Volume III (Exit...Stage Left): Constitutional Child's Play

Committed gay couples deserve the same freedom to marry, with the same duties, dignity, security, and equitable legal protections that non-gay heterosexual folks have. All too often, we find conservatives and Republican lawmakers lamenting on the assertion that marriage rights should not be granted for same-sex couples because they cannot procreate...or that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, it would somehow be detrimental to the nation's children. In fact, the Vermont Supreme Court had it right when they said that "[i]f anything, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal protections incident to marriage exposes their children to the precise risks that the state argues the marriage laws are designed to secure against." (Baker v Vermont, 1999). The rights of children are put at risk when we do NOT fully equip those that care for them --- gay and non-gay alike --- with the necessary tools. To illustrate, let's ponder the following:

· "If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no state interest' for purposes of proscribing private adult sex, what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and elderly are allowed to marry." - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (Lawrence v Texas, 2003).

· U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has stated that "no state requires that non-gay couples prove that they can procreate --- or promise that they will procreate --- before issuing them a marriage license. Indeed, no state requires, as a condition of a valid marriage, that a couple promises to even engage in sexual intercourse, which would be required for traditional procreation." Note: President George Washington, the so-called father of the nation, NEVER had any children with his wife Martha.

· "People marry for a many reasons, not all or even most of them related to children. People marry for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, the following: (1) having or raising children (2) stability and commitment (3) emotional closeness (4) intimacy and monogamy (5) the establishment of a framework for a long-term relationship (6) personal significance (7) recognition by society [and] (8) certain legal and economic protections. Gay men and women share this same mix of reasons for wanting to be able to marry, a mix that may include having, or caring for, one's kids, but often does not, and that, for many couples, turn on other important aspects of marriage." Turner v Safley, 482 U.S.C. 78 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1987).

· "While two parents are usually, though not always, better than one, the two can certainly be of the same sex. The experts on both sides agreed that the strength of a family and the quality of parenting are best defined by love, committment, responsibility, and self-sacrifice, [and] not by the sex of the parents." - Baer v Levin (U.S. Supreme Court, 1993), "Professional Opinion & Expert Testimony" by Andrew Cherlin (Johns Hopkins University), Frank Furstenberg (University of Pennsylvania), and Sara McLanahan (University of Wisconsin).

· "The American Psychological Association (APA) reported that children raised by gay parents are 'not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to the children of heterosexual parents.' Since then, most of the nation's leading organizations devoted to children's health, children's welfare, and children's mental health have declared that a parent's sexual orientation, gay or non-gay, is irrelevant to that parent's ability to raise a child. In addition to the APA, these groups include the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the National Education Association, and the National Association of Social Workers., among others." - Baer v Levin (1993), "Professional Opinion" by the Human Rights Campaighn (HRC).

· "In 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the organization representing our nation's kids' doctors, issued a formal policy statement in support of gay parents and their children. The pediatricians noted that gay parents are fit and loving, and [that] their kids are doing well, and recommended that the law provide for legal structures of responsibility and support for those families that are the same as those provided for others [heterosexuals] under the legal protections and incidents of marriage." - "Co-Parent or Second Parent Adoption By Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics, February 2002, pp 339-340.

Conservatives...GROW UP...and be adult enough to appropriately serve our nation's kids by standing in support of their parents, gay and non-gay alike.

Progressively,
LeftAngst

Volume II (Reprise): Isn't A Ban On Same-Sex Marriage A Constitutional Embarassment?

So...back to our Commander-in-Chief's assertion that equitable marriage rights for homosexuals would somehow UNDERMINE or ENDANGER the family structure. Why is that? How is that kind of logic derived? What is much more significant is the fact that excluding committed gay couples from the official sanctions and legal protections of marriage ACTUALLY DOES UNDERMINE and ENDANGER the spirit of humanity espoused within our laws.

So...what rights are absent from committed gay couples that are unable to marry?

[DEATH] For a committed gay couple that is unable to marry, if one partner dies, the other committed partner is not entitled to get bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the social security payments of the deceased, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or items in the absence of a will.

[DIVORCE] For a committed gay couple that is unable to marry, their is no access to the courts or to legal and financial guidelines in times of breakup, including rules for how to address shared property, child support, and alimony.

[HEALTH] For a committed gay couple that is unable to marry, they are not considered the next-of-kin for the purposes of hospital visitation rights and making emergency medical decisions.

[IMMIGRATION] For a committed gay couple that is unable to marry, U.S. residency and family unification are not available for their gay non-citizen/non-resident partner.

[INSURANCE] For a committed gay couple that is unable to marry, they cannot sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers do not cover domestic partners or their biological/non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

[PARENTING] For a committed gay couple that is unable to marry, they are denied automatic joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and joint visitation rights.

[PROPERTY] For a committed gay couple that is unable to marry, they are excluded from the special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes, and rules regarding the distribution of property in the event of death or divorce.

[PORTABILITY] For a committed gay couple that is unable to marry, their relationship is NOT formally recognized or honored in all states and countries. Formalized domestic partnerships and alternative mechanisms (the limiting civil unions) only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any acknowledgement in most states and countries, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will (should) be.

----
"My husband understood that all forms of discrimination and persecution were unjust and unacceptable for a great democracy. He believed that no one of us could be free until all of us were free, that a person of conscience had no alternative but to defend the human rights of all people. The Civil Rights Movement that I believe in thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion. All of us who oppose discrimination, and support equal marriage rights, should stand together." - Coretta Scott King, "Marriage Resolution Support Speech" (Urges A ‘No’ Vote On Prop 22), International Gay & Lesbian Association (February 29, 2000).

Not too representative of a "compassionate
conservative" these days...

Progressively,
LeftAngst

Volume I (Intro): Isn't A Ban On Same-Sex Marriage A Constitutional Embarassment?

Ok. I must take this opportunity to apologize for my absence. Let's call my absence an "intellectual sabatical"..."time of political introspection"...or "a rhetorical retreat" from the conservative misinformation and imperial nature of what the Office of the United States President has unfortunately become during the W. Bush years. But...the Republican Party's resurrection of the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage DID get my "liberal juices" flowing again. And...since every "hero" needs an "anti-hero"...and every proverbial "cure" needs a "disease," the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party (y'know...those folks running around with the "Religious Right" self-moniker) has provided this legislative fiat and political distraction as that "anti-hero."

W. stated that "our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them...[and] changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure." This is rhetorical jujitsu ("the art of political misdirection") because it finds absolutely no evidential support that is founded in legal reasoning, research-based longitudinal studies, or any time-tested socio-political analyses. To not support equity-in-marriage rights for, and between, homoxuals and heterosexuals alike --- or to not support the fight against the 2nd-classing of gays and lesbians around the issue of equity-in-marriage rights --- is profane. Not allowing for equity-in-marriage rights for homosexuals and lesbians is unconstitutional: U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV - "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Further...

· The Government Accountability Office (GAO)'s 1997 report identified 1,049 federal benefits, rights, or privileges that were contingent on marital status. In 2004, a revamped GAO report upped the number of federal effects to 1,138. They include tax breaks, pensions and Social Security benefits, inheritance rights and loans, immigration and citizenship status, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights, next-of-kin transferable property rights w/o adverse tax treatment, adoption and parental rights of guardianship, rules for ending a relationship while protecting both parties (ie divorce), etc. These proposed federal and enacted state bans "abridge [at least 1,138 federal] privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States." This is unconstitutional due to its backwards inconsistency with the 14th Amendment.

· Article III, Section I of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and subordinate federal and appellate courts. It also enumerates (while not limiting) the areas of jurisdictional review regarding the types of cases that these Courts may hear. Any cases involving rights that are conferred by the Constitution may be heard, reviewed, or ruled upon ("writ of certiorari" when the Supreme Court wants to impose its right of review) by these federal-level courts. The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) says that "no court of the United States or any state shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any state requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred." FMA would have stripped the Supreme Court and all federal courts of hearing any challenges. FMA, on its face and in an overt manner, deprives gays and lesbians of their access to federal courts, thereby unconstitutionally depriving a discrete minority of basic access to government. The Supreme Court has ruled that "a law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of the equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense and is unconstitutional because of its peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group." (Romer v Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)). Basic due process demands an independent judicial forum capable of determining federal constitutional rights. FMA (as well as the Defense of Marrage Act) forces gay citizens out of federal courts, which are uniquely suited for the vindication of federal interests, and into state courts that lack the federal expertise and independent safeguards provided to federal judges under Article III.

blog progressively &
advocate radically,
LeftAngst