Chai Feldblum, for example, is a Georgetown law professor who refers to herself as “part of an inner group of public-intellectual movement leaders committed to advancing LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual] equality in this country.” Marc Stern is the general counsel for the center-left American Jewish Congress. Robin Wilson of the University of Maryland law school is undecided on gay marriage. Jonathan Turley of George Washington law school has supported legalizing not only gay marriage but also polygamy.

Reading through these and the other scholars’ papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead—perhaps because they tended to find it “inconceivable,” as Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it, that “a successful analogy will be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant, racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable, differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage.” That’s a key consideration. For if orientation is like race, then people who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don’t arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private entities. Doug Laycock, a religious liberty expert at the University of Texas law school, similarly told me we are a “long way” from equating orientation with race in the law.

By contrast, the scholars who favor gay marriage found it relatively easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by society and the law the way we treat racists because that’s pretty close to the world in which they live now.

The (Gay) Public Intellectual

Of all the scholars who attended, perhaps the most surprising is Chai Feldblum. She is a Georgetown law professor who is highly sought after on civil rights issues, especially gay civil rights. She has drafted many federal bills to prohibit orientation discrimination and innumerable amicus briefs in constitutional cases seeking equality for gay people. I ask her why she decided to make time for a conference on the impact of same-sex marriage on religious liberty.

“Not because I was caught up in the panic,” she laughs. She’d been thinking through the moral implications of nondiscrimination rules in the law, a lonely undertaking for a gay rights advocate. “Gay rights supporters often try to present these laws as purely neutral and having no moral implications. But not all discrimination is bad,” Feldblum points out. In employment law, for instance, “we allow discrimination against people who sexually abuse children, and we don’t say ‘the only question is can they type’ even if they can type really quickly.”

To get to the point where the law prohibits discrimination, Feldblum says, “there have to be two things: one, a majority of the society believing the characteristic on which the person is being discriminated against is not morally problematic, and, two, enough of a sense of outrage to push past the normal American contract-based approach, where the government doesn’t tell you what you can do. There has to be enough outrage to bypass that basic default mode in America. Unlike some of my compatriots in the gay rights movement, I think we advance the cause of gay equality if we make clear there are moral assessments that underlie antidiscrimination laws.”

But there was a second reason Feldblum made time for this particular conference. She was raised an Orthodox Jew. She wanted to demonstrate respect for religious people and their concerns, to show that the gay community is not monolithic in this regard.

“It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed disrespect to tell someone it is okay to ‘be’ gay, but not necessarily okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?” she writes in her Becket paper. “I have the same reaction to courts and legislatures that blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious means?”

To Feldblum the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty are real: “When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians.” Most of the time, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify burdening religious belief, she argues. But that does not make it right to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the religious people the law is burdening don’t matter.

“You have to stop, think, and justify the burden each time,” says Feldblum. She pauses. “Respect doesn’t mean that the religious person should prevail in the right to discriminate—it just means demonstrating a respectful awareness of the religious position.”

Feldblum believes this sincerely and with passion, and clearly (as she reminds me) against the vast majority of opinion of her own community. And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

She pauses over cases like the one at Tufts University, one of many current legal battles in which a Christian group is fighting for the right to limit its leaders to people who subscribe to its particular vision of Christianity. She’s uncertain about Catholic Charities of Boston, too: “I do not know the details of that case,” she told me. “I do believe a state should be permitted to withhold tax exempt status, as in the Bob Jones case, from a group that is clearly contrary to the state’s policy. But to go further and say to a group that it is not permitted to engage in a particular type of work, such as adoptions, unless it also does adoptions for gay couples, that’s a heavier hand from the state. And I would hope we could have a dialogue about this and not just accusations of bad faith from either side.”

But the bottom line for Feldblum is: “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

The Litigator

Marc Stern has known Chai Feldblum since she was eight years old. “Vivacious, really extraordinary,” he says as he smiles, shaking his head at the memories of the little girl whose father he knew well. “Chai is among the most reasonable [gay rights advocates],” he says. “If she’s having trouble coming up with cases in which religious liberty should win, we’re in trouble.”

As general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern knows religious liberty law from the inside out. Like Anthony Picarello, he sees the coming conflicts as pervasive. The problem is not that clergy will be forced to perform gay marriages or prevented from preaching their beliefs. Look past those big red herrings: “No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable,” he writes in his Becket Fund paper.

Consider education. Same-sex marriage will affect religious educational institutions, he argues, in at least four ways: admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs. One of Stern’s big worries right now is a case in California where a private Christian high school expelled two girls who (the school says) announced they were in a lesbian relationship. Stern is not optimistic. And if the high school loses, he tells me, “then religious schools are out of business.” Or at least the government will force religious schools to tolerate both conduct and proclamations by students they believe to be sinful.

Stern agrees with Feldblum that public accommodation laws can and should force truly commercial enterprises to serve all comers. But, he asks, what of other places, such as religious camps, retreats, and homeless shelters? Will they be considered by courts to be places of public accommodation, too? Could a religious summer camp operated in strict conformity with religious principles refuse to accept children coming from same-sex marriages? What of a church-affiliated community center, with a gym and a Little League, that offers family programs? Must a religious-affiliated family services provider offer marriage counseling to same-sex couples designed to facilitate or preserve their relationships?

“Future conflict with the law in regard to licensing is certain with regard to psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, and the like,” Stern wrote last December—well before the Boston Catholic Charities story broke.

Think about that for a moment. Of all the experts gathered to forecast the impact of gay marriage on religious organizations, no one, not even Stern, brought up adoption licenses. “Government is so pervasive, it’s hard to know where the next battle will be,” he tells me. “I thought I had a comprehensive catalog, but the adoption license issue didn’t occur to me.”

Will speech against gay marriage be allowed to continue unfettered? “Under the American regime of freedom of speech, the answer ought to be easy,” according to Stern. But it is not entirely certain, he writes, “because sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace principles will likely migrate to suppress any expression of anti-same-sex-marriage views.” Stern suggests how that might work.

In the corporate world, the expression of opposition to gay marriage will be suppressed not by gay ideologues but by corporate lawyers, who will draw the lines least likely to entangle the company in litigation. Stern likens this to “a paroxysm of prophylaxis—banning ‘Jesus saves’ because someone might take offense.”

Or consider a recent case at William Paterson University, a state school in New Jersey. A senior faculty member sent out a mass email inviting people to attend movies with a gay theme. A student employee, a 63-year-old Muslim named Jihad Daniel, replied to the professor in a private email asking not to receive messages “about ‘Connie and Sally’ and ‘Adam and Steve.’” He went on, “These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned.” The result: Daniel received a letter of reprimand for using the “derogatory and demeaning” word “perversions” in violation of state discrimination and harassment regulations.

Interestingly, Stern points out, a single “derogatory or demeaning” remark not seeking sexual gratification or threatening a person’s job security does not constitute harassment under ordinary federal and state sexual harassment law originally intended to protect women in the workplace. Moreover, Stern says, “our entire free speech regime depends on the principle that no adult has a right to expect the law will protect him from being exposed to disagreeable speech.”

Except, apparently in New Jersey, where a state attorney general’s opinion concluded, “[C]learly speech which violates a nondiscrimination policy is not protected.” “This was so ‘clear’ to the writer,” notes Stern, “that she cited not a single case or law review article in support.” Ultimately, the school withdrew its reprimand from Daniel’s employment file after receiving negative publicity and the threat of a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund press release dropped into my mail box: “OSU Librarian Slapped with ‘Sexual Harassment’ Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for Freshmen.” One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel “unsafe.” The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation, and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped.

In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a nuisance—you might call it harassment—than anything else. But the imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation, and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. “Soft” coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone’s conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people.

Finally, I ask Stern the big question on everyone’s mind. Religious groups that take government funding will almost certainly be required to play by the nondiscrimination rules, but what about groups that, while receiving no government grants, are tax-exempt? Can a group—a church or religious charity, say—that opposes gay marriage keep its tax exemption if gay marriage becomes the law? “That,” says Stern, “is the 18 trillion dollar question.”

Twenty years ago it would have been inconceivable that a Christian or Jewish organization that opposed gay marriage might be treated as racist in the public square. Today? It’s just not clear.

“In Massachusetts I’d be very worried,” Stern says finally. The churches themselves might have a First Amendment defense if a state government or state courts tried to withdraw their exemption, he says, but “the parachurch institutions are very much at risk and may be put out of business because of the licensing issues, or for these other reasons—it’s very unclear. None of us nonprofits can function without [state] tax exemption. As a practical matter, any large charity needs that real estate tax exemption.”

He blames religious conservatives for adopting the wrong political strategy on gay issues. “Live and let live,” he tells me, is the only thing around the world that works. But I ask him point blank what he would say to people who dismiss the threat to free exercise of religion as evangelical hysteria. “It’s not hysteria, this is very real,” he tells me, “Boston Catholic Charities shows that.”

Fundamentally, Stern sees this as a “religious war” between people for whom an egalitarian secular ethic is the only rational option and people who can make room for an ethic based on faith in a God who commands. There are very few signs of a willingness to compromise on either side, he notes.

“You look around the world and even the right to preach is in doubt,” he tells me. “In the United States we are not foreseeably in that position. Fundamentally speech is still safe in the United States. Beyond speech, nothing is safe.”

The Health Care Law Expert

Robin Wilson is an expert in both family law and health care law. So when Anthony Picarello approached her about thinking through the impact gay marriage may have on religious institutions, she had a ready model at hand: the struggles over conscience exemptions in the health care field after Roe v. Wade elevated abortion to a constitutional right.

Wilson predicts “a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others. Although Roe and Griswold established only the right to noninterference by the state in a woman’s abortion and contraceptive decisions, family planning advocates have worked strenuously to force individual institutions to provide controversial services, and to force individual health care providers to participate in them.”

“This litigation after Roe,” she says, “provides a convincing prediction about the trajectory that litigation after Goodridge will take” (Goodridge being the Massachusetts supreme court decision that legalized gay marriage). The post-Roe litigation also provides fair warning about the limits of First Amendment protection. The lever used to force hospitals and doctors to perform abortions and sterilizations was the receipt of any public money. “Given the status of most churches as state nonprofits and federally tax-exempt organizations, it is likely that public support arguments will be advanced to compel churches to participate in same-sex marriage. Thus, churches in Massachusetts (and perhaps soon other states) may have much to worry about,” Wilson writes. “Churches that oppose same-sex marriage today may perceive a credible, palpable threat to their tax-exempt status, the benefits of which are substantial.”

This threat is credible, she explains, because to be recognized as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must have purposes and activities that do not violate fundamental “public policy,” a concept that neither the Supreme Court nor the IRS has fully defined.

The case that worries Wilson in this regard is one that Chai Feldblum mentioned: Bob Jones University v. United States, in which the IRS revoked the federal tax exemption of Bob Jones University because the school prohibited interracial marriage and dating among its students. The Court easily dismissed Bob Jones’s claim that its prohibition on interracial dating was religiously grounded and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The denial of tax benefits, the Court asserted, would not prevent the school “from observing their religious tenets.”

Equally, the First Amendment did not prevent religious hospitals from being punished for refusing to perform abortions, once abortion became a constitutional right. It was Congress and state legislatures that stepped in to provide generous statutory religious exemptions. Once gay marriage is legal, it too will probably become fundamental public policy. To protect the tax-exempt status of religious groups that oppose gay marriage will thus likely require legislative intervention to create religious exemptions at either the state or federal level or both, says Wilson. She means the same kind of religious exemption that, to date, no politician in Massachusetts besides the outgoing governor is willing to support.

The Legal Eagle

Jonathan Turley, the George Washington professor who is a First Amendment specialist, also sees a serious risk ahead. Turley has no problem with gay marriage. But the gay marriage debate, he notes, exposes “long ignored weaknesses in doctrines relating to free speech, free exercise, and the right to association.”

Before 1970 the law was “viewpoint neutral” with regard to the tax exempt status of all charitable, religious, and public interest organizations under section 501(c)(3), he says. The tax exemption was viewed not as a public subsidy, but as a means of encouraging private donations and charitable conduct in general. In 1971, the IRS issued a decision redefining the tax exemption as a public endorsement or subsidy. This meant that the IRS would strip an organization of its exempt status if its purposes, although legal, were “contrary to public policy.” The goal at the time was to use legal pressure to end private racial discrimination. But why stop there?

Right now, Turley notes, there is no clear federal public policy against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But such a policy is imminent, he believes, most likely within the decade. Once that occurs, he agrees with Robin Wilson: “Any organization that engaged in such discrimination as a matter of faith would be in a position similar to Bob Jones University.”

It’s not that hard to imagine: Pass an antidiscrimination law at the federal level, which polls suggest the majority of Americans already support; look for a 5-or 10-point swing in public opinion on gay marriage; then add a new IRS commissioner (not directly accountable to the voters) who wants to make his or her progressive mark, and religious groups would wake up to find themselves playing in a whole new ballgame.

Religious bodies may be as simple as the small, independent congregations that exist all over America, but often they are large and complex institutions with extensive property and multiple missions, notably saving souls. Even a slight risk of anything so damaging as the loss of tax-exempt status will persuade many such groups to at least mute their marriage theology in the interest of preserving the rest of their activities. Such a self-imposed muting on the part of faith communities would change our culture of marriage, and our understanding of the free exercise of religion, without necessarily creating visible martyrs.

The Consensus Broker

Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the Freedom Forum’s influential First Amendment Center, specializes in helping groups in conflict find common ground on First Amendment issues. For example, he recently got the Christian Educators Association International and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Networks (GLSEN) to agree to what he calls “consensus guidelines” for public schools dealing with orientation issues. I went to him for an outside opinion from a First Amendment expert who had not attended the Becket Fund conference. Like every other expert I interviewed, Haynes told me he wasn’t concerned that clergy will be forced to marry same sex couples. What about the other potential conflicts? Are they real? “There are already tensions,” he tells me. “I think there is a kind of collision course here that is inevitable.”

For a man in the conciliation business, Haynes doesn’t sound optimistic. “I think it’s a serious question that will grow more difficult. I think we will have more and more tension between efforts by the state to protect gay rights and the need to protect religious freedom. This will have an impact on religious individuals as well as perhaps religious organizations in areas such as housing, the workplace, hiring.”

I ask him whether his concerns are shared by the wide spectrum of religious and civil rights groups he deals with. “Everyone’s talking about it, thinking about it,” Haynes tells me. “There are a lot of different ideas about where we are going to end up, but everyone thinks it is the battle of our times.”

The Marriage Line

How much of the coming threat to religious liberty actually stems from same-sex marriage? These experts’ comments make clear that it is not only gay marriage, but also the set of ideas that leads to gay marriage—the insistence on one specific vision of gay rights—that has placed church and state on a collision course. Once sexual orientation is conceptualized as a protected status on a par with race, traditional religions that condemn homosexual conduct will face increasing legal pressures regardless of what courts and Congress do about marriage itself.

Nevertheless, marriage is a particularly potent legal “bright line.” Support for marriage is firmly established in our legal tradition and in our public policy. After it became apparent that no religious exemption would be available for Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, the church looked hard for legal avenues to continue helping kids without violating Catholic principles. If the stumbling block had been Catholic Charities’ unwillingness to place children with single people—or with gay singles—marriage might have provided a legal “safe harbor”: Catholic Charities might have been able to specialize in placing children with married couples and thus avoid collision with state laws banning orientation discrimination. After Goodridge, however, “marriage” includes gay marriage, so no such haven would have been available in Massachusetts.

Precisely because support for marriage is public policy, once marriage includes gay couples, groups who oppose gay marriage are likely to be judged in violation of public policy, triggering a host of negative consequences, including the loss of tax-exempt status. Because marriage is not a private act, but a protected public status, the legalization of gay marriage sends a strong signal that orientation is now on a par with race in the nondiscrimination game. And when we get gay marriage because courts have declared it a constitutional right, the signal is stronger still.

The method and the mechanism for achieving protected status may be different for orientation and for race. Even the Massachusetts supreme court, for example, declined to rule explicitly that orientation is a protected class, subject to strict scrutiny. But in Massachusetts, the end result may be similar. If state courts declare gay marriage a constitutional right, they are likely to see support for gay marriage as state public policy.

On the cultural level, the declaration by a court that only animus explains why anyone would treat two men differently from a husband and wife represents an unfolding civil rights logic that has real consequences. As Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman put it, “But if you give one church permission to discriminate against gays, what’s next? Permission to discriminate against blacks or Jews who want to adopt?”

End Game

On April 15, the Boston Globe ran a story about three other Catholic adoption agencies, in Worcester, Fall River, and Springfield, that do not do gay adoptions. The story noted that, for now, these agencies will not be punished for their refusal. Constantia Papanikolaou, general counsel for the state Department of Early Education and Care, said her agency is holding off taking any action because the governor has proposed legislation that would provide a religious exemption for adoption agencies. “We’re going to wait and see how the legislation plays out,” Papanikolaou said.

The reprieve is likely to be short-lived. Observers universally say the religious exemption has no chance of passage, and in a few months, Mitt Romney will no longer be governor. What then? The Boston Globe story provides a clue: “Gary Buseck, legal director of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders in Boston, said his group realizes that Massachusetts will have a new governor next year, and it expects that he or she will aggressively enforce the state’s antidiscrimination laws.”

Marc Stern is looking more and more like a reluctant prophet: “It’s going to be a train wreck,” he told me in the offices of the American Jewish Congress high above Manhattan. “A very dangerous train wreck. I don’t see anyone trying to stem the train wreck, or slow down the trains. Both sides are really looking for Armageddon, and they frankly both want to win. I prefer to avoid Armageddon, if possible.”

Maggie Gallagher is president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (marriagedebate.com) and coauthor of The Case for Marriage.

==============================

Public Opposition to Gay Marriage Remains High (Christian Post, 060523)

A new Gallup poll released just weeks before a scheduled senate debate over the federal marriage amendment revealed that public opposition to gay marriage remains at a constant majority.

A poll of 1,002 adults taken from May 8-11 and released on Monday showed that 58% of American adults oppose extending the definition of marriage to include homosexuals; Thirty-nine percent said they would support such a redefinition. The poll also showed that 50% favor and 47% oppose a constitutional federal marriage amendment.

The results follow a close party-line vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week on a constitutional marriage amendment, which is headed for the Senate floor beginning the week of June 5.

This month’s results are similar to figures from other Gallup polls in recent years. In August 2005, some 59% of Americans opposed gay marriage, while in May 2005, opposition stood at 55%. Support for a marriage amendment has also remained consistent, at 50% in March 2004, 57% in March 2005, and 53% in April 2006.

Also as in the past, opposition to gay marriage remained significantly higher among Republicans than Democrats. Some 79% of Republicans oppose gay marriage while 53% of Democrats support it.

Opposition remains higher among those who attend religious services than the non-religious – 77% of service-goers oppose such marriages compared to 51% of those who seldom or never attend church.

Senators are scheduled to begin consideration of the Marriage Protection Amendment on June 5, with a floor vote expected on June 6 or 7.

==============================

With this Bill . . .The Senate debates marriage. (Weekly Standard, 060529)

JUNE 6, 2006, is an important date, not only because it’s the 62nd anniversary of D-Day. It’s also the day the Senate will vote on the so-called marriage amendment, which would amend the Constitution to restrict marriage in America to a man and a woman.

It won’t pass. A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House. When the Senate voted in 2004, the amendment got only 48 votes. This time, it’s likely to get more—probably between 52 and 58—in part because a powerful and unusually ecumenical religious coalition is now backing the amendment. And President Bush, despite his wife Laura’s admonition that the marriage issue ought to be kept out of politics, plans to host a pro-amendment event at the White House and speak out in favor of the amendment.

Once dismissed as a sop to social conservatives, the proposed amendment has become a serious rallying point for opponents of same-sex marriage. The June 6 vote will put senators on the record and make their position on the amendment a potential campaign issue. And the formation of the religious coalition means the issue won’t go away soon.

Much of the conventional wisdom about the amendment and the marriage issue turns out to be wrong. For instance, the amendment is not being pushed by Republicans as a wedge issue aimed at dividing Democratic voters. Republican senators regard the issue as touchy and awkward. In fact, they agree with First Lady Laura Bush, who said on Fox News Sunday that the

subject of gay marriage “requires a lot of sensitivity” and shouldn’t “be used as a campaign tool.” They’d prefer the issue—and the amendment—go away.

When Majority Leader Bill Frist asked Senate Republican committee chairmen in 2004 if they wanted him to schedule a vote on the amendment, none urged him to. Frist did anyway. This year, the same was true. He received no pressure from Republican senators for a vote. Instead, his talks with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council led Frist to put at least a day of debate on the amendment, then a vote, on the Senate schedule.

The hands-off attitude of Republican senators, Perkins says, “does not reflect what’s happening in the states.” Whenever a referendum barring same-sex marriage gets on the ballot, it’s nearly always approved by 70% or more of voters, he noted.

A second misconception is that it’s sufficient for an elected official merely to declare his opposition to gay marriage. It’s not anymore. The question now is whether an official will support efforts to block gay marriage from being imposed by judges at the federal or state level. And the way to do that in the Senate is to vote for the amendment.

The conventional wisdom in the political community is also wrong on another point: that the marriage amendment won’t have a significant role in the race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. It will. A Gallup poll found two-thirds of Republicans back the amendment. Perkins, for one, insists the marriage issue has “reached the same plane as the right to life issue” among Republican voters. “I don’t think you can win the presidential nomination without endorsing the marriage amendment,” Perkins says.

This is a huge problem for Senator John McCain, the Republican frontrunner in 2008. McCain has moved to the right on taxes and abortion and recently reconciled with Jerry Falwell, the prominent conservative Christian. He drew sharp criticism for the Falwell overture and is leery of shifting again and being accused of pandering to the Christian Right.

McCain voted against the amendment in 2004. And he repeated his opposition on Fox News Sunday last month. “I will vote against it because I believe very strongly, first of all, in the sanctity of union between man and woman, but I also believe that the states should make these decisions.” Many religious conservatives regard this as an unacceptable dodge.

Why? Because states have already been thwarted in their efforts to make these decisions. The problem is not voters or legislators. They overwhelmingly support traditional marriage. Thirty-seven states have enacted laws in recent years—19 by referendum, the others by statute—to bar gay marriage. The problem is judges. On May 16, a Georgia judge struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage, which had been enacted in 2004 with 76% of the vote. The judge seized on a technical point, ruling the referendum covered two issues, same-sex marriage and civil unions, and not one, as Georgia law required. In truth, the referendum was drafted to deal with one issue, the protection of heterosexual marriage. At least nine states face lawsuits challenging their traditional marriage laws.

In Nebraska as well, a federal judge on May 12 nullified a referendum barring gay marriage. And in Massachusetts, the state supreme court by a 4-3 vote imposed same sex marriage, basing its decision on a state constitution adopted centuries before gay marriage became an issue.

In response, the Religious Coalition for Marriage was formed specifically to back the amendment. It grew out of two conferences of religious leaders and academics organized by Professor Robert George of Princeton. George and others found politicians, even conservative ones, are “afraid” to oppose gay marriage by backing the amendment: “They don’t like to talk about it.” The coalition was created to put strong public pressure on both politicians and judges.

The coalition’s initial statement said: “We take the unprecedented stand of uniting to call for a constitutional amendment to establish a uniform national definition of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman. . . . This is the only measure that will adequately protect marriage from those who would circumvent the legislative process and force a redefinition of it on the whole of our society.”

What’s surprising about the coalition is its breadth. It includes all eight Catholic cardinals in America, liberal and conservative, plus officials of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the Church of God in Christ, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), among others.

As for Bush, he will appear on June 5 in the Rose Garden before a gathering of amendment supporters and, a White House official says, “strongly support” the amendment. The president has rarely mentioned the amendment in the past. The choice of the Rose Garden as a venue means he is raising the marriage amendment to a higher level on his agenda, his wife’s advice notwithstanding.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard and author of Rebel-in-Chief (Crown Forum).

==============================

Gay agenda means less freedom for all (townhall.com, 060529)

by Star Parker

The latest Gallup polling on attitudes regarding same-sex marriage shows a trend that should concern conservatives as well as all Americans.

From the narrow view of just the same-sex marriage issue, although the majority of Americans are still opposed to legalization, they are a lot less opposed than they were in the a decade ago. From the vantage point of homosexual activists, the trend certainly appears to be their friend.

Moreover, given how this debate is formulated and presented, I see a broader message emerging. I get a sense that Americans are increasingly confusing entitlement and political power with freedom and tolerance. This does not bode well for the future of a free and vibrant country.

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

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

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

A more qualitative measure of this trend is to just listen to how the debate is cast.

A Washington Post editorial opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment accuses Republicans of “picking on gays and lesbians.” According to the Post, such an amendment would “discriminate against a class of people.”

Mary Cheney in her new book equates this alleged discrimination to denial of rights in the past to women and blacks and prohibitions against interracial marriage.

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

Philosophers of science point out that there is nothing we can prove. We can only disprove things. The only thing that it takes to disprove something is to find one incident where the theory doesn’t work.

We have, for instance, a law of gravity. However, if we find one morning, while someone is eating their bowl of cheerios, that their spoon jumps out of their hand and flies up to the ceiling, we kiss goodbye to our law of gravity.

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

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

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

The more we obscure where choice lies and the more we obscure where responsibility lies, we become increasingly transformed into a political entitlement society rather than a free and tolerant society.

If gay activists really wanted freedom, as opposed to advancing a particular political agenda, they would be hard at work moving government control out of areas of our society that limit their as well as everyone else’s freedom.

They should be fighting for nationwide school choice, so they can send their children to schools that teach what they want. They should be fighting for private social security accounts and so they could stop complaining about discrimination in survivor benefits. They should fight for private health care accounts and getting corporations out of the benefits providing business and so they could stop complaining about discrimination in benefits toward gay couples.

Unfortunately, this is not happening. From what I see, despite the hijacking of the language of freedom, rights, and discrimination, this movement is about sleight of hand and political power.

And, more unfortunately, it appears to be succeeding. Particularly among our young people.

==============================

No Excuses: Top three bad reasons for opposing a federal marriage amendment. (National Review Online, 060602)

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) comes up for a vote very soon. Those who favor homosexual “marriage” or polygamy have obvious reasons for opposing the amendment. But some of those who claim to believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman also oppose the amendment, albeit for different reasons. Here are some of the most popular bad excuses for voting against the FMA:

1. Marriage should be left to the states.

The FMA does leave marriage to the states. If a legislature wants to legalize homosexual “marriage,” it can do so. What the FMA does is stop federal and state courts from forcing states to allow same sex “marriage.” So if you’re pro-state choice, you should support the FMA.

2. The FMA would write discrimination into the Constitution.

The Constitution already discriminates in countless ways. You can’t vote if you’re under 18. You can’t become president if you weren’t born a U.S. citizen. You can’t vote in the Senate unless you are a senator (or, in case of a tie, the vice president). The question is whether reserving marriage to a man and a woman is a worthy thing to do.

3. We don’t need the FMA yet. Let’s wait until a federal court forces a state to accept same-sex “marriage.”

This excuse is like saying we should not shore up the levees until after a hurricane or flood knocks them down. Be serious.

So far, every state marriage amendment has passed by overwhelming margins. But state laws, even state constitutional amendments, are no obstacle to a federal court bent on imposing its view of “inclusive” marriage. To oppose the FMA out of devotion to the homosexual (or gender-is-irrelevant) worldview is honest, if misguided. But to oppose the FMA for other reasons is, at best, just plain misguided.

—Walter M. Weber, senior litigation counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice, has specialized in constitutional law for over 20 years.

==============================

Smoking Gun: The Netherlands shows the effect of same-sex marriage. (National Review Online, 060602)

By Stanley Kurtz

The numbers for 2005 are in, and the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has done it again, shooting up a striking 2.5%age points. That makes nine consecutive years of average two-percentage-point increases in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate, a rise unmatched by any country in Western Europe during the same period. Ever since the Dutch passed registered partnerships in 1997, followed by formal same-sex marriage in 2000, their out-of-wedlock birthrate has been moving up at a striking clip. That fact has created a serious problem for advocates of same-sex marriage. (For a visual on this, see the chart in “Going Dutch?” and imagine two further years of two-percentage point increases in 2004 and 2005.

In the last decade, only Eastern Europe has seen an increase in out-of-wedlock birthrates comparable to the Netherlands (even there, only Bulgaria’s rates are rising faster than the Netherlands’). Demographers explain the stunning increase in Eastern Europe’s out-of-wedlock birthrates by pointing to the economic and cultural traumas set off by the collapse of Communism. How striking that a prosperous country like the Netherlands should experience a spike in out-of-wedlock birthrates matched only by a region recovering from the collapse of its entire social system.

In several previous pieces (“Going Dutch?” “No Explanation,” “Dutch Debate,” and “Standing Out”) I’ve argued that the Dutch example provides us with a best-case scenario for isolating the negative causal impact of same-sex marriage on marriage itself. Increasingly, same-sex marriage advocates are running out of ways to explain the Dutch data away.

Too Early?

In their book, Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse?, William Eskridge and Darren Spedale say it’s too early to draw conclusions from the Dutch experience. Too early? We’ve had a continuous nine-year spike in out-of-wedlock birthrates since the passage of registered partnerships, and a five-year continuous spike since formal gay marriage went into effect. Scholars recognized the first nine years of demographic upheaval in Eastern Europe following the collapse of Communism as significant. So why aren’t nine years of comparable change in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate also significant (especially since there’s nothing else like it in Western Europe)?

I’ve argued that the long Dutch campaign for same-sex marriage (which began around 1990) helped set the stage for the big continuous spike in out-of-wedlock birthrates that began in 1997. Gay-marriage advocates rejected the idea that marriage is intrinsically connected to parenthood, and the Dutch public bought that argument. Once marriage stops being about binding mothers and fathers together for the sake of the children they create, the need to get married gradually disappears. That’s why I’ve argued that the successful campaign for same-sex marriage led to the spike in Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrates. A preliminary spike between 1994 and 1995 was likely influenced by this long public debate, even before formal passage of registered partnerships in 1997.

Eskridge and Spedale dismiss the notion that the long and successful battle for same-sex marriage could have had any effect on the Dutch public. According to Eskridge and Spedale, the Dutch campaign for same-sex marriage merely “consisted of a few lawsuits brought by a handful of lesbian and gay activists.” The campaign “had virtually no public visibility,” say Eskridge and Spedale: “Only a tiny number of straight people, and a minority of gays, would even have been aware that lesbians and gay men were seeking the right to marry....”

A Public Campaign

The Dutch gay community’s own history of the campaign for same-sex marriage shows otherwise. (See “No gay marriage in the Netherlands.”) This history details an extensive and highly visible public effort throughout the early 1990’s and beyond. Around 100 Dutch municipalities set up symbolic gay-marriage registries (much like the mayor of San Francisco and other municipalities here in the United States after the Massachusetts Goodridge decision), with ceremonies sometimes attended by hundreds of people demonstrating their support for gay marriage. These ceremonies, along with public petitions, and pressure for partnership recognition on prominent Dutch businesses, provoked a national debate on same-sex marriage that forced reluctant politicians to act. As the Dutch gay community’s own history emphasizes, public opinion polls throughout the early 1990s show that the campaign worked. Ever-larger percentages of the Dutch public came to favor same-sex marriage: it was at 73% by 1995.

What is the purpose of a movement if not to change fundamentally the way the public thinks? In the Dutch case, we know the movement for same-sex marriage succeeded. When they aren’t denying the obvious truth that public campaigns matter, Eskridge and Spedale make the point themselves. In their account of the Danish struggle for same-sex unions, Eskridge and Spedale describe polls showing growing public support for registered partnerships as the debate proceeded, but before the law was actually passed. Is it surprising that the same thing happened in the Netherlands?

Why has so much heat been generated over the seemingly uncontroversial point that the long Dutch campaign for gay marriage had an effect on the public’s view of marriage? Gay-marriage proponents care about this issue because of that preliminary spike in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate in 1995. Since this small spike occurred before the passage of registered partnerships in 1997, gay-marriage proponents argue that the big uptick in Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrates began even before new laws were passed. Supposedly, if Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrates began to rise even before the passage of registered partnerships in 1997, this would somehow prove that gay marriage had nothing to do with the huge, continuous nine-year spike in out-of-wedlock birthrates after the passage of registered partnerships in 1997, and formal gay marriage in 2000. But the critics are wrong on several counts.

To begin with, it’s a mistake to pretend that only legal changes matter. If a campaign convinces nearly three quarters of the Dutch public that marriage has little to do with parenthood, this can easily have an effect on behavior well before any new laws get passed. But for the sake of argument, let’s say the two-percentage point rise in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate in 1995 had absolutely nothing to do with the previous five-year-long debate over same-sex marriage. That still wouldn’t begin to explain away the continuous nine-year spike in out-of-wedlock birthrates following the passage of registered partnerships in 1997, or formal gay marriage in 2000. You can’t extrapolate from a rate spike in a single year to the longest continuous Western European rate spike of the last decade.

Not Inevitable

No matter what happened in 1995, there was nothing inevitable about the extraordinary and continuous nine-year acceleration in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birth-rate from 1997 to 2005. In 2002, for example, demographers David Coleman and Joop Garssen published, “The Netherlands: paradigm or exception in Western Europe’s demography?” (I discuss that article in “Going Dutch?”) Coleman and Garssen concentrated on data through 1998, so they were well aware of the small spike in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate in 1995, and of the consecutive rises in 1997 and 1998. Although Coleman and Garssen knew that the Netherlands’ famously low out-of-wedlock birthrate was on the rise, they did not assume (nor should they have assumed) that the rate spike would continue for nine consecutive years. On the contrary, at the time, it still seemed as though the Netherlands represented a relatively moderate and stable alternative to the Scandinavian pattern of large-scale parental cohabitation. Coleman and Garssen were interested in the Dutch case because it still looked as though Holland was not going the way of Scandinavia. Yet in just a few short years, because of the ongoing and unexpected acceleration in the out-of-wedlock birthrate, that prognosis has changed. As the more recent report by Dutch demographer Jan Latten confirms, the Netherlands seems to be going the way of Scandinavia after all. (See “Trends in Cohabiting and Marriage” and my discussion of Latten’s report in “Standing Out.”)

So in the unlikely event that the highly successful campaign for same-sex marriage did nothing to shift Dutch views of marriage prior to the passage of registered partnerships, that would still leave same-sex marriage advocates with the problem of explaining the continuous nine year spike in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate, beginning with the passage of registered partnerships in 1997, and continuing through the five years of experience with formal gay marriage between 2001 and 2005.

Failed Explanations

Recognizing this, Eskridge and Spedale make a perfunctory attempt to explain away the data. They suggest that the accelerating Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate is being produced by the entry of women into the workforce, much as we saw in Scandinavia. Yet in “No Explanation,” I’ve shown that the work patterns of Dutch women are very different from the work practices of Scandinavian women. In marked contrast to Scandinavia, Holland is the land of the “mommy track,” where women work part-time, and where the childcare sector is still small and largely private.

Eskridge and Spedale further suggest that the spike in out-of-wedlock birthrates may be explained by the fact that Dutch registered partnerships are accessible to heterosexual as well as homosexual couples. Yet in “No Explanation,” I show that this is not the case. The number of registered heterosexual partnerships is too small to explain the huge surge in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate. Nor do Eskridge and Spedale address my points on women’s work or registered partnerships.

Eskridge and Spedale also claim that, contrary to my own account of the debate, Dutch advocates put forward a “conservative case” for gay marriage. The official history of the movement for Dutch same-sex marriage (linked above) tells a different tale. Nor do Eskridge and Spedale address my detailed account of the Dutch legislative debate over same-sex marriage, in which this reform was treated by legislators on all sides as anything but conservative (see “Going Dutch?”).

So despite efforts to explain away the continuous nine-year spike in the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate since the passage of registered partnerships in 1997, and formal gay marriage in 2000 (an increase unmatched in Western Europe, and virtually unmatched even in Eastern Europe), the case of the Netherlands constitutes powerful evidence for the negative causal effect of same-sex marriage.

Back to Scandinavia

I’ve already responded to Eskridge and Spedale on the subject of Scandinavian marriage (see “No Nordic Bliss”). Yet the new Dutch data returns us to the question of Scandinavia. We’ve seen that the continuation of statistical trends cannot be taken for granted. Although out-of-wedlock birthrates bumped up a bit in the Netherlands in the mid-nineties, it was neither inevitable nor predictable that they would accelerate for so long. Nor was it inevitable that the decline of marriage in Scandinavia would continue after the advent of registered partnerships. Eskridge and Spedale dismiss post-registered-partnership increases in Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates as the mere continuation of pre-existing trends. In contradiction to this, Eskridge and Spedale tout small resurgences in Scandinavian marriage rates, as if they prove that gay marriage strengthens marriage. So for Eskridge and Spedale, Scandinavian martial decline is inevitable...until it isn’t. In fact, post-registered- partnership increases in Swedish and Norwegian out-of-wedlock birthrates were not inevitable, and the slight recent resurgence in Scandinavian marriage rates has nothing to do with registered partnerships.

Talk about setting the bar high—Eskridge and Spedale say that the only acceptable proof of gay partnerships’ negative effect on Scandinavian marriage would be a 100% out-of-wedlock birthrate! That is an unserious claim, which merely shows that Eskridge and Spedale are ignoring key parts of my argument. I’ve said from the beginning that the ongoing deterioration of Scandinavian marriage has been partially offset and disguised (especially in Denmark) by “catching up” (delayed childbirth by older working women), and by remarriage among the large pool of divorced.

I’ve also argued that sharp initial accelerations in Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates were bound to slow down. That’s because Scandinavians tend to use the first out-of-wedlock child as a test for a possible marriage. Only gradually are Scandinavians giving up on marriage after the birth of even the second child. Given factors like “catching up,” remarriage among the divorced, and the tendency to marry before the birth of the second child, there is no way I would expect to see an acceleration of Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates to 100% in the wake of registered partnerships. The ongoing growth in Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates, especially as they move through the “tougher” territory of second and third births, is itself quite significant, and can in no way be taken for granted.

Eskridge and Spedale would be more convincing if they acknowledged and addressed my points about catching up, remarriage among divorced, and the greater likelihood of marriage before the birth of the second child. Yet they ignore these points, and instead demand absurd proofs, like 100% out-of-wedlock birthrates.

Eskridge and Spedale also fail to address the regional comparison so critical to my treatment of Norway. Marriage has deteriorated far more markedly in Norway’s socially liberal, gay-marriage-accepting north than in its more conservative, religious south. Eskridge and Spedale effectively ignore this comparison, falsely characterizing my regional case as merely anecdotal. (For more on the regional issue in Norway, and on the birth-order issue, see “Unhealthy Half-Truths.”)

Smoking Gun?

This brings us back to the Netherlands. The Netherlands is so important because it provides evidence for an actual acceleration of out-of-wedlock birthrates following the passage of same-sex unions—proof demanded by Eskridge and Spedale. We see this in the Netherlands because, in contrast to Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates were relatively low in Holland prior to the advent of registered partnerships and gay marriage. So in the Netherlands, we aren’t comparing apples and oranges (out-of-wedlock births for second-born children and above, as opposed to first-born children). In the Netherlands, we are still largely dealing with an increase in out-of-wedlock births for first children. And the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate has in fact accelerated dramatically following the introduction of legal same-sex unions.

All indications are that the Dutch case is a causal smoking gun for gay marriage’s negative effects. Although the matter is fair game for continued debate, no one has yet offered a convincing alternative explanation, or even fully confronted the arguments already on the table. At a bare minimum, the rapid and ongoing deterioration of Dutch marriage shows that the “conservative case” for same-sex marriage has been proven wrong in the Netherlands. Convince the public that marriage is not about parenthood, and increasingly parents simply stop getting married.

==============================

Why So Few? Looking at what we know about same-sex marriage. (National Review Online, 060605)

Why have so few gays chosen to marry? A new study by Maggie Gallagher’s Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (iMAPP) estimates that, in countries that legally recognize same-sex unions, typically between 1% and 5% of gays and lesbians have entered into a same-sex marriage. Obviously, that is a very low number. Much of the argument for gay marriage turns on the claim that same-sex couples need the cultural, legal, and economic benefits of marriage. Yet if only a small number of gays actually marry, the practical impact of the change on gays themselves would be minimal.

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to maintain stable families for the children they create. It would be a mistake to undercut that purpose by redefining marriage, whatever the take-up rate for same-sex unions. Yet, for those receptive to arguments for same-sex marriage, the case for this reform would be greatly weakened if it turned out that only a few gays actually marry.

And there’s more at stake than numbers. Since the “conservative case” for same-sex marriage holds that marriage will import a more conservative ethos to the gay community, we need to know something besides how many same-sex couples actually marry. If substantial numbers of gay couples take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage, while simultaneously rejecting traditional martial norms (like monogamy), that would greatly weaken the “conservative case” for same-sex marriage.

Despite the few short years formal same-sex marriage has been available, we can now offer some preliminary answers to questions about why so few gays marry, and how those gays who have married understand their unions. The iMAPP study covered only countries that have formal same-sex marriage, with data going back, at most, five years (for the Netherlands). Yet a turn to Scandinavia provides a fuller story. A series of recent empirical studies on Scandinavian registered partnerships have made available a fascinating body of data about a same-sex partnership system that has been in existence for 17 years in Denmark, 13 years in Norway, and 12 years in Sweden (19 years if we go back to the same-sex unions Sweden created in 1987).

The new studies show that after nearly two decades of Scandinavian registered partnerships, only a very small number of gays have actually entered legal unions. And there are clear indications are that even many couples who have registered may be doing so more for legal benefits than because they aspire to traditional marital norms. In short, there are now clear signs that same-sex marriage is not working the way its defenders claim it should, even for gays.

De Facto Marriage

Before turning to the new Scandinavian studies, we need to consider an obvious objection. Scandinavian same-sex unions are “registered partnerships,” not “marriage.” Presumably, the iMAPP study excluded data on take-up rates for Scandinavian same-sex unions because they were not formal “marriage.” Yet there is good reason to believe that take-up rates for Scandinavian registered partnerships are not substantially different than they would be for formal marriage.

The title of an important new study by prominent Scandinavian demographers, Gunnar Andersson, Turid Noack (and associates) tells the tale: “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden.”

Andersson and Noack use the terms “registered partnership” and “same-sex marriage” interchangeably, explaining that Scandinavians generally see registered partnerships as a de facto form of marriage. To be sure, in addition to their unions being called something other than “marriage,” Scandinavian registered partners were initially not permitted to adopt children, to receive state funded artificial insemination, or to be married in the state church. (Many of those differences have now fallen away, especially in Sweden and Denmark.) Yet few Scandinavian gays and lesbians consider these exclusions barriers to registration.

Along with the work of Andersson and Noack, a recent book by William Eskridge and Darren Spedale, Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse? sheds light on Scandinavian registered partnerships. Eskridge and Spedale criticize me in their book, and I’ve responded to them in “No Nordic Bliss,” “Zombie Killers,” and “Smoking Gun.” Certainly, I find the rosy picture of Scandinavian registered partnerships painted by Eskridge and Spedale unconvincing and incomplete. Notwithstanding my objections to their broader approach, however, Eskridge and Spedale provide us with some fascinating material. And one point they make convincingly is that the differences between registered partnerships and formal same-sex marriage do not account for the low take-up rate.

In their conversations with registered partners, and in an online survey of 812 Danish gays and lesbians, Eskridge and Spedale found that most gay Danes consider registered partnerships and marriage to be “about the same thing.” Words like “marriage” and “spouse” are frequently used to describe the relationship of registered partners. And very few respondents said they would be any more likely to enter a union if “partnerships” were converted to formal “marriage.” Eskridge and Spedale note that the lifting of adoption restrictions in Sweden and Denmark has had no discernable effect on partnership registration rates.

The experience of the Netherlands with a system of registered partnerships also suggests that take-up rates for such an institution do not substantially differ from rates of same-sex marriage. After an initial surge of 3,010 Dutch same-sex partnership registrations during the first year of availability in 1998, registrations leveled off to 1,757 in 1999 and 1,600 in 2000. When Dutch same-sex marriage came into effect in 2001, there was an initial surge of 2,414 marriages (many converted from prior registered partnerships), followed by a leveling off to 1,838 in 2002, 1,499 in 2003, 1,210 in 2004, and 1,166 in 2005. So in both the initial surge pattern, and in absolute amounts, the take-up rates, first for Dutch registered partnerships and then for Dutch same-sex marriage, have been about the same. If anything, the Dutch same-sex marriage rate is down somewhat from the earlier rates of registered partnerships.

In short (and following Andersson, Noack, Eskridge, and Spedale), it seems perfectly fair to take the nearly two-decade-long experience of Scandinavia with same-sex registered partnerships as a rough approximation of what take-up rates would have been had full and formal gay marriage been in effect during the same period.

Very Low Numbers

According to Andersson and Noack, the incidence of same-sex marriage in Norway and Sweden is “not particularly impressive.” As Eskridge and Spedale put it, the number of same-sex couples in legal unions is “at best, modest.” Given the numbers, even these characterizations border on understatement. Andersson and Noack’s data on Norway run from 1993 through 2001. In that time, a mere1,293 same-sex partnerships were contracted. During the same period, 196,000 heterosexual marriages were entered into in Norway. That indicates a ratio of about 7 new same-sex marriages for every 1,000 new opposite-sex marriages. The Swedish numbers are starker still. Andersson and Noack show a mere 1,526 same-sex partnerships registered in Sweden between 1995 and 2002. Given the 280,000 heterosexual marriages recorded during the same period, we are talking about 5 same-sex partnerships per thousand heterosexual marriages. These ratios of same-sex partnerships to opposite-sex marriages are considerably lower than various estimates of the proportion of gays in the population.

These comparisons are important, because one of the key objections to the iMAPP study was that it did not offer a clear juxtaposition of the yearly marriage rates of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Drawing on comments by UCLA demographer, Gary Gates, same-sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch argued that it was unfair to compare the small percentage of gays who had married in just a few years (in, say, the Netherlands) with the massive accumulated number of heterosexual marriages contracted over decades. Yet the Andersson-Noack study does give us a comparison of yearly marriage rates between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and the results continue to show a strikingly low rate of same-sex marriage.

In fact, the differences are larger than the numbers indicate. In a response to Rauch, Maggie Gallagher noted that comparisons of yearly marriage rates have their own drawbacks. After all, said Gallagher, since gays start out with 0% married, you would expect them to get married at a higher yearly rate than heterosexuals, many of whom are already “taken.” Given that, the striking discrepancies in yearly marriage rates between Scandinavian heterosexuals and homosexuals are all the more impressive.

Any way you slice it–whether as a proportion of the total gay population, or as a likelihood of getting married in any given year–Scandinavian gays are far less likely to get married than heterosexuals. In contrast to Andersson and Noack’s yearly-marriage-rate comparison, Eskridge and Spedale offer an estimate of married gays as a proportion of the total gay population. Using estimates of the gay population ranging from 1% to 5% of national populations, Eskridge and Spedale say that anywhere from less than 10% (they don’t give an actual figure) to less than 1% of Scandinavian gays have taken advantage of registered partnerships.

For the BenEFITS

So the numbers of Scandinavian gays actually getting married are very low. But that’s only the beginning. What proportion of the already very small number of Scandinavian registered partners enter their unions with what we might call a reasonably “conservative” attitude? The answer is uncertain, yet there are strong indications that, despite the tendency to call these unions “marriage,” a great many registered partners have decidedly untraditional views about what their unions entail.

In that online survey of 812 Danish gays and lesbians run by Eskridge and Spedale, 49% of respondents claimed that their “primary” reason for entering into a registered partnerships was, or would be, to secure the legal rights of marriage. Only around 41% said that demonstrating their commitment to their partner or their community was, or would be, their chief motivation for registering. We don’t have results for a comparable heterosexual population, yet it’s striking that so many Danish gays see partnership as chiefly a matter of legal benefits. It seems unlikely that half of heterosexuals would say that securing legal benefits was their “primary” reason for getting married. At any rate, that sort of response from heterosexuals would indicate a significant hollowing out of marriage.

The reported focus of Danish gays on the legal benefits of marriage, rather than on the relationship, tells us something meaningful. As an explanation for low European take-up rates, University of Minnesota professor of law and same-sex marriage advocate Dale Carpenter notes that many gays take an “oppositional” stance toward social convention. “Just give us the benefits of marriage and you can keep the word,” is one way Carpenter describes that oppositional attitude. In her 1999 study, From This Day Forward, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that even many of those American gays and lesbians who actually disdain traditional marriage (and even gay commitment ceremonies) might possibly get legally married. Why? For “the bennies”–the financial and legal benefits of marriage. So gay couples with an interest in the legal benefits of marriage can have a decidedly unconservative view of the institution itself. Returning to Denmark, the fact that fully half of those gays surveyed said benefits were their “primary” reason for marrying suggests that the number of Danish registered partners with a “conservative” attitude toward their unions may be far smaller than the already minimal partnership registration numbers would indicate.

To a degree, Eskridge and Spedale concede this. Same-sex couples approach legal union “with more pragmatism than their heterosexual counterparts,” they say. Even the couple Eskridge and Spedale select as their demographically “typical” registered partners saw no reason to register for years, until concerns about death benefits that made them change their minds. At that point, this typical registered couple, like many others, told no one about their registration, so as to avoid a wedding ceremony altogether.

Immigration Marriages

The pragmatic cast of Scandinavian same-sex unions likely goes further still. While half of Scandinavian partners say they marry chiefly for the benefits, as many as one third of Scandinavian partners likely have a very specific benefit in mind. Around one third of Scandinavian registered partnerships involve a foreign-born member. The numbers are particularly striking for men. In Norway, 43% of male partnerships include a non-Norwegian citizen. In Sweden, the figure is 45%. Many of these cross-national unions are with non-Europeans.

This huge disproportion of dual-nationality unions suggests that many Scandinavian same-sex couples have married chiefly to facilitate immigration. Andersson and Noack clearly recognize this phenomenon. Eskridge and Spedale downplay it. They call immigration rights “only the tip of the iceberg” when it comes to the benefits of same-sex unions. Yet the numbers say that unions contracted primarily for immigration purposes probably represent, not merely the tip, but a huge part of the base of the iceberg. This suggests that, among the already extremely small number of Scandinavian same-sex partnerships, a far smaller number are undertaken for anything like “conservative” reasons.

So after an experiment in same-sex marriage that has lasted between one and two decades, Scandinavian marriage rates are still exceedingly low. As many as half of all partnerships may be undertaken primarily for legal benefits, and only secondarily, if at all, out of a “conservative” attitude toward union formalization. About a third of all same-sex unions involve non-citizens, often from non-European countries. Many of these partnerships would likely not have been entered at all were it not for the immigration rights.

In short, if registered partnerships were designed to bring a more stable and conservative family ethos to Scandinavia’s gays, far too few have married for this to have happened. And the actual attitudes of Scandinavian gays toward their marriages may be even less conservative than the numbers we’ve seen so far indicate. In Part II of “Why So Few?” we’ll see why.

—Stanley Kurtz is a fellow at the Hudson Institute.

==============================

The Senator who cried ‘bigot’ (townhall.com, 060606)

by Maggie Gallagher

Sen. Ted Kennedy certainly let us know what he really thinks of Americans who support the Marriage Protection Amendment, defining marriage as the union of husband and wife: “A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple.” According to Minority Leader Harry Reid, even suggesting the Constitution should protect marriage as the union of husband and wife constitutes something like hate speech: “For me, it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another,” Reid said. “This is another one of the president’s efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract and to confuse America.”

Gay marriage activists published even more vitriolic denunciations. My personal favorite came from Paula Ettelbrick, the NYU law professor who heads something called the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, a U.S.-based organization. She called the Marriage Protection Amendment “an unquestioned violation of international treaties” and a “clear violation of international human rights.”

I was in the room on Monday when President Bush made his remarks in support of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. I applauded with the rest of the crowd when he said: “Every American deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect and dignity. On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions run deep. And all of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another.”

I certainly believe that. But I have to wonder, do advocates for gay marriage also believe it? Will no one turn to Ted Kennedy and say, “Sir, have you no decency?” The six in 10 Americans who oppose gay marriage (and the majority who in the latest Gallup poll support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage) do not deserve to be denounced as bigots by their own elected officials.

The “B” word is also fueling new fears about the ultimate consequences of gay marriage. As Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said on the floor of the Senate: “Same-sex marriage proponents argue that sexual orientation is like race, and that opponents of same-sex marriage are therefore like bigots who oppose interracial marriage. Once same-sex marriage becomes law, that understanding is likely to be controlling.” Brownback pointed to a litany of potential negative consequences for traditional faiths: “So in states with same-sex marriage, religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, etc. will be forced to choose between violating their own deeply held beliefs and giving up government contracts, tax-exempt status, or even being denied the right to operate at all. ... It’s already happening, as we’ve seen in Massachusetts with Boston’s Catholic Charities being forced out of the adoption business entirely rather than violate church teaching on marriage and family.”

Brownback was drawing on the conclusions of an impressive group of religious liberty scholars, brought together by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty to consider the implications of same-sex marriage. (You can read the paper yourself at www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/494.html.)

For the foreseeable future, Americans are going to live with some deep moral disagreements on the marriage issue. Conducting this debate in a spirit of mutual respect and civility would be a lot easier if gay marriage advocates stopped pretending that only fear, hatred or bigotry is at the root of these disagreements.

==============================

Same-sex amendment? (townhall.com, 060606)

by William F. Buckley

Key figures in the administration have involved themselves in the matter of the amendment to limit marriage to members of complementary sexes. Mrs. Bush was heard to say on television that she hoped the question would not become a “campaign tool.” To let this happen, she suggested, would remove it from the moral plane on which it should travel.

Precisely such a plane is where Mrs. Cheney’s daughter Mary believes it belongs. She is a lesbian, a fact everywhere acknowledged but here noted with reluctance, because it oughtn’t to figure in the discussion. Ms. Cheney’s point is that the contemplated amendment is exactly that, a moral ruling given constitutional dress. If it were passed, it would be “writing discrimination into the Constitution, (which is) fundamentally wrong.”

Mrs. Bush’s appeal, however appealing, is not likely to inform the debate ahead. Almost all public issues tend to be politicized. The rule shouldn’t be strictly applied, but it is generally so that liberals, whose party is Democratic, tend to permissive alternatives. In the debate on Prohibition, which was passed with overwhelming popular endorsement in 1917, the anti-liquor forces were associated with that part of America on the warpath against sinful practices. It was a decade before liberals consolidated their position in favor of repeal, as urged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

It is an item of minor historical interest that the repeal of the 18th Amendment zipped through the state legislatures faster than any other in constitutional history. But those who wish to make a libertarian point against the amendment currently proposed have got to grope for appropriate language, which doesn’t come readily to mind.

Click to learn more...

Because the point at issue has to do not exclusively with connubial relations, but with the sanctions that are visited by the state on connubial unions. It is one thing for a state to decree that a man cannot have sexual relations with another man — such an intrusion attempts prohibitions that are blissfully unenforceable. What the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) was that sodomy is protected under the 14th Amendment. It did not rule that the state of Texas was required to enshrine homosexual unions as “marriages.”

The making of civil laws is a political enterprise. States have differed over the years on what it is that is required in order to qualify for a marriage license. The most obvious differences have had to do with age. Others require variable lengths of time between the filing of an application and the issuance of a license. Some have differing health requirements.

It is important to stress the point made by the president in advancing his defense of the marriage amendment. Sure, it has moral implications, but there is more to the amendment than that. What it seeks to do is to guard the right of individual states to devise their own requirements in the matter of marriage. We know that contemporary interpretations of the authority of the courts have had the effect of nullifying state authority in the matter. Already in Massachusetts, the highest state court has ruled that a law defining marriage conflicts with what amounts to state constitutional rights.

It is the point here that in an age of judicial activism, we have in effect the nullification of state laws. Not a single state legislature has passed a same-sex marriage law. But there is no reason to bet that when faced with such a law, the Supreme Court will deny itself the authority to override states that affirm traditional distinctions.

It is a pity that more time is not given to the constitutional question of state vs. federal authority. The reason for this has to do with the tendency of the Supreme Court in past decades to set itself up as a moral tribunal for the entire country. That superordination of the judiciary can’t be coped with except by a constitutional asseveration, and the only way to do this is by an amendment.

On the matter of how this will play politically, we have as the major contender, of course, the gay lobby. It is asking individual states to extend to homosexual unions the same accommodations it makes to marriages. That is a direct challenge to traditional assumptions. If a demand were made merely to extend identical protections to gay unions in matters of tax or inheritance, the issue could be negotiated without fearing to step on judicial toes.

As it works out, the Democratic Party will almost certainly associate itself with the opposition to the amendment — pleading individual “rights.” Whether Mr. Bush can succeed in bringing proper attention to the real issues at stake is, unhappily, bound up in the question of the prestige he now has, diminished by matters that do not affect the reasoning of his appeal for a constitutional amendment.

==============================

Senate rejects ‘gay marriage’ ban: But GOP supporters point to new votes, say lawmakers will be held accountable (WorldNetDaily, 060607)

The Senate rejected a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but supporters say the measure is gaining ground and today’s vote should help energize the Republican base.

The 49-48 tally was 11 short of the 60 needed to hold an up-or-down vote by the full Senate. A roll call showing how senators voted can be found here.

A sponsor of the joint resolution, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., warned opponents will have to answer for their positions.

“People are going to be responsible for this vote,” he said. “We are making progress in America on defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

Forty-five states have acted to define marriage in traditional terms, as a union between one man and one woman.

But one GOP opponent, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told the Senate he won’t support the federal amendment because most Americans “are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.”

Along with McCain, Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Judd Gregg, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and John Sununu voted against the cloture vote, which would end debate and move to an up-or-down tally. Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd voted for cloture.

Supporters argue an amendment is needed because of “judicial activism,” as courts have overturned marriage-protection acts in several states.

Yesterday, 81% of Alabama voters backed the state’s proposed constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Also, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted 136-61 in favor of that state’s Marriage Protection Amendment, the first step in the process toward full adoption.

The Senate’s joint resolution says:

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

A new ABC News poll shows affirms most Americans support the amendment’s definition of marriage, as between one man and one woman, but an equal number oppose amending the Constitution.

One new supporter, however, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., pointed out the measure is gaining new votes.

“That’s often what’s required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote,” he said.

A two-thirds majority is required to send an amendment to the states for ratification by three-quarters of the union.

After the vote, Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told reporters: For thousands of years, marriage — the union between a man and a woman — has been recognized as an essential cornerstone of society. ... We must continue fighting to ensure the Constitution is amended by the will of the people rather than by judicial activism.”

The House plans to take up the amendment next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. The vote will only be ceremonial, however, because constitutional amendments must first be passed by the Senate.

“This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans,” Boehner said. “We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote.”

A House vote in 2004 fell short of the two-thirds support required.

Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America, said in a statement it’s “inconceivable that the U.S. Senate didn’t ‘deem it necessary’ to protect marriage by refusing even to vote on the amendment.”

“Our country cannot function with radically different definitions of what constitutes this sacred union,” she said. “If the founders could have imagined a time when same-sex ‘marriage’ would be forced upon the people by judicial fiat, they would have established a uniform rule of marriage in the Constitution just as they did for naturalization and bankruptcy.”

CWA says it supports a single-sentence amendment that would strictly define marriage as between one man and one woman, and not leave any room for misinterpretation.

LaRue said it also would “remove cover from those in Congress who use their alleged concerns for civil unions to prevent Americans from voting to preserve marriage.”

Some opponents, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., have impugned the motives of the amendment’s supporters. Kennedy said a vote for the amendment would be a “vote for bigotry, pure and simple.”

Robert Knight, director of CWA’s Culture & Family Institute called Kennedy’s statement the “crudest and dumbest point made by a liberal opposing a federal marriage amendment.”

Knight said another point made by opponents is that “we have more important things to do.”

“Really?” he responded. “There’s nothing more important than protecting marriage and families, because without them, the United States faces a bleak future in which government is ‘Daddy and Mommy’ and the state keeps growing to pick up the pieces of the shattered social order. Marriage-phobic Europe is fast committing social suicide, but we don’t have to let liberals take the United States down that path.”

[NOTE: In my own state, Georgia, an amendment to our Constitution which would have protected marriage—which was approved by 74% of the voters in 2004—was thrown out on a technicality by an activist Superior Court judge.]

==============================

Constitutional Amendment on Marriage Fails (Foxnews, 060607)

WASHINGTON — A constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman stalled Wednesday in a 49-48 vote, but conservative backers say they are pleased to have had the vote nonetheless.

“For thousands of years, marriage — the union between a man and a woman — has been recognized as an essential cornerstone of society. ... We must continue fighting to ensure the Constitution is amended by the will of the people rather than by judicial activism,” said Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., after the vote.

A constitutional amendment needs two-thirds votes to pass, but first had to get through the procedural cloture vote, which requires 60 senators to agree to end the debate and move toward final passage.

Shy 11 votes to go to a final debate, few crossed the political aisle to vote against their party’s majority position. Republican Sens. John McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Judd Gregg, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and John Sununu voted against the cloture vote. Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd voted for it, as they did in 2004.

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and Democratic Sens. Chris Dodd and Jay Rockefeller were absent.

A two-thirds majority would have been required to send an amendment to the states for ratification by three-quarters of the union. But since constitutional amendments originate in the Senate, failure to get it through that body means any vote in the House is purely for ceremony.

Trying to put the best spin on it, Senate supporters said they were pleased with Wednesday’s outcome.

“There’s many of us who have not had an opportunity to debate and discuss this,” said Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., a freshman who gave his support to what has become a near-perennial vote.

“We’re building votes,” said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., another supporter who cast his first vote on the issue on Wednesday. “That’s often what’s required over several years to get there, particularly to a two-thirds vote.”

President Bush, who several times in the last week called for passage of the amendment, also expressed his satisfaction with the outcome.

“Today’s Senate vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment marks the start of a new chapter in this important national debate. ... Our nation’s founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution — and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an Amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress. My position on this issue is clear: marriage is the most fundamental institution of our society, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. The people must be heard on this issue,” he said in a statement.

A majority of Americans define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, as does the amendment, according to a new ABC News poll. But just as many oppose amending the Constitution, the poll found.

Forty-five of the 50 states have acted to define traditional marriage in ways that would ban same-sex marriage — 19 with their own state constitutional amendments and 26 with statutes.

“Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples,” said McCain, R-Ariz., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. He voted against the procedural maneuver to end debate.

Jody M. Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), said the vote was one of discrimination versus fairness.

“Forty-nine of our elected leaders voted to support legislation that would write discrimination against our loved ones into the Constitution. ... Without a shred of credible evidence, they shamefully concluded that ‘traditional’ marriages would be torn apart if we were to grant all Americans equal rights, and used this as their justification for their extreme position,” Huckaby said in a statement.

“On the other hand, 48 of our legislators displayed great courage and wisdom in opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. Whether they voted no because they believe that this bill is discriminatory, or because they believe that this should be left to the states and not a federal mandate, or because they believe this to be a deeply misplaced priority, they have made a tremendous statement. Their votes prove that this political pandering will not be tolerated,” the statement continued.

The House plans a vote on the amendment next month, said Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

“This is an issue that is of significant importance to many Americans,” Boehner told reporters. “We have significant numbers of our members who want a vote on this, so we are going to have a vote.”

Like the Senate, the House in 2004 fell short of the two-thirds vote needed.

==============================

Will It Go ‘Round in Circles? (Christian Post, 060523)

The decade of the 1970s was a unique period of creativity and innovation in many fields. They were strategic years in which our nation made many far-reaching, cultural choices. Many voices attempted to help us grasp the significance of the times in which we lived. Former gospel music artist, Billy Preston, wrote an entertaining song with deep prophetic overtones as his 1972 contribution to the generation’s understanding. A few of the lyrics follow:

I’ve got a song I ain’t got no melody

How’m I gonna sing it with my friends

Will it go round in circles

Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky

I’ve got a lil’ story ain’t got no moral

Let the bad guy win every once in a while

I’ve got a lil’ dance ain’t got no steps

I’m gonna let the music move me around

This era had a cultural war with changing sexual mores, young people re-examining their values, and a concern that our business community was selling us down the river for filthy lucre…sounds just like today!

Preston’s never-ending song is likened to a story without a moral, a dance without steps, and a bird that wanders in endless circles. As I thought back on the era, this song without a melody seems to have begun a decline in musical creativity—leading to music genres like hip hop and punk rock. The last 30 years also gave birth to a new genre of movies in which the “anti-hero” emerged from numerous amoral screen plays. Dance and the arts have also eclipsed from their popularity in the mid-20th century.

Not only was our music going around in circles in the ‘70s, our new-fangled cultural, spiritual, and emotional rituals took our entire society downhill quickly. Using commitment to traditional marriage as a barometer of moral decline, it is easy to perceive that the very fabric of our society was being ripped apart as we chanted, “Make love and not war.”

From 1970 to 2000, white marriage levels declined from 72.6% to 60%. Black marriages, however, dropped from roughly two-thirds to one-third during the same time span. During the ‘70s we examined everything except the impact our society was having on marriage. If we had only known the slippery slope on which we were treading, we would have made different choices.

As stated earlier, this millennium is just like the ‘70s in many ways. No wonder Ecclesiastes 1:9 says, “…what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (NIV). The major difference between the ‘70s and today is that now our foundational building blocks are being reconstructed. In the ‘70s, the sexual revolution redefined both the place of sex and the gender roles of our society. The concept of unisex has now given vent to gay and lesbian cultural expression in both fashion and attitude. In the new millennium, marriage is being redefined. The devaluation of marriage has the potential to destroy the nuclear family as we know it.

To discuss the redefinition of values and marriage may sound very lofty and esoteric. Nothing could be further from the truth. Attitudes form values and values become the ethical basis for actions. Actions create habits and habits form lifestyle patterns. Therefore, our thoughts about what goes on in people’s bedrooms can affect the course of our society. For the last 15 years or so, there has been a subtle battle to reclassify marriage and family. In 2004, Massachusetts courts raised the stakes in this winner-take-all poker game for the definition of marriage.

A constitutional amendment to protect marriage is a vital step in shielding our culture from self-destruction like the Greek and Roman cultures of antiquity. The work of Stanley Kurtz, a Harvard-trained sociologist, records the fact that Swedish and Dutch attempts to give all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples has resulted in two destructive trends. The first trend is longer singleness for adults due to a devaluation of this sacred institution. Second, out-of-wedlock births escalated in both nations dramatically. In Sweden, out-of wedlock births increased from 47% to 55% in only ten years. In the Netherlands, out-of wedlock births rose from 19% to 31% in just six years.

These statistics are especially disturbing given soaring out-of-wedlock births and greater singleness rates in the U.S. today. If not addressed, in thirty years we could have created an America in which over half of the population never gets married and most kids have absolutely no bond with their biological fathers. Christians everywhere must fight these trends by using three powerful tools – prayer, political involvement, and building positive marriages that the world can emulate. Today may be our last chance to keep our culture from “going round in circles.” Let’s make the decision to fly right…today!

Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Christian Post Guest Columnist

==============================

Australia Invalidates Gay-Relationship Law (Christian Post, 060613)

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) - Conservative Prime Minister John Howard’s federal government has invoked special powers to invalidate a territory’s law that had been the first in Australia giving legal recognition to same-sex relationships.

The Australian Capital Territory, which includes the national capital Canberra, last month became the first of Australia’s six states and two territories to legally recognize gay and lesbian relationships.

The new law established a domestic relationship — separate to marriage — under which same-sex couples were to be given the same rights as heterosexual partnerships.

Officials in Howard’s center-right coalition — which amended federal marriage laws in 2004 to ensure that only men and women can marry — opposed the law, saying it effectively legalized gay marriage.

Attorney General Philip Ruddock said the government had used its power over territories — which have their own Parliaments and operate in a similar way to states — to invalidate the law. The authority is rarely used.

“The ACT civil relationships ordinance has been disallowed,” Ruddock told reporters Tuesday.

“That means, in effect, that the legislative amendments introduced to establish a civil arrangement for same-sex parties and others in the ACT will no longer be law.”

==============================

False foundations: ‘Three of Hearts’ (townhall.com, 060615)

by Chuck Colson ( bio | archive )

Note: The subject matter of this commentary may not be suitable for children. Please use parental discretion.

Earlier this week, the cable network Bravo aired the documentary Three of Hearts: A Postmodern Family. The film is designed “to challenge conventional ideas of family,” according to director Susan Kaplan.

Three of Hearts shows two gay men, Steven Margolin and Sam Cagnina, bringing a woman into their relationship. For several years, the director followed Steven and Sam—and the woman they called their “wife,” Samantha Singh. (Sam actually married her, presumably on behalf of both men.) We see them interact with their families, run a business, and have a daughter, Siena. We do not find out until later which man is her father.

Click to learn more...

Significantly, at least two of the trio come from difficult family situations. In particular, Sam speaks movingly about what life was like with his father in and out of prison. He confesses, “I chose [Steven and Samantha] as my parents. . . . I need someone to try to take care of me.” All three are in therapy, and Sam’s therapist thinks it is likely that as he matures, he may outgrow the relationship—an indication of the immature attitudes that got this relationship started in the first place.

But it is Steven who leaves after thirteen years, just before Samantha’s second child is born. Now, battling over everything from business arrangements to dog-care expenses, everybody has a different opinion of their former relationship. And Sam admits, “I think we were all building a house on false foundations.”

Although Sam is helping Samantha raise both children, he has no legal rights to the little girl. Steven turns out to be Siena’s biological father—but he has her only for a few days every month.

On top of it all, Sam and Samantha no longer have a sexual relationship. Though they are still married, Samantha calls the marriage a “technicality.” On the film’s website, Sam explains, “What we both want eventually is to live next door to each other raising our children together; we will both live with someone we love.” Since Steven already has a new partner, this would give Siena six parental figures and three homes!

If your head is spinning, I don’t blame you. It’s hard, however, not to feel sorry for these unhappy and disillusioned people—but it’s also hard not to get upset with them for bringing children into such an inherently unstable situation. You have to wonder, what on earth were they thinking?

Ironically, the director and her subjects consider this a “political” film striking a blow against defenders of traditional marriage, and legislation like the federal marriage amendment. But if they’re really proposing a mess like this as an alternative to traditional families, they are shooting themselves in the foot. The film makes you root for traditional marriage. If these confused people had had more stable families, they might not have grown into the kind of adults who mess up their kids’ lives just to prove a point.

Although Bravo aired Three of Hearts earlier this week, it will probably air it again. If it does, this is once when I am going to suggest to you that you watch what is meant as propaganda for “alternative” marriage. Get your friends and family to watch it too, because what they are going to see is what a wreck we make of our lives when we ignore God’s plan for marriage and families. And those watching will gain a new understanding of why we must fight to protect and promote marriage.

==============================

The Die Is Cast (Christian Post, 060605)

Chuck Colson

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment

Today Mark Earley and I will be at the White House, meeting with President Bush and leaders of the pro-family movement. The president will then speak to the nation in support of the federal marriage amendment [Marriage Protection Amendment]. Thank God we have a president who supports this. I have discussed it with him several times, and I can tell you that he understands fully the social, cultural, and legal reasons why amending the Constitution is the only way to protect marriage.

Unfortunately, a lot of politicians don’t get it. They argue that we do not need a marriage amendment. If we want to keep marriage between one man and one woman – which they say they do – then all we have to do is pass state referenda. Nineteen states have already done so. So amending the U.S. Constitution is unnecessary.

Well, these politicians apparently do not understand the inexorable logic of a series of cases that make it virtually certain that when state statutes barring gay “marriage” reach the Supreme Court, they will be struck down. Other politicians understand all too well, and when they claim that we do not need a marriage amendment, they are being disingenuous.

Let me explain the precedents that make it inevitable that the Court will uphold gay “marriage.” In the 1992 case CASEY v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD, Justice Kennedy affirmed the right of abortion with a sweeping definition of liberty as the right of a person to determine for himself the meaning of life.

Many feared this definition could embrace anything. Soon enough, it did.

In 1995 the Court struck down a democratically enacted state referendum in Colorado denying special civil rights based on sexual orientation. Kennedy wrote the opinion, ROMER v. EVANS, saying the vote of the people demonstrated “animus,” that is, bigotry, against homosexuals.

Then in 2003 in LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law banning sodomy. Again Justice Kennedy, who could have used a very simple Fourteenth Amendment guarantee argument, resorted instead to his holding in CASEY and in ROMER v. EVANS. By legislating against homosexual behavior, the state was guilty of bigotry or prejudice.

Justice Scalia delivered a blistering dissent. “Today’s opinion,” he said, “dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted the distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions . . . “ He went on to charge that the case meant the end to the possibility of all legislation concerning morality.

Now, what all of this means is that the Supreme Court, following its own precedents, will declare any law restricting the right of homosexuals to marry unconstitutional. The die is cast. An appeal is already coming up from a Nebraska case in which a judge threw out a statute banning gay “marriage” as unconstitutional. Within two years this will be at the Supreme Court, and the axe will fall.

Just as with ROE v. WADE, the Court will take away the states’ rights to legislate.

The time to act is now. Don’t let politicians deceive you and tell you this is a state issue. The Supreme Court has already closed the door on that. The federal marriage amendment [Marriage Protection Amendment] is coming up for a vote tomorrow or the next day. Call your senators right now. Tell them this is the time to vote to protect the most important institution in American life.

_________________________________________________

==============================

Gay activists, Sharpton and the war on words (townhall.com, 060710)

By Star Parker

Conservatives had something to celebrate this past week in the way of a couple notable victories in battles in our ongoing cultural war. Two high courts, one in New York and one in Georgia, ruled supporting an understanding of marriage in state law as that which takes place between a man and a woman.

But, although a couple important battles have been won, there should be no doubt that a long and protracted war will continue. And it’s worth paying attention to the very special weapons of this war — words, and how they are used.

Usually, we think of words as building blocks for sentences, which are then used to construct ideas with which to make arguments. In today’s culture war, battles are not waged with ideas, but by attacking the building blocks themselves — the words — and changing their meaning. It’s kind of a verbal terrorism.

In this sense, I’ve come across an observation by the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius that really fits what’s going on around us today: “When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.”

The reasoning of the deciding opinion in the New York case is so simple and clear you can’t help but feel some sense of relief that the world indeed has not gone mad. The operative articles in the state’s Domestic Relations Law, the opinion says, “ ... nowhere say in so many words that only people of different sexes may marry each other, but that was the universal understanding ... in 1909” when the articles were adopted.

Furthermore, the opinion goes on to quote from the law: “The parties must solemnly declare ... that they take each other as husband and wife” and that clerks obtain relevant information from “the groom” and “the bride.”

For the gay activist plaintiffs the offense here is that there is something — in this case marriage — that might actually have some real, irreducible meaning, not accessible to political activism. Sort of the opposite of Shakespeare’s point that “...a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” That is, I commit a hate crime if I deny your claim that your dandelion is a rose.

The strategy in the assault on marriage is that if the institution is not providing what you want, change the meaning of the institution. Why it is the way it is, the fact that it has been this way from time immemorial and, indeed, the idea that there might be anything objectively true, becomes irrelevant.

The problem gets transformed from the preservation of the integrity of marriage, which was the original point of the law, to a claim that the law discriminates and “restricts an individual’s right to marry the person of his or her choice.”

Now the cheapening of language for political ends has great potential in the hands of a true artist and wordsmith like the Rev. Al Sharpton. Someone with Sharpton’s skills rightly has ambition beyond simply changing the meaning of marriage. Sharpton takes on Christianity itself.

So, in recent days Sharpton has been critical of black pastors for “narrowly” focusing on such marginal issues as abortion and gay marriage and ignoring such pillars of the Christian faith as affirmative action (I’ve been searching for the chapter and verse on this in my Bible) and “ending” poverty (my scripture says that “destitute people will not cease to exist within the land” and explains that this is the very reason for the personal obligation to give charity).

“Right” Christians, according to Sharpton, would not seek to deny a woman’s right to destroy the child within her (in this sense, black women, who account for 40% of the nation’s abortions, must be a truly blessed community) or a “gay couple’s right to marry.”

Yes, if the black church had its act together, according to Sharpton, it wouldn’t be so obsessed with the half million aborted black babies each year, the 70% of black babies born to unwed mothers, the 65% of black households headed by single parents and the rampant incidence of AIDS, and would instead focus more on the Voting Rights Act.

Can the Lord, as Christians understand Him, really be more concerned with majority minority voting districts than black children wandering the streets with no values, guidance or purpose in life?

I think Confucius had a point. If words have no meaning, if they can be manipulated and used as political tools, if indeed there is no sense of any truth rooted in tradition and experience, there will be no freedom.

Fortunately, a note of sanity was struck in New York and Georgia. But the war goes on.

==============================

High courts rebuke activist judges (townhall.com, 060709)

By Kevin McCullough

Two rogue activist judges on lower courts in the states of New York and Georgia got the surprise slapped out of them this week.

It’s about time!

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg speaks to supporters during his re-election victory party at campaign headquarters in New York in this November 8, 2005 file photo. Following a landslide re-election win last November, the 64-year-old Bloomberg has been increasingly speaking out on national issues and become one of America’s most prominent mayors, fending off more and more questions about a White House bid. Such talk reached new heights this week after Bloomberg, ranked by Forbes magazine as the 112th richest billionaire worth $5.1 billion, playfully entertained the idea of running as an independent. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton/Files (UNITED STATES)

Judge Doris Ling-Cohen of New York and Constance Russell of Georgia were sent stinging rebukes by their state’s highest courts, and in cases that will be watched by other high courts in New Jersey, California and perhaps most importantly Washington. These women were given very clear lessons in judicial clarity and “We the People” rejoiced!

Judge Ling-Cohen knew when she issued the decision to allow marriage to be redefined in New York City that she had stirred up a hornet’s nest. The very same afternoon my radio show organized communications with some of the 8000 church leaders in the New York metro to begin aggressive opposition to her unilateral mandate that defied the state’s constitution. Mayor Michael Bloomberg also felt the sting; thousands of phone calls pouring into his office finally forced him to begrudgingly acknowledge that it was the city’s responsibility to attempt to have the decision overturned. He also then promptly went to several homosexual advocacy groups and made it clear that he preferred the ideas that Judge Ling-Cohen had put forward.

In addition, at the beginning of PRIDE month, the Mayor went on-air for his weekly radio address and promised quick compliance if the state high court returned a verdict that defended the radical activists seeking changes in the state law. He promised that the city would “immediately begin performing so called ‘gay’ marriages.” He also then added that should the decision go against the activists and for the families of New York, he would begin working to craft legislation in the state assembly to get voters to approve the redefining of marriage. (Good luck with that, Mayor.) I played the arrogant comments over and over the following Monday on my radio show and again thousands of calls poured into the Mayor’s office.

The Court of Appeals, the highest court in the Empire State, answered all the involved parties with a 4-2 spanking of the activists and made perfectly clear that only the people of New York have the ability to redefine the institution of marriage, clarifying the division that exists between the judiciary and the legislature. It is notable that this case mirrored nearly to perfection its predecessor in the Massachusetts courts that eventually legalized a redefinition of marriage.

Less than two hours later, the Georgia Supreme Court sent a much more recent decision by lower court Justice Constance Russell packing as well. In Russell’s flimsy decision to overturn the will of seventy-six percent of the electorate in the state of Georgia, she attempted to assert that no single piece of legislation could address both the idea of “marriage” and “civil unions that bear an uncanny resemblance to marriage” in the same bill. She found that perhaps Georgia voters had been confused about what nearly 8 out of 10 of them had voted to approve.

Nice try—but no dice.

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn Russell and found that, in fact, Georgians were very well-informed about what they had decided to vote for. (You know that old fashioned idea of one man and one woman before God for eternity silliness ...)

Of course, both decisions are hated by liberals and therefore received spotty coverage in the media, but make no mistake, these decisions portend large in the upcoming decisions in New Jersey (which can’t even seem to stay open), California (which seldom ever makes sense), and Washington. The Washington case being the biggest one of all.

In Washington there is no residency requirement for marriages to be performed. Simply put, if Washington courts go all Massachusetts on their voters—suddenly couples from every state in the union could apply for marriage licenses, be pronounced man and husband, or woman and bride, and return to their state to then test the federal statute called the Defense of Marriage Act.

The sides who have lost in each of these cases have pledged to work night and day to get legislative approval to redefine marriage. In New York—if Elliot Spitzer is elected governor, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg does throw in the millions of dollars and manpower to conduct a grassroots efforts—who knows what could happen! But at least such a scenario would still have to drive millions of voters to voting booths to get such a result. A good test of such a drive might be seen this fall in Massachusetts as the voters there will be allowed to weigh in on the issue for the very first time.

As you can easily see, the fight isn’t over. It’s barely just begun.

But it’s always a good day to see activist judges get their lunch handed to them.

And for Ling-Cohen and Russell all you can say is, “...Ouch! That’s gonna leave mark!”

==============================

Mass. Court Backs Gay ‘Marriage’ Ban on Ballot (Christian Post, 060710)

BOSTON (AP) - The same court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage ruled Monday that a proposed constitutional amendment to ban future same-sex marriages can be placed on the ballot, if approved by the Legislature.

The ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to approve the question because the state constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.

The Supreme Judicial Court, with a landmark 2003 ruling, cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 7,000 gay couples have married since.

The state Legislature is expected to take up the question Wednesday during a constitutional convention.

Citizen-initiated ballot questions must be certified by the attorney general and then approved by two consecutive legislative sessions. Before the marriage question could be placed on the 2008 ballot, supporters would need to win the votes of 50 lawmakers — 25% of the Legislature — in two consecutive sessions.

==============================

Marriage amendment falls short (Washington Times, 060718)

A constitutional amendment defining traditional marriage failed to earn the necessary backing of two-thirds of the House, but supporters say their cause is growing.

The vote for the amendment, which would define marriage strictly as a union between one man and one woman, was 236-187. The election-year measure was sponsored by Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado.

In September 2004, the measure failed 227-186. It needed 290 to pass.

Republicans who control the chamber pushed the issue as part of a focus on values, putting lawmakers on record on the issue four months before the November mid-term elections, when all members will appear on the ballot.

However, not all Republicans agreed with amending the Constitution. Twenty-seven Republicans sided with 159 Democrats to oppose the proposal, while 34 Democrats voted in favor of it.

The chamber’s lone independent voted against it and one Democrat voted “present.”

Most Republicans said the amendment is necessary to protect families from “activist judges” in some states who are allowing same-sex couples to form legal unions.

They also said marriage is the foundation of traditional society. “The world did not start as Adam and Steve,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican.

Most Democrats called the amendment a distraction that is being used to generate conservative support for the fall mid-term elections.

“Election year politics should not be used to target gay and lesbian families. As they have done before, the House today rightly rejected that ploy,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington-based American Civil Liberties Union’s legislative office.

==============================

State Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban (WorldNetDaily, 060726)

The Washington Supreme Court today upheld the state’s 1998 ban on same-sex marriage — a ruling decried by gay activists but heralded by supporters of traditional marriage.

The decision came as a sobering defeat for gays and their advocates, who’d hoped the court would strike down the so-named Defense of Marriage Act — DOMA — which restricts marriage to one man and one woman.

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Barbara Madsen said DOMA is constitutional because in establishing DOMA “the legislation was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents.”

As such, DOMA does not violate the state Constitution’s privileges and immunities clause of the state Constitution, which requires that any benefit granted to one group must be granted equally to all. “Allowing same sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes,” she wrote.

Although the ruling was the judiciary’s final word on gay marriage, it seemed to suggest that the legislature could act to provide civil unions or marriage to same-sex couples. The justices said given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in the lawsuit, the legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state.

Madsen was joined by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Charles Johnson. Justices James Johnson and Richard Sanders joined the majority in a separate concurrence. Justices Bobbe Bridge, Mary Fairhurst, Susan Owens and Tom Chambers dissented.

Madsen wrote that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently show that gays are members of a suspect class — a reference to groups entitled to protection against discrimination by virtue of characteristics such as race – or that there is a fundamental right to marriage that includes the right to marry a person of the same sex. Therefore, the Legislature’s decision that only opposite-sex couples are entitled to civil marriage is a “rational basis” for the Defense of Marriage Act.

DOMA, the majority found, also does not violate the due process clause of the state Constitution, which states that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

“The people of Washington have not had in the past, nor at this time are they entitled to an expectation that they may choose to marry a person of the same sex,” Madsen wrote.

Additionally, the court wrote, DOMA does not violate the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, so-called ERA, because the law treats men and women equally in denying both the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Legislators quickly weighed in on the contentious issue.

Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said the “Supreme Court’s ruling is in line with the public’s wishes.”

“I think that, historically, marriage has been about providing for the next generation, and that it is only in the modern era that we’ve decided the issue is love between two people,” Swecker said. “Love comes and goes, but a commitment to the next generation has to be sustainable. If we start to redefine marriage, it will diminish our commitment to marriage and stable families for future generations.”

Sen. Lisa Brown, leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, said Democrats don’t have a unified position gay marriage. In the upcoming session, said Brown, D-Spokane, there will likely be “calls for full marriage equality for same-sex couples (as in Massachusetts), for civil unions (as in Vermont) and for a constitutional amendment banning both (as in Utah).”

In a strongly-worded dissent, Justice Bridge wrote that DOMA’s “religious and moral strains” make it an unconstitutional breach of the church-state wall. The majority’s deference to the Legislature “too early dismisses the proper role of the judiciary to protect the constitutional rights of those who have been historically disenfranchised from the political process,” she wrote.

Had the court struck down the law, Washington would have become only the second state in the nation, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Washington passed DOMA in 1998, two years after the federal government passed such a law, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Since then, a majority of states have passed similar gay-marriage bans.

Two separate lawsuits challenging the Washington statute were filed in 2004 — one against King County, the other against the state — by 19 gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to marry or to have their marriages from elsewhere recognized in this state.

In each of those cases, a Superior Court judge sided with the plaintiffs, applying different analyses to declare the state’s DOMA unconstitutional. The two cases were merged into one for the appeal to the Supreme Court, which was argued March 8, 2005, by attorneys for both sides.

The couples based their claim to marriage on specific principles of constitutional law. Central to their claim was that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the state constitution’s “privileges and immunities” clause, which requires that any privilege offered to one group be offered to all.

Those defending the law argued that the statute served a legitimate purpose in that the state has an interest in protecting children, and thus in the relationships that produce them.

But the couples called DOMA a scheme “that favors one class of children, not because of the way they were created but because of the identity of their parents.”

The plaintiffs also argued that marriage is a fundamental right, while the state and other defendants said that same-sex marriage has no roots in the nation’s history and tradition.

And the sides disagreed over whether gays are considered a so-called suspect class — a reference to groups entitled to protection against discrimination by virtue of such characteristics as race or gender.

==============================

Same-sex marriage on rocks with voters: 20 out of 20 times, Americans choose to protect institution from changes (WorldNetDaily, 060727)

Yesterday’s stunning decision by Washington’s Supreme Court upholding traditional marriage is not the only setback dogging same-sex marriage advocates.

In fact, 20 out of the 20 times it has come before voters, Americans have chosen to protect by constitutional amendment the idea of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

So this year as it’s brought before voters in another six – or eight – states, what do opponents plan to do to get their first single?

Obfuscate.

“The best that they (traditional marriage opponents) can do is confuse the issue,” States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive look-ahead at this fall’s election season.

“What they’re running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected,” she said.

“We have six states that will have marriage amendments on their ballot (in 2006),” Passignano said, identifying them as Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Two more, Arizona and Colorado, still have yet to reach either deadlines for turning in petition signatures or decisions for whether enough signatures have been turned in. Arizona’s marriage supporters turned in 300,000 names, for a requirement of 184,000, but they still are being verified. In Colorado, the deadline to turn in names is Aug. 7, and 68,000 verified names are needed, she said.

“The atmosphere (around the issues) right now is actually positive,” she said. “But you can expect that to change in October.” Then, the campaigning will get confusing.

Colorado’s potential battle already is typical of what she expects.

There probably will be four ballot initiatives on the fall Colorado ballot addressing marriage or civil unions and the like. One would think that would be confusing, and Passignano said that’s the plan.

“The campaign in Colorado already is to confuse the voters. The more confusion, the better the chance (for same-sex marriage being endorsed),” she said. “It’s not exactly a new campaign, it’s exactly the strategy that unfolded in Texas last year.”

During that battle, same-sex marriage supporters actually “tried to get people to vote against the marriage amendment by pretending they were from the attorney general’s office and telling people they were going to nullify actual marriages with their vote,” Passignano said. Senior citizens, especially, were targeted.

She said she took calls in her office at Focus Action from Texans who would hesitate. “I think I voted the wrong way,” they would tell her. “Yes, you did,” she told them.

The salvation of the Texas amendment came from Christian pastors, she said.

“What’s going to be the key is church participation,” she said. “The IRS has said pastors have the right to talk about that, despite what we commonly hear, because it is a nonpartisan ballot issue. Pastors can talk about it all they want.

“Just because you’re a Christian doesn’t mean you checked your rights at the door,” she said.

Focus Action is a cultural action organization that is separate from Focus on the Family, the Christian broadcasting, publishing and ministry powerhouse. It was set up for Christians to have a platform for informing and rallying about moral issues.

Baptist Press earlier had cited a homosexual publication’s report about a multi-point plan devised by the Democratic National Committee to combat the marriage protection plans.

Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the DNC told Baptist Press the committee opposes Republican efforts to use the issue to get voters to ballot boxes. But he didn’t confirm or deny the homosexual publication’s report about a plan that calls for labeling such initiatives “divisive” and training operatives in all 50 states how to campaign against them.

That report also said the plan included working with a homosexual advocacy group and campaign organizations in each state fighting marriage protection plans.

During 2005, Texas and Kansas voters approved marriage protection amendments, and in the sweep of the 2004 vote, 13 states took the same action, including voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon who did so on the same night. Five states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.

Representatives are especially tenacious in pursuing this particular issue, too. In Wisconsin state lawmakers went through the process a second time after first passing a Defense of Marriage law in 2003, only to see Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle veto it. The second time around, for this year’s election, they pursued the constitutional amendment process, which does not require a governor’s signature.

State lawmakers in Washington also battled back to overturn a veto by Gov. Gary Locke in their pursuit of their 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriages to couples of one man and one woman.

That battle was crowned with victory this week when the state’s Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality. The court noted that there may be homosexual weddings at some point in the future, but it will be because people have brought it about, not because of a judicial opinion.

The underlying conclusion of the Washington state court was that the Legislature had a legitimate interest in protecting traditional marriage and that action did not violate equal protection and other laws.

Even in Massachusetts, where the state’s highest court created a right to homosexual marriage to become the only state ever to recognize such situations, supporters have collected 170,000 signatures and court approval and hope to have a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2008.

One defeat for the traditional marriage supporters came in June in the Senate, which failed to endorse a change in the U.S. Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But that wasn’t even on an up-or-down vote; only a procedural move.

It is “inconceivable” the U.S. Senate refused to even vote, said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America.

“If the founders could have imagined a time when same-sex ‘marriage’ would be forced upon the people by judicial fiat, they would have established a uniform rule of marriage in the Constitution just as they did for naturalization and bankruptcy,” she said.

However, just in the past few weeks, other courts in Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee and New York have endorsed the legality of protecting marriage.

==============================

Gay “marriage” (townhall.com, 060815)

By Thomas Sowell

Now that a number of state courts have refused to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, cries of “discrimination” are being heard.

The “equal protection of the laws” provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law’s business.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else’s approval.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law’s business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other — and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet “gay marriage” advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

They argue against a “ban on gay marriage” but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Vast numbers of laws have accumulated and evolved over the centuries, based on experience with male-female unions.

There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.

Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as “a pregnant couple” or references to “spouses” rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.

Wives, for example, typically invest in the family by restricting their own workforce participation, if only long enough to take care of small children. Studies show such differences still persisting in this liberated age, and even among women and men with postgraduate degrees from Harvard and Yale.

In the absence of marriage laws, a husband could dump his wife at will and she could lose decades of investment in their relationship. Marriage laws seek to recoup some of that investment for her through alimony when divorce occurs.

Those who think of women and men in the abstract consider it right that ex-husbands should be as entitled to alimony as ex-wives. But what are these ex-husbands being compensated for?

And why should any of this experience apply to same-sex unions, where there are not the same inherent asymmetries nor the same tendency to produce children?

==============================

Federal Marriage Amendment Defeat – Pro-Family Movement Weakness (Free Congress Foundation, 060612)

By Paul M. Weyrich

This past week the United States Senate voted down the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which is designed to place in the Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman. Liberals in both parties voted against consideration of the issue. That is not surprising. Senate leaders knew they didn’t have the votes. Some people claim that the exercise was foolish and a waste of time. But pro-family movement leaders wanted the vote because they believe that some Senators up for re-election who have defied the will of the voters might be more vulnerable because of that vote.

The President discussed the issue on his Saturday radio show. Early in the week, he had made a strong statement to a group of movement leaders and following defeat in the Senate he issued a statement indicating that the fight will continue.

There is no anecdotal evidence that the President or the Majority Whip twisted arms on this issue. Therein lays the problem with social issues. Almost all Democrats want nothing to do with social issues. When they were in control of the Congress most such issues never saw the light of day. Republicans, with a few notable exceptions, are not enthusiastic about them either. Majority Leader William H. Frist, M.D., commonly known as Senator Bill Frist, was mercilessly dumped on by some of his colleagues when he announced he was bringing up the Marriage Amendment. So he must be given credit for that. And to his credit, he never, ever wavered on the issues, even when doing major Sunday news shows. The Conservative movement has too often been satisfied with rhetoric and too few times has the movement demanded action.

I mentioned this to Dr. Richard Land at the White House. Land represents the Southern Baptists at such events. “My standard is the prescription drug benefit,” Land quipped. In that expansion of big government, the President and Congressional leaders twisted arms until the bill was passed. The leadership in the House, in which the measure had considerable opposition, kept the vote open for over three hours until the leadership had enough votes. The President was on the telephone with Members of the House until he got sufficient commitments to pass the drug benefit bill. I know this to be true because I have spoken with several Members who talked with President Bush on the night of the vote.

Did the Majority Whip in the Senate twist arms until it hurts on the Marriage Amendment? No. Did the President talk with Senators, trading things as he did with the drug benefit? No. Was the Right angry about this? No. I asked one of the most visible and important leaders of the pro-family movement if he had conscience problems attending the event at the White House, since he and the rest of us were props in a non-effort to pass this Amendment. Without hesitation this major leader said, “Not at all. I felt we had to enforce what little this President did.”

Think of a Democratic President, such as William J. Clinton. The partial-birth abortion bill comes to his desk. Clinton makes statements supporting abortion but then signs the bill. The supporters of radical life styles would be out on the streets. Clinton may have betrayed other interest groups, but he never, ever betrayed the pro-aborts. Clinton knew that the pro-abortion crowd would not accept rhetoric. They demanded action within the Clinton Administration. Twice Congress passed partial-birth abortion bills by overwhelming numbers. Twice Clinton vetoed the bill.

When the Reagan Administration first came into office, James A. Baker III, Chief of Staff to the President, and Howard H. Baker, Jr., the Senate Majority Leader, met and declared that social issues would be on the back burner.

I was on a conference call immediately thereafter with sixteen of the top leaders of what at that time was called the Religious Right. I said if a Democratic Administration had been elected and the Administration and Senate leaders said that civil rights had to be on the back burner Jesse Jackson and other civil rights leaders would be on the street within 24 hours. I was told by my friend Dr. Jerry Falwell to calm down. They totally accepted what the Reagan Administration, represented by the two (unrelated) Bakers, had declared. President Ronald W. Reagan accomplished a number of things in eight years in office. He started an economic boom, which has continued to this day. He contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. He appointed good federal judges as well. His legacy will revolve around those issues. But did he do anything on abortion? Did he really tackle social issues? He did advocate a school-prayer amendment but again did nothing to twist arms on the issue. The Right was satisfied with that.

Until the Right learns really to fight its agenda never will be enacted. In 2004, the pro-family forces, led by Dr. James Dobson, helped to take out Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, of South Dakota, the first time the Majority Leader had been defeated in half a century. They also contributed to the election of several other pro-family Senators. Yet when it came to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment the pro-family forces gained only one vote. Politicians do not fear the pro-family movement. Until they do pro-family forces will not achieve their objectives. Members of Congress operate on the pain/pleasure principle. If you inflict pain they want it to stop. They will beg for the pain to stop. At that point you can get a commitment on the Marriage Amendment or any other social issue. That has not happened. The only incumbent defeated was Daschle.

So they see only one scalp hanging in the Capitol. They are not impressed. The other Republican victories came in open seats. That does not impress the liberals.

If the pro-family movement is serious it must get into the States and defeat a whole number of incumbents. Also those Senators who voted no should never be nominated by their party for the Presidency of the United States.

The pro-family movement has real troops. If it wants to get serious it must get tough. It is not clear that the pro-family movement has the stomach for that. Time will tell.

==============================

Calif. Court Rules Against Gay ‘Marriage’ (Christian Post, 061006)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A state appeals court upheld California’s ban on gay “marriage” Thursday, a critical defeat for a movement hungry for a win after similar losses in two other states.

In reversing the March 2005 ruling of a San Francisco trial judge, the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed with the state’s attorney general, who argued it is up to the Legislature, not the courts, to change the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

“We conclude California’s historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class,” the court said in a 2-1 decision. “The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.”

The justices, in their 128-page opinion, noted that California’s ban on same-sex marriage does not discriminate against gays and lesbians because of the state’s strong domestic partner law, which gives registered couples most of the same rights as married spouses in California.

The ruling does not guarantee, however, that same-sex couples will not ultimately be able to get married in California. Gay marriage advocates said beforehand that they would appeal to the California Supreme Court if the intermediate court did not decide in their favor.

“Though we are disappointed, we always knew this issue was going to be decided by the California Supreme Court,” said Molly McKay, a spokeswoman for Marriage Equality USA. “We believe that the California Supreme Court will enforce the constitutional guarantee of equality under the law and strike down the discriminatory barriers denying same-sex couples access to civil marriage.”

Opponents of gay marriage praised the decision.

“This is a victory for the right of the people of California to make fundamental policy decisions through democratic processes,” said Monte Stewart, President of the Marriage Law Foundation, a Utah-based group that opposes same-sex marriage. “It is also a victory for society’s most consequential social institution, and that is marriage.”

In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage after gay and lesbian couples in that state successfully sued for the right to wed. In the aftermath of that change, 19 states passed constitutional amendments barring gay marriage. Another 26 have statues limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Connecticut and Vermont allow civil unions.

Advocates of same-sex unions had seen California as one of their best chances to expand their marriage rights after recent high court rulings in New York and Washington state upheld bans in those states.

Thursday’s ruling came three months after the appeals court heard six hours of arguments in as many related cases — four of them filed by the city and lawyers for 20 couples seeking the right to wed, and two brought by groups that want to maintain the status quo barring same-sex unions.

The lawsuits arose out of the 2004 same-sex marriage spree that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ignited when he instructed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Hundreds of couples from across the country flocked to City Hall to marry, but groups opposed to gay marriage persuaded the state Supreme Court to invalidate the licenses.

“This is a disappointing second round in what we’ve always known is a three-round fight,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said of Thursday’s ruling.

In March 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that the state’s existing marriage laws violated the civil rights of gays and lesbians by denying them “the basic human right to marry a person of one’s choice” and by discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

Following Kramer’s decision, the Legislature last year became the first lawmaking body in the nation to legalize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, saying it was up to voters or the courts, not lawmakers, to settle the contentious issue.

With a gubernatorial election next month, Thursday’s ruling is sure to put the issue squarely back in the state’s political arena. The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Mark Leno, plans to reintroduce the measure to allow gay marriage at the end of the year.

==============================

Same-sex marriage opponents, proponents court MP support (National Post, 061024)

OTTAWA - Religious leaders on both sides of the same-sex-marriage debate will descend on Parliament Hill today in an attempt to influence MPs who are expected to vote this fall on whether to revisit the contentious law.

Supporters and opponents will hold competing news conferences, armed with studies and reports to back up their positions, and some activists who are against same-sex marriage will meet privately with politicians in attempt to sway their votes.

The Defend Marriage Coalition, an alliance of about a dozen socially conservative groups, will hold a full-day “national marriage caucus” to convince MPs that the federal government “rushed to the alter” in 2005 by redefining the traditional definition of marriage” without fully examining the potential impact on Canadians.

“We are attempting to meet with the MPs who can be swayed,” said organizer Charles McVety, who suspects the event will draw about 50 community leaders and another 50 church leaders from across Canada.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised a vote during the last federal election campaign. Members of all parties widely expect that the Commons will reject re-opening debate at a time when more than 10,000 gay couples have already tied the knot.

Proponents of same-sex marriage, while acknowledging the numbers are in their favour, are not taking any chances.

The coalition Canadians for Equal Marriage, in a pre-emptive strike, issued two press releases on Monday to counter arguments from gay-marriage opponents, including an often-cited report from the French Parliament that recommended against gay marriage and gay adoption, in part because of its adverse effect on children.

The Canadian Psychological Association and the Canadian Association of Social Workers asserted that children of same-sex unions are better off if their parents are married.

“Opponents of equal marriage seem to base their arguments on the false assumption that excluding same-sex couples from marriage would prevent them from having or raising children,” said Eugenia Moreno, executive director of the Canadian Association of Social Workers.

“In fact, same-sex couples do have and raise children and excluding them from marriage would only harm these children.”

Laurie Arron, a spokesman for the equal-marriage group, called on Harper to hold a vote immediately so that the issue of gay marriage will be settled.

“From our perspective it’s quite clear that Parliament is prepared to defeat Mr. Harper’s motion,” he said. “It’s time for Mr. Harper to get on with it rather than delaying to please the religious right.”

Arron cited a poll conducted by the firm Environics in June showing that two-thirds of Canadians, including some who oppose same-sex marriage, are against reopening debate.

Clergy who oppose gay marriage will argue today that they fear that they will eventually lose their protection against marrying same-sex couples. They say that a clause inserted in the federal same-sex marriage law is meaningless since the Supreme Court of Canada had already declared that solemnization of marriage is provincial rather than federal jurisdiction.

“The point is to ask the government to study these things so MPs can make informed decisions instead of uninformed ones,” said McVety.

Religious leaders who support gay marriage, including David Giuliano, moderator of the United Church of Canada, are expected to counter that there is already strong protection for clergy in the religious freedom guarantees in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In June 2005, the House of Commons voted 158-133 to legalize gay marriage, following court rulings across the country.

In the coming vote, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP have both decided to vote as parties against reopening debate, a strong majority of Liberals are expected to take the same position, and even a sizeable number of Conservatives have publicly stated their intentions to vote no because they think it’s time to turn their attention to other issues.

==============================

Conservatives Laud High Court Decision on Gay ‘Marriage’ Case (Christian Post, 061011)

Conservative legal groups lauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to decline an appeal Tuesday from a gay California couple who were denied a license to wed, but warned that pro-family Americans must remain vigilant in the fight to protect marriage as the battle is “far from over.”

“This is not just a good day for marriage; it’s a great year for marriage. The case drives another nail in the coffin of same-sex ‘marriage,’” said Matthew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the case “Smelt v. Orange County” without comment, reaffirming the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer had sought a marriage license in Southern California’s Orange County in 2004 but were turned down. Soon afterwards, the men filed a lawsuit challenging both the federal DOMA and California laws confining marriage to a union between a man and woman only.

According to the Alliance Defense Fund, the victory is only one piece of a larger battle to define marriage.

“Marriage continues to be under attack because certain special interest groups are trying to reduce it to nothing more than a benefits system for emotionally attached couples,” said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy.

Lavy warned Americans to remain vigilant and vocal since many critical decisions are still pending across state courts.

“Americans must continue to remain vigilant in the defense of marriage, especially since the attacks come from numerous directions,” he said.

==============================

State marriage amendment and gay rights: New dilemmas (townhall.com, 061025)

By Maggie Gallagher

This week I’m speaking at a National Press Club event sponsored by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association about the coming vote on state marriage amendments.

Here’s a sneak preview:

On Nov. 7, eight states will vote on state marriage amendments that define marriage as the union of husband and wife, and also confine the legal benefits of marriage to married couples (i.e., no government-created civil unions). Twenty states have already passed such amendments, with around 60% to 80% voter approval.

This time around, gay rights groups have grown excited about the prospect of knocking down one or more of these amendments. Three states in particular are in play: Wisconsin, Arizona and South Dakota, each of which has had polls in recent months suggesting the state marriage amendment may be in trouble. (Amendments in Tennessee, Idaho and South Carolina will likely pass by wide margins. In Virginia, 53% of likely voters tell pollsters they approve of the state marriage amendment, despite a vigorous campaign for its defeat. In Colorado, gay groups have focused less on opposing the state marriage amendment than on passing a ballot initiative creating civil unions for gay couples.)

For example, two polls in Arizona showed voters opposed to the state marriage amendment, and a South Dakota poll showed voters defeating the amendment by 49% to 41%. (Other polls in each state suggest wildly different results). Defeating a marriage amendment in either or both of two such red states would be an amazing landmark victory for gay groups.

What do we make of the political situation? Let me begin with the bad news for gay marriage advocates: I predict all eight state marriage amendments will pass.

Nonetheless, the margin of victory in the states that gay marriage advocates have chosen to contest will be narrower than in the past. The good news from their perspective (and expect to hear it trumpeted loudly) is that gay marriage advocates have hit upon a political formula that influences voters at least somewhat.

Here’s more pesky bad news: That strategy has almost nothing to do with increasing support for gay marriage. Campaigns in Arizona, Wisconsin and Virginia have largely abandoned marriage itself, and focused instead on generating opposition to domestic partnership provisions. “Why Take Away Health Care?” is the slogan of choice in Arizona, while in Virginia, opponents have marshaled an impressive array of highly credentialed legal experts to advance the improbable argument that the state marriage amendment will prevent unmarried opposite-sex couples from executing private contracts, receiving domestic violence protections or receiving visitation rights. (Virginia’s state attorney general recently issued a legal opinion: “I can find no legal basis for the proposition that passage of the marriage amendment will limit or infringe upon the ordinary civil and legal rights of unmarried Virginians.”)

I predict another piece of good news for gay rights groups: Colorado will pass domestic partnership legislation. That victory in Colorado suggests a possible new strategy for gay rights groups: Stop promoting gay marriage and start vigorously advocating for civil unions.

Doing so would create a powerful new wedge issue on their side, substantially separating Catholics from evangelicals, and moderates from harder-core religious conservatives. It’s an obvious winning political strategy.

But here’s the problem for gay rights groups. Civil union initiatives substantially undercut public support for gay marriage. The Human Rights Campaign’s own latest poll shows that, when offered a choice of civil unions, only 21% of Americans continue to support gay marriage.

After vigorously denouncing civil unions as a despised “separate but equal” insult, can gay rights groups switch course and invest their time and resources in passing civil union laws that offer their people “second-class citizenship”?

Interesting times ahead.

==============================

New Jersey High Court Leaves Gay Marriage Rights to Legislature (Foxnews, 061026)

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey’s Supreme Court has left it to the Legislature to decide the rules for gay couples who want to marry in the state.

In a 4-3 ruling Wednesday, the court said the state constitution gives same-sex couples the same civil rights afforded to heterosexual couples, but the lawmakers must decide how to grant those rights.

“The Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples,” the court held.

The court ruled that the state does not have a “legitimate governmental purpose” in denying same-sex couples “the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts.”

Citing the equal protection clause, Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey constitution, the court ruled that “committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.”

The high court stopped short of fully approving gay marriage in the state, and gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create new civil unions.

“The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people,” the court said.

Advocates on both sides of the issue had believed the relatively liberal New Jersey high court had the best chance of approving gay marriages since Massachusetts became the only state to do so in 2003. The Vermont Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that civil unions were constitutional. The state avoided using the word “marriage.”

Eight states have initiatives on this year’s ballots that could end up banning same-sex marriages. Fifteen states have amended constitutions to ban same-sex unions after ballot initiatives approved such action.

State courts including New York, Washington, Nebraska and Georgia have upheld voter-approved bans on gay marriage.

New Jersey lawmakers voted to allow domestic partnerships in 2004, but they have been reluctant to delve into the sensitive issue of marriage. Under domestic partnerships, gay couples have some benefits of marriage, such as the right to inherit possessions if there is no will and health care coverage for state workers.

Offering a concurring and dissenting view were Chief Justice Deborah T. Portiz, and Justices Virginia Long and James R. Zazzali. While the three agreed that denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily granted to heterosexual couples violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause, Portiz went further, saying she disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that “there is no fundamental due process right to same-sex marriage encompassed within the concept of ‘liberty’ guaranteed by the equal protection clause.” She added that same sex couples should be granted to use the title of “marriage.”

In the court ruling, the justices held that it would not seek to presume the constitutionality of a legal construct separate from existing marriage statutes nor whether “a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude.”

The court shot down the state’s claim that enactment of a law granting same-sex marriages would conflict with the full faith and credit clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution because “equality of treatment is a dominant theme of our laws and a central guarantee of our State Constitution.”

The court also suggested that the plaintiffs, seven long-term same-sex couples, must do more than fight their battles in court, they must change social mores.

The courts can ensure equal treatment, the ruling states, but it “cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Plaintiffs’ quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives.”

Just after the ruling was issued, Garden State Equality, New Jersey’s main gay and lesbian political organization, quickly announced that three lawmakers would introduce a bill in the Legislature to get full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports domestic partnerships, but not gay marriage.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese commended the court, and urged the Legislature to “not go down the path of separate but equal, but rather ... embrace marriage equality.” Solmonese noted that the decision affects only civil marriage and allows religious institutions to decide if they want to honor same-sex unions.

Cases similar to the one ruled on Wednesday are pending in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland. Supporters of gay marriage said they were invigorated by the court’s ruling.

“New Jersey is a stepping stone,” said Matt Daniels, president of the Virginia-based Alliance for Marriage, a group pushing for an amendment to the federal Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. “It’s not about New Jersey.”

==============================

And Now New Jersey (National Review Online, 061026)

By The Editors

Earlier this year, defenders of marriage as we have known it enjoyed a string of victories in the courts. Several state and federal courts turned back challenges to states’ marriage laws, leaving it to voters and state legislators to decide whether those laws should be changed to allow for legal recognition of same-sex “marriages.”

At the time, some commentators took the decision as proof that constitutional protection for marriage was unnecessary. Those of us who had warned that the courts were going to impose same-sex marriage on a balking public were dismissed, as we have been before, as alarmist.

Our response was twofold. First, we pointed out that the tenor of the judicial decisions was in part a response to the political success of the campaign for the marriage amendment — without it, more courts would have followed the lead of the Massachusetts high court, imposed same-sex marriage, and patted themselves on the back as civil-rights pioneers. Second, we observed that as welcome as those decisions were, traditional marriage laws — and the right of the people and their elected representatives to draw them up — would exist only on judicial sufferance without an amendment. If the judicial mood changed, for example because the campaign for an amendment had flagged, then judges would recommence altering the marriage laws. And, of course, some bold court might decide to impose its conception of justice, political consequences be damned, by rewriting the marriage laws.

New Jersey’s supreme court has, alas, now proven us right. Even in that liberal state, protective of gay rights, the political process did not yield the marriage policy liberal legal activists have sought. So they have gotten the court to hand them victory.

It is being described as a partial victory, because the court has said that same-sex couples must have access to the same benefits as married ones but not that they must be eligible to be called “marriages.” Do not be fooled. The court has accepted the premise that treating married couples differently from same-sex couples is a kind of irrational discrimination. That premise leads fairly directly to same-sex marriage in logic, and may do so in future litigation.

There is another reason to expect this attempt to split the benefits from the name of marriage will collapse. Portability is a real benefit of a state-recognized marriage. When Texas declares you married, in the normal course of things Arkansas does too. You can cross state lines without worrying whether your marriage remains legally valid. For good reasons, the federal government has allowed states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” in other states. Whether that federal policy will withstand the activism of liberal courts remains to be seen. But even if it does, same-sex couples in New Jersey may legitimately ask: If we are to have all the benefits of marriage on an equal basis, then are we not entitled for the state to give us the best shot it can at ensuring that those benefits are portable? And does that not mean that we are entitled to the word “marriage” as well as to its accoutrements?

The basic move that the New Jersey court made was from a constitutional guarantee of equality to same-sex marriage rights. It is the same move that has been made in other courts. And it is the same move that has been made by social liberals in the court of public opinion: To deny marriage to same-sex couples is, supposedly, to treat homosexuals as less than full citizens. Not a few advocates have even said that it is to treat them as less than fully human.

Against this sentiment, conservatives have countered first that equal rights for individuals do not entail a right of couples to have marriage redefined to suit their desires, and second that it would not be up to courts to draw out that implication even were it true. There is an argument for letting the people of each state decide their own policy on marriage, although a uniform national definition of marriage has its advantages too. But there is no good argument for letting judges redefine marriage in one state after another and calling it federalism.

A healthy culture of marriage is, among other good things, a crucial prerequisite for self-government. We fear that both marriage and self-government will suffer if a constitutional amendment does not rein in the courts.

==============================

New Jersey Supreme Court Says No Fundamental Right to Same-Sex Marriage (townhall.com, 061027)

By Jay Sekulow

In a decision that came dangerously close to authorizing same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded in the case of Lewis v. Harris that there was, in fact, no constitutional right under the New Jersey Constitution for same-sex marriage. This aspect of the opinion is very important. If advocates for same-sex marriage were successful in obtaining a decision mandating a marriage designation, they could have then challenged the federal Defense of Marriage Act and brought future challenges mandating that other states authorize same-sex marriages as well. In light of the court’s decision, that avenue is foreclosed.

The court noted that both the U.S. Supreme Court and decisions in New Jersey “fall far short of establishing” that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right. Advocates for same-sex marriage often rely on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, where a prohibition on interracial marriage was deemed to be unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage advocates have utilized the Loving case to draw an analogy to their ongoing fight for marriage recognition.

Ed Mather of Morristown, N.J. hands out ‘Marriage Equality’ signs to people who gathered at a rally in Montclair, N.J. on Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2006. New Jersey’s Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions. (AP Photo/Tim Larsen)

The New Jersey Supreme Court noted that Loving dealt with “intolerable racial distinctions that patently violated the Fourteenth Amendment.” The court noted that Loving and other cases cited by plaintiffs all dealt with heterosexual marriage. The court explained that:

“In searching for the meaning of ‘liberty’ . . . we must resist the temptation of seeing in the majesty of that word only a mirror image of our own strongly felt opinions and beliefs. Under the guise of newly found rights, we must be careful not to impose our personal value system on eight-and-one-half million people, thus bypassing the democratic process as the primary means of effecting social change in this State.”

Although the court ultimately concluded that there was no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, it did hold that, “under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.” The court, however, resisted the temptation to mandate a statutory scheme change that would require the adoption of a marriage law for same-sex couples. Rather, the court has put the burden on the legislature to come up with either a marriage definition or a civil union statutory framework.

In this case, advocates for same-sex marriage sought the title of marriage as being significant. In fact, they argued that the title “marriage” is “an intangible right, without which they are consigned to second-class citizenship.” In rejecting the requirement for marriage, the court said: “We will not presume that a difference in name alone is of constitutional magnitude.”

Same-sex marriage advocates were disappointed with the decision, as were those who favored traditional marriage. We filed briefs in the case asserting that the definition of marriage should be maintained as a relationship between one man and one woman. While the court agreed that there’s no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, the mandate for substantial and significant benefits identical to marriage means that New Jersey, like Vermont, now has a mandated civil union statute in place. While this saves for another day the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and does not give the same-sex advocates what they wanted, the issue of marriage continues to be one of significance that will be litigated throughout the country.

Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.

==============================

Who’s to blame for anti-gay-marriage initiatives? (townhall.com, 061101)

By Linda Chavez

Voters in eight states will decide on Nov. 7 whether to amend their constitutions to ensure that marriage continues to be an institution limited to one man and one woman.

It’s too bad it has come to this, especially since the amendments won’t do much to restore marriage to its once lofty place in our society. But it’s not the Christian Right or the Republican Party that has brought us to this pass.

We shouldn’t have to clutter our state constitutions, much less the U.S. Constitution, with language defining marriage, but a few activist judges have left voters little choice unless they are willing to embrace judicially imposed gay marriage or its equivalent.

For millennia, all civilizations have understood marriage to exist exclusively between men and women (though many civilizations have chosen to allow husbands to marry more than one wife concurrently). Homosexual relationships surely have existed throughout history, but homosexuals have not sought marriage rights nor has any society formally sanctioned such relationships through its laws, that is until the late 20th century, and then in just a very few societies.

Now, some judges in the United States have cast aside tradition and law in favor of an experiment in reordering society, without the democratic consent of the citizens of the affected communities. Should it surprise anyone that a backlash has ensued?

Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that the state constitution “guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples.” While the New Jersey justices didn’t go as far as their Massachusetts counterparts in actually ordering the state legislature to pass legislation giving the right to gay couples to marry, the difference may be more semantic than real.

Since New Jersey already allows for domestic partnerships through a 2004 law passed by the state legislature, the court was clearly insisting that the domestic partnerships law doesn’t go far enough because it distinguishes such relationships from actual marriages. New Jersey legislators appear likely to enact a civil union statute in response to the court’s action, but there is no guarantee that some future court decision won’t invalidate civil unions as unconstitutional, too, that is unless New Jersey amends its constitution to limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

Some of what gay couples say they hope to gain through legislation or court orders conferring them with marriage rights could easily be achieved by other means. Gay couples, just as any two individuals, can jointly own property together, and the rights to such property upon death or dissolution of the partnership can be spelled out in the contract itself.

States could — and should — pass laws that allow adults to choose who will make medical decisions for them in the absence of a spouse. Why should only homosexuals and not other single persons be allowed to designate someone other than a family member to make medical decisions if they become incapacitated?

Many employers and some states already allow gay couples to share medical and pension benefits. So long as the individual is paying the premiums, why shouldn’t he be able to designate who participates? And if the pension is deferred compensation that the employee has already earned, why shouldn’t she be able to leave what is in the account to the beneficiary of her choice? And why should such benefits be available exclusively to individuals who have a sexual relationship with each other?

The most nettlesome issue for gay couples involves parental rights when one partner is the biological or adoptive parent and the other has not adopted (or in some cases not been allowed to adopt) the child. If something happens to the non-adoptive or non-biological parent, the other person who has cared for and raised the child, often for the child’s entire life, does not have the right to obtain custody or, in some cases, even maintain a relationship with the child. This doesn’t seem fair to the parent or to the child. But this issue also can be specifically addressed without redefining marriage.

As with abortion 30 years ago, states were on their way to defining public policy on the rights of homosexual couples when the courts intervened. The initiatives on this year’s ballot will simply ensure that this tough social and moral issue is resolved through the normal democratic process and not by a few judges.

==============================

A Sit-In at the Altar? (Mohler, 061206)

It seems that some heterosexual couples are refusing to get married, claiming that it would be unjust to marry while same-sex couples are “denied” the same right.

The New York Times reports that the protest is spreading among some young couples. “Whether it makes sense or not, some heterosexual couples, mostly in their in 20s and 30s, are protesting the inability of gay and lesbian couples to marry by putting off their own marriage. Unless wedded bliss is available to everyone, in every state, they say, they want no part of it.”

The “whether it makes sense or not” part of that statement is really important. Even some of their friends and family members aren’t buying it. And it’s not as though they have taken a vow of celibacy.

Consider this couple:

Some of those delaying marriage are cynical types who seem happy to stick it out. They think the idea of marriage is antiquated and want to be tied to a spouse as much they might want to move in with the in-laws after the honeymoon.

“I didn’t have the wedding fantasies some little girls have,” said Sarah Augusto, 25, a sociology graduate student in Davis, Calif., who has been committed to Jon Bell, 26, a museum exhibit designer, since college graduation three years ago.

But some honestly wish they would walk the aisle, Mr. Bell for one. “Sarah has changed the way I thought about things a ton,” he said. “I was really excited about getting married. Going into high school that was the goal, to meet a nice girl and get married to her.”

This young man’s problem seems to have more to do with his girlfriend than with marriage law.

Reporter Kayleen Schaefer suggests that celebrities Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie gave the idea momentum when they refused to marry, citing the illegal status of same-sex marriage as the cause. “Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in this country who wants to be married is legally able.” That “everyone else” is an incredibly expansive category, to say the least.

Interestingly enough, the Times covered this story in the paper’s “Fashion & Style” section — a fact that indicates something of the seriousness of the issue.

The young have often looked for an avenue of protest. The couples cited in this article, for one reason or another, have decided to make a statement about marriage by tying their own decision not to marry to the same-sex marriage controversy.

Their logic will not hold. Same-sex couples are not being “denied” a right. They are being denied the right to redefine marriage.

Should we look into the future, when same-sex marriage might hypothetically be legal, and see the day when same-sex couples similarly “refuse” to get married until “everyone else” has the same “right?”

==============================

No, No, and Yes — Take Your Choice? (Mohler, 061208)

As widely anticipated, the Conservative branch of American Judaism “settled” the issue of homosexual rabbis and the blessing of same-sex unions by adopting contradictory positions and allowing local synagogues to choose between three options.

The movement’s highest legal body effectively voted to allow the ordination of homosexuals as rabbis and the blessing of homosexual unions. At the same time, the groups also accepted two opinions rejecting the same. Confused?

David Van Biema of TIME explains:

Two Jews, three opinions. It’s an old joke, but, as a decision by Judaism’s Conservative branch Wednesday on the explosive topic of gay ordination and gay unions proved, still a valid one. Two slightly differing opinions handed down by Conservatism’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards favored maintaining the branch’s official position forbidding homosexuality. But a third, contradictory opinion, affirmed both gay unions and ordination. And all it took was one out of three to change Conservative history: any rabbi is now free to perform such a union and any seminary to make such a rabbi.

In response, four conservative rabbis resigned from the committee, claiming that the opinion affirming the ordination of homosexuals and the blessing of same-sex unions was inconsistent with Jewish law.

The New York Times reported that Rabbi Joel Roth resigned after explaining that the ruling was “outside the pale of halachic [Jewish legal] reasoning.”

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine to Sign Bill Legalizing Same-Sex Unions (Foxnews, 061221)

TRENTON, New Jersey — New Jersey’s gay couples are gaining all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law as New Jersey moves to become the third in the nation to institute civil unions and the fifth to offer some version of marriage.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine planned to sign the civil unions bill on Thursday.

When the law takes effect Feb. 19, New Jersey will join Connecticut and Vermont as states that allow civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, while California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights.

Gay couples granted civil unions in New Jersey will have adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.

The Legislature passed the civil unions bill on Dec. 14 in response to an October state Supreme Court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions “marriage” or something else.

Gay couples welcome the law, but some argue that not calling the relationship “marriage” creates a different, inferior institution.

Also, while the state law provide them with the benefits of married couples, they won’t be entitled to the same benefits in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Surviving partners won’t be able to collect deceased partners’ Social Security benefits, for example, said family lawyer Felice T. Londa, who represents many same-sex couples.

Donna Harrison, of Asbury Park, has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years. She isn’t exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably get a civil union certificate.

“Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings,” she said.

Chris Schwam and Steven Piacquiadio, of Collingswood, have been together for 20 years, have a 3-year-old son and had a big wedding in 1993, though it wasn’t recognized legally. Schwam, 40, said they will get a civil union, but without a big fuss.

“I don’t think my mother would be happy to pay for that again,” he said.

The gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to “marriage.” Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of gay marriage.

The bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.

Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but he said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay marriage is preferable.

“For most, people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief,” the governor said. “So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law.”

Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, said time could bring change.

“The history of civil rights progress, whether it’s women’s rights, minorities’ rights or any other movement, is one that is typically achieved in incremental steps,” Codey said. “This is, by no means, the end, but it is a major step forward.”

Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won’t be heard.

The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.

==============================

The Judicial Enlargement of the Family: The Ontario Three Parents’ Decision (Centre for Cultural Renewal, 070105)

Many groups have expressed concern about a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The court, in a unanimous decision in a case entitled AA and BB v CC, used its inherent jurisdiction (it was not a Charter of Rights case) to expand the definition of “parent” in the Family Law Act of Ontario to include a third person (in this case a lesbian partner) as a child’s “parent” despite the Act not providing that three parents could exist for a child.

This short article will examine a few recent historical facts before suggesting that, if legislative responses were justified, as they may well have been, to protect the rights of a person properly interested in the life of a child, this could have been achieved without doing violence to the historical idea of a “parent.”

What has occurred in relation to “parent” (and therefore family) in this extension bears interesting comparison to what happened to the definition of “marriage” in decisions involving same-sex marriage claims over the last few years.

During the arguments in the various “same-sex marriage” cases (in which the writer had some involvement as counsel), one of the points made by counsel for the Inter-faith coalition for the family was this. Once you eradicate the male/female nature of marriage as it has been historically understood, there is really no reason why the numbers of people in a “marriage” should matter.

In other words, once two men or two women can be married to each other because they wish such recognition (and if the biological aspects related to children are deemed, as happened in these cases, to be irrelevant), what logic is there anymore in restricting marriage to just two people? In fact, it was argued that, logically, if “sexual orientation” is the basis for same-sex marriage and “bi-sexuality” is a sexual orientation, then a marriage involving bi-sexuals must logically involve more than two people since their very sexual identity involves more than just a heterosexual orientation, an orientation that, as the logic went with same-sex claims, has a right to expression. What is sauce for the homosexual goose is, as it were, also sauce for the bi-sexual gander. As it happens, this argument, slightly ahead of its time, was one that the courts dealt with by ignoring it completely.

The relevance of the point has just come home, but, like many strategic litigation strategies these days, in a rather round about way. In a January 2, 2007 decision the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that a child does not just have a father and a mother as parents but can, in fact, have a third party, in this case the lesbian partner of the mother, as another parent. Thus the case is known as the “three parents” case.

Here is a key passage from the Reasons of Justice Rosenberg:

The possibility of legally and socially recognized same-sex unions and the implications of advances in reproductive technology were not on the radar screen when the Ontario Act first came into force. The Act does not deal with, nor contemplate, the disadvantages that a child born into a relationship of two mothers, two fathers or as in this case two mothers and one father might suffer.

This case was about such things as the effects of the death of lesbian mother on the surviving “spouse” (the other lesbian parent) should that survivor wish to make medical decisions but could not because such a person would not be a “parent” under the legislation.

Some people will remember when the first “benefits” cases came to the fore in relation to same-sex claims in the mid-1990s. Such cases usually turned on the notion that a same-sex couple was not getting treated the same in terms of benefits because they were not deemed to be “spouses.” Since the statutes involved (such as the federal Old Age Security Act) were written long before “same-sex unions” or “sexual orientation” were terms in Canadian society (or any other society) the statutes’ use of terms like “spouse” had to be assessed in order to designate who could or could not be beneficiaries.

Here is the point. The only language the courts had to deal with in these many pieces of legislation were marital or conjugal terms such as “spouse.” The same-sex challenges were essentially to marital terms. The courts then, over time, delved into these statutes and “read-into” these essentially marital languages “same-sex” categories. In doing so, however, they were originally at pains to point out how such inclusions should not be taken as affecting the historical understandings of marriage.

What ought to have been made was a judicial direction (declaration) or commentary that the legislation, if it was under-inclusive, should be adjusted by the legislature to include same-sex relationships, leaving the question of how this should be done, and in what sort of language categories, to the proper authorities for such things. The legislature could bring about the desired benefits but need not do so by doing violence, say, to conjugal (or familial) categories.

Many pieces of legislation were “modernized” so as to provide benefits coverage to those in same-sex relationships. The Act that did this, The Modernization of Benefits Act, a piece of federal legislation, amended some 80 federal statutes. Interestingly, however, this Act was at pains to point out that none of these beneficial changes should be interpreted as affecting the definition of marriage which was expressly set out to be the former recognition of a relationship between one man and one woman.

Soon, however, beneficial entitlement was insufficient for same-sex activists and the claims were launched against marriage itself. They wished to have “social recognition,” not just benefits recognition. They wished to have the intangible symbolic recognition of marriage, not just its financial benefits under other language. So it was that the three challenges, launched almost simultaneously in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, would lead, eventually, to the inauguration of “same-sex marriage” as a constitutional requirement in Canada. What followed from that, the federal Marriage Act Reference, is well known and has been the subject of much comment in articles on this website before.

My point here is that what should have happened in each case, the proper consideration of other means of providing the benefits or goal sought, did not occur. In order for Canadian society to come to the right conclusion on “marriage” Parliament and the Legislatures should have recognized that “marriage” is no longer agreed upon as being one thing anymore and might not, therefore, be the best category from which to administer federal benefits.

Why did we not ask: couldn’t the aspects of marriage that the state was concerned with be viewed not in terms of sexual conduct (key to marriage), but in terms of financial interdependence? This would have allowed benefits to those in “reciprocal beneficiary” type relations (“any two persons” irrespective of sexual relations) but have avoided giving a constitutional seal of approval to one side of a highly contested and irreconcilable definitional war about the nature of marriage - - a war built around two viewpoints that it is still legal to hold.

What happened to conjugal categories is now happening to familial ones. As “spouse” was judicially (then legislatively) expanded to include same-sex relationships, so now “parent” has been judicially expanded to include more than the two natural parents of a child. But there is no reason why another category could not be explored in such cases, leaving “parents” to the biological as those who are the father and mother of the child. Others could be registered “guardians” or any other non-parental term legislators wish and the rights and obligations of such “guardians” could then be set out while leaving the symbolism and reality of “parents” intact.

Terminological confusion leading to replacement, however, has fit the purposes of those who wanted to attack marriage and the family as the twin pillars and evils of the patriarchal state. Some of the activists behind these movements have said as much in their published writings. They make no secret that such moves through law and politics are “attacks.” To ignore this and where it might lead our society is simply naive.

These developments in the law and politics related to marriage and the family in Canada show that we seem to be unable to deal creatively with conflicts of ideology regarding the meaning of marriage and family. We have not begun to deal with serious ways to create a modus vivendi in this country. Instead of recognizing the limits of law and politics in such areas and crafting new ways to deal with benefits in terms of the function marriage and the family serve, and recognizing the limits of what law should properly try to achieve, we see each new set of challenges paving the way for yet more radical moves of the constitutional norms (or legal rules) relating to marriage and the structure and nature of the family.

In such a condition of cultural drift and radical opportunism, the future for both concepts - - marriage and the family, and the wider principles that ought to be (but are not) properly considered - - pluralism, diversity and multi-culturalism, looks bleak indeed.

Iain T. Benson©

==============================

The Homosexual Assault On Traditional Marriage (townhall.com, 070207)

By Ben Shapiro

There are those who do not believe that the institution of marriage is under assault. There are those who do not believe that same-sex marriage is a knowing attempt to undermine the nature of marriage. There are those who do not believe that many homosexuals bear a particular animus for heterosexual marriage, and have designs beyond mere tolerance.

Then there are those of us who live in the real world.

In Washington, proponents of same-sex marriage, under the banner of the falsely named Defense of Marriage Alliance, have proposed a state ballot initiative that would require straight married couples to have children within three years or face annulment. “For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation,” explained DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow. “The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they cannot have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.”

It seems intensely ironic that same-sex marriage advocates, who proclaim the basis of their politics to be consent, should sponsor such an initiative. But, of course, they are not serious; they are using marriage as a political club to make a point. Their point in Washington is purportedly to prove that traditional marriage is not solely about children — and that if it is not about children, it is about discrimination for its own sake. But even same-sex marriage advocates realize that though traditional marriage sees children as the first priority, it does not rest its legitimacy solely on the basis of child-bearing and rearing.

The goal of same-sex marriage proponents is to elevate homosexuality to the same moral level as heterosexuality. If children are not the sole purpose of marriage, they say, any marriage is merely a grouping of two people who love each other. This is absurd. Marriage is implicitly about the relationship between man and woman. Marriage is codification of the idea that a man and a woman in a committed and sexual union make each other and the surrounding society better.

Women and men are inherently different. They are not interchangeable parts. Men have different strengths and weaknesses than women. A marital relationship between a man and a woman provides spiritual enrichment for each. The union between a single man and a single woman is, as the liturgy says, blessed.

That this blessed union produces the blessing of children demonstrates the Divine origin of such unions. Children are not merely the product of traditional marriage and the beneficiaries of it; they are Divine confirmation that the union of man and woman is special and good. The fact that certain traditional marriages do not produce children does not invalidate the general point that men and women belong together, just as the fact that broken cars exist does not demonstrate that ignition keys ought generally to be put in exhaust pipes.

Advocates of same-sex marriage argue that gender is literally meaningless. It is for that reason that they compare gender to race in legal contexts. Citing Loving v. Virginia , the Supreme Court case that ruled anti-miscegenation statutes unconstitutional, advocates claim that distinctions based on sex are the same as distinctions based on race.

If gender is meaningless, children do not need both mother and father; a father and a father, two mothers, six fathers and a mother — any or all may suffice. To homosexual marriage proponents, the fact that only the sexual union between men and women produces children is an unfortunate accident of nature. Would that nature had made mankind completely androgynous, so as to demonstrate the complete and utter homogeneity of all people!

Gender is not meaningless, of course. The radical individualism that denies all distinction between men and women is deeply pernicious. It denies the spiritual in mankind. It denies the obvious physical and spiritual bounty springing from traditional marriage. It also denies to children the benefits of a mother and father.

In one sense, Washington’s same-sex advocates do us a favor: They make clear that in order to deny homosexual marriage, we must uphold the beautiful and natural distinctions between men and women. They also make clear that we must uphold the value of heterosexuality over homosexuality. We must take up the gauntlet and, in doing so, vindicate the possibility of a higher spiritual elevation through the deepest possible human relationship.

==============================

French High Court Rejects Gay ‘Marriage’ (Foxnews, 070315)

PARIS (AP) - France’s highest court Tuesday rejected as unlawful the first marriage by a gay couple in France, annulling the union of the two men.

Stephane Charpin and Bertrand Charpentier were married in a civil ceremony on June 5, 2004, in Begles, a town in the southwest Bordeaux region. The government immediately said the union was outside the law, and a series of court decisions unfavorable to the couple followed.

In the latest decision, the court ruled that “under French law, marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” backing a 2005 decision by an appeals court in Bordeaux.

No other gay couple has married in France since Charpin and Charpentier’s 2004 union.

Prosecutor Marc Domingo said during an earlier court hearing that it was the parliament, not judges, who should have the final word in any legalization of marriages involving homosexual couples.

The couple said after the 2005 appeals court ruling that they would take their case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary. It was not immediately clear whether they would do so.

The lower court that initially rejected the marriage noted that gay couples in France are already covered by legislation that grants non-married cohabiting couples of the same or opposite sexes some rights enjoyed by married couples.

==============================

Sweden Takes Step Toward Allowing Gay ‘Marriage’: Proposal expected to receive parliamentary approval (Christian Post, 070323)

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Sweden took a step toward allowing gay marriage on Wednesday when a government-appointed committee proposed expanding the rights of same-sex couples.

Sweden has recognized civil unions between homosexual couples since 1994, but does not permit gay marriages.

If the new law is passed, couples who have entered such unions would automatically be considered legally married, said Hans Regner, who led the committee that presented the proposal.

“Two men or two women should be able to wed, and in the future be called spouses,” Regner said. “All the rules for heterosexual spouses will be applied also to homosexual couples.”

Same-sex marriage is legal in five other countries: Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and South Africa. In the United States, only the states of Massachusetts allows gay marriage.

The Swedish proposal needs parliamentary approval but is expected to pass because gay marriage has widespread support in the Scandinavian country, Regner said.

However, the clergy has been divided on the issue, and the government proposal would allow individual churches to refuse same-sex weddings.

Sweden’s predominant Lutheran Church said last week it would be willing to marry gay couples in church if the law is changed, but that the ceremony would be given a different name than wedding.

Gays in civil partnerships already enjoy similar rights as married couples. One difference is that the age limit of 18 years for civil unions is absolute, while married couples can request an exemption.

==============================

MP’s same-sex wedding draws high-powered crowd (National Post, 070819)

CHEVERIE, N.S. — Liberal MP Scott Brison and Maxime St. Pierre walked down the aisle to “It’s a wonderful world” and walked back to “I can see clearly now, the rain has gone.”

The second song choice elicited laughter from the crowd of around 200 gathered in rural Nova Scotia for the same-sex wedding, as most of them were still soggy from the downpour Saturday afternoon.

Liberal MP Ken Dryden, who described the scene, said that was just the feeling of the day. “It just felt like an absolute celebration,” he said after the ceremony outside the Cheverie United Church in Minas Bason, N.S.

“It was clear at the start, people were applauding and then feeling a little uncomfortable about applauding and then people couldn’t stop themselves.”

It was an historic wedding, as Brison became the first MP to marry a same-sex partner since federal legislation allowed for gay marriages two years ago.

The happy couple, who wore summer suits, seemed nervous at the beginning of the ceremony, Dryden said.

“The feeling in the church was so terrific, that I think they couldn’t help but have a good time as each minute passed,” he said.

“They were very serious and very emotional in that way. It was really nice.”

Hours before, security was tight on the road leading to Brison’s seaside home. A private security team monitored traffic and at least six RCMP officers patrolled the area.

The church was jammed with people, including some guests who had to stand at the back. Included among them were some high-profile guests:Former prime ministers Paul Martin and Joe Clark, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, former Liberal defence minister Bill Graham, MP Mike Savage, former Ontario premier Bob Rae, former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna and senator Jim Cowan.

“I was proud when Scott Brison came out of the closet and openly said he was a Liberal,” Dion joked. “I just want to add that it’s a good symbol for Canadians that this first marriage is between a francophone and an anglophone and celebrated in both languages.”

Senator Jim Cowan said they were all delighted to be there.

“It was just a beautiful ceremony and lots of good feeling all around,” he said.

After the church service, McKenna described it as solemn, joyful and respectful, and the couple seemed radiant.

“I think everybody in the room felt like they were part of a history-making event. It seemed like a validation of a long process. I think everybody who was here was very moved by the experience,” he added.

He said Canadians have evolved in the past year or two and he believes the debate over gay marriage is over.

==============================

Pro-family group quits fight against gay marriage (znp, 070927)

OTTAWA — The head of a national pro-family organization says it’s time to ditch the fight against gay marriage and push instead for tax breaks and other incentives to make marriage and child rearing more attractive options.

Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, said Thursday he has become less concerned about same-sex marriage since census figures released earlier this month demonstrated how rare gay marriage is.

The census, which counted same-sex marriages for the first time, reported 7,465 such unions, accounting for about 0.1% of the 6.1 million married couples in Canada.

Quist said the “incredibly low” number of same-sex marriages, combined with a lack of “political will” to restore the traditional definition of marriage, has persuaded him to move on. A possible federal election in the coming months will not change the picture, he predicted.

“No political party is likely to put that [restoring traditional marriage] as part of their platform, their agenda right now. I’m not even asking for that as an institute,” he said in an interview. “We have to pick our battles and where we are going to spend our time and energy.”

By a vote of 175 to 123, the Commons defeated a motion last December that would have authorized the Conservative government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage.

But Quist said the institute is now more concerned about the increasing popularity of common-law relationships in Canada, and that it would rather spend its time and resources encouraging measures to strengthen the institutions of marriage and the family.

He said a first priority should be to change the tax rules so only married couples — not those living common law — are allowed to split their incomes, thereby reducing their tax hit.

The rising tide of common-law unions throughout North America, but particularly in Canada, was a major topic of discussion Thursday at a one-day conference sponsored by Quist’s organization. American academic Jennifer Roback Morse, who has written extensively about the merits of marriage over cohabitation, said Canadian legislators should waste no time in coming up with tax breaks to make marriage more attractive.

“We should not encourage cohabitation by treating it as if it were marriage,” she told about 60 people, most from faith-based and social service organizations.

Roback Morse cited studies suggesting that cohabiting couples report lower levels of satisfaction in their relationships than married couples and that women are more likely to be abused by a live-in boyfriend than a husband. Research also shows that children are more likely to be abused by a mother’s boyfriend than by her husband, and that the probability of divorce is higher among couples who lived together before they married, she added.

The latest Canada-wide census reported that between 2001 and 2006, the number of common-law couples surged by 19% to 1,376,865. This compared to an increase of only 3.5% in the number of families in which the couple was legally married. In recent decades, Canadian courts have generally ruled that people in stable common-law relationships have the same rights and obligations as those who are legally married.

==============================

First gay couple legally married in Iowa after judge rules state ban unconstitutional (Foxnews, 070831)

DES MOINES, Iowa — A minister married two men outside his Iowa home Friday morning, sealing the state’s first legal same-sex wedding. Less than 24 hours earlier, a judge had thrown out Iowa’s ban on gay marriage.

The Rev. Mark Stringer declared college students Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan legally wed.

“This is it. We’re married. I love you,” Fritz told McQuillan after the ceremony on the front lawn of the Unitarian minister’s home in Des Moines.

On Thursday, Polk County Judge Robert Hanson ruled that Iowa’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed marriage only between a man and a woman, violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of six gay couples who had sued.

The ruling cleared the way for gay couples across the state to apply for marriage licenses in Polk County, and more than a dozen had by Friday morning.

The window of opportunity could be narrow, though.

County attorney John Sarcone promised a quick appeal, and he immediately asked Hanson for a stay that would prevent gays and lesbians from getting marriage licenses until the appeal was resolved. A hearing on the stay request is likely next week, said Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization.

In the meantime, the applications began rolling in.

The marriage license approval process normally takes three business days, but couples can pay a $5 fee and get a judge to sign a waiver allowing them to skip the waiting period.

That’s what Iowa State University students Fritz and McQuillan did.

“We’re both in our undergrad programs and we thought maybe we’d put it off until applying at graduate school, but when this opportunity came up we thought maybe we wouldn’t get the opportunity again,” Fritz said. “Maybe the chance won’t come again.”

Friday morning, with the waiver and marriage license in hand, Stringer married the two men, concluding the ceremony by saying, “This is a legal document and you are married.”

The two students then kissed.

Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, said the ruling illustrates the need for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

“I can’t believe this is happening in Iowa,” Rants said. “I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January,” when the Legislature convenes.

Gov. Chet Culver left open the possibility of state action.

“While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” Culver said.

Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and nine other states have approved spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples. Nearly all states have defined marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, and 27 states have such wording in their constitutions, according the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Dennis Johnson, a lawyer for the six gay couples who sued after being denied marriage licenses in 2005, had argued that Iowa has a long history of aggressively protecting civil rights in cases of race and gender. The Defense of Marriage Act contradicts previous rulings regarding civil rights and is simply “mean spirited,” he said.

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue was not for a judge to decide.

“We’re very disappointed and will pursue to the next level of courts,” said Rachel Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the conservative Iowa Family Policy Center, which opposes gay marriage.

Friday morning, the county Web site that explains how to apply for a marriage license still began with the words, “Marriages in Iowa are between a male and a female ...,” but Deputy County Recorder Trish Umthun still expected a rush of applications from same-sex couples through the day.

Katy Farlow and Larissa Boeck, both Iowa State University students like Fritz and McQuillan, were waiting in lawn chairs when the office opened at 7:30 a.m. Friday.

“This might be our only chance,” Farlow said. “We already knew we were spending the rest of our lives together.”

David Curtis Rethmeier, 29, and Gary Allen Seronko, 51, had reached the office before it closed on Thursday and filed their application. Rethmeier was listed as “bride” and Seronko as “groom”.

“I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us,” Rethmeier said.

Hanson ruled Thursday that the state law banning same-sex marriage must be nullified, severed and stricken from the books, and the marriage laws “must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage ...”

“This is kind of the American Dream,” said plaintiff Jen BarbouRoske, of Iowa City. “I’m still feeling kind of shaky. It’s pure elation. I just cannot believe it.”

Kate Varnum of Cedar Rapids, another plaintiff, said she was elated but expected more legal battles.

“I don’t expect this to be the last one,” she said.

==============================

Gay ‘Marriage’ Bill Approval Adds to Calif. Woes (Christian Post, 070910)

Pro-family groups are denouncing a new California bill passed by the state senate Friday that grants marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

The bill, AB43, was passed by a vote 22-15 and seeks to replace the words “a man and a woman” with any “two persons” in California’s marriage laws.

Homosexual assemblyman Mark Leno proposed the legislation, which is his third effort to pass what he calls a “gender-neutral marriage bill,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

“We see AB43 as yet another heavy-handed, blatant attempt for Mark Leno and company to skirt the current restrictions in law that prevents same-sex marriages in California,” said Benjamin Lopez, a lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition, according to SF Chronicle.

The bill now heads to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk for approval.

Schwarzenegger has been ambiguous during previous questioning on the issue. He suggested that the term “marriage” can be eliminated because registered “domestic partners” already have all the same legal rights, benefits, duties and obligations as married couples. However, the governor also vetoed a similar bill in 2005.

“Marriage is more than just a civil contract … it is different from domestic partners, it’s just different than civil unions – it means something,” acknowledged state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), who presented the bill and was also the first openly gay person to be elected to the Legislature, according to the San Francisco Chronicles.

“And because it means something, that’s why it’s been denied to us.”

California would be the second state to legalize same-sex “marriage,” after Massachusetts, if the bill is signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger.

Yet pro-family groups expressed more concern over next year’s California Supreme Court’s ruling on granting state-wide homosexual “marriage” licenses. The court’s approval of same-sex “marriage” would override the people’s 2000 vote to protect traditional marriage.

In 2000, 62% of voters passed a constitutional amendment, Proposition 22, that states “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Traditional marriage supporters, including conservative group Focus on the Family, have urged believers to call Schwarzenegger’s office to urge him to veto the bill.

“Time is running out for generous souls to leave the legacy of marriage to future generations through the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment,” said Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) and one of the drive’s organizers, in a statement.

The VoteYesMarriage initiative gives California voters the right and ability to override the judges and politicians in the decision to protect marriage as between a man and a woman.

“If we don’t rescue marriage now, marriage for a man and a woman can easily be destroyed in the law. But our democracy is founded on government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” Thomasson said. “It’s time for the people to rise up to protect marriage rights once and for all for one man and one woman.

In Friday’s vote, all Republican senators had opposed AB 43 while all but three Democrat senators supported it.

==============================

Canada Sees Surge in Same-Sex Unions (Christian Post, 070912)

Canada’s latest “family portrait” is for the first time revealing a census count of same-sex “married” couples.

And according to Statistics Canada, which released the results on Wednesday, the number of same-sex couples has surged five times the pace of opposite-sex couples between 2001 and 2006.

In total, the 2006 census revealed 45,345 same-sex couples in Canada – 16.5% of which were “married” couples. Others were living in a common-law union. The number of homosexual couples jumped 32.6% over the past five years while heterosexual couples grew only 5.9%. Overall, the total count of families in 2006 was 8,896,840, up 6.4% from 2001.

Further data showed that over half (53.7%) of same-sex “married” couples were men. About 9% of same-sex couples had children aged 24 years and under living in their home in 2006. The presence of children was more common in female unions (16.3%) than male ones (2.9%).

Census officials included same-sex couples in their 2006 count to reflect the results of Canada’s legalization of same-sex “marriage.” Canada in 2005 became the third country in the world to legalize homosexual “marriage” nationwide, after the Netherlands and Belgium.

Spain and South Africa have since followed in legalizing it.

“It’s the first time that we’ve asked same-sex marriage so it’s really a benchmark number,” Anne Milan, a senior analyst at Statistics Canada, told The Associated Press.

Gay and lesbian activists, however, were not happy with the census questionnaire which included an “other” box for same-sex “married” couples.

The term “spouse” and “husband” and “wife” were ruled out during focus group testing as they proved too confusing or not commonly used in the gay community, reported Milan.

Statistics Canada ended up using the “other” box, encouraging people to include “same-sex married couple” as a write-in response.

Egale Canada, an advocate group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered rights, urged people to check husband or wife rather than the “other” box. Many members simply chose not to complete the census in protest.

Milan told The Canadian Press that it’s “difficult to say” what effect Egale’s dissent had on the numbers.

“Future census releases will allow us to compare the count and see what’s happening,” she said.

Statistics Canada and Egale are discussing how to change the counting process next time.

Michael Leshner, one of Canada’s first legally “married” gay men, said that the fact the question was being asked at all shows that “people are getting on with their lives, which was fundamentally what the whole debate was about.

“It’s really a debate that hopefully has run its course... We’re just part of the boring middle class now, he said, according to the local newspaper.

Same-sex couples represented 0.6% of all couples in Canada in 2006, which is comparable to numbers reported in the United States, New Zealand and Australia.

Today, gay tolerance is on the rise around the world, particularly among young people. Nearly half (46%) of Americans in the United States say same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid with the same rights as traditional marriages, according to a recent Gallup Poll. And 50% of Mexicans support proposals to allow gay “marriage,” according to a 2005 poll by the Mitofsky market-research firm. Same-sex civil unions were legalized in Mexico City in 2006 and with the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico becoming less vocal in their opposition, activists are hoping to legalize same-sex “marriage.”

==============================

Maryland court affirms traditional marriage: Judges ‘decline to recognize sexual orientation as an immutable trait’ (WorldNetDaily, 070918)

A court in Maryland has rejected arguments from homosexual marriage advocates that state law discriminates against same-sex couples, affirming a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“Because Family Law 2-201 does not abridge the fundamental right to marriage (as we understand that right), does not discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of Article 46, and does not otherwise implicate a suspect or quasi-suspect class, the marriage statute is subject to rational review,” said the opinion from the state Court of Appeals, which went even further into the dispute.

“In the absence of some generally accepted scientific conclusion identifying homosexuality as an immutable characteristic, and in light of the other indicia used by this Court and the Supreme Court in defining a suspect class, we decline on the record in the present case to recognize sexual orientation as an immutable trait and therefore a suspect or quasi-suspect classification,” the opinion said.

“We’re pleased that the Maryland Court of Appeals did not allow the demands of advocates of homosexual behavior to be furthered in this case,” said Chris Stovall, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

“The court appropriately ruled that the proper place for public policy is with the public and the policymakers, not the judiciary. It remains critical for voters not to be lulled to sleep by this victory. It is crucially important that Americans support state marriage amendments, and, ultimately, a federal marriage amendment,” Stovall said.

The organization had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Family Research Council in the case.

The dispute erupted because Maryland law provides that no individuals may marry “in this State without a license issued by the clerk for the county in which the marriage is performed.”

Clerks, in issuing licenses, are charged with looking for “a legal reason why the applicants should not be married.” Frank Conaway, clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and others denied same-sex couples the licenses because of the state’s family law that provides only “a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.”

But the court found in a 4-3 ruling that the 1973 ban on homosexual marriage does not discriminated on the basis of gender, nor does it deny any fundamental right.

Those claims had been made by the 2004 lawsuit.

While homosexuals have suffered from discrimination, “we do not believe that they meet the other criteria [for being a suspect or quasi-suspect classification],” the ruling said. Also, since legislatures continue to address such discrimination issues, “homosexuals are not without political power.”

The court concluded it wasn’t even sure that homosexuality met the requirement of being an immutable characteristic.

“The term ‘immutability’ defines a human characteristic that is determined ‘solely by the accident of birth,’” the court said. “Based on the scientific and sociological evidence currently available to the public, we are unable to take judicial notice that gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons displayed readily-recognizable, immutable characteristics that define the group such that they may be deemed a suspect class for purposes of determining the appropriate level of scrutiny to be accorded the statute in the present case,” the opinion said.

Plaintiff Lisa Polyak told the Associated Press history “will hold them in contempt” and called the result “ignorant.”

And two state lawmaker said they would propose conflicting plans allowing – or banning – homosexual marriages.

Nine homosexual couples were represented by the ACLU in the lawsuit that demanded formal recognition of their lifestyle choices. In 2006, a state circuit court ruled they had been subjected to “sex discrimination” but the new opinion overturned that.

“In light of Maryland’s history of limiting marriage to those unions between members of the opposite sex, coupled with the policy choices of nearly every other state in the Nation, we do not find that same-sex marriage is so deeply rooted in this State or the country as a whole that it should be regarded at this time as a fundamental right,” the opinion noted.

“The union of a man and a woman has been the fundamental social unit in every society,” Stovall said. “The opponents of marriage aren’t merely trying to redefine marriage, they’re trying to eliminate it. Political special interests shouldn’t trump what’s in the best interest of families and children.”

The only state where same-sex marriage has been made legal is Massachusetts, a decision that was imposed by the courts during former Gov. Mitt Romney’s tenure. Several other states, including at least California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Hawaii, have made provision for a sort of civil union or other arrangement.

However, of 28 states where voters have been given the opportunity to make a choice, voters in 27 states have decided to embed in their state constitutions the requirement that marriage be between only one man and one woman.

==============================

Gay Couples Enter Unions in New Year (Christian Post, 080101)

As the clock struck midnight marking the start of 2008, dozens of gay and lesbian couples stood outside the New Hampshire Statehouse to enter into civil unions.

Beginning this year, civil unions for same-sex couples are legally recognized in New Hampshire. The law was adopted and signed in May 2007.

“We’ve been together 20 years; we’ve been waiting for this moment for 20 years; finally the state will recognize us as we are,” said Julie Bernier who was joined by partner Joan Andresen.

Organizers of the outdoor ceremony said they checked in 37 gay and lesbian couples for the 11 p.m. event on Monday.

Same-sex “marriage” advocates cheered while no protesters were seen at the Statehouse.

Michael Hein of The Christian Civic League of Maine was the lone opponent who drove 180 miles from Augusta, Maine, and passed out statements denouncing homosexuality. He also attended the event to “report to the people of Maine that this is going on next door,” according to The Associated Press.

“Without our vigilance in Maine, (civil unions are) something that could occur as soon as next year,” Hein said to AP.

Meanwhile, V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, announced that he will marry his same-sex partner in June.

“I always wanted to be a June bride,” Robinson recently told an audience at a Florida law school during a lecture series on Sex, Morality and Law.

Robinson caused uproar when he became the first openly gay bishop to be consecrated in 2003. Conservative Anglicans worldwide have denounced the consecration and called for repentance.

New Hampshire became the fourth state - following Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey - in the nation to allow civil unions when Democratic Gov. John Lynch signed the bill into law last year. The civil unions law gives same-sex couples the same rights, responsibilities and obligations of marriage without calling the union a marriage.

Same-sex “marriage” supporters are expected to push for “full marriage equality - with the word marriage - soon,” said state Rep. Jim Splaine, a sponsor of the civil unions bill.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex “marriage.” New Hampshire estimates that as many as 3,500 to 4,000 civil unions will be performed this year.

==============================

Same-Sex Couples Register in Oregon (Christian Post, 080206)

Same-sex couples lined up Monday in front of the Multnomah County Building to register for Oregon’s new domestic partnership.

It was the first day gay couples were allowed to register as domestic partners after U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman dismissed on Friday a petition lawsuit. Oregon became the ninth state to approve spousal rights in some form for same-sex couples.

While gay couples exchanged rings and exited the county building with their certificates of registration, Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is planning to appeal Friday’s ruling which was described as a “severe blow to the preservation of marriage and the family.”

In 2004, Multnomah County – the largest county in Oregon – passed a law authorizing same-sex “marriages.” About 3,000 gay couples were granted “marriage” licenses.

Oregon voters later voted in favor of a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriages” and the state Supreme Court nullified the licenses.

Since then, homosexual activists have worked to reverse the decision. And in 2007, the Oregon State Legislature enacted a bill creating domestic partnerships and granting same-sex couples the benefits of marriage. The law was to take effect when the new year started.

However, the federal judge, Mosman, had suspended the 2007 law from taking effect in 2008 to hear testimony about a petition drive.

Opponents of the domestic-partnership law argued that it disregarded the will of Oregon voters who passed the amendment banning same-sex “marriage.” They started a petition drive that sought to put the law before voters on the November 2008 ballot.

The petitions fell 96 signatures short of the 55,179 needed to place the law on the ballot. However, Alliance Defense Fund said when the signatures were submitted to the Oregon Secretary of State in September, they exceeded the required number by more than 6,000.

The group argued in court that many of the signatures were wrongfully rejected. They also said the officials in charge of validating the signatures ended the process after only 12 days in spite of the fact that a provision in the Oregon Constitution allowed them 30 days to contact signers in an attempt to verify signatures’ authenticity.

Mosman rejected the arguments. The Alliance Defense Fund said it plans to appeal the ruling and petitioners plan to start another drive.

“We want to vote — we think that our signatures mean something and it was an arbitrary move by the secretary of state’s office,” said Carolyn Wendell, who was a chief petitioner in the lawsuit, according to AP.

And referring the issue to voters could mean preserving traditional marriage.

“When the people have been allowed to vote on marriage, they have overwhelming recognized that it is the union of one man and one woman,” said a statement by ADF.

In Florida, the Marriage Protection Amendment was officially certified on Friday for the November 2008 ballot with a total of 649,346 petitions certified, exceeding the 611,009 required by law. If the amendment passes, Florida would recognize marriage as “the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

Oregon’s approval of domestic partnerships for same-sex couples follows similar measures in Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Washington and Hawaii. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay “marriage.”

==============================

EU High Court Rules on Gay ‘Marriage’ Rights (Christian Post, 080402)

LUXEMBOURG (AP) - EU nations that recognize same-sex unions as legal marriages must grant surviving partners the same pension rights as given to those in traditional marriages, the EU Court of Justice ruled Tuesday.

The Luxembourg-based court ruling was seen as a victory for a German man who was denied his partner’s retirement plan payments after his partner died in 2005.

The EU court said pension plan had discriminated against the man on the grounds of sexual orientation because the men’s relationship had been recognized under German law as a legally registered life partnership equivalent to a traditional marriage.

The court did not say, however, that all 27 EU nations must recognize same-sex unions, only that if they did they must grant life partners the same benefits.

Today, 10 EU nations do not recognize same-sex partnerships at all: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Ireland, according to the European branch of the International Lesbian and Gay Association. France and Italy grant them very limited rights, the group said.

But elsewhere in the EU — notably in the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden — life partnerships have acquired considerable social rights in the last 20 years.

==============================

Pro-Family Leaders Worldwide Back Romania’s Efforts to Ban Gay ‘Marriage’ (Christian Post, 080408)

In an act of international solidarity to defend the institution of marriage, over 100 pro-family leaders from around the world signed a petition this week to defend efforts in Romania to outlaw same-sex “marriage.”

“We applaud the Romanian people for taking this courageous step in defense of a divinely ordained institution which predates governments and on whose health the future of society depends. And we encourage Romania’s Chamber of Deputies and others in the government to fully codify the proposed definition of marriage and, eventually, to so define marriage in Romania’s Constitution,” the petition reads.

Earlier this year, efforts by the pro-family Alliance of Romanian Families to gather 650,000 signatures to ban gay “marriage” and the Romanian Senate’s vote to amend the country’s constitution to define marriage as a “union between a man and a woman” came under attack by pro-gay groups who attempted to block the measures.

Boris Dittrich, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch (HRW)’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender/Transsexual (LGBT) Rights Program, was among those who criticized Romania’s efforts to ban gay “marriage” in an open letter addressed to its legislators.

“The European Convention of Human Rights, one of those treaties to which Romania is a party, provides specific protection to families under Article 8, and the European Court of Human Rights is very clear that the legal definition of family should neither be discriminatory nor unduly restrictive…The right to marry is a basic human right,” he wrote.

“Civil marriage is not an exception to the protections against unequal treatment, and Romanian legislators should not write their country into a trap of preemptive and discriminatory prohibition,” he added.

In response, pro-family groups from around the world have rallied to Romania’s cause to protect the institution of marriage.

Allan C. Carlson, international secretary of the World Congress of Families, spoke of the petition backing Romania as part of a world wide effort to save marriage.

“This (the petition) shows the willingness of pro-family groups to stand in solidarity,” he said, according to a released statement. “It is a recognition of the reality that a threat to the natural family anywhere is a threat to the natural family everywhere.

“We will continue to build the international pro-family movement to protect the natural family and advance our common values, wherever they are threatened,” he added.

In February, the Senate of Romania voted 38 to 10 to change its Family Code to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman.”

In order for the measure to become law, the country’s Chamber of Deputies will have to decide on the issue in June.

According to a 2004 study conducted by the Eurobarometer’s Targeting Social Need (TNS) Opinion & Social, Romania “had the lowest level of backing for same-sex marriage,” among eight different European Union countries.

According to the study, only 11% of Romanians said they supported same-sex “marriage.”

==============================

The New Face of Gay Marriage (Christian Post, 080428)

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

“Honey, we may be married, but we still know how to have a good time, don’t we?” That statement was made by Joshua Janson, age 25, to his husband, Benjamin McGuire, also 25. The reality of young homosexual men getting married in Massachusetts caught the attention of The New York Times Magazine and writer Benoit Denizet-Lewis.

The magazine’s April 27, 2008 cover article, “Young Gay Rites,” offers a fascinating glimpse into the lives of these young men – and into their understandings of marriage and its place in American life. Reporter Benoit Denizet-Lewis is interested in the story as a journalist who is himself homosexual, but the article deserves attention by a far larger readership. In their own way, these young men are demonstrating something important about marriage in America.

Denizet-Lewis discovered that more than 700 gay men 29 or younger had married in Massachusetts through June 2007, the last date for which data is available.

This confounds the conventional wisdom about same-sex marriage – that young male homosexuals would not be interested in marrying.

The numbers do tell a story. Lesbian couples are still far more likely to marry than homosexual male couples. Furthermore, the early trend among male homosexuals was older male couples getting married. As Denizet-Lewis explains, they had been together longer and were ready for same-sex marriage when it was legalized.

He cites Dan Savage, a sex-advice columnist, who explained, “Women – straight or gay – tend to want to settle down years before men do.” Another observer remarked that “lesbians are more likely to be partnered than gay men, tend to cohabitate quicker and are more likely to have children – which is a motivator to get married.”

The stereotypes are made clear in this couplet of jokes cited in the article: “What does a lesbian bring on a second date? A U-Haul. What does a gay man bring on a second date? What second date?”

In other words, younger homosexual men are more likely to engage in sex with more partners and to resist long-term relationships. The men Denizet-Lewis considers were or are resisting those trends – at least up to a point.

Denizet-Lewis goes into great detail about the lives, loves, and expectations of some of these male couples. Some readers will want to look at the romantic details and see the similarities with heterosexual romance and marriage. The mothers of some of these young men wanted to know the details of how the engagement came about. None of the parents seemed to have much of a problem with the fact that their son was marrying another man, but some of the couples chose to marry rather quietly.

One facet of this story is how “normal” some of these couples want to appear. Some of these couples choose the trappings of traditional marriage – rings and all. Others resist anything that appears “heteronormative.” But the very fact that both individuals in the couple are men, the “normal” appearance breaks down in some of the questions these couples face. Will one partner be more stereotypically “male?” Will the marriage be egalitarian? Will one partner be a “gay housewife?”

Monogamy is another interesting aspect of the story. Denizet-Lewis cites Frederick Hertz, author of A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples, who explains that many older homosexual male couples “make a distinction between emotional fidelity and sexual fidelity.” Denizet-Lewis suggested that some of these younger male couples were far more committed to true monogamy.

On the other hand, a couple – both men named Brandon – took a different approach:

But the Brandons suspected they were untraditional when it came to their thinking about monogamy. As they saw it, one enduring lesson of heterosexual marriage is that lifelong monogamy is unrealistic for most people – especially men. “Most straight people like to talk a great game about monogamy,” Brandon A. said. “But what are they actually doing? Many of them have affairs at some point or break up because they want to sleep with somebody else. We’re two guys, we’re in our 20s, we haven’t been sexual with that many people, and to pretend like we’re never going to want to experience sex with another person until the day we die doesn’t make sense to us. We’re open to exploring our sexuality together in a way that makes us both comfortable.”

“Young Gay Rites” is itself a noteworthy signal about the future of marriage. If Denizet-Lewis is right, the legalization of same-sex marriage is changing the ways some homosexuals are living their lives. In other words, same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is changing homosexual culture in some unexpected ways.

The Christian concern about marriage is rooted in the picture that marriage provides. Marriage is a covenant and the central institution for human society. The picture of marriage is the bringing together of those who are alike (both made in the image of God) and different (male and female). Out of this picture of difference brought together within covenant comes the gifts that flow from marriage.

The tragedy of same-sex marriage is not the awkwardness and strangeness revealed in this article, but the repudiation of that picture. That repudiation represents a great loss and confusion – but it also represents a violation of God’s command concerning marriage.

Denizet-Lewis’s article raises at least one final thought. If the legalization of same-sex marriage is changing homosexual culture, is it also changing heterosexual marriage? We can only wonder how long it will take for some heterosexual couples to decide that “emotional fidelity” and “sexual fidelity” can be separated.

We are living in the midst of vast cultural change. It is almost as if an entire civilization is being transformed before our eyes. Reading “Young Gay Rites” should be sufficient to make that realization hard to miss.

==============================

Australia Opens Door for Gay Couples; Keeps Marriage Off Limits (Christian Post, 080430)

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) - Australia will change a raft of federal laws to remove discrimination against gay couples, but will stop short of allowing same-sex marriages, the government announced Wednesday.

Under the changes, gay couples in long-term relationships would be treated the same as married couples on issues such as taxation, pensions and welfare payments, Attorney General Robert McClelland said.

Gay marriage is a hot-button issue for many Australians, and gay rights advocates say it is a key test of authorities’ willingness to end discrimination.

But McClelland said the Marriage Act would not be among the laws changed.

“The government believes that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said.

The changes — to about 100 different laws — will begin being introduced to Parliament next month, and the process is expected to be completed by mid-2009, McClelland said.

Some examples of the changes include that children being reared by gay couples would be considered dependents of both adults for tax and unemployment benefits, and same-sex couples would be treated as a family unit for pension purposes.

Rights advocates welcomed the changes, though they said the government should go further and recognize gay marriages.

“Gay and lesbian Australians will not be fully equal until we are allowed the right to marry the partner of our choice,” Rodney Croome of the Australian Coalition for Equality group told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.

The Most Rev. Peter Jensen, the Anglican archbishop of Sydney who is a vocal opponent of gay marriage, said people in platonic relationships deserve the same benefits as gay couples under the law reforms.

“I hope this is not just pro-gay, so to speak, but pro-people ... in order to make sure there is justice for all Australians,” Jensen told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

He said friends living together in long-standing platonic relationships “support and strengthen each other.”

“There’d be many Christian people living like that, and I think that sort of thing could also be recognized,” Jensen added.

The changes will bring the federal government more closely into line with state and territory governments, which have already passed laws recognizing same-sex couples in their jurisdictions.

Under state laws, long-term gay couples are recognized as de facto partners with some legal rights. But the federal Marriage Act defines the union as between a man and a woman.

Australia is in line with many countries in Europe that give some legal recognition to same-sex couples — though few recognize gay marriages. In the United States, state bans on same-sex marriages or unions are widespread, though domestic partnerships are recognized in some places.

==============================

Gay ‘Marriage’ Ruling Presents Challenges to Calif. Churches (Christian Post, 080521)

Since the California Supreme Court’s pro-gay “marriage” ruling last week, churches throughout the nation’s most populous state have found themselves faced with a pressing question – “If homosexuals are allowed to ‘marry,’ must churches recognize and officiate at their weddings?”

In a statement issued a day after the ruling, Americans United (AU), an organization that lobbies for the separation of church and state, praised the high court’s decision, while also making clear that churches would not be required, in the words of the court, to “change [their] religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples.”

“In a May 15 decision, the court majority held that the state constitution mandates that same-sex couples have the same right to the benefits of civil marriage as opposite-sex couples,” AU noted. “The justices made clear, however, that the ruling applies only to civil marriages.

“Religious communities remain free to marry same-sex couples or not, in keeping with their theology.”

Although churches may be free to dictate their own theology independent of courts’ ruling on same-sex “marriage,” the decision by the California high court in favor of homosexuals has intensified debates and added salt to an already festering wound.

In recent years, theological clashes concerning the issue of same-sex “marriage” have divided churches and congregations throughout the nation – a reality that will continue to intensify even as some churches attempt to avoid discussion and dialogue over the issue.

Pastor Gregory L. Waybright of the Lake Avenue Church in Pasadena epitomized the sentiment of many churches following the California ruling.

Although homosexuality is clearly “a contradiction of what God’s word says,” the recent ruling complicates the role of churches as a “welcoming and loving house” for all, Waybright told the Los Angeles Times.

Even for churches supportive of the same-sex “marriage,” however, the new ruling presents a variety of different complications.

“At this point in the Episcopal Church, our prayer book still defines marriage between a man and a woman. There’s some question about whether we can, within the canons of our church, extend the sacrament to same-gender couples,” said the Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. Russell is a supporter of same-sex “marriages.”

James A. Donahue, president of the Berkeley-based Graduate Theological Union said that the California gay “marriage” ruling would continue to divide churches and pulpits across the nation.

“These are the kinds of issues every religion has to grapple with. How do you factor in the role of contemporary human rights, civil rights, the data about homosexuality with core traditions and beliefs?” he asked, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Since 2004, when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court made its ruling to recognize gay “marriage,” 26 states have passed a constitutional ban on the practice, while over a dozen others have passed laws limiting or outlawing it.

According to a recent Gallup poll, gay “marriage” is unpopular among the majority of Americans. Only 40% of Americans “currently say marriage between same-sex couples should be legal,” according to the poll’s results released this month.

==============================

Gay unions shed light on gender in marriage (Paris, International Herald, 080610)

[KH: pro-same sex marriage]

For insights into healthy marriages, social scientists are looking in an unexpected place.

A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.

The findings offer hope that some of the most vexing problems are not necessarily entrenched in deep-rooted biological differences between men and women. And that, in turn, offers hope that the problems can be solved.

Next week, California will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, reigniting the national debate over gay marriage. But relationship researchers say it also presents an opportunity to study the effects of marriage on the quality of all relationships.

“When I look at what’s happening in California, I think there’s a lot to be learned to explore how human beings relate to one another,” said Sondra Solomon, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Vermont. “How people care for each other, how they share responsibility, power and authority — those are the key issues in relationships.”

The stereotype for same-sex relationships is that they do not last. But that may be due, in large part, to the lack of legal and social recognition given to same-sex couples. Studies of dissolution rates vary widely.

After Vermont legalized same-sex civil unions in 2000, researchers surveyed nearly 1,000 couples, including same-sex couples and their heterosexual married siblings. The focus was on how the relationships were affected by common causes of marital strife like housework, sex and money.

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

“Heterosexual married women live with a lot of anger about having to do the tasks not only in the house but in the relationship,” said Esther Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University. “That’s very different than what same-sex couples and heterosexual men live with.”

Other studies show that what couples argue about is far less important than how they argue. The egalitarian nature of same-sex relationships appears to spill over into how those couples resolve conflict.

One well-known study used mathematical modeling to decipher the interactions between committed gay couples. The results, published in two 2003 articles in The Journal of Homosexuality, showed that when same-sex couples argued, they tended to fight more fairly than heterosexual couples, making fewer verbal attacks and more of an effort to defuse the confrontation.

Controlling and hostile emotional tactics, like belligerence and domineering, were less common among gay couples.

Same-sex couples were also less likely to develop an elevated heartbeat and adrenaline surges during arguments. And straight couples were more likely to stay physically agitated after a conflict.

“When they got into these really negative interactions, gay and lesbian couples were able to do things like use humor and affection that enabled them to step back from the ledge and continue to talk about the problem instead of just exploding,” said Robert Levenson, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.

The findings suggest that heterosexual couples need to work harder to seek perspective. The ability to see the other person’s point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner’s concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.

One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict. But some surprising new research shows that same-sex couples also exhibit the pattern, contradicting the notion that the behavior is rooted in gender, according to an abstract presented at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Psychological Science by Sarah R. Holley, a psychology researcher at Berkeley.

Levenson says this is good news for all couples.

“Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not,” he said. “That means there is a lot more hope that you can do something about it.”

==============================

New York Court Recognizes Foreign Gay ‘Marriages’ (Christian Post, 080508)

The New York Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling that mandated the state to recognize all same-sex “marriages” performed outside its borders.

The new measure became law after the court declined to hear arguments concerning the appeal of the decision by a State Supreme Court in February that recognized full marriage benefits of two state community college employees who legally “married” in Canada.

The February ruling, which threw out the State Supreme Court’s 2006 decision that state law “currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman,” argued that same-sex “marriages” performed legally in other states or countries be allowed barring legislation that would specifically prohibit it.

Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, said the recent ruling was progressive and a step toward the goal of giving same-sex couples full marriage benefits.

“Despite today’s good news, the state of marriage for same-sex couples in New York is still unsettled,” he said, according to LifeSiteNews.com

“Until a law is passed by the New York State Legislature, there will always be the possibility that another court decision could undo [this ruling] and strip away from otherwise legally married same-sex couples all of the 1,324 state-based rights and responsibilities that come with a marriage license in New York,” he added.

Currently, although Massachusetts is the only state to recognize same-sex “marriage,” several other states, including New York, recognize same-sex unions or “marriages” performed in other states or countries.

==============================

Michigan Court Rules in Favor of Marriage (Christian Post, 080511)

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled against giving domestic partnership benefits for homosexual couples working in state university and government agencies.

In a 5-2 ruling this past week, state Supreme Court justices overruled a decision by a lower appeals court to give same-sex couples health benefits, citing the passage of the state’s 2004 Marriage Protection Amendment as the basis of its decision.

“We conclude that the marriage amendment which states that ‘the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,’ prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees’ qualified same-sex domestic partners,” the court wrote in its ruling.

In 2004, a majority of voters in Michigan and over a dozen other states were prompted to pass a marriage amendment after the State Supreme Court in Massachusetts ruled in favor of gay “marriage.”

While the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan decried the latest ruling as “flawed and unfortunate,” pro-family groups were ecstatic.

“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” explained Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, according to Catholic News Agency.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said that the ruling in Michigan was a victory for the sanctity of marriage everywhere.

“This ruling not only affirms the lower court ruling, but affirms the institution of marriage. In effect, it strengthens the institution and will preserve it for generations to come,” he told LifeSiteNews.com.

==============================

California’s Top Court Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban (Foxnews, 080515)

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage Thursday, calling such a prohibition unconstitutional and paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

In the 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the majority that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage.

In striking down the ban, the court said, “In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

Outside the courthouse, celebrations erupted among gay marriage supporters.

“Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he will support the decision.

“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom’s direction.

Democratic members on Capitol Hill congratulated the court on the decision.

“Massachusetts has recognized the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry since 2004 and our experience has refuted the critics. We only strengthen our society when we allow all our citizens to enter into a solemn commitment to share in lifes joys and difficulties,” said Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy.

“Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. “I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment.”

==============================

Gay Rights Advocates Score Wins in N.Y., Calif. (Foxnews, 080529)

NEW YORK — Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17.

Hours after California issued a directive Wednesday authorizing that date, word came that New York Gov. David Paterson instructed state agencies — including those governing insurance and health care — to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages.

For years, gay rights advocates have sought recognition for same-sex marriages so couples could share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights and inherit property.

Many or all of those rights would now appear to be available to New Yorkers who legally wed same-sex partners in other states and countries, according to the memo sent earlier this month from the governor’s counsel. Agencies have until June 30 to report back to the counsel on how, specifically, the directive will change existing state benefits and services for gay couples.

“This is a milestone in the fight for fairness in New York,” Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “Couples in New York who have never known true security for their families will be officially entitled to treatment by our state government that respects their rights.”

The Rev. Duane Motley, director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which has lobbied against the legalization of gay marriage, declined to comment on Paterson’s directive. State Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Massachusetts is currently the only U.S. state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but its residency requirements would bar New Yorkers from marrying there.

New York residents could instead flock to California, where gay couples will be able to wed beginning June 17 — unless that state’s Supreme Court decides to stay its own ruling same-sex gay marriage. Upon their return home, in the eyes of the state, their unions would be no different from those of their heterosexual neighbors.

Gay couples could also travel outside the country to marry in Canada or one of the other nations where same-sex marriage is legal.

The move by Paterson’s administration does not legalize same-sex marriage in New York. The state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, has said it can only be legalized by the Legislature, which failed to pass a proposed measure last year.

The memo, one of the strongest steps the state can take short of action by the Legislature, cited a Feb. 1 ruling by a New York Appellate Division court in a case involving a woman wed in Canada who was denied benefits by her partner’s employer.

The appellate judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage. The state Legislature “may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,” the ruling said. “Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.”

In a video shown Saturday at the Empire State Pride Agenda’s spring dinner, the governor said he directed the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality right here in our state.”

“We’re aware that our advocacy is incomplete and we will keep trying until people who love each other and want to get married, regardless of who they are, have that opportunity,” Paterson said in the video, which was posted on the gay rights organization’s Web site.

Paterson spokeswoman Erin Duggan said the May 14 memo is intended to guide the actions of state agencies. It states that agencies must change policies and regulations to make sure “spouse,” “husband” and “wife” are clearly understood to include gay couples.

The memo says failure to include gay marriages in the dispensing of state services such as health care benefits could violate state human rights law. The agencies could face sanctions for any violations, it warns.

The agency changes can be instituted through internal memos or changes in regulations and would not require legislative action, Paterson counsel David Nocenti said in the memo, first reported by The New York Times.

Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Paterson, his running mate for lieutenant governor, campaigned in 2006 on a platform that included bringing equal rights to gays. Spitzer, however, said the state constitution didn’t sanction gay marriage.

Last year, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York was approved by the Democrat-led Assembly, but the Republican-led Senate hasn’t taken it up.

In California, a group opposed to gay marriage has asked the state Supreme Court to grant a stay of its May 15 ruling until after the November election, when voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Passage of the initiative would overrule the Supreme Court.

Justices have until June 16 to rule on the stay request, according to the memo sent Wednesday by e-mail to the state’s 58 county clerks.

The guidelines from Janet McKee, chief of California’s office of vital records, contained copies of new marriage forms that include lines for “Party A” and “Party B” instead of bride and groom. The gender-neutral nomenclature was developed in consultation with county clerks, according to the letter.

“Effective June 17, 2008, only the enclosed new forms may be issued for the issuance of marriage licenses in California,” the directive reads.

==============================

Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Today (BreakPoint, 080604)

By Chuck Colson

Polygamy Tomorrow

Within a week, courts in California and Texas issued rulings that, when it comes to traditional marriage, suggest that the so-called “alarmists” have actually understated the dangers.

The first was the California Supreme Court’s decision In Re Marriage Cases. As you probably know, the court, by a 4-3 vote, overturned the state’s ban on same-sex “marriage.”

The decision swept aside a referendum passed in 2000. By a more than 3-2 margin, voters had approved the referendum that read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” The court also concluded that the California domestic-partnership law discriminated against gays.

It did so by finding a “right”—sound familiar?—to marry under the California Constitution. As the majority opinion put it, “An individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.” Oh my.

If all the talk about “loving and long-term committed relationships” sounds vague to you, you are not alone. In dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter asked, “Who can say that in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude . . . that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

Baxter is right, of course. There is nothing in the California majority opinion that necessarily limits “loving and long-term relationships” to two people, or even people who are unrelated to one another. The biggest impediment is our revulsion at polygamy and incest—revulsions that can be swept aside by activist judges as easily as the millennia-old revulsion toward same-sex “marriage.”

That would only leave the argument that these arrangements pose a threat to the health and well-being of children.

A week later, as if on cue, a Texas appeals court knocked the legs out from underneath that argument. It ruled that the state “overstepped its authority when it removed some of about 460 children from a [much-publicized] polygamist compound” in Texas.

The court ruled that the group’s beliefs, and even its practices, do not put the children in “physical danger.” Neither the court nor the state argued that living in a polygamous setting was, in and of itself, bad for children; their concern was for the potential sexual abuse of underage girls.

Thus, a California court creates a sweeping right to turn any “long-term and loving relationship” into a marriage. And a week later, a Texas court rules that polygamous beliefs, and even practices, are not—per se—harmful to children, unless it puts children in “physical danger.”

To use a suitably biblical phrase, the handwriting is on the wall. The question is: Can we read it? The direction we are headed in is clear.

Happily, there is still a chance to change direction. California voters will vote in a referendum this fall to make “one man, one woman” part of the California constitution. Pray that Christians and right-thinking Californians will turn out in overwhelming numbers to pass this referendum. Because, when it comes to same-sex “marriage,” the four words I never want to say are: “I told you so.”

==============================

Hallmark Rolls Out Gay ‘Marriage’ Cards (Christian Post, 080821)

[KH: boycott Hallmark!]

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Most states don’t recognize gay marriage - but now Hallmark does.

The nation’s largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards - featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. “Two hearts. One promise,” one says.

Hallmark added the cards after California joined Massachusetts as the only U.S. states with legal gay “marriage.” A handful of other states have recognized same-sex civil unions.

The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony. Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure.

“It’s our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can,” Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said.

Hallmark’s largest competitor, American Greetings Corp., has no plans to enter the market, saying its current offerings are general enough to speak to a lot of different relationships.

Hallmark started offering “coming out” cards last year, and the four designs of same-sex “marriage” cards are being gradually released this summer and will be widely available by next year. No sales figures were available yet.

“When I have shopped for situations like babies or weddings for gay friends I have good luck in quirky stores,” said Kathryn Hamm, president of the Web site gayweddings.com.

“But if you are just in a generic store ... the bride and groom symbol or words are in most cards,” she said. “It becomes difficult to find some that are neutral but have some style.”

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates that more than 85,000 same-sex couples in the United States have entered into a legal relationship since 1997, when Hawaii started offering some legal benefits to same-sex partners.

It estimates nearly 120,000 more couples will marry in California during the next three years - and that means millions of potential dollars for all sorts of wedding-industry businesses.

Hallmark, known more for its Midwest mores than progressive greetings, has added a wider variety lately. It now offers cards for difficulty getting pregnant or going through rehab.

It pulled a controversial card that featured the word “queer” in the punch line after it was criticized by some customers and gay magazine The Advocate last year. At any given time, Hallmark has 200 different wedding cards on the market, including some catering to interracial or inter-religious marriages and blended families.

The Greeting Card Association, a trade group, says it does not track how many companies provide same-sex cards but believes the number is expanding.

“The fact that you have someone like Hallmark going into that niche shows it’s growing and signals a trend,” said Barbara Miller, a spokeswoman for the association.

Rob Fortier, an independent card maker who runs his company, Paper Words, out of New York, added same-sex wedding cards to his mix after thinking about what he would want to receive.

“A lot of people think a gay greeting card needs a rainbow on it,” Fortier said. “I don’t want that.”

But for some time, it was difficult to even find the words for what anyone wanted to say, he said.

His first card poked fun at the challenge. On the outside it featured lines that had been scratched out: “Congratulations on being committed!”, “Congratulations on being unionized!” and, finally, “Congratulations on being domestically partnered!” The inside wished the couple congratulations on choosing to be together forever.

“It really comes down to language,” he said.

John Stark, one of the three founders of Three Way Design in Boston, which makes gay-themed cards for occasions from adoption to weddings, has several new designs sketched out and ready.

But he has hesitated adding more wedding cards to his mix until after the November election, when California voters will decide a constitutional amendment that would again limit marriage to a man and a woman in the state.

“What is scary is to produce a marriage line and then November comes and it’s recalled, then we have thousands of dollars of inventory waiting,” he said.

The gay-friendly business can be challenging, companies said.

Hamm said although she has found many vendors willing to work with her company, some have asked to be removed from the Web site because of hate mail or some other backlash.

Hallmark says all of its stores can choose whether they want to add the latest offerings.

==============================

Poll: California Voters Oppose Ban on Gay ‘Marriage,’ Split on Attitude (Christian Post, 080828)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay “marriage,” though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex “marriage,” which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court.

The discrepancy between voters’ general attitudes against gay “marriage” and their position on banning it could be explained by a hesitancy to remove a constitutional right, said Mark Baldassare, president and chief executive of the Public Policy Institute of California, which conducted the poll.

A majority of likely voters, 54%, oppose ending gay “marriage,” compared with 40% who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51% of likely California voters opposed ending gay “marriage,” while 42% said they supported it.

But when it comes to general attitudes about gay “marriage,” voters in the Public Policy Institute poll are evenly split, at 47% for and against — as they have been for the past three years.

“It’s early in the campaign season, and in the end the vote on this measure ... could be hard to predict,” Baldassare said. “Overall views on gay marriage have not budged.”

The Public Policy Institute began asking voters how they feel about gay “marriage” in 2000, the year voters approved an initiative to ban same-sex “marriage” but did not enshrine it in the Constitution. That year, the poll found 55% opposed to gay “marriage” and 38% in favor.

In May, the state Supreme Court ruled the 2000 initiative unconstitutional, opening the door to same-sex weddings throughout the state.

The new poll indicates that those opposed to gay “marriage” will have to mobilize voters if they are to be successful in November, Baldassare said.

“The burden is always on the yes side to convince people there is good reason to vote for the measure,” he said.

The institute surveyed 2,001 California residents, including 1,047 likely voters, in English and Spanish from Aug. 12 to 19. The poll has a margin of sampling of error of 2%age points for all residents and 3%age points for likely voters.

==============================

What He Could Have Said (BreakPoint, 080630)

By Chuck Colson

Defending Traditional Marriage

It was one of the more awkward moments in the presidential campaign. Senator John McCain was appearing on the Ellen DeGeneres Show, and she was asking why McCain did not support same-sex “marriage.” A well-prepared DeGeneres made the usual arguments about inclusiveness, and compared those who reject same-sex “marriage” to those who once refused to allow women or blacks to vote. It was all about fairness, she said.

McCain’s response? “I just believe in the status of a marriage between a man and a woman . . . We just have a disagreement.”

Maybe, given the sensitivity of the situation, that was the best answer Senator McCain could come up with. But suppose the senator and Ms. DeGeneres could talk backstage, away from the glare of TV lights. What could he say to seize the moral high ground? To start, he could discuss the true meaning and purpose of marriage.

In his book, The Clash of Orthodoxies, Princeton professor Robert George writes that matrimonial law reflects a moral judgment. That judgment is that marriage is inherently heterosexual, monogamous, and permanent—a union of one man and one woman. This judgment is based on both the biblical and natural law understandings—that marriage is a two-in-one flesh communion of persons. This communion is consummated and actualized sexually.

That is, marriage is made real by acts that are reproductive, whether or not these acts result in children. They unite the spouses as a single procreative unit. This organic unity is achieved even by infertile couples. Only a mated pair can be a complete organism capable of human procreation.

By contrast, homosexual acts cannot be procreative and cannot unite people organically. As a result, these acts cannot be marital, which means relationships integrated around them cannot be marriages. In other words, same-sex partners are physically incapable of marriage; it takes a man and a woman to become “one flesh.”

I can already hear the arguments your secular neighbors will make: “Okay,” they will say, “that’s your definition of marriage. But why should your views be imposed on everybody else?”

That is when we have to be ready with additional, non-religious arguments for traditional marriage. For instance, if we expand the meaning of marriage to include same-sex partnerships, on what grounds could we legitimately oppose marriages between three or more people? Or weddings between siblings?

Remember, we are not just defending the Christian view of marriage. Since the beginning of recorded history, virtually every society and every major religion has revered and protected traditional marriage. Why? It is the institution that produces, nurtures, protects, and civilizes children. And marriage is the cornerstone of society’s foundational institution: the family.

If the proponents of same-sex “marriage” succeed in foisting it on America, marriage itself would be reduced to nothing more than a legal contract between two (or more!) people. True marriage would be abolished, and the damage to our society would be incalculable.

These are the arguments we all need to learn to defend traditional, true marriage, particularly in those states where constitutional amendments are on the ballot this fall.

==============================

The Coming Persecution (BreakPoint, 080701)

By Chuck Colson

How Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Will Harm Christians

It is all about equal rights, the gay “marriage” lobby keeps telling us. We just want the right to marry, like everyone else.

That is what they are telling us. But that is not what they mean. If same-sex “marriage” becomes the law of the land, we can expect massive persecution of the Church.

As my friend Jennifer Roback Morse notes in the National Catholic Register, “Legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a stand-alone policy . . . Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes.”

The bad news is these changes affect other liberties we take for granted, such as religious freedom and private property rights. Several recent cases give us a sobering picture of what we can expect if we do not actively embrace—and even promote—same-sex “marriage.”

For instance, a Methodist retreat center recently refused to allow two lesbian couples to use a campground pavilion for a civil union ceremony. The state of New Jersey punished the Methodists by revoking the center’s tax-exempt status—a vindictive attack on the Methodists’ religious liberty.

In Massachusetts, where judges imposed gay marriage a few years ago, Catholic Charities was ordered to accept homosexual couples as candidates for adoption. Rather than comply with an order that would be harmful to children, Catholic Charities closed down its adoption program.

California public schools have been told they must be “gay friendly,” as Roback Morse notes. But it will not stop with public schools. Just north of the border in Quebec, the government told a Mennonite school that it must conform to provincial law regarding curriculum—a curriculum that teaches children that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle. How long will it be before the U.S. government goes after private schools?

Even speaking out against homosexuality can get you fired. Crystal Dixon, an associate vice president at the University of Toledo, was fired after writing an opinion piece in the Toledo Free Press in support of traditional marriage . . . Fired—for exercising her First Amendment rights!

Promoters of same-sex “marriage” seem to go out of their way to target Christian businesses and churches. Their goal, it seems, is not the right to “marry,” but to punish anyone who disagrees with them.

Clearly, there is a spiritual battle going on here: Christians are under attack because they are a public witness to the fact that a holy God created us male and female, and we will always put obedience to Him and His laws above obedience to any earthly demand for loyalty.

The coming persecution of Christians is one more reason why we need to get involved with efforts to pass laws at the state and federal level defining marriage as a legal relationship between one man and one woman. We must protect, not only genuine marriage, but also many of the freedoms we now take for granted: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom to use private property the way we see fit—all are under threat.

And we must tell our friends and neighbors why gay “marriage” is not just about equality: It is about forcing religious believers to accept the validity of the homosexual lifestyle—or else.

==============================

Molly Coddling (BreakPoint, 080722)

By Chuck Colson

Gay ‘Marriage’ and Soft Despotism

In Michigan, a homosexual man is suing two Christian publishers—Zondervan and [Thomas Nelson]—for $70 million dollars. Bradley Fowler claims they violated his constitutional rights and caused him “emotional distress” by publishing versions of the Bible that call homosexuality a sin. In my view, Fowler is suing the wrong party, but perhaps he realizes he is likely to have difficulty hauling the real author into court.

While the lawsuit may strike us as funny, we ought to take such attacks on Christian teaching seriously: We are going to see many more of them if same-sex “marriage” is foisted upon us by the courts.

As Seana Sugrue explains in The Meaning of Marriage, edited by Robert George and Jean Bethke Elshtain, marriage is a pre-political institution, rooted in biology and moral obligations. Sugrue writes, “The reality of sex differences between men and women, leading to the potential for offspring, is essential to the pre-political foundation of marriage.”

But marriage as a political form of social order, independent of the state, “is precisely what advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ seek to change,” according to Sugrue. “Marriage rooted in procreation and sexual differences is to be replaced by marriage for the gratification of two consenting adults.”

But unlike traditional marriage, “same-sex marriage requires a condition of soft despotism to exist,” Sugrue warns.

“In claiming for homosexuals the right to marry,” she reasons, the “state also claims for itself the ability to declare what constitutes marriage . . . It transforms marriage from a pre-political obligation into its own creation.”

But as an artificial creation of the state, same-sex “marriage” is “an institution that needs to be coddled . . . Its very fragility demands a culture in which it is protected.” This means, as Sugrue argues, that “once marriage becomes a statist institution for the sake of consenting adults, the state will increasingly be called upon to create the social conditions to protect these unions.”

The need for coddling means the state will use public education for this end, and align itself against churches that refuse to recognize same-sex “marriage.”

So, the state has to use its power against two of society’s civil institutions: the family and the church.

Sugrue is right: We are already seeing the courts go after institutions and people who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of same-sex “marriage” where it is imposed. State-ordered gay “marriage” is an attack, not only on legitimate marriage, but upon religious freedom and the freedom not to have one’s children indoctrinated into alien ideas about marriage.

You need to understand the reasoning here so that we can present this argument in a winsome way to our neighbors. And we better be supporting efforts to pass constitutional amendments and laws defining marriage as one man and one woman; the issue is up in Florida, Arizona, and California this year. We also need to find out what the presidential candidates want to do, because they will be choosing the next Supreme Court justices who will ultimately decide this issue.

If we do not act, lawsuits against Bible publishers will not any longer be a joke, but a despotic reality.

==============================

Bench Legislation (BreakPoint, 080801)

By Regis Nicoll

A Civil Right to Gay Marriage

“The justices have ruled in favor of the sanctity of marriage and against bigotry. . . . This is good news for all Californians.” (Rev. Susan Russell, rector of All Saints Episcopal Church)

WHAT HAS SELMA TO DO WITH CALIFORNIA?

On March 25, 1965, 3,200 individuals arrived on the lawn of the capitol building in Montgomery, Alabama. It was the end of a 50-mile, five-day march from Selma to protest discriminatory voting practices in the state. Five months later, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, outlawing those practices.

On April 11, 2001, six same-sex couples approached the Superior Court of Massachusetts to file suit against the Department of Public Health for being denied marriage licenses. Two and a half years later, the court handed down a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. This past May, the California Supreme Court followed in lockstep.

What do these events have in common? Civil rights, say gay advocacy groups.

Their logic goes something like this: Marriage is an inalienable right protected under the equal treatment provisions of the Constitution. Traditional marriage laws discriminate against gays and lesbians. Hence, laws banning same-sex marriage are violations of basic civil rights.

Their logic gets two things wrong.

First, traditional marriage laws are no more discriminatory than drunk-driving laws that apply equally to the life-long alcoholic and the teetotaler. In the same way, everyone—whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, or heterosexual—has a right to marry, just not with someone of the same sex.

Next, the notion that same-sex marriage is an inalienable right, conflates the difference between natural rights and civil rights.

A QUESTION OF RIGHTS

Civil rights are legal privileges granted by the State to promote the common good of the governed. They include the right to drive a car, vote, and drink alcoholic beverages.

Natural rights, on the other hand, are universal liberties—like the freedom of thought, expression, and religion—deserving legal protection from the State. Thomas Jefferson had in mind natural rights when he penned “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...”

According to the Framers, natural rights are not defined by, or derived from, the civil magistrate or popular opinion; they are rooted in the eternal law of God, and universally knowable in nature’s laws. They also understood that for a just society, our freedoms—in the words of John Locke—must be exercised “within the bounds of the law of nature.”

So what does the “law of nature” tell us about same-sex marriage?

LOOKING TO NATURE

It is argued that because examples of homosexual behavior can be found in nature, homosexuality is “natural.” Notwithstanding such examples, homosexuality is a departure from, rather than a conformance with, the law of nature—for several reasons.

First off, all sorts of things can be found in nature, from birth defects and disease to incest and cannibalism. Existence in nature does not imply normative with nature.

We have compassion for a child born with Down syndrome precisely because it is unnatural—not “unnatural” because it is rare or a result of non-natural causes, but because we sense it is not the way things are meant to be in the natural order of things.

Next, from natural considerations same-sex couples “don’t fit.” The obvious physiological differences between males and females attest that heterosexual couples are equipped (and designed) to come together and accomplish a natural function for which same-sex couples cannot fit. Nature multiplies and flourishes not from sameness but complementarity.

Sexual complementarity reflects the natural (read: “normal”) order affirmed by Jesus: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one” (Mark 10:6-8).

Lastly, if we insist on riding atop the moral gyroscope of the animal kingdom, there is nothing to correct wobbles created by rape, patricide and cruelty—to name but a few harmful behaviors—save our personal distastes. There is a reason we call certain acts “animalistic.”

That is why, as Dr. Martin Luther King so eloquently put it in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail: “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

Does that mean that lawmakers must invoke the Bible in crafting legislation? No, they need only look to enduring principles of freedom, justice, and human dignity that are self-evident and have proven, throughout civilization, to be of net positive benefit to the governed—beginning with the family.

A TIME-TESTED INSTITUTION

The vitality of any civilization depends on the strength of the family. And, as time has shown, the best foundation for the flourishing of the family is traditional, heterosexual marriage. The committed, lifelong, and exclusive union between one man and one woman is the only structure able to produce children and prevent the psychological and sociological problems associated with STDs, divorce, adultery, fatherless homes, and single parent families.

Nevertheless, the numbing drumbeat from the gay community is that laws banning homosexual unions share the moral pedigree with the laws of a prior age banning interracial marriage. By associating their plight with interracial couples who won the case for marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), they argue for the moral equivalency of their cause and for the legitimacy of recent court actions.

JUDICIAL OVERREACH

Granted, the recent ruling in California (as in Massachusetts earlier) was similar to Loving, in that unelected officials overturned the will of the people by striking down popular legislation. But that’s where the comparison ends.

In the Loving decision, the court stuck down laws that unjustly excluded couples from marrying who could, otherwise, by their complementary physiology, fulfill marriage as it has been known from time immemorial.

In California and Massachusetts, the court invented a right to same-sex marriage, thereby redefining marriage, opening it up to include any combination of individuals willing to enter into a committed relationship. Whereas the Loving judiciary acted within its authority by interpreting law; the California and Massachusetts courts overstepped their powers, usurping the authority of the legislature, by making law.

These developments leave many Christians wondering how to respond. James A. Donahue, president of Graduate Theological Union, frames the question well: “How do you factor in the role of contemporary human rights, civil rights . . . [with] core traditions and beliefs?” Indeed, especially considering the recent finding that Christians are overwhelmingly viewed as “anti-homosexual.”

CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

It is quite telling, given the general complacence toward homosexual behavior in the first century, that Jesus never saw fit to expand marriage to accommodate the wants, desires and felt needs of those who felt excluded. Instead, as mentioned earlier, He reaffirmed the institution as it had been established in the beginning.

It is also telling that when Jesus talked about Old Testament imperatives, as in the Sermon on the Mount, He made them more morally encompassing (“he who lusts commits adultery”), not more socially inclusive (for they already applied to everyone equally!).

Although public perceptions do not affect the validity of Jesus’ teachings, they can be an indication of how His followers “come across” defending them. If our advocacy for marriage is driven by fear and animosity, our actions will be seen as harsh and judgmental; neither of which creates an “aroma” that will draw folks to the Lord’s table.

If, on the other hand, we are motivated out of love for people whose self-image and behaviors are out-of-whack with God’s design, our actions will be redolent of the Bread of Life. Unless our advocacy is fueled by a genuine concern for others, our voice in the public square will chafe like nails across the chalkboard.

But—and here’s the difficult part—genuine concern requires empathy that can only come from pulling up along side those who struggle with same-sex attraction to learn about their estrangement, loneliness, confusion, yearning for intimacy, and the powerful pull their desires exert over them; not to affirm misaligned desires and wrong choices, but to support, encourage, and love those who are imprisoned by the lies of our Adversary.

“If I speak in the tongues or men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” (1 Corinthians 13:1)

==============================

Same-Sex Marriage: Are the People Sovereign, or is it to be the Courts? (Christian Post, 081119)

By Richard Land

On Nov. 4, 2008, the people of California, Florida and Arizona joined the ranks of the approximately 30 of the United States that have outlawed same-sex marriage either by amending their respective state constitutions or by passing appropriate legislation.

The three states mentioned above amended their state constitutions by the following margins: California (52%), Arizona (56%) and Florida (62%).

The results in California are causing the most controversy. Why? First, because same-sex marriages were already being performed in that state since June because the California Supreme Court refused to delay their ruling until the people could vote in November. Second, California is a much more liberal state culturally than either Arizona or Florida.

Now we are witnessing the spectacle of same-sex marriage advocates going before the California Supreme Court in attempts to convince them to overturn the people’s choice to amend their state’s constitution. The legal theory in America and in the states that make up our Union has been that the ultimate authority in the law is the constitution, not the judges’ interpretation of that constitution. When the people disagree with judges’ interpretation of the constitution, both our Federal Constitution and the various state constitutions furnish the people with a way to give the judges further instruction on how they would be governed—the amendment process.

A majority of Californians have exercised that right and have amended their constitution to define marriage with great specificity and precision as being only between a man and a woman — no same-sex marriage and no polygamy. If the California Supreme Court were to now attempt to nullify what the people have chosen to do through an expression of their sovereign will, they will have attempted to usurp the sovereignty of government “of the people, by the people and for the people” and to replace it with government “of the judges, by the judges and for the judges.”

I would urge the members of the California Supreme Court to read the text of the Declaration of Independence with great care, specifically these words:

“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

If the California Supreme Court does not acknowledge its obligation to submit its collective judgment to a constitutional amendment passed by the people, then the democratic freedom reserved to the sovereignty of the people will have perished in California.

==============================

Poll: Calif. Marriage Amendment Takes Lead (Christian Post, 081008)

Following the launch of pro-traditional marriage television and radio ads, support for the California Marriage Amendment has picked up, according to a new statewide poll, which shows a majority of voters favoring a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.

Proposition 8, which would effectively ban gay “marriages” in the state by defining marriage as between a man and a woman, is leading 47-42, according to the SurveyUSA poll.

The poll, which was conducted Oct. 4-5 on behalf of four television stations, differed greatly from a Field Poll released in September that showed the amendment trailing 38-55%. A SurveyUSA poll in September also showed weak support for the amendment with opposition leading 49-44%.

“We are thrilled with the new polling data. It confirms what we have heard from thousands of supporters,” said Yes on 8 Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert in a statement.

The Yes on 8 campaign is attributing the gain to the launch of their first television ad last week and a door to door campaign.

The ad features a clip of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom declaring in front of gay and lesbian couples, “The door’s wide open now! It’s gonna happen whether you like it or not.” The excerpt was taken from his speech on May 15, when the state Supreme Court legalized gay “marriage.”

According to Yes on 8, the ad served to remind voters that gay “marriage” was imposed on California by a narrowly divided California Supreme Court which overturned the vote of over 4 million Californians who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, which protected traditional marriage.

In the ad, Pepperdine University Law Professor Richard Peterson says that if Prop. 8 is not passed, consequences could include people being sued for their personal beliefs, churches opposed to gay “marriage” being threatened with loss of their tax exempt status, and gay “marriage” being taught in public schools.

“The ad that is running is powerful and provocative. Not only does it show the arrogance of those who would impose same-sex marriage on California whether we like it or not, but it also shows that voters are beginning to understand there are consequences to all Californians if same-sex marriage is legalized,” commented Schubert.

“TV ads can make a difference,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, according to San Jose Mercury News.

The latest Field Poll was taken after the ballot wording of Prop. 8 was modified to describe the initiative as amending the California Constitution to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry” instead of stating “only marriage between a man and a woman as valid,” as the original text read.

Another Field Poll on Prop. 8 will not be released until the Thursday or Friday before Election Day, Mercury News reported.

Although two other states, Arizona and Florida, will consider their own marriage amendments this election, California has become the platform for both sides of the highly charged issue to take their stand.

Last week, nearly 4,000 young Christians voiced their support for the amendment at a rally held at San Diego’s Rock Church.

San Diego will also be the site of a massive prayer rally, known as The Call California, on Nov. 1. A crowd of around 100,000 Christian youth, who have been called to fast 40 days before the Election, is expected to gather at Qualcomm Stadium to rally support for the California marriage amendment and to ask God for a nationwide revival.

The new SurveyUSA poll showed that younger voters, aged 18 to 34, held some of the strongest support for the amendment.

Gay and lesbian couples, meanwhile, have been rushing to obtain wedding licenses. In fact, a new study released Monday by UCLA’s Williams Institute, found that an estimated 11,000 same-sex couples have wed in California. That figure suggests that more gay couples were married in California in the first three months of the union being declared legal than were married in the first four years it was legal in Massachusetts. Around 10,385 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts, according to the new study.

But traditional marriage supporters are not letting go without a fight.

The Yes on 8 campaign said it expects to release a new television ad this week, according to Mercury News.

==============================

Californians Pass Gay Marriage Ban (Christian Post, 081105)

After weeks of prayer and intense campaigning on both sides, Californians passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The measure overturns the state Supreme Court decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

Supporters of Proposition 8 had claimed victory Tuesday night as numbers played out in their favor. But opponents said it was too soon to make the call as many votes remained uncounted.

As of Wednesday morning, however, Prop 8 passed 52% to 47.9%. Although with nearly 96% of the votes tallied, there are absentee and provisional ballots still uncounted, reports indicate the 5% margin will be difficult to overcome, according to The Mercury News.

“Just over a month ago, we were behind in the polls, and things did not look good for traditional marriage,” said Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in San Diego. “Then we began our 40 days of prayer and fasting, and began hosting rallies that were simulcast to churches all over the state, and we began to see the tide turn. Tonight, we are just grateful for this result, not just as evidence of the people’s decision on marriage, but as evidence of God’s will and plan for marriage and families.”

Leading into the polls on Tuesday, a CBS News poll had shown the “Yes on 8” campaign leading only by a 48-45% margin and opponents had out-raised the amendment supporters in a last-minute fundraising blitz in Hollywood.

Christians and traditional marriage supporters, however, collected their spiritual strength and organized massive prayer rallies and 40-day campaigns in an effort to defend marriage as between one man and one woman. They also raised an impressive $40 million and the support of over 100,000 volunteers to the traditional marriage cause.

According to Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, the “Yes on 8” campaign was the “single largest, most powerful grassroots movement in the history of American ballot initiative campaigns.”

“This is a great day for marriage,” said Prentice. “The people of California stood up for traditional marriage and reclaimed this great institution. We are gratified that voters chose to protect traditional marriage and to enshrine its importance in the state constitution. We trust that this decision will be respected by all Californians.”

Thousands of same-sex couples married since the May ruling. Whether their unions are still valid will be resolved in court, legal experts say.

One lesbian couple, who was the first to be married in Los Angeles County, plans to announce a lawsuit arguing that the proposition is unconstitutional, according to The Mercury News.

While similar marriage amendments were being voted on in Arizona and Florida, California drew wide attention as many believed it would set a precedent for other states.

With Tuesday’s win, Christians are optimistic.

“We were able to draw a line in the sand on this issue, and we hope this helps to protect the definition of marriage across the nation,” said Garlow. “Personal and religious freedoms were at stake, as well as our children’s education, and we are grateful for all the prayers, volunteers and financial support from those who stood with us from outside the state of California.”

==============================

Gay Marriage Supporters Protest Calif. Ban (Christian Post, 081116)

BOSTON – Gay rights supporters waving rainbow colors marched, chanted and danced in cities coast to coast Saturday to protest the vote that banned gay marriage in California and to urge supporters not to quit the fight for the right to wed.

Crowds gathered near public buildings in cities large and small, including Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and Fargo, to vent their frustrations, celebrate gay relationships and renew calls for change.

Supporters of traditional marriage said the rallies may have generated publicity but ultimately made no difference.

“They had everything in the world going for them this year, and they couldn’t win,” said Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign in California. “I don’t think they’re going to be any more successful in 2010 or 2012.”

Protests following the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, have sometimes been angry and even violent, and demonstrators have targeted faiths that supported the ban, including the Mormon church.

The protests Saturday were widely reported to be peaceful. Signs cast the fight for gay marriage as the new civil rights movement, including one that read “Gay is the new black.”

But anger over the ban and its backers was evident at the protests.

One sign in Chicago, where several thousand people gathered, read: “Catholic Fascists Stay Out of Politics.”

In San Francisco, demonstrators took shots at some religious groups that supported the ban, including a sign aimed at the Mormon church and its abandoned practice of polygamy that read: “You have three wives; I want one husband.”

In Salt Lake City, where demonstrators gathered just blocks from the headquarters of the Mormon church, one sign pictured the city’s temple with a line adapted from former Republican vice president candidate Sarah Palin: “I can see discrimination from my house.”

Connecticut, which began same-sex weddings this past week, and Massachusetts are the only two states that allow gay marriage. The other 48 states do not, and 30 of them have taken the extra step of approving constitutional amendments. A few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage.

==============================

Calif. Lawmakers Introduce Resolutions Opposing Prop. 8 (Christian Post, 081204)

Two California lawmakers and openly gay members of the Legislature have introduced measures supporting the repeal of Proposition 8.

On Tuesday, state Sen. Mark Leno and state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, both Democratic lawmakers from San Francisco, introduced concurrent resolutions that seek to put the California Legislature on record opposing Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage approved by 52% of voters last month.

The bills argue that the measure, which amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, was an illegal “constitutional revision” that should have been passed by two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature before being submitted before voters.

But backers of the controversial measure contend it was an amendment that was legally enacted through the state’s initiative process.

The non-binding resolution would put the state’s lawmakers on record in support of arguments made in the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8.

Legal experts have said the resolution will unlikely affect the ruling by the California Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case in Spring 2009.

“This is the court’s decision, not the Legislature’s, just as whether you balance the budget is the Legislature’s decision and not the court’s,” said Jesse Choper, the Earl Warren Professor of Public Law at UC Berkeley’s School of Law, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

Supporters of Proposition 8 accused the lawmakers of “grandstanding for the cameras.”

“You’d think that these legislators would be focused on resolving the budget deficit or improving the economy,” said Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, which headed the Yes on 8 campaign. “Instead, they seem more interested in grandstanding for the cameras and thumbing their noses at voters who enacted Proposition 8 by a nearly 600,000 vote margin.”

A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that the measure received its strongest support from evangelical Christians (85%) and Republicans (77%).

Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said he was confident Proposition 8 will be upheld.

“The Court is not swayed by meaningless legislative resolutions that have no bearing on the outcome of the court challenges,” said Pugno. “This resolution adds nothing to the debate about the validity of Proposition 8.”

The bills introducing the resolutions were supported by the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Legislative Caucus and several gay rights groups including Equality California, which is behind one of the three lawsuits challenging the measure.

Forty-four state lawmakers have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The three individual cases are Strauss v. Horton, Tyler v. Horton, and San Francisco v. Horton.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign have until December 19 to submit arguments to the state Supreme Court explaining why the measure should be upheld.

In May, the California Supreme Court overturned a 2000 state law banning same-sex marriage. The passage of Proposition 8 reversed the court’s ruling.

In addition to determining the validity of Proposition 8, the court is also expected to decide the fate of some 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the state.

==============================

Poll: Calif. Gay Marriage Ban Driven by Religion (Christian Post, 081204)

SAN FRANCISCO – Voters’ economic status and religious convictions played a greater role than race and age in determining whether they supported the Nov. 4 ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California, a new poll shows.

The ban drew its strongest support from both evangelical Christians and voters who didn’t attend college, according to results released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Age and race, meanwhile, were not as strong factors as assumed. According to the poll, 56% of voters over age 55 and 57% of nonwhite voters cast a yes ballot for the gay marriage ban.

People who identified themselves as practicing Christians were highly likely to support the constitutional amendment, with 85% of evangelical Christians, 66% of Protestants and 60% of Roman Catholics favoring it.

The poll also showed that the measure got strong backing from voters who did not attend college (69%), voters who earned less than $40,000 a year (63%) and Latinos (61%).

The proposition, which passed with 52% of the vote, overturned the state Supreme Court’s May decision legalizing gay marriage in California. The measure inserts language into the constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

The poll found that, overall, 48% of voters oppose the idea of making gay marriage legal. 47% support it, while 5% are undecided.

The results mirror previous PPIC polls from the last three years, suggesting that the $73 million spent for and against the measure did not do much to change public attitudes on allowing gay couples to wed, said survey director Mark Baldassare.

“At no point in time, before or after the election, did we have a majority of Californians saying they supported gay marriage,” Baldassare said. “My takeaway from this is that until there is a major shift in public opinion one way or another, it’s going to be another issue where voters are deeply divided.”

Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California, said the PPIC poll demonstrates that same-sex marriage advocates “need to make inroads in every category. If 2% of voters had voted differently, we would have had a different result,” he said.

The poll was based on a phone survey of 2,003 California voters in the Nov. 4 election who were interviewed from Nov. 5-6. The sampling error was plus or minus 2%age points.

==============================

Dictionary Redefines ‘Marriage’ to Include Same-Sex Couples (Christian Post, 090319)

One major dictionary company has defined marriage in broader terms than the U.S. government.

Similar to the definition of marriage under federal law, Merriam-Webster states marriage as “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” Every state in the nation recognizes marriage on similar terms except for Connecticut and Massachusetts.

But the dictionary runs askew from legal recognition of marriage by the federal government and almost all the states by tacking on a secondary definition that counts unions between same-sex couples as “marriage.”

Merriam-Webster added the secondary meaning for marriage in 2003, even before gay marriage was legalized anywhere in the country. Whereas the company’s dictionary editions prior to 2003 stated no mention of same-sex marriage, the latest version now defines marriage also as “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”

The change went unnoticed until WorldNetDaily recently reported on a YouTube video calling attention to the marriage “redefinition.”

The video prompted heated responses including one from a forum participant who charged gay rights activists with trying to control the definition of marriage in an effort to push their agenda.

“The word ‘marriage’ has never been synonymous with same sex relationships,” said the forum participant, according to WorldNetDaily. “What is happening is the meaning is being changed to trigger it becoming synonymous, not the other way round.”

Kory Stamper, an associate editor at Merriam-Webster, denied any “social or political agenda” behind the decision to change how the dictionary defines marriage, according to WND.

“We hear such criticism from all parts of the political spectrum. We’re genuinely sorry when an entry in – or an omission from – one of our dictionaries is found to be offensive or upsetting, but we can’t allow such considerations to deflect us from our primary job as lexicographers,” stated Stamper.

The Springfield, Mass.-based company issued a statement Wednesday claiming that the secondary definition was added to reflect the frequency of “same-sex marriage” and “gay marriage” in publications.

“In recent years, this sense of ‘marriage’ has appeared frequently and consistently through a broad spectrum of carefully edited publications, and is often used in phrases such as ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ by proponents and opponents alike,” the statement read, according to the Associated Press. “Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing dictionary users with accurate information about all of the word’s current uses.”

Merriam-Webster spokesman Arthur Bicknell noted that the company was one of the last major dictionary publishers to revise the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions.

The controversy over gay marriage is expected to heat up once again since the Obama administration has said it will seek the full repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman for all purposes of federal law and protects states from being forced to recognized same-sex marriages from other states.

Many states, in the meantime, are still wrangling over the legal issue of gay marriage. The California Supreme Court is expected to soon issue its ruling on a gay marriage ban approved by voters in November. Earlier this week, Vermont became the latest state to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Despite what dictionaries may call marriage, many religious leaders have said that changing the definition of marriage will not necessarily change its meaning.

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, called redefining marriage to include same-sex couples was “moral insanity,” when The Canadian Oxford Dictionary announced in 2003 that it was changing the definition of marriage to read “the legal or religious union of two people.”

“We did not invent marriage; it is the God-ordained covenant that unites a man and a woman in the monogamous marital union, establishes a new household, and liberates the married couple to enjoy all the benefits - and bear all the responsibilities - of married life and parenthood,” stated Mohler on his blog. “Homosexual activists may win in the courts and in the dictionary, but they cannot reverse reality.”

==============================

Vt. Governor to Veto Gay Marriage Bill (Christian Post, 090326)

After having remained mum throughout much of the debate on a gay marriage bill in Vermont, Gov. Jim Douglas said Wednesday he will veto the measure if it reaches his desk.

He told reporters that he throught the state’s civil unions law provided sufficient rights to same-sex couples and reaffirmed his support for marriage between one man and one woman.

“For those reasons and because I believe that by removing any uncertainty about my position we can move more quickly beyond this debate, I am announcing that I intend to veto this legislation when it reaches my desk,” Douglas said, according to The Associated Press.

At the same time, the Republican governor noted that “legislative leaders would not have advanced this bill if they did not have the votes to override a veto.”

His much-awaited comments come as a measure that would allow gay and lesbian couples to marry beginning Sept. 1 passed through the Senate this week. The House is also expected to approve the bill in a vote next week.

Vermont was the first state to pass a civil unions law in 2000. It would become the third state after Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow same-sex marriage and the first state to permit it by a vote of the legislature if the bill becomes law.

Some supporters of gay marriage were surprised by the timing of Douglas’ announcement.

House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morristown) told AP that announcing his decision on a veto “before the process has played out is essentially undermining our democratic system of government.”

Douglas said it was not his normal policy to make such an announcement before it passed the legislature. But he explained his intent, saying “the speculation about my decision has added to the anxiety of the moment and further diverts attention from our most pressing issues, and I cannot allow that to happen,” as reported by The New York Times.

While the bill was advancing in the Senate, Douglas would not indicate whether he would veto the bill and simply stated that he believes in traditional marriage. Wednesday’s announcement was the first time he spoke of his intent.

He hopes his announcement would speed the debate so lawmakers could turn their attention to more urgent issues such as the economy.

New Hampshire is debating a similar bill and its House is expected to vote Thursday on whether to allow same-sex marriage.

==============================

Sweden Becomes 7th Country to Allow Same-Sex Marriage (Christian Post, 090402)

Sweden has adopted a law that legalizes same-sex marriage, making it the seventh country in the world to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed in either a religious or civil ceremony.

After hours of debate, the Swedish parliament voted 261 to 22, with 66 abstaining or absent, on Wednesday to approve a gender-neutral law on marriage.

Christian Democrats opposed the legislation.

The new legislation repeals a 1987 law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Sweden now joins the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa and Norway in allowing same-sex marriage. In the United States, homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The new law takes effect May 1 and allows individual pastors the freedom to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.

The Lutheran Church of Sweden has already expressed support for the new law, according to Agence France-Presse.

Since 2007, the Church – which 74% of Swedes are members of – has blessed civil unions for gay and lesbian couples but stopped short of blessing gay marriages.

The Lutheran Church synod is scheduled to decide in October whether or not to perform same-sex marriages, according to AFP.

Polls indicate that a majority of Swedes approve of homosexual marriage. The northern European country has recognized civil unions for homosexual couples since 1995.

==============================

DC Council OKs Out-of-State Gay Marriages (Christian Post, 090505)

The Washington, D.C. Council gave its final approval on Tuesday to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The council voted 12 to 1 to pass the legislation.

While the Human Rights Campaign, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights organization, and other gay rights advocates applauded the vote, saying it was “simply the right thing to do,” a group of traditional marriage advocates, including local ministers, were outraged.

“Every minister who fears God should be here,” said Paul Trantham, according to The Washington Post. “This is disrespectful to the nation’s capital. There is nothing equal about same-sex marriage.”

Mayor Marion Barry casted the lone opposing vote. He initially voted with the rest of the council to approve the measure but after consulting with the religious community, he chose to stand with the ministers.

Last month, a group of primarily African American pastors and followers rallied in Freedom Plaza denouncing the D.C. Council’s preliminary vote to recognize same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere.

Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., led the rally saying, “I’d rather be biblically courageous than politically correct.”

While some passers-by were quick to call them protesters bigots, Jackson said the issue is not about gay rights.

“There’s a difference between civil rights and sacred rights,” he said. “Marriage has been defined by God.”

“It’s not about hating anybody or against anybody but we’re just believing that we understand that society has always been founded on traditional marriage,” Jackson proclaimed.

After Tuesday’s vote, traditional marriage advocates offered a prayer outside the Wilson Building.

Jackson told The Washington Post that they are developing a “political and legal strategy” to protect traditional marriage.

The measure now heads to Congress for approval.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont currently allow same-sex marriage. The Maine House, meanwhile, approved on Tuesday a bill that would make the state the fifth to legalize marriage for same-sex couples. The bill will go back to the Senate and House for a final vote.

==============================

N.H. House Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill Changes (Christian Post, 090521)

[KH: the 6th state to legalize gay marriage]

The New Hampshire House of Representatives narrowly rejected changes on Wednesday to a same-sex bill that would protect churches opposed to marrying gays and lesbians.

Gov. John Lynch had said last week he would sign the measure if language was added to provide “the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions.”

Although legislative leaders were expected to adopt the changes and make New Hampshire the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage, the House voted 188 to 186 against the revisions.

The vote came after the Senate passed the added language 14 to 10 on Wednesday.

Earlier this month, both the House and Senate had approved a version of the bill that stated religious ministers cannot be forced to sanction same-sex weddings under the law.

But Lynch, who supports traditional marriage, said he would only sign the bill into law if language was added to also protect religious groups and their employees from lawsuits if they do not perform marriages for gay and lesbian couples.

It is unclear whether Lynch will sign any other version of the bill.

“The governor articulated strong principles that needed to be included in order for him to sign the bill,” Colin Manning, spokesman for Lynch, said in a statement. “While he will continue to talk with lawmakers, those principles must be maintained in any final version of the bill.”

The measure now heads to a joint committee of the legislature to be considered further.

Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, who caused uproar in the Anglican Communion when he was consecrated as the first openly gay bishop in 2003, believes the legislation is only at a pause and is optimistic it will soon pass, according to The Associated Press.

Traditional marriage supporter Kevin Smith of Cornerstone Policy Research, meanwhile, says the House vote shows it’s time to move on to other issues such as the budget.

==============================

Gay Marriages Now Recognized in D.C. (Christian Post, 090708)

Same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries are now recognized in the nation’s capital.

A law recognizing gay and lesbian couples who legally married outside the district took effect on Tuesday.

While issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples remains illegal, D.C. Council member David Catania said he plans to introduce legislation in the fall that would allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in Washington.

The bill, approved by the D.C. Council in May, became law after a failed attempt by conservatives, including ministers, to receive approval for a referendum.

In a lawsuit, filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, they asked to delay enactment of the law recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere as they sought a referendum, which would allow voters to decide on the matter.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith E. Retchin rejected the request last week and said a referendum would violate the Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The ruling was in agreement with an earlier decision by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics which also denied the proposal to take the issue to voters.

Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., who was leading the effort for a referendum, says the bill was passed without any public input and simply wants the voters to have their say on the controversial matter.

Continuing the marriage fight, Jackson plans to file a ballot initiative that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Under the new law, same-sex couples married in other states are entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as other married couples.

New York also recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in six states, which include Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire.

==============================

House Bill Introduced to Repeal Defense of Marriage Act (Christian Post, 090916)

Members of Congress introduced legislation in the House of Representatives Tuesday that aims to repeal the 13-year-old Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for federal purposes and ensures that states are not forced to recognize alternate definitions.

“The full repeal of DOMA is long overdue,” said Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), lead sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act and chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

“It was a so-called ‘defense’ against a hypothetical harm,” he added Tuesday after introducing the legislation alongside six other members of Congress. “This made it easy for our opponents to demonize gay and lesbian families.”

The Respect for Marriage Act, which so far has a total of 91 co-sponsors, was reportedly introduced following months of planning and organizing among the nation’s leading LGBT and civil rights stakeholders and legislators.

Supporters say the legislation would repeal the “discriminatory” DOMA but would not tell any state how married couples must be treated for purposes of state law. Furthermore, they claim, the legislation would not obligate any person, church, city or state to celebrate or license a marriage of two people of the same sex.

“It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple’s marriage for purposes of state law,” a spokesman for Nadler explained.

Conservatives, however, argue otherwise.

Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, noted that the DOMA repeal bill has failed to garner the support of influential gay lawmaker Barney Frank (D-Mass.) because it is overreaching.

According to Frank’s spokesman, Harry Gural, the openly gay Congressman believes the legislation would have little chance of passage because it would allow same-sex couples to take their partnership benefits across state lines.

Conservatives similarly see the new legislation as part of a wave of “radical efforts to force same-sex marriage in every state,” noting that DOMA is the only federal law protecting the marriage statutes of 44 states. Currently, six states have passed laws legalizing same-sex marriages - Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. In New York and Washington, D.C., same-sex marriages from other states or foreign countries are recognized but they are not performed.

“The citizens of 39 states have worked hard to pass legislation and constitutional amendments to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman,” commented Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA). “DOMA ensures the integrity of our constitutional system and the will of Americans. DOMA reflects the reality that marriage provides unique benefits to individuals, children, and society which cannot be replicated by any other living arrangement.”

Though the Respect for Marriage Act has now been introduced, a spokesman for lead sponsor Nadler acknowledged that repealing DOMA was not a priority for movement anytime soon.

Ilan Kayatsky told The Associated Press the repeal was being introduced now primarily “to gain support and momentum and educate people.”

In the past year, Americans’ views on same-sex marriage have essentially stayed the same, with a majority of 57% opposed to granting such marriages legal status and 40% in favor of doing so, according to a May 2009 Gallup poll. Though Gallup noted that support for legal same-sex marriage is significantly higher now than when it first asked about it in 1996, in recent years support has appeared to stall, peaking at 46% in 2007.

==============================

Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions, Not Marriage, Up (Christian Post, 091010)

Support for same-sex civil unions is on the rise with nearly three in five Americans currently favoring it.

A new Pew Research Center survey shows 57% of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil unions, or legal agreements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples.

Last year 54% favored it, and six years ago only 45% supported it.

Opposition to same-sex civil unions has, meanwhile, continued to slip with 37% against it, down from 47% in 2003.

The Pew survey, however, found little change in attitudes on same-sex marriage. More than half (53%) of Americans oppose marriage for gay and lesbian couples and 39% favor it. In 2003, 53% opposed and 38% favored gay and lesbian marriage.

Among those who oppose same-sex marriage, 30% say they would support civil unions.

The steady opposition to gay marriage may be reflective of the public’s values. Americans are more likely to say homosexual behavior is morally wrong than not. Nearly half of the public (49%) says it is morally wrong and 9% of Americans say it is morally acceptable. Thirty-five percent say it is not a moral issue.

Glenn Stanton, director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family, told CitizenLink that many people affirm traditional marriage because “they know intuitively the value of marriage.”

But while most Americans seem satisfied with allowing only civil unions to same-sex couples, Stanton says the battle won’t stop there.

Citing the recent marriage battle in California over an amendment affirming traditional marriage, Stanton noted, “They said that even though same-sex partners have all the rights and benefits of marriage in California except the name, they said that it is still, basically, ‘Back of the bus.’ It’s still discrimination.”

“It is going to be marriage, or it’s going to be nothing,” he said, according to CitizenLink.

According to the Pew Center’s findings, 45% say supporters of same-sex marriage should push hard to legalize gay marriage as soon as possible. At the same time, 42% say they shouldn’t push too hard because it could create bad feelings against homosexuals.

Notably, most Americans (64%) say gays and lesbians face more discrimination than any other group, including Muslims (58%), Hispanics (52%), blacks (49%), women (37%), Jews (35%), evangelical Christians (27%), atheists (26%) and Mormons (24%).

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 4,013 adults, 18 years of age or older. Interviews were conducted Aug. 11-17 and Aug. 20-27.

==============================

Gay Marriages Now Recognized in D.C. (Christian Post, 090708)

Same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries are now recognized in the nation’s capital.

A law recognizing gay and lesbian couples who legally married outside the district took effect on Tuesday.

The bill, approved by the D.C. Council in May, became law after a failed attempt by conservatives, including ministers, to receive approval for a referendum.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith E. Retchin rejected the request last week and said a referendum would violate the Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The ruling was in agreement with an earlier decision by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics which also denied the proposal to take the issue to voters.

Continuing the marriage fight, Jackson plans to file a ballot initiative that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Under the new law, same-sex couples married in other states are entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as other married couples.

==============================

N.Y. Gay Marriage Bill Defeated by Wide Margin (Christian Post, 091203)

A bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York failed by a surprisingly wide margin Wednesday, chalking up another big win for traditional marriage advocates.

Though gay marriage supporters had hoped for the legislation to pass by a narrow margin, the State Senate voted 38-24 against the bill, sponsored by Thomas Duane, the state Legislature’s first openly gay member. To pass, the New York measure needed 32 votes.

“This is a huge win,” commented Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). “It puts the nail in the coffin on the idea that gay marriage advocates can persuade a majority of Americans their cause is just.”

The latest victory follows another big one last month in Maine, where voters rejected a state law that would have recognized the union of gay couples as marriages. It also comes just days after gay marriage advocates in California decided not to try in the next elections to reverse the ban on gay marriage that voters approved in 2008, believing that the attempt would not succeed.

Though there have been smaller victories for gay marriage advocates over the past year, such as the recent decision by the District of Columbia to recognize gay marriages, big losses such as Wednesday’s have overshadowed them and suggested a turning of tide.

“New York makes it crystal clear: the American people do not support gay marriage and they do not want their politicians messing with this issue,” stated Brown.

According to NOM’s president, Maggie Gallagher, supporters of the New York bill hurt their cause by equating opponents of gay marriage to slave owners and Nazis.

“Americans respectfully disagree with the politicians in New York, such as Sen. Oppenheimer and Sen. Pres. Malcom Smith, who described our views on marriage as somehow akin to Nazism, slavery or segregation,” she stated. “At a minimum, that kind of hateful treatment of diverse views on gay marriage needs to stop today.”

At one point in the Senate debate, Sen. Eric Adams asked lawmakers to remember that even slavery was once legal. The Democrat from Brooklyn also challenged them to set aside their religious beliefs and vote for the bill.

“When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out,” Adams said.

Sen. Ruben Diaz, in his response, later said, “That’s the wrong statement.”

“You should carry your Bible all the time,” countered the conservative minister from the Bronx.

While neither gay marriage nor civil unions are recognized in New York, the state has several laws, executive orders and court decisions that grant many of the rights to gays long guaranteed to married couples.

==============================

N.J. Gay Marriage Bill Advances to Full Senate (Christian Post, 091208)

A full Senate vote on a proposal to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey is set for Thursday after a key Senate committee narrowly passed the bill Monday.

The New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-6 Monday evening to advance the bill that would make New Jersey the sixth state to legalize gay marriage, if made into law.

If the legislation is approved by the full Senate, it would advance to the state Assembly, where it would have to be passed this month to stand a chance of being signed into law.

Gov.-elect Chris Christie, who takes office next month, has said he would veto the bill. Outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine, meanwhile, has vowed to sign it.

To pass Thursday, the bill needs 21 votes in the Senate.

Democrats currently hold a 23-17 majority.

==============================

Extending Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Couples Will Cost $898M, CBO Says (Foxnews, 091222)

Extending federal benefits to same-sex couples will cost taxpayers $898 million over the next nine years, according to an analysis of “domestic partnership” legislation released last by the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO said in its Dec. 17 report that the House version of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act — H.R. 2517 — would cost $596 million in direct spending and $302 million in discretionary spending through 2019.

The independent nonpartisan agency found that “providing additional health insurance benefits through the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program” — for active and retired gay federal workers with spouses — “causes the largest increase in both mandatory and discretionary spending — $590 million and $266 million, respectively.”

The analysis notes, however, that enacting the legislation “would not have any direct impact on federal revenues.”

A 2004 analysis by CBO projected that federal outlays for domestic partners receiving federal benefits would cost about $100 million per year in 2010-2014 if the federal government approved same-sex marriage. Of the total, coverage for same-sex spouses of retired enrollees in the FEHB program would cost the government less than $50 million a year through 2014.

The 2004 report was written at the request of then-Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, an opponent of same sex marriage.

This year’s legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., an openly gay lawmaker, and with 138 cosponsors, would allow for homosexual partners of federal employees to receive the same benefits as married spouses, which include health insurance, survivor annuities, compensation for work-related injuries and travel and relocation benefits.

President Obama has indicated his support for the measure, which is still awaiting a vote in both the House and Senate. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee voted Dec. 16 to forward the legislation on to the full Senate. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved it in November.

==============================

Mexico City legalizes gay marriage (National Post, 091221)

MEXICO CITY, Dec 21 — Mexico City became the first capital in Catholic, often macho Latin America to allow same-sex marriage on Monday when city legislators passed a law giving gay couples full marriage rights.

The legislation goes further than a 2006 city law allowing civil unions by giving gay couples access to the same family social security benefits and joint loans as straight couples.

In a last-minute measure, the city’s left-dominated assembly overcame conservative opposition to allow gay couples that marry to adopt children.

Activists in the chamber burst into cheers. Some gay men and women hugged, exchanged kisses and waved rainbow-colored flags that have come to symbolize gay rights.

“We are putting an end to segregation and stigmatization of a sector of society, giving access to full marriage rights,” David Razu, a legislator from the left-wing Social Democratic Party, or PSD, who promoted the law told Reuters.

The bill now goes to be signed by Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, who has backed other progressive measures like the legalization of abortion in some cases, putting the sprawling capital at the vanguard of liberal policies in Latin America.

Homosexuality, stifled in much of the country, has come out of the closet in Mexico City where a gay and lesbian district is packed with gay bars and same-sex couples holding hands, although some say discrimination is still rampant.

Conservative lawmakers voted against the bill and vocal church leaders are likely to pressure Ebrard to veto it. Mexico’s Catholic archdiocese has said that legalizing gay marriage is immoral and will destroy families.

“Recognizing homosexual civil unions as marriage goes against the public good and the emotional development of our children,” said Giovanni Gutierrez, a city lawmaker from President Felipe Calderon’s National Action Party, or PAN.

Mexico City is joining a handful of cities in the United States and Europe by allowing gays and lesbians to marry and is taking the lead in Latin America, where some places have passed laws to legalize same-sex civil unions but have fallen short of permitting full marriage between gays.

Argentina became the first Latin American country to allow civil unions across the country by same-sex couples in 2002.

But a push for full gay marriage hit a snag earlier this year when a court blocked a local judge in Buenos Aires who issued a marriage license to two men, defying a national ban. The couple has pledged to fight the court’s ruling.

Neighboring Uruguay also allows gay civil unions and became the first country in Latin America to permit adoption by gay couples in September.

==============================

U.K. Court Rules Against Christian Who Refused to Conduct Gay Ceremony (Christian Post, 091216)

[KH: more persecution coming]

A London court of appeals ruled Tuesday against a Christian registrar who refused to conduct a same-sex civil union ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.

Lillian Ladele claimed she suffered discrimination, including being ridiculed and bullied, while working for the Islington City Council. Ladele had worked for the council for nearly 16 years, but did not experience discrimination until after she refused to perform the gay civil union.

Ladele’s attorney said she never wanted to undermine the rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender community. But human rights laws don’t only protect members of the LGBT community, but also people’s right to hold views about marriage.

Ladele said she was essentially forced to choose between her religious faith and her $50,000-a-year job.

“The decision of the Court of Appeal is another setback for Bible-believing Christians,” said Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of U.K.-based Christian Concern for our Nation, in a statement. “If this kind of legal precedent is followed it will prove increasingly difficult for Christians to participate fully in public life without contravening their conscience.”

Initially, the Employment Tribunal had ruled in favor of Ladele after the first court hearing in July 2008. The tribunal found that the council failed to respect its employee’s rights to her Christian beliefs. Moreover, the tribunal said the council could have other registrars who don’t hold the same beliefs to provide “first-class” service to same-sex couples without Ladele’s involvement.

The council “placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms. Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief,” the tribunal said.

But a December 2008 ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the initial decision, stating that the council had the right to require all its registrars to conduct all the services. On Tuesday, the court of appeals affirmed the appeal tribunal’s decision.

“Our public services are increasingly using equality and diversity policies to leave Christians sidelined and punished,” Williams said. “In effect this amounts to a religious bar to office.”

U.K. Christians have recently voiced alarm over the encroachment of their religious liberty in the name of equality.

In November, a court ruled against a Christian marriage counselor who refused to give sex therapy to a gay couple. Counselor Gary McFarlane said he believes the Bible teaches same-sex sexual practice is immoral and could not personally endorse homosexual relationships. He did not object to other counselors giving such couples advice.

However, his employer eventually fired him in early 2008 because of his religious views on homosexuality and his refusal to provide services to same-sex couples.

This week, the Christian Institute released a new report that asserts that Christians are being marginalized by equality and diversity laws “which leave them the first to be punished and the last to be protected.” The report noted the “growing sense of intolerance” felt by Christians in the United Kingdom.

“Christians wonder why they are not being treated equally and why diversity does not include them,” said Mike Judge, the head of communications at the Christian Institute. “This has led to a growing feeling that ‘equality and diversity’ is code for marginalizing Christian beliefs.”

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has accused U.K. lawmakers of treating Christians like “oddballs.”

The Anglican leader also accused the government of treating religious groups as “slightly fishy interest groups” and said he would be “very glad” if they spoke up for faith this Christmas.

==============================

Calif. Pastor Weighs in on Abortion, Homosexuality, Woods’ Buddhism (Christian Post, 100223)

Southern California pastor Greg Laurie took on some “hot button” issues from the pulpit on Sunday, covering everything from capital punishment and homosexuality to Tiger Woods’ apology.

Commenting on the professed faith of pro golfer Woods, he stated, “Here’s the problem with Buddhism: they don’t believe in a personal God that is there to forgive a person.”

He cited Stephen Prothero, a Boston University professor on Buddhism, who said that in the Buddhist tradition “no matter what Woods says or does, he is going to have to pay for whatever wrongs he’s done.”

“There’s no accountant in the sky wiping sins off your balance sheet, like there is in Christianity.”

Woods on Friday confessed to serial infidelity and said he’ll return to the Buddhist teachings that he drifted away from as he tries to regain his balance on life.

Buddhism, however, does not offer forgiveness, Laurie pointed out. But “Christianity says there is a personal God there to forgive you who sent His son to die on the cross and pay the price for your sins so you can indeed be forgiven.”

The brief comment on the famous public apology served as Laurie’s introduction to his sermon on Christian worldview.

The well-known evangelist believes Christians are often labeled as “bigoted” for expressing their faith or taking a stand on certain issues. One example he cited was when Fox anchor Brit Hume was blasted for suggesting that what Woods really needed was a relationship with Jesus Christ to be forgiven. Amid such persecution, Laurie sought to convey to his congregation the importance of thinking and living biblically and basing their beliefs on what the Bible teaches regardless of what “we feel is right.”

Hitting some of the most controversial and widely debated issues, Laurie asked the congregation not to respond to the hot topics “emotionally” or “logically” but biblically.

Having a biblical worldview means believing that there is a living God and that He has revealed Himself in Scripture, the Harvest pastor explained.

“We accept that we have absolute truth from God,” he said. “The objective is not to conform the Bible to the changing culture but to conform the changing culture to what the Bible teaches.”

On the topic of capital punishment, Laurie pointed to one of the Ten Commandments – thou shalt not kill. The Bible, he said, doesn’t condemn all killing. Self-defense, sometimes war, and capital punishment are justifiable, he said.

“I believe in capital punishment,” Laurie stated, though he acknowledged there are “good people” on both sides of this debate. “And I believe the Bible teaches it.”

Regarding abortion, he stressed that the Bible does not give an unclear word on when life begins.

“Life begins at conception, not at birth,” he stated. “This is absolute. Each child is created by God and should be given a chance to live.”

Indicating a “no exceptions” stand against abortion even if the life of the mother may be in danger, Laurie said just as a mother would instinctively lay her life down if she sees her child about to get hit by a car, she should do the same when it comes to having the baby.

Homosexuality is another clear-cut issue, the evangelist stressed. The Bible is very clear: homosexuality is not in God’s order, he said.

“God is not anti-gay. God is anti-sin no matter how it is expressed,” he stated, adding that people are not born gay.

“I will acknowledge that as a person who is born with a sinful nature you might be attracted to members of the same-sex,” he noted. “I would also acknowledge as a person who is born a sinner you might be more prone to issues of addiction. But having said that, all of these can be overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit.

“You were born a sinner in need of a savior who can change you and help you live the life He has called you to live. That’s the answer.”

“We’re all sinners,” Laurie reminded the congregation. “I’m not standing here today as some pompous preacher looking down on everyone. We’ve all broken God’s commandments in some way shape or form. We all need forgiveness. He offers it graciously and lovingly if we come to Him.”

The “Christian Worldview” sermon series at Harvest kicked off on Feb. 7.

==============================

Survey: Californians Now More Likely to Favor Gay Marriage (Christian Post, 100325)

A newly released survey shows that for the first time, more Californians favor same-sex marriage than oppose it.

Since the Public Policy Institute of California began tracking attitudes on same-sex marriage in the year 2000, residents in the Golden State were always more likely to express opposition. But the latest survey, released Wednesday, found that 50% of residents now favor it and 45% are against it.

The findings come two years after 52% of California voters passed Proposition 8, a state amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The California Supreme Court last year rejected lawsuits against the amendment, ruling that it was not an illegal constitutional revision by the people nor unconstitutional.

But two of the nation’s top litigators – Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented the opposing sides of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 – filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Testimonies in the Prop 8 case wrapped up in January but the case was prolonged after Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ordered opponents of the amendment to turn over campaign materials and internal documents.

According to the PPIC survey, support for same-sex marriage declines with older age, but rises as education and income increase.

Residents in the San Francisco Bay Area are more likely than those in Los Angeles to support allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of evangelical Christians (75%) are opposed to it.

The PPIC survey is part of a series that examines the social, economic, and political trends that influence public policy preferences and ballot choices. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,002 California adult residents interviewed on landlines and cell phones from March 9-16, 2010.

==============================

Gay Marriage Support Gains Slightly in U.S. (Christian Post, 100525)

Americans are slightly more supportive of same-sex marriage today than in the past couple of years, a new Gallup poll found.

Forty-four percent of Americans say marriage between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriage, up four percent compared to 2009 and 2008.

This year’s figure is the second highest level of support for gay marriage since Gallup began asking the question in 1996. The poll’s all-time-high support for gay marriage occurred in 2007 at 46%.

Despite the slight rise in support this year, the poll found that most Americans remain opposed to gay marriage. Fifty-three percent of Americans say same-sex marriage should not be valid nor given the same rights as traditional marriages.

Not surprisingly, Americans who say religion is “very important” in their lives are among the groups most likely to oppose legal same-sex marriage. Seventy percent of those who say religion is very important in their life are against gay marriage, as opposed to 27% of those who say religion is not important.

Americans who are unaffiliated are highly likely to support legal gay marriage (81%), compared to Catholics (48%) and Protestants (33%).

Across the political spectrum, support for same-sex marriage has significantly increased since 1996. This year, the majority (56%) of Americans who are Democrats believe same-sex marriage should be legal, up from 33% in 1996. Support from political Independents have also seen a sharp rise, from 32% to 49% over the same time period.

And even among Republicans support for gay marriage has increased over the past 15 years. The support was at 16% in 1996 and is now at 28%.

Recently, former first lady Laura Bush revealed on CNN that she supports allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

“[W]hen couples are committed to each other and love each other, that they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has,” she said.

Though a growing number of subgroups now show majority support for the legalization of gay marriage, religious and conservative populations are still strongly opposed to it. Since these groups make up a larger part of the population than nonreligious and liberal groups in the country, Americans overall are found to be against same-sex marriage, the report explained.

Gay marriage is currently legal in one federal district and five states. Last fall, Washington, D.C., joined Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont in recognizing same-sex marriage.

But earlier in May, opponents of same-sex marriage in Washington, D.C., took their case to the appeals court arguing that residents, rather than legislators, should have the right to vote on legalizing such relationships. The Court of Appeals heard the case on May 4 and is expected to make its decision some time this year.

==============================

Why Activists Connect Men in Dresses to Same-Sex Marriage (townhall.com, 100601)

by Dennis Prager

Most Americans are aware that gay activism rarely presents itself as a movement solely for the rights of gays. For example, the acronym for the gay rights movement is “GLBT,” meaning Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender.

Interestingly, few people ever ask about the “T.” What do transgendered have to do with gays? How and why are they connected by activists, gay and straight, on the Left? Strictly speaking, gays have no more in common with transgendered people than straights do.

To understand the answer is to understand much of what animates the Sexual Left.

The aim of GLBT is not merely that society not persecute gays and accept them as equal fellow citizens. If it were, the movement could largely disband. The battle for acceptance of gay people has largely been won. And deservedly so: The persecution of people for being sexually attracted to the same sex has been as morally wrong as it has been consistent. I am among the majority of Americans, and presumably non-Americans, who still hold to the male-female sexual ideal and who seek to retain the man-woman definition of marriage. But I fully recognize there have always been individuals who are no more capable of sexual attraction to the opposite sex than men like me are capable of being sexually aroused by the same sex. They should not be ridiculed, let alone persecuted, for their sexual orientation.

And few people, conservative or liberal, have any trouble accepting a transsexual, i.e., someone who has surgically changed his or her sex.

But what does any of this have to do with the transgendered, i.e., people who do not psychologically identify themselves with their biological sex, who act as if they were a member of the opposite sex, and who have not changed their biology? Why does the Left include the transgendered in its activism on behalf of gays?

The latest example occurred this month in New York State when Attorney General Andrew Cuomo forced American Eagle Outfitters to rescind its right to enforce a dress code among its employees. This code included a ban on male employees from wearing dresses or other women’s clothing and a ban on women employees from dressing as men.

To the Left, this is just another example of fighting discrimination — how dare society ask men who prefer to wear women’s clothing not to do so at work? As New York Times columnist Frank Rich recently wrote with regard to changing the definition of marriage to include members of the same sex, Americans regard all this with a “shrug.”

Likewise, last year, the civil rights commission of the State of Maine asked that no Maine schools should insist that biological males use only boys’ or men’s rooms in schools. From elementary school on, every student in Maine should be allowed to determine if he feels male or female, and enter whichever bathroom matches this self-definition.

The Maine commission also called for a ban on schools from enforcing gender divisions in sports teams, school organizations and locker rooms. It says forcing a student into a particular room or group because of his or her biological gender amounts to discrimination.

On the Left, few, if any, changes in the sexual arena are worthy of more than a shrug. Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are worth changing the nation’s and world’s economy over. But redefining marriage from male-female to same-sex, forcing companies to retain male employees who cross-dress at work and ending gender-specific teams and bathrooms in schools — these are not worth a shrug.

But the gender-definition of marriage and the transgender issue are actually very big deals.

In his just-published book, “How Pleasure Works,” Yale Professor of Psychology Paul Bloom, described by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, as “among the deepest thinkers and clearest writers on the science of mind today,” writes:

“Freud claimed ‘when you meet a human being, the first distinction you make is ‘male or female’ and you are accustomed to making the distinction with unhesitating certainty.’ This is true for me at least; I get e-mails from strangers with foreign names and when I can’t tell whether the sender is a man or a woman, it is oddly unsettling. It shouldn’t matter — I have no intention of mating with them — but it does. When we see a baby in a diaper, the first question that many of us ask is: Is this a boy or it is a girl?”

So, then, why the “T” in GLBT?

Because the Left seeks to obliterate the distinction between men and women. This distinction is considered to be a social construct. That is why, to this day, despite all the scientific evidence (as if that were needed) proving how different male and female brains are, many Leftwing academics still argue that boys play with trucks rather than with dolls because of sexist socialization; and girls play with dolls because of socialization.

And that is why, on the Left, changing the definition of marriage is only worth a shrug. Since there are no inherent differences between men and women, what difference could it possibly make whether a man marries a man or a woman, or whether a woman marries a man or a woman? Or if children have two fathers, two mothers, or a father and mother?

For those of us who believe that the male-female distinction is vital to civilization, the Left’s attempts to erase this distinction are worth fighting against. For those who see no purpose in maintaining this distinction, its demise is worth no more than a shrug.

==============================

Judge Topples U.S. Rejection of Gay Unions (Paris, International Herald, 100708)

BOSTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts found Thursday that a law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, ruling that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston sided with the plaintiffs in two separate cases brought by the state attorney general and a gay rights group.

Although legal experts disagreed over how the rulings would fare on appeal, the judge’s decisions were nonetheless sure to further inflame the nationwide debate over same-sex marriage and gay rights.

If the rulings find their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld there, they will put same-sex marriage within the constitutional realm of protection, just as interracial marriage has been for decades. Seeking that protection is at the heart of both the Massachusetts cases and a federal case pending in California over the legality of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said federal officials were reviewing the decision and had no further comment. But lawyers for the plaintiffs said they fully expected the Obama administration to appeal. An appeal would be heard by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico.

In the case brought by Attorney General Martha Coakley, Judge Tauro found that the 1996 law, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, compels Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to receive federal money for certain programs.

The other case, brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, focused more narrowly on equal protection as applied to a handful of federal benefits. In that case, Judge Tauro agreed that the federal law violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying benefits to one class of married couples — gay men and lesbians — but not others.

Neither suit challenged a separate provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. But if the cases make their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld, gay and lesbian couples in states that recognize same-sex marriage will be eligible for federal benefits that are now granted only to heterosexual married couples.

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Judge Tauro wrote in the case brought by Ms. Coakley. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”

Proponents of gay rights embraced the rulings as legal victories.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who argued the case. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”

Chris Gacek, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a leading conservative group, said he was disappointed by the decision.

“The idea that a court can say that this definition of marriage that’s been around forever is irrational is mind-boggling,” Mr. Gacek said. “It’s a bad decision.”

Massachusetts has allowed same-sex couples to marry since 2004, and while more than 15,000 have done so, they are denied federal benefits like Social Security survivors’ payments, the right to file taxes jointly and guaranteed leave from work to care for a sick spouse.

In the Coakley case, the judge held that that federal restrictions on funding for states that recognize same-sex marriage violates the 10th Amendment, the part of the Constitution that declares that rights not explicitly granted to the federal government, or denied to the states, belong to the states.

The Obama administration’s Justice Department was in the position of defending the Defense of Marriage Act even though Barack Obama had called during the 2008 presidential campaign for repealing it. Scott Simpson, when arguing the case on behalf of the government in May, opened by acknowledging the administration’s opposition to the act, but saying he was still obliged to defend its constitutionality.

“This presidential administration disagrees with DOMA as a matter of policy,” Mr. Simpson said at the time. “But that does not affect its constitutionality.”

Some constitutional scholars said they were surprised by Judge Tauro’s opinions in the two cases.

“What an amazing set of opinions,” said Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School. “No chance they’ll be held up on appeal.”

Professor Balkin, who supports the right to same-sex marriage, said the opinions ignored the federal government’s longstanding involvement in marriage issues in areas like welfare, tax policy, health care, Social Security and more. The opinion in the advocacy group’s case applies the Constitution to marriage rights, he said, undercutting the notion that the marriage is not a federal concern.

“These two opinions are at war with themselves,” he said.

The arguments concerning the 10th Amendment and the spending clause, if upheld, would “take down a wide swath of programs — you can’t even list the number of programs that would be affected,” he said.

By citing the 10th Amendment and making what is essentially a states’ rights argument, Professor Balkin said Judge Tauro was “attempting to hoist conservatives by their own petard, by saying: ‘You like the 10th Amendment? I’ll give you the 10th Amendment! I’ll strike down DOMA!’ “

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, was more supportive of the logic of the two opinions, and said they worked together to establish a broad right of marriage for same-sex couples.

“The key issue in this case, and in all litigation about marriage equality for gays and lesbians, is, Does the government have a rational basis for treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples?” he said. “Here, the court says there is no rational basis for treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples. Therefore, DOMA is unconstitutional, and conditioning federal funding on compliance with DOMA is unconstitutional.”

A central issue in the fight over the constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban is whether laws restricting gay rights should be held to a tougher standard of review than the “rational basis” test, and so Judge Tauro’s decision takes a different path that would eliminate the need for that line of argument, Professor Chemerinsky said.

“There’s no need to get to higher scrutiny if it fails rational basis review,” he said.

==============================

Argentina Legalizes Gay Marriage; First in Latin America (Christian Post, 100715)

Argentina legalized same-sex marriage Thursday, offering gay couples all the same rights given to their heterosexual counterparts, including adopting children.

Members of Catholic groups protest outside Argentina’s Congress against a same sex marriage bill in Buenos Aires, Tuesday, July 13, 2010. On Wednesday, senators are expected to vote over the bill which would make Argentina become the first Latin American country to legalize same sex marriage.

In a 33 to 27 vote, with three abstentions, Argentina became the first country in Latin America to legally recognize gay marriage. While same-sex civil unions are recognized in Buenos Aires, parts of Mexico and Brazil and in Uruguay, no other Latin American country prior to Argentina had allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The unprecedented legislation passed despite intense opposition by the Roman Catholic Church, which is powerful in the predominantly Catholic nation. President Cristina Fernandez and her center-left government are strong advocates of gay rights and legalization of gay marriage. Fernandez has stated she will sign the legislation.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the archbishop of Buenos Aires, commented that “everyone loses” with the legalization of gay marriage, according to The Associated Press. He also said children need to be raised by both a father and a mother.

Argentina now joins nine other countries in the world where same-sex marriage is legal, including Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden.

In the United States, gay marriage is legal in five states – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont – and federal district Washington, D.C.

This month, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled that the federal definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional. The decision opens the door for other states where gay marriage is legal to also challenge the federal definition of marriage.

The Justice Department has yet to announce if it plans to appeal the federal judge’s decision and defend DOMA.

==============================

Black Friday at the Breakfast Table: DOMA on the Ropes (Christian Post, 100715)

By Chuck Colson

There it was, a front-page headline on the New York Times: “Judge Topples U. S. Rejection of Gay Unions.” In Boston, Federal Judge Joseph Tauro had ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, “plainly encroaches” on the right of the state like Massachusetts to define marriage and ensure its benefits.

In a separate ruling, Tauro ruled that DOMA violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. Gay couples have brought the suits because, even though married in Massachusetts, they couldn’t get federal benefits, like Social Security, for their “spouses.”

DOMA was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. It prevents one state from redefining marriage for the other 49. It defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of one man and one woman. Under DOMA, a state may define marriage however it wants, but the impact of that definition is limited to that state’s law.

DOMA was hailed as a victory for traditional marriage when it passed. No longer. Unless, as I pray, Tauro’s decision is overturned on appeal.

I am especially saddened personally because Joe Tauro is a long-time friend whose appointment as a federal judge I urged President Nixon to make. It’s for me a very painful irony.

My own personal “black Friday” was made complete by something else I read in that same edition of the Times: a review of the movie The Kids Are All Right, which celebrates the story of lesbian couple having a child through the aid of a sperm donor.

Come on! This comes right on the heels of a study definitively showing that sperm donor babies are more likely to suffer serious life-long emotional wounds than children raised by their biological parents.

Tauro’s decision and the gushing review of the movie are a clear sign that the gay-rights movement, unlike the Church, has mastered the long game and is capable of fighting on several fronts at the same time-politics, the courts and, especially, culture.

Tauro’s dismissal of DOMA was only possible because of the effort to change cultural attitudes about homosexuality. It’s as if the gay-rights movement took a page right out of the playbook of my hero, William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian and Christian who led the decades-long movement to abolish the slave trade. He fought the slave trade and worked to change cultural prejudice. He sparked a revival in the Church. And he won.

Sadly, Christians today seem to have a limited attention span and are confused about how or whether to shape culture. Our occasional political victories are nullified, however, where they matter-in the hearts and minds of Americans. The fate of DOMA is a bitter lesson.

Let’s be clear. This is every bit the victory gay-rights advocates say it is, which makes families and kids the big losers.

So Christians, we had better wake up. Don’t take the advice of those who are telling us we shouldn’t try to change the world. Let’s get busy, work harder, and take the long view-to restore, pray God, sanity to our culture.

==============================

Religion and Morality in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate (Heritage Foundation, 100720)

Thomas Messner

Abstract : Some same-sex marriage activists might wish to exclude certain moral and religious viewpoints from the same-sex marriage debate. Evidence shows, however, that religion and moral argumentation are often harnessed in support of same-sex marriage. People of all faiths or no faith at all should be free to participate in the marriage debate and bring moral viewpoints to bear on the issues.

Developments in the same-sex marriage debate have focused new attention on the place of religion and morality in shaping the legal definition of marriage. For example, after voters passed Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was subjected to heavy criticism and based on its support for the measure. Now, in a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, one issue is whether evidence of religious support for Proposition 8 somehow renders the measure suspect.

Three understandings should form the basis of any discussion about the place of religion and morality in the same-sex marriage debate. First, though some people who defend marriage are personally religious or have religious motivations, support for marriage as the union of husband and wife does not require belief in the religious teachings of any particular faith. Second, many people, including some professional gay-rights activists, enthusiastically mix religion with law and politics in support of same-sex marriage. Third, the question of how marriage should be defined in law raises inescapable moral considerations that should be confronted directly.

Many Arguments for Marriage as the Union of Husband and Wife Are Not Religious in Nature

Some proponents of same-sex marriage have suggested that religion is the primary obstacle to redefining marriage to include homosexual unions. “[R]eligion is the chief obstacle for gay and lesbian political progress,” testifies one expert.[1] Says one activist, “There’s no road to success that doesn’t go through religion-based homophobia.”[2] According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “The primary opposition to same-sex marriage appears to be theologically based—the claim that God doesn’t like it.”[3]

It might be true, of course, that many people who defend marriage are personally religious or act in part from a religious motivation to promote the common good. But support for marriage does not require belief in the religious teachings of any particular faith.

Many arguments for marriage focus on it as a natural, pre-political social institution intrinsically connected to the vital public interest in the begetting and raising of children. “Across history and cultures,” reports marriage scholar David Blankenhorn, “marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples,” argues Blankenhorn, “would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”[4]

It is precisely the connection between marriage, on the one hand, and the begetting and raising of children, on the other hand, that makes marriage, as the Supreme Court wrote in Loving v. Virginia, “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”[5] This connection is also why race is not relevant to marriage but gender is. With procreation, the most important public purpose of marriage remains uniting men and women in a “formal partnership” that will last through “the prolonged period of dependency of a human child.”[6]

The intergenerational and long-term benefits of marriage to society are profound and irreplaceable. The public has a strong interest in using law and policy to recognize, affirm, support, solidify, encourage, strengthen, and defend marriage as the cornerstone of the family and the building block of society.

To say these arguments for marriage are not religious in nature is not to disparage the important place of faith and morality in public life or the higher law foundation of moral truth. This nation was founded on truths said to be “self-evident, according to ‘the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,’”[7] and concepts like inalienable rights have meaning only in reference to a higher law that binds even the state. The point is merely that, using the light of reason and evidence from the world around them, people of good will can support the traditional understanding of marriage without accepting the religious teachings of any particular faith.

Religion Harnessed to Support Same-Sex Marriage

If religion is viewed as the primary obstacle to making same-sex marriage a reality in law, it should be no surprise if some activists wish to exclude certain religious viewpoints from the same-sex marriage debate. One activist expressed this view quite plainly in explaining why he sponsored an advertisement exploiting anti-Mormon bigotry.[8] “I’m not intending it to harm the religion,” this activist said.[9] “I think they do wonderful things. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[10]

Evidence shows, however, that religion is often harnessed in support of same-sex marriage. In California, for example, a wide range of religious institutions supported same-sex marriage legislation that was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.[11]

including churches from United Methodist Church, Disciples of Christ, Lutheran Church, Unitarian Universalist Church, Unitarian Church, Congregational Church, Congregational United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, Metropolitan Community Churches, United Church of Christ

Similarly, there was significant religiously based political opposition to Proposition 8, the marriage amendment California voters passed in 2008. Religious institutions and leaders that support same-sex marriage in California contributed money, resources, and support to No on Prop 8 efforts and urged citizens to oppose Proposition 8.[12] In one event over a hundred “multi-faith leaders,” including “rabbis, ministers, pastors, priests and priestesses,” stood on the steps of the San Francisco City Hall and “proclaim[ed] their opposition to California’s Proposition 8.”[13]

Many religious institutions and leaders favoring same-sex marriage also actively engage in judicial processes. In a state court lawsuit claiming a right to same-sex marriage under the California constitution, representatives from a wide range of religious and faith organizations supported an “interfaith ‘friend of the court’ brief” that was signed by hundreds of “religious associations, churches, synagogues, sanghas, ministers, and rabbis across California and the nation.”[14] In a legal challenge against Proposition 8 “nearly one thousand faith communities and faith leaders with constituents in California” supported a brief favoring same-sex marriage.[15]

These examples do not exhaust the possible illustrations of how religion has been mixed with law and politics to oppose measures like Proposition 8 and support the cause of same-sex marriage more generally. Many additional instances can be identified in California and elsewhere.

Far from disclaiming religious support for same-sex marriage, professional gay-rights activists welcome and encourage it. The National Religious Leadership Roundtable, which supported the multi-faith event on the steps of the San Francisco City Hall described above, is convened by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.[16] On its website Lambda Legal posts statements from “faith supporters” of same-sex marriage.[17] Harry Knox, Director of the Human Rights Campaign’s Religion and Faith Program and a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, has traveled to California to help “mobilize clergy and people of faith for marriage equality.”[18]

As a general principle, the robust participation of religious people and institutions in public life is good for this nation. President George Washington described religion and morality as the “great Pillars of human happiness,” the “firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens,” and “indispensable supports” of “all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity.”[19] President Washington also had the insight to warn that Americans should indulge only with caution the supposition that “morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,” he said, “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”[20]

More pragmatically, everyone has a worldview and everyone inevitably brings that worldview to bear on issues of public policy, including marriage. Therefore, as Barack Obama stated when he was still a U.S. Senator, “[S]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square…. [T]o say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality . . . .”[21]

Advocates on both sides of the marriage debate should respect the reasoned participation in that debate of people of all faiths and no faith at all.

Defining Marriage in Law Involves Moral Considerations

Some activists might prefer to frame arguments for same-sex marriage in terms of state neutrality and formal legal equality, but the question of how society recognizes marriage through its laws and policies raises inescapable moral considerations. In the words of President Obama, “Our law is by definition a codification of morality”[22] and, as the U.S. Supreme Court asserted long ago, marriage has “more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution.”[23]

A growing chorus of scholars who support same-sex marriage recognize that it is impossible to have a “fruitful discussion” of same-sex marriage “without engaging the normative questions.”[24] According to Yale Law Professor William Eskridge, for example, “Opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage both realize that the legal debate is strongly connected to the larger normative debate. What is at stake is not just technical legal equality, but fundamental social norms and public values in the United States.”[25]

Georgetown Law Professor Chai Feldblum, who recently was appointed by President Obama to serve as a Commissioner on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sees in the movement for same-sex marriage an opportunity “to make the case for” the “normative moral equivalence” of “gay and heterosexual sex”—an argument, Professor Feldblum observes, “that is hardly ever heard in political circles.”[26] Professor Feldblum has even created what she calls “The Moral Values Project” to promote this argument.[27]

Rutgers Law Professor Carlos Ball believes that the struggle for “societal acceptance” of same-sex relationships entails a “frontal attack” on the “deeply held views of many Americans regarding the (im)morality of homosexuality.”[28] It is “impossible,” Professor Ball writes, “to grapple with the complexities of the issue by simply asking for equality and state-neutrality and for protection against discrimination.”[29]

Recently, a group of professors favoring same-sex marriage published an entire book on the topic of morality, religion, and same-sex marriage.[30] The authors, who include Professors Feldblum and Ball, believe that “current advocates for gay rights are not really engaging their opponents unless they are engaged with the moral nature of their opponents’ views and arguments.”[31] This book self-consciously engages “the moral questions” that often arise in connection with issues like same-sex marriage and argues that “the moral case” favors outcomes like the legalization of same-sex marriage.[32]

These law professors are not the only advocates prepared to advance moral arguments for same-sex marriage. When political activists assert that not allowing two people of the same sex to marry is “wrong,” allude to the “long arc of justice,” or invoke concepts of “human rights,” they too make arguments of a moral nature.

At some level all legal and policy issues involve a moral dimension, and activists and lawmakers who take liberal and progressive political positions often have no problem using morally charged language to support those political positions on issues as diverse as capital punishment, environmentalism, and health care. Problems of fundamental fairness arise, however, when parties who use moral argumentation to support their own position suggest that opposing parties should not do the same thing.

Whether to recognize same-sex marriage in law involves inescapable moral considerations. Parties on both sides of the issue should be free to bring their moral viewpoints to bear on the issues involved.

Conclusion

Religion and morality occupy a vital place in the public life of this country and the question of marriage is one of the most important and contested public issues of the time. It is neither surprising nor alarming if parties on both sides of the marriage debate seek to use moral argumentation and enlist the support of religious figures and institutions. Attempts to suppress the open expression of a diversity of viewpoints on the issue of marriage should be strongly resisted.

==============================

California’s gay-marriage ban overturned (National Post, 100804)

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional, handing a key victory to gay rights advocates in a politically charged decision almost certain to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker also ordered the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, immediately lifted to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry while the case moves to a higher court.

Prop 8 supporters had sought to keep the measure in place pending the outcome of their appeal.

But Vaughn said the lawsuit challenging Prop 8 “demonstrated by overwhelming evidence” that it violates due process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Judge Walker wrote in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion.

Outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco, a cheer went up among a group of about 70 same-sex marriage supporters carrying small U.S. flags, as a large rainbow-striped flag — the symbol of the gay rights movement — waved overhead.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said he personally supports gay marriage but would abide by the will of voters and the courts, said the decision “affirms the full protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves.”

The highly anticipated ruling marked a major turning point in a social debate that has sharply divided the American public and its political establishment.

Gay rights advocates and civil libertarians have cast the legal battle as a fight for equal rights, while opponents, including many religious conservatives, see same-sex marriage as a threat to the traditional family.

Both sides have said an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was certain regardless of the outcome on Wednesday. The case could then go to the Supreme Court, provided the high court’s justices opted to hear it.

“I’m thrilled,” gay marriage supporter Steven Ray Davis said at the courthouse. “We still have a long way to go.”

The case against California’s Prop 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November 2008 defining marriage as between a man and a woman, marks the first challenge in federal court to a state law barring same-sex matrimony.

Thirty-nine U.S. states have laws explicitly prohibiting gay marriage — 30 adopted in their constitutions. Five states and the District of Columbia recognize gay marriage — Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts.

Early last month, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that a 1996 federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages, even in states where it is allowed, was unconstitutional.

The federal government has 60 days to decide whether to appeal that ruling.

The two lead attorneys in the California case are Ted Olson and David Boies, who opposed each other in the landmark Supreme Court case that decided the outcome of the disputed 2000 U.S. presidential election and put George W. Bush in the White House.

Some gay rights advocates were initially hesitant to bring a federal challenge to Prop 8, fearing an eventual loss before the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court.

==============================

Mexico’s Supreme Court rules nationwide recognition for Mexico City’s same-sex marriages (Foxnews, 100810)

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital, though its decision does not force those states to begin marrying gay couples

in their territory.

In a 9-2 decision, the tribunal cited an article of the constitution requiring states to recognize legal contracts drawn up elsewhere.

It did not specify what degree of recognition must be granted to same-sex couples.

Mexico City’s same-sex marriage law, enacted in March, extends to wedded gay couples the right to adopt children, to jointly apply for bank loans, to inherit wealth and to be covered by their spouses’ insurance policies. Some of those may end up applying only in the capital.

The Supreme Court ruled last week that same-sex weddings are constitutional — though it is holding separate discussions this week on the adoption clause.

One of the justices, Sergio Aguirre, argued against adoptions by same-sex couples Tuesday, saying children might suffer discrimination as a result.

==============================

A Gavel Falls on Marriage: The Proposition 8 Decision (Christian Post, 100805)

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

The importance of the decision handed down yesterday by U. S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in California’s Proposition 8 trial will be difficult to exaggerate. Proponents of same-sex marriage immediately declared a major victory - and for good reason. The editorial board of The New York Times declared the verdict “an instant landmark in American legal history,” and so it is, even if later reversed upon appeal.

Judge Walker’s decision is sweeping and comprehensive, basically affirming every argument and claim put forth by those demanding that California’s Proposition 8 be declared unconstitutional. That proposition, affirmed by a clear majority of California voters, amended the state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In one brazen act of judicial energy, California’s voters were told that they had no right to define marriage, and thousands of years of human wisdom were discarded as irrational.

Even as the case is immediately appealed, the reality is that a Federal court has now declared that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Pressing beyond this verdict, Judge Walker also released a set of “findings” that include some of the most radical statements about marriage yet encountered.

In rendering his verdict, Judge Walker declared that California’s Proposition 8 violates both the equal protection and due process rights of homosexual citizens. The proposition, he concluded, “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” He continued: “Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”

In order to reach this conclusion, Judge Walker provided more than 100 pages of legal reasoning, based on the evidence that he allowed or accepted. On page after page, Judge Walker arbitrarily accepted the claims put forth by proponents of same-sex marriage as rational, and declares the evidence and arguments put forth by the defenders of Proposition 8 as lacking in any rational basis.

The decision handed down Wednesday in San Francisco comes with virtually no surprise. Judge Walker’s statements and rulings in the course of the trial proceedings pointed directly to the decision released yesterday.

This decision, whatever its final resolution, serves as an undeniable reminder of the power of Federal judges. A single unelected judge nullified the will of the voters of California as expressed through the electoral process. Those who have been arguing that judicial activism is a fiction will have to look this decision in the face. The New York Times celebrated Judge Walker’s usurpation of the political process, arguing that “there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.” The paper and the proponents of same-sex marriage clearly hope that this is one of those times.

That is clearly the most significant dimension of the verdict. Judge Walker’s decision, bearing the full force of a Federal court, adds to the sense of inevitability that the proponents of same-sex marriage have been so carefully constructing in recent years. Defenders of marriage as a heterosexual institution should resist the temptation to minimize the significance of this decision, even as the verdict is vigorously appealed. Yesterday’s ruling is a huge win for the homosexual community, and a significant step toward the full normalization of homosexuality within the culture.

Anyone who reads Judge Walker’s decision will see that the normalization of homosexuality was one of his major concerns. Any belief that heterosexual relations are morally superior to homosexual relations “is not a proper basis on which to legislate,” he asserted. Proposition 8, he insisted, “was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.” The judge claimed to have “uncloaked” the real reason California’s voters adopted Proposition 8 - “a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples.”

The judge released enumerated “findings” within his decision. Among the most important - and startling - of these are the following:

“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

“Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.”

“The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in the child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent.”

“Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.”

In a breathtaking and brief sentence, Judge Walker asserted: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

Until this verdict, such language had never appeared in a decision of a Federal court. If gender is no longer “an essential part of marriage,” then marriage has been essentially redefined right before our eyes.

The religious liberty dimensions of the decision are momentous and deeply troubling. While Judge Walker declared that the religious freedoms of citizens and religious bodies were not violated because no such body is required to recognize or perform same-sex marriage, the very structure of his argument condemned religious and theological objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage as both harmful and irrational.

Beyond this, Judge Walker claimed to read the minds of California’s voters, arguing that the majority voted for Proposition 8 based on religious opposition to homosexuality, which he then rejected as an illegitimate state interest. In essence, this establishes secularism as the only acceptable basis for moral judgment on the part of voters. The judge’s statements condemning religious opposition to homosexuality speak for themselves in terms of animus.

Judge Walker’s decision will be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, also located in San Francisco - the most notoriously liberal appeals court in the nation. Inevitably, the case will be then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision handed down by Judge Walker, especially as expressed in his findings, was clearly constructed with such appeals in mind.

Thousands of cases make their way through the Federal courts each year. Some are important, but only a few have lasting legal significance. Whatever happens on appeal, the decision handed down yesterday by Judge Vaughn R. Walker will reverberate for decades to come. Yesterday, a very important gavel fell on marriage. The central institution of human civilization suffered a direct hit, and its future hangs in the balance.

==============================

Judging Marriage: Proposition 8 Struck Down (Christian Post, 100806)

By Chuck Colson

Yesterday, federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker, a Reagan appointee, overturned California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

While the immediate impact is limited to the state of California, the consequences of this egregious bit of judicial overreach threatens to be nationwide.

Two years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the state constitution. In response, supporters of traditional marriage followed California’s legal and democratic process: They collected enough signatures to put a proposed amendment to the state constitution on the ballot.

After a hard-fought campaign in which they were outspent by the other side, Proposition 8 supporters, including many African American pastors, enacted the referendum. Having lost the democratic battle, the losers again returned to the courts, this time the federal courts.

They argued that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Throughout the 13-day trial, Judge Walker’s sympathies were clear to observers.

He ruled yesterday that “moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.” Warming to the task, he added that “the evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason”-note that, “without reason”-”a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples.”

Even though his ruling isn’t surprising, his dismissal of the opinions of the people of California and five thousand-plus years of human tradition is breath-taking. Then again, inasmuch as Walker is one of the few openly gay federal judges, maybe his dismissal shouldn’t shock us, either.

Let’s be clear. What’s at stake here goes beyond California and even beyond marriage itself. The reasoning that overturned California’s law, that said that the right of gays to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, would, if applied nationally, overturn similar laws throughout the country.

As Pastor Jim Garlow, who led the Proposition 8 campaign, points out, it would be a mistake to think that the battle about the definition of marriage is only over marriage-disastrous as that is. A loss on this issue will have devastating consequences for our personal freedoms.

Garlow points to the weakening of parental rights, of course the attack on religious freedom and individuals practicing their faith in public. People who oppose same-sex marriage will be forced to choose between full participation in public life and fidelity to their convictions.

So what comes next? An appeal to Ninth Circuit, the most liberal circuit court in America, and an expedited appeal to Supreme Court.

But my hopes are instead in the groundswell of public outrage and resistance. This is re-writing the Constitution of the United States and undermining the most basic institutions of civilized society.

This is why we’ve signed the Manhattan Declaration. You should come to www.manhattandeclaration.org, and sign on and get your friends to sign on. It’s time we took a stand. Millions of us have got to speak up and say, “No, we’ll give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, never to Caesar what belongs to God.”

==============================

American Bar Association Adopts Gay Marriage Resolution (Christian Post, 100816)

The American Bar Association has adopted a resolution calling on governments at every level to eliminate all the legal barriers that prevent to same-sex couples from being joined in marriage.

“The American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry,” states Resolution 111, which the ABA House of Delegates adopted Wednesday at its annual meeting in San Francisco.

According to a report submitted in support of the resolution, the extension of equal marriage rights to same-sex couples is consistent with constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, as well as the states’ strong interest in protecting and fostering the family unit.

“The historic action taken today represents another promising step on the path toward equal rights for same-sex couples,” commented Stephen P. Younger, president of the New York State Bar Association, which was a lead sponsor of the resolution.

“I want to commend the members of the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates for working with the New York State Bar Association and other bar associations to help in the effort to end this injustice against lesbian and gay people and their families,” he added.

According to reports, the resolution passed overwhelmingly with only vote made against the measure.

Ahead of the resolution’s passage, the Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fund stressed that the ABA does not speak for all U.S. lawyers and noted how three-quarters of American lawyers do not belong to the ABA.

“The fact that ADF and other lawyers disagree with ABA on a number of controversial issues demonstrates the gross inaccuracy of ABA’s claim that it speaks for the U.S. legal profession,” remarked ADF Senior Legal Counsel Doug Napier, who resigned from the ABA because of its stance on controversial political issues.

In the past, ABA has advocated for abortion rights, civil trial for suspected terrorists, and repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

The association’s 1992 abortion policy prompted many of its member lawyers to leave and lead to the formation of the pro-life National Lawyers Association.

“The ABA was not originally designed to endorse political agendas,” Napier explained in a statement last week. “But in recent years, it has joined hands with groups like the ACLU on a number of societal issues and wrongly asserts that it speaks for the legal profession.”

“We urge the ABA to abandon its divisive political agenda and return to its original non-partisan mission…,” the conservative lawyer stated.

Notably, the adoption of resolution 111 on Wednesday came one week after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

And the keynote speaker of the 2010 ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco was David Boies, who co-counseled with Ted Olson to overturn Prop. 8.

Prop. 8, which California voters passed in 2008, effectively defined marriage in the state’s constitution as the union of one man and one woman.

Last week, however, Walker determined that people of the same sex do have the right to marry and that the decision of the majority to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman violates that right.

On Thursday, Walker denied a motion to stay the judgment he made, effectively allowing gay marriages to resume in the state starting next Wednesday.

In an 11-page ruling, the judge said proponents of the stay did not show a likelihood of success on appeal nor the possibility of any irreparable harm absent a stay.

ADF, which has been defending California’s Prop. 8, announced immediately after Walker’s ruling that it would appeal to the 9th Circuit to stay the trial court’s decision until the case is concluded.

==============================

Consequences of same-sex ‘marriage’ being ignored? (WorldNetDaily, 100819)

Important questions for Glenn Beck and his ‘what difference is it?’ stance

WASHINGTON – With his trademark blackboard in the background, Glenn Beck’s bold lessons about the Founding Fathers, America’s Christian heritage and stealth attempts by communists – even within the current administration – to undermine liberty leave many conservatives rapt and cheering for more.

But even as they admire how passionately he’s enlightened Americans about U.S. history and its endurance through threats to its constitutional sovereignty, two authors revered by the right say Beck needs a lesson in how his latest stance actually is aiding and abetting the subversive roots he labors intensely to expose.

By becoming the latest conservative to capitulate to same-sex “marriage,” Glenn Beck is knuckling under to a movement with Marxist roots that’s intent on sabotaging traditional morality and religion, Joseph Farah and David Kupelian warn.

During a recent exchange with fellow Fox News host Bill O’Reilly about the homosexual California judge who overturned an overwhelmingly voter-approved ban on same-sex “marriage,” O’Reilly asked Beck if legalized same-sex “marriage” would “harm the country.” Countering his previously stated views, Beck answered: “I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: ‘If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?’”

That answer showed that Beck apparently “doesn’t care about one of the most blatant and despicable examples of judicial tyranny in the history of our country,” “said Farah, founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com and author of top-selling “The Tea Party Manifesto.”

Even as voters in state after state – now up to 30 – approve bans on same-sex “marriage,” conservative commentators increasingly are cowing in the face of the homosexual agenda, says Kupelian, managing editor of WND and best-selling author of “The Marketing of Evil” and its just-released sequel, “How Evil Works.” He cites not only the strike-down of Prop 8, but the light resistance to the confirmation of Elena Kagan (which CBS first reportedly described as a lesbian) and the likelihood of Congress overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“Most people in today’s America, including conservatives, are afraid of ‘the gay issue,’” Kupelian says, citing Ann Coulter’s scheduled keynote speech for GOProud’s September HOMOCON event and the “gay conservative” group’s earlier sponsorship of the Conservative Political Action Conference. “Although most know deep down there’s something wrong with homosexuality, they don’t want to be called ‘intolerant,’ ‘bigoted,’ ‘hateful’ or ‘homophobic.’”

Kupelian outlines the unforeseen and far-reaching consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage, including:

* schools required to teach that homosexuality is normal and acceptable;

* the criminalization of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality as pastors and rabbis fear preaching their faith’s core moral values;

* the inevitable legalization of polygamy and other new and bizarre forms of “marriage”

“For Muslims living in the U.S., for whom polygamy is allowed under the Quran (up to four wives), we will see large numbers of polygamous marriages within the United States of America,” said Kupelian, “just as there are in France today – where polygamy is still illegal! (The French so fear their Muslim subculture, they don’t enforce the law. In fact, French taxpayers pay for free housing for many polygamous Muslims, subsidizing special multi-room apartment units to accommodate the various wives and their children.)”

In fact, says Farah, when conservatives staunchly advocate “the superiority of the free market” while going wobbly on social issues like same-sex “marriage,” they fail to see the contradictions or the consequences. Particularly, says Farah, the economic ones.

“(M)aterialists like Beck don’t understand how upsetting God’s order can have far-reaching effects much more devastating even than a tax increase,” said Farah. “I would suggest that many of the dire economic problems we face today are a direct result not of government fiscal policies but of government social engineering.”

Farah argues such in “The Tea Party Manifesto,” warning about individuals and entities eager to rally the tea party movement around economic issues exclusively. When conservative leaders like Beck shrug off the ramifications of same-sex “marriage,” they unwittingly reject traditional marriage’s biblical ordination and its history as the bedrock protector of women, children and a free, self-governing society, said Farah.

“That is … the perfect illustration of what’s wrong with the materialist worldview – whether it is held by a raving Marxist or a conservative entertainer,” he adds.

Writes Kupelian: “The well-documented leftist infiltration and subversion of virtually all of America’s institutions during the last two to three generations has included, front and center, the sabotage of traditional morality and religion. After all, from the Marxist perspective, if you’re serious about transforming America – from a land of limited government and individual liberty rooted in a transcendent, faith-based moral code to a population of compliant, needy people dependent on a god-like government – you simply must separate the population from Judeo-Christian values and morality.”

“Glenn,” he adds, directly addressing the popular Fox host, “the three founders you picture daily on your Fox TV show under the heading Faith. Hope. Charity – namely Sam Adams, George Washington and Ben Franklin – would have been horrified, appalled and aghast at the mere thought of men marrying men and women marrying women.”

***

The American people. You see, they see it the same way I do. Overwhelmingly, Americans reject same-sex marriage.

True, it has been forced down their throats by rogue judges – in Massachusetts in 2003, in New Jersey in 2006, in California and Connecticut in 2008, and in Iowa in 2009. Finally in 2009, Vermont gave in when its legislature, without being forced by a judge, legalized same-sex marriage. Maine and New Hampshire then followed suit.

But as the Heritage Foundation affirms: the only reason same-sex marriage exists in the U.S. at all (currently homosexual couples can get marriage licenses in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.) is because of activist courts:

Not a single state … has seen its populace vote directly to install same-sex marriage. Popular majorities in states as diverse as Maine, California, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Mississippi have voted to protect marriage. Overall almost 64% of the nearly 60 million popular votes cast to date have favored preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Here’s a dose of American reality, far away from the rarefied air of media punditry, whether liberal or conservative:

Forty-one states have passed statutes defining marriage as between a man and a woman: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. (The Connecticut and Iowa supreme courts later invalidated their states’ laws banning same-sex marriage.)

And 30 states have language in their own state constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Repeatedly, year after year, Americans say “no” to same-sex marriage. Either they are idiots and bigots – or they are wiser than the media pundits and prognosticators.

==============================

Conservatives Defend DOMA Amid More Lawsuits (Christian Post, 101110)

Gay rights groups have launched new and multi-plaintiff legal challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act in a race to pressure federal courts to change the federal definition of marriage.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders both filed lawsuits Tuesday on behalf of same-sex couples trying to receive federal benefits from their partners.

In GLAD’s case, the advocate group filed a lawsuit on behalf of five same-sex couples and widowed partner across three states – Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire.

“DOMA must fall,” said GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto.

She said gay rights groups will put continued pressure on DOMA until same-sex couples receive the same benefits as opposite sex couples.

“We have to keep the pressure on and get DOMA off the books before it does any more harm,” she stated.

Chris Gacek, a senior fellow of the Family Research Council, responded to the lawsuits, noting that “there’s been a change in strategy.”

“They’re going try to file [a lawsuit] for every supposed benefit that has been denied,” Gacek said.

According to Bonauto, the GLAD lawsuit shows how DOMA hurts a wide range of people. The couples named in the suit have been denied leave requests, survivor benefits, shared insurance benefits and joint tax filing benefits. Their stories are recorded on a video on GLAD’s website and features couples of different ages, races and genders in family pictures.

ACLU is representing a widowed partner, Edith “Edie” Windsor, who is suing for a refund of the estate tax Windsor she was forced to pay for her deceased partner of 44 years.

Gacek views the lawsuits as “sort of a public relations campaign.”

ADF Legal Council Dale Schowengerdt explained that GLAD put multiple plaintiffs on the lawsuit because “their legal arguments are a little bit thin and they focus a lot on the stories of these couples and basically make an emotional appeal.”

Schowengerdt also said gay rights groups are trying to build a compelling case for the U.S. Supreme Court.

And with Justice Elena Kagan on the high court, gay rights groups believe she can be the swing vote, Gacek pointed out.

Gay rights advocates have what they believe is a favorable environment in the Supreme Court, said Gacek. Before, he said, “They didn’t want to challenge DOMA or Prop 8 until they had another vote on the Supreme Court and [could] be certain of winning.”

These two cases combined with the two still pending in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Log Cabin’s Supreme Court petition is evidence of what Schowengerdt calls “a race to the Supreme Court.”

DOMA defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” and the word “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” for the benefit of federal laws for items such as federal employee benefits. The act also re-establishes states’ right to define marriage in their own terms without having to defer to other state rulings.

ADF has been working with the Department of Justice to ensure that DOMA is upheld since it was first challenged in July.

In The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Judge Joseph L. Tauro of Massachusetts issued a ruling denying a USDHHS motion to dismiss the state’s lawsuit, proclaiming that DOMA violates the 5th and 10th Amendments. In companion case Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, a similar ruling was given.

For now, a stay has been issued preventing DOMA from being overturned before both rulings are appealed. Schowengerdt said the Department of Justice will begin filling briefs for the first of the appeals on Dec. 13.

==============================

Supreme Court Denies Pastor’s Appeal in DC Gay Marriage Case (Christian Post, 110119)

The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to hear the appeal of Washington D.C.’s gay marriage law, ending a local pastor’s efforts to uphold the institution’s traditional definition.

America’s high court rejected Bishop Harry Jackson’s appeal to challenge the District of Columbia’s refusal to put the question of legislating same-sex marriage before the voters.

The appeal had previously lost in the Board of Elections and Ethics and D.C. Court of Appeals. The board rejected Jackson’s initial request saying that a marriage referendum would violate the city’s Human Rights Act. The act bans, among other things, discrimination based on sexual orientation. The appeals court supported the board’s decision by a 5-4 vote.

Jackson, the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Maryland, and other supporters appealed the case to the Supreme Court and urged it to hear a dispute, arguing that the issue was of national importance. By contrast, city officials filed briefs advising the court to defer to the judgment of appeals court.

“The statutes at issue are limited in effect to the District,” the brief stated. “There is no national analogue to pertinent provisions of District law, and indeed no federal right of initiative at all.”

The Supreme Court chose to pass on the trial. Court justices offered no explanation as to why they did not hear the case.

William B. May, chairman of Catholics for the Common Good, called the decision shocking, especially given that D.C. residents were “deprived of their right to vote on the definition of marriage.”

“The Court’s decision effectively upheld the finding of the Washington Human Rights Commission that it would be discriminatory to even give citizens a choice to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman,” he said Tuesday.

Explaining the significance of the decision, he added, “What many people do not seem to realize is the real issue at play here has little to do with homosexuality or ‘gay’ lifestyles. The question is whether marriage is merely a committed relationship for the private interests of adults, the definition implicit in same-sex ‘marriage,’ or whether it unites a man and a woman with each other and any children that come from their union.”

The court’s decision allows Washington, D.C. to continue offering marriage licenses to homosexual couples. It is only the sixth local government to approve same-sex marriages. Other states that allow same-sex couples to wed are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire.

The D.C. Council approved gay marriage in 2009 despite conservatives’ efforts to issue a stay on the law’s mandate to recognize gay ceremonies. That year, the council also passed a law that recognizes gay marriages performed outside the District.

==============================

Facebook Co-Founder Seeks Legalized Gay Marriage in NY (Christian Post, 110119)

The co-founder of Facebook and his boyfriend are seeking a same-sex marriage in New York.

Chris Hughes of Facebook and Sean Eldridge, political director of the homosexual lobby Freedom to Marry, became engaged on New Year’s Eve and have announced intentions of marrying in New York.

Presently, gay marriage is legal only in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

According to the New York Post, Eldridge announced the couple’s decision before Freedom to Marry reception guests, including New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. The reception was held in the couple’s SoHo loft.

As Eldridge announced the couple’s plans for a union, he reported there is a “real sense of urgency.”

“As you know, we can’t get married in New York, so there is more of an urgency to approve gay marriage, so we can get married here,” he told guests.

The announcement comes as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo seems to be plotting with lawmakers to propose state legislation to redefine marriage.

During his campaign, Cuomo made clear that he wants to make gay marriage legal in New York. He reiterated his intentions during his state of the state address earlier this month.

Gay marriage proponent state Sen. Thomas Duane (D) has pledged to introduce such legislation in the coming weeks.

“I think everyone is aware that we have to make the lives of New Yorkers better in every way – economically, as well as to provide equality to New York families,” Duane said Monday.

Cuomo also made a statement by electing Erik Bottcher, Quinn’s liaison to the gay community, to be his special adviser.

Despite the governor’s efforts, legalizing same-sex marriage in New York may be a challenge. A 2009 effort to legalize gay marriages was defeated, 38 to 24, in a Democrat-controlled state Senate.

Months prior to the vote, thousands of Christians filled Manhattan in a Sunday protest against the legalization of gay marriage.

Republicans now control the state Senate. New GOP Majority Leader Dean Skelos has made it clear that he doesn’t support gay marriage.

In a previous discussion, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown expressed that Cuomo does not have the votes to pass gay marriage legislation in New York.

Brown said efforts to pass gay marriage legislation in states such as Maryland and New York are desperate attempts to gain ground amid the conservative upswing in several states and the U.S. House of Representatives.

So far, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota and Wyoming are all working to repeal or ban same-sex marriage. Maryland Republican lawmakers are also introducing an inclusive civil union law as an alternative to same-sex marriage.

Brown noted that New York voters did not elect him to office to take on this issue.

==============================

Md. GOP Tries to Swing Senators on Gay Marriage Vote (Christian Post, 110220)

The Maryland Republican Party is urging residents to pressure state senators to vote against a bill legalizing gay marriage, which is expected to come up for debate this week.

On Saturday, the state GOP sent out alert emails encouraging social conservatives to call swing-vote senators and tell them to protect marriage between a man and a woman.

“It is urgent that you contact your state senator immediately to tell them to vote no on the assault on traditional marriage,” state GOP chairman Alex Mooney states in the email.

Since in his election in December, Mooney has told party activists that he planned to weigh in on social issues as well as fiscal issues.

His call to action over the weekend comes after the state Judicial Proceeding Committee on Thursday cleared the same-sex marriage legislation for a floor vote.

The bill has met strong opposition in the Senate. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) and a bipartisan coalition of 20 other senators have announced they will not support the bill. Miller has said he will work to stop a filibuster and end the debate.

However, since the committee vote, a tally reveals that gay marriage proponents have the 24 votes necessary to approve the bill. So far, the bill has 25 votes, with 18 from sponsors of the legislation.

In the email, Mooney called on supporters to contact nine Democratic senators, seven of whom have already committed to vote in favor of the bill.

Sen. James Rosapepe (D-Prince George’s County) announced Friday that he was no longer undecided and would be voting for the gay marriage bill. Sen. James Brochin (D-Baltimore County) switched sides in favor of the marriage bill after sitting in on a committee hearing.

Mooney tells state Republicans, “There is still time to put pressure on your state Senator but we must act now.”

The final vote on the bill is expected early this week. Miller has predicted that the bill will pass with a close vote of either 24-23 or 25-22. If approved by the Senate, the measure would then be considered in the House of Delegates, where supporters anticipate it will pass.

Miller said he expects a 2012 ballot referendum on gay marriage if the legislation is approved.

A recent poll found that the majority of Maryland voters are against gay marriage, with 54% in support of marriage between one man and one woman compared to 37% said marriage should be available to same-sex couples.

==============================

Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law (Foxnews, 110223)

WASHINGTON — In a major policy reversal, the Obama administration said Wednesday that it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.

Attorney General Eric Holder said President Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act “contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

The Justice Department had defended the act in court until now.

“Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed” the Defense of Marriage Act, Holder said in a statement. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional and that Congress has repealed the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that Obama has concluded the Defense of Marriage Act fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.

The attorney general said the Justice Department had defended the law in court until now because the government was able to advance reasonable arguments for the law based on a less strict standard.

At a December news conference, in response to a reporters’ question, Obama revealed that his position on gay marriage is “constantly evolving.” He has opposed such marriages and supported instead civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The president said such civil unions are his baseline — at this point, as he put it.

“This is something that we’re going to continue to debate, and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward,” he said.

==============================

DOMA Supporters: Obama Playing Political Games with Marriage Law (Christian Post, 110416)

A former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia charged President Barack Obama with actively sabotaging the federal defense for the Defense of Marriage Act in a Friday Judiciary subcommittee hearing held by House Republicans.

Edward Whelan, who currently serves as president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, testified that Obama is knowingly playing political games when it comes to defending the federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. He expressed doubt that the president who is versed in constitutional law could change his stance on gay marriage 180 degrees because a Massachusetts judge chose to rule in favor of gay couples in two DOMA-related cases.

DOMA, which was enacted in 1996 under the Clinton administration, was initially challenged in the cases of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States.

Whelan contended, “He would have to be very naive to think that it was anything other than a stealth strategy of step by step by step the administration doing whatever it can to promote same-sex marriage and induce the courts to adopt that approach.”

Whelan said he believes that Obama is not naive, but playing an active and underhanded role through the Department of Justice in promoting and implementing the gay civil rights agenda. “The department has only been pretending to defend DOMA while it has been in fact actively sabotaging it,” he said.

Whelan’s testimony gave voice to past allegations conservative leaders have made about the president and the Department of Justice.

Alan Sears, president of the conservative legal group Alliance Defense Fund, has similarly argued, “The administration has ‘expressly disavowed’ the winning legal arguments that the Bush Administration had made in previous cases.”

Conservative were equally, if not more outraged, when Obama ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA in the courts. Obama reportedly based his decision on legal precedents such as the Supreme Court’s ruling that laws criminalizing homosexual sexual activities are unconstitutional, the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and the rulings of lower courts that have decided that DOMA is unconstitutional. However, conservatives such as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins responded strongly against Obama’s logic.

“There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama’s decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress,” Perkins said in statement.

Still, Whelan believes that the DOJ’s weak defense of DOMA is the greater “scandal.”

While Obama has long opposed DOMA and said he was committed to repealing it, the Obama administration has defended it in the courts for the past two years as it is the Justice Department’s duty to defend the law. But the appeals filed by DOMA in defending the law have been criticized as “deficient.” The appeals have included arguments such as “our society is evolving” and that “there has been a growing recognition that the prevailing regime is harmful to gay and lesbian members of our society.”

On Friday, Democrats pushed back, saying that DOMA was a bad policy and that the hearing was held out of hostility toward same-sex couples. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) alleged that those heading the hearing had a known animosity towards the subject of gay marriage. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), chairman of the hearing, responded, saying he had no animosity in his heart.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) asserted, “That is the whole point of DOMA; to stigmatize and exclude” same-sex couples. He also questioned the benefit of excluding gay couples from marriage.

Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman for National Organization for Marriage, contended that it is important for the government to send a positive public message to Americans about the institutional importance of marriage.

“Marriage is a nearly universal social institution,” she explained. “Virtually every known human society has recognized that there is a unique need and special interest in bringing together men and women as husband and wives to make and raise the next generation.”

Friday’s hearing was part of the House GOP effort to defend DOMA. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) pledged to defend DOMA in the courts since the president told the DOJ to withdraw its defense.

==============================

Delaware Governor Signs Same-Sex Union Bill (Christian Post, 110512)

Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed into law Wednesday the bill legalizing same-sex civil unions.

In front of hundreds of supporters, Markell, a well-known gay rights advocate, made Delaware the eighth state to grant same-sex couples civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships. The law will take effect in January 1, 2012.

“The governor’s signature on this legislation moves same-sex couples in Delaware closer to equality,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Day and Lesbian Task Force. “Let’s be clear, it is not a substitute for full legal marriage, but it provides fundamental security for same-sex couples that will allow them to take care of each other and their families.”

Delaware will not issue same-sex couples marriage licenses under the state’s new civil union law, but traditional marriage proponents predict that civil unions will lead to legalization of same-sex marriage in the state. The Delaware Family Policy Council noted on its website that the language used in the bill is the same language used in the state’s marriage law, such as the concepts of divorce, parental rights, and benefits.

“Our position is it’s dishonest for the other side to talk about this issue without talking about marriage, because that’s really the goal of what they’re trying to do here,” said Jordan Warfel, policy analyst at the Delaware Family Policy Council, to NewsWorks.

Same-sex marriage is recognized in five states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, and the District of Columbia. It was legal for a short period in California, but ended with the passage of Proposition 8, a voter ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

For now, same-sex marriage is illegal on a federal level due to the Defense of Marriage At, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman and prevents states from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

There are five states that currently allow same-sex civil unions: California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Hawaii and Illinois have already passed civil union laws that will take effect in June 2011 and January 2012, respectively.

==============================

Former NY Giants Player: Legalizing Gay Marriage Would Bring ‘Anarchy’ (Christian Post, 110616)

In a last minute effort to support traditional marriage in New York, former Giants receiver David Tyree came out in a video to explain why legalizing gay marriage is dangerous to society and unbiblical.

Tyree, who gave the New York Giants its championship in Super Bowl XLII by catching the football within seconds left on the clock, says “marriage is the only relationship that mirrors a relationship with God.”

Gay marriage, he said, sends the message that you don’t need a mother and a father.

“You can’t teach something that you don’t have. Two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman,” said Tyree in a video interview with the National Organization for Marriage on Wednesday. “That’s just simple, for lack of a better term, common sense.”

The state of New York is embroiled in a gay marriage fight, with the final showdown in the Republican-controlled Senate expected to take place on Thursday or Friday. The Democrat-controlled Assembly passed the gay marriage bill by a vote of 80-63 late Wednesday night.

An unofficial vote count finds a tie in the Senate, 31-31, according to The Associated Press. It could go either way, even though the Republicans have a 32-30 majority. A tie would mean the bill is defeated. But if the pro-gay marriage side can find one more vote, they only need 32, then gay marriage will be legal in New York. At least two Republican state senators say they are undecided.

Since the bill passed only last night, the Senate still needs to decide whether to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

“What we are doing today is not right,” said Republican Assemblywoman Nancy Calhoun, who represents Orange and Rockland counties, to AP. “We are changing the institution of marriage … this is a day I will remember as a day when the state of New York and its constitution lost something, and I’m very sorry that is about to happen.”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is strongly supportive of legalizing same-sex marriage. In fact, he is the one who submitted the current gay marriage bill, called the Marriage Equality Act.

When asked what would happen if New York passed the gay marriage bill, former NY Giants receiver Tyree said, “This will be the beginning of our country sliding towards, it’s a strong word, but anarchy.”

“That would be the moment that our society loses its grip with what’s right. I do believe there is right and wrong. I do believe there is good and evil. I believe that many things are subjective, but I don’t believe truth is subjective.”

“Marriage is one of those things that is the backbone of society. So if you redefine it, it changes the way we educate our children. It changes the perception of what is good, what is right, what is just.”

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher explained in a Yahoo News column that Tyree wanted to defend traditional marriage in a video after his former teammate Michael Strahan declared publicly last week that he supports gay marriage.

Tyree wanted to clarify, however, that although he is motivated by his faith to support traditional marriage, he is not out to create a theocracy, but to do what is right.

“How can marriage be marriage for thousands of years and now all of the sudden because of a minority, an influential minority … [it must be] totally reshaped to something that was not founded in our country, not founded by man?” the Christian athlete asked. “It is something that is holy and sacred. I think there is nothing more honorable than fighting for, especially if we really care about future generations, [marriage].”

“I feel like athletes, believers, or people who are very strong towards marriage, especially in places of position, need to really take this opportunity to voice it,” Tyree urged. “I think we are doing ourselves a great injustice … by not making His heart known to our country.”

He added, “I want to identify my life with Jesus in every way.”

==============================

Elisabeth Hasselbeck Defends David Tyree Over Gay Marriage Remarks (Christian Post, 110622)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck of “The View” came out in defense of former New York Giants wide receiver David Tyree who has been in the media spotlight recently for expressing his opposition to same-sex marriage.

The talk show co-host said Tuesday that the Super Bowl star has no hate but rather is a man “who is not a part-time guy following God.”

“He will always be respected and always was by his teammates not just for that Super Bowl catch (in 2008) that came off his head from Eli Manning ... but for being a man who stands by his convictions in a way that’s respectful,” she said.

Hasselbeck, wife of former New York Giants quarterback Timothy Hasselbeck and a supporter of gay marriage, made the comments after having a long conversation with Tyree Tuesday morning.

Tyree lent his star power to the fight against legalizing gay marriage in New York, where the Senate is currently considering whether to put the Marriage Equality Act to a vote. In a video for the National Organization for Marriage, Tyree said “marriage is the only relationship that mirrors a relationship with God” and that allowing same-sex couples to marry would be “the beginning of our country sliding towards ... anarchy.”

“That would be the moment that our society loses its grip with what’s right. I do believe there is right and wrong,” he added.

Most recently, Tyree joined traditional marriage supporters in New York on Monday to rally and help deliver 63,000 petitions against the gay marriage bill.

According to Hasselbeck, Tyree, a Christian, doesn’t consider himself to be “a religious man” but rather someone who “had a true experience with the living God.”

He has committed his life for the past seven years to serving God, she said. “The View” co-host testified that having known him before the seven years, Tyree “made a complete turnaround based on the fact by pure grace alone.”

“I know David Tyree. I know his heart. He said he has no hate. He loves everyone. He believes everyone is created by God and should be loved as such. And he doesn’t have bigotry. He truly is just a man who is not a part-time guy following God. He’s 100% committed to that,” she summed.

Though Monday was the last day of the legislative session, legislators in New York continue to debate provisions such as religious protections in the gay marriage bill, introduced by Governor Andrew Cuomo. The bill is one vote away from passing in the Senate and both proponents and opponents of the measure have been inundating senators’ offices with calls.

Among the Republican senators sitting on the fence are Greg Ball and Mark Grisanti of Buffalo. Grisanti’s chief of staff, Doug Curella, told WIVB on Tuesday that the senator is “weighing different issues” such as civil rights issues and personal issues relating to his Catholic beliefs.

==============================

New Poll: Majority of New Yorkers Reject Same-Sex Marriage (Christian Post, 110622)

NEW YORK - A poll released Tuesday by the QEV Analytics, a public opinion research firm in Washington D.C., shows that 57% of New York voters oppose gay marriage.

The results of the survey were released just as Senate Republicans are debating over whether to bring the gay marriage bill to a vote. The bill has 31 votes and needs 32 to pass. The New York State Assembly passed the measure last Wednesday.

The poll of registered voters in New York found that 57% agree that “marriage should only be between a man and a woman,” compared to 32% who disagree and 11% who answered don’t know, or did not respond.

About 59% of New York voters say the issue of marriage should be directly decided by voters in New York. Only 1 in 4 voters or 26% say they prefer legislators in Albany to decide on the issue of changing the definition of marriage. The other 16% say they don’t know or gave no response.

Of the percent of 302 randomly selected voters in New York, 91% say they have heard of the recent push for same-sex marriage in the state.

The poll was commissioned by National Organization for Marriage, an advocacy group against gay marriage.

Brian Brown, the group’s president, is urging legislators to “kill this bill” and let the voters of New York decide the issue of gay marriage.

“Our message to the New York legislature is simple: Kill this bill and let the people of New York vote on the issue-that’s good sense and good political sense too,” he stated.

Referring to the over 90% of voters who have heard of the same-sex marriage issue in New York, Brown said they may have heard of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s push for gay marriage but they do not share his priorities. He also criticized any Republicans who would support Cuomo.

“For the Republicans to use their newfound control to pass a measure with such weak public support in order to help Andrew Cuomo run for president of the United States is not only wrong but a colossal blunder,” said Brown. “To sell your principles to get elected is always wrong. To sell your principles to get the other guy elected is just plain dumb.”

The gay marriage bill in New York remains deadlocked in the Senate, with some undecided Republican senators saying they will not vote for the bill unless additional religious protections are included.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos left a meeting with Cuomo Tuesday saying the men had worked agreements on regulations and property tax caps, but the deal did not appear to include gay marriage.

“We have not finalized the language in terms of religious protections,” Skelos said of the gay marriage bill, according to Reuters.

Skelos said he expected the legislature to conclude Wednesday. The legislature was supposed to break for summer recess Monday but ongoing talks over rent laws, tax caps and gay marriage kept lawmakers in Albany.

The other issues were seen as obstacles to resolving disagreements over gay marriage but with an agreement in the horizon, a vote on gay marriage could take place Wednesday if Senate Republicans decide to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

Fence-sitting Republican senators that could be swing votes on gay marriage include Greg Ball of Patterson, Mark Grisanti of Buffalo, Stephen Saland of Poughkeepsie and Andrew Lanza of Long Island.

Celebrities that have come out opposing same-sex marriage have included former New York Giants wide receiver David Tyree, who has said he would even trade his 2007 Super Bowl win to stop gay marriage.

“I firmly believe that God created and ordained marriage between a man and a woman, I believe that that’s something that should be fought for at all costs,” Tyree told the New York Daily News.

==============================

The Bible and the ‘Gay Marriage’ Question (Christian Post, 110708)

By Robert A. J. Gagnon

What does the Bible actually say about “gay marriage”? That question is the title of a a recent op-ed piece in the Huffington Post written by Lee Jefferson, a visiting assistant professor of religion at Centre College. According to Jefferson the answer is: “Nothing,” or at least “Nothing negative.”

Jefferson used the recent passage of “gay marriage” by the New York legislature as a springboard from which to denigrate appeals to the Bible against homosexual practice. I will use Jefferson’s article as a springboard from which to answer the question that he and many others have raised.

It is of relevance that, though Jefferson gives the appearance of speaking with authority on the question, he has not (to my knowledge) published any academic work on the issue of the Bible and homosexual practice. His expertise is not in the Bible but in Christian art of Late Antiquity. Jefferson also shows little or no awareness in his article of the array of strong arguments against his claims.

In addition, Jefferson exhibits an unfortunate tendentiousness in his characterizations. He speaks glowingly of the “enlightening progress in our culture concerning the LGBT community.” Those who disagree represent a “cacophonous opposition” that uses religion as “a bruising hammer” and lobs “textual grenades”-as if the homosexualist advocacy groups have not been even louder and more belligerent and strident. The fact that the media is overwhelmingly on the side of promoting homosexual unions is not enough for Jefferson. He bemoans the fact that the media reports any dissent to this party line.

It should go without saying that upholding a male-female requirement for marriage can and should be a product of a loving desire to avoid the degradation of the gendered self that comes from engaging in homosexual practice. That it does not go without saying is due in large part to today’s charged political atmosphere where hateful characterizations of persons who disapprove of homosexual unions are commonplace among proponents of such unions.

This hateful reaction stems largely from a comparison of such persons to racists and sexists. Yet such a comparison begs the question of whether the comparison is accurate. If opposition to gay marriage is more like opposition to marriage between close kin and to marriage between three or more persons, than one arrives at very different conclusions about what constitutes love.

And now on to Jefferson’s arguments.

The ancient world and homosexual orientation

A linchpin of Jefferson’s case is his claim that no one in the Greco-Roman world had any knowledge of something akin to “same-sex orientation.” Jefferson ironically makes this claim while insisting on the importance of understanding the ancient context behind the biblical text.

The fact is that in the Greco-Roman world theories existed that posited at least some congenital basis for some forms of homosexual attraction, particularly on the part of males desiring to be penetrated. These theories derived from Platonic, Aristotelian, Hippocratic, and even astrological sources. They included: a creation splitting of male-male or female-female binary humans; a particular mix of male and female sperm elements at conception; a chronic disease of the mind or soul influenced indirectly by biological factors and made hard to resist by socialization; an inherited disease analogous to a mutated gene; sperm ducts leading to the anus; and the particular alignment of heavenly constellations at the time of one’s birth.

Some of the ancient theories are obviously closer to modern theories than others. What matters, though, is that many in the ancient world attributed one or more forms of homosexual practice to an interplay of nature and nurture. Many viewed same-sex attractions for some persons as exclusive and very resistant to change.

Jefferson gives no indication that he is aware of the literature that contravenes his claim. Contrast Jefferson’s remarks with the observation of Thomas K. Hubbard, a classicist at the University of Texas (Austin), in his magisterial book, Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents (University of California Press, 2003): “Homosexuality in this era [i.e., of the early imperial age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation” (p. 386). Hubbard also points to a series of later texts from the second to fourth centuries that “reflect the perception that sexual orientation is something fixed and incurable” (p. 446).

Contrast it too with this assessment by Bernadette J. Brooten, professor of Christian Studies at Brandeis University and a self-avowed lesbian, in her important work, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (University of Chicago Press, 1996):

Paul could have believed that tribades [the active female partners in a female homosexual bond], the ancient kinaidoi [the passive male partners in a male homosexual bond], and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God. (p. 446)

Other scholars who have written major works on the Bible and homosexuality make similar points, such as William Schoedel, professor emeritus of classics and early Christianity from the University of Illinois, and Martti Nissinen, professor of Old Testament at the University of Helsinki. Note too that all these scholars have written from a stance supportive of homosexual unions.

Although it is usually assumed that Paul in Rom 1:24-27 treats homosexual attraction solely as a chosen condition of constitutional heterosexuals, nothing in the wording of the text substantiates such an assumption. The expressions “exchanged” and “leaving behind” in 1.26-27 do not refer to a willful exchange of heterosexual desire for homosexual desire. Rather, they refer to a choice of gratifying innate homoerotic desires instead of complying with the evidence of male-female complementarity transparent in material creation or nature.

Furthermore, as with Philo of Alexandria (a first-century Jewish philosopher), Paul was probably aware of the existence of a lifelong homoerotic proclivity at least among the “soft men” (malakoi) who, even as adults, feminized their appearance to attract male sex partners (1 Cor 6:9). Paul viewed sin as an innate impulse, passed on by a foundational ancestor, running through the members of the human body, and never entirely within human control (see his discussion in Romans 7:7-23). So any theory positing congenital influences on homosexual development would obviously have made little difference to Paul’s opposition to all same-sex intercourse.

The evidence indicates that some Greco-Roman moralists and physicians, operating within a culture that tolerated and at times endorsed at least some homosexual practice, could reject even committed homosexual unions entered into by those with a biological predisposition toward such unions. What, then, is the likelihood that the apostle Paul, operating out of a Jewish subculture that was more strongly opposed to homosexual practice than any other known culture in the Mediterranean Basin or ancient Near East, would have embraced such unions?

It is important to bear in mind also that semi-official marriages between men and between women were well known in the Greco-Roman world (even the rabbis were aware of such things, as also Church Fathers). The notion that adult-committed homosexual relationships first originated in the modern era is historically indefensible. Consequently, it cannot be used as a “new knowledge” argument for dismissing the biblical witness. Even Louis Crompton, an historian and self-avowed “gay” man, has drawn the proper conclusion from this historical data in his highly acclaimed book, Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003):

According to [one] interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at ‘bona fide’ homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114)

***

Genesis 2 and its implications for “gay marriage”

Another flawed argument that Jefferson makes is that “the Bible does not clearly endorse one form of marriage over another.” This would have been news to every first-century Jew, including the historian Josephus. Josephus explained to Gentile readers that “the Law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman. . . . But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).

Jefferson tries to substantiate his claim by asserting that the story about Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 “is a gender creation story, not a creation of marriage story.” Yet Genesis 2:24 clearly extrapolates from the story about the creation of woman in 2:18-23 the marriage principle that “for this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be joined to his woman (wife) and become one flesh.”

The narrative begins with an originally sexually-undifferentiated human (Heb. adam, “earthling”), from whom some indeterminate portion of bone and flesh is taken from one of the human’s “sides” (a better translation than “ribs” since it is the meaning given to this word, tsela, everywhere else in the Old Testament). This extraction is made in order to form a woman, thereafter turning the adam into a gender-specific man (Heb. ish). The woman is depicted as the man’s “counterpart” or “complement” (2:18, 20)-a translation of Heb. neged that means both “corresponding to” (denoting likeness as regards humanity) and “opposite” (denoting difference as regards sex or gender).

The subtext of the story is that man and woman may unite in marriage to become “one flesh” because out of one flesh the two came. This is a beautiful image of a transcendent reality: that man and woman are each other’s sexual “other half,” the missing element in the spectrum of sexuality. Clearly the story indicates a foundational male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions, irrespective of (as Jefferson puts it) the absence of “a jazz band reception in Paradise.”

Jesus and “gay marriage”

Jesus apparently understood Genesis 1:27 (God “made them male and female”) and Genesis 2:24 (cited above) as implying a male-female requirement for marriage. Jesus cited these two texts back-to-back (Mark 10:2-12; Matthew 19:3-12) in order to make the point that the complementary twoness of the sexes, male and female, is the foundation for limiting the number of partners in a sexual union to two.

When man and woman unite in marriage, the sexual spectrum is completed such that a third partner is neither necessary nor desirable. Jesus applied this principle not only explicitly to a rejection of a revolving door of divorce-and-remarriage (a form of serial polygamy) but also implicitly to polygamy, which both in Jesus’ day and in ours is the easier prohibition.

We know that this was Jesus’ point because the sectarian Jewish group known as the Essenes (who regarded even the Pharisees as too lax in their observance of the Law of Moses) similarly rejected polygamy on the grounds that God made us “male and female” (zakar uneqevah). They connected this phrase in Genesis 1:27 to its occurrence in the Noah’s ark narrative where the twoness of the bond is stressed (“two by two”; Damascus Covenant 4.20-5.1). They then deduced that God’s will at creation was for marriage to be a partnership of two and only two persons.

Jefferson stresses Jesus’ silence on the issue of homosexual practice as “exhibit A” for his claim that “same-sex practice is a topic of little interest to the Biblical authors.” Yet Jesus also says nothing about incest or bestiality. Surely this “silence” does not suggest Jesus’ indifference. Why should Jesus spend time talking explicitly about offenses that no Jew in first-century Palestine is advocating, let alone engaging in, and that his Hebrew Scriptures already proscribe in no uncertain terms?

Clearly Jesus regarded a male-female requirement in marriage as an “irreducible minimum” in sexual ethics, the foundation on which other sexual standards are predicated, including monogamy.

A half dozen other historical arguments establish Jesus’ opposition to homosexual practice, including his adherence to the Law of Moses generally and his intensification of sexual ethics in particular (not only as regards polygamy and divorce-and-remarriage but also as regards “adultery of the heart”); the fact that the man who baptized him (John the Baptist) got beheaded for defending Levitical sex laws; and both early Judaism’s and the early church’s univocal opposition to homosexual practice as an egregious offense. Jesus wasn’t shy about expressing disagreement with prevailing norms. Silence speaks for his acceptance of the prevailing view.

***

Some texts that speak directly to homosexual practice

Jefferson characterizes the texts that speak directly to the issue of homosexual practice as “scant indeed.” Yet the number of biblical texts doing so is comparable to the number of texts addressing incest and greater than those prohibiting bestiality. If one looks at Scripture contextually (as Jefferson urges others to do) it will be evident that Scripture’s opposition to homosexual practice is deeply embedded in the fabric of its sexual ethics.

In fact, every text in Scripture treating sexual matters, whether narrative, law, proverb, poetry, moral exhortation, or metaphor, presupposes a male-female prerequisite for all sexual activity. For example, in Old Testament law there are constant distinctions between appropriate and inappropriate forms of other-sex intercourse but nothing of the sort for same-sex intercourse. The reason for this is apparent: Since same-sex intercourse was always unacceptable, there was no need to make such distinctions. Another example involves metaphor: Even though ancient Israel was a male-dominated society, it imaged itself in relation to Yahweh as a female to a husband, so as to avoid the imagery of a man-male sexual bond.

Jefferson’s interpretation of texts that more or less directly address homosexual practice is deeply flawed. He writes off the Sodom episode in Genesis 19 as a text concerned with hospitality, not homosexual practice. This makes an either-or out of a both-and. The episode at Sodom is viewed in early Judaism as a paradigmatic example of gross inhospitality to visitors precisely because the men of Sodom seek to dishonor the sexuality of the male visitors. By asking to have sex with them as though they were females they treat the maleness of the visitors as of no account. The fact that this is done in the context of attempted rape is no more an indication of the irrelevance of the homosexual aspect than is a story about incestuous rape (so, I would argue, Ham’s act against his father Noah in Genesis 9) irrelevant for indicting adult-consensual incest.

Jefferson dismisses the prohibitions of man-male intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as limited to a particular time and place in Israel’s history, like dietary restrictions and the prohibition of cloth mixtures. But the prohibition of man-male intercourse is more closely related in its context to the prohibitions of other sexual offenses that we continue to prohibit today: incest, adultery, and bestiality. The Holiness Code in Leviticus (chaps. 17-26) specifically refers to these forbidden sex acts as “iniquity” or “sin,” not just ritual uncleanness (18:25). It does not allow absolution merely through ritual acts (such as bathing and waiting for the sun to go down). It does not treat these sexual offenses as making the participants contagious to touch (unlike some ritual impurity offenses). The penalty applies only to those who engage in these acts with willful intent (whereas ritual purity infractions encompass both advertent and inadvertent acts). Leviticus applies the prohibitions not just to Jews but to Gentiles inhabiting the land. For all these reasons the prohibitions of incest, adultery, man-male intercourse, and bestiality do not look like merely ritual offenses.

The prohibition of cloth mixtures is largely symbolic, since the penalty is only the destruction of the cloth (not the wearer) and since too some cloth mixtures are enjoined for the Tabernacle, parts of the priestly wardrobe, and the tassel worn by the laity (apparently on the assumption that cloth mixtures symbolized ‘penetration’ into the divine realm, which was inappropriate in non-sacral contexts). The prohibition of incest is a much closer analogy to the prohibition of man-male intercourse than dietary rules or rules against cloth mixtures, since both incest and same-sex intercourse involve sexual offenses between persons too much alike in terms of embodied structures-one as regards kinship, the other as regards gender.

As regards Paul, Jefferson provides an odd reason for discounting the offender list in 1 Corinthians 6:9, which includes an indictment of “soft men” (malakoi, see above) and “men who lie with a male” (arsenokoitai). His reason is that “these terms are injected along with” other sexual offenders, namely, “the sexually immoral” (pornoi, not limited to fornicators contra Jefferson), adulterers, and (in context) persons who engage in incest (chap. 5) and sex with a prostitute (6:15-17). “In other words, Paul is addressing ALL deviant sexual and immoral behavior, not just that of a same-sex variety.” To this argument I can only say: So what? Who ever claimed that Christian sexual ethics were opposed only to homosexual practice?

Jefferson then claims that “it is unclear whether [Romans 1:26-27] truly is a condemnation of a specific practice.” This is a bizarre claim. Paul specifically refers to females exchanging “the natural use [i.e. of the male] for that which is contrary to nature”; and, “likewise” to males “leaving behind the natural use of the woman” and becoming “inflamed in their yearning for one another, males with males.” That doesn’t sound ambiguous to me.

Moreover, there are eight points of correspondence, in the same tripartite order, between the creation text in Genesis 1:26-27 and Paul’s argument in Romans 1:23-27. This indicates that Paul is thinking of homosexual practice as a violation of the creation of “male and female” in Genesis 1:27. The nature argument is a common one for Greco-Roman moralists seeking to indict homosexual practice on absolute grounds. It seems to me that we should make a distinction between Jefferson wanting Romans 1:26-27 to be unclear and the actual clarity of the text itself.

Biblical arguments and our civil law

The final argument that Jefferson makes (which is listed first in his article but which I am treating last) is that “the institution of marriage is a secular and social institution.” As such, Jefferson argues, referring to what the Bible says about homosexual practice is irrelevant for civil law. There are two problems with this view. One is that people of faith are shaped morally by their religious beliefs and have a right to vote such beliefs, just as atheists or those philosophically inclined have a right to vote according to their respective ideologies. This is especially so in cases where these beliefs are not restricted to a single sectarian religious community and where what is “imposed” is not incarceration and fines but a withholding of public approval. On both counts opposition to “gay marriage” passes muster. The roots of moral reasoning in Western civilization derive largely from religious foundations. Indeed, discussion of “morality” seems out of place in a context where there is no higher power. Without God, ethics are reduced to utilitarian considerations.

An even more important point is that one can make a reasonable case against “gay marriage” on secular philosophical grounds; that is, by an argument from nature and by appeal to analogies already in place in our civil law. The Bible itself points in this direction with the argument from nature in Romans 1:24-27, an argument based on the compatible structures of male and female that should be obvious even to those without Scripture; structures that requires a deliberate suppression of truth to override.

Put simply, if the logic of a heterosexual union is that the two halves of the sexual spectrum, male and female, unite to form a single sexual whole, the “logic” of a homosexual union is that two half-males unite to form a single whole male or two half-females unite to form a single whole female. By implication homosexual unions dishonor the integrity of the stamp of maleness on males and of femaleness on females by effectively treating their sex or gender as only half intact, needing to be supplemented structurally by union with someone of the same sex. The closest analogies in civil law to a prohibition of “gay marriage” are laws prohibiting the marriage of close kin and the marriage of three or more persons.

As regards the incest analogue, homosexual unions are unions between persons who are too much structurally alike, in terms of sex or gender, much as an incestuous union is wrong because it involves two persons too much alike on the level of kinship identity. The analogy is often rejected by proponents of homosexual unions. They claim that incest is always harmful because it involves children and leads to birth defects. However, incest can (and has) been conducted by consenting adults. Moreover, many kinds of incestuous unions would not entail procreation: incestuous bonds where at least one party is infertile, active birth-control measures are taken, or the participants are of the same sex. In short, incest does not produce intrinsic measurable harm (not even when procreation occurs); disproportionately high rates, yes, but intrinsic, no.

Homosexual unions likewise experience disproportionately high rates of measurable harm, not intrinsic measurable harm. Moreover, this harm corresponds to gender type. Male homosexual activity, even relative to lesbian unions, is characterized by extraordinarily high numbers of sex partners lifetime and by extraordinarily high rates of sexually transmitted infections. Female homosexual activity, even relative to male homosexuality, is characterized by relationships of lower longevity and higher rates of some mental health problems (not surprising, perhaps, in view of the greater expectations that women generally place on relationships for self-worth and fulfillment). The existence of disparities of harm between male and female homosexual relationships, corresponding to gender differences, is a sign that some harm stems simply from the same-sexness of homosexuality. In homosexual relationships the extremes of a given sex are not moderated and the gaps in the sexual self are not filled, at least not as well, on the whole, as heterosexual relationships.

To withhold marriage from all near-kin unions (certainly between a parent and an adult child or between full siblings) one has to develop a philosophical argument about intrinsic harm. The only such argument of which I am aware involves the recognition that procreative difficulties are not the root harm of incestuous unions but only the symptom of the root harm. The root harm is the attempt to unite sexually with someone who is too much of an embodied same, not enough of a complementary other. If the procreative difficulties associated with incestuous bonds are the clue as to their root harm, so too the structural incapacity for procreation on the part of homosexual bonds should indicate to observers a similar root harm

As regards the polyamory (multiple-partner) analogue, we have noted above in our discussion of Jesus’ rationale that a prohibition of polygamy is grounded ultimately in the natural law argument that the existence of two and only two primary sexes-complementary to each other in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology-implies a limitation of two persons to a sexual union at any one time. If we don’t grant marriage licenses to three or more persons in a concurrent sexual relationship, why should we grant marriage licenses to homosexual unions that disregard the foundational twoness of the sexes on which the limitation of two persons is based? There are examples of polyamorous unions going on in the United States that are adult-consensual, loving, and without measurable harm.

Of course, my point here is not that the state should issue marriage licenses to close kin or to three or more persons concurrently. My point is rather that, since adult-committed incestuous unions and polyamorous unions are analogically related to adult-committed homosexual unions, one shouldn’t approve of granting marriage licenses to the latter case unless one is also willing to grant marriage licenses to the former two cases. People can choose to be inconsistent-perhaps, let’s hope so in this case. However, that doesn’t change their inconsistency into consistency.

And make no mistake about it: Homosexual unions are a more foundational violation of sexual ethics than incestuous or polyamorous unions since the latter two are logically extrapolated from the former rather than the other way around. The recognition of the need for embodied complementarity and acceptance of the essential duality of a male-female bond is prior to any conclusions that may or may not be reached about incest and polyamory.

This is certainly true about the development of sexual ethics in ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity. Loopholes for incest and polyamory were revoked over time. But in the biblical record there never were any loopholes allowable for homosexual practice. The most basic division for human sexual behavior is the differentiation of the sexes, not differentiation along the lines of kinship or limitation of number.

In conclusion, Lee Jefferson doesn’t want the Bible to have anything to “say” about “gay marriage.” His want then infuses his interpretation of the biblical text, skewing the results. He attempts to make his case by arguing that “the Bible is not specific, literate, or even concerned with what we call same-sex orientation or gay marriage,” when in fact we have seen the exact opposite to be the case. He blames proponents of a male-female requirement for not investigating the “ancient cultural context.” Yet he himself appears not to know it.

Jefferson thinks that people should “quit focusing on what the Bible didactically ‘says’”-a contention that ignores the helpful contribution of the Bible throughout Western civilization to a whole host of social justice issues. I suspect that what Jefferson is really upset about is seeing the Bible applied to the specific issue of homosexual practice. So applied it simply doesn’t cut in the direction that he would like to see it cut. Nor, I might add, do secular considerations suggest a need to divert from that witness.

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He is also the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2001); and co-author (with Dan O. Via) of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). www.robgagnon.net.

==============================

Same-Sex Marriage: Battle Heats Up After Psychologists’ Approval (Christian Post, 110806)

Opponents Say “Cherry Picking” Research Is No Good

Proponents of gay marriage consider this week’s move by the American Psychological Association a huge boost in their fight for equality.

Members of the APA, which is the world’s largest organization of psychologists, approved a resolution at their annual convention this week to support gay marriage. The vote was 157-0.

“Now as the country has really begun to have experience with gay marriage, our position is much clearer and more straightforward,” said Clinton Anderson, director of APA’s Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns.

“We keep the discussion fact-based and not make it about stereotypes.”

Members say they approved the measure because of an abundance of studies that support the idea that same-sex marriage is good for American communities, stable lives, and unity and equality overall.

The APA resolution states that “many gay men and lesbians, like their heterosexual counterparts, desire to form stable, long-lasting and committed intimate relationships and are successful in doing so.”

However, opponents claim the APA is using “cherry picking” research to support same-sex marriage.

It is because of this research that members of the APA say “same-sex marriage equality is the policy that the country should be moving toward.”

“‘Cherry-picking’ means picking out the best, juiciest, ripest facts to support a predetermined conclusion, from a whole bin of equally sweet, high-quality facts,” said psychologist Randy Stevens.

“The research the APA is using to support gay marriage is based on throwing out good data because it contradicts something one dearly wants to be true, regardless of whether it is or is not true – that is cherry picking at its best. They are not using real data and they are wrong.”

According to APA bylaws, psychological and psychiatric experts have agreed since 1975 that homosexuality is neither a form of mental illness nor a symptom of mental illness. APA members believe social prejudice, discrimination, and violence against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals take a damaging toll on the well-being of these individuals.

Researchers use the term “minority stress” to refer to the negative comments and acts of hate crimes against these groups.

But some psychologists say the APA made the decision as a body to support same-sex marriage because gay activists intimidated them. Some go as far as calling these gay activists, “militant.”

“I believe that some same-sex advocates will go too far in their fight to have these unions legalized,” Stevens said.

“They will threaten, pull financial support and make false threats against those who oppose gay marriage.”

Social conservatives and others who oppose same-sex marriage argue that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable families and, ultimately, to children who grow up to be productive adults.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, opponents contend, will radically “redefine marriage and further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in serious trouble due to high divorce rates and a significant number of out-of-wedlock births.”

Family Research Council conducted a recent study of civil unions and marriages.

The survey found that more than 79% of heterosexual married men and women reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50% of those in a gay marriage valued sexual fidelity.

It is interesting to note here that the legal battle over same-sex marriage is rooted, in part, in the question of whether state and federal constitutions protect a right to privacy.

But the word “privacy” never actually appears in the U.S. Constitution.

Opponents to gay marriage believe the answer lies in new legislation.

“Opponents hope to continue placing constitutional bans on the ballot and are targeting states, in the hope of reversing court decisions,” writes David Masci, a researcher for the Pew Research Center.

“Both sides also are gearing up for a renewed fight at state and federal levels. “

Moreover, many predict that giving gay couples the right to marry will ultimately lead to granting people in polygamous and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry as well.

A joint survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that about twice as many Americans opposed legalizing same-sex marriage (60percent) as supported it (29%).

Analysts say the debate will continue despite the APA’s move to support gay marriage because there remains a very passionate group of opponents ready to rally against same-sex marriage in the US.

Most states do not grant marriage equality. However, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage.

Civil unions, which provide fewer benefits and rights than same-sex marriage, are permitted in California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

While battles have been raging in many states over whether to accept or ban same-sex marriage, a number of states have enacted laws that establish civil unions or domestic partnerships, both of which aim to give gay and lesbian couples many or most of the rights and responsibilities of matrimony without actually granting them the right to wed.

“While it is difficult to predict where the next battle will be fought and what the outcome will be,” Masci said, “It is safe to assume that the gay marriage debate will remain part of the nation’s legal and political landscape for years to come.”

==============================

Sesame Street Petition to Make Bert & Ernie Gay Sparks Same-Sex Marriage Debate (Christian Post, 110811)

An online petition that has amassed more than 4,000 signatures is calling on producers of venerable children’s show “Sesame Street” to have Bert and Ernie tie the knot.

The change.org petition, started by Lair Scott on August 4, insists that “Sesame Street” can help teach children about “the tolerance of those that are different.”

“We are not asking that Sesame Street do anything crude or disrespectful. Only that they allow Bert & Ernie to marry or even add a transgender character to the show,” the petition reads.

Producers of the show say Bert and Ernie, two male characters who have shared an apartment and bedroom for decades, will not be getting married to each other or anyone else.

“Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics ... they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation,” Sesame Workshop said Thursday in a statement to The Christian Post.

“Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves.”

As of Friday morning, at least 4,391 people had signed on to support the push for the non-profit PBS program to introduce the issue of homosexuality to children.

A Facebook page linked to the petition, entitled “Let Bert & Ernie Get Married On Sesame Street,” had also attracted more than 2,000 supporters.

Comments were mixed on both change.org and Facebook, with some responders applauding the petition’s push for “equal rights” and others wondering about the wisdom of introducing sexuality on a children’s program.

A user on change.org identified as Heather Davis expressed support for gay rights, but added, “I dont feel like its right to let little kids watch it... If you get older and decide you are LGBT then that is your choice but to instill it in children is wrong...”

An oppositional petition had also been launched on change.org and had only gained about 50 signatures by Thursday morning.

According to the program’s website, Sesame Street is “the place where multiethnic, multigenerational, and even multispecies residents coexist in harmony.”

The show, on the air since 1969, starts its 42nd season September 26, 2011.

==============================

The Gay Marriage Debate (Christian Post, 110905)

By Chuck Colson

In a debate, you are judged in two main areas: substance and style. In the debate about so-called gay “marriage,” we believers are winning on the substance. But we’re not doing very well on style.

Study after study has shown that gay “marriage” undermines the institution of marriage. In those societies where homosexual “marriage” has been tried, traditional marriage is increasingly discarded. Furthermore, the research is nearly unanimous that children do best when they grow up with a mother and a father - which gay “marriage,” by definition, denies them.

Based on all this, you might think that we are winning the debate. And yet, the tide of public opinion appears to be turning against us. According to columnist Michael Barone, “In 1996, Gallup found that Americans opposed it by a 68% to 27% margin. Last May, Gallup found Americans in favor by 53% to 45%. That’s a huge change in 15 years.” And a new Pew Research poll confirms this, finding those in favor are in a dead heat with those who oppose it.

Much of that new support is coming from young people, who increasingly see marriage in terms of civil rights and fairness. That’s a demographic factor that makes winning the debate in the coming decades that much harder.

That’s why, given current sensitivities, we’ve got to be very careful about how we frame the debate. Take the case of social studies teacher Jerry Buell in Lake County, Florida. Mr. Buell was named “teacher of the year” in 2010. He has a spotless classroom record. And he was suspended and placed under investigation for criticizing gay “marriage” … on his Facebook page!

Outrageous, you say? A violation of his right to free speech? Absolutely. However, listen to part of what Mr. Buell posted on his Facebook page: “I’m watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up. … If they want to call it a union,” he wrote, “go ahead. But don’t insult a man and woman’s marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool… God will not be mocked.”

However much we sympathize with the substance of Mr. Buell’s comments, I hope you’ll agree that he earned a zero on style points. Of course it’s ridiculous - and alarming - that Mr. Buell’s livelihood and religious freedom came under threat. But that’s nothing new with the gay-rights movement, which frequently attacks one person’s rights to gain someone else’s. That, I’m afraid, is the world we live in.

As frustrating as this debate can be, prudence dictates that we Christians be especially mindful of our responsibility to remain civil. First of all, it’s the right thing to do. Secondly, the supporters of gay rights are waiting for any opportunity to pounce on their opponents if we give them any opening.

But there’s another point I want to make here, one you’ll hear me to return to again and again. We Christians are very good at saying “No.” We’ve got to better saying “Yes”: showing how God’s plan for humanity is a blessing: That His ways - including faithful, live-giving marriage between one man and one woman - lead to human flourishing, physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

And that’s a message I’d be happy to post on Facebook or anywhere else.

==============================

**Census Reports More Than 130,000 Same-Sex Couples Say They’re Married (Fox News, 110928)

The number of gay Americans telling the U.S. census they’re living with same-sex partners nearly doubled in the past decade and more than 130,000 recorded partners as husband or wife.

Census figures released Tuesday provide a rare snapshot of married and unmarried same-sex couples in the U.S. based on the government count conducted last year, when gay marriage was legal in five states and the District of Columbia. It comes at a time when public opposition to gay marriage is easing and advocacy groups are seeking a state-by-state push for broader legal rights.

Some 131,729 same-sex couples checked “husband” or “wife” boxes on their decennial census forms, the first time people could do so, after gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts starting in 2004.

That 2010 tally of married gay couples is higher than the actual number of legal marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships in the U.S. Even after New York legalized gay marriage in June, a Census Bureau consultant, Gary Gates of UCLA, put the actual number of legally recognized gay partnerships at 100,000.

“There’s no dispute the same-sex population increases from 2000 and 2010,” said Martin O’Connell, chief of the fertility and family statistics branch at the Census Bureau. In cases of couples who reported they were living in a marriage relationship, “they basically responded that way because that is truly how they felt they were living.”

The total of 646,464 gay couples in the U.S. was a downward revision of the Census Bureau’s count of 901,997 released last month. The bureau said Tuesday it had to make the adjustment after determining that coding errors resulted in an exaggerated count for the initial number.

Still, researchers believe the new estimate could be as much as 15% lower than the actual number of gay couples in the U.S. because of social stigma, discrimination or other concerns about confidentiality. In a small number of cases, younger gay couples also may not have been counted in the census if they were “doubling up” in a home where neither was the head of household.

Based on revisions made to the 2000 census figure as well, the number of same-sex couples nationwide rose 80% from an adjusted 2000 figure of 358,390. Previously, the Census Bureau had reported there were 594,391 same-sex couples in the U.S. in 2000.

Nationwide, about 51% of the couples last year were female. Nearly one in five of the same-sex couples was raising children at home — widely distributed among those who reported being in marriage relationships and those who were not.

Broken down by state, the highest rates of increase in gay couples — both married and unmarried — were in lesser-populated states such as West Virginia, Montana, the Dakotas, Oklahoma and Kentucky, each rising at least 150% from 2000. In contrast, the larger, more traditional gay places including the District of Columbia, California and New York, posted the smallest percentage increases — 60% or less.

Gay rights groups say the latest census numbers are an important step in increasing visibility and helping to dispel notions that they live primarily in big cities on the two coasts. Still, because the census forms do not ask about sexual orientation, some activists have complained that single gays — as opposed to those with live-in spouses and partners — have no means of gaining collective representation through the census.

“Every step is a step forward in acknowledging that, yes, we do exist,” said Lois Farnham, of Burlington, Vt., who recorded a civil union with Holly Puterbaugh the first day they were allowed in 2000 and then legally married her in 2009.

Farnham, 67, said she expected the census numbers would underestimate the number of people in such relationships, noting that many same-sex couples keep quiet about their married status. “They can’t share that with a lot of people for family or job security reasons. It’s still an issue and people are still being discriminated against,” she said.

Puterbaugh, 65, said many couples live as if they’re married without making it formal. “You have to remember that there are many straight couples who have chosen not to marry for whatever reason that may be,” she said.

Brian Moulton, chief legislative counsel at the Human Rights Campaign, described the latest census numbers as a “tremendous increase,” demonstrating a culture shift and sending a signal to local officials and governments that gays and lesbians exist and deserve rights and benefits.

“A lot of couples who are reporting they are same-sex are in places where it’s been legally and culturally more challenging for our community,” he said. “That’s not a reflection of couples suddenly popping out of nowhere — the culture is changing in those places to a degree people feel comfortable coming out on the census form.”

The new same-sex data come as battlegrounds lie ahead over gay rights. Voters in North Carolina and Minnesota will be deciding next year on the fate of constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, while the Maryland Legislature is expected to consider a bill that would legalize it.

An August poll by The Associated Press and the National Constitutional Center found a narrow majority of Americans support legal recognition of same-sex marriage — 53% to 44% opposed. That is largely unchanged from last year but a shift from 2009, when a slim majority opposed government recognition of gay marriage.

Groups opposing gay marriage have challenged the view that same-sex marriage will inevitably become the law of the land, saying that opponents have prevailed repeatedly in statewide votes. The National Organization for Marriage has been asking GOP presidential candidates to sign their marriage pledge, which includes support for a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. So far, it says it received commitments from Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Rick Santorum.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, notes that in the final census analysis a little over one-half of one percent of U.S. households are made up of same-sex couples — or 1 in 180. “This is a tiny, tiny segment of the population — the homosexual population is small, and the percentage in actual, committed partnership relationships is even smaller,” he said. “We would hope politicians would not feel a need to pander to that small population.”

In 2000, citing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Bush administration directed the Census Bureau to re-code same-sex couples who identified themselves as married to be counted as unmarried partners. Pressed by gay-rights groups in 2009, the Obama administration reversed that policy, allowing the bureau to count same-sex couples as married.

Last week, the U.S. military passed a historic milestone with the repeal of its “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly.

The census figures were welcomed by many gay people.

“It makes me feel like I am part of this country,” said Al Koski, 69, a retired Social Security claims representative from Bourne, Mass., who married his partner Jim Fitzgerald in 2007 after they were together for more than 30 years. “I don’t have to be in the background anymore. I am glad people are coming out of the closet and are not afraid to check that box.”

Koski said he is hopeful that the census count will help in the push to legalize gay marriage in other states.

“Every time I see something happening, like ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ falling by the wayside, every time something happens, it’s another little domino falling,” he said.

The highest share of households with reported same-sex couples — both married and unmarried — was in Washington, D.C., at nearly 2%. Washington was followed by Vermont, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Delaware, New Mexico and Washington state. On the other end of the scale, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming had the smallest shares, each with less than one-third of 1%.

==============================

Gay couples to be allowed civil ceremonies in church (Daily Telegraph, 111101)

Homosexual couples will be able to take part in civil partnerships in church and other places of worship from next month, it will be announced.

Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister, will say that the ban on the ceremonies in religious surroundings will be lifted on Dec 5. The move has been championed by David Cameron but is likely to be opposed by some church groups.

The scheme will be “voluntary” with no church compelled to offer same-sex services. However, it is likely that some campaigners will seek to push the matter further if churches refuse to open their doors to gay couples.

It is estimated that about 1,500 civil partnerships a year would take place in religious settings once the ban is lifted. There are currently about 5,500 civil partnerships taking place every year.

Liberal Jewish groups, Quakers and other minor Christian organisations have lobbied for the right to host civil partnerships with religious readings and hymns. However, the Church of England has warned that it would not bless same-sex couples. The speed at which the proposals are being introduced is likely to cause concern among Anglicans.

Although some in the state religion support same-sex unions, the official position remains that clergy are not allowed to bless the events.

When it was first proposed that the ceremonies could take place on religious premises, the Rt Rev David James, then the Bishop of Bradford, warned in the House of Lords that it would blur the distinction with marriage.

He also raised fears that what was first portrayed as an option would over time become an expectation and then a duty.

So the Church’s official response to the government Equalities Office consultation made it clear that the proposal must allow “unfettered freedom for each religious tradition to resolve these matters in accordance with its own tradition”.

It said the system had to operate on an “opt-in” basis and that individual clergy could not ask councils to host civil partnerships in their parish churches without the “prior consent” of the whole denomination. In the case of the Church of England, this would require the approval of its governing body, the General Synod, which has spent years tied up in the bureaucratic process of allowing women to become bishops.

The Church said it thought the Government’s setting out of the legal position would mean “it would not be possible to bring a successful discrimination claim on the basis of religious premises not being available for the registration of civil partnerships”, but urged ministers to make this clear during debates.

The fear is that rogue vicars will either try to host the ceremonies without permission, or to embarrass the Church authorities by bringing grievances over their inability to bless same-sex unions.

Homosexual couples, who have scored legal victories over businesses that refused them service, could also use the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act to claim discrimination if they were not allowed to form a civil partnership in church. Pressure groups are likely to set up campaigns for the Church, which has been made to look old-fashioned and out of step with public opinion by the anti-capitalism camp on the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral, to change its stance.

The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales also opposes the change but is likely to face fewer challenges as its clergy and congregations are more conservative than the Church of England.

Today’s move comes ahead of plans to give same-sex couples the right to marry, ending the legal definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman.

==============================