The Gay Marriage Thread - Post All Articles here.

yellum

Please post all future articles about Gay Marriage in this thread. Since there is so much in the media on a daily basis its best to keep them in this thread unless you think a particular article merits further discussion.

- Damien

yellum

Poll Shows Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriages

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4660668&section=news

By Mark Egan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Most Americans oppose gay marriage and same-sex unions but nevertheless do not support President Bush's proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, a new poll revealed on Thursday.

The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute survey found that 63 percent of Americans were against gay marriage while 31 percent favored marriage for same-sex couples.

The poll of 1,865 registered voters nationwide, with a margin of error of 2.3 percentage points, found that older Americans were more likely to be opposed to gay marriage.

Younger voters aged 18 to 34 opposed gay marriage by a margin of 52 percent to 44 percent. Of those 65 or older, 77 percent were opposed compared with 15 percent in favor.

The issue of gay marriage has become a hot-button election year issue ahead of the presidential vote in November after thousands of gay and lesbian couples were married in San Francisco and elsewhere.

Bush has denounced such nuptials as undermining the institution of marriage and has proposed a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban gay marriage.

His Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, is also against fully-fledged marriage but supports civil unions for gays and lesbians.

The Quinnipiac poll suggested neither position was likely to curry favor with voters in November's election.

American voters opposed amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage by a margin of 51 percent to 41 percent. They also opposed allowing same-sex civil unions 53 percent to 40 percent.

"Americans don't like gay marriage 2-1," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "They also oppose by a smaller margin John Kerry's position in favor of same-sex civil unions.

"But by almost the same margin, they oppose President Bush's call to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage," Carroll said.

Read full story here:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4660668&section=news

yellum

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/8278819.htm

California's Attorney General: S.F. Went Too Far in Gay Marriage

By LISA LEFF

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - City officials overstepped their bounds by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples - assuming for themselves "more power than the governor, or the Supreme Court, or the Legislature," the state attorney general argued Thursday.

In a brief submitted at the request of the California Supreme Court, Attorney General Bill Lockyer rejected the city's argument that local officials were obligated to grant licenses because the state Constitution forbids discrimination.

State law "controls every aspect of marriage, leaving nothing to the discretion of local government," he argued, adding that only the judiciary can determine a law's constitutionality.

"The foundation of our constitutional structure consists of a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances," the brief stated. "Respondents purport to be defenders of the Constitution, yet they ignore these most fundamental concepts."

The Supreme Court is considering whether Mayor Gavin Newsom had the authority to direct his administration to sanction marriages of gay and lesbians even though the state's Family Code defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera's staff, in papers submitted to the court last week, argued there are many examples in state law of public officials, including previous attorneys general, refusing to enforce laws on constitutional grounds.

They also pointed to other state Supreme Courts - most recently in Massachusetts - that already have ruled it unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed.

"San Francisco's officials honored the law; they did not ignore it," Herrera said.

Two weeks ago, justices unanimously ordered city officials to stop granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples until they consider the case.

Thursday was the deadline for the state and a Christian legal group seeking to invalidate the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco to file legal arguments. The court has said it will hold a hearing as early as May on whether the city overstepped its bounds.

yellum

Mass Lawmakers Ban Gay Marriage, Grant Civil Unions
By Svea Herbst-Bayliss

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=843057&tw=wn_wire_story

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts lawmakers on Monday ended seven weeks of emotionally charged debate by agreeing to ban -- for this year at least -- gay marriage while granting same-sex couples similar rights under civil unions.

In a 105 to 92 vote, legislators ended a third marathon session of often tearful and impassioned debate to accept a compromise amendment, hammered out by senior Senate leaders, that may alter the nation's oldest constitution in 2006.

Responding to last year's state court ruling that will allow same-sex couples to marry after May 17, lawmakers cleared a first hurdle but will have to vote on Monday's amendment again in 2005 and put it to a public vote in 2006 before it could become law.

Minutes after the vote, Gov. Mitt Romney said he will ask the court to reverse itself and prevent town clerks from handing out marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.

"I will seek to stay the court's decision until the constitutional amendment process has run its course," Romney said. Monday's vote has created a conflict between two branches of government, Romney said, adding "I believe the Supreme Judicial Court should delay imposition of its decision until the people have had a chance to be heard."

The fight over gay marriage has become a national, election-year issue, with President Bush coming out in favor of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage after several local officials, claiming ambiguity in the law, began marrying gay couples in California, Oregon and other states.

Vermont is the only other state in the country to have civil unions for same-sex couples.

While the vote disappointed both sides, it also appeared to offer them something they want.

BOTH SIDES DISAPPOINTED

"The best would have been to defeat the amendment but the second best outcome is this," said Sen. Stan Rosenberg. "The tide is moving in our direction," he added, noting several lawmakers switched sides amid furious maneuverings.

With civil unions, same-sex couples will receive many rights that are currently denied to them in the state, but they will still not receive many federal benefits.

In another marathon debate, many lawmakers said voters should not be asked to cast a ballot on this issue because they fear it could enshrine discrimination in the constitution.

"Popular votes are no way to protect fundamental rights," said Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem as police cordoned off hundreds of supporters and opponents of gay marriage clogging the hallways of Boston's historic state house. Shouts of "Let the people marry" mixed with screams of "Let the people vote."

"The religious right is trying to make this into a religious issue, but it is not. This is about civil rights," said the Rev. Tiffany Steinwert, a Unitarian minister.

Nearby, Chaletta Huertas, wearing a bright orange scarf to signal what she calls "spiritual warfare," said "We know in our hearts that gay marriage is wrong. God has given us limits to whom we can marry, and I believe that gay marriage is wrong."

Opponents of gay marriage also claimed victory.

"We preserved the sentence that marriage is between one man and one woman," said Ron Crews, a spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage.

To pass the time as the debates dragged on, some gay activists turned to happier events and swapped stories of the wedding ceremonies they plan to have this summer.

"We are going to have a champagne and cake reception," said Bonnie Winokar about her planned July wedding to her partner of 17 years, Mary McCarthy.

yellum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3516551.stm

Yoda

Originally posted by yellum
"We preserved the sentence that marriage is between one man and one woman," said Ron Crews, a spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage.

I'd say it was laughable if it weren't so sad.

yellum

S.F. mayor says gay-marriage decision cost him
By Steve Geissinger, SACRAMENTO BUREAU

http://www.theargusonline.com/Stories/0,1413,83~1968~2052801,00.html

SACRAMENTO -- Gavin Newsom's rising political star has been compared with that of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, but San Francisco's mayor said Tuesday he "blew up" his political base when he cleared the way for gay marriages in his city.

"The one story that I'm dumbfounded that hasn't been written about this is what that's done politically to me in San Francisco," Newsom told reporters during a visit to the state Capitol to lobby the deficit-plagued state for reduced cuts in local government funds.

Newsom, whose action on gay marriages in February spurred legal and political battles that are drawing international attention, said he is uncertain whether the decision would hurt his chances for higher office.

Though he refused to discuss his political ambitions, the newly elected mayor of San Francisco said he made the right decision when he challenged the state prohibition on gay marriages as unfair, despite implications for his career.

"For those that think, 'Boy, this was a great political move in San Francisco,' I hardly think it was," said Newsom. "I blew up my base in San Francisco, my Catholic Irish base."

The mayor, who forged a reputation as a moderate while serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said he was booed at a St. Patrick's Day gathering and has lost "thousands" of relationships.

At the same time, Newsom acknowledged he has gained some "new friends."

In fact, one poll shows his approval rating climbed to 69 percent after winning the mayor's race with 53 percent of the vote.

But Newsom portrayed his new political ties as more fickle. Asked if he had gained another base, he said, "Hardly."

"There's always someone better. There's always someone more pure. Always someone who's stronger to the cause. ... There's always someone younger, there's always some-one with better insight, more connections, worked harder.

"There's someone right behind me. Right now, there (are) 50 people."

Newsom said he expects his recent high approval ratings to slip in light of various issues, including the introduction of a city budget at a time when San Francisco is facing a $350 million deficit.

The mayor said he understands why some politicians act timidly, worried about getting to the next level.

"It's not easy to change hearts as well as minds," he said. "It's frustrating that good people can dismiss you out of hand just because they disagree with you on one issue."

yellum

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4678137/

The gay-marriage windfall: $16.8 billion

The national debate over gay marriage is still heating up, with no resolution in sight. But one thing is abundantly clear: Legalizing same-sex marriages would mean a windfall for the wedding industry. We estimate that if the laws were changed, gay couples currently living together would collectively spend $16.8 billion to get hitched.

Of course, they wouldn't all get married right away, so it might be several years before the industry reaped the entire windfall. But it seems reasonable to presume that if same-sex marriage were to be legalized, a large percentage of gay couples immediately would begin making plans to march down the aisle together. The industry would catch the bouquet in the form of a short-term gain of prodigious proportions.

From caterers to jewelers to travel agents, the $70 billion-per-year U.S. wedding industry embraces a wide array of sectors. If gay couples could say "I do," and assuming they spend as much on the occasion as their heterosexual counterparts, then such companies as Tiffany, Williams-Sonoma, Marriot International, Federated Department Stores and May Department Stores would see a serious boost in their matrimony-related business.

Gay marriage would inject a sudden growth spurt into an industry whose expansion prospects are constrained by the limited growth in annual marriages. That's not to say that the sector has been stagnant in recent years: The average cost of a wedding has climbed steadily in the last decade to reach $22,000 in 2004, according to The Knot, the largest online wedding site with about 1.1 million new couples registering each year.

The U.S. Census bureau found that roughly 92 percent of heterosexual couples living together in 2000 were married. We assume for the sake of argument that the same percentage would apply to gay couples. The census estimated that 594,000 homosexual couples were living together in 2000, so we figure that 92 percent of them, roughly 546,000 couples, would wed if they could. They might not do it right away, but over time they would swell the ranks of would-be brides and grooms.

Of course, when straight couples marry, not all of them hold a reception to celebrate the event. Every year, about 15 percent of newlyweds pass on the canapés and decide that a quick trip to City Hall suits them better. So we eliminated 15 percent of our gay couples as well, leaving us with 464,000 couples likely to throw a party to celebrate their nuptials. Then we multiplied that figure by the amount the average heterosexual couple currently spends on such items as engagement rings, banquet halls, wedding dresses and honeymoons. Add it all up, and it comes to $16.8 billion.

yellum

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=25633

Gay marriage fits Republican values by Al Jiwa

As the leader of the Yale College Republicans, I find my personal politics ever compared with the national standard of the GOP. As one might expect of any member of the Republican Party, my stances lean right on a number of issues: I am firmly committed to the foreign policy of President Bush, believe strongly in the private sphere, and often prioritize the rights of states above federal jurisdiction. While I support our President and will emphatically wave the Republican banner, my political views frequently diverge sharply from those of orthodox conservatives -- my friends refer to me as a "moderate" on most days and as a "liberal" before their morning caffeine. Much of this heckling derives from my positions on a number of social platforms: as opposed to many in the Republican Party, I find myself to be more accepting of traditionally "Democrat" views on topics ranging from gun control to the welfare state.

An integral part of my purported "centrism" however, stems from my views on the issue of gay marriage. In opposition to the stance of President Bush (and indeed, much of the GOP) on the sanctity of traditional marriage, I do not support any type of constitutional amendment or federal legislation which limits or denies the rights of homosexual couples. The Republican Party stands for individual liberty and limited government; in calling for a constitutional amendment for the express reason of denying the validity of gay unions, we are contradicting these core principles, violating the dignity of our fellow citizens, and perpetuating lines of discrimination.

Those who oppose the extension of marriage benefits to same-sex couples cite three major ideas to justify their position. First among these is a supposed correlation between permitting homosexual unions and the "death" of the institution of marriage. Conservatives contend that gay marriage will corrupt the family unit and render the ideals of matrimony defunct. This argument is ill-conceived and poorly constructed: I find it troubling that these groups would defend the sanctity of unions between criminals, rapists and murderers (all of whom can legally wed under current laws) but consider a union between two loving, caring males or females a travesty.

If marriage is a critical element of building a strong family unit (as many Republicans would contend), should we also not give every incentive possible to those who would make excellent parents? Instead, however, we discriminate against those who are more than capable of establishing long, stable relationships solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. We allow individuals to divorce and remarry multiple times to receive the benefits of marriage. We permit citizens to wed mail-order brides and receive the benefits of marriage. Yet, when two consenting men or women, irrespective of the depth of their relationship or their family status, wish to have their relationship recognized by the state, we do not extend to them this same basic dignity. As these examples illustrate, the current definition of marriage is logically absurd: it must either adapt or fall apart.

The perception that there is an irreconcilable difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals highlights the second conservative argument against gay marriage. The two groups of people are seen as biologically and genetically separate; homosexuals, as such, are undeserving of the rights possessed by "normal" members of society. This claim is little more than blatant homophobia and is something that the Republican Party has no business standing for. This contention echoes back to the arguments made against interracial marriages and relationships during the Jim Crow era: unions between members of different ethnic groups were seen to be unnatural and therefore impermissible.

Rather than continuing to pound a discriminatory agenda and seeking to impose a backward looking moral code onto this country, libertarians must assert themselves within the party and distance themselves from this dangerous dogma. Republicans have always stressed tolerance in their political approach, promoting smaller governments that are removed from the private lives of individual citizens. Through endorsing ideological and religiously motivated legislation, Republicans are breaking from their old value set; by endorsing a more intrusive, socially motivated government, members of the GOP are making a serious mistake.

The final argument made by more traditionalist Republicans against gay marriage is that it would impact overall social utility. These individuals contend that, by forcing every member of society to accept gay marriages as equal to all others, the moral fabric of the country will be ruptured. Not only will traditional marriages cease to have any meaning, but, more alarmingly, homosexuality may become an acceptable practice. This, in turn, will allegedly diminish the ability of all others to live content, productive lives. These suppositions are ridiculous; I cannot begin to conceive of a situation where the mere existence of gay marriage would undermine my personal happiness. The link between gay unions and "social harm" is non-existent and the additional utility derived by homosexual couples (who would then be permitted to marry) is curiously ignored. Needless to say, conservative logic once again falls short.

As addressed above, Republicans need not oppose gay marriage as a matter of principle: the ideals of the GOP have little to do with preventing homosexual unions. Indeed, the fundamental value of individual liberty presents a striking contrast to this latest paleo-conservative crusade; instead of protecting the rights of citizens against external interference, Republicans are becoming the very agents of a socially driven, activist government. As a straight Republican from a Muslim background, I find no reason to oppose gay marriage -- I ask my fellow Republicans to introspect, and hope they reach a similar conclusion.

Al Jiwa is sophomore in Pierson College.

yellum

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/29/national/main609097.shtm

Same-Sex Weddings Banned In Oregon but those got married already win recognition

AP) A judge told an Oregon county to stop issuing gay marriage licenses, but he handed same-sex couples a historic victory by ordering Oregon to recognize the 3,000 licenses already granted in the county.

Tuesday's decision by Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank Bearden marked the first time in the nation that a judge has recognized gay marriage. An immediate appeal of the ruling was expected.

"These are the first legally recognized gay marriages in the country," said Dave Fidanque, the ACLU executive director in Oregon. "In no other same-sex marriages that have taken place has there been a court order saying the state must recognize them. That's what's truly historic about this opinion."

Multnomah County began allowing gay marriage on March 3, making it the only place in the United States where gays could get married during the last month. The county has issued 3,022 marriage licenses to gay couples.

Other cities, including San Francisco and New Paltz, New York, also began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples but were stopped by the courts in early March.

Bearden told the county to cease issuing same-sex licenses until the Oregon Legislature has a chance to fashion a new law, perhaps allowing Vermont-style civil unions.

He gave the Oregon Legislature 90 days from the start of its next session to come up with the new law. If that doesn't happen, Multnomah County can resume issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.

The Legislature could convene in Salem as early as June, for a special session that was intended to focus on tax reform. But the ruling generated little enthusiasm among lawmakers, who seem leery about getting bogged down in a stalemated special session this summer.

"They don't want to get into special session that is out of control," said Senate President Peter Courtney, a Democrat who supports civil unions.

House Speaker Karen Minnis, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, said the debate should focus not on allowing civil unions but instead on sending a gay marriage ban to the ballot this fall.

"The best solution would be to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman — the definition of marriage that Oregonians have known for generations," she said.

The judge's ruling came in a lawsuit that has consolidated all the arguments over same-sex unions in hopes of a quick ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court.

The decision effectively ends gay marriage nationally, at least until May 17, when Massachusetts is slated to begin allowing gay marriage following a high court ruling there.

Kevin Neely, a spokesman for the Oregon attorney general's office, called Bearden's decision "a big step in what will be a bit longer process."

"Our goal from the beginning was to get a ruling from the Supreme Court, but this initial ruling does provide at least some clarity and a framework for moving to that next step," Neely said. "The real key here is to give the Legislature an opportunity to craft a law that the courts will deem constitutionally sound."

In other developments related to gay marriage, a California state legislative committee Tuesday approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, although the bill's sponsor, Mark Leno, said such a "milestone event" didn't change what will be an uphill battle to pass it in the full legislature.
l

Yoda

This was published a few weeks ago; I meant to post it then but it got lost on my desk.

Madam, - I am endebted to the Carlow TD, Mr M. J. Nolan (March 30th), for letting me in on how the Fianna Fáil party works.
According to Mr Nolan, there is no urgency to introduce legislation to provide equality to a large number of Irish citizens in respect of protection for same-sex relationships, because there are no individuals or organisations campaigning for such legislation. I would think that the Government is responsible for ensuring equality for all Irish citizens whether or not there is an active campaign. - Yours, etc.,

Siobhán Anderson

Good thinking.

Mr Nolan's e-mail address is mj.nolan@oireachtas.ie .

goldenboy

This is an old article but I'm posting it because one of the arguments against gay marriage is that traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman. This article shows that cultures and traditions - even the Catholic church - change constantly, and you can't legislate against that.

From the Irish Times, 11 Aug 98:

A KIEV art museum contains a curious icon from St Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.


Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Boswell's book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe, lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union" having invoked St Serge and St Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these thy servants [N and N] grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints." The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded."

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same-sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to the 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that anti-homosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex union ceremonies continued to take place.

At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent co-operation of the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Another woman-to-woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitude towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. That evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Yoda

Interesting, GoldenBoy. Reminds me of a thread I started last July that didn't go anywhere:

Adelphopoiesis: Orthodox rite for gay marriage?

It's a theory. http://www.paratheke.net/stephanos/articles/adelphopoiesis.html