Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Sun]

NGLTF is a buzz with all of the excitement about the hearings this week.

WATCH: Task Force's Darlene Nipper on MSNBC's "Melissa Harris-Perry Show"

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Edited to add: they got bumped from tonight's broadcast. They're hoping it will be run tomorrow night.

Big day the next two days. ��I'm anxious. I'm not certain all of the public and political declarations of support for marriage equality is indication that the court will rule in our favour on either case. Scalia is a bastard.
And he has a powerful whip on that court.

But I'm hoping!

There are several ways the court can go, including the ruling that the Proponents of Prop 8 were not harmed by the decisions in California declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional, and Prop 8 would be void. This is the option I personally do not want (but believe will happen), as it changes nothing for anyone except us.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

There are several ways the court can go, including the ruling that the Proponents of Prop 8 were not harmed by the decisions in California declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional, and Prop 8 would be void. This is the option I personally do not want (but believe will happen), as it changes nothing for anyone except us.

I was reading briefly (as I'm on my break), that the court indicated that they will probably not touch on the broader issue of same sex marriage for all, and will be (as I said above) limited to affecting California (Prop 8) one way or another.

Let's hope I'm wrong.

[Rockinonahigh]

I haven't posted hear but I shure have read a fue post that u all have put on hear.I do hope that things go our way,even if its a little bit to get the wheels in motion.But,I think the courts will take the easyest way out,I hope not but I think they will.To bad the high court dose us this way,I have been told by someone who I know that works in D.C. that as long as it's not anything that will effect them..who cares.To bad,I hope i'm wrong.

[thedivahrrrself]

Today, change your profile picture to this to show your support for marriage equality.

[JustBeingMe]

An unprecedented Supreme Court case that advocates on both sides hoped might settle the question of gay marriage once and for all could be reduced to a procedural issue.
Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism in oral arguments Tuesday that the proponents of California's gay marriage ban, called Proposition 8, have the legal right to defend the ban in court. Several of the justices closely questioned the attorneys in the landmark case over the procedural legal issue, called standing, suggesting they may be poised to throw the case out without significantly addressing the broader issue of whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.
The 2008 voter-approved gay marriage ban has been the target of lawsuits for four years, challenged by gay couples who say it discriminates against them based on their sexual orientation. Since it passed, public opinion on gay marriage has shifted rapidly in the country, with a slight majority for the first time now saying they believe gay couples should be allowed to wed, and two lower courts have struck Prop 8 down as discriminatory. Still, the vast majority of states outlaw gay marriage.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote and the author of two major decisions in favor of gay rights, appeared to be on the fence in the controversial case. Early in the arguments, he suggested that the estimated 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California might be harmed by their parents' inability to marry. "They want their parents to have full recognition and full status," Kennedy said. "The voice of these children is important in this case."
Later in the oral arguments, however, Kennedy said he wondered whether the case should have been granted at all, again mentioning the standing issue.
"You're really asking for us to go into uncharted waters," Kennedy said, adding that there's a "substantial question" over whether Prop 8's defenders have the standing to bring suit.
Kennedy also disagreed with a comparison of this case to Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that such anti-miscegenation laws had been illegal in other countries for hundreds of years, unlike gay marriage, which is still relatively new all around the world.
Kennedy also lamented that research into how same-sex couples and their children fare is new. “We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history,” he said.
The standing issue has dogged supporters of Prop 8 since former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's attorney general declined to appeal a lower court's decision striking down the ban. A coalition of people who helped place Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place stepped up to defend the ban in court without financial help from the state. That group must prove they would experience a direct injury if Prop 8 is struck down in order to have standing to appeal.
The state Supreme Court in California ruled that the coalition had standing to pursue the case, but justices from both the liberal and conservative wings of the court appeared skeptical of that ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was appropriate for supporters of a ballot initiative to defend it in court, rather than the state itself. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the court had never "allowed anything like it" in the past.

If the justices decide to throw out the case on standing, the lower court's decision allowing gay marriage will most likely be the law of the land in California.
Even if the justices get past the standing hurdle, it's unclear whether they would issue a broad ruling affirming gay marriage. That depends on Kennedy, who would have to break with his conservative colleagues to give the liberals a majority in favor of gay marriage.
The Court's four more liberal justices, along with swing justice Kennedy, closely questioned the Prop 8 defenders' attorney about why the government has a reason to exclude gay people from marriage.
Justice Elena Kagan asked attorney Charles Cooper to explain how allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt heterosexual marriage. Cooper replied that he did not think that was the question at hand in the case, at which point Kennedy interjected and asked if he was "conceding the point" that gay marriage does not cause harm. Cooper answered that there may be unforeseen consequences of broadening the "age-old, bedrock" institution of marriage to include gay people.
But even though Kennedy appeared skeptical of the argument that the government has a reason to deny same-sex couples marriage, he also expressed frustration with the quality of the case, mentioning both the standing issue and some of the odder legal arguments advanced by the lower courts. Kennedy criticized the Ninth Circuit of Appeals decision striking down Prop 8 narrowly in a way that only affected California, calling it an "odd rationale." The judges in that case said California was discriminating against gay couples by providing them with all the legal benefits of marriage minus the name. Kennedy and other justices said such reasoning appears to punish states that want to offer gay couples more rights while leaving untouched the many states that provide no legal recognition whatsoever to these couples.
Many legal experts believe that Kennedy, because of his legacy of supporting gay rights on the bench, will not vote to uphold Prop 8. But the oral arguments do not give many hints as to how he will proceed. He may join with the four liberals to write a narrower opinion striking down Prop 8 that finds a different line of argument from the Ninth Circuit's, or they may reject the case on standing, which would effectively legalize gay marriage in California while deferring the larger question of gay marriage for another time.
A decision is not expected until June.

[Sparkle]

cbsn.ws/11JmuEZ

My dear friends & godchild talking about what Prop 8 means to/for them.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Supreme Court DOMA Case: Justices Sounded Skeptical Of Law's Constitutionality, Purpose


WASHINGTON -- A majority of Supreme Court justices on Wednesday morning appeared skeptical of the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as between a man and a woman. Whether the justices believe they have the power to make any decision in this case, however, remained murky.

It was the second day in a row that the high court heard arguments dealing with same-sex marriage. At issue Wednesday in United States v. Windsor was whether it was constitutional for the U.S. government to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that had been recognized by the states.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said Tuesday that the children of same-sex couples “want their parents to have full recognition and legal status,” seemed troubled by the fact that DOMA refuses to recognize even those same-sex unions that are already recognized by states.

"When the federal government has 1,100 laws, which means in our society the federal government is intertwined with citizens' day-to-day lives," Kennedy said, then Congress is doing more than simply ensuring a uniform definition of marriage.

DOMA was only helping states, Kennedy said, “if they do what we want them to do.” He pointed out to Paul Clement, the lawyer defending DOMA, that the law applied to states “where voters have decided” to legalize same-sex marriage and stated that he believed there was injury to same-sex couples whose marriages were not recognized by the federal government.

Section 3 of DOMA, at issue in Wednesday morning's case, says "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" for purposes of "any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States."

Plaintiff Edie Windsor, 83, brought suit against the federal government after the Internal Revenue Service cited DOMA in denying her a refund for the $363,000 in federal estate taxes she paid following the 2009 death of Thea Spyer, her partner for over 40 years. Windsor and Spyer had married in Canada in 2007, but resided in New York. Because Windsor would have been eligible for an estate tax exemption had Spyer been a man, she argues that DOMA's Section 3 violates her equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.




On this point, Windsor had a friend in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said that DOMA created "two types of marriage," likening same-sex marriage in the states to the "skim milk" version of straight unions.

Justice Kennedy also showed hostility to DOMA. But like his position in the Proposition 8 oral arguments Tuesday, he appeared reluctant to rule on equal protection grounds. Instead, the question for him was "whether or not the federal government under our federalism scheme has the authority to regulate marriage."

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the Obama administration on the merits of the case, avoided Kennedy's question, choosing instead to emphasize Congress' discriminatory purpose in enacting DOMA in 1996.

The law "is not called Federal Uniform Definition of Marriage Act," he said. "It's called the Defense of Marriage Act."

Justice Elena Kagan pushed a similar point. She told Clement, who was defending DOMA on behalf of the House of Representatives' Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, "that maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity" in the definition of marriage. Suggesting the law was "infected with prejudice, fear, spite, and animus," Kagan read a portion of the House Report, which said DOMA was meant to reflect Congress' "collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."

Perhaps key to the justices' analysis of the case is whether to regard laws that single out gays and lesbians with what's called "heightened scrutiny" -- a level of review now used to strike down measures that single out politically disfavored and less powerful groups.

On this point, Chief Justice John Roberts focused in on the “sea change” in public opinion on the question of same-sex marriage. How did that “sea change” come about, he asked, unless gay and lesbian Americans had amassed significant political power. Roberts said it seemed to him that politicians were “falling over themselves” to endorse gay marriage.

Roberts also wondered why, if President Barack Obama believes DOMA is unconstitutional, he continues to enforce it. “I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions,” the chief said. Kennedy chimed in later, saying he didn’t “understand why they continue to enforce” DOMA.

Clement said that if 10 years from now, there were only nine states left that didn’t have gay marriage, the federal government might be fully entitled to force the remaining states to recognize such unions.

Judging from Wednesday's first 50 minutes of oral arguments, however, the case may instead be decided on whether the justices have the power to hear the case at all.

In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit both declared DOMA unconstitutional. The Obama administration agrees with them.

Chief Justice Roberts asked Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, whether there was "any case where all parties agreed with the decision below," but a court "nonetheless upheld" its ability to hear the case.

The chief's question about legal standing reflects DOMA's long, strange trip to this point. A bipartisan piece of legislation, it was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, who now believes it should be overturned.

In 2010, a Department of Justice official told reporters that defending DOMA was “difficult” for the Obama administration, while Attorney General Eric Holder told D.C. law students that the DOJ “has a responsibility to defend those statues that the Congress has passed if there is an argument that can be made to defend those statutes."

But things changed in 2011, when Holder announced that the DOJ would no longer defend DOMA. Holder was not in the courtroom on Wednesday, but Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole and Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery, who runs the DOJ's Civil Division, were in attendance on behalf of the department.

After the DOJ backed off from defending the law, House Republicans stepped in. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group hired Clement, George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, to defend the law on behalf of the federal government.

Clement faced difficult questioning Wednesday from the Supreme Court's liberal wing on why the House had any legally recognizable interest in representing a position the executive has abandoned.

"How is this case any different from enforcing general powers of the United States," Justice Stephen Breyer asked

[MsTinkerbelly]

Supreme Court likely to advance gay marriage but stop short of broad ruling


By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News

After two days of highly anticipated courtroom arguments about same-sex marriage, a sweeping ruling on gay rights seems unlikely from the U.S. Supreme Court. But when decisions in both cases come in late June, the result may nonetheless be an important one for advocates of same-sex marriage.


The Supreme Court appeared ready to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act during Wednesday's oral arguments but it was a different story for Prop. 8 with Justices signaling that they may take a narrow approach to avoid setting a national precedent on the issue of same-sex marriage. California Attorney General Kamala Harris discusses.

Though it's risky to predict how the court will rule based solely on comments by the justices during the oral arguments, one outcome seemed probable -- a decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

"A decision saying that DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation, and requiring the federal government to give full recognition to the existing marriages of same-sex couples, would be a huge victory," said Paul Smith of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Jenner & Block.

He was in the courtroom when the justices took up the Proposition 8 case on March 26. Ten years earlier to the day, Smith stood before the justices to argue the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated state laws criminalizing homosexual conduct.

In the challenge to California's Prop 8 -- the state constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008 that limits marriage to one-man-one-woman couples -- the justices seemed to be searching for a way to avoid a decision. One possible outcome: declaring the case procedurally flawed and sending it back to California, where a lower court decision found Prop 8 unconstitutional. That would allow same-sex marriage to resume there without setting a precedent for other states.

During Wednesday's argument on DOMA, by contrast, at least four of the justices suggested that the law improperly discriminates against gay couples by blocking the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in the states that permit them.

Elena Kagan read from a House report that said Congress passed DOMA to express its "moral disapproval of homosexuality." Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 1,100 federal benefits denied to same-sex couples water down their relationships to "skim-milk marriages."


Rodell Mollineau, president of American Bridge and former spokesman to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Washington Post political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson and National Review's Washington, D.C. editor and CNBC contributor Robert Costa join The Daily Rundown to talk about the same-sex marriage debate and give their shameless plugs.

Sonia Sotomayor asked if members of Congress could create any "class of people they don't like" and deny them benefits. Stephen Breyer asked what justification would permit treating gay marriages differently.

The fifth vote to strike down DOMA seemed likely to come from Anthony Kennedy, whose comments throughout the argument reflected a concern that Congress had no authority to define marriage, a power reserved to the states.

Former solicitor general Paul Clement, representing the House Republicans who came forward to defend DOMA, said the law was proper because it dealt only with the government's own definition of marriage in federal laws. For that reason, he said, the question of federal power was "not a DOMA problem."

Justice Kennedy disagreed. "I think it is a DOMA problem. The question is whether or not the federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage," he said.

Kennedy said DOMA was "not consistent with the historic commitment of marriage, and of questions of the rights of children, to the states."

Even if Justice Kennedy's focus on the limits of federal power constrains the court's ruling in the DOMA case, avoiding a full-throated declaration that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional, advocates of gay rights say it would still send a powerful message.

"I think it's enormous," said Mary Bonauto of GLAD, a pioneer in gay rights litigation, of the possibility that DOMA would be struck down.






Advertise | AdChoices







"This is a law that has the effect of discriminating only against married same-sex couples. And anytime you eliminate a double standard based on sexual orientation, it matters," she said.

And Paul Smith of Jenner & Block says such a decision could lay the groundwork for future legal challenges to state laws that forbid same-sex couples to marry.

"While it's not the same thing as requiring states to let people get married, it will push the momentum forward," he said, and could have an effect on lawsuits now pending that challenge bans on same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Oklahoma

[wahya]

Just got off my fb and my straight friend who is for equality staryed a convo about the opinions of how people felt about this issue reguarding religion. Omg. Almost accidently burnt my apt. Down getting into the convo. Seems a few are going off subject and taking it or trying to push religion in it. I made some pretty strong points and made a few think about things. Some are misunderstanding what pride means. They say we are throwing our gayness in their face and forcing them to accept us in a harsh way. Lol I am pretty good at getting my point across without having to be nasty with my words. (Yrs of manager training has helped) But this one young lady who's mother is a lesbian was my main disccusion. She is young but is against it..so I hope i did make her think.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Americas


Vote moves Uruguay towards marriage equality

Uruguay's Senate has voted to legalise same-sex marriage by approving a single law governing matrimony for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Tuesday's 23-8 vote comes after a lower-house approval in December. It will now return to the lower chamber of Congress for amendments.

If the bill is approved, Uruguay will become the second nation in Latin America, after Argentina, and the twelfth in the world to legalise gay marriage.

"It goes beyond homosexuality, it's about a law where everyone shares the same rights and obligations,'' said Federico Grana, a legislator in the ruling Frente Amplio coalition and a member of the Black Sheep Collective, a gay rights group that presented the bill's first draft.

The bill lets couples, gay or straight, decide whose surname goes first when they name their children.

"This is an issue of liberty, of people's choice and justice,'' said Senator Rafael Michelini.

"Liberty because the state should not meddle in who you should marry; of justice because if you marry abroad with someone of the same sex and later return to Uruguay, your marriage should be recognised.''

Church critical

The bill also clarifies rules for adoption and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), and eliminates the words "husband and wife" in marriage contracts, referring instead to the gender-neutral "contracting parties".

The Roman Catholic Church opposes the proposal, but the Church has little political influence in secular Uruguay, which became the first Latin American country to legalise abortion last year.

President Jose Mujica has been pushing for liberal-leaning proposals in his mandate and says he plans to sign the marriage bill into law.

US-based Human Rights Watch welcomed the Senate vote, urging the lower house to pass the bill swiftly.

"Uruguayan senators made the right decision by allowing same-sex couples to marry," said the group's Boris Dittrich.

"Final approval will enable gays and lesbians in Uruguay to marry the person they love and will strengthen the fundamental rights of everyone in Uruguay to equality and non-discrimination."

The bill also includes a measure to raise the minimum age for marriage to 16 for everyone, instead of the present age 12 for girls and 14 for boys

[MsTinkerbelly]

Sen. Chris Coons.

U.S. Senator from Delaware


Delaware is Ready to Fight for Marriage Equality

Posted: 04/05/2013 11:51 am


Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two potentially landmark cases on marriage equality in the United States -- one that challenges state laws that prohibit full marriage equality and another challenging the federal law that limits rights for married couples based on sexual orientation.

While we wait for these important court decisions, the Delaware General Assembly is moving forward on legislation that will make ours the tenth state (the eleventh, if you include the District of Columbia) to extend marriage equality to all of our citizens.

This is going to be a big year for equality in this country. As a nation, we're poised to make historic progress, and in Delaware, we have the opportunity to make sure that everyone has the same right to marry the person they love.

Equality is the birthright of every American, and it's up to all of us to work to ensure that everyone -- no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity -- can access the equal rights and protections due every American.

Delaware legalized civil unions for same-sex couples in 2011, and I was proud to stand with two close friends at their wedding the same day the law went into effect. They were the first couple in our state to get married under the new law.

It was a beautiful New Year's Day service at Trinity Episcopal Church in Wilmington. The pews were packed with loved ones -- family members, friends, neighbors, and members of the congregation. The couple's kids stood at their sides.

"Just as every marriage performed in this church has been," I said in my sermon, "this union is about two people who proudly and passionately love each other celebrating that love and demonstrating their commitment to one another in front of God, their families, their friends, and our community."

Winning civil unions in Delaware was a critical brick on the path to full equality, but it only got us part of the way. Civil unions still relegate gay and lesbian couples to a second-class status that ought not be acceptable in this country.

We're trying to fix that in Delaware.

We've done a whip count and, frankly, if the Delaware General Assembly's vote on marriage equality were held today, it would be close. Really close. The organization leading the fight here, Equality Delaware, has my full support, but it needs the support of allies around the country, too.

We're trying to make sure that every member of the state House and Senate hears directly from their constituents in support of marriage equality, and Equality Delaware has mobilized an impressive field and voter outreach program to do it. Volunteers are phone-banking and canvassing in key communities. Rallies are being organized on college campuses.

To learn more about the fight for marriage equality in Delaware and how you can get involved, visit EqualityDelaware.org

[MsTinkerbelly]

French Senate approves crucial marriage equality measure



By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, April 10, 2013 14:17 EDT


France’s Senate on Wednesday approved the crucial first article of a bill granting gay couples the right to marry, clearing the way for a law that has sparked protests from conservatives and religious groups.

The upper house approved the article overnight by a vote of 179 to 157, with all Senators from the ruling Socialists voting in favour and five from the main opposition right-wing UMP breaking ranks with their colleagues to approve it.

The full bill must still be approved by the Senate, as well as another controversial article granting homosexual couples the right to adopt. A final vote is expected on Thursday or Friday.

The head of the Socialists’ Senate faction, Francois Rebsamen, said the vote “marked a victory in the fight against homophobia and for tolerance and democracy.”

The vote came after 10 hours of debate that saw UMP Senators voice fierce opposition to the bill.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman with a view to procreation. Two men or two women will never be able to have children!” UMP Senator Charles Revet said during the debate.

The bill has come under vehement attack in a country that is officially secular but predominantly Catholic, mobilising hundreds of thousands of people in pro- and anti-gay marriage protests nationwide.

In January, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators flooded into Paris for an anti-gay marriage march. Last month, police were forced to fire tear gas on people protesting the bill, and dozens were arrested.

Opponents said Wednesday they would organise another mass protest in Paris on May 26 if the law is approved, to demand its withdrawal and a referendum on gay marriage.

President Francois Hollande championed same-sex marriage and adoption during his election campaign last year, and his support for the legislation has not wavered throughout the turmoil

[DapperButch]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93A0XV20130411



(Reuters) - Delaware on Thursday became the latest U.S. state to take action to extend marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, as Governor Jack Markell announced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

Markell, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview that while he was confident the bill would pass, given that his party controls both the upper and lower chambers of the legislature, "nothing is sure until it's done."

"What we know is same-sex couples want to get married for the same reason that other couples want to get married," Markell said in a telephone interview.

Markell announced the legislation at an afternoon press conference, where he was joined by state Senate President Pro Tempore Patricia Blevins, House Speaker Pete Schwartzkopf and Attorney General Beau Biden, Markell's office said.

Three other states are considering bills on same-sex marriage, while nine states and the District of Columbia have already legalized gay marriage.

In 2011, Markell signed into law a bill authorizing civil unions for same-sex couples.

Republican state Senator Brian Pettyjohn said he believed Delaware's civil union law, which was approved before he took office, went gone far enough and has been a fair compromise, ensuring that gay and straight couples are treated equally while reserving marriage for heterosexual couples.

"Civil unions, OK, that's law. But when you want to redefine marriage, that's crossing the line," Pettyjohn said in a telephone interview. "There is no further benefit that same-sex marriage would give to couples than what they have with civil unions."

Some 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, while nine states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington.

Same-sex marriage bills are also under consideration in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Illinois.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a legal challenge to a 1996 law that restricts federal recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples.

(Reporting by Edith Honan; Editing by Scott Malone, John Wallace, Richard Chang and Leslie Adler)

[iamkeri1]

Many Blessings to all who work to extend our rights in the USA and throughout the world.
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

Legalize Polygamy!

No. I am not kidding.

By Jillian Keenan|Posted Monday, April 15, 2013, at 5:35 AM


Polygamy, once hidden in the shadows of Utah and Arizona, is breaking into the open as fundamentalist Mormons push to decriminalize it on religious grounds, while at the same time stamping out abuses such as forced marriages of underage brides.

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?


We can only hope.


Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.


For decades, the prevailing logic has been that polygamy hurts women and children. That makes sense, since in contemporary American practice that is often the case. In many Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints polygamous communities, for example, women and underage girls are forced into polygamous unions against their will. Some boys, who represent the surplus of males, are brutally thrown out of their homes and driven into homelessness and poverty at very young ages. All of these stories are tragic, and the criminals involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (That goes without saying, I hope.)


But legalizing consensual adult polygamy wouldn’t legalize rape or child abuse. In fact, it would make those crimes easier to combat.

Right now, all polygamous families, including the healthy, responsible ones, are driven into hiding (notwithstanding the openly polygamous Brown family on TLC’s Sister Wives, that is). In the resulting isolation, crime and abuse can flourish unimpeded. Children in polygamous communities are taught to fear the police and are not likely to report an abusive neighbor if they suspect their own parents might be caught up in a subsequent criminal investigation. In a United States with legalized polygamy, responsible plural families could emerge from the shadows—making it easier for authorities to zero in on the criminals who remain there.


Many people argue that there is no such thing as a “healthy, responsible” polygamous family, particularly for the children born into one. “Children are harmed because they are often set in perennial rivalry with other children and mothers for the affection and attention of the family patriarch,” argued John Witte Jr. in the Washington Post. “Men with lots of children and wives are spread too thin,” agreed Libby Copeland in Slate. The earnestness of these arguments is touching but idealistic. Men in monogamous marriages can’t be spread too thin? Children in monogamous families don’t rival each other for the attentions of their parents? Two-parent families are not the reality for millions of American children. Divorce, remarriage, surrogate parents, extended relatives, and other diverse family arrangements mean families already come in all sizes—why not recognize that legally?


It’s also hard to argue with the constitutional freedom of religious expression that legalized polygamy would preserve. Most polygamous families are motived by religious faith, such as fundamentalist Mormonism or Islam, and as long as all parties involved are adults, legally able to sign marriage contracts, there is no constitutional reason why they shouldn’t be able to express that faith in their marriages. Legalized polygamous marriage would also be good for immigrant families, some of whom have legally polygamous marriages in their home countries that get ripped apart during the immigration process. (It’s impossible to estimate exactly how many polygamous families live here, since they live their religious and sexual identities in secret. Academics suggest there are 50,000 to 100,000 people engaged in Muslim polygamy in the U.S., and there are thousands of fundamentalist Mormon polygamist families as well.)


Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.


And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.


We have a tendency to dismiss or marginalize people we don’t understand. We see women in polygamous marriages and assume they are victims. “They grew up in an unhealthy environment,” we say. “They didn’t really choose polygamy; they were just born into it.” Without question, that is sometimes true. But it’s also true of many (too many) monogamous marriages. Plenty of women, polygamous or otherwise, are born into unhealthy environments that they repeat later in life. There’s no difference. All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensualsexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides.


As a feminist, it’s easy and intuitive to support women who choose education, independence, and careers. It’s not as intuitive to support women who choose values and lifestyles that seem outdated or even sexist, but those women deserve our respect just as much as any others. It’s condescending, not supportive, to minimize them as mere “victims” without considering the possibility that some of them have simply made a different choice.


The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet

[MsTinkerbelly]

News, Politics, international

Ireland's Constitutional Convention votes for marriage equality

Print|Comments (1)Posted by David Zimmerman April 16, 2013 09:31 AM




Ireland’s constitutional convention has voted to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Members of the convention (which is comprised of one third politicians and two thirds citizens) were overwhelmingly in favor of allowing same-sex marriage with 79 percent recommending that the constitution be amended to allow for marriage equality. The convention's recommendation will now be sent to the Government, which has pledged to hold a debate and respond within four months.

As for what form the constitutional change will take, there are two options, a directive amendment ("the State shall enact laws providing for same-sex marriage") or a permissive amendment ("the State may enact laws providing for same-sex marriage").
78 percent of the convention’s members voted for a directive amendment.

Asked what form the constitutional change should take 78 percent of members voted for a directive amendment while 17 percent opted for a permissive amendment

The members also voted in favor of recommending that the State pass laws "incorporating changed arrangements in regard to the parentage, guardianship and the upbringing of children".

"It is a major milestone on the remarkable journey to full constitutional protection for lesbian and gay people and families in Ireland," said Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN) director Brian Sheehan. "It builds on the extraordinary progress we have achieved over the last 20 years, and clearly demonstrates that Ireland is ready to take the next step to complete that remarkable journey."

A spokesman for the Catholic Communications Office said: "While the result of the constitutional convention is disappointing, only the people of Ireland can amend the constitution. The Catholic church will continue to promote and seek protection for the uniqueness of marriage between a woman and a man, the nature of which best serves children and our society."


This blog is not written or edited by Boston.com or the Boston Globe.
The author is solely responsible for the content

[Nadeest]

IF we are going to make polygamy legal, shouldn't we also make polyandry and polyamorous marriages legal? After all, why shouldn't women have multiple husbands, if men can have multiple wives? Nor do I see anything wrong with polyamorous relationships. Why shouldn't they be legal, also?

[Nadeest]

I found this article from "The Atlantic" interesting, when I was looking things up, just now. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...-sense/272726/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...e-sex-marriage

New Zealand legalises same-sex marriage
Cheers and applause ring out in parliament building after 77 of 121 members vote to allow gay couples to wed