PRESIDENT SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE
Barack Obama Favors Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples
May 9, 2012
With
his endorsement of gay marriage on
May 9, President Obama electrified
his liberal base, incensed cultural
conservatives and may have ensured
that a debate on social issues will
play a part in the debate ahead of
the November election. His
announcement raises the political
stakes on an issue over which
Americans are evenly split.
The
announcement was the first by a
sitting president and put Obama
squarely at odds with presumptive
Republican presidential nominee Mitt
Romney, who on Wednesday said during
an appearance in Oklahoma, "I
believe marriage is a relationship
between a man and a woman."
For
almost two years, President Obama
had said that his views on gay
marriage were "evolving."
Gay-marriage proponents hoped that
would signal a full embrace of
marriage rights for gay and lesbian
couples. But after days of renewed
pressure for clarification on the
issue following strong endorsements
of gay marriage from Vice President
Biden and Education Secretary Arne
Duncan, Obama decided to change his
stated position.
"At a
certain point, I've just concluded,
that for me, personally, it is
important for me to go ahead and
affirm that I think same-sex couples
should be able to get married,"
Obama said.
"I had hesitated
on gay marriage,
in part, because
I thought civil
unions would be
sufficient," the
president said.
"I was sensitive
to the fact
that, for a lot
of people, the
word marriage is
something that
provokes very
powerful
traditions and
religious
beliefs."
But, Obama said,
his thinking
shifted as he
witnessed
committed
same-sex
marriages and
thought about
U.S. service
personnel who
were "not able
to commit
themselves in a
marriage."
A Gallup Poll
released Tuesday
indicated 50% of
Americans
believe same-sex
marriages should
be recognized by
law as valid,
with 48% saying
such marriages
should not be
legal.
UPDATE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Victories in
Washington and Maryland
February 2012
As
same-sex marriage supporters celebrate
recent victories in Washington and
Maryland, they are keeping a wary eye on
New Hampshire, where lawmakers may soon
vote to repeal the state’s two-year-old
law allowing gay couples to wed.
Should
the
repeal
pass,
New
Hampshire
would be
the
first
state in
which a
legislature
has
reversed
itself
on the
issue of
same-sex
marriage.
In
Maine,
voters
repealed
a
marriage
law
through
a
referendum
in
November
2009,
shortly
after
the
Legislature
approved
it. This
fall, a
ballot
initiative
will ask
voters
to make
same-sex
marriage
legal
again.
The
California
Supreme
Court
ruled in
2008
that
same-sex
couples
there
had a
right to
marry,
but
voters
banned
same-sex
marriage
in an
initiative
later
that
year.
The
issue
remains
in
court.
Gov. Chris Gregoire handed gay rights advocates a major victory, signing into law a measure that legalizes same-sex marriage in Washington state, making it the seventh in the nation to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. Gregoire signed the bill surrounded by gay rights supporters. "I'm proud our same-sex couples will no longer be treated as separate but equal," she said.
It's a historic moment for the state, but same-sex couples can't walk down the aisle just yet. The law takes effect June 7, but opponents on multiple fronts already are preparing to fight.
Maryland's governor plans to sign a bill making same-sex marriage legal, while opponents were making plans to challenge the new law at the ballot box.
The legislation, making Maryland the eighth state in the nation to legalize gay and lesbian nuptials, heads to Governor Martin O'Malley's desk for his signature. The Democratic governor has supported the measure and promised to sign it once it was passed by lawmakers. The state Senate voted in favor of the bill last week after it was passed by the state's lower House of Delegates.
While still controversial, same-sex marriage has been gaining acceptance nationally in recent weeks as Washington state legislators voted to allow gay marriage and the New Jersey legislature passed a gay marriage law through both houses, although it was vetoed by Governor Chris Christie.
Same-sex couples can marry in the District of Columbia and in six states -- Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and New York. Washington state will join the list in June unless opponents stop it ahead of a possible ballot initiative.
Opponents of same-sex marriage in Maryland were working to get a referendum seeking to repeal the law on the ballot in November.
APA BACKS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
APA Calls for Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage
Alden Mahler Levine /
CNN August 2011
The
American Psychological Association declares support for
"full marriage equality." The APA cites studies that show same-sex
spouses have "sense of security, support and validation."
The American Psychological Association is calling on
state and federal officials to stop anti-gay legal measures and to
legalize same-sex marriage.
The scientific and professional organization's guiding
body voted unanimously at its annual meeting this week in Washington to
declare its support for "full marriage equality for same-sex couples."
The resolution "clarifies the Association's support for
same-sex marriage" in light of new research, the group said. A similar
resolution in 2004 opposed discrimination against same-sex
relationships, but refrained from a more formal policy recommendation.
Dr. Clinton Anderson, APA associate executive director,
said that the timing of the resolution is an indirect result of several
states' legalization of marriage.
"We knew that marriage benefits heterosexual people in
very significant ways, but we didn't know if that would be true for
same-sex couples," said Anderson, who is also director of the APA's
Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns.
Now that six U.S. states permit same-sex marriage,
researchers have been able to conduct studies with those couples.
The research, Anderson said, indicates that marriage
"does confer the same sense of security, support, and validation" to
same-sex couples as to heterosexual ones.
The resolution also points to evidence that ongoing
political debate about marriage creates stress for gay men and lesbians
and perpetuates stigmas and prejudice about their communities. This
stress can make people physically and psychologically sick, the APA
says, calling the link between stress and illness "well established."
Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the board of the National
Organization for Marriage, takes issue with the assertion that
legalizing same-sex marriage would improve community acceptance of
homosexuality.
"There is no evidence that gay teens are better off in
Massachusetts, a state that has gay marriage, than they are in
Wisconsin, a state which has passed a marriage amendment defining
marriage as one man and one woman," she said in an e-mail response to
CNN.
Gallagher continued, "The release of this statement is
unfortunately going to undermine confidence in APA statements generally,
I would predict."
Both the National Organization for Marriage and the APA
are skeptical of one solution to the gay-marriage debate: civil unions.
Rhode Island NOM executive director Chris Plante is quoted in a press
release on the NOM website calling the move "nothing more than a Trojan
Horse that will usher in same-sex marriage sooner rather than later."
Elsewhere on its website, NOM calls for dealing with legal and economic
benefits separately from any discussion of marriage or unions.
The APA also feels that civil unions miss the mark.
"Anything other than marriage is, in essence, a
stigmatization of same-sex couples. Stigma does have negative impacts on
people," Anderson said.
"That's the analysis that we've come to and why we've
decided to support full marriage equality -- because domestic
partnership or civil union will still convey the message that same-sex
couples are not as good."
MARRIED WITH COMPLICATIONS
Forbes Magazine Gives Financial Insight
Deborah Jacobs /
Forbes Magazine
August 2011
Same-sex couples face a raft
of planning issues and much legal uncertainty. A
recent article in Forbes Magazine gives a detailed
explanation of the financial implications of same-sex
marriage. Presented here is a brief summary of that
article. Click the link at the end of this section to
read the full report.
Marc Wernick and his partner, David Gerson, were
planning to tie the knot on July 24, the first day New
York State's new Marriage Equality Act allowed same-sex
marriage. But three days before, they got cold feet--not
about each other but about the financial effects of
making their commitment legal. So while they joined the
exuberant crowds celebrating at New York's City Hall on
the historic day, they postponed their own wedding.
What happened? Wernick, a
47-year-old budget analyst for Columbia University,
attended a planning seminar for same-sex couples and
learned, among other things, that he might be legally on
the hook for $150,000 in student loan debt that Gerson,
37, still has from law school and college. The couple,
who have been together for a year and a half, still plan
to marry "surrounded by friends and family," Wernick
says. But first they want to mull all the financial
consequences.
For same-sex couples each
new state law allowing them to wed is a political,
emotional and civil rights victory. But whether marriage
will be a financial win, too, depends on a couple's age,
income, assets, debts, where they live, whether they
have kids and a raft of still unresolved legal issues.
Some gay folks are
surprised by the legal duties (as well as rights) that
come with marriage, says Keith Bradoc Gallant, a lawyer
with Day Pitney in New Haven, Conn.
Traditionally, same-sex
unmarried couples have had to make sure they had proper
documents in place so they could make end-of-life
decisions about each other and inherit each other's
property. Now married gay New Yorkers must worry, as
heterosexual married folks must, about the obligation
each spouse has to support the other if, for example,
one loses a job, becomes disabled or runs up big medical
bills not covered by insurance.
Moreover, even as they
take on such scary legal duties, same-sex married
couples aren't yet getting all the legal benefits that
opposite-sex married folks enjoy, points out Mary
Bonauto, civil rights project director at Gay & Lesbian
Advocates & Defenders in Boston. That's because the
federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) defines
marriage as a "legal union between one man and one
woman." Gay advocates are now arguing in court that the
law is unconstitutional, and recently the Obama
Administration agreed. But for now federal agencies,
including the Internal Revenue Service, consider DOMA
the law.
As a result, same-sex
spouses aren't entitled to each other's Social Security
benefits, can't sponsor each other for citizenship and
aren't covered by the law that protects a spouse's right
to a company-sponsored retirement account. They also
don't enjoy any of the special privileges for spouses
who inherit individual retirement accounts, most notably
the right to postpone distributions and take full
advantage of tax-deferred compounding (in the case of a
traditional IRA) or tax-free earnings (with a Roth).
Even splitting up can be more expensive, because unlike
other divorcing couples, they can't divide assets
without a potential tax hit.
State laws, too, have a
profound effect. In addition to New York, the states of
Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and
Vermont and Washington, D.C. now allow same-sex
marriages. Another 13 states permit "domestic
partnerships" or "civil unions," which provide varying
degrees of rights. (The laws in New Jersey, California,
Washington and Oregon give same-sex couples virtually
all the state law rights opposite-sex married couples
have.)
But a same-sex couple who
get married in New York or Massachusetts (which have no
residency requirements) may find their new marriage
disregarded by another state they live in or move to or
might receive an inheritance from, says Susan T. Bart, a
lawyer with Sidley Austin in Chicago.
START SPREADING THE
NEWS New York Becomes
Sixth State for Gay Marriage
June 2011
Celebrating late into the night, thousands of
gay marriage supporters poured into the streets after New York became
the sixth and largest state in the U.S. to legalize gay marriage.
After days of contentious negotiations and
last-minute reversals by two Republican state senators, the bill was
passed, breathing life into the national gay rights movement that had
stalled over a nearly-identical bill here two years ago.
Pending any court challenges, legal gay marriages can begin in New York
by late July after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed his bill into law just
before midnight Friday.
What does it mean? "It means that all of my
friends can finally do the thing that they wanted to do, that I
can do," Alison Casillo told CBS Station WCBS. "It means that we're
equal."
CBS News correspondent Seth Doane reports that
New York is a state with no residency requirement for marriage - meaning
couples can come from anywhere to get married here.
One local high schooler was
quoted as saying, "I'm proud to be a New Yorker!"
QUOTES:
"Happy that New York
passed marriage
equality tonight. A
victory for human
rights. Progress."
-John Legend
"New York, I love you!
You're officially the coolest place on the planet! Pride!
Equality for all! Celebrate!"
-Katy Perry
"Time to celebrate! Marriage Equality for New Yorkers! Its about
love!"
-Ricky Martin
"The revolution is
ours to fight for
love, justice, and
equality. Rejoice
New York, and
propose. We did it!"
According to one
light-hearted commentary, there are six identifiable groups of people
who are allowed to get married while gay couples cannot. Same sex
couples are still working for equal rights while these jerks can get
married any time they want: Cousins, convicts, anyone in Las Vegas,
multiple marriers, reality show contestants, and people who have themed
weddings.
SAME SEX WEDDING ANNOUNCEMENT
In The Birmingham News
February 2011
Just in time for
Valentine's Day, The Birmingham News posted its first wedding/union
announcement for a same sex couple on Sunday, February 13, 2011.
The happy couple
is Jeremy Cooper Erdreich and Larry Zuendel Slater, both of Birmingham.
Mr. Erdreich is
the son of former Congressman Ben Erdreich and Ellen Erdreich. A
graduate of Harvard and Yale, he is the President of the Erdreich
Architecture firm.
Mr. Slater is
the son of Frances Slater of Biloxi, MS and Robert Slater of Atlantic
Beach, NC. An Auburn graduate, he is currently a PhD candidate at the
UAB School of Nursing where he is an adjunct professor.
Ceremonies will
take place in June at City Hall in Provincetown, Massachusetts and
locally at Temple Emanu-El in Birmingham (Rabbi Jonathan Miller
officiating).
"The sexual
orientation of my parents had had zero
effect on my character." Those were
the words of Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old
University of Iowa student who spoke about
the strength of his family during a public
forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the
Iowa House of Representatives. Wahls has two
mothers, and came to oppose House Joint
Resolution 6 which would end civil unions in
Iowa.
LGBT STARS FIGHT
BACK
Campaign Against NY Anti-Gay Marriage Legislation
In New York state, a very well-organized
and aggressive campaign, called Fight Back NY, has emerged. The group is
targeting New York state legislators who have voted against marriage
equality.
Television and movie stars, including
Cynthia Nixon, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, and Rose Perez, took a stand and
lent their support to this cause. You can view their videos below.
According to the Fight
Back NY group, "Our one and only aim is to defeat
anti-equality New York State Senators. Once we
replace enough anti-equality senators with
pro-equality senators, we will close up shop."
They are non-partisan:
"We will be targeting Democrats and Republicans. We
know from the December 2, 2009 marriage vote that 30
Republicans and 8 Democrats do not support equality.
Each one of these senators is fair game."
They are strategic:
"We will be smart and methodical about where and
when we target senators from both sides of the
aisle. Working with our partners, we will engage in
primary, general, and special elections. We will
determine where our efforts and resources will have
the most impact in a race that involves an
anti-equality incumbent who is being challenged by a
pro-equality candidate. While 38 senators deserve
defeat because of this vote, our focus will be on
the best opportunities to defeat our enemies. Our
campaigns will be targeted and intense."
JANE LYNCH GETS MARRIED Star of "Glee"
TV Show Marries Lara Embry
Jane Lynch (star of "Glee" television show) was married in May 2010 to Lara Embry in a ceremony in
Massachusetts.
Fans of "Glee" know Jane Lynch's portrayal of the
bitingly sarcastic yet occasionally tender high school cheerleading
coach Sue Sylvester. Lynch has been nominated for an Emmy award
and she is starring in a new movie, "I Do and I Don't." Lynch's
longtime fans may remember her from the Christopher Guest film, "Best in
show."
Embry is a clinical psychologist who practices at
the Carter Psychology Center in Sarasota, Florida. She graduated from
Smith and received a master’s degree in philosophy from Columbia. She
also has a master’s in psychology from the
University of Washington in Seattle, from which she also holds a
Ph.D. in clinical psychology. She is the daughter of Dr. Bonnie M. Embry
and Dr. Joseph H. Embry of Birmingham.
“We
actually have a picture of the moment we
met,” Ms. Lynch said, referring to the
May 2009 San Francisco fund-raiser at
which she was a presenter and Dr. Embry,
who was among those being honored,
instigated their introduction.
“I said,
‘I want my picture taken with her,’ ”
Dr. Embry recalled. “I thought she was
cute.”
Both say
that the attraction between them was
immediate and that their differing
professions played no part in it.
“It’s not
like she’s marrying out of her species
or anything,” Ms. Lynch said.
Dr. Embry
noted: “I knew of her work, but not
extensively. I was basically ignorant of
it.”
The American Bar Association on August 10, 2010 unequivocally backed civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.
In a resolution adopted less than one week after a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, the group acknowledges that same-sex couples "are only seeking to participate in an equal basis in a foundational institution of our civil life," former ABA president Tommy Wells told the organization's house of delegates. "They simply want to share in the legal blessings that we give to married couples. It can only strengthen marriage.”
Text of the ABA resolution is as follows:
"RESOLVED, That 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."
(From The Advocate)
GAY
MARRIAGE Poignant Commentary
"Protect marriage?
Puhlease. With a 50 percent divorce rate, rampant domestic violence, Las
Vegas drive-through chapels, and I wanna-marry-a-really-rich-guy reality
TV shows, there's no way gays could trash marriage the way straight
people have." Good Times /
Santa Cruz County News
"We shouldn't just
allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard
it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not
want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity." David Brooks /
New York Times
"The consecration of
Gene Robinson as bishop of the New Hampshire Diocese of the Episcopal
Church is an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and
his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of
Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are
no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian
marriage."
Owen
Keavney
ELLEN & PORTIA
Wedding Ceremony
Ellen
DeGeneres and Portia De Rossi were married on August 16, 2008. They
wed at their
home in Beverly Hills, California in an intimate ceremony attended by
about 20 guests.
De Rossi, 35, wore a backless, light pink Zac Posen dress, and her hair
in a loose updo. DeGeneres, 50, wore an all-white Zac Posen ensemble
that included pants, button-up shirt and vest.
In May, following the California Supreme Court's monumental ruling that
same sex couple's have the right to marry, DeGeneres
announced on
her talk show that she intended to wed
her girlfriend of nearly four years.
"It's something that we've
wanted to do and we want it to be legal and we are very, very excited,"
DeGeneres said.
In June, de Rossi debuted
a marquis cut Neil Lane sparkler set with pink diamonds at the Daytime
Emmy Awards.
De Rossi has credited
DeGeneres with helping her come out of the closet.
"My feelings for
Ellen overrode all of my fear about being out as a lesbian,” she told
the
Advocate
Magazine in September 2005.
De Rossi said the first time she spotted DeGeneres, the comedian took
her breath away.
In 2005, DeGeneres said she hoped she and de Rossi would be "together
the rest of our lives."
"I never would have
thought my life would have turned out this way," DeGeneres told
Allure Magazine. "To have money. Or to have a gorgeous girlfriend. I
just feel so lucky with everything in my life right now."
WHO
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY? History Repeating Itself
The prejudice and
marginalization of gays and lesbians today are reminiscent of the
treatment once endured by African-Americans.
It used to be against
the law in many states for whites and blacks to marry each other. Today
those laws have been repealed and few people see any merit to the
original law. Clearly such bans arose out of ignorance and in time as
people became more enlightened they abandoned such antiquated
prejudices.
Interracial dating and
interracial marriages once held the same contempt as same-sex dating and
same-sex marriages have today.
In 2000, the question of
a 1901 Constitutional amendment
prohibiting lawful marriage between whites and blacks, was
placed on the ballot in Alabama. 40% of those who voted in this
referendum, voted to keep
the law prohibiting interracial marriage.
"the legislature
shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any
marriage between any white person
and a Negro, or descendant of a
Negro."
GAY MARRIAGE
Where Is
It Legal?
Gay Marriage Around the World
Gays all over the world are fighting for equal protection under the law,
including legal gay marriage. Some may think granting civil, registered
or domestic partnerships is enough- seeking to preserve the legal
definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. But, did you know
most civil, domestic and registered partnership laws around the world
provide fewer benefits than full marriage? So in many cases, life-long
partners are denied some or all of the rights of marriage simply based
on their sexual orientation.
On May 17, 2004
Massachusetts became the first US state to legalize
same-sex marriage. On June 25, 2011, New York became the
sixth US state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriages are
now also allowed in the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut,
Iowa, and New Jersey.
Same sex marriages are
allowed in Washington DC and in the Coquille
Indian Tribe in Oregon.
California
allowed same-sex marriage June 16-November 4, 2008, but it has now been
banned.
Nations that allow same-sex partnerships
and civil unions:
Croatia
Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been granted since 2003.
Denmark
Legal civil partnerships have been allowed since 1989.
Finland
Has offered registered partnership benefits since September 2001.
France
Pacte Civil de Solidarité” (PACS), or “Civil Solidarity Pacts,” were
instituted in France on November 9, 1999.
Germany
Gay couples can register as "Life Partnerships," granting equal the same
financial and pension benefits as marriage.
Great Britain
Domestic partners can register under the Civil Partnership Act. This
legislation took affect in December 5, 2005 giving registered same-sex
couples rights similar to marriage in areas such as pensions, property,
social security, and housing.
Hungary
Gay couples have been protected under common-law marriages since 1995;
however they are not eligible for legal marriage.
Luxembourg
Civil partnership legislation modeled after France's PACS were
introduced in Luxembourg in 2004.
New Zealand
In December, 2004, New Zealand enacted legislation recognizing same-sex
civil unions.
Scotland
Civil partnerships have been afforded to same-sex couples since 2004.
Switzerland
Same-sex couples are given limited legal benefits with civil
recognition.
New to the list:
Andorra, Austria,
Brazil, Columbia, Czech Republic, Ecuador,
Greenland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Slovenia,
United Kingdom, Uruguay.
Same sex partnerships
and civil unions recognized in some jurisdictions:
Australia, Mexico, Venezuala.
Honduras
On March 29, 2005, the constitution of Honduras was amended banning
same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.
Latvia
December 21, 2005 marked the day Latvian president Vaira Vike-Freiberga
signed into law a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the
union of a man and a woman.
Uganda
On September 29, 2005, legislation banning same-sex unions was signed by
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. Penalties for gay marriage will be
set in 2006. Under current law, homosexual acts are punishable by
imprisonment from five years to life.
ALABAMA MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
Ban on Same Sex Marriage
"Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and
a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special
interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique
relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the
stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage
contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in
this state."
"Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a
woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both
parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband
and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil
contract."
"No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to
parties of the same sex. The State of Alabama shall not
recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that
occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law
of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was
issued. The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any
common law marriage of parties of the same sex."
On the heels on the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, these
remarks were made...
"Any amendments to the Alabama Constitution should not be proposed on the
whims of special interests or without due consideration and in-depth
deliberation. Intelligent citizens realize that this amendment is a bad
idea and flies in the face of democracy."
"Amendments to any constitution are usually proposed to EXPAND, not
RESTRICT the freedoms of citizens. Every amendment to the US
Constitution expands freedoms and liberties."
"Thoughtful citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation, also
recognize the importance and necessity of the separation of church and
state. No law that seeks to advance a religious doctrine or agenda
should ever be imposed on citizens."
"The state should serve all citizens, and make no laws to restrict or
limit the human rights or civil liberties of the people it serves."
Prior to the
vote on the Gay marriage ban, John Davis, of the Montgomery Advertiser,
wrote:
Alabamians will decide in the June 6 primary whether to add another
layer of barriers to gays getting married or getting recognition for
their marriages performed in other states.
Alabama already has a law that bans gay couples from obtaining marriage
licenses, but there will be a proposed amendment on the ballot that
would make the prohibition of gay marriage part of the state's
constitution.
The Christian Coalition of Alabama has announced it will print and
distribute up to 1.2 million voters' guides to make sure Alabamians know
to vote "yes" if they want to constitutionally bar gay marriage.
"It's just another way of saying, 'We don't like you. We don't want you
to benefit from having stable families,'" said Ken Baker of Montgomery,
an organizer for the gay rights group Equality Alabama.
John Giles, president of the Christian Coalition, predicted the proposed
constitutional amendment will get between 80 percent and 90 percent of
the vote.
Howard Bayless of Birmingham, chairman of Equality Alabama, disagreed.
"Reality is, our neighbors respect us," said Bayless. "People are trying
to use fear and use other tactics for their political gain."
Sen. Quinton Ross, D-Montgomery, voted in favor of the referendum last
year. Ross said he is opposed to gay marriages, but believes voters
should decide the issue.
Ross declined to say how he would vote on the amendment on June 6. "As a
state official, we're elected by all people," he said. "Of course, one's
preference or sexual orientation would be between them and their god."
The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Montgomery has embraced the gay
community and opposes the constitutional change.
Church member Mike Tatum said the congregation has about a dozen openly
gay members.
"They very much want to be able to take care of each other in their old
age," he said.
Though the Christian Coalition is spending about $50,000 on fliers
supporting the gay marriage ban, Giles said the message isn't for gays
to leave Alabama.
"This is about protecting traditional marriage," he said.
SAME SEX WEDDING CEREMONY At ACA Conference in Montreal
To enhance
awareness within the counseling profession of
the rights and benefits denied to same-sex
couples in the United States, ALGBTIC hosted an
official same-sex wedding event in Montreal,
Canada on April 1, 2006 for counselors attending
the joint meeting of the American Counseling
Association and the Canadian Counseling
Association.
Eight couples, four male couples and four female
couples, were married according to the laws of
the Canadian Province of Quebec in a civil
ceremony officiated by Brenda Langlois. The
ceremony included opening words from the
President of ACA, Patricia Arredondo, a
recitation of vows, a unity candle ceremony,
exchange of rings, and the official signature of
the registry. The couples came to Montreal from
as far away as Utah and have waited to get
officially married as long as 23 years.
Attending the ceremony were an estimated 300
family members, friends, ACA members, the
President of ACA, five ACA past presidents, the
ACA President-elect, and ACA divisional leaders
who wanted to show their support for the couples
and for the legal recognition of same-sex
marriage. Following the ceremony, the couples
were honored at a wedding reception with
champagne and a four-tiered wedding cake.
Newly married Dr. Joy Whitman, President of
ALGBTIC, stated, “our purpose in sponsoring a
public wedding for same-sex couples at this
conference is to highlight the inequity same-sex
couples experience and to raise awareness of
this inequity for counseling professionals.
Currently in the United States, same-sex couples
are spending their lives together with love and
commitment, but they are unable to access the
more than 1,138 automatic federal and additional
state protections afforded to legally married
couples. One of our goals was to identify
conditions that create barriers to the human
growth and development of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) clients and
communities. All counseling professionals are
charged with the goal to advocate for clients
and to change oppressive systems, systems that
serve as barriers towards mental health. I see
this event as joining our mission with that of
ACA and in doing so, highlighting that same-sex
couples continue to face discrimination when it
comes to the option to marry in the United
States. It is our hope that all counseling
professionals, LGBT and heterosexual, will join
together to fight for this right and therefore
improve the mental health of LGBT clients.”
The ceremony was
sponsored by ACA, the Association for Counselor
Education and Supervision and the American
Rehabilitation Counseling Association and
supported by Counselors for Social Justice and
the International Association of Addictions &
Offender Counselors, all divisions of ACA. The
organizations sponsored and supported the event
to demonstrate support for lesbian, gay, and
bisexual individuals and to bring to the
forefront ACA’s commitment to social justice.
ALGBTIC thanks our sponsors and supporters.
THE
CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
It Rests on Equality, Liberty and
Even Society
So
at last it is official: George Bush is in favor of unequal rights,
big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to
the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that
he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America
banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away
simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative
supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely
“Massachusetts liberal” opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to
call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and
draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be
worse than that: Mr. Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.
Mr. Bush says that he is acting to protect “the most fundamental
institution of civilization” from what he sees as “activist judges” who
in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that
banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution. The city
of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands of
marriage licenses to homosexual couples, in apparent contradiction to
state and even federal laws. It can only be a matter of time before this
issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. And those “activist judges”,
who, by the way, gave Mr. Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same
view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did
of their state code: that the constitution demands equality of
treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that state
anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to choose
how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying further
that “the Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to
mandate its own moral code”. That obligation could well lead the
justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.
That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two
countries—Belgium and the Netherlands—have given full legal status to
same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and
others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships. The
sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those
enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as,
for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When
The Economist first argued in favor of legalizing gay marriage eight
years ago (“Let them wed”, January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our
readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and
more than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical
change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be
blocked precipitously.
The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and
simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a
right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no
damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that
right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American
states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious
few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was “traditional”.
Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man
and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may
live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be
“married”. But that is to dodge the real question—why not?—and to
obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at
once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special
obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital
commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be
prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other
ways, are allowed to do so?
The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important
social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry
precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the
symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and
commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry
would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the
number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing,
commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing,
not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent
families that have wrought social damage.
But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it
often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter
that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes,
you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose
a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans
the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be
especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for
religious ends.
The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability
also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage—a
so-called civil union—is not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of
a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be
called a “marriage”. Some European countries, by legislating for equal
legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction
(Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition
Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some
gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather
than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash—of
the sort perhaps epitomized by Mr. Bush this week.
Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society.
Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal
contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for
some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't
everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would
threaten a fundamental institution of civilization.
From
The Economist, February 26, 2004, London
STAND
UP FOR THE RIGHT TO MARRY
Valentine's Day Message
A
robust debate and many personal conversations are helping our nation, in
President Lincoln's words, "think anew" about how America treats gay
couples and their kids and loved ones.
Every
year, around Lincoln's birthday and Valentine's Day, gay and non-gay
people gather in living rooms, houses of worship, parks and civic halls
to celebrate the values of equality and love, and call for an end to
discrimination in marriage.
Today
is Freedom to Marry Day, a day to share personal stories, and ask others
to push past discomfort and embrace fairness and marriage equality.
Freedom to Marry Week, which stretches from Feb. 12-18, helps even more
Americans get to know the real faces behind this civil rights movement.
Two
years ago on Feb. 12, the nation watched as hundreds of couples lined up
in San Francisco to legally wed in that state for the first time.
This
year, in hundreds of American cities, citizens will be hosting
statehouse rallies, wedding ceremonies, book parties, family picnics and
discussion groups to learn and inform about the freedom to marry.
Ministers and rabbis from Texas to Vermont and from Washington state to
the Sunshine State have given sermons in support of equal marriage
rights, helping their congregations to understand the scriptural
underpinnings of embracing their neighbors with love and compassion as
well as the importance of equal civil marriage rights for all families.
This
is a week to engage the people around us in this conversation about
fairness. Gay people - and our friends, families and allies - cannot
assume that just because a person loves us and is generally a good guy
that this person understands how the denial of marriage harms us. We
have to challenge each other and ourselves to make a more substantive,
moral case for what we stand for.
It is
not enough for gay people and our allies to say we are for marriage
equality, and then wait for the courts or legislators to do the heavy
lifting. Rather, it is our job to take every opportunity to address
people's concerns and discomfort, answer questions, and give them the
time and information they need.
When
non-gay people talk about marriage, they mean love, clarity, security,
respect, family, intimacy, dedication, self-sacrifice and equality -
qualities that describe the relationships and lives of gay and lesbian
couples just as well.
Trying to avoid supporting marriage equality by suggesting other, lesser
solutions such as civil unions only complicates the issue. It invites
questions about how such arrangements would be defined, what form they
would take, how they would differ from marriage and what role states or
the federal government would have.
Why
do we need two lines at the clerk's office, or unequal protections for
some couples and kids? With marriage, on the other hand, rights and
obligations are already clearly established in all 50 states as well as
with the federal government. Marriage is the system we have.
All
families should share equally in the rights, protections and
responsibilities currently afforded only to some. Gay families also
deserve health care, retirement protections, the ability to use money to
pay for education or a home and the ability to give kids the security to
openly and proudly describe their families. This would make our nation
stronger.
When
our friends and families are given the truth about the injustice and
unfairness of marriage discrimination, they are able to see past the
false distractions and put a human face to the issue.
With
justice and equality within reach, Freedom to Marry Week is an
opportunity to engage our neighbors and fellow citizens in the personal
and informational conversations they deserve - and trust that from this
commitment to engagement will come understanding about why marriage
matters to our families.
Lincoln stood up for freedom, equality and fairness for all, even when
it was at its most unpopular. Freedom to Marry Week also offers a unique
opportunity to stand up for freedom, equality and fairness.
