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.

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?

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).

New Yorkers Want Marriage Equality (Poll Shows Strongest Support Yet)

Even though New York Democrats lost control of the State Senate last November, the prospects for a bill providing for full marriage equality this year look brighter than ever - senators will know that in both parties, some of the most outspoken opponents lost their re-election bids (almost unheard of in state politics) and will not want to go the same way. Undoubtedly, some of those who voted against the last gay marriage bill will change their votes the next time around - we just don't know how many. For the waverers, this CBS6 Albany report of a new poll from  (highly reputable) Quinnipiac Research could help to sway them. Note that support for equality is strong in all geographic regions (suburban, NYC, and Upstate), and that 41% of Republican voters are also supportive. Note also that the gap between support and opposition has doubled in just 18 months, going from 10% in June 2009 to 21% this month.

Marriage Equality Gaining Ground in Maryland.

The movement to marriage equality continues to show progress in Maryland. As lawmakers in the Maryland House and Senate formally kicked off their push for gay marriage, a new poll has shown that for the first time, an absolute majority of Marylanders now support full marriage equality.

According to Annapolis-based pollster Gonzales Research, 51 percent of Maryland residents support gay marriage. Endorsements break down along party lines, with 65 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents favoring same-sex marriage, while only 24 percent of Republicans back the concept. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

-Hometown Annapolis.com

The steady growth in Maryland for acceptance of equality matches the trend nationally and internationally. Speaking of the US,

Tim Magrath, a lecturer in political science at Frostburg State University and a former congressional staffer, agrees that the national attitude toward same-sex marriage is changing.

"The polling data's been incredible, the numbers have completely turned around," said Magrath. "In the '90s when (President) Clinton first started talking about gays in the military, the approval rating was in the 30s, but now a vast majority of people support the idea of gays in the military."

"Public perception on marriage has been transformed in the last decade as well, and there's been a major transformation in public opinion," said Magrath.

The bill which is now being introduced will face strong opposition and a likely filibuster. Still, it has an excellent chance of being passed, after the mid-term elections saw an increased number of key supporters elected to the state legislature. Governor O'Malley has promised to sign the bill if it reaches his desk - but it will probably then face an attempt to force the issue into a voter referendum.

Related articles

• Marriage Equality Bill Introduced in Maryland House as New Poll Reveals Most Support It (towleroad.com)
• Marriage Equality Coming Closer in Maryland (itsaqueerworld.blogspot.com)
• In Maryland, a Majority Support Same-Sex Marriage (gayrights.change.org)
• Tomorrow Maryland Becomes The Next Battleground For Marriage Equality (lezgetreal.com)

"Gay marriage isn't revolutionary. It's just next." - WaPost

By Stephanie Coontz
Sunday, January 9, 2011

Opponents of same-sex marriage worry that allowing two men or two women to wed would radically transform a time-honored institution. But they're way too late on that front. Marriage has already been radically transformed - in a way that makes gay marriage not only inevitable, as Vice President Biden described it in an interview late last year, but also quite logical.

We are near the end of a two-stage revolution in the social understanding and legal definition of marriage. This revolution has overturned the most traditional functions of the institution: to reinforce differences in wealth and power and to establish distinct and unequal roles for men and women under the law.

For millennia, marriage was about property and power rather than love. Parents arranged their children's unions to expand the family labor force, gain well-connected in-laws and seal business deals. Sometimes, to consolidate inheritances, parents prevented their younger children from marrying at all. For many people, marriage was an unavoidable duty. For others, it was a privilege, not a right. Often, servants, slaves and paupers were forbidden to wed.

But a little more than two centuries ago, people began to believe that they had a right to choose their partners on the basis of love rather than having their marriages arranged to suit the interests of parents or the state.

Love, not money, became the main reason for getting married, and more liberal divorce laws logically followed. After all, people reasoned, if love is gone, why persist in the marriage? Divorce rates rose steadily from the 1850s through the 1950s, long before the surge that initially accompanied the broad entry of women into the workforce.

Read more at the Washington Post, Jan 9th 2011

Gay Adoption, Gay Marriage as Moral Obligations: Two Jewish Views (and one Christian)

Here's a refreshing change: instead of the spurious, religious arguments against gay adoption and gay marriage, two more voices (this time, from Jewish perspectives)  speaking out on the positive faith-based reasons in favour of each.

In the first of these, at the Jerusalem Post, the orthodox Rabbi, television host and author of religious books on relationships Shmuley Boteach argues strongly in favour of gay adoption. Last month, he participated with Rosie O'Donnell in a New Jersey public discussion on the subject. In an article published before this event, he reflected on these issues, and especially on an aspect that I see as the most important of all. When a friend he spoke to expressed regret that Rosie's four adopted children would never have a father (the standard, theoretical argument against gay adoption), Rabbi Shmuley replied with the obvious and important, reality-based response:

that without Rosie they wouldn’t have a mother either.

Australians Support Marriage Equality, Opposition Waning.

In common with other countries, support for legal recognition of same sex marriage in Australia is increasing. Support is now at 62%, up from 60% a year ago. The only age group which does not yet show majority support is the over 50's - but only just. Even this group has support at 46%. The youngest group of Australian adults polled are overwhelmingly in favour: 80% agree with the prospect. Politically, only the misnamed "Liberal" party are against, while 75% of Labour voters are in favour. Why Labour PM Julia Gillard continues with her resolute opposition is entirely beyond me: the indications are that this issue has already cost her votes in the last election, resulting in increased seats for the Greens and Independents. As the independent MP Andrew Wilkie has stated, she is clearly out of step with her own voters.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Findings from a new poll of 1050 respondents came as the independent MP Andrew Wilkie called on the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to move on the issue, saying she was ''out of step with the people''.

Mr Wilkie said the Prime Minister should allow a conscience vote, saying it was "beyond time for the Parliament to start representing the people".

The Galaxy poll showed support for same-sex marriage increased from 60 per cent of respondents in 2009 to 62 per cent this year.

The survey, which was conducted over two days earlier this month, showed uniform support for a conscience vote across party lines with 80 per cent of Labor and 75 per cent of Liberal voters agreeing to the idea.

While supporting a conscience vote, Liberal voters were much less likely to agree to allow same-sex couples to marry, with less than half supporting the change. Nearly three-quarters of Labor voters and four out of five Greens voters support same-sex marriage.

The survey also shows that younger Australians are more likely (80 per cent) to support same-sex marriage than those aged over 50 years (46 per cent).

Related articles

• Push for same-sex marriage conscience vote (news.theage.com.au)
• Labor plays for 'pink vote' (theage.com.au)
• Moore urges free vote on gay marriage (news.theage.com.au)
• As Australia's Greens Submit Marriage Equality Bill, PM Julia Gillard Won't Let Anybody From the Labor Party Support it (queerty.com)
• Legalised gay marriage is inevitable, says Labor's Left (theage.com.au)
• Chart of the Day: Religion and Gay Marriage (queeringthechurch.wordpress.com)
• Gay Marriage: Coming (Soon?) to a Church Near You. (queering-the-church.com)
• Three Same-Sex Marriages Staged In Australia (towleroad.com)

Historic Mormon Apology on Prop 8!

As the Minnesota bishops prepare for their determined campaign to prevent marriage equality in their state, they would do well to reflect on the experience of the Mormons in California over Prop 8. As is well known, the Mormons, like the institutional Catholic Church, were among the mainstay of the opposition to equality, donating substantial sums in cash and in kind to funding support for the ballot initiative.

Since the vote, there have been numerous indications that the Mormon leaders have begun to recognize the hurt their actions have caused to their own members. (I would be surprised if the Mormons were to make the same mistake again). In the clearest demonstration yet of this change of heart, a senior member of the Church  has apologised to lesbian and gay Mormons of California. In a move that Joanna Brooks at Religion Dispatches correctly describes as historic, the leader of the church in California invited Elder Marlin K Jensen to a meeting to hear the stories of pain and suffering the Church had caused to gay and lesbian Mormons, not just by the support for Prop 8, but by its entire approach to homosexuals and their place in the Church. At the conclusion of this testimony  - Elder Jensen apologized.

The Real Mama Grizzlies: Lesbian Moms?

Sarah Palin's understanding of wildlife appears to be no better than her tenuous grasp of social history.  Mrs Palin has been very much in the news over her enthusiastic promotion of a band of crazies  thoughtful, conservative candidates who agree with her own views on education and "traditional family values".   The women in this band she likes to describe as "mamma grizzlies", most recntly Christina O'Donnell in Delaware.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="Sarah Palin, With Bear"][/caption]

The problem with the conservative view of the "traditional" family and its values is that has little relation to history, and is in fact a relatively modern invention. The problem with her adoption of mamma grizzlies as her model is that they too scarcely embody the "family values" she claims to support.  Real life mamma grizzlies do not live or mate in the nuclear families she so admires. Rather, they mate in promiscuous, polygamous groups, then raise their young as single mothers - or in collaboration with other females, as family units headed by two women.  The closest human counterparts to real-life "mamma grizzlies" are lesbian couples, with kids - not exactly Christian O'Donnell.

What Constitutes a “Family”? Empirical Study Finds A Wider View

Religious conservatives are regularly referring to the “traditional family” as a foundation for their beliefs, but there is no such thing. The conservative interpretation of the so-called traditional family is  a relatively modern invention, created to fit the conditions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Western Europe and North America. In earlier times, and other parts of the world. family structures varied enormously from  this particular model.

Family history, like all other history, is constantly changing to fit new circumstances, so it should be no surprise that conceptions of family in the twenty first century are continuing to evolve, to fit a world that is no longer what it was in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Some of these changes are obvious, but like so much that is familiar, can easily be “hidden in plain sight.” A new study by sociologist  Brian Powell brings this into plain view. (His study is specifically of American views, but with the emergence of a shared world culture, many of his findings will also have relevance across a much wider geographic region.)

The central finding is that people no longer define “family” as mom pop and kids, but also include   same-sex couples with children (Children seem to be central: childless couples, gay or straight, are not seen as “families”, but just as couples). However, there is an increasing movement towards acceptance. An important finding, familiar from previous studies on the subject, is that people who know gay people (more accurately, who recognize that people they know are gay), are more supportive than those who are not aware that family members or acquaintances are gay. This simply reinforces the necessity for the wider political struggle, that wherever possible, gay men and lesbians should come out openly, in as many contexts as possible. Coming out personally will improve acceptance in our circles of friends and family. Politicians and other public figures who come out   do so indirectly for the wider community.

I particularly liked an argument on gay adoption that I have been using regularly: framing arguments in terms of the “the best interests of the child” can work to our advantage, not those opposed to gay adoption. (In adoption considerations, the best interests of the child require placement with the best parents available. Sometimes, they will be gay).  Indeed, the claim made (but not elaborated on in the reports I have seen), is that the interests of children may well be a more effective argument than others in making the case for more general equality of same-sex couples.

From the New York Times

A majority of Americans now say their definition of family includes same-sex couples with children, as well as married gay and lesbian couples.

At the same time, most Americans do not consider unmarried cohabiting couples, either heterosexual or same-sex, to be a family — unless they have children.

The findings — part of a survey conducted this year as well as in 2003 and 2006 by Brian Powell, a sociology professor at Indiana University, Bloomington — are reported in a new book, “Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family,” to be published on Wednesday by the Russell Sage Foundation. Since the surveys began, the proportion of people who reported having a gay friend or relative rose 10 percentage points, said Professor Powell, the book’s lead author.

“This is not because more people are gay now than in 2003,” he said. “This indicates a more open social environment in which individuals now feel more comfortable discussing and acknowledging sexuality. Ironically with all the antigay initiatives, all of a sudden people were saying the word ‘gay’ out loud. Just the discussion about it made people more comfortable.”

The book concludes that framing the equality of same-sex couples in terms of “the best interests of the child” might prove to be a more successful political argument than others.

Related articles at Queering the Church

• The Gospels' Queer Values
• Traditional "Family Values"; "Traditional Family" Values.
• Church Marriage: Required Only For Priests?
• LGBT community: The Real Defenders of Traditional Marriage.
• "Traditional Marriage Is Between Men": US Bishop.
• An Ignorant Mexican Cardinal, vs  Authentic History of Marriage
• Natural Law, Natural Sex, Natural Families.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Now I Know Who All These People Running Around My House Are (bilerico.com)
• Who's a family? New study tracks shifting US views (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Minnesota Catholics For, Against Gay Marriage

The Minnesota Independent is reporting that "Catholic bishops preparing anti-gay marriage campaign in Minnesota". The opposition of Catholic bishops to same-sex marriage is well-known and will surprise no-one. What is interesting here is that they see the need for a campaign, that there is a real prospect of marriage equality coming to Minnesota that they believe is a credible threat they need to guard against. They will not have it all their own way.

"Minnesota Catholics Supporting Equality - Twin Cities Pride, 2009"

Gay Adoption Advances in Florida, Victoria – Worldwide.

Gay adoption has achieved three notable gains recently in Argentina and New South Wales (advancing in both by legislative action, both in the face of strong opposition by the Catholic Church), and in Mexico City, where the Constitutional Court ruled that the city’s law on gay marriage also permitted adoption by same sex couples. Less high profile cases which you may have missed also illustrate how queer families are gaining legal acceptance in many parts of the world – even in states like Florida, which has a constitutional ban on gay adoption.

Florida

Vanessa Alenier and Melanie Leon : Taking on the Florida Ban in Court

Portugal Clears Last Hurdle to Marriage Equality

The Portuguese parliament approved legislation to recognise same sex marriage some time ago, but there has been little news since then. The reason was simple - the country's President was against the principle, claiming that it was against his Catholic conscience, but was reluctant to take a principled stand against it himself. Instead, he forwarded the bill (more accurately, four of its five articles: he had no objection to the clause which prohibits gay adoption) to the constitutional court for review, obviously hoping that they would find cause to obstruct it. Instead, the court has now approved the legislation. In principle, the President could still veto the law, but I would think this unlikely. The measure has enough support in parliament to override a veto; if he was reluctant to exercise his veto earlier, he is less likely to do so now that there is confirmation that the measure is constitutional; and uniquely for an overwhelmingly Catholic country, even the local bishops have not been overly vigorous in opposition. I would think that we can take it that Portugal will soon be the sixth European country, and the second strongly Catholic one (after Spain), to approve same sex marriage.

Only one thing can really stand in their way - whether Denmark or Iceland get there first: both of these Nordic, Lutheran countries are also on the way to full marriage equality (as are Slovenia and Cyprus).

Iowa Gay Marriage: Here To Stay.

The first anniversary of marriage equality is a good time to take stock. When the state Supreme court ruled in favour of marriage for all last year, many people in this rural, mid-West and moderately conservative state were outraged.  Opinion polls showed that most voters did not support same sex marriage, and opponents vowed to fight for repeal. When the Governor and the Democratic controlled state legislature did not take immediate action towards changing the state constitution, the opposition vowed to turn marriage into an election issue. Superficially, the signs look good for them, with the Republican candidate for governor leading in the polls. But, for all the brouhaha, marriage is here to stay.  On this at least, you can safely ignore the sound and the fury – it signifyeth nothing. 

The death warrant for repeal was signed last week, when the legislative session ended without taking any action to initiate a process for a ballot on a constitutional amendment. This effectively eliminates any prospect of a successful ballot to repeal same sex marriage.    The problem for the conservative activists is the time scale: the earliest that the issue can appear on a  ballot is now four (and a half ) years away, in November 2014, as any proposal must first be approved by two successive two-year state legislature sessions. With strong Dem opposition to repeal, this will require a Republican takeover of the state legislature as well as the governor’s mansion, and a subsequent retention in 2012.  Is this likely? Even if it is, this will not necessarily be enough.  Many Republicans are learning that social conservatism is no longer the hot button route to electoral success that it used to be, and are more concerned to campaign on economic and financial concerns. They will know that opposition to gay marriage and support for changing the constitution do not always go hand in hand. Even in September last year, a poll showed that Iowans were evenly split on the issue of changing their constitution, even as they continued to oppose the principle of marriage.  So, even if there is a Republican takeover of the legislature, a vote for a ballot will not be guaranteed next session – and is still less likely for the next one, following 2012.

Still, let us imagine the worst:  let us assume that somehow, legislators get it right, and a constitutional amendment makes it to the ballot for 2014.  Will it pass? My view is simply – no way.  By then, Iowans will have lived with marriage for nearly six years. They will have learnt that all practical purposes, it has made little difference to their lives – except that some small businesses will found that they have been making some money from it, and some individuals will have found themselves unexpectedly attending weddings of family or colleagues that they did not even realise were gay.

When the Massachusetts court introduced marriage way back in 2004, even some liberals were angered. The battles for public opinion and in the legislature were heated and intense – and close. With the powerful backing of the Catholic church, opponents almost succeeded in forcing a popular ballot,  If they had done so, marriage there may well have been overturned. However, they did not quite get to force that ballot. Today, marriage in Massachusetts is a non-issue, and even the new Republican Senator will not support overturning it.

In another six years, Iowa will feel the same way.  Marriage equality in the mid-West, as in the North-east, is here to stay.