Same-Gender Marriage

Yesterday in Canada, Prime Minister Paul Martin's government introduced a bill to legalize same-gender marriages nationally. Martin said that because courts have allowed gay marriage in eight of Canada's 13 provinces and territories, the government should ensure that there is no discrimination against gays in the remaining areas of the country. A devout Catholic, Martin said he struggled with the issue and even asked advice from his priest. But he decided that as the leader of all Canadians, he must guarantee that human rights trump religious tenets.

2 February 2005

Defying his own party's strong opposition to the bill, Conservative MP James Moore (British Columbia) declared his support, saying that two people in love should not be stopped from marrying.

"If two people are of the same sex and they're consenting adults and they want to stand together in public and say 'I'm going to be with this person for the rest of my life' … I don't know that there's a public harm in people doing that."

3 February 2005

Today, the Canadian House of Commons passed bill C-38 by a vote of 158 to 133, to legalize same-gender marriage throughout the nation. Among Members of Parliament voting "aye" was former NHL hockey star Ken Dryden. C-38 still needs to be approved by the Canadian Senate. In the meantime, out of 13 provinces and territories in Canada, only Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories do not yet permit same-gender marriages. (Nunavut recognizes same-gender marriages performed elsewhere in Canada.)

28 June 2005

Canada was not the third nation in the world — after the Netherlands and Belgium — to legalize same-gender marriages. While waiting for the Canadian Senate to pass C-38, the Congress of Deputies (lower house of the Spanish parliament) voted today 187 to 147 to override the Senate and legalize same-gender marriages in Spain. The Spanish Senate had earlier blocked the bill, but the Congress of Deputies has the authority to override actions of that upper house. (The Chamber of Deputies also overrode the Senate yesterday by legalizing no-fault divorce.)

30 June 2005

Yesterday, the Canadian Senate voted 47-21 (with three abstentions) to approved bill C-38 without any amendments. (Amendments would have returned the bill to an uncertain fate in the Commons, where the governing Liberal party has less than a majority of the seats and could be forced to call an election at any time, killing any pending legislation.) Since Canada's Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson is recovering from heart surgery, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signed C-38 into law today. (In Canada, the Chief Justice is also the acting Governor-General when the latter is unavailable.)

20 July 2005

In the November 1998 election, Alaska voters approved a ballot proposition to prohibit same-gender marriages. Similar laws have been enacted by legislatures or voters in other states. The state supreme court in Hawaii had earlier ruled that a refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violated terms of the state constitution; so in the same election, Hawaiian voters took the issue away from the courts and placed it in the hands of the legislature. Heeding the results of the election, subsequent court decisions effectively eliminated the original ruling. Same gender marriages are still not legal in Hawaii.

Safe Space: Select this symbol to learn about its significance.

In California, a bill to prohibit same-gender marriages failed to pass the Legislature, partially through the efforts of Assemblywoman Sheila Kuhel (D), whose lesbianism is public knowledge and who, at that time, was Speaker Pro Tem of the State Assembly. (She is now State Senator Kuhel.) State Senator Pete Knight (who apparently has never reconciled himself to the homosexuality of both his brother and his own son) then successfully sponsored an initiative campaign to place the Limitation of Marriage Act on the March 2000 ballot; California voters overwhelmingly voted 61% "yes" on Proposition 22. This proposition restricts recognition of marriages in California to different-gender couples only. However, it has not stopped the Legislature from adopting a number of bills extending marriage-like rights to same-gender couples, which the Governor signed into law. (A key right that remains elusive is community property, which makes any assets earned by one spouse the joint property of both. Community property creates the method used to divide assets when a marriage ends, the basis for inheritance laws, and the justification for joint tax returns.)

After the state supreme court in Vermont ruled similarly to the earlier ruling of the Hawaii supreme court, the Legislature there enacted a law that allows same-gender couples to register, after which they have most of the same rights as married couples — except calling their relationship marriage.

Then there is the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which allows each state to deny recognition of same-gender marriages from other states where they might be legal. Of course, the number of states that have not yet explicitly banned same-gender marriages by statute is dwindling.

Why is this an issue? The answer requires exploring the attitudes and arguments of those who have brought the issue to public attention.

Hypocrisy

Many of those who work to prohibit same-gender marriages come from the same political and social philosophy as those who condemn homosexuals for their failure to establish long-term, committed relationships. They do not comprehend the hypocrisy of first condemning the lack of commitment and then denying the legal means to establish and perpetuate a commitment.

Aside from religious and social aspects, the legalities of marriage do indeed create a "glue" that holds a couple together during difficulties in their relationship so that, when those difficulties are resolved, the couple can find comfort in having continued their relationship. After 37 years of marriage, I can indeed assert that relationships do suffer occasional difficulties; and I am very glad that the legal "glue" kept my wife and me together long enough to enjoy our present relationship.

The legal "glue" of marriage includes the problems at divorce from division of assets accumulated during marriage, changing credit card and bank accounts, updating credit reports, and especially custody of children. (Same-gender couples are indeed allowed to adopt children in many states.) Even in states (such as California) where divorce is quite simple, the time and effort to end a marriage can make some couples put that time and effort into restoring their marriage. Lacking this legal "glue", same-gender couples find that ending a relationship is too easy. The same is true of unmarried mixed-gender couples. Could we expect differently?

Comity

When a married couple moves from Texas to Louisiana (where family law is different), are they still married? Comity is the principle that a legal action done in one jurisdiction (where it was indeed valid) is recognized as valid in other jurisdictions. For example, a couple living in Minnesota may adopt a child in accord with the laws of that state. If they later move to Utah, where adoption laws might be so different that the Minnesota process might not have been recognized as valid, Utah will still recognize the legality of the adoption. Another example is that resident of California obtaining a decree of dissolution of marriage (which replaced divorce several years ago in that state and which cannot normally be contested by the spouse) is recognized as divorced in other states, even in those states where a spouse contesting the action could delay it.

What would happen if a same-gender marriage took place in a state where it were legal? Under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, each state could deny that legality. Now, I am not an attorney; but I do know how to read. Article IV, Section 1, does not say Congress can enact waivers of comity. It merely gives Congress the right to define how an action in one state can be proven in another and what that action really means. If the federal courts were to rule that comity does not include same-gender marriage, what else is not covered? Could Florida take a child away from a same-gender couple who legally adopted that child in California?

Comity is not just an obscure section of the United States Constitution affecting the relationship between states. We must also consider international comity. In Belgium and The Netherlands, same-gender marriages are legal. What would be the status in the United States of a same-gender couple legally married in the Netherlands? If one spouse, for example, were charged in the United States with a criminal act, could the other spouse be compelled to testify against the accused in violation of the long-standing spousal privilege? Would a same-gender couple married in Belgium but now living in the U.S. be allowed to file a joint income tax return?

O, Canada

Flag of Canada Early in 2003, appeals courts in three Canadian provinces — British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario — ruled that same-gender marriages should be allowed in Canada. All three rulings referred to the Canadian constitution, which provides equal rights without regard for sexual orientation. No appeals court issued any opposing decision in any other province. Unlike the other two courts, which allowed stays of their decisions while the appeals to the federal supreme court could be made, the court in Ontario ruled that its decision took effect immediately. Less than a month later, the court in British Columbia also removed its stay.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien responded, not by ranting his opposition to these rulings, but by introducing a bill in the federal Parliament that would remove gender references from Canada's marriage laws, effectively legalizing same-gender marriages. That bill would also provide that no religion would be required to conduct same-gender weddings. The bill was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether the equal rights clause of the constitution would allow the exemption for religions to refuse perform same-gender weddings. The court heard arguments in October 2004, and a ruling is expected early in 2005.

On 16 September 2003, a move by the Canadian Alliance (the leading opposition party in Parliament) to derail Chrétien's bill was defeated by a vote of 137-132, effectively reversing a 1999 Parliamentary vote of 216-55 against same-gender marriage. "Nobody is forcing the leader of the Canadian Alliance to marry a man if he doesn't want to. … I think this motion does display a very homophobic attitude," said New Democrat MP Libby Davies.

Towards the end of 2003, Chrétien retired as Prime Minister. His successor, Paul Martin, seemed ambivalent regarding the issue of same-gender marriages. In the meantime, the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties merged. Neither party had been seen as supportive of same-gender marriages, and the Canadian Alliance had even advocated repealing existing laws granting gays equal rights with non-gays.

In 2004, Prime Minister Martin called a Parliamentary election for the end of June, hoping to secure a five-year mandate to govern (the longest allowed without an election) before the new Conservative party could consolidate and generate support. Martin's move was not entirely successful. While his Liberal party remained the largest in Parliament, it lost its majority. Thus, Martin can only govern with support from the other parties. The New Democrat and Bloc Québécois parties strongly support same-gender marriage, so legislation on that issue would surely pass Parliament with a substantial majority even though the Conservative party is the second largest.

Shortly after the election, the supreme court in Yukon Territory ruled in favor of same-gender marriages, again citing the federal constitutional granting of equal rights to gays. Prime Minister Martin's government requested a stay of the ruling (a referral) to allow the Canada Supreme Court to make its ruling, but the stay was denied. Two months later, a lower, trial court in Manitoba made a similar ruling. Notable about the Manitoba ruling was that the provincial government declined to appeal, and the federal government declined to request a stay. Less than a month later, the supreme court in Nova Scotia made a similar ruling. In the first week of November 2004 — the same week when voters of 11 states in the U.S. approved prohibitions against same-gender marriages — a trial court in Saskatchewan ruled that the traditional definition of marriage discriminates against gay couples. "The common-law definition of marriage for civil purposes is declared to be 'the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others,'" wrote Justice Donna Wilson. Then, in December, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador also ruled that same-gender couples could wed, again without any objection from the provincial or federal governments. Now eight provinces and territories in Canada recognize same-gender marriages, encompassing an overwhelming majority of the nation's population.

Already, same-gender weddings have taken place in Canada. And same-gender marriages have also failed. On 13 September 2004, a same-gender couple that had legally married in Ontario in June, 2003, were granted a divorce, also in Ontario. For this to happen, the judge first had to strike down the Divorce Act, which said only spouses — defined as a man and woman — can divorce. "The definition of a spouse is unconstitutional [under the Canadian constitution], inoperative and of no force and effect." This is the very first divorce of a same-gender couple in Canada and might be the first of any same-gender couple anywhere in the world. Given the high failure rate of mix-gender marriages — some of which do not last even a year — it is surprising that no such divorce occurred earlier.

Same-gender couples in the U.S. plan for trips to Canada. A formal treaty between the U.S. and Canada decrees that a marriage legally established in one nation is recognized as valid in the other. Will the U.S. abrogate this treaty to prevent recognition of same-gender marriages? (Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, whose marriage is recognized as legal in Canada, were denied entry into the U.S. because they presented a combined, family customs declaration.) If so, would Canada retaliate by declaring marriages, divorces, custody orders, and adoptions from the U.S. to be invalid? In the meantime, Canadian weddings for U.S. same-gender couples may create future legal problems when, as with male-female couples, a same-gender marriage needs to be ended. Since the marriage might not be recognized in the U.S., there would be no provision for a U.S. divorce. No, the couple cannot then flee back to Canada, where a person cannot file for divorce until living in the same province for a year (definitely a problem because Canada does not allow anyone without an immigrant's visa to stay more than six months).

A real test of international comity is underway in Ireland. There, Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone, two women who married each other in British Columbia, are in court challenging the refusal by the Revenue Commissioners to allow them to file tax returns as a married couple. Under Irish law, married couples enjoy tax advantages over unmarried couples. The Irish government tried to have the lawsuit by Gilligan and Zappone dismissed, but High Court Justice Liam McKechnie ruled that the two women have a case that merited a full hearing on the issue of whether Ireland must recognize a valid Canadian marriage.

Updated 22 December 2004

Opposing the government's move to legalize same-gender marriages, Calgary's Roman Catholic bishop, Fred Henry, wrote in his recent pastoral letter on homosexuality that the goal of changing the definition of marriage was to create "a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance." Not only is there no single, stereotypical gay lifestyle; but also there is nothing wrong with accepting gays as equals in society. More important, should the Catholic Church dictate Canadian laws in direct opposition to the position of the United Church, Canada's largest Protestant denomination and a supporter of same-gender marriages?

2 February 2005

On 23 June 2005, a court in New Bruswick made that the eighth Canadian province (plus one territory) to legalize same-gender marriages.

Finally, there is the problem with California's Definition of Marriage Act, which specifies that marriage is a legal relationship between one man and one woman. What would be the status of a Moslem family from Pakistan — a husband with two wives — that moves to Los Angeles? Can California break up such a marriage that was legal where it started?

Procreation

Many opponents of same-gender marriage assert that the primary purpose of marriage is to perpetuate the human species. This argument means that no couple should be married if they cannot have children. A man who is sterile because of a mumps infection as a teenager or a woman who had a hysterectomy to stop the spread of uterine cancer should thus be prohibited from marrying. Carrying this argument to its logical conclusion, vasectomies and tubal ligatures should be prohibited by law. Indeed, all forms of birth control should be banned. Finally, this argument would prevent women past menopause and men who are impotent from marrying.

To a large extent, this is a religious argument. As such, it reflects a belief that sexual intercourse is a burden endured only for the purpose of creating children. This is not a universal philosophy shared by all religions. In Jewish philosophy, the pleasure of orgasm is a gift from God that every married person has a right to enjoy and an obligation to ensure his or her spouse also enjoys; intercourse is not a burden but a principal purpose of marriage. Yes, children are always important; but in many religions, couples without any prospect of ever having children are still encouraged to marry.

Since no one proposes a prohibition against marriage for sterile male-female couples, Stanton's attempt to tie marriage to parenting is fallacious. Worse, he and his organization seriously disrespect all the single parents and the good children they are successfully raising. Stanton insults the young widows who are left to do the best they can (often their best is indeed very good) to care for their sons and daughters. He insults those brave single men and women who love their adopted children, many of whom would have remained institutionalized without any parent at all if there were not single-parent adoptions. In any case, Stanton ignores the fact that gays already have the right in many states to adopt children. By bringing parenting into the argument over same-gender marriage, Glenn Stanton, Focus on the Family, and others who would impose their beliefs on the rest of us are trying to create an irrelevant red herring to distract us from the real issue: Should the religious dogma of some control the rights of all?

Rights and Privileges

Opponents of same-gender marriage are upset that gays and lesbians want the same rights, benefits, and privileges that mixed-gender married couples have. Of course! Gays and lesbians do want equal rights. But they want the obligations, penalties, and burdens of marriage, too.

If marriage were all rights, benefits, and privileges, why is divorce so common?

As God Decreed

*** Begin Right Sidebar ***

The word marriage has a great emotional weight, much of it religious. That might be why so many arguments against same-gender marriage are expressed in religious terms. We hear of the "sacrament of marriage" and "holy matrimony". In denouncing the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, President Bush referred to "a sacred institution between man and woman." The Vatican decried that decision, saying it sanctioned a "moral disorder against God's creative plan."

Perhaps, they are correct. Perhaps all laws relating to marriage should be repealed, leaving the subject entirely under the control of religious institutions, thus reflecting the First Amendment prohibition against government control of religious actions. The government would no longer control marriage because the government would no longer give legal recognition to it. Being married by a priest, minister, or rabbi would give no legal status to a couple.

However, the legalities of civil relationships between adult couples must be addressed. Inheritance, property rights, hospital visitations, joint tax returns, the right to financial support, Social Security and employee benefits — these are all legal issues and not religious. With the government no longer giving legal recognition to marriage, we would then need domestic partnership laws for both same-gender and mixed-gender couples.

Then, the status sought by gays would be obtained when they register as domestic partners with the government. Whether they can get married would be determined strictly according to the beliefs and practices of their own religion, with no one religion dictating its beliefs to any other. Equality would result from the fact that the rest of us — mixed-gender couples — would also have to register as domestic partners to have our relationships legally recognized.

Apparently, legal scholar Alan Dershowitz agrees.

*** End Right Sidebar ***

More important than refuting religious arguments against same-gender marriage, we must consider the fact that not all religions oppose such relationships. In the United States, the Unitarian-Universalist Church and the United Church have formal same-gender wedding ceremonies. Other Christian churches have seen their priests and ministers officiate at same-gender weddings, including Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian. In Reform Judaism, both the Central Conference of American Rabbis (the rabbinical association) and the Union for Reform Judaism (the association of lay leadership) have gone on record supporting civil marriages for same-gender couples; and the rabbis also authorize religious wedding ceremonies for same-gender couples. At their 2000 General Conference, Presbyterian congregations rejected a prohibition against church ceremonies for same-gender couples, effectively endorsing such ceremonies. And then in 2003, the U.S. Episcopal Church accepted such ceremonies, allowing local churches to follow the lead of the New Westminster diocese in Canada.

Where there is such a division of opinion, a law based on religious dogma must be rejected as violating the separation between religion and government. No law will force an opposing religion to conduct same-gender weddings; those religions should not force the enactment of laws that intrude on the beliefs of other faiths that feel homophobia is the sin, not homosexuality. Statutes that must apply to all citizens should not be drawn to enact the dogma of only some citizens.

Oh, I'm for Gay Rights; but They Should Not Be Allowed to Marry

Rights and equality must apply in general without exceptions for them, whoever they might be. Otherwise, how can we be sure that our own rights and equality will prevail?

Letters to the Editor

How U.S. Is Redefining Institution of Marriage

Convicted murderer Lyle Menendez, who is serving a life term without possibility of parole, was wed in prison to a woman he never knew before his incarceration and with whom he will never be allowed to consummate the marriage. So much for the argument that marriage is a unique union of two individuals for the purpose of procreation.

The absurdity is that a man who killed his parents in cold blood and will never set foot outside the state penitentiary has greater legal rights to protect the so-called sanctity of his relationship with the person he loves than law-abiding, taxpaying citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian.

Robert J. Switzer, West Hollywood

Los Angeles Times, 30 November 2003

The Questions, and an Answer

How would the marriage of two men to each other endanger the love and commitment within your own heterosexual marriage?

Kelly cartoon, dialog bubble: 'I've got no problem with same-sex marriage. My wife and I have been in one for years.'

It's called the "Defense of Marriage Act". But against what threat does it defend your marriage? Does your marriage really require this defense?

If a priest, minister, or rabbi really feels that two people of the same gender do indeed belong together in a life-time commitment and deserve God's blessing for that commitment, should your government — elected by your vote — interfere?

The answer is that statutory prohibitions against same-gender marriages is just another form of "gay bashing". The next time a gay is beaten to death or a lesbian is fire-bombed from her home, those who lead the campaigns to prohibit same-gender marriages will deny responsibility. However, their verbal attacks against homosexuals create the attitudes that make physical attacks acceptable to too many individuals.

It seems ironic that some of those who would prohibit same-gender marriages (e.g.: a former Speaker of the House of Representatives) have the most unstable of relationships. But the protection their relationships require will not be achieved by denying rights to others.

Side Notes

The Boeing Company allows its gay employees to enroll their same-gender partners in the company's health plans, joining such other large companies as Lotus Development, Microsoft, IBM, Walt Disney, Honeywell, and Xerox. Unlike some other companies, however, Boeing does not allow enrollment of opposite-gender partners of unmarried heterosexual employees. Boeing explains this exclusion by noting that its heterosexual employees do indeed have the option of marriage to qualify their partners for enrolling in company benefits, but this option is currently unavailable to Boeing's gay employees.

Belgium and The Netherlands recognize same-gender marriages. In Germany, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, France, and Sweden, same-gender couples can register and obtain most of the same rights as married couples. None of these nations have constitutional requirements for separation of government and religion. Indeed several have each designated a specific Christian denomination as its "national church". How is it that those nations can accommodate some form of marital rights for gays while in the United States — with a constitutional prohibition against legislating specific religious dogma — such accommodation is blocked by laws promoted by the Religious Right? Other nations extending rights to same-gender couples — rights denied by the United States — include Hungary, England, Israel, Brazil, and New Zealand.

How is it that Canada can grant marriage-like rights to same-gender couples, which we then demand they surrender when they visit south of their border?

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence and Garner vs Texas, which voided Texas's law against gay sex, the cover article in the 7 July issue of Newsweek magazine asked "Is Gay Marriage Next?". On the "Letters" page of the 21 July issue, the following box appeared.

Strong Reactions on a Sensitive Issue

Nearly 300 readers responded to our July 7 cover story on gay marriage. (There were two covers, one featuring a male couple and another featuring a female one.) Many were grateful for the story. One lesbian said, I cried when I read it, happy to know that I may one day be able to marry the woman I love." Others spoke out against homophobia. "As a heterosexual, I am not persuaded by homophobic arguments, but instead by intellectual ideas of basic human rights," wrote one. But some still bristled at the idea of gay marriage. "Who needs a picture of two men 'in love' polluting my living room?" asked one woman. Several echoed the man who said, "Homosexuality doesn't pass the law-of-nature test." But the mother of four children, one of whom is a lesbian, declared, "Love and commitment is a family value, no matter if it's with someone of the opposite sex or same sex."

Several letters that were published on that page implied that the only justification for marriage is procreation. But one letter placed the strengths and weaknesses of marriages — mix-gender and same-gender — into proper perspective.

My partner of 20 years and I have attended each of my brother's three weddings. During each one, he has openly wished that the sanctity of marriage that he enjoys could extend to us, while we have hoped that our understanding of the principles of marriage would finally be learned by him.

Brian Judge
Washington, D.C.

In the meantime, legislation is pending in Canada and Taiwan to legalize same-gender marriages.

The Roman Catholic bishops of Massachusetts are again trying to impose their dogma on a people that includes citizens of other faiths. No one will force a Catholic priest to perform a wedding ceremony for a same-gender couple. Why then should the bishops prevent a Reform Jewish rabbi from performing such a ceremony?

The recent state supreme court rulings in Massachusetts and the actions in the city of San Francisco make this issue headline news. Those opposed to same-gender marriage keep issuing pronouncements about "protecting marriage".

My wife and I — married 40 years — feel no need to be protected. Our marriage is not threatened when two persons — mixed-gender or same-gender — seek legal recognition of the emotional commitment they already feel towards each other.

These are threats to marriage because they undermine the concepts of commitment, marital equality, and fairness. But committed love based on equality of partners treating each other fairly does not threaten my marriage.

There is a silly computer game called Whack a Mole. On your monitor, you see a field with holes. Every so often, a mole pokes his head out of a hole. Moving your cursor with your mouse over the mole, you click to whack the mole with a big hammer. As you whack one mole, another pops up from a distant hole. If you don't respond quickly, he goes back into his hole to pop up someplace else.

Lately, it seems as if same-gender marriage is like Whack a Mole. First, it was the state supreme court in Vermont, then the state supreme court in Massachusetts. It popped up in San Francisco and then New Palz (NY). When the Religious Right hammered it down in New Mexico, it popped up in Oregon. When Republican President Bush announced he is in favor of an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit it, Republican Mayor Bloomberg of New York City endorsed same-gender marriage. At the same time, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger of California said he would not oppose a law for same-gender marriage in his state and opposes amending the Constitution to prohibit it. Now, it seems to be popping up in Seattle.

When President Bush announced his support for amending the Constitution to prohibit same-gender marriage, I wrote a letter to my Congressman.

Today, same-gender couples legally married in Massachusetts. Divine lightening did not strike down the state's supreme court. Cape Cod did not feel God's wrath. My marriage of 40 years is still strong.

In the meantime, President Bush renewed his call for amending the Constitution to prohibit same-gender marriages. Our nation's leader is engaging in verbal gay bashing, which can only give encouragement to those who resort to physical gay bashing. The next time a gay man is beaten to death or a lesbian woman dies in her fire-bombed home, Bush will be as responsible as the persons who actually commit those crimes. After all, our President publicly demands that gays be treated as a lower life-form than non-gays.

Perhaps, the President's declaration is merely an attempt to divert attention from what is really important. After all, what is the worse sin?

Juan Cole (professor of history at the University of Michigan) has a very interesting commentary on how President Bush proposes to insert religious dogma into our Constitution.

Among non-religious groups supporting same-gender marriage is the American Psychological Association (APA), the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and the world's largest association of psychologists. The APA also endorses child adoption by same-gender couples.

This past week, the House of Representatives passed H.R.3313 — the Marriage Protection Act of 2004 — and sent it to the Senate. H.R.3313 would prohibit any federal court from hearing any case or appeal that challenges the validity of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DMA). If passed by the Senate, President Bush has already pledged to sign this into law.

Not only would H.R.3313 prevent any federal court challenge of the discriminatory aspects of the DMA. It would also prevent any federal court from considering whether the DMA violates the comity clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. This latter prohibition is unprecedented during the 215 years our government has operated under the Constitution and itself might not be constitutionally valid.

In their quest for votes in November from fundamentalist Christians, the Republican members of the House have clearly chosen to abandon any hope of receiving votes from gays and their families and friends. (Yes, there are gays who are Republicans.) More important, however, H.R.3313 clearly indicates that Republican members of Congress do not trust federal judges that have been — by and large — appointed by Republican Presidents. Perhaps the Republicans in the House recognize that the DMA is truly unconstitutional and are afraid even Republican judges will find it unacceptable. If wiser heads in the Senate do not prevail, let us hope the judges will also reject H.R.3313.

__________________________
In the last 23 years, Presidents have been Republican 15 years and Democrat only 8 years. In the last 35 years, Presidents have been Republican 23 years and Democrat only 12 years. For over a generation, Republicans were President almost two-thirds of the time, appointing approximately two-thirds of the federal judges.

With a vote of 227 "Ayes" to 186 "Nays", the House of Representatives failed today to pass a proposed Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender marriage, falling 49 "Ayes" short of the required two-thirds majority. This cynical ploy — intended to garner support by religious conservatives for Republicans — to vote on an issue that was sure to fail was too much for even some Republicans, 27 of whom voted with 158 Democrats and one independent to defeat the proposal.

The 108th Congress eventually adjourned without passing any prohibition against same-gender marriage. H.R.3313 died in the Senate.

I must repeat: Neither my wife nor I — now married almost 41 years — feel any threat to our own marriage when a same-gender couple commits to a lifetime of living together. But I'm not gay, why do I care whether same-gender couples can marry?

It's against nature,	What happens in nature, of course, defines what is or is not against nature. In nature, we find dogs, penguins, and even our close simian relatives engaging in homosexual activities. Of course, those opposed to gay marriage are also likely to deny any relationship between humans and simians.
it's against society,	Actually, creating legally binding commitments between lovers — leading to the formation of new families — strengthens society.
and it's against the Bible.	This is the real issue. Some Christian churches want to enshrine their dogma in our Constitution and impose a theocracy upon all of us, including those of us whose religions accept gay couples.

Same-Sex Marriage?

Copyright © 1999-2005 by David E. Ross