This humble editor searches for an answer to the question "where is the harm" -- of passing the marriage constitution initiative in California... The Desert Sun buries the lead in the story, "
Conservative group continues efforts to outlaw same-sex marriage". Not only is that "dog bites man" blasé, but most of the story is about the extraordinary efforts to call a constitutional amendment, well, unconstitutional. According to the report, it is being argued to the Supreme court that the California constitution is static work which cannot be revised. It can only amended.
We visited the horror of this case, asking the Supreme Court of California to usurp the power from the people to decide what is in the constitution already.
Law Professor Kenji Yoshino
writes for the LA times about the predicament of the California amendment actually succeeding. Largely it seems that there is no solid argument to Prof Yoshino that will preserve any existing same-sex marriages after the amendment is passed, and so he puts his hope in one source...
Despite the settled law in this area, many people -- including lawyers -- still seem to believe that the June-November marriages will be safe simply because it would be so unfair to annul them.
California, it should be remembered, has a program called "Domestic Partnerships" which ascribes literally every state benefit of marriage on anyone in that program. Anyone who set aside their DP for marriage has gained no state benefits at all, and annulling those marriage has no effect on their benefits. It is difficult to explain whether there would be any harm at all to these couples. It seems this appeal to sympathy may be less grounded than the legal arguments Prof Yoshino discusses in his column.
Gay Newsnet has some good figures and investigation behind the impact that marriage initiatives have had on the election of politicians in general. It asks, "
Can gay marriage save the GOP again".
This should be an obvious warning to the current set of political candidates, Bush was the clearly the choice for people who wanted to defend marriage equality (meaning the quality of each gender's participation in marriage). But that wasn't because he was the only one who opposed neutered marriage. Like the candidates this year, both Kerry and Bush opposed neutered marriage. But Bush outlined a plan to support marriage that made much more sense.
The New York Times has
a piece with more inviting angles than a tesseract, and I think its a great read. One may ask the questions while reading, "where did they get their understanding of marriage, and what will it mean in the future?"
But as same-sex marriage begins in California, Massachusetts’s experience may offer hints of what is to come. For example, after an initial euphoric rush to the altar, the number of gay weddings here fell sharply and has declined each year since. Of the more than 10,500 same-sex couples married here since May 17, 2004, 6,121 wed in the first six months. There were 2,060 weddings in 2005; 1,442 in 2006; and 867 in the first eight months of 2007, the most recent data show.
Gay men and lesbians say the early wave of weddings reflected “pent-up demand” from longstanding couples. The subsequent numbers indicate that “marriage isn’t for everybody,” said Mary L. Bonauto, a lawyer who argued the case that led to same-sex marriage being legalized here. And, Ms. Bonauto said, “there’s only so many gay people in Massachusetts.”
We've debated the meaning of the numbers in the past. But you can't argue with testimony like this:
While many couples want conventional marriages, some are drawing on a creative definition of family forged while living “outside mainstream society,” said Joyce Kauffman, a family lawyer and gay activist. “They’ve incorporated whatever’s outside the box into their marriage.”
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.”
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”
Still, Mr. Erbelding said, most married gay couples he knows are “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.”
For the record that was "most", "for the most part".
Each case is an interesting look into this question, but I can only highlight one more:
Amy Bullock married in 2004 after her partner of nine years said “we’ve got to quick do it because maybe they’ll reverse” the law, Ms. Bullock recalled. They had a child and were considering having another. But five months after the wedding, “she decides she is straight,” Ms. Bullock said.
“Maybe being married triggered those feelings,” she said. “I didn’t see it coming.”
It wasn't just trying to figure out what marriage actually means to same-sex couples which caused confusion, it was figuring out what divorce and children would mean. "Her partner", the report continues, "needed to adopt their son before divorcing to retain parental rights".
(Source Link)
06-30-2008, 10:40 PM
California's static constitution on the move, marriage initiatives impact on partisan
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
