RESOUR> [NetGold] GENDER ISSUES: SAME SEX MARRIAGE: Three Bad Reasons--and One Very Good Reason

**************************************************************
Net Happenings - From Educational CyberPlayGround
**************************************************************
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 04:57:25 -0500 (EST)
From: David P. Dillard <jwne@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: NetGold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: NetGold <NetGold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [NetGold] GENDER ISSUES: SAME SEX MARRIAGE: Three Bad Reasons--and
    One Very Good Reason--to Oppose a Constitutional Amendment Barring Same-Sex
    Marriage

Three Bad Reasons--and One Very Good Reason--to Oppose a Constitutional
Amendment Barring Same-Sex Marriage
By MICHAEL C. DORF
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004
Findlaw Legal Commentary
<http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040218.html>

Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that the state
constitution requires the recognition of same-sex marriage--and not just
civil unions. Among opponents of same-sex marriage, the ruling has revived
interest in a proposed federal constitutional amendment that would define
marriage throughout the country as "the union of a man and a woman." The
amendment has been pending in Congress since May 2003, but now it may move
to the front burner of American politics.

Presidents do not have a formal voice in the adoption of constitutional
amendments, which become effective upon passage by a two-thirds vote in
each house of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the state
legislatures. Nonetheless, support for, or opposition to, the proposed
amendment could well become an issue in the 2004 Presidential election.

<snip>

Is the Proposed Constitutional Amendment Inconsistent with States' Rights?

<snip>

Should Constitutional Amendments Ever be Used to Shrink Individual Rights?

<snip>

Do Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Suffer from "Amendmentitis?"

<snip>

The Real Reason to Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

That brings us to the real and obvious objection to the proposed
constitutional ban on same-sex marriage: it's a terrible idea.

For one thing, the proposal now pending before Congress would bar not only
same-sex marriage itself, but also any of "the legal incidents" of
marriage. That means that states and cities could not even provide for
civil unions or domestic partnership arrangements that fall short of
marriage. So it is not just be Massachusetts' pioneering recognition of
same-sex marriage itself that are under threat. Other states' alternative
solutions (summarized by Joanna Grossman in a prior column) would also be
rejected.

More broadly, there is simply no good reason why the government should
confer official recognition and financial benefits on straight couples,
while refusing the same to gay and lesbian couples.

Many people, of course, object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds,
and it is accordingly their right to practice a religion that does not
recognize same-sex marriage. But the legal institution of marriage is
distinct from the religious one. No church, synagogue, or mosque will be
forced by the government to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. Even
in Massachusetts, the mandate affects county clerks, not country priests.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The full article may be read at the URL above.

"Prior Column"

The New Jersey Domestic Partnership Law
Its Formal Recognition of Same-Sex Couples, and How It Differs From Other
States' Approaches
By JOANNA GROSSMAN
lawjlg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004
Findlaw Legal Commentary
<http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040113.html>

On November 5, 2003, a trial court in New Jersey upheld the state's ban on
same-sex marriage. But this year, on January 8, the New Jersey Senate
followed the trend in a small but growing number of states and approved a
domestic partnership law that gives formal recognition to same-sex
couples.

The Governor of New Jersey is expected to sign the bill into law shortly.
New Jersey's law is modest in scope. But it is also important in both
practical and symbolic ways.

Some Features of the New Jersey Domestic Partnership Regime

<snip>

The New Jersey Domestic Partnership: Not a Full Equivalent of Marriage

<snip>

Different States' Approaches to Recognizing Same-Sex Unions

<snip>

Other States, Municipalities, and Employers Also Offer Some Limited
Benefits

<snip>

A Sign of a Cultural Change: New Jersey's Bold Law Was Not Big News

Ironically, New Jersey's recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships is
notable in part because few have taken much note of it. It was a bold law,
but there was a distinct lack of fanfare -- or controversy -- surrounding
its passage.

The bill grants wide-ranging protections for same-sex couples, and joins
only four other states that provide similar protections. Yet news of its
passage wasn't even front-page news in major papers. (The New York Times
noted it in the "Metro" section; the Washington Post, in its "Nation in
Brief" column.)

<snip>

Unlike in Massachusetts or Hawaii, In New Jersey the Legislature Led the
Way


Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NetGold/>
<http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ringleaders/davidd.html>
<http://www.kovacs.com/medref-l/medref-l.html>

<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>
EDUCATIONAL CYBERPLAYGROUND 
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com

VENDORS REACH THE EDUCATION MARKET
FREE EDUCATION VENDOR DIRECTORY LISTING
Find PREMIUM & FEATURED MERCHANT LISTING ALSO 
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Directory/default.asp

HOT LIST OF SCHOOLS ONLINE
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Schools/default.asp

SERVICES
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/PS/Home_Products.html

Net Happenings,K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters
http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html
<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>

Other related posts: