Roger Winters
Blog Admin = Roger

An Answer to the Constitution Trashers

LMA President's Statement on Proposals to Amend Washington’s Constitution

September 21, 2004

For further information or comments:
Roger Winters, President, Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington, (206) 755-2526

The State Constitution should not be used for political games: first, to distract the people from the real issues that matter in America and our state today, and, second, to try to enshrine an agenda of discrimination against gays and lesbians--the real motivation of those who advocate a restrictive marriage amendment. They want to take away the very possibility of equality under law for families headed by same-sex couples, not just now, but indefinitely.

Amending the State Constitution will not accomplish anything that its proponents claim:

Regarding children: Rather than actually helping children in our state, the leaders of this effort pontificate about how every family should be headed by a male and a female (without regard to any other factor, like love or parenting skills) even though they have no intention of getting the single parents in our state to marry or give up their children. By depriving same-sex couples in Washington of the chance to have legal standing as next of kin for one another, they penalize their children because of prejudice against their parents' life choices.

Regarding “defending marriage: " There is no such thing as "gay marriage." In fact, it is misleading to speak of "marriage" as a generality, as though it is a simple concept that everyone agrees about. Every marriage is an individual thing between the two adults who choose to marry each other. No one lives in "the institution of marriage," but in a real life relationship--with or without children. A marriage gains some of its strength from the legal protections, benefits, and burdens of our marriage laws. Its essence lies in the commitment and love between the two adults who have chosen each other. Not letting some adults choose whom to marry legally because their choice would be a person of their same sex robs them of a right that every other American enjoys and does nothing to strengthen marriage for others. What would that do to address real problems, like domestic abuse and the high rate of divorce?

Those who advocate for a constitutional amendment are the same ones who have raised their voices to preserve discrimination against lesbians and gay men in employment, housing, and other areas of public life. Wrapping themselves in noble-sounding words like "family" and "protection" and "tradition" and "religion," they try to hide their real motive, which is to have the State of Washington enshrine their narrow beliefs in its fundamental laws. They want a green light to continue to persecute those who have different beliefs.

The people of Washington must elect fair-minded people to the Legislature, so this rush to amend our constitution will be stopped in its tracks.

====================

P.S. - Jeff Kemp continues to repeat his tired mantra that families are no good without a male and a female parent. He is a classic hypocrite. He does not advocate for anything that would "fix" family life for children by putting them into male-female parenting situations. (How could he? He couldn't possibly deliver that!) He does not care about anything but the biological plumbing of the two parents - he does not speak out against abusive fathers, neglectful mothers. He does not acknowledge single parents who raise happy and well-adjusted children, and certainly ignores same-sex couples who work hard to be great parents for their kids. Kemp is a parrot. He knows nothing more than to say the same thing again and again. This is one of the strategies of his ilk -- every court decision opposes you, every rational argument refutes you, every sensible and thoughtful community leader sees you are useless, biased, bigoted. What do you do? You lie and say you don't mean to "be mean" to anyone (you intend only to deprive them of the most important choice an adult can make in life, the essence of the pursuit of happines, and to punish their children with legal illegitimacy because you're homophobic). You reiterate, restate, repeat, echo yourself, and say it again -- "Oh, children need a mother and a father and we can't redefine marriage because of that" - even though you do nothing about real children in real life. Why? Because you do not care about children, you care about your job as a hireling for those whose hatred of homosexuals and lust for power brings them back again and again to any argument, any proposal, any assertion that will bring harm and (if they had their way) devastation and annihilation of each and every one of us.

Despicable Coalition Announces Assault on Rights

Gay Marriage Foes Will Seek State Constitutional Ban

September 21, 2004

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Foes of same-sex marriage on Tuesday announced a drive to add a ban to the state constitution. The newly formed Allies for Marriage and Children, which includes social conservatives, community activists and some religious leaders, said it is responding to two recent court rulings that invalidated the state's Defense of Marriage Act. That law, passed in 1998 by the Legislature after overriding Gov. Gary Locke's veto, defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Many states have passed similar laws and state constitutional amendments and President Bush and some congressional allies have suggested an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage.

The rulings from King and Thurston county judges are on appeal to the state Supreme Court. A state constitutional amendment must originate in the Legislature, with a two-thirds vote in both chambers, followed by a statewide public vote.

State Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said gay marriage will be a hot issue on the campaign trail and that pressure will mount to pass the amendment this winter. But state Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, one of four openly gay men in the House, said the measure is doomed to fail and probably wouldn't even get out of committee.

Equal Rights Washington, a group advocating equal treatment for gays, said marriage is "a pro-family ideal" that should be available to all. Children need a safe and loving environment created by nurturing parents, regardless of the couple's gender, the group said.

Leaders of the new anti-gay marriage coalition, described by former Seattle Seahawks football star Jeff Kemp as "broad and diverse," announced the new effort at the Capitol. A handful of legislators attended their news conference. "Marriage needs to be strengthened, not redefined," said Kemp, executive director of the Bellevue-based Families Northwest.

Other speakers, including three African-American pastors, said the nation's children have been left out of the debate over adults' rights. "All of us have seen first hand the damage that is done when children don't have the benefit of experiencing the different types of parenting that a mother and a father bring to the family," Kemp said. "Children need to have both a mother and father as role models. ... That is the best arrangement for our kids."

He said the group has "no intention of being mean" to gays, but believes the institution of marriage and traditional families must be upheld.

"Marriage was created for children and strong families, not for the convenience of adults," said The Rev. Aaron Haskins, director of the Seattle-based Coalition for Community Development and Renewal. "In my own ministry, I see the terrible effects on children not having a mother and a father present every day."

Doug Wheeler, director of Zion Preparatory Academy in Seattle, said young people already are confused by all the debate over families and marriage. Expanding the definition of marriage would "pollute the minds of our children," he said.

The Rev. Joe Fuiten, pastor of Cedar Park Church in Bothell and head of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government, said in a prepared statement that lawmakers need to pay attention to kids. "We talk constantly about children in other areas, like education and access to health care, but this legal debate has put the interests of kids aside," he said.

Kemp said his group's first goal is to get legislative candidates paying attention to the issue and to let the Supreme Court know that plenty of people care about preserving traditional marriage. The next step will be to advocate for a constitutional amendment, he said. Sponsors have not been lined up.

Although the original Defense of Marriage Act passed by at least two-thirds in both houses, it will be an uphill battle to change the constitution, he said. The language of the amendment hasn't been firmed up. It could simply enshrine the state ban in the constitution or could attempt to declare that the Legislature, not the courts, is the last word on defining marriage, Kemp said.

Murray, meanwhile, said he objects to injecting a divisive issue into legislative races. Some lawmakers who voted for the ban in 1998 lost their seats, but no one who opposed it was defeated, he said.

Gay marriage should actually stabilize and enhance relationships and families, he said. "I think we will have a battle royal over the issue of marriage next year and at the end, I don't believe it will be sent to the ballot," Murray said. "I don't believe the majority of people in Washington support same-sex marriage, but I also don't believe they support the kind of intolerance that was on display today."

The pro-gay rights coalition released statements from eight groups that oppose the ban. "Our families deserve the same rights and respect as any other family," said Bill Dubay, organizer of the state chapter of DontAmend.com. "We have been preparing to face our opponents and will continue to organize and stay active in the political process until all Americans are treated equally under the law."

Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Notice Change of This Blog's Title

It's "marriages," not "marriage"!

This Blog started out as "Legal Marriage for Same Sex Adults." I have changed that title, and here's why...

When people get away with saying (and getting us to say) "gay marriage," we have lost half of the debate. Even saying "marriage" counts for a loss in the national discourse. The reason is that the opponents of marriage equality do best when they are able to treat the issue abstractly.

When the discussion is about "the institution of marriage," or even just the concept of "marriage," the focus of attention is not on real people. Not one marriage is an institution, not one is completely "typical" of the stereotype they present.

Each marriage concerns two individuals who are marrying one another. Their legal relationship puts them, vis-a-vis each other, first among all others on the planet in intimacy, decision-making powers, and privacy. Even in custom, we do not peek into the marital chamber after the wedding, respecting the sexual privacy of the couple -- except when the couple is same-sex, the opposition wants the non-homosexual population to be engaged in its "ick" reaction to sexual behavior it does not understand or embrace personally.

We are not talking about "marriage," you leaders of the LGBT community and the marriage equality movement! We are talking about "marriages," one at a time, one by one, couple by couple, each one a unique adult relationship, not a stereotype, not an institution, not a concept. "Marriages" occur in real life. There is no such thing as "marriage" except an abstraction.

Join me in saying this, whenever referring to the subject: "legal marriages for same-sex couples." "Marriage equality" is more vague, but it also works. Another phrase that works is "the freedom to choose one's own next of kin through entering into a marriage."

--Roger Winters, Seattle, Washington

An Interesting Article

States Clash Over Same-Sex Parental Rights

Dee McAree

The National Law Journal

09-20-2004

Four years ago, when courts in Vermont began recognizing the legality of same-sex civil unions, it was only a matter of time before cases came along to test whether sister states would give full faith and credit to those decisions.

The time has come.

One of the earliest cases to raise that issue is a same-sex parental rights challenge that has provoked a jurisdictional debate between Virginia and Vermont. According to an attorney for New York-based Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, it is also one of the earliest cases to test how state courts will respond to orders that derive from the legality of civil unions.

At the heart of the suit is a 2-year-old girl who was born to a lesbian couple, Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins, through artificial insemination. The couple entered a civil union in Vermont in 2000, but sought to dissolve the union in a Vermont court in July 2003.

A Vermont family court judge issued a temporary order giving parental rights to Lisa, the child's biological mother, and visitation to Janet. Lisa Miller-Jenkins v. Janet Miller-Jenkins, No. 454-11-03RcDMd (Rutland Co., Vt., Fam. Ct.).

But Lisa, in contempt of the order, took the child to Virginia, where the baby was born. A Virginia judge then granted her sole custody of the child. Lisa Miller-Jenkins v. Janet Miller-Jenkins, No. CH04-280 (Frederick Co., Va., Cir. Ct.).

"Lisa had every right to go to her resident state to have parentage determined," asserted Judy Barone of Readnour & Barone in Rutland, Vt., her lawyer in the Vermont action. Barone concedes that Vermont's civil union statute affords the couple all the same rights as a marriage. However, she asserts that Lisa, as any married woman, had the right to contest Janet's claim of parentage. The Vermont court, over Lisa's objections, relied on a rebuttable presumption that Janet was a parent, Barone said.

"[Lisa] only filed a Vermont action to dissolve a civil union," Barone said. "That action did not give the Vermont court the right to determine parentage."

MAINE WEIGHS IN

Others disagree, pointing out that courts in states where civil unions are not legal have held that a same-sex nonbiological parent can have rights as the functional or psychological parent.

In April, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court said that a former domestic partner was the "de facto parent" of a minor child who was born through artificial insemination during the couple's relationship. C.E.W. v. D.E.W., No. 02-534.

Phyllis Bossin of Cincinnati's Phyllis G. Bossin Co., who chairs the Section of Family Law of the American Bar Association, said Virginia was not compelled to recognize the civil union in order to recognize Janet's claim of parentage.

"The civil union doesn't create the parental relationship," said Bossin. "The relationship is creating the parental relationship." She added that the child's birthplace has no bearing on jurisdiction, nor will a federal court step in to resolve jurisdiction.

The resolution will likely come in Virginia, where Janet's lawyers have filed an appeal, said one of her lawyers, Theodore A. Parisi Jr. of Castleton, Vt. Parisi compared the varying laws on same-sex unions to gambling, noting that courts in states that outlaw gambling will uphold a judgment on a gambling debt from Nevada.

Couples joined in a civil union in Vermont must live together for one year before the state will dissolve it, according to Greg Nevins, a senior staff attorney in Lambda's Atlanta office.

Nevins asserted that Virginia could have and should have stayed out of the case, instead of applying its own substantive law. He expects a higher Virginia court will overrule, invoking the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.

"The whole purpose behind the [kidnapping act] is to prevent parents from when it's not going well in one state to file in another," Nevins said. In assuming jurisdiction, the Virginia court said it derived its authority from the state's Affirmation of Marriage Act, enacted last year.

According to Lambda, 40 states have passed laws prohibiting same-sex marriage since President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1995.

Only three states recognize same-sex unions. They are Vermont; Hawaii, which offers reciprocal benefits; and Massachusetts, which allows same-sex marriage.

Legal Marriage Alliance Web Site Updated!

The Web site of the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington has been newly updated! The information has been brought up to date and the look-and-feel has been modified to make it more reader-friendly.

You can now electronically sign the "Petition in Support of Legal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples" on line now, at the www.lmaw.org site. Provide your e-mail address and we'll add you to the LMA List, our moderated, confidential Listserv for exchange of information and ideas about legal marriage for same-sex couples in Washington, along with information about the activities of the LMA itself.

It is now easier than ever to communicate with the Legal Marriage Alliance's leaders. You can reach the President, Roger Winters, at Roger@lmaw.org. The Webmaster is available at Webmaster@lmaw.org. For general inquiries, write to us at LMA@lmaw.org. We want to hear from you when you have questions about legal marriage, suggestions for our Web site, or questions about how to help LMA advance the cause of legal marriage for same-sex couples in the state of Washington.

From John Wilkinson, a member of the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington's Board of Directors, and formerly the state director of the group, here is an updated LIST O' LINKS TO MARRIAGE SITES. This compilation is entirely John's work, with the assistance of others, as he has noted:

"The majority of these links were lifted verbatim from the excellent Marriage Equality California (MECA) site. Thanks to the many people who sent suggestions for additions, which I've forwarded to L.J. Carusone at MECA. L.J. writes that MECA will be happy to share its links with other groups or have others link directly to the links page at http://marriageequalityca.org/links_marriage.php.

"I've used MECA's order and categorization for ease of comparison between their existing links and suggested additions.

"Please send any additions directly to me at jwilk@eskimo.com. I'll include them in a recurring post of this list."

LIST O' LINKS
(Updated 05/28/02)

INTERNATIONAL

Canada

Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples (Canada):
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/

Free2Marry:
http://www.free2marry.com/ -- Eight same-sex couples' fight for the right to marry in Canada.

The Netherlands

http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/user/cwaaldij/www/NHR/news.htm
-- Latest news about same-sex marriage in the Netherlands by Kees Waaldijk (Universiteit Leiden, the Netherlands)

New Zealand

civilunions.org:
http://www.civilunions.org.nz/mainset.htm

Lesbian and Gay Equality (LeGaLE) (New Zealand):
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/nigelchr/index.htm

LEGAL

The American Civil Liberties Union:
http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/hmgl.html

Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD):
http://www.glad.org/ -- New England's leading legal rights organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status and gender identity and expression.

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/ -- The nation's oldest and largest legal organization dedicated to the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, and people with HIV/AIDS.

U.S. NATIONAL

Equal In Every State:
http://www.equalstates.org/simon/hisblogger.html -- A national campaign to record the stories of same-sex couples across the U.S. of diverse backgrounds to be used for research, advocacy groups and the media.

Faces of Family:
http://www.ftmf.org/fof/
A Freedom to Marry Foundation project created to provide a public display of support for the institution of marriage for all families.

The Freedom to Marry Collaborative:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/ -- A non-gay/gay partnership to secure full equality and recognition for same-sex couples and their families.

The Freedom to Marry Foundation:
http://www.ftmf.org/ -- Supporting the right to marriage for all families.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC):
http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/index.asp -- The Human Rights Campaign continues to work with its coalition partners to ensure that same-sex couples have the opportunity to share in the rights and
responsibilities of marriage.

Independent Gay Forum:
http://www.indegayforum.org/library/marriage.html
Conservative LGBT writers weigh in on marriage for same-sex couples.

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Marriage Project:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/record?record=9 -- Want to Get Married? Get Engaged!

Marriage Equality U.S.A. (MEUSA):
http://www.marriageequality.com/ -- A national organization to secure the freedom and the right of same-sex couples to enter into legally-recognized civil marriage.

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force marriage page:
http://www.ngltf.org/issues/issue.cfm?issueID=10 -- Has DOMA law map.

The National Organization for Women (NOW):
http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/marr-rep.html

Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples:
http://www.buddybuddy.com/toc.html -- A national resource for same-sex couples, containing more than 200 essays, surveys, legal articles, and resources on legal marriage, ceremonies, domestic partner benefits, relationship tips, parenting, and immigration.

POLLS

ReligiousTolerance.org:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm -- Public opinion polls on same-sex marriages: U.S. and Canada.

Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples:
http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-surv.html -- A Survey of Surveys, 1989 to 2002.

RELIGIOUS

Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry (RCFM):
http://www.rcfm.org/ -- Supports civil marriage rights for same gender couples and seeks to promote
dialogue within faith communities about religious marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

ReligiousTolerance.org:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm -- Same-sex marriages and civil unions.

Interfaith Working Group: Religious Support for Equal Marriage Rights:
http://www.iwgonline.org/marriage/ -- The Interfaith Working Group's mission is to inform the public of the diversity of religious opinion on social issues where it is not widely recognized by providing a voice and a forum for religious organizations, congregations and clergy who support equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people; reproductive freedom; and the separation of church and state.

REPORTS AND STUDIES

Overview of Protections, Benefits & Obligations of Marriage Under Massachusetts and Federal Law
http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/PBOsOfMarriage.pdf -- Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD)

Same-Sex Couples: Marriage, Families, and Children: An Analysis of Proposition 22, The Knight Initiative:
http://lawschool.stanford.edu/faculty/wald/titlepage.shtml -- by Professor Michael Wald, Stanford Law School.

Marriage Laws of the Fifty States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

Pathfinder Series: Same-Sex Marriage:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~axellute/ssm.htm -- Rutgers--the State University of New Jersey School of Law, Newark, Justice Henry Ackerson Library, compiled by Paul Axel-Lute.

The RCW Project: An Analysis of the Benefits and Burdens of Marriage Contained in the Revised Code of Washington:
http://www.lmaw.org/rcw_project.htm -- By Jamie D. Pedersen for the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington [Note: Jamie is also a member of the LMA Board of Directors.]

U.S. STATES

California

Californians for Civil Marriage:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/states/record?record=5#Marriage -- Dedicated to the education of Californians about the need for equal access to
marriage for all loving, committed American couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=531 -- California Marriage Law.

Marriage Equality California (MECA):
http://marriageequalityca.org/index.php -- A statewide, grassroots organization to secure the freedom and the right of same-sex couples to enter into legally-recognized civil marriage.

PFLAG Marriage Committee San Jose/Peninsula:
http://www.pflagsanjose.org/marry/ -- Supporting equal access to the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage.

Colorado

Marriage Equality Colorado (MECO):
http://www.marriageequalityco.com/

Connecticut

Love Makes a Family (LMF):
http://www.lmfct.org -- A statewide coalition of organizations and individuals working to expand Connecticut’s marriage laws to include same-gender couples.

Hawaii

The Civil Unions-Civil Rights Movement:
http://www.civilunions-civilrights.org -- (Confirm this one. I've been told by e-mail from Hawaii that it's a good URL. But "Not available" when I checked.)

Hawai`i Gay Marriage Bureau:
http://www.hawaiigaymarriage.com/ -- Provides a registration, referral and informational forum for those interested in same-sex marriage registration, marriage certificates, related services and updates on the legal front.

Marriage Project Hawai`i:
http://members.tripod.com/~MPHAWAII/ -- A campaign to win the civil rights of marriage in Hawaii.

Massachusetts

The Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts:
http://www.ftmmass.org/ -- Engages in grassroots education, advocacy, and lobbying in support of civil marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders:
http://www.glad.org -- Currently suing in Massachusetts for full marriage rights.

The Massachusetts Campaign for Equality:
http://massequality.org/ -- Fighting the Massachusetts "Super DOMA" initiative.

Norwood-Walpole Citizens for All Families:
http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/allfamilies/ -- Norwood, Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Freedom to Marry:
http://www.nhftm.org

New Jersey

Gay and Lesbian Political Action and Support Groups (GayPASG):
http://www.gaypasg.org/SSMTF.htm -- Task Force for Same-Sex Marriage, an alliance of individuals and organizations in New Jersey committed to civil same-sex marriage through grassroots organizing, public education and political action.

New York

Marriage Equality New York (MENY):
http://www.marriageequalityny.org/

The Wedding Party:
http://www.theweddingparty.org/ -- A coalition that supports same-sex commitment and equal marriage rights.

Oregon

Love Makes a Family:
http://www.lmfamily.org/ -- Working for social change to create a supportive environment within our communities and to provide a public voice for all families, especially those subjected to social, economic, and legal discrimination due to sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Freedom to Marry Coalition:
http://www.paftmc.org/

Vermont

Gay Wedding Guide:
http://www.gayweddingguide.com/

Vermonters Civil Union Resource Guide:
http://www.vermontcivilunion.com/ -- A resource guide to civil unions in Vermont.

Vermonters for Civil Unions:
http://www.vtcivilunionpac.org/ -- Committed to electing pro-civil union legislators and statewide officers in Vermont.

Vermont Freedom to Marry Action Committee:
http://www.vtmarriageaction.org/ -- A lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the civil union law from repeal or undermining changes.

Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force:
http://www.vtfreetomarry.org/ -- The core values that unite VFMTF are the beliefs that gay and lesbian Vermonters should have the same legal choices as our heterosexual counterparts, and that laws which treat us and our relationships as second class denigrate all of us, regardless of our desire to marry.

Washington

Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington:
http://www.lmaw.org/ -- A nonprofit organization educating the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community and the general public on how to advance the civil right of same-sex couples to legal marriage.

STUDENT NETWORKS

Same-Sex Marriage Student Network:
http://www.geocities.com/billtickner/ -- Compiling support from across the nation.

WEB RINGS

The Queer Wedding Web Ring:
http://www.angelfire.com/me/queerwedding/ -- Created to celebrate the Weddings, Unions and Commitment Ceremonies of Lesbian and Gay couples.

OPPOSITION

Alliance for Marriage:
http://www.allianceformarriage.org/ -- Dedicated to promoting marriage [one man-one woman] and addressing the epidemic of fatherless families in the United States.

Alternatives to Marriage Project:
http://www.unmarried.org -- Not exactly "opposition" to same-sex marriage, but the organization objects to marriage as a worthwhile political goal. The Alternatives to Marriage Project (ATMP) is a national nonprofit organization advocating for equality and fairness for unmarried people, including people who choose not to marry, cannot marry, or
live together before marriage.

Campaign for California Families:
http://www.savecalifornia.com/ -- Fighting to restore family-friendly values.

The Center for Reclaiming America:
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/ -- D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries and Janet Folger, "coordinator of the 1998 "Truth In Love" campaign that carried the message of hope for change to those struggling with homosexuality."

Citizen Link:
http://www.family.org/cforum/topics/a0018799.cfm -- Family issues in policy and culture.

Citizens for Community Values (Cincinnati, Ohio):
http://www.ccv.org/ccv-red-Issues-Homosexuality.htm -- "Homosexual activists are not simply seeking acceptance of homosexual relationships. Rather, the primary, clearly stated focus of their agenda is normalization, complete social acceptance, of homosexual relationships and the undermining of the traditional family."

Concerned Women for America:
http://www.cwfa.org/library/family/2000-08-28_pp_hs-marriage.shtml

Family Research Council:
http://www.frc.org/get/lh01l1.cfm -- "We urge Americans to help preserve traditional marriage and family at all levels of government. "

Family Research Institute:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html -- Paul Cameron: "A large body of scientific evidence suggests that homosexual marriage is a defective counterfeit of traditional marriage and that it poses a clear and present danger to the health of the community." [Note: Cameron was in Seattle in 1985 opposing King County's anti-discrimination ordinance. One report pointed out he had once advocated for, among other things, the eating of cats and dogs to help stave off hunger in America. He is not a man that would be easily confused by any facts. -- Roger]

Focus on the Family:
http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0013151.html -- "Focus on the Family holds this institution in the highest esteem, and strongly opposes any legal sanction of marriage counterfeits, such as the legalization of same-sex "marriage" or the granting of marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, or any other non-marital relationship. "

Marriage Law Project:
http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/ -- Mission: to reaffirm the legal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Massachusetts Conservative PAC:
http://www.masscitizens.org -- Opponents of the efforts in Massachusetts.

Traditional Values Coalition:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/ -- Lou Sheldon's group.

Today, a group of representatives in Congress have tried to make a splash by announcing the "Federal Marriage Amendment," which they dream would amend the Constitution so that no state anywhere could ever give same sex couples the right to marry legally or anything even resembling that. Can you believe that this group would call itself "multi-cultural?"

There's another good marriage equality website at www.allianceformarriage.org. This organization appears to be in Virginia. It has extensive coverage of the proposed amendment and describes its potential impact.

I don't take this to be a serious threat at this point. There are only a handful of co-sponsors of the proposal, though they act like they think they speak for all of America. This sort of hubris and heterosexism has been a plague on civilization for a long, long time. I feel more sickened than frightened by this proposal. However, the answer for all of us is clear: write to our Representatives and Senators and urge them to oppose this hostile measure, to commit to vote against it, to block it at any turn they can, and, in fact, to use it as a springboard to moving toward the just resolution of this question, the repeal of the federal so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" and the enactment in all the states of marriage equality for couples who happen to be of the same sex.

A message from the Marriage list today is worth repeating here, for it puts the matter of a constitutional amendment into context and explains how our Constitution is actually set up as regards amendments and such. The message is essentially correct, from what I know, and I have some experience in this area: in 1965, while a college intern with Indiana Senator Birch E. Bayh, Jr. (father of Indiana's current Senator Evan Bayh), I was able to observe the process first-hand. Senator Bayh was the author of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which is on presidential succession and disability. It passed the Congress that summer and went out to the states for ratification. It was, indeed, ratified, and that is how Gerald Ford became an appointed Vice President (with approval by Congress) under Nixon (and succeeded to the presidency on his resignation) and how Nelson Rockefeller stepped into the Vice President's position under Gerald Ford. All of us in Senator Bayh's office became experts on amending the U.S. Constitution.

The message from the Marriage List as authored by Micheal T. McLoughlin, D.Jur., M.A. appears below. I have left in all of the references to the Marriage List itself, so you can both see an example of what it can deliver every day to your own email box and find, at the end, instructions on how to join it.

-----Original Message-----
From: marriage-admin@lists.qrd.org
[mailto:marriage-admin@lists.qrd.org]On Behalf Of Micheal T McLoughlin
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:16 AM
To: marriage@lists.qrd.org
Cc: tips@upi.com
Subject: Re: [*M*] US: Group seeks federal marriage amendment

On Tue, 14 May 2002, John Wilkinson forwarded:

> United Press International, May 14, 2002
> http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=14052002-053040-3458r
> Group seeks federal marriage amendment
> By Kathy A. Gambrell, White House reporter

[snip]

> Congress last amended the Constitution in 1971 when it allowed 18-year-olds
> the right to vote.

A point of legal clarification that Ms. Gambrell and UPI have missed.
Congress can PROPOSE an amendment to the Constitution but Congress does
NOT amend the Constitution - the STATES do that.

There are two ways to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

1. Congress, with two-thirds of both houses concurring, can propose an
amendment; or
2. Upon request by two-thirds of the states, Congress must call a
constitutional convention.

The President has no power to propose amendments to the Constitution, nor
can the President prohibit the proposal of an amendment. He (or,
eventually, she) is simply not part of the process. Neither is the
Supreme Court part of the process, but it and lower courts can hear cases
concerning whether an amendment has been proposed as U.S. Const., Art. V.
directs.

Note: Presidents can *ask* Congress to propose an amendment, just as you
or I or anybody else in the world can ask the U.S. Congress to do
something. But while Congress is obligated to consider any *legislation*
the President might propose (the President does have *that* power), it is
not bound to consider a request from the President to amend the
Constitution, any more than it is bound to consider a request from anyone
else - because Constitutional amendments are not legislation. The
President can veto legislation. The President *can't* veto a proposed
amendment to the Constitution.

Once an amendment is proposed, it is sent to the states for ratification.
There are two ways for a proposed amendment to be ratified:

1. The legislatures of three-fourths of the states approve the proposed
amendment; or
2. Constitutional conventions in three-fourths of the states approve the
proposed amendment.

Congress must identify which method of ratification shall be used. In
either case, there are 50 states; 75% of 50 is 37.5, so at least 38
states must ratify a proposed amendment before it becomes part of the
Constitution.

Again, the President has no role in the process but is the same as any
ordinary citizen in his home state. The Supreme Court cannot rule on the
constitutionality of a proposed amendment per se - since it's not part of
the Constitution yet, and once it *is* part of the Constitution it *must*
be constitutional. Neither can the Supreme Court give an opinion as to
how the proposed amendment would affect the rest of the Constitution or
existing federal and state laws, because that kind of opinion does not
involve a case or an active controversy - and U.S. Const. Art. III
specifies the Supreme Court can only hear cases and controversies. But,
again, the Supreme Court and lower federal and/or state courts CAN hear
cases about the constitutional validity of the process by which a proposed
amendment is ratified.

For hypothetical example: If 38 states ratify a proposed amendment, some
by legislative action and some by state conventions, a question would
arise whether the amendment was properly ratified - because U.S. Const.,
Art. V specifies ratification must be by either legislative action or
convention, not by both. So, this hypothetical amendment would not have
been properly ratified, and would not be part of the Constitution.
Additionally, if Congress did not specify how this amendment should have
been ratified by the 38 states, then the way in which the amendment was
proposed would have been unconstitutional - which would throw out all of
the ratifications, even if they had been valid, because a state cannot
validly ratify and invalidly proposed amendment.

Note that ratification of the Constitution itself was the subject of U.S.
Const. Art. VII, not Art. V. Under Art. VII, the Constitution took effect
when 9 of the 13 states (i.e., 9) ratified it but it only applied to those
states that did ratify it. George Washington had been President for a
full year before Rhode Island ratified the Constitution and, during that
time, Rhode Island was not bound by the Constitution.

Not so with amendments produced under Art. V. All amendments to the
Constitution are binding on all states, whether they ratify them or not.

Regarding Congress proposing an amendment, a key phrase in U.S. Const.,
Art. V is "whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary."

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. In the time since,
the Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed the case *Baehr v. Miike* because the
Hawaiian Constitution had been amended to allow the Hawaii Legislature to
limit marriage to one man and one woman. The Vermont Supreme Court held
that either marriage or an equivalent framework must be made available to
same-sex couples. The Vermont Legislature then enacted civil unions
legislation to provide the parallel framework, while reserving (in that
same law) the status of marriage to one man and one woman. California has
created state level domestic partnership, and is considering civil unions,
but it is not considering same-sex marriage. There is a case underway in
Massachusetts, and Connecticut is pondering the civil unions issue.

So, this is pretty much a "non-issue" on the agenda of 45 of the 50
states, many of which have either passed laws prohibiting same-sex
marriage or explicitly recognising it as an interpersonal status between
one man and one woman. And even the 5 states that have passed or have
considered legislation concerning same-sex couples have not considered
same-sex marriage, except for the case that's pending appeal in
Massachusetts. So, same-sex marriage is really an "agenda issue" in only
1 state out of 50.

That rather begs the question whether Congress can properly deem this
issue "necessary" for purposes of proposing an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution - as the Constitution itself requires.
*******************************************************************
Micheal T. McLoughlin, D.Jur., M.A. agentq@umich.edu
San Francisco, California Ann Arbor, Michigan
_______________________________________________
marriage mailing list
To post to the list, send to:
mailto:marriage@lists.qrd.org
To subscribe/unsubscribe/change options:
http://lists.qrd.org/mailman/listinfo/marriage
Admin/Moderator contact:
mailto:marriage-admin@lists.qrd.org

Free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org

I want to recommend a good Web site for the pursuit of legal marriage in Canada. Take a look at www.marriageequality.ca. This is an excellent example of a Web site that is well maintained. We have been proud of our (LMA Web site for its content, particularly our "Quick Answers" feature (4th pick on the left). It will take new volunteer help to redesign and maintain our site so it might compare favorably to others.

At today's Board of Directors meeting of the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington, we adopted a draft Petition which we will soon begin to circulate in the State of Washington. It is not an initiative petition or any other legislative enactment. It is a good old-fashioned petition for redress of grievances, to be signed by people who say they believe in what it says. Here is the text we agreed to present:

We, the undersigned residents of the State of Washington, believe that any adult couple should be free to enter into a legal marriage regardless of their sex, gender, or sexual orientation, if they have chosen each other and are prepared to devote the love, effort, commitment, and sacrifice necessary to build a life together. We urge the people of the State of Washington and the members of the Washington State Legislature to recognize that civil marriage is a legal status that is separate and distinct from religious, ethnic, and any other marriage traditions, and that civil marriage carries with it a multitude of responsibilities, rights, and privileges that should be equally available to all adults in our society without regard to sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

We call on our representatives and community leaders to express their support for changing state and federal laws to achieve full equality under the law for everyone by permitting legal marriage without regard to the sex, gender, or sexual orientation of the couple. Accordingly, we call on the Washington Legislature to amend RCW 26.04 by removing references to sex and gender as eligibility requirements for a civil marriage license. We call on the United States Congress and the president to repeal the so-called, “Defense of Marriage Act,” to remove from federal laws all prejudice, restrictions, and disqualifications related to marital status based solely on sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

We hereby declare that as a fundamental matter of social justice, an affirmation of human and civil rights, and the measure of full equality under the Constitution and the laws of the United States and the State of Washington, same-sex couples should have the right to marry legally.

Watch for our Petition. It will be unveiled first at the "Out and About" in Pasco, Washington, May 25th. After that, it should be available for review and signature at most of the Pride events in our state.

I've been a longtime activist in the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (GLBT) community, working since the 1970s to attain equality and human dignity for us, socially and politically. Starting in 1995, I became involved in forming the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington (LMAW), whose Web site is well worth viewing at www.lmaw.org This is now my second year as the President of the Board of Directors of this non-profit advocacy group.

I will use this blog as a place to bring together information, ideas, links, and arguments for this cause to which I am so fully committed. I'll draw on the experience I've had in the past in the GLBT movement (from before the "BT" part was even defined) and share what I can, in hopes it might help others to learn from example, to avoid pitfalls I have seen, and to make further progress.

I believe our efforts must produce concrete results that help real people in their lives. This is why I have tried to avoid linking these issues with any ideology, religion, or other theoretical perspective. The progress toward civil rights is slow enough as it is; it would be slower still if it had to wait on the most idealistic revolution, to be achieved only when perfect justice arrives. I've seen numerous concrete benefits result from a relatively few years' effort and am proud to have contributed to progress within the Seattle/Washington State area where I have focused my attention and energies.