Posted on 06/25/2003 6:37:14 PM PDT by Coleus
|
Wednesday, June 25, 2003 |
PATERSON - Seven gay and lesbian couples are waiting to know if they can continue their lawsuit that seeks to broaden the state's definition of marriage. On Friday, a judge may give her opinion.
On Tuesday night, people crowded into a community forum to give theirs.
The forum, sponsored by the Herald News at the Passaic County Community College theater, began with a panel discussion between representatives for and against same-sex marriage. Panel members came from Lambda Legal, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, the New Jersey Family Policy Council, and the League of American Families.
Herald News Editorial Page Editor Alfred P. Doblin led the discussion, asking questions to explore the issue's many layers - legal, moral, practical, and ethical - and requesting panel and audience members to respect opposing points of view.
"Life and history are works in progress," said Lambda representative Michael Adams.
John Tomicki, executive director of the League of American Families, responded: "That's probably the only statement tonight we all agree on."
Although it was meant to be a civil discussion, the forum was heated from the start, erupting into applause, hisses, and outbursts.
"Free your mind and the rest will follow," a woman shouted at opponents to same-sex marriage. "Love is love is love is love."
In one corner, supporters of same-sex marriage said gay and lesbian couples should be given the same rights as heterosexual couples and that not to do so is discrimination.
In the other corner, opponents said same-sex marriages threaten the institution of marriage, thereby threatening the moral fiber of America.
The Rev. Joe Roberts from the Spirit of Life church in Passaic said the Bible speaks of homosexuality "as wickedness and sin," and said he wondered whether people approve of it because they don't believe in God.
The forum was held amid international changes regarding marriage.
On June 17, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said his country would grant marriage to gays and lesbians, becoming the third nation to do so after Belgium and the Netherlands. Unlike the latter nations, there are no residency requirements for marriage in Canada.
The United States recognizes marriage licenses issued in Canada, but under the U.S. Federal Defense of Marriage Act, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.
On a practical level, marriage is defined by individual states.
In 1996, a Hawaii court ruled that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry. However, voters amended the state constitution to allow the Legislature to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
In 1998, an Alaska court ruled that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. As in Hawaii, voters amended the constitution to heterosexual unions.
The community forum comes shortly before a judge decides if seven gay and lesbian New Jersey couples can continue their lawsuit seeking marriage licenses. As in every other state, New Jersey law says marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
A year ago, the couples filed suit in state Superior Court after local officials denied them marriage licenses. The couples, from Pompton Lakes, Newark, Butler, Union City, Franklin Park, Aberdeen, and Haddonfield, claimed that denial of marriage licenses violated their constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection. In addition, their suit said banning same-sex marriage excludes gay and lesbian couples from the same legal protection granted to married couples. The state has asked the court to throw out the lawsuit.
Arguments from both sides will be made Friday in Trenton. The judge could rule on whether the lawsuit can proceed.
If the seven couples in New Jersey's same-sex marriage suit succeed, the state will be the nation's first to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
On Friday, Judge Linda Feinberg is scheduled to hear arguments on whether to dismiss a lawsuit brought by same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses. The thrust of the lawsuit brought by homosexual couples is they are demanding "equal treatment under the law." Many news articles have presented rationale as to why this argument should be supported, but what has been lacking is a clear explanation as to why homosexuals are in fact demanding special rights, not equal rights.
Such rights would require redefining marriage as merely a loving, committed relationship recognized by the government. This would not only change the definition of marriage, but also the intent and purpose of marriage law.
Lawmakers intended marriage laws and benefits to promote and reward behavior that is conducive to societal order and well-being. Not all relationships are equal in this regard. Mountains of social science research prove that traditional marriage provides the happiest, healthiest environment for adults and children, and makes a unique contribution to society.
Over the past 30 years, cohabitation, unwed childbearing and a high divorce rate have weakened marriage and we have incurred the cost in higher crime, in welfare, education and health expenditures, and in reduced security for our own marriage investments. These costs are borne not only by the children and families affected, but by all of us - taxpayers, citizens and neighbors. These costly consequences would only increase if the government awarded marriage to homosexual partners, thereby sanctioning and encouraging more non-traditional relationships. Therefore, the government has a compelling state interest (as stipulated in the state constitution) to support the traditional family unit and recognize that not all relationships are equal.
Same-sex relationships are not marriages. Persons of the same sex do not form a unique community based on sexual difference. Calling such relationships "marriage" requires us to declare that the cultural and biological differences between men and women are inconsequential to society and to children. The homosexual view of marriage as a loving, committed relationship is a redefinition of marriage, not an extension of it.
If the state of New Jersey accepts the argument that people in homosexual relationships are entitled to marriage benefits based on the argument of "equal treatment under the law," what is to stop them from giving those same benefits to self-described long-term committed polygamists, incestuous couples or even adult/child couples who "pay taxes and participate in the community?"
Marriage law was purposely written to recognize only a relationship between one man and one woman. Under current law, every citizen receives equal treatment. Everyone has the same right to enter into a marriage relationship as described in the law and reap the benefits.
All adults who do not marry are free to enter into other non-marital relationships, not publicly endorsed, but privately tolerated. Private mechanisms are currently available to all unmarried people to manage their affairs.
The heart of the matter is that the state Constitution (like the federal Constitution) does not expressly recognize a right to marry. While the decision to marry raises a privacy interest that is protected under the Constitution, it is subject to reasonable state regulation. The government is not trying to restrict the rights of a minority but has a paramount interest to preserve the integrity of marriages between one man and one woman. Article I, paragraph 1, of the Constitution protects against the unequal treatment of those who should be treated alike.
Homosexuals are not discriminated against only because they do not meet the criteria of one man and one woman, but because their demands require a redefinition of marriage based on self-interest. Such a redefinition would create a precedent for any group to make demands and redefine well-established policy for self-serving reasons.
Based on fact, not emotion, the state is not obligated to grant marriage rights to homosexual couples simply because they demand it. Nor should public policy be determined by the demands of four-tenths of 1 percent of the population, especially when the vast majority of our citizens would realize significant negative outcomes.
Demetrios Stratis has a law practice in Wayne and is allied with the Alliance Defense Fund in Phoenix, Ariz., and is a member of the Legal Resource Council for the NJ Family Policy Council.
Same-sex marriage: Point
Sunday, June 22, 2003
Thousands of same-sex couples in New Jersey, from those beginning their lives together to those who have been with one another for decades, have the right to know: When is the state of New Jersey going to recognize our relationships as valid and fully equal marriages to those between two people of the opposite sex? Why do we pay the same taxes and get less protection? Those questions deserve answers.
In an historic lawsuit, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, on behalf of seven same-sex couples in New Jersey, has set out to answer them. In June of 2002, we filed a lawsuit against the state arguing that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional under the New Jersey State Constitution. Therefore, New Jersey lesbians and gay men are unlawfully barred from the right to marry. We base our argument on the right to equal protection and the right to privacy under the New Jersey Constitution.
In March 2003, the state filed a motion to dismiss our case arguing that gays and lesbians in New Jersey do have the right to marry - someone of the opposite sex. Suggesting that gay men and lesbians can exercise their right to marry by marrying someone they don't love is a slap in the face. Lambda Legal filed its reply to block that particularly harsh motion in May, and oral arguments are scheduled for this Friday.
While we're moving quickly with this case, lawsuits like this always take some time. This lawsuit is already affecting the state profoundly, though, energizing the lesbian and gay community and its straight allies across New Jersey as rarely before.
Over the past several months, Lambda Legal and more than 90 other organizations across New Jersey sponsored 10 town hall meetings throughout the state in an "All Roads To Justice" tour to support the marriage equality lawsuit and domestic partnership legislation.
More than 3,000 people attended the series to hear our message and meet the seven couples who are plaintiffs in the case. The crowds not only included members of the lesbian and gay community, but also but parents seeking protection for their gay and lesbian children, friends supporting classmates, and people of faith seeking safety and fairness for all people. Our coalition of support is not only growing - it's broadening.
Each town hall grew progressively more electric. As the momentum grew, state and local officials attended, spoke and witnessed the passionate support at each gathering.
The momentum, in a sense, is the culmination of two decades of hard work by fair-minded New Jerseyans. Working with supportive straight New Jerseyans, the state's lesbian and gay community has won a ban on discrimination at work, protection from hate violence, and the right to adopt - rights that most Americans take for granted.
But the lesbian and gay community wants and deserves something more: The full equality that only the right to marry can bring. Marriage, in fact, is a huge legal institution with many legal protections attached. The words "husband," "wife," "spouse," or some form of the word "marry" appear in more than 850 separate provisions of New Jersey law. Beyond legal rights and responsibilities, marriage is an enormous part of day-to-day life and is the most common way that couples prove their enduring commitment to each other.
Referring to someone as your "wife" or "husband" connotes an immediate understanding of the relationship. "Partner" and "significant other" require further explanation. After 10, 15, 27 or 30 years together no one should have to explain anything.
None of us who have committed our lives to another should ever have to check the box marked single on a form - because we aren't.
It is demeaning for us, as adults, to see that hospitals will only recognize our parents - rather than our partners - as next of kin when medical emergencies arise. It is unacceptable for parents to have to carry a note around to get medical attention for their own child when the child's biological parent, the only parent a hospital recognizes, isn't immediately available. And it is a complete hardship to us, as loving, committed families, to have to play health-insurance roulette because we cannot include our partners in the health-insurance policies of our employers, when straight married people can. We don't enjoy the same freedoms and protections afforded straight couples, and the legitimacy of our relationships should not be held hostage by intolerance.
In all the ways that are important, our families are just like our heterosexual counterparts.
We are committed to each other - we have jobs, pay taxes, take out the trash and mow the lawn just like other families. The critical difference is that our families are not recognized by the state or protected by the law.
The time has come for that to change.
Michael Adams is the director of Education and Public Affairs for Lambda Legal, a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, the transgendered, and people with HIV or AIDS through impact litigation, education, and public policy work. For more information go to www.LambdaLegal.org
There's a new reason to blame Canada
Friday, June 20, 2003,
What do you expect? They pledge allegiance to a queen; of course they would support same-sex marriage. It's another case of blame Canada. The province of Ontario, herewith known by archconservatives as Hell on Lake Huron, has redefined marriage to include gay and lesbian couples. So far, the world hasn't come to an end.
The recent ruling by Canadian courts that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman discriminates against gays and lesbians was a magnitude 7.2 legal earthquake. Well, not exactly in Canada. Published polls indicate that the majority of Canadians don't have a problem extending marriage to same-sex couples. What do you expect from a second-rate country where they still speak French?
I read a quote in The New York Times by Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on the subject. He said, "You have to look at history as an evolution of society." That's fine in Toronto, but what about in the United States?
There are people in the United States that have a problem with evolution, let alone the concept of two men or two women getting married. In New Jersey, we don't have a problem with evolution. Everyone accepts that an early form of man climbed out of the swamps of the Meadowlands, grunting and howling, until a historic day when a huge monolith appeared, telling primitive man and woman to clothe themselves (tax-free) in Paramus (but not on Sunday) and build an arena in Newark. On evolution, we are clear. On redefining marriage, I'm not so sure.
Next week, a state judge in Trenton will hear arguments for and against same-sex marriage. The judge will decide whether a lawsuit seeking to define marriage as a union of two people - not gender specific - can proceed. Also, next week, yours truly is moderating a community forum on the same subject in Paterson. Activists for gay and lesbian rights have chosen New Jersey and Massachusetts as test states for legal same-sex marriages. If next Friday's ruling goes in favor of the lawsuit, the fireworks will begin. I expect there will be fireworks aplenty at Tuesday's forum at The Theater in Passaic County Community College. I already fielded an irate call from a man who thought it was sick that the Herald News was even having a forum on the subject.
Unfortunately, fierce rhetoric clouds what should be a rather personal decision. Two people fall in love and decide they want to get married. How does something so basic - so personal - become subject to the approval of the government? If interracial marriage were illegal today, wouldn't society object? I hope so.
I understand people not liking the concept of same-sex marriages. I just don't understand why people are threatened by it. It is not like there is a finite number of marriages available in a given year. There are no quotas on marriage.
If gay and lesbian couples get married, it doesn't take away from heterosexual couples' opportunities to wed. And since neither conservatives nor liberals proclaim that the majority of New Jerseyans are closeted gay and lesbians waiting for the day they can walk down the aisle, the numbers of new couples will be relatively few.
Of course, these couples can go to Canada to wed. Unlike the Netherlands and Belgium, the two other countries with same-sex marriage, there are no residency requirements in Canada for marriage. There are for divorce.
I guess its possible for a gay couple to marry in Canada, move back to the United States, have their vows unrecognized by civil law, break up and still be married in Canada.
Which leads to me to the conclusion that while New Jersey and Massachusetts forge new ground on the marriage front, a smart state would legalize same-sex divorce and make a financial killing. In the future, homophobes will vilify Canada for allowing same-sex marriage and gay and lesbian spouses who want to end marriages will hate Canada for its residency requirements on divorce.
As I said, blame Canada. Maybe I can get both sides on Tuesday night to agree on that.
Alfred P. Doblin is the editorial page editor of the Herald News. Reach him at doblin@northjersey.com
A shame really. This country was beautifully conceived, grew mightily to adulthood, accomplished wonderous things in maturity (space flight, defeat of totalitarianism, technological wonders, etc...) and is growing sick and twisted in it's old age. I have this really bad feeling that Dubya will be the last great POTUS (unless by some miracle Condi, Jeb or Ridge can defeat Hillary) and the final descent will begin.
As many of you know, Patrick Madrid has now joined Free Republic. He also hosts his own blog on which several articles have been posted on this topic. The author of both is Dwight Longenecker. Rather than point you to his blog, it would be much easier to copy them here in their entirety. (Hopefully, Mr. Madrid will be sympathetic, having spoken up against such a law),
Where we're headed
Dwight Longenecker
I was fascinated by the detail of one comment from a Canadian that folks North of the Border have put a new item on the liberal agenda: they want to recognise polygamy between people of various sexual inclinations.
Here's how the argument will go: Let's imagine things just ten or twenty years down the line.
By now homosexual 'marriage' is accepted as a mainstream alternative. But what about those people who live in a threesome? Why shouldn't they get 'married'? The permutations are endless: a homosexual man with another man and his wife, a lesbian with her girlfriend and her girlfriend's husband, a man who simply wants two or three or however many wives, a woman who wants to have two or three or more husbands. A man who's had a sex change living with another man and his wife....
When you think about it, there is even less Biblical opposition to polygamy than to homosexuality. In fact, as far as I know there is no Biblical condemnation of polygamy. In fact, you could say there is downright support for polygamy--the patriarchs were polygamous. Christians in Africa might support it as it is a part of their recent traditions. The Mormons would support it.
Liberal Christians would say, 'Isn't this a better alternative to divorce?' Instead of Sally divorcing John and marrying Harry she could just marry Harry too. That way the children would have not just one father but two! Wouldn't that be great! What a great big, loving family! Utilitarian arguments for polygamy are endless. By marrying extra wives or husbands you cut divorce costs, you lower your overheads, you can combine incomes and have a better standard of living, more hands to help with the children and housework, a renewal of the extended family... blah blah blah...
Think of the benefit for relationships. If George is married to Mildred, but admits that he sometimes has homosexual inclinations he doesn't need to sneak around and be hypocritial and deceitful. He doesn't need to 'repress' his sexuality. He can just marry his boyfriend and that way they can all be 'fulfilled.'
Liberal Theologians will call this 'triune marriage'. They will spin theories about how this reflects the Holy Trinity, and how it is a fuller, richer and more mature understanding of Christian marriage. Sexologists will explain how a marriage with homosexuality as an integral part will enhance and fulfill the 'maleness' and 'femaleness' in all the partners.
You know, without any authority and with a bit of imagination and you can make elephants fly.
I will post his story on the Anglican homosexual issue, separately.
The Logic of Anglicanism
Many ordinary Christians are scratching their heads at the recent fuss within the Anglican Church. How on earth did they get to that point? How could seemingly prayerful, intelligent and decent bishops wind up supporting open homosexuality?
The answer is very revealing for Catholics. One part of the answer is that this is simply political correctness of our secular society infecting the church. The real answer is more interesting.
Rowan Williams--the new Archbishop of Canterbury--wrote about the homosexuality issue in an essay called 'The Body's Grace.' He concludes with these words,
In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures.
In other words, accept contraception and you cannot logically ban homosexuality. If sex is for recreation not procreation, then the homosexually inclined person should be able to enjoy sexual activity too.
Williams is no slouch theologically. He's followed his own logic home. Paradoxically, he has proved Paul VI's point and shown Humanae Vitae to be a prophetically wise encyclical.
If only more of our Catholic theologians were as bright as Rowan Williams. He has understood the effects of accepting contraception quite clearly. He's drawn a disastrously wrong conclusion of course, but he's done so honestly and logically from his own starting point.
Mr. Longenecker requests your prayers for him tomorrow.
"Please remember a prayer for me tomorrow afternoon (British time) as I have been invited to appear on a BBC World Service programme to discuss the Anglican homosexual issue from a Catholic point of view. Pray that I may speak with clarity, charity and a sense of humour.
The programme will be broadcast over the weekend. I'll post details here later on how to tune in."
This issue will be in the NY Legislature very soon, if it isn't already there. There was too much bickering over this year's outrageous budget that some legislation had to sit.
It might be good for ALL readers to copy and paste the text of your letter, in anticipation of their domino's position in the lineup.
All of these [homosexual] types . . . . are of course human beings, who, like the rest of us, must play the best game they can with the cards Nature has dealt them. No decent person would wish to inflict on them any more unahpppiness than their mismatched bodies and psyches have already burdened them with. at the same time, there is circumstantial evidence that complete acceptance and equality for all sexual orientations may have antisocial consequences, so that the obloquy aimed at sexual variance by every society prior to our own may have had some stronger foundations than mere blind prejudice. Male homosexuality, inparticular, seems to possess some quality of being intrinsically subversive when let loose in long-established institutions, especially male-dominated ones. The courtsof at least two English kings offer support to this thesis, as does the postwar Brisish Secret Service, and more recently the Roman Catholic priesthood. I should like to see some adverturous sociologist research these outward aspects with as m uch diligence and humanity as Michael Bailey has applied to his study of the inward ones.
Stanley Kurtz, in an article on NRO in May 2002, develops the theme of the connections between gay marriage and the gay priesthood. I don't know if was ever posted on FR, but it's still timely for those interested in the subject. Gay Priests and Gay Marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.