CA Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman on Same-Sex Rights
Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO and 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate in California, has been the subject of numerous recent headlines for her political ambitions in the nation's most populous state. California, still reeling from the effects of Proposition 8 that stopped the state from performing same-sex marriages, will be replacing current Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger vetoed the California legislature's attempts to enact same-sex marriage in the state, citing constitutional issues with the attempt, but also opposed Proposition 8.
Meg Whitman granted two interviews, one with Silicon Valley's Mercury News and one with the Los Angeles Times, to discuss her political positions. Describing her political lean as "moderate to conservative" on social issues, Whitman believes that same-sex couples should be permitted to enter into civil unions and adopt children, but that the word "marriage" should be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Whitman supported Proposition 8, calling it a "matter of personal conscience and my faith." Whitman stood out, however, for her belief that Proposition 8 should not apply retroactively, and that the same-sex marriages legally performed before Proposition 8 should still be recognized and valid in the state.
While Family Fairness takes no position on whether Whitman would be a worthy governor for the state of California, it believes that California voters — especially those who believe strongly in the rights of same-sex couples — should be informed about the candidates' stances toward the LGBT community. For more on Meg Whitman's political positions, consult her Meg Whitman for Governor homepage.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Catholic Charities’ Religious Freedom and its Conflicts with Gay Marriage - A Rebuttal
Cornerstone Policy Research, the same organization that published fraudulent poll statistics about New Hampshire residents' views on same-sex marriage, recently posted a link to a Boston Globe article entitled Kids Take Back Seat to Gay Agenda by Jeff Jacoby. The article surrounds the decision Boston Catholic Charities made earlier this month to stop providing adoption services rather than comply with state law requiring the placement of children with same-sex families. Because Mr. Jacoby's version of the events omits several key facts, allow me to share the tale.
Boston Catholic Charities is an organization that provides, among many other services, adoption of children in need of a permanent home. Despite a unanimous vote by the charity's board to continue providing adoption services to same-sex couples, and the charity's role in placing 13 children in gay households, four Roman Catholic bishops sought to bar the practice and obtain an exemption from the state's nondiscrimination laws. Eight board members resigned in frustration over the Vatican's position. Boston Catholic Charities also feared the loss of its largest private donor, The United Way of Massachusetts Bay, if it were forced to adopt the Vatican's discriminatory position.
Jacoby wrongly frames the conflict as follows:
Caught between the rock of Catholic teaching, which regards such adoptions as "gravely immoral," and Massachusetts regulations, which bar adoption agencies from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, the Boston Archdiocese [. . .] was left with no option but to end a ministry it had been performing for a century.
But that is not the case. The conflict was between Boston Catholic Charities and the Vatican, not between the charity and state law. Had "religious freedom" not intervened, Boston Catholic Charities could have happily continued providing adoptions to gay and lesbian parents. Instead, the specter of religion stepped in and created a conflict where previously none had existed. Jacoby continues:
So important is that agenda [to normalize homosexual adoption] that they will allow nothing to stand in its way — not even the well-being of children in dire need of safe and loving families [. . . . ] The Human Rights Campaign and its friends would rather see this invaluable work come to an end than allow Catholic Charities to decline gay adoptions.
The church's request for a [religious exemption] should have been unobjectionable, at least to anyone whose priority is rescuing kids from foster care
However, requests for religious exemptions are not 'unobjectionable', Mr. Jacoby. For the same reason that Protestants cannot seek a religious exemption to exclude Catholics from employment, adoption providers may not evoke religion to discriminate against a protected class. This is not the case of a church simply asking to be left alone in its policies, but rather an agent of the state seeking to break the law. Because, according to tax reports, Catholic Charities received $1 million of state funds to provide adoption services, its actions are subject to state scrutiny in ways that churches' typically are not. The state is not paying the charity to espouse its religious beliefs, but to offer adoption services consistent with its laws. Any organization accepting taxpayer money with the mistaken assumption that it can later deny services to those same taxpayers is immediately suspect.
Naturally, Mr. Jacoby must end his article with familiar fear-mongering, the-sky-is-falling tactics to fulfill his agenda against marriage equality. To do so, he quotes a 2004 article that made predictions following Massachusetts's ruling to legalize same-sex marriage:
[T]he experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination . . . Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.
But, Mr. Jacoby, the irony of citing such an article is that it emphasizes that those 2004 doomsday predictions never panned out, just as these rehashed 2009 predictions will not either. The only "ax that fell" was that organizations continued to be required to comply with the laws of the states that fund them. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, but rather the dreadfully — according to Mr. Jacoby — proliferating belief that gay and lesbian citizens are equal and deserving of a life free from discrimination and intolerance.
Thirty years ago today, the White Night rioters fought to oppose a justice system and a police department that woefully failed them. It condoned the arresting, beating, and murdering of individuals for nothing more than their sexuality or their acceptance of gays and lesbians. The world we live in is a different one now, and it is no longer acceptable to use your personal beliefs as an excuse for looking down on your fellow man and for breaking the law.
Gay rights advocates have no interest in eroding religious freedoms. It is only because organizations have attempted to use religious freedom as a shield for their discrimination that the issue has even come up. It is not we, Mr. Jacoby, who are "allowing nothing to stand in our way," but you, who would rather see adoption providers close than place children in gay and lesbian households, and would rather the children of millions of same-sex couples be raised by unmarried parents than let gays and lesbians wed.
Misleading anecdotes, invested statistics, and twisted facts are all that support the five-year-old silly and incorrect predictions of Massachusetts downfall. And five years from now, when even more states have enacted laws respecting the equality of marriage inclusion, today's predictions will be just as silly and incorrect. Gay marriage is no threat to religious freedom, and those who espouse this belief perpetuate a mistaken fallacy at best and malfeasant lie at worst.
-----
Other recent rebuttals from Brian Cavner include: Moral Absolutism and why Sexual Behavior is Irrelevant to Marriage and "With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce".
Have a question, comment, or response? 4 people do.This Week in Gay News Roundup: 4/26 - 4/30
So much has happened on the gay rights front this week. Here is a review in case you missed anything:
- Florida's anti-gay adoption laws are being challenged in both the legislature and the court. Though the legislation is expected to die without a vote next week, the court will soon hold hearings on the issue. The case is an appeal from a lower court ruling that permitted a gay man, Martin Gill, to adopt two abused and neglected brothers. Florida's statute states that no homosexual is permitted to adopt, and is the only state law in the country that completely prohibits an individual from adopting on the basis of his or her sexuality. Via The Miami Herald.
- The New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee has recommended tabling a bill that would expand marriage rights to same-sex couples by a vote of 3-2. At least 12 of the state's 24 senators must now support the bill in order for a motion to pass to be entertained. Governor John Lynch, who prefers civil unions, has previously expressed opposition to same-sex marriage, but has not given an official statement on whether or not he intends to veto the bill if it survives the Senate. Via Reuters.
- Update: The Senate has passed the bill 13-11 after an amendment prohibiting polygamy and incestuous marriages was added. It now heads to the governor's desk.
- Iowa began distributing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples on Monday, 24 days after the Supreme Court's ruling that approved same-sex marriage. 380 couples took advantage of the law on the first day it was available, including 25 out-of-state couples. Because Iowa law requires a three day waiting period between application and receipt of a marriage license, today is the first day that these 380 couples can officially say that they are legally married. Congratulations!
- The American Constitution Society has begun distributing a new issue brief [pdf] with a novel explanation as to why California's Proposition 8 — the constitutional amendment that re-restricted marriage in the state — is unconstitutional:
[T]o the extent the rights to liberty, privacy, due process and equal protection have not themselves been changed, then the pre-existing interpretation of those rights in Marriage Cases [the suit in which the Supreme Court previously found the right to marriage] must control. Thus, even if Proposition 8 is construed as a permissible amendment (as opposed to a revision), it would necessarily violate separation of powers principles because it purports to dictate a specific interpretation of certain other — indisputably unchanged — constitutional provisions.
Essentially, ACS argues that Proposition 8 cannot simply change marriage law without also changing the fundamental basis upon which the Court found the right to marriage. To do so would unconstitutionally rob the Court of their power to interpret the constitution.
- On the heels of the Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act, Colorado's legislature has now also passed a bill allowing partners of gay and lesbian state employees to gain access to their partner's health insurance plan. The law would require that same-sex couples be in a committed relationship for at least one year before qualifying for the benefits.
- The Maine Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill that would open marriage to same-sex couples in the state by a vote of 11-2. The bill now moves to the full state Senate for their vote.
Did I miss anything? Let me know in the comments.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Why Second Parent Adoptions are Vital: How Same-Sex Couples Can Lose Their Kids
As same-sex couples win more legal rights and recognitions, it is important to remember that there are still many gaps in the law. Occasionally these gaps create legal battles that end with one or both partners losing rights they assumed they had. A New York case — Debra H. v. Janice R., ___ N.Y.S.2d ___, 2009 WL 943772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1 Dept. Apr. 9, 2009) — highlights this fact particularly well.
Two months prior to the birth of their child, Debra and Janice registered a domestic partnership in their home state of New York. A month later, the pair also entered into a civil union in Vermont. But two and a half years after the birth, the two women split up. Debra petitioned the court for custodial and visitation rights over the objections of her partner Janice, the child's birth mother. On October 9, 2008, the New York trial court found in favor of Debra, finding that she stood in loco parentis to the child. This means that although Debra was neither the child's biological mother nor an adoptive parent, the court was convinced that she acted sufficiently like a parent and deserved legal recognition.
However, on April 9, 2009, a New York appellate court reversed this decision and refused Debra any parental rights to the child she helped raise for two and a half years.
In the case of heterosexual married couples, a child born during the marriage is considered to be the biological child of both the husband and wife — even if there is evidence showing that the child is not biologically related to the husband. This same presumption does not apply to couples in a domestic partnership or civil union. Married same-sex couples should receive the same benefit of this parental presumption, though there has also not yet been a case on those facts. As a result, there is some legal uncertainty in this area. However, even without the force of this presumption, acting in loco parentis as Debra had done is typically sufficient to receive legal recognition.
The court's decision is based on a 1991 New York case — Matter of Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651 (N.Y. 1991) — which found that "a party who is neither the biological nor the adoptive parent of a child lacks standing to seek custody or visitation rights." While most states recognize that certain facts may make this automatic denial of standing unjust, New York still follows this rule. As a result, Debra is unable to receive legal rights including custody and visitation with her child.
The entire situation could have been avoided had Debra entered into a second parent adoption. Adopting your partner's child is an important step for gay and lesbian couples to take regardless of your state's position on marriage or civil unions. This area of law is particularly confusing for couples given that states have different rules about how to treat our relationships. Even more confusing is that within the same state, similarly situated same-sex and opposite-sex couples will be treated differently. One should never assume that their relationship will have the same legal footing as their heterosexual friends'.
Same-sex couples should consult with an attorney to ensure that all of their expected rights will be respected, especially if there is a child involved. Uncertainty in this area may never result in a problem, but discovering your lack of legal standing during a tremulous time can make an unpleasant situation even worse.
Have a question, comment, or response? 2 people do.The ‘Marriage is for Procreation’ Myth: The Futility of Marriage Exclusionist Studies and Statistics
Research has shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families
Arguments like these are being used increasingly to justify the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The New York and Washington courts — among others — agreed with the assertion that marriage is for procreation, evoking the same denial of liberties from the era of anti-miscegenation law. However, even if the above quotation is based in truth (we, of course, believe that it is not), it still does not satisfactorily justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. There is no compelling State interest to justify marriage exclusion, and laws that effect such exclusion create a policy that is unjustly and intolerably overinclusive and underinclusive.
Read more about the 'marriage is for procreation' myth and its refutation here.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Inconsistent State Laws Create Adoption Fight in Louisiana
Gay Louisiana fathers Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith won a major court battle when a federal judge ordered the state to list both men's names on their adopted child's birth certificate. Though their son was adopted in New York state, a jurisdiction permitting same-sex couples to jointly adopt, Louisiana law prohibits two unmarried people from doing so.
The state's attorney general has already filed an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court, claiming in his brief that "[t]he federal district court has significantly misinterpreted Louisiana vital records law, forcing Louisiana to import and adopt New York law." He has also asked the court to temporarily halt the ruling until the appeal can be heard.
The fight highlights the difficulty same-sex couples face when inconsistent state laws cast doubt on the legitimacy of marriages, civil unions, adoptions, and other legal statuses when they cross state lines. Before relocating, a family should consult an attorney in their new state to verify that their legal documents will be valid and recognized.
Via Mercury News.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.