Lose some....lose some more

[Daniel]

It is disheartening to see the same 'logic' (or more to the point lack thereof!) that was used in the recent NY case again used in Washington. It recalls to mind the mean-spririted Anita Bryant campaign" Save our Children." Where exactly, one wonders, is the interests of the children of gya and lesbians parents being served. Not in this decision. That's for sure. But at heart, these decisions are not able children or parents: they are about homophobia.

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/07/072606waruling.htm

Washington State Gay Marriage Ban Upheld
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

July 26, 2006 - 11:16 am ET, Updated 11:35 am ET

(Olympia, Washington) The state of Washington's ban on same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a split decision the justices ruled that only opposite-sex couples are biologically capable of having children and the legislature acted reasonably and in the best interests of children.

The court did, however, say that the legislature could repeal DOMA and pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

"We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington," the ruling said.

"It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be."

Gay and lesbian couples denied marriage licenses filed suit in 2004. Two lower courts ruled that the state law barring gay marriage was unconstitutional and the the high court heard arguments in the case in March 2005. (story).

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the same-sex couples had argued that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional - pointing to a 34 word clause in the state constitution.

The key passage is Article 1, Section 12, which says, “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen ... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

LGBT civil rights groups were quick to denounce the ruling.

"The American family is strengthened when the legal responsibilities of marriage which protect children, stabilize homes and secure relationships are provided equally to all couples," said Jo Wyrick, National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director. "Washington State has an economic and social interest in promoting the stability of the family, and it is stunning that the Washington State Supreme Court would base its ruling on personal opinion rather than on law."

Had the court struck down the existing law it could have been more important that the Massachusetts high court ruling that allowed that state to become the first in the national to allow same-sex marriage.

In Massachusetts a state law going back to the days when interracial marriage was illegal has been used to prevent same-sex couples from outside the state from going there to marry.

The state of Washington has no such law.

Earlier this month the highest court in New York State ruled that the state "Constitution does not compel the recognition of marriages between members of the same sex." (story)

A decision is also awaited in the state of New Jersey. Arguments in that case were heard in February. (story) Garden State Equality said today's ruling in Washington will have no effect on the New Jersey case.

"On LGBT rights as well as on other social issues, New Jersey law has long been different from the laws of other states" said the organization's chair Steven Goldstein. "Additionally, New Jersey courts have been among the most fair-minded in the country, from allowing same-sex couples to adopt jointly to holding that the Boy Scouts may not discriminate against a gay scoutmaster.
A midlevel appeals court in California heard arguments July 10 in a series of cases challenging that state's ban on gay marriage. (story) The issue is expected to reach the California Supreme Court next year.

©365Gay.com 2006

[keltic63]

is it now possible to interpret that law as meaning that only heterosexual couples capable of reproducing are allowed to marry?

[NathanATX]

Man... I feel like I'm on an island full of cannibals.

[Zerbie]

But what was the techincal reason for this ruling? I see the quote about "only opposite sex couples" can bear children, but what about that amounts to a judicial decision?

Was the court ruling that it's not unconstitutional to pass a DOMA?

[Jamie McDaniel]

We are a nation without leaders. Or rather a nation where the people who are in leadership positions do not lead but merely make decisions. There is certainly a difference between the two.

Is there no one in leadership who possesses the moral courage to say that recognizing the marriages of same-gender couples is right and that such not only should be done but will be done? People in power that oppose us are very vocal, while those that are supposed to be "progressive" desire to appear compassionate yet always want someone else to be the one to give GLBT people equality.

"We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington," the ruling said.

"It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be."

[Daniel]

Jamie- I agree with you. We have no leaders and the progressive 'leaders', if you can call them that, are looking over their shoulders. And not only they: my husband, who has been on the Times Forum this morning, related the tid-bit that 3 out of the 5 judges for the majority are up for re-election, while none on the dissenting side are. This aside, what is most disturbring about this decision is the lack of 'heightened scrutiny' which has been talked about elsewhere- the legalize being the term 'rational basis'. Again, gay people are not being credited as being of a 'class' worthy of rights. Again, we are being treated as though we are dogs at the table, and this decision is the scraps.

Originally Posted by NYTimes

July 26, 2006
Washington Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage

By ADAM LIPTAK
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a state law banning same-sex marriages. The justices issued six opinions in the case, with some in the majority saying that the state legislature remained free to extend the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples.

The four dissenting justices said the majority relied on speculation and circular reasoning to endorse discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Massachusetts remains the only state that sanctions gay marriage. New York’s highest court upheld a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples earlier this month. The New Jersey Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of gay marriages there soon.

The Washington decision consolidated two cases in which state trial courts had struck down a 1998 state law prohibiting same-sex marriages. The cases were brought by 19 gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to marry or to have their marriages from other jurisdictions recognized in Washington.

The controlling opinion in today’s decision, signed by three justices, reversed the lower courts, holding that the 1998 law, the Washington Defense of Marriage Act, was supported by rational reasons. “Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” Judge Barbara A. Madsen wrote in that opinion, “furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.”

In a dissent signed by three other justices, Justice Mary Fairhurst questioned the logic of that assertion. “Would giving same-sex couples the same right that opposite-sex couples enjoy injure the state’s interest in procreation and healthy child rearing?” she asked.

Justice Madsen stressed the limited nature of the court’s ruling. All that was required for the 1998 law to pass constitutional muster, she wrote, was some rational basis, a highly deferential standard of review. Laws challenged on the basis of race or sex discrimination are generally subjected to more searching review. But Justice Madsen wrote that the plaintiffs were not entitled to such review because they had not demonstrated that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic like race or gender.

She added that the judges should not dictate public policy. The law banning gay marriages may yet change, she said, but not “because five members of this court have dictated it.”

“We see no reason, however,” Justice Madsen added, “why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from enacting a the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington.”

Two other justices in the majority took a harder line in a concurring opinion. There is, wrote Justice James Johnson, joined by Justice Richard B. Sanders, “a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage.”

“This conclusion,” Justice Johnson continued, “may not be changed by mere passage of time or currents of public favor and surely not changed by the courts.”

The four dissenting justices, in three opinions, sharply attacked the majority.

“The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens,” Justice Fairhurst wrote, adding that the 1998 law “was motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.”

Justice Bobbe J. Bridge went further, equating the majority’s position with favoring racial discrimination. The majority, she wrote, contended “that it is not our place to require equality for Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens.” Under that reasoning, she said, “there would have been no Brown v. Board of Education,” the 1954 United States Supreme Court school desegregation case.

Today I remember one of the last words of the Buddha: "You must rely on yourself."

[Liberal Crozier]

----echoed both pro and con activists in Canada, especially pro from BC...which of course neighbours WA and is the place that some committed families have sought marriage, and some immigration.

----I believe (Spouse...the Crozier is sleeping and is forbidden to get up for at least 48 hours. ) that whether the supreme judiciary in the USA is appointed or elected, their responses determine their "former political affiliation" since only the politically active are usually appointed to state benches. Elected justices remove all pretense that they are politicians who are hypocritically saying that they do not play to their base or the political winds. The GLAD losses in MA and CT since Goodridge (on the way to divorce considering all the other plaintiffs who remain happily married) and the NY activists losing there, made the WA decision almost anticlimactic. The obvious hint was it was decided BEFORE the November elections; while the NJ decision will most probably be settled after the elections. Appointed vs elected.

The Canadian LGBT blogs are unanimous. Had we not defended ON on legal marriage.in 2003-04...then the other provinces and territories would not have done so.. the many challenges by LINO's during majority government and then support with the Liberal minority government, would have halted the eventual national Parliamentary passage and Royal Assent of the Canadian Marriage Act of 2005.

The American LGBT community that does not focus like a laser on the MASSACHUSETTS MIRACLE are doomed to a " wandering in the desert" that will make the period between your Plessy v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education of Topeka KS and the decade more to Civil Rights Act and then another two years to Loving v Virginia.....appear like a walk in the park.

Let me make a prediction, Daniel. If you lose MA, then they will focus upon the defence of DOMA as a state-by-state assault on ANY and ALL domestic partner benefits. VT and CT will also lose the civil union status when they pass FMA. I am sorry to believe this, but I personally believe that if they pass FMA in the Congress and sent it to the States for ratification, the solid Red States will give it the impetus, along with the rest of the Bible Belt, will certainly make same-sex marriage unconstitutional for decade or more.

The Volstead Act was passed. You have history of constitutionally ratifying morality. It was alcohol last time. You made Canadian bootleggers wealthy.
Washington DC hypocrites drank in foreign embassies, while local pols drank in the exempt homes of state foreign consular homes and offices. The rest paid at speakeasies. It took FDR and a re-elected Democratic Congress in 1930, midway through Hoover's term, to have another constitutional amendment repeal the first. Like Prohibition, you will need an amendment to repeal the amendment that ratified it.

Well, that's my loonie......

[Daniel]

Dear Spouse and Prophet (my prayers and healing thoughts to Liberal!),

We think along the same lines- if MA falls there will be a major push to take away whatever rights that remain across the land. To those who think this is fancy, I would only point out the lessons of history and the sorry story of gay people in Berlin pre Nazi-Germany. The truth is that the US is a country at war and has little stomach for anything resembling civil rights for anyone, much less gay persons.

You are so right, we are a country that tries to legislate morality. And to those who think we will 'win' our rights because we are on TV and the like, I have news for you, a story line only shows the ingenuity of television writers and producers. Heck. There were saucy movies in the early 30's before the Haye's Code was established to 'protect' the public at the same time that prohibition was instituted. Yes, we aren't going back in the closet anytime soon, but the door could close on us anyway.

The Chinese have a curse: "May you live in interesting times." And we sure do.

I have one hope. And that is efforts like SF which addresses this matter at its root cause: religious oppression and violence against GLBT persions. Lurking behind the illogic in the writings of the majority opinions rendered this past few weeks is the notion that God dissaproves of us- and that must not be said or all heaven will break loose. Or love for one another- and by extension- to everyone- will not be silenced.

[Dash]

Ahh...never mind... Win some...lose some. We can all comfort ourselves in the fact that Lance Bass has a boyfriend.

...wait... THAT'S NO COMFORT AT ALL!!!

What a sucky day!

Don't I have some gin around here somewhere...

[Daniel]

The document in question below seems to be one of the first signs by those in the gay community which fear that marriage efforts, and losses, have gone too far.

Originally Posted by 365gay.com

Gay Leaders Admonished For Marriage Tunnel Vision
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

July 27, 2006 - 11:00 am ET

(New York City) Some of the nation's leading gay scholars, writers and activists say there is too much focus on the issue of same-sex marriage.

The group - some 260 national gay leaders - calls for a broader vision in gaining rights for gay families.

Signatories of the statement include writer Armistead Maupin, Columbia law professor Kendall Thomas, American University Law Professor Nancy Polikoff, Terry Boggis the director of the family program at the New York LGBT Community Center, and Joseph DeFilippis of Queers for Economic Justice.

While the document supports efforts to secure marriage equality for LGBT couples, it also states that "marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others".

The signers say that "the struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families".

The document, called "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships" says that the focus on gay marriage often leaves out senior gays, single parents and extended families.

It advocates for a flexible set of economic benefits and options, regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender/gender identity, class, or citizenship status.

The document calls for:

* Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families - regardless of kinship or conjugal status.

* Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.

* Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families.

* Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.

The document was released on the heels of Wednesday's state Supreme Court ruling in Washington that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling was the latest in a series of same-sex marriage defeats for gay activists.

LGBT rights groups involved in same-sex marriage cases said they were somewhat mystified by the document.

"There's a lot in the statement that we totally agree with, Lambda Legal's legal director Jon Davidson told 365Gay.com.

But, said Davidson, many of the things the document says should be done is already being worked on.

"Lambda doesn't only work on the issue of marriage equality but also on a wide range of family issues. [The document] seems to trying to set up a false premise that groups are only focused on the marriage issue," Davidson said.

He pointed to issues of parental rights an domestic partner rights.

"There is only one state where marriage is currently legal. We need to have protections for people who aren't ale to marry. It's important to have other strategies and we have been pursuing those for a number of years," he said.

Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Jay Smith Brown agreed.

"In a lot of ways, we're already doing this work," Brown told 365Gay.com.

"By advancing domestic partner benefits in corporate America, it's not just same-sex couples, but also unmarried opposite-sex couples, who reap the rewards of workplace equality. In our work against the Federal Marriage Amendment, we underscored the tragic impact that amendments in various states have had on domestic violence laws concerning all unmarried relationships. In short, while work for marriage equality will continue, we also continue to work in other ways that bring needed protections and responsibilities to all families and GLBT individuals."

[Vanessa White]

I fear that this type of signed testament of what we should be focusing will assist the conservative thinkers in believing that we are now working against ourselves. I don't remember any of us ever saying or thinking that gay marriage was the only issue to focus on. However, that is the one that is in the spotlight right now, due to the need for many to want to amend existing constitutions to protect their own interests! This type of uprising upsets me almost as much as conservatives that believe us to be an abomination!