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.