Hawaii Civil Unions Approved; Marriage Equality Update

Three significant news items yesterday illustrated the continuing momentum towards marriage and family equality.

In Hawaii, the state senate has now given final approval to civil unions for same sex couples. All that is now required is for the Gobvernor to add his signature, which he has promised he will do, adding to the number which now offer marriage equality or near equality at state level. More will follow.

In Baltimore, another state senator has stepped off the fence, and announced he will vote in favour of the marriage bill next week. This makes at least 24 votes (and possibly 25) in favour, which will be enough for approval. Passage in the lower house and the governor's signature should follow.

In Delaware, a new group (Equality Delaware) has been formed to push for civil unions, and has announced sponsors for a bill to be introduced to the legislature later this year. (A recent opinion poll showed that a plurality of Delaware voters support full marriage. This would suggest that the early prospects for the more cautious proposal of civil unions must be good).

For the record, here is the current rundown by state, for the US a.nd internationally.

Hawaii House Approves Civil Unions, & Other Marriage Equality Updates.

The Hawaii State House yesterday approved a civil unions bill by a comfortable margin. As the Senate has previously passed the measure, all that is now requited is some tinkering to reconcile the minor differences in the two versions, before it is presented to Governor Abercrombie, who has promised that he will sign it.  Hawaii will then join Illinois as the second US state to approve civil unions this year.

Meanwhile both Maryland and Rhode Island have been holding hearings on bills to provide state recognition for full marriage equality. With powerful voices against, including that of the institutional Catholic Church, it is too early to predict the final outcome. I am encouraged, however, by a few straws in the wind.

New York Catholics Support Gay Marriage

Barbara Bush's public support for gay marriage has garnered a lot of press attention over the past week. Reporting on this the Washington Post has drawn my attention to another finding that should have drawn more attention. Alongside the number of Republican politicians and Evangelical Christians who are breaking ranks with their traditional opposition and starting to support equality, the majority of US (and European) Catholics have already parted company with their bishops on the matter. This has been demonstrated in several polls in recent years, at national level, and in state level polls, as in Rhode Island.

When I read and reported on the recent finding of the Quinnipiac poll that a majority of New Yorkers now support full legal recognition of same sex marriages, I neglected to follow through on my usual practice of checking the cross-tabs for a breakdown by religion. This was a mistake. (In mitigation, I plead that I was under intense pressure  for time last week). As the Washington Post has now observed, the national pattern is found in New York, too.  An absolute majority of New York Catholics support full marriage (not simply civil unions). As the paper's report notes in its concluding remark, "Republican and Catholic leaders may find themselves increasingly out of touch with the rhythm and blues that are moving their constituents and congregants on these issues".

For how much longer can bishops, in the US or elsewhere, get away with claiming to speak for "Catholics" on such matters (or, in the Philippines), it is patently obvious that they are not speaking of the real beliefs or real Catholics, but only for Vatican doctrine and the rule book Catholics who would prefer to get their ideas from a moral manual, without personal thought or reflection?

Seeking Gay Parents, Dispels Myths

A Welsh children's charity, Barnardo's,  is actively seeking gay and lesbian prospective parents, in yet another demonstration that those in the know, the professional experts working in the field, recognize that parenting ability has nothing at all to do with gender or sexual orientation.   What matters far more, is the quality of love and the emotional stability of the home. Abundant scientific research has amassed reams of evidence, frequently disseminated by the professionals, and other agencies before this one have likewise made the same plea for more queer applicants - but the myths, freely promoted by ignorant Catholic spokesmen, still survive.

The resulting prejudice is one of the factors that discourages some potential prospective parents from applying. This is in direct conflict with the interests of the children, which the Church falsely claims to be promoting. The best interests of the children, the professionals know, lies in admitting the largest possible pool of applicants, irrespective of orientation, so that each child may be matched with the best possible parents. At present, there are an estimated 64,000 children in the care system in England: one quarter of whom will never find a family.  Excluding same-sex couples even from consideration as adoptive parents, as the Catholic bishops would like to do, cannot possibly improve the chances of that 25%, and could lead to some of the others being placed with parents who are possibly not necessarily the most suitable just the best suited heterosexuals.

Queer Families at Gay Pride, Rome

Fortunately, British law recognizes the facts, and does not allow agencies to practice discrimination. Now, we need to ensure that public opinion catches up with the facts, to eliminate the continued self-exclusion by some gay couples, who might otherwise to offer their help to children in real need. The tragedy here is that some Catholic agencies, rather than filling their obligation to do the best for the children, have simply stopped finding homes for children at all.

Pope Benedict's Strong Argument for Gay Marriage, Queer Families.

Last Sunday, I picked up a little book at the Soho Masses bookstall called "Christians and Sexuality in the Time of AIDS", a useful little book, which I bought at a ridiculously low bargain price. Some of the insights have little to do directly with the main theme, and it is one of these that is relevant here, an observation made by James Alison in his introduction, writing about Pope Benedict XVI and the nature of his theology.  James has frequently observed that when we respond too quickly or too superficially to the pope's reported remarks, we often underestimate his thinking, which is substantially more nuanced than we usually recognize. In his position, he argues, Benedict cannot do other than repeat the well-worn, established magisterial positions on topical issues.

The really interesting questions surrounding what a pope is doing are never the politically immediate headline grabbers, but always the small, apparently insignificant tinkerings around the edges which are either going to make change possible over time, or try to block it.

When I read these words, they brought into focus for me the speech that Benedict  gave to a group of Italian politicians and public officials last Friday, which has been widely interpreted as an attack on gay marriage. This is not the way I interpreted the speech: instead, I wrote (in the post below) that the reference to "marriage between a man and a woman", and to the forces undermining it, were curiously minor. The main thrust of the speech was more usefully seen as in praise of strong families - which could equally well apply to the families of same sex parents as to any other.   After reading James Alison, I thought how perfectly his warning applies to the present case: well, of course he made the obligatory noises about marriage between a man and a woman (how could he not?) - but the headline writers have missed the main points. With just a little "apparently insignificant tinkerings around the edges", this attack on gay marriage can instead be read as a statement in praise of all families - including those which are queer. 

I submit my original post below, just as I wrote it Sunday -- with profound apologies to my colleague Bart, who very generously responded to my request for preliminary comment with some very useful and helpful suggestions, which I have duly ignored. This is not in any way a reflection on his contribution - but just on my acute lack of time this week.  (I am writing this close to midnight, as it is). I will revise and refine this text later, to incorporate the additional links, Bart's contribution - and possibly later thought as well (both my own and that of readers' comments).

Civil Unions for Colorado?

Two Colorado legislators are preparing to introduce civil union legislation to the State Senate and State House. With an increasing number of GOP politicians nationwide willing to break with the party on social issues, and specifically on LGBT equality, this could just be one where enough Republican support can be found to tip the balance in our favour (New York could be another).

From the Colorado Independent:

Hemmed in by state anti-gay marriage law, Steadman to introduce civil unions bill

Denver Democratic state Senator Pat Steadman is sponsoring a bill that would make same-sex civil unions legal in Colorado. The move is being cheered as long overdue by gay rights supporters, who have been stymied in efforts to win equality by a constitutional amendment that outlaws gay marriage in the state. In weighing whether or not to introduce the legislation this summer, Steadman told the Colorado Independent that “promoting a lesser status for gay people is not ideal” but that, in the short term, “people could really benefit from civil unions.”

Steadman’s bill, which will be sponsored by Denver Rep. Mark Ferrandino in the House, will confer on couples entering into a civil union all of the legal rights granted through marriage– rights that include, for example, inheriting property, sharing health insurance policies, making crucial end-of-life medical and financial decisions.

These aren’t just protections couples share with one another, they’re also family responsibilities, Brad Clark, head of gay rights group OneColorado, told the Colorado Independent. “There are literally hundreds or even thousands of instances of rights shared by couples littered throughout the state code.”

In a release, OneColorado reported that the Strong Families Coalition supporting Steadman’s bill is made up of 66 organizations representing more than half a million Coloradans.

OneColorado has been surveying residents of the state for roughly a year on gay rights and larger equality issues, and Clark said that the campaign around Steadman’s bill will be focused on demonstrating grassroots support. He said views in Colorado on the ground seem to have changed a great deal since anti-gay marriage Amendment 43 passed in 2006. He said support for civil unions comes not just from liberal Denver and Boulder but from communities all across the state.