by T Maclay » Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:14 pm
by maudmac » Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:49 pm
Lame.by T Maclay » Wed Sep 24, 2003 4:35 pm
by Darcy » Wed Sep 24, 2003 8:54 pm
Quote:
That section is ended by saying: While further debate about the appropriate role of the state in marriage, including the possibility of removing the state from the marriage business, is worthwhile, we do not believe that this is a viable reform option at this time. So it is worthwhile - does this mean that it is the 'right thing to do'? - but not a viable option - read: we have control, why should the government reliquish it.
(Source below)Quote:
".... marriage is the only contract that imposes duties on third parties. When two people marry, not only do they agree to responsibilities toward each other, but they also involve other entities dealing with pension funds, investments, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, government matters and other practical issues."
*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"
by Lamashtu » Wed Sep 24, 2003 8:59 pm
by Tempest Duer » Wed Sep 24, 2003 9:10 pm
Quote:
I would say my love doesn't need the goverment or religion to validate it. My love is its own force and there isn't any institution that can either strengthen it or sanctify it.
I do need the goverment to give me the rights and priviliges that a marriage brings all heterosexuals.
Choosing not to decide is still a choice.
by Lijdrec » Thu Sep 25, 2003 4:12 am
by WebWarlock » Thu Sep 25, 2003 6:54 am
Quote:
I would say my love doesn't need the goverment or religion to validate it. My love is its own force and there isn't any institution that can either strengthen it or sanctify it.
I do need the goverment to give me the rights and priviliges that a marriage brings all heterosexuals.
-----
Web Warlock
The Other Side,
home of Liber Mysterium: The Netbook of Witches and Warlocks: Available October 31st, 2003!
“Well-behaved women rarely make history.” - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich,
Professor Harvard University.
by Darcy » Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:48 pm
). It's amazing what myths abound. I've actually had people tell me that same-sex marriage in the US was legal, and they're astonished to learn that's not the case.
*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"
by WebWarlock » Wed Oct 01, 2003 10:21 am
Quote:
Gays, lesbians view registry as progress
Cook County's enrollment of same-sex couples `a step forward, not completion of the journey'
By Bonnie Miller Rubin, Tribune staff reporter. Tribune staff reporter Jodi S. Cohen contributed to this report
Published October 1, 2003
For Julia Salgado, Wednesday is a significant day. Not everything she dreams of, perhaps, but definitely something to savor.
This is the first time that Salgado, 49, and her partner, Miriam Torrado, 42, will be able to formally document their commitment to each other in Cook County through its newly established Domestic Partnership Registry. They plan to arrive at the county clerk's downtown office before the doors open at 8:30 a.m.
"It isn't legalized marriage, but it certainly is an accomplishment," said Salgado, who along with Torrado is raising two young daughters in Chicago. "It should be seen as a step forward--but not as completion of the journey."
Although gay and lesbian couples greeted the registry with mixed emotions--one man compared it to a mundane civic obligation, "like getting a driver's license"--everyone is unanimous on one point: Life is better with the registry than without it.
"We will rejoice because the city is finally recognizing that there's been an injustice," said Salgado, a medical technician.
Although domestic partnership registries started gaining support nationwide in the 1990s, the only other government entity in Illinois to operate such a program is the Village of Oak Park.
No new legal rights
The registry doesn't create any new legal rights, but its importance should not be discounted, said Cook County Clerk David Orr, who said there was a "buzz in the air" as his staff prepared for what they expect to be a very busy day.
"It is a symbol, but symbols are important," Orr said. "It says that same-sex couples have a right to a committed partnership ... and the government recognizes that right."
But beyond the symbolic value, there is also the sense that this is something of a romantic occasion, a chance for couples to publicly honor their love and commitment.
Salgado plans to wear the same outfit that she wore on her first date with Torrado. After they pay their $30 filing fee--the same cost as a marriage license--and sign an affidavit, the couple will attend a reception across the street, where they will bask in the glow of good friends and goodwill.
More acceptance
The opening of the registry caps off a summer of unprecedented strides for the gay community, from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down anti-sodomy laws and Canada's decision allowing same-sex marriages to the mainstream success of the TV series "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."
Some observers fear such changes have sparked a backlash, galvanizing support for a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman and other initiatives.
According to the county clerk's office, 49 cities and eight counties in the U.S. have established domestic partnership registries.
In Cook County, at least one of the partners must live or work in Cook County. Both must be at least 18 years old and share a household.
Officials are unsure how many couples will show up for opening day. In Oak Park, 66 couples have signed up since the registry was started in 1997 for residents only.
The new program will make it easier for gay and lesbian couples to obtain insurance and other job benefits, Orr said.
"The certificate provides proof that this is a committed relationship," he said.
For Jim Darby, any work-related perks that accompany a domestic partnership come a little too late.
"I'm too old to take advantage of these things, but for younger people they're important," said Darby, 71, of Hyde Park.
Still, he plans to be at the clerk's office Wednesday with his partner, Patrick Bova, 65. The registry certificate may be invaluable when dealing with certain end-of-life issues, such as organ donation, he said.
Darby already knows how possessing the right documents can confer certain privileges. When Bova recently had heart bypass surgery, only power of attorney allowed Darby to stay by his bedside.
"This is my life partner," said Darby, a teacher who logged 30 years with the Chicago Public Schools. "He is more important than anything."
The two have been together since 1963, when Darby first spotted Bova at the University of Chicago library. He calls it "love at first sight."
Darby views signing up for the registry in far less sentimental terms: "To me, it's like getting a driver's license."
No trip to Canada
It never occurred to the two men to trek to Canada, where the highest court ruled in June to allow gay marriages.
"I'm American," said Darby, who served in the Korean War and is active in a gay veterans group. "If marriage was legal here, it would be a different story."
The fact that Michael Bauer and Roger Simon, both 50, have already tied the knot in Toronto has not dampened their enthusiasm for Cook County's ordinance.
"To be legally married--even if it isn't recognized here in Illinois--is so phenomenal to me," said Bauer, a lawyer and political activist.
That the world has changed so dramatically since 1992--when several couples in Hawaii decided to sue for the right to marry--is nothing short of amazing, Bauer said.
So why queue up on Wednesday for something less?
"Domestic registries may have little legal significance but great legal symbolism--which in civil rights movements are very important," Bauer said.
Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune
-----
Web Warlock
The Other Side,
home of Liber Mysterium: The Netbook of Witches and Warlocks: Available October 31st, 2003!
“Well-behaved women rarely make history.” - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich,
Professor Harvard University.
by Ben Varkentine » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:03 pm
Quote:
by Doug Ireland
As George Bush's poll numbers began seriously dwindling, Karl Rove and the White House political strategists decided to reach into their bag of tricks and come up with a good old staple of reactionary politics: homophobia.
The decision to scapegoat gay and lesbian Americans was poll-driven by an antigay backlash that gathered steam in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 26 decision, in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down laws making gay sex between consenting adults illegal--the so-called sodomy laws. The backlash first surfaced in a July 25-27 Gallup poll. It showed that support for legalizing gay sex had plummeted a dramatic twelve points, to only 48 percent, down from a comfortable 60 percent in favor of legalization in Gallup's May survey. Those saying "homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle" also slalomed down from 54 to 46 percent; and support for same-sex civil unions dropped from 49 to 40 percent. Two weeks later, a Washington Post poll showed that support for gay civil unions had dropped three points lower than in Gallup's. Since then, five other national polls have confirmed the antigay trend.
Just two days after Gallup released its poll showing the backlash, Bush unexpectedly used a Rose Garden press conference to announce that he'd assigned lawyers to come up with a plan to stop gay marriage. Bush and the Republicans had been under enormous pressure from the Christian right and social conservatives--including National Review and The Weekly Standard--to support a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which would ban recognition of any form of marriage between two persons of the same gender. (The FMA would also forbid giving same-sex couples the "legal incidents" of marriage, thus vitiating the civil-union law in Vermont and any other state that followed suit.)
The GOP had already signaled it would respond to that pressure and use gay marriage as a wedge issue against the Democrats in the Congressional elections when, not long before Bush's Rose Garden declaration, Senate Republican majority leader Bill Frist declared on This Week in June that he would "absolutely" support the FMA. Frist's declaration was no go-it-aloner's gaffe: It was made "with no-fingerprints support from the White House," as Howard Fineman and Debra Rosenberg reported in Newsweek.
Since then, the Republicans have ratcheted up their anti-gay marriage crusade. On July 29 the Senate Republican Policy Committee adopted a twelve-page policy paper declaring that gay marriage was a "threat" to the established social order. Then, Senate Judiciary subcommittee chairman John Cornyn of Texas--declaring that "we must do whatever it takes" to stop same-sex unions--held formal hearings on the gay marriage issue on September 4 (in the House, where the FMA already has eighty-nine co-sponsors, similar hearings are expected this fall). These hearings are being held even though Congress, by overwhelming majorities in both houses, in 1996 passed the antigay Defense of Marriage Act, which Bill Clinton signed into law (the DOMA denies federal recognition and benefits to same-sex marriages and allows states to deny recognition of such unions performed in other states). However, Cornyn's staff produced a gaggle of witnesses echoing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, in which he warned that the majority's ruling would dismantle "the structure...that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions." Among those Cornyn called to testify, for example, was former Texas solicitor general Gregory Coleman, who argued that "it is likely" that the US Supreme Court will hold DOMA unconstitutional in the near future. (Another GOP witness, syndicated Murdoch columnist Maggie Gallagher, went so far as to write that "polygamy is not worse than gay marriage, it is better"!) Indeed, many legal scholars have argued forcefully that the federal DOMA violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, which provides that states cannot ignore other states' proceedings but must recognize them and put them into effect. In that context, all the electorally motivated demagogy coming out of the Rose Garden and the Cornyn hearings creates momentum behind the proposed antigay constitutional amendment.
At the state level, too, Republican antigay initiatives are snowballing. In Wisconsin, despite the fact that state law already bans same-sex marriage, forty-nine legislators--saying the existing statute is "too vague"--have introduced a new Defense of Marriage Act with even tougher language, and it took less than a minute for the Wisconsin Assembly's Judiciary Committee to pass it 6 to 0 on September 11. Michigan Republicans are introducing a similar bill in the State Senate. In Ohio thirty-two Republicans and one Democrat introduced a "super-DOMA" on September 9 that would ban civil unions and domestic partnership benefits for gay couples as well as same-sex marriage. In Colorado, House Republican majority leader Keith King is behind a resolution in favor of the FMA. And in Massachusetts a Republican-sponsored state constitutional amendment banning civil unions and gay marriage is being pushed by a Democrat, powerful House Speaker Thomas Finneran, a social conservative. More gay-bashing legislation is expected to be introduced at the state level soon. Democrats voting against bills like these will find those votes used to try to defeat them; and, given the current climate of backlash, how many from marginal seats will stand up and say no to such measures?
Remember how the Republicans' subliminal gaybaiting evoked the specter of the "San Francisco Democrats" after the party held its national convention there in 1984? Well, one can expect attacks on the "Boston Democrats" next year if, as many Bay State legal prognosticators believe is likely, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit arguing that banning gay marriage violates the state Constitution (a decision is expected any day--and a similar case is working its way toward the New Jersey Supreme Court). "If the Massachusetts decision goes our way," says National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Matt Foreman, "there's no way the right won't make it a huge issue in '04--the backlash against such a decision would make gay marriage the defining social issue" in next year's elections. Already, GOP National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, in a September 23 Washington Times interview, predicted that the party's platform next year would probably include support for the constitutional amendment. Gillespie turned up the antigay rhetoric, accusing gay activists of "religious bigotry" and "intolerance" in demanding equal marriage rights. And the Denver Post's Washington bureau has not been alone in predicting that if the Massachusetts court rules in favor of same-sex unions, Bush will then flat-out endorse the FMA.
Make no mistake: The Bush Administration has been feeling the heat from the conservative ultras. "The far right wants a civil war in the Republican Party," says Patrick Guerriero, a former Melrose, Massachusetts, mayor who is the new national head of the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), a GOP gay group. "It's very clear from all the signals coming from the far right that they want to take the GOP back" to the culture wars trumpeted at the 1992 Republican National Convention, Guerriero says, "on gay marriage and other culture issues that appeal to their fundraising base." The Rev. Jerry Falwell recently announced that he will devote all his time and energy to opposing gay marriage and campaigning for the FMA; the Traditional Values Coalition has been sending out 1.5 million pieces of mail a month on the gay marriage issue; and addicts of Christian and conservative radio have been treated to daily diatribes against gay marriage from the likes of Focus on the Family's James Dobson, who has more radio listeners than CNN has viewers, and the Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, which has 200 affiliated Christian radio stations.
The thirteen states in which "sodomy" laws were struck down by the Supreme Court were all states that Bush carried in his first election. But the Republicans' decision to embrace political homophobia anew is more than simply a sop to the Christers and the far right--given the antigay backlash, it's shrewd political strategy. Karl Rove never tires of pointing out that 4 million of the 19 million evangelical Christians didn't vote in 2000. With 2004 shaping up as another close election, Rove & Co. want to energize the Christian-right base to which Bush is already so heavily indebted (it motored his 2000 primary victories against John McCain) and insure a maximum turnout among the AWOL evangelicals and other Christian traditionalists.
Pushing the antigay hot button is also designed to help the Republicans increase their Congressional majorities. Most of the open or marginal Senate seats are on turf where the gay marriage issue undoubtedly helps Republicans. In Georgia, where nominal Democrat Zell Miller is retiring, a Zogby poll in August showed that two-thirds of the state's voters oppose same-sex unions. In North and South Carolina, where John Edwards and Fritz Hollings have decided not to seek re-election, a Carolinas Poll of the two states sponsored by the Charlotte Observer and released September 14 showed a 3-to-1 opposition to legal recognition of same-sex unions. Then there's Alaska, which has already passed, by referendum, a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; Florida, where Representative Mark Foley was forced to abandon his GOP primary campaign for US Senate because of negative voter reaction to a local newspaper story alleging he was gay; and Illinois, where half the electorate is rural or suburban and the urban areas are heavily Catholic. (Following the Pope's recent ukase demanding that all Catholics oppose gay marriage and gay civil unions, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on September 10 endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment. No doubt the bishops will follow their counterparts in Canada--where Jean Chrétien's government is supporting making gay marriage legal--in denouncing progay politicians from the pulpit.) In the House, only sixty Congressional seats are considered in play by the National Committee for an Effective Congress--and almost all of them are in rural, suburban or exurban districts infinitely less gay-friendly than urban areas, districts in which nuclear-family NASCAR Dads and Soccer Moms are susceptible to antigay appeals.
There is evidence of antigay backlash even in California. It has always been a staple of gay political strategy that as more and more gay people came out of the closet to their friends, neighbors and workmates, social acceptance of same-sexers would rise. But despite the fact that California has large numbers of out gays all over the state, a Field Poll released August 29 showed that half the voters there oppose the idea of gay marriage--and 42 percent favor the FMA. Homophobia was already deployed by the GOP in the Big Enchilada's recall, which was financed by notorious homophobe Representative Darrell Issa. "It's a major motivating force," says Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, the statewide gay lobbying and political action group, adding, "At the recall rallies you've seen lots of signs saying Recall Gay Davis." Davis may be a poster boy for campaign-finance corruption, but he has appointed a raft of out gays to office and just signed a major progay domestic-partners law passed by the legislature.
In many parts of the country, the antigay backlash was fed too by federal court orders to remove the two-and-a-half-ton replica of the Ten Commandments--known as "Roy's Rock"--from the Alabama Supreme Court. This religious brouhaha is mixed up in the minds of the simple as of a piece with the US Supreme Court's "sodomy" law decision in an assault on "family values." A Gallup poll found that 77 percent of Americans opposed the federal order to remove the monolith. Roy's Rock "has been a big story throughout the nation," says veteran Democratic political consultant Hank Sheinkopf. "I've worked in the Deep South for twenty-five years, and the Washington types don't understand just what an enormous impact all of this together will have. And not just on Christians--it's a reflection of the states' rights mentality that plays on distrust of the federal government. Race is no longer the dividing line in this country--it's religion and region."
Furthermore, the tens of millions of dollars being raised by the Democrats and labor to register and energize frequently religious black, Hispanic and working-class voters will bring to the polls many who could be swayed by combined antigay and religious appeals (which is why Bush has poured political patronage labeled "faith-based initiatives" into conservative black and Hispanic churches). All the national polls show that the lower down voters are on the education and income scales, the more antigay they are; thus, blacks oppose gay marriage by a whopping 65 to 28 percent, while among Hispanics it's 54 to 40 percent, according to an August New York Times poll. Former Martin Luther King Jr. aide Rev. Walter Fauntroy is one of the leaders of the antigay Alliance for Marriage, which backs the FMA, and the group's board is stacked with bishops and pastors from the African Methodist Episcopal Church.
The rabid right and its allies in the White House are aware of all of the above--which is why we can expect a relaunch of the antigay culture wars in 2004.
Ben
"We are all one. And if we do not know, we will learn it the hard way."
-- Bayard Rustin, organizer of the 1963 March on Washington
by maudmac » Fri Oct 03, 2003 3:30 pm
WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER, GET USED TO IT I have often been adrift, but I have always stayed afloat. -- David Berry, The Whales of August
by Lijdrec » Fri Oct 03, 2003 8:44 pm
at: 10/3/03 7:49 pmby Lamashtu » Sat Oct 04, 2003 12:13 pm
-Mina
Everything is miraculous. It is miraculous that one does not melt in one's bath. -Pablo Picasso
by Lijdrec » Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:55 am
Gay Sex Is a Sacred Institution, and Its Protection Is Essential to the continued strength of our society. Gay Sex Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of gay sex and on engaging in hot and wet gay sex in America.
We must support the institution of gay sex and help gays have multiple orgasms. And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect (unless they're not into that).
During Gay Sex Protection Week, I call on all Americans to join me in expressing support for the institution of gay sex with all its benefits to our porno, our culture, and our society.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, NICK "SPATULA" JOHNSON, Founder of morons.org, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the readers of the site, do hereby proclaim the week of October 12 through October 18, 2003, as Gay Sex Protection Week. I call upon all people to observe this week with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies (especially lots of gay sex).
Yeah, kinda lame, but it's the thought that counts. Everybody have as much gay sex as possible next week, even if you're straight. Piss off a fundie. Break some sodomy laws, UNDER GOD. It's your civic duty.
---Nick
by maudmac » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:59 pm
Quote:
Bush Signs Anti-Gay Proclamation
by Paul Johnson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: October 6, 2003 11:16 a.m. ET
(Washington, D.C.) Despite objections from LGBT civil rights groups, President George W. Bush has signed a proclamation supporting Marriage Protection Week to be held October 12-18. No such proclamation was issued by the White House for a similar week supporting same-sex relationships.
"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents," the presidential proclamation declares.
"Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America," the statement, released by the White House, says.
It goes on to state that: "Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures. Through education and counseling programs, faith-based, community, and government organizations promote healthy marriages and a better quality of life for children. By supporting responsible child-rearing and strong families, my Administration is seeking to ensure that every child can grow up in a safe and loving home."
Marriage Protection Week was created by an alliance of conservative Christian lobby groups including the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association and Real Women, along with fundamentalist ministers Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
The Bush proclamation also states that: "We must support the institution of marriage and help parents build stronger families. And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect."
"During Marriage Protection Week, I call on all Americans to join me in expressing support for the institution of marriage with all its benefits to our people, our culture, and our society," the proclamation concludes.
The Human Rights Campaign Monday issued a strong criticism of the proclamation.
"It is reprehensible for a president who claims to be compassionate to pander to a coalition of extremist groups by joining their assault on gay families," said Elizabeth Birch, HRC's executive director.
"The American people want to see politicians in Washington concentrating on the real threats to our families - an unstable economy, high unemployment rates and uncertainty in Iraq - not guaranteeing that same-sex couples are left without more than 1,000 rights, responsibilities and protections under federal law."
The nation's LGBT Democrats also rebuked the President for signing the proclamation.
"The Bush Administration has issued a direct attack on millions of American families on behalf of anti-gay organizations," Dave Noble, NSD Executive Director told 365Gay.com. "President Bush has failed to address even one of the thousands of issues that negatively impact our families, yet he has chosen to grant discrimination a federal blessing with this proclamation."
The same week as conservatives hold Marriage Protection Week , supporters of same-sex marriage will hold Marriage Equality Week.
Hundreds of Metropolitan Community Churches across the United States will dedicate the week to the legalization of same-sex marriage. (story)
"During the same week that the Religious Right will work to deny a basic human right to gays and lesbians, hundreds to faith communities will take public stands in support of equality in the marriage laws for gay couples," said the Rev Troy Perry, MCC moderator.
Proposed legislation seeking a constitutional amendment to permanently ban same sex marriage is currently working its way through the House of Representatives. (story)
©365Gay.com® 2003
I have often been adrift, but I have always stayed afloat. -- David Berry, The Whales of August
Edited by: maudmac at: 10/6/03 11:59 pmby emma peel » Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:46 am
by maudmac » Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:58 am
I have often been adrift, but I have always stayed afloat. -- David Berry, The Whales of August
by emma peel » Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:07 am
).by WebWarlock » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:04 am
-----
Web Warlock
The Other Side,
home of Liber Mysterium: The Netbook of Witches and Warlocks: Available October 31st, 2003!
“Well-behaved women rarely make history.” - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich,
Professor Harvard University.
by Repost Moderator » Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:24 am
by Lijdrec » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:12 am
at: 10/9/03 12:01 pmby maudmac » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:47 am
Quote:
Today's court ruling said that "although many traditional views of homosexuality have been recast over time in our state and nation, the choice to marry a same-sex partner has not taken sufficient root to achieve constitutional protection as a fundamental right."
Quote:
Writing for the court Judge Ann A. Scott Timmer said that the prohibition against same-sex marriage "rationally furthers a legitimate state interest," it does not deprive the couple of their constitutional rights.
I have often been adrift, but I have always stayed afloat. -- David Berry, The Whales of August
by Darcy » Thu Oct 09, 2003 9:01 pm
*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"
by Lijdrec » Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:36 pm
Quote:
They have accepted the gay man next door, the lesbian couple down the street. They have agreed that gay Americans should not be discriminated against. But same-sex marriage is something else.
"I am not a bigoted person," said Vincenza Maiorano, a 20-year-old Temple University junior from Northeast Philadelphia. "I'm in favor of gay rights and antidiscriminatory legislation for gays. But within the context of Catholicism, marriage is blessed by the church and reserved for a union of a man and woman. Gay people don't have the right to marry."
For people such as Maiorano, the images of two tuxedos at the altar, or two wedding dresses under the chuppah, are just too unsettling. Maiorano is part of a hard-to-track, demographically diverse group that includes liberals and conservatives, city folk and suburbanites, the religious and the nonreligious. Some - dubbed "Morally Anguished Fence Sitters," or MAFS - are intellectually troubled by their heartfelt anti-gay marriage stance, and have a hard time squaring it with their support of gay rights. Others are less conflicted.
Even so, they all consider gay marriage an uncrossable line.
"I'm a MAFS," said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank on the family, based in New York. "On the one hand, people like us don't want to be bigots, and we believe in equal dignity for people, regardless of sexual orientation. On the other hand, we believe children deserve a mother and father and are worried about a law that would write that idea out of the script. People are torn about this."
John Musumeci, 51, owner of Alloway Village Hardware & Feed in Salem County, feels no such discomfort. "I don't care about sexual orientation, but gay marriage is a step too far," said Musumeci, a former Navy man and nuclear engineer. "Marriage is for procreation of the human species. There's a fundamental principle that's wrong when a government or a church says two girls or guys can marry."
A confluence of events
These days, gay marriage remains a topic of widespread debate. Many Americans are still whirling from a confluence of events over the summer that placed gay life at the forefront of U.S. culture. Since June, Canada legalized gay marriage; the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law, a ruling that many believe could pave the way to gay marriage; and the Episcopal Church elected an openly gay bishop. Meanwhile, court watchers are awaiting a ruling in a Massachusetts case - said to be imminent - that could make that state the first to allow gay marriage.
In addition, television has been filled with gay-centric shows, while photos of men kissing men and women kissing women have been making the newspapers. Polls show that these events and trends might be changing many Americans' minds about gay rights, which had been receiving growing support until recently. Between 1992 and 2002, the percentage of Americans who said it was wrong for people to engage in homosexual sex fell from 75 percent to 56 percent - "a huge drop," according to Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the University of Chicago. He attributed that in part to the deaths of elderly Americans who disapprove of gay life, along with an increased acceptance of homosexuals encouraged by the Clinton administration. But in a recent reversal, a Gallup poll taken after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June showed that Americans' approval of civil unions between homosexuals decreased from 49 percent to 40 percent.
A 28th Amendment?
And support for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning gay marriage, has begun to grow. Polls show that half of Americans favor it, although when it came up at a Senate hearing last month, there was little support. Two dozen conservative groups have declared this "Marriage Protection Week," starting today, an idea endorsed by President Bush. They are trying to gather support for the amendment, which would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Could this change in trends reflect the attitude of MAFS and others opposed to, or ambivalent about, gay marriage?
"Even very liberal people say gay marriage makes them uncomfortable," political scientist Alan Wolfe said. Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, added, "There are significant numbers of people who support tolerance for homosexuality, but marriage is the issue where they draw the line. Marriage is an ideal image Americans want to protect."
Some heterosexuals reject gay marriage on religious grounds, citing biblical verses that they believe prohibit it. Others say that while sexuality is private, marriage is public - and that gay people should keep their love lives unseen. Another concern given by some is that gay marriage will drain the benefits system, such as health insurance, a notion that is still being debated. Many are confused by an idea that seems radical and difficult to understand.
John Di Pasquale, 71, of Springfield Township, Montgomery County, describes himself as a liberal who was part of the avant-garde Beat Generation of the 1950s. He is against the conservative call for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriage. Di Pasquale believes that "whatever homosexual people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is OK." He thinks gay people should be able to adopt and raise children. But, he said, "I think gay marriage is ludicrous. It puts the whole institution in a bad situation. A marriage is a man-and-woman situation. And marriage is sacred."
Jim Fenton, 68, of Bridesburg, who is relatively conservative on political and social issues, said he was "not for or against gays," adding that his attitude is, "just don't bother me and I won't bother you." But, he said, "same-sex marriage ruins the fabric of the family, whether there are children or not. And families are the backbone of the nation."
Adapting a more conciliatory tone, Patricia Little, 37, director of a University City group that works with inner-city teenagers, said she always has felt comfortable with gay colleagues and friends. Still, she does not agree with the notion of gay marriage, because it's not supported by her born-again Christian-Presbyterian views. "It boils down to what the Bible says," Little explained. "For me, it's Leviticus, First Corinthians, Romans, and the Adam and Eve story, of one man with one woman. Still, I do not condemn or treat homosexual people differently."
Although some critics in the gay community say it is not possible to support homosexuals and object to gay marriage - "if you're not for it, you're against us" is the attitude - representatives of gay-marriage groups take a more understanding view. As hard as it is for gay people to hear anti-marriage views from these middle-of-the-roaders, criticizing MAFS would be unfair, according to David Smith, an official with the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay-advocacy group, based in Washington. "People who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage or with images of gays kissing in newsmagazines are not bigoted," Smith said. "People are operating out of what they've been taught as they've grown up, which is, unfortunately, that being gay is wrong. People are trying to come to terms in their own minds with this, and are working through the issues."
Similarly, Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a New York City-based national group working for acceptance of gay marriage, sees a class of Americans he calls the "confused middle." "They grew up not knowing gay people, and they're struggling with this issue," Wolfson said. "But they are thinking things through, and their positions are much further along than a decade ago. And they'll be in a better place a decade from now."
Smith said younger Americans were more accepting of gay culture and tended to be more supportive of the idea of gay marriage, which, he added, bodes well for the future. But today it's still an issue that leaves the nation deeply divided.
"Maybe I'm missing the point somewhere," said Catherine McLaughlin, 74, of Fox Chase. She's a generally liberal retired federal employee who attends church and does not consider herself closed-minded. "I try to be a good person and understand all people. But I cringe when I see two of the same sex getting married. It shouldn't be condoned. It's just the way I was brought up."
at: 10/13/03 11:17 pmby maudmac » Tue Oct 14, 2003 12:53 am
The underlying message is that we will pollute marriage and the HRC can be as Stepin Fetchit about this as they want to be, but if that is how these MAFS people feel about us, they are bigots. I have often been adrift, but I have always stayed afloat. -- David Berry, The Whales of August
by maudmac » Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:36 am
I have often been adrift, but I have always stayed afloat. -- David Berry, The Whales of August
by urnofosiris » Tue Oct 28, 2003 6:05 am
The last mosquito that bit me had to check into the Betty Ford Clinic.
--Patsy Stone
by Lamashtu » Tue Oct 28, 2003 10:18 pm
-Mina
Everything is miraculous. It is miraculous that one does not melt in one's bath. -Pablo Picasso
by angelofinsanity » Tue Nov 04, 2003 10:23 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
