Discrimination Is Immoral! Enough Said
by Matt Foreman, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
I'm hearing both gay and straight people say that the long string of losses we've faced at the polls around marriage equality are really our own fault; our community pushed too hard and too fast, they argue. The prominent theme being generated is that we have failed to "educate" the public about who we really are and get beyond the stereotypes of leather people, butch dykes, circuit boys and drag queens – and that it is now our obligation to reintroduce ourselves to the American people. I also repeatedly hear that it's up to us to reframe the terms of the debate away from "moral values" to simpler concepts, such as fairness, which polls indicate resonate most with the public.
I disagree. This is nothing more than the blame-the-victim mentality afflicting our nation generally and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) movement specifically.
Rather than reframing the debate away from moral values, we must embrace them. Or more precisely, the utter immorality of the escalating attacks against LGBT people. And, equally, the utter immorality in the failure of so many people of good will to stand with us. It is time for us to seize the moral high ground and state unambiguously that anti-gay discrimination in any form is immoral.
Webster's defines discrimination as "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice." By any measure, LGBT people are targets of discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. FBI statistics show that more people are being murdered because of their sexual orientation than for any other bias reason. Our young people are still routinely bullied in schools. The examples of injustices in the area of partner and family recognition are too many to list.
No thinking or feeling person can deny these realities, which, as always, fall hardest on LGBT people of color and those who are poor.
But, alarmingly, rather than seeing a groundswell of support for measures to combat these injustices, the opposite is occurring. In Congress and in statehouses nationwide, it's rhetorical and legislative open season on LGBT people. For example, over the last nine months, anti-marriage state constitutional amendments were put on the ballot in 14 states, 10 of which also prohibit the recognition of any form of relationship between people of the same gender. It's likely another 12 states will have similar measures on the ballot within 3 years.
Nothing like this has happened since the Constitution was ratified in 1791 – essentially a national referendum inviting the public to vote to deprive a small minority of Americans of rights the majority takes for granted and sees as fundamental.
And who's been there to fight these amendments? Basically us, the very minority under attack. Mainstream media and churches are largely silent to our opponents' lies. Most progressive organizations and political campaigns, meanwhile, steer clear. There have been sterling exceptions, but they have been few and far between.
Many people who see themselves as supporters of equal rights for all tolerate this because they believe prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation is profoundly different than that based on race or religion – that it comes from an understandable disapproval of our behavior – not on some "immutable characteristic." Homosexual behavior, they feel, is "unnatural" (doesn't the Bible say so?). Pundits say there is an "ick" factor – that the thought of gay sex revolts non-gay people, and that this seemingly innate reaction is proof there is something wrong with homosexuality.
This rationale is hardly unique to gay people. Scholars point to comparable "ick" sentiments about Irish immigrants in the 1880s, and describe how in preceding generations sexual ideology was used to strengthen control over slaves and to justify the taking of Native American lands, and that for centuries Jews were associated with disease and urban degeneration.
Fact is, there is no justification for anti-gay prejudice; the "justifications" for it are as unfounded as those used to support the second-class treatment of other minorities in past generations.
So, what needs to be done?
First, everyone must realize that when straight people say gay people should not have the freedom to marry, they are saying we are not as good or deserving as they are. It's that simple, no matter how one attempts to sugarcoat it.
This is unacceptable – and it is immoral.
Second, while we should talk to straight people honestly about our lives, we must flatly reject the notion that we are somehow to blame for all of this because we have not effectively communicated our "stories" to others. Fundamentally, it is not our job to prove to others that we can be good neighbors, good parents, and that gee whiz, we're actually people too.
Third, equality will remain elusive if we keep relying on intellectualized arguments or by dryly cataloguing, for example, each of the 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities we are forced to forgo due to marriage inequality.
The other side goes for the gut; it's now our turn.
In this vein, we must put others on the spot to stand up and fight for us. As the cascade of lies pours forth from the Anti-Gay Industry, morality demands that non-gay people speak out with the same vehemence as they would if it was another minority under attack. Ministers and rabbis must be challenged with the question, "Where is your voice?" Elected officials who meet with and attend events of the Anti-Gay Industry, must be met with the challenge, "How can you do that!? How is that public service?"
The orchestrated campaign to deny us jobs, family recognition, children, and housing is immoral. Silently bearing witness to this discrimination is immoral.
America is in the midst of another ugly chapter in its struggle with the forces of bigotry. People of good will can either rise up to speak for lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender Americans, or look back upon themselves 20 years from now with deserved shame.
Matt Foreman is Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Progress
Federal Judge Overturns Nebraska Anti-Gay Amendment
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 12, 2005 6:30 pm ET
(Lincoln, Nebraska) A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.
The constitutional amendment, passed in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote. It banned any and all forms of legal recognition for same-sex relationships, including domestic partnerships and other basic protections.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays and lesbians and "creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."
Bataillon noted noted in his ruling that the plaintiffs in the case had not requested any recognition of their relationships through marriage or any other legal status, but merely sought an equal opportunity to persuade legislators of the need for protections.
He went on to say, "The court finds Section 29 is a denial of access to one of our most fundamental sources of protection, the government. Such broad exclusion from 'an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civil life in a free society' is 'itself a denial of equal protections in the literal sense.'"
The lawsuit challenging the ban was filed by Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project.
"This anti-gay-union law, in effect, hung a sign on the door of the Unicameral saying 'Same-Sex Couples Not Allowed,'" said David Buckel, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs.
"It makes no sense that Americans who believe in commitment and want to be more responsible to each other and their children have to fight so hard just for the right to try to persuade legislators that protections for family are important - successful or not, all citizens should have an equal shot in the democratic process."
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit., said same-sex marriages were not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now.
"I intend to pursue this case vigorously," he said. "Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit."
Former Presidential candidate Gary Bauer said the ruling is "evidence that ultimately only a federal constitutional amendment will protect normal, traditional marriage."
Bauer, who is the president of American Values continued, "I am saddened and outraged that another federal judge has ignored the will of the American people to align with gay rights groups and substitute personal liberal philosophies for the clear, lawful policies chosen by the electorate. Despite the overwhelming number of Nebraskans who expressed their support for marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman, a single judge decided he knew better."
On Wednesday the Nebraska Legislature defeated a bill that would ban discrimination against gay and lesbian state workers.
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: May 12, 2005 6:30 pm ET
(Lincoln, Nebraska) A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.
The constitutional amendment, passed in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote. It banned any and all forms of legal recognition for same-sex relationships, including domestic partnerships and other basic protections.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays and lesbians and "creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."
Bataillon noted noted in his ruling that the plaintiffs in the case had not requested any recognition of their relationships through marriage or any other legal status, but merely sought an equal opportunity to persuade legislators of the need for protections.
He went on to say, "The court finds Section 29 is a denial of access to one of our most fundamental sources of protection, the government. Such broad exclusion from 'an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civil life in a free society' is 'itself a denial of equal protections in the literal sense.'"
The lawsuit challenging the ban was filed by Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project.
"This anti-gay-union law, in effect, hung a sign on the door of the Unicameral saying 'Same-Sex Couples Not Allowed,'" said David Buckel, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs.
"It makes no sense that Americans who believe in commitment and want to be more responsible to each other and their children have to fight so hard just for the right to try to persuade legislators that protections for family are important - successful or not, all citizens should have an equal shot in the democratic process."
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit., said same-sex marriages were not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now.
"I intend to pursue this case vigorously," he said. "Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit."
Former Presidential candidate Gary Bauer said the ruling is "evidence that ultimately only a federal constitutional amendment will protect normal, traditional marriage."
Bauer, who is the president of American Values continued, "I am saddened and outraged that another federal judge has ignored the will of the American people to align with gay rights groups and substitute personal liberal philosophies for the clear, lawful policies chosen by the electorate. Despite the overwhelming number of Nebraskans who expressed their support for marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman, a single judge decided he knew better."
On Wednesday the Nebraska Legislature defeated a bill that would ban discrimination against gay and lesbian state workers.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Better Living Through Chemistry (a.k.a. Menopause through Prozac)
What an amazing few weeks it's been!
I had a gynecological surgical procedure on April 15th and it seems like that's when things just started slipping away from me. I had to lay low that weekend -- good thing too because the anesthesia really kicked my tookas for a couple of days. So, I spent the weekend pretty much on the couch, with Lisa hovering over me, checking to make sure I was okay, did I need something to drink, etc. What a nurturer she is!
On the 18th we finally got to the depositions, after all the delays!
The HR Director offered her usual menu of excuses, explanations, and procedures but, in the end, she couldn't defend the position she'd taken on denying the spousal benefits to me. At one point, she was asked about the lack of language for health care coverage for any spouse, and she patiently explained that "it's always been past practice to extend those benefits..." even though the union contract doesn't specifically allow the coverage. She said the college has "discretion" to offer those benefits to opposite-gendered spouses, even lacking authorization to do so in the contract. However, a short time later, when asked about another part of the contract, she adamantly insisted that she has to "live by the letter of the contract." Of course, my lawyer jumped all over that, asking her why she had to live by the letter of the contract in one area, but could "exercise discretion" in another. He then pointedly asked her two very important questions. First, is there anything in the union contract or in the college's rules, regulations or procedures that specifically defines marriage. She conceded that there was nothing in place that defined marriage. Secondly, she was asked if there was anything at all in the union contract or the college's rules or regulations that prohibited her from extending spousal benefits to same-sex partners. After some hemming and hawing, and after my lawyer pounded the question out several times, she conceded that, no, there was nothing officially precluding her from extending those benefits. I was electrified!
Next they deposed me. I'm uncertain as to why the county's lawyer asked the names and ages of my adult children (two of whom haven't lived with me for years) but he did. Basically he asked me a lot of financial questions -- how much does Lisa's health insurance cost us in premiums and unreimbursed co-pays and other expenses like prescription coverage, etc. He also asked me if it made a difference if it was called "domestic partner" benefits or "spousal" benefits. I told him that it absolutely does make a difference. He asked what the difference was and I told him that "domestic partner" benefits have to be agreed upon by my employer and the union and, just as easily as they can be written into the contract, they can be written right back out. Spousal benefits will go with me wherever I go, no matter where I work. It matters. It matters because my marriage is just as legal as his, and just as legal as the HR director's.
I got the distinct impression they were conceding the case and were already contemplating settling financially. Unfortunately for them, we're not looking for a financial settlement. We're looking for a court order that our marriage be recognized. My lawyer and the ACLU lawyers met and have decided that they're going to move to go directly to summary judgment -- avoiding a trial altogether since the facts are not in question, only the law.
He also says that, regardless of who comes out on the losing end of the ruling (and we have VERY conservative judges around here) the case is almost guaranteed to go to appeal and, ultimately, that's where we want the ruling to come from -- the state Supreme Court. It will be the first ruling of its kind in NY state -- a precedent setting ruling. Think about that. Did you ever just slam on the brakes one day and ask yourself "How did I get here?" I've been doing that a lot lately. This is a huge case, not just for me and Lisa, but for all gay and lesbian couples in this state. Sometimes I'm overwhelmed by this sense of responsibility.
I ended up not taking the spring break off as I'm flying solo in the office these days. The employee that worked in the office with me tendered her resignation and then called in sick for the last week she was supposed to be here. With the end of the semester looming, and the division VP "evaluating" whether they'll re-fill the position, I've been busier than a one-armed wallpaper hanger.
Stress. Stress. Stress. With so much stress, it came as no huge surprise that my blood pressure had crept ever upward (along with my weight, which probably assisted the blood pressure increase) and, by the time I had my surgery on the 15th it had climbed to an unsettling 138/90. Not heart attack country by any means, but still enough to raise an eyebrow. Add to the events in my life that goldarned menopause and you've got a formula for a pretty ugly picture that is my life. It took nothing to set me off into a rage -- I was on the phone with DishNetwork canceling my service and, while the jerk I was talking to was being condescending and infuriatingly obtuse, I was still shocked at my Linda Blair (Exorcist) imitation that day. While my son found it endlessly amusing that I called the guy "F*CK FACE," I knew that, contrary to popular belief, this just wasn't me.
I was intolerant of everything and everybody. Lisa and Joe had this "look" that they gave each other and they'd slither unnoticed out of whatever room I was in. I finally made an appointment with my doctor and told her that, if I can't gut the guy I work for and hang his entrails from my car antenna, then I need to do something about the rage and fury I seem to be experiencing. She wrote out two prescriptions -- one for my blood pressure, and one for Prozac.
So, I've been taking my Prozac and actually feel better in many ways, even after only just a couple of weeks. I feel more energetic mentally, and am actually enjoying being alone at work. I'm keeping up with the work without any problems at all, and still have lots of "play time." I'm riding my bike again (which has always been good therapy) and knitting my fingers off in the evenings. Lisa noted just yesterday that the "edge" seems to have smoothed out some. I think that if she's mentioning an improvement, she's relieved and she was affected more than she let on. I no longer feel like I want to gut my boss, I just shrug and try to ignore any thoughts of him.
Lisa's mother finally had her open heart surgery yesterday morning. She went down Sunday at around noontime so she could have dinner with her parents and sister for Mother's Day. It's amazing how accustomed we get to having physical presence around us and, when that physical presence is gone, nothing seems right. I miss Lisa terribly but I also have found that, with the help of Prozac, I'm comfortable with my own company. I've made a lot of progress on my knitting project and am very pleased about it, as well as the fact that I've bothered to keep the house picked up and the laundry done. Joe worked Sunday until about 6:30 and he and I had a nice steak dinner at home. He worked last night until 9:00 and got home about 9:15, but was either coming down with a cold or allergies. He mixed me a very tasty Amaretto Sour (yeah, I know, I shouldn't drink while taking meds...) and chatted with me for a little while before he went downstairs to take a hot shower to steam out his sinuses. I decided it was a good time for me to head off to bed, too. The only positive to Lisa being gone is that I've run the fans at full bore the past two nights, without one iota of concern for anyone else being cold. By golly, I wasn't hot!
Lisa will be home today, later this afternoon. She was going to see her mother one last time during the 12:30-1:00 visiting hour (her mom's still in ICU) and then leave from the hospital to come home. Later this week, maybe even on the weekend, she'll go back down to care for her mother after her discharge from the hospital either Friday or Saturday. She'll stay a few days to make sure her mother is doing well, and to give her sister some relief from being just about the only person caring for mom and dad during this whole ordeal.
The weather is absolutely gorgeous -- it's been sunny and warm for the past few days. The rain will set in later this afternoon, but that's okay. The perennials that are poking their first tentative leaves out need the rain. Our gardens are coming back to life, the front beds alive with red tulips, white hyacinths and blue grape hyacinths. The smell of freshly mowed grass is in the air, along with the sweet smell of lilacs and that freshly scrubbed smell the world seems to have after the spring rains.
Ah yes...better living through chemistry.
I had a gynecological surgical procedure on April 15th and it seems like that's when things just started slipping away from me. I had to lay low that weekend -- good thing too because the anesthesia really kicked my tookas for a couple of days. So, I spent the weekend pretty much on the couch, with Lisa hovering over me, checking to make sure I was okay, did I need something to drink, etc. What a nurturer she is!
On the 18th we finally got to the depositions, after all the delays!
The HR Director offered her usual menu of excuses, explanations, and procedures but, in the end, she couldn't defend the position she'd taken on denying the spousal benefits to me. At one point, she was asked about the lack of language for health care coverage for any spouse, and she patiently explained that "it's always been past practice to extend those benefits..." even though the union contract doesn't specifically allow the coverage. She said the college has "discretion" to offer those benefits to opposite-gendered spouses, even lacking authorization to do so in the contract. However, a short time later, when asked about another part of the contract, she adamantly insisted that she has to "live by the letter of the contract." Of course, my lawyer jumped all over that, asking her why she had to live by the letter of the contract in one area, but could "exercise discretion" in another. He then pointedly asked her two very important questions. First, is there anything in the union contract or in the college's rules, regulations or procedures that specifically defines marriage. She conceded that there was nothing in place that defined marriage. Secondly, she was asked if there was anything at all in the union contract or the college's rules or regulations that prohibited her from extending spousal benefits to same-sex partners. After some hemming and hawing, and after my lawyer pounded the question out several times, she conceded that, no, there was nothing officially precluding her from extending those benefits. I was electrified!
Next they deposed me. I'm uncertain as to why the county's lawyer asked the names and ages of my adult children (two of whom haven't lived with me for years) but he did. Basically he asked me a lot of financial questions -- how much does Lisa's health insurance cost us in premiums and unreimbursed co-pays and other expenses like prescription coverage, etc. He also asked me if it made a difference if it was called "domestic partner" benefits or "spousal" benefits. I told him that it absolutely does make a difference. He asked what the difference was and I told him that "domestic partner" benefits have to be agreed upon by my employer and the union and, just as easily as they can be written into the contract, they can be written right back out. Spousal benefits will go with me wherever I go, no matter where I work. It matters. It matters because my marriage is just as legal as his, and just as legal as the HR director's.
I got the distinct impression they were conceding the case and were already contemplating settling financially. Unfortunately for them, we're not looking for a financial settlement. We're looking for a court order that our marriage be recognized. My lawyer and the ACLU lawyers met and have decided that they're going to move to go directly to summary judgment -- avoiding a trial altogether since the facts are not in question, only the law.
He also says that, regardless of who comes out on the losing end of the ruling (and we have VERY conservative judges around here) the case is almost guaranteed to go to appeal and, ultimately, that's where we want the ruling to come from -- the state Supreme Court. It will be the first ruling of its kind in NY state -- a precedent setting ruling. Think about that. Did you ever just slam on the brakes one day and ask yourself "How did I get here?" I've been doing that a lot lately. This is a huge case, not just for me and Lisa, but for all gay and lesbian couples in this state. Sometimes I'm overwhelmed by this sense of responsibility.
I ended up not taking the spring break off as I'm flying solo in the office these days. The employee that worked in the office with me tendered her resignation and then called in sick for the last week she was supposed to be here. With the end of the semester looming, and the division VP "evaluating" whether they'll re-fill the position, I've been busier than a one-armed wallpaper hanger.
Stress. Stress. Stress. With so much stress, it came as no huge surprise that my blood pressure had crept ever upward (along with my weight, which probably assisted the blood pressure increase) and, by the time I had my surgery on the 15th it had climbed to an unsettling 138/90. Not heart attack country by any means, but still enough to raise an eyebrow. Add to the events in my life that goldarned menopause and you've got a formula for a pretty ugly picture that is my life. It took nothing to set me off into a rage -- I was on the phone with DishNetwork canceling my service and, while the jerk I was talking to was being condescending and infuriatingly obtuse, I was still shocked at my Linda Blair (Exorcist) imitation that day. While my son found it endlessly amusing that I called the guy "F*CK FACE," I knew that, contrary to popular belief, this just wasn't me.
I was intolerant of everything and everybody. Lisa and Joe had this "look" that they gave each other and they'd slither unnoticed out of whatever room I was in. I finally made an appointment with my doctor and told her that, if I can't gut the guy I work for and hang his entrails from my car antenna, then I need to do something about the rage and fury I seem to be experiencing. She wrote out two prescriptions -- one for my blood pressure, and one for Prozac.
So, I've been taking my Prozac and actually feel better in many ways, even after only just a couple of weeks. I feel more energetic mentally, and am actually enjoying being alone at work. I'm keeping up with the work without any problems at all, and still have lots of "play time." I'm riding my bike again (which has always been good therapy) and knitting my fingers off in the evenings. Lisa noted just yesterday that the "edge" seems to have smoothed out some. I think that if she's mentioning an improvement, she's relieved and she was affected more than she let on. I no longer feel like I want to gut my boss, I just shrug and try to ignore any thoughts of him.
Lisa's mother finally had her open heart surgery yesterday morning. She went down Sunday at around noontime so she could have dinner with her parents and sister for Mother's Day. It's amazing how accustomed we get to having physical presence around us and, when that physical presence is gone, nothing seems right. I miss Lisa terribly but I also have found that, with the help of Prozac, I'm comfortable with my own company. I've made a lot of progress on my knitting project and am very pleased about it, as well as the fact that I've bothered to keep the house picked up and the laundry done. Joe worked Sunday until about 6:30 and he and I had a nice steak dinner at home. He worked last night until 9:00 and got home about 9:15, but was either coming down with a cold or allergies. He mixed me a very tasty Amaretto Sour (yeah, I know, I shouldn't drink while taking meds...) and chatted with me for a little while before he went downstairs to take a hot shower to steam out his sinuses. I decided it was a good time for me to head off to bed, too. The only positive to Lisa being gone is that I've run the fans at full bore the past two nights, without one iota of concern for anyone else being cold. By golly, I wasn't hot!
Lisa will be home today, later this afternoon. She was going to see her mother one last time during the 12:30-1:00 visiting hour (her mom's still in ICU) and then leave from the hospital to come home. Later this week, maybe even on the weekend, she'll go back down to care for her mother after her discharge from the hospital either Friday or Saturday. She'll stay a few days to make sure her mother is doing well, and to give her sister some relief from being just about the only person caring for mom and dad during this whole ordeal.
The weather is absolutely gorgeous -- it's been sunny and warm for the past few days. The rain will set in later this afternoon, but that's okay. The perennials that are poking their first tentative leaves out need the rain. Our gardens are coming back to life, the front beds alive with red tulips, white hyacinths and blue grape hyacinths. The smell of freshly mowed grass is in the air, along with the sweet smell of lilacs and that freshly scrubbed smell the world seems to have after the spring rains.
Ah yes...better living through chemistry.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Oregon voids 3000 marriages
(Salem, Oregon) The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified the marriages of some 3,000 same-sex couples who were wed last year.
The marriages were performed last March in Multnomah County. (story)
The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.
The legal case began when the state refused to register the marriages. Circuit Judge Frank Bearden said in an April 20, 2004 ruling that the state was acting illegally in refusing to register the marriages. (story)
The suit finally was appealed to the state Supreme Court. But, the issue of future gay marriage in Oregon became moot last November when voters approved a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.
The suit was quickly amended to call for legal protections for same-sex couples without the issue of marriage to be considered by the high court. (story) But, the court skirted the issue of recognizing same-sex relationships in any form other than marriage saying that the original case only concerned marriage.
"At trial, plaintiffs did not seek access to the benefits of marriage apart from, or as an alternative to, marriage itself," the ruling said.
"We were disappointed by the Oregon Supreme Court's decision today putting off a decision on the underlying issue of fairness for same-sex couples and invalidating the 3,000 marriages that took place last year," said a joint statement from the ACLU and Basic Rights Oregon which represented the gay and lesbian couples in the suit.
"While we had hoped that the court would address whether it is fair for the state to continue to deny same-sex couples and their families the protections of marriage, the decision is not surprising considering the fact that a constitutional amendment was passed that created procedural disputes in the lawsuit."
Calling it an incredibly sad day for fairness and equality in Oregon the Human Rights Campaign said the fight will continue.
"Struggles to end inequality do not succeed overnight," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "This is the latest chapter in a long movement, and we feel confident that Oregon courts will eventually put an end to the exclusion of committed same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities that other Oregonians depend on."
Members of the legislature had hoped the court would take up the issue of benefits and civil unions.
Nevertheless, despite the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and today's ruling that supports it, civil unions such as those in Vermont and under consideration in Connecticut, could be available to gay and lesbian couples in Oregon.
Wednesday, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski announced he will press the legislature to approve a civil unions bill this year to give same-sex couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples. (story)
Kulongoski, a Democrat, told reporters that he is working with a bipartisan group of senators on a bill that combines a proposed civil unions law with a bill already before the legislature to extend basic civil rights to gays and lesbians.
How depressing this is. I know someone who was married in Oregon last year and my heart is just broken for her and her partner -- how they prayed that this decision wouldn't be made this way.
What irks me most is the court's willingness to side-step the real issue.
Keep your chin up, Michelle, I don't hear any fat lady singing.....
The marriages were performed last March in Multnomah County. (story)
The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.
The legal case began when the state refused to register the marriages. Circuit Judge Frank Bearden said in an April 20, 2004 ruling that the state was acting illegally in refusing to register the marriages. (story)
The suit finally was appealed to the state Supreme Court. But, the issue of future gay marriage in Oregon became moot last November when voters approved a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.
The suit was quickly amended to call for legal protections for same-sex couples without the issue of marriage to be considered by the high court. (story) But, the court skirted the issue of recognizing same-sex relationships in any form other than marriage saying that the original case only concerned marriage.
"At trial, plaintiffs did not seek access to the benefits of marriage apart from, or as an alternative to, marriage itself," the ruling said.
"We were disappointed by the Oregon Supreme Court's decision today putting off a decision on the underlying issue of fairness for same-sex couples and invalidating the 3,000 marriages that took place last year," said a joint statement from the ACLU and Basic Rights Oregon which represented the gay and lesbian couples in the suit.
"While we had hoped that the court would address whether it is fair for the state to continue to deny same-sex couples and their families the protections of marriage, the decision is not surprising considering the fact that a constitutional amendment was passed that created procedural disputes in the lawsuit."
Calling it an incredibly sad day for fairness and equality in Oregon the Human Rights Campaign said the fight will continue.
"Struggles to end inequality do not succeed overnight," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "This is the latest chapter in a long movement, and we feel confident that Oregon courts will eventually put an end to the exclusion of committed same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities that other Oregonians depend on."
Members of the legislature had hoped the court would take up the issue of benefits and civil unions.
Nevertheless, despite the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and today's ruling that supports it, civil unions such as those in Vermont and under consideration in Connecticut, could be available to gay and lesbian couples in Oregon.
Wednesday, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski announced he will press the legislature to approve a civil unions bill this year to give same-sex couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples. (story)
Kulongoski, a Democrat, told reporters that he is working with a bipartisan group of senators on a bill that combines a proposed civil unions law with a bill already before the legislature to extend basic civil rights to gays and lesbians.
How depressing this is. I know someone who was married in Oregon last year and my heart is just broken for her and her partner -- how they prayed that this decision wouldn't be made this way.
What irks me most is the court's willingness to side-step the real issue.
Keep your chin up, Michelle, I don't hear any fat lady singing.....
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
From "The New York Law Journal"
State Bar Urges Equal Rights, Full Protection for Gay Couples
John Caher
New York Law Journal
04-05-2005
ALBANY — The New York State Bar Association has overwhelmingly endorsed full equal protection rights for homosexual couples. But the bar group stopped short of calling for the specific legislative remedy of same-sex marriage while concluding that the option is a desirable and perhaps preferable means of addressing historic and invidious discrimination.
At an Albany meeting on Saturday, the state bar's policy-making House of Delegates voted 120-40 in urging legislative action to redress what the group concludes is inarguably and indefensibly discrimination. It urged the state Legislature to recognize either same-sex marriages, domestic legal partnerships or civil unions. By a margin of 86-82, the House of Delegates voted down a proposal that would have cited same-sex marriage as the sole constitutional cure.
The two votes were among several tallies and debates as the delegates spent more than three hours wrestling with one of the most vexing questions confronting the state, the country and much of the globe. But Saturday's debate centered not on whether the rights of same-sex couples should be recognized and secured as a matter of equal protection — that seemed to be a given — but on how and if the bar group should enter the battle.
"I thank each and every one of you," beamed Manhattan delegate Peter J.W. Sherwin of Proskauer Rose after hearing the comments of 46 others but before a single vote was cast. Mr. Sherwin identified himself as a gay man who will wed his longtime partner if and when New York allows him. "The level of the commentary — each and every one — has been wonderful," he said. "I am so proud to be a member of the state bar."
Several delegates, recalling with regret and a measure of embarrassment that the bar group was not at the forefront of the 1950s and '60s civil rights movement, urged the organization to take a bold position in favor of same-sex marriage.
"Act with courage, act with pride, and do something significant for the people of New York," urged John J. Privitera of McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams in Albany. Added Norman L. Reimer of the New York County Lawyers' Association and Gould, Fishbein, Reimer & Gottfried in Manhattan: "Lawyers are supposed to correct injustice. That is why we have to act. This organization has to define its character."
Newburgh City Court Judge B. Harold Ramsey said the state bar holds a leadership role, and should lead by speaking strongly and publicly in favor of full equal protection rights for gay couples. "Part of being a leader is moving people out of their comfort zone and stating that we all live under the Constitution," Judge Ramsey said. "This is not only a civil rights issue, but a human rights issue. This is not a social issue. It has nothing to do with religion. It is about equal protection."
Others were unwilling to categorically declare that same-sex marriage is the only constitutionally sound solution. Many — including state bar President Kenneth G. Standard, some past presidents and several bar leaders — suggested the group would undermine its credibility with the Legislature and needlessly create friction within the bar by taking a position on a disputed public policy question.
"I think it is wrong for us to think we can substitute our judgment for the judges, for the Legislature," said Mr. Standard of Epstein, Becker & Green in Chappaqua, adding that he has a religious reservation about same-sex marriage. "We are experts at being lawyers. None of us has the experience to determine what is in the best interests of all the citizens of New York."
Series of Votes
Saturday's marathon session had its roots in a motion brought before the House of Delegates more than two years ago by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
At the January 2003 annual meeting, the city bar called for a resolution urging legislation to guarantee same-sex couples the same marital rights of heterosexual couples. When it became obvious the state bar was not ready to take that step, the city bar offered a more tepid alternative, a civil union statute similar to Vermont's. But the state bar, the largest voluntary state bar organization in the country, was not ready for that either. President Lorraine Power Tharp of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna in Albany appointed a Special Committee to Study Issues Affecting Same-Sex Couples.
Last fall, the committee released a 380-page report addressing in depth the nettlesome legal and public policy issues, and illustrating the passion those issues provoke. All 12 members of the committee supported equal protection rights for gay couples. Nine of the 12 said the Legislature should enact remedial legislation of some sort.
Five would have extended all civil marriage benefits to gays. Four said they supported equal rights, but declined to endorse any particular remedy. Three, including two former presidents, cautioned the group against taking a stance on a public policy issue, but did not question the fundamental equal protection problem or the need for legislative correction.
Those positions, plus several others, were articulated through hours of debate Saturday when the house conducted a series of votes on alternative proposals and amended versions of those proposals. The first issue of discussion, debate and eventually vote was the so-called "Gross Resolution" offered by John H. Gross of Proskauer Rose. Mr. Gross' resolution, which was endorsed Friday night by a split vote of the state bar's executive committee, would have had the organization remain on the sidelines until the Court of Appeals decides the constitutionality of New York's ban on same-sex marriage. That resolution went down in a 120-51 vote.
Next, the house considered a resolution by former President A. Thomas Levin of Meyer Suozzi English & Klein in Mineola, co-chair of the special committee. Mr. Levin, presenting the dissenters' viewpoint, said the state bar should not take a position on same-sex marriage for the same reason it refrains from taking a position on other policy issues, such as stem-cell research, abortion and flag desecration. His resolution was defeated 114-58.
The Elder Law Section, represented by Howard S. Krooks of Littman Krooks in White Plains, offered what it portrayed as a middle-ground resolution. Its proposal, which was appealing to many delegates, would have called on the Legislature to decide the public policy issues regarding same-sex relationships while urging lawmakers to address all the legal distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual couples. That measure fell in a 99-64 vote.
Finally, the delegates were left only with the competing proposals of Albany partners Michael Whiteman and James B. Ayers of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna. Mr. Whiteman argued strenuously for full marital rights for same-sex couples, urging the state bar to stay clear of any "separate but equal" proposition. Mr. Ayers, saying he fully supports gay marriage, crafted the resolution that eventually passed. That resolution calls on the Legislature to create a civil union statute, a domestic partnership registry or to expand the statutory definition of marriage to encompass same-sex couples.
Throughout the day, delegates seemed to sense that the organization was at a crossroads, and perhaps in the cross hairs, of history.
There was muzzled concern that the state bar was teetering somewhere between taking a principled, enlightened position on which it would proudly stand for generations, or submitting to cockeyed liberalism that would cost it credibility with its members and the public.
'A Watershed Day'
The final vote came down somewhere between boldness and caution. Mark H. Alcott, vice president of the state bar and a partner at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, moderated the discussion. He opened the proceeding by describing it as "a watershed day."
Mr. Levin, the lead dissenter, said that by its action the state bar has wisely avoided divisive public policy debates that are not strictly legal in nature. "I think, in our hearts, probably all of us agree that marriage would be the best solution," Mr. Levin said. But he said risking credibility by taking a public position on a socio-political issue, particularly one that is so value-laden and so strongly implicates religious convictions, "is something we just don't need to do." Proskauer Rose's Mr. Gross expressed concern that "for us to announce our view on constitutionality prior to the court can be characterized as arrogant and presumptive."
But Executive Committee member Donald C. Doerr of McDermott, Doerr & Britt in Syracuse said: "We really ought not to be in this arena."
Two black delegates, David L. Edmunds Jr. of Buffalo and Lawrence R. Bailey Jr. of Manhattan, said they were offended by those who would compare the civil rights struggle of gays to that of blacks. "This is not an equal protection issue," Mr. Bailey insisted. "I am against gays and lesbians getting marriage licenses."
Robert L. Haig of Kelley Drye & Warren in Manhattan reminded the House of Delegates that the organization has been attempting to "get out ahead" and be more proactive than reactive. "This is an issue on which our views should be heard," he said.
From Mr. Sherwin's perspective, the New York State Bar Association now joins the Massachusetts bar as the only statewide bar groups to take a public position endorsing same-sex marriage. He noted that while the resolution that passed presented three potential remedies, one of the solutions deemed acceptable to a strong majority was marriage rights for gay couples.
"We support equal rights, equal treatment for same-sex couples," Mr. Sherwin, a member of the Special Committee to Study Issues Affecting Same-Sex Couples, said in an interview yesterday. "We did not reject marriage as a way to do that. All we said is that the Legislature can also and should also consider civil union and domestic partnership.
The state bar is saying one of the ways, and the best way if you look at the resolution, is marriage."
John Caher
New York Law Journal
04-05-2005
ALBANY — The New York State Bar Association has overwhelmingly endorsed full equal protection rights for homosexual couples. But the bar group stopped short of calling for the specific legislative remedy of same-sex marriage while concluding that the option is a desirable and perhaps preferable means of addressing historic and invidious discrimination.
At an Albany meeting on Saturday, the state bar's policy-making House of Delegates voted 120-40 in urging legislative action to redress what the group concludes is inarguably and indefensibly discrimination. It urged the state Legislature to recognize either same-sex marriages, domestic legal partnerships or civil unions. By a margin of 86-82, the House of Delegates voted down a proposal that would have cited same-sex marriage as the sole constitutional cure.
The two votes were among several tallies and debates as the delegates spent more than three hours wrestling with one of the most vexing questions confronting the state, the country and much of the globe. But Saturday's debate centered not on whether the rights of same-sex couples should be recognized and secured as a matter of equal protection — that seemed to be a given — but on how and if the bar group should enter the battle.
"I thank each and every one of you," beamed Manhattan delegate Peter J.W. Sherwin of Proskauer Rose after hearing the comments of 46 others but before a single vote was cast. Mr. Sherwin identified himself as a gay man who will wed his longtime partner if and when New York allows him. "The level of the commentary — each and every one — has been wonderful," he said. "I am so proud to be a member of the state bar."
Several delegates, recalling with regret and a measure of embarrassment that the bar group was not at the forefront of the 1950s and '60s civil rights movement, urged the organization to take a bold position in favor of same-sex marriage.
"Act with courage, act with pride, and do something significant for the people of New York," urged John J. Privitera of McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams in Albany. Added Norman L. Reimer of the New York County Lawyers' Association and Gould, Fishbein, Reimer & Gottfried in Manhattan: "Lawyers are supposed to correct injustice. That is why we have to act. This organization has to define its character."
Newburgh City Court Judge B. Harold Ramsey said the state bar holds a leadership role, and should lead by speaking strongly and publicly in favor of full equal protection rights for gay couples. "Part of being a leader is moving people out of their comfort zone and stating that we all live under the Constitution," Judge Ramsey said. "This is not only a civil rights issue, but a human rights issue. This is not a social issue. It has nothing to do with religion. It is about equal protection."
Others were unwilling to categorically declare that same-sex marriage is the only constitutionally sound solution. Many — including state bar President Kenneth G. Standard, some past presidents and several bar leaders — suggested the group would undermine its credibility with the Legislature and needlessly create friction within the bar by taking a position on a disputed public policy question.
"I think it is wrong for us to think we can substitute our judgment for the judges, for the Legislature," said Mr. Standard of Epstein, Becker & Green in Chappaqua, adding that he has a religious reservation about same-sex marriage. "We are experts at being lawyers. None of us has the experience to determine what is in the best interests of all the citizens of New York."
Series of Votes
Saturday's marathon session had its roots in a motion brought before the House of Delegates more than two years ago by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
At the January 2003 annual meeting, the city bar called for a resolution urging legislation to guarantee same-sex couples the same marital rights of heterosexual couples. When it became obvious the state bar was not ready to take that step, the city bar offered a more tepid alternative, a civil union statute similar to Vermont's. But the state bar, the largest voluntary state bar organization in the country, was not ready for that either. President Lorraine Power Tharp of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna in Albany appointed a Special Committee to Study Issues Affecting Same-Sex Couples.
Last fall, the committee released a 380-page report addressing in depth the nettlesome legal and public policy issues, and illustrating the passion those issues provoke. All 12 members of the committee supported equal protection rights for gay couples. Nine of the 12 said the Legislature should enact remedial legislation of some sort.
Five would have extended all civil marriage benefits to gays. Four said they supported equal rights, but declined to endorse any particular remedy. Three, including two former presidents, cautioned the group against taking a stance on a public policy issue, but did not question the fundamental equal protection problem or the need for legislative correction.
Those positions, plus several others, were articulated through hours of debate Saturday when the house conducted a series of votes on alternative proposals and amended versions of those proposals. The first issue of discussion, debate and eventually vote was the so-called "Gross Resolution" offered by John H. Gross of Proskauer Rose. Mr. Gross' resolution, which was endorsed Friday night by a split vote of the state bar's executive committee, would have had the organization remain on the sidelines until the Court of Appeals decides the constitutionality of New York's ban on same-sex marriage. That resolution went down in a 120-51 vote.
Next, the house considered a resolution by former President A. Thomas Levin of Meyer Suozzi English & Klein in Mineola, co-chair of the special committee. Mr. Levin, presenting the dissenters' viewpoint, said the state bar should not take a position on same-sex marriage for the same reason it refrains from taking a position on other policy issues, such as stem-cell research, abortion and flag desecration. His resolution was defeated 114-58.
The Elder Law Section, represented by Howard S. Krooks of Littman Krooks in White Plains, offered what it portrayed as a middle-ground resolution. Its proposal, which was appealing to many delegates, would have called on the Legislature to decide the public policy issues regarding same-sex relationships while urging lawmakers to address all the legal distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual couples. That measure fell in a 99-64 vote.
Finally, the delegates were left only with the competing proposals of Albany partners Michael Whiteman and James B. Ayers of Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna. Mr. Whiteman argued strenuously for full marital rights for same-sex couples, urging the state bar to stay clear of any "separate but equal" proposition. Mr. Ayers, saying he fully supports gay marriage, crafted the resolution that eventually passed. That resolution calls on the Legislature to create a civil union statute, a domestic partnership registry or to expand the statutory definition of marriage to encompass same-sex couples.
Throughout the day, delegates seemed to sense that the organization was at a crossroads, and perhaps in the cross hairs, of history.
There was muzzled concern that the state bar was teetering somewhere between taking a principled, enlightened position on which it would proudly stand for generations, or submitting to cockeyed liberalism that would cost it credibility with its members and the public.
'A Watershed Day'
The final vote came down somewhere between boldness and caution. Mark H. Alcott, vice president of the state bar and a partner at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, moderated the discussion. He opened the proceeding by describing it as "a watershed day."
Mr. Levin, the lead dissenter, said that by its action the state bar has wisely avoided divisive public policy debates that are not strictly legal in nature. "I think, in our hearts, probably all of us agree that marriage would be the best solution," Mr. Levin said. But he said risking credibility by taking a public position on a socio-political issue, particularly one that is so value-laden and so strongly implicates religious convictions, "is something we just don't need to do." Proskauer Rose's Mr. Gross expressed concern that "for us to announce our view on constitutionality prior to the court can be characterized as arrogant and presumptive."
But Executive Committee member Donald C. Doerr of McDermott, Doerr & Britt in Syracuse said: "We really ought not to be in this arena."
Two black delegates, David L. Edmunds Jr. of Buffalo and Lawrence R. Bailey Jr. of Manhattan, said they were offended by those who would compare the civil rights struggle of gays to that of blacks. "This is not an equal protection issue," Mr. Bailey insisted. "I am against gays and lesbians getting marriage licenses."
Robert L. Haig of Kelley Drye & Warren in Manhattan reminded the House of Delegates that the organization has been attempting to "get out ahead" and be more proactive than reactive. "This is an issue on which our views should be heard," he said.
From Mr. Sherwin's perspective, the New York State Bar Association now joins the Massachusetts bar as the only statewide bar groups to take a public position endorsing same-sex marriage. He noted that while the resolution that passed presented three potential remedies, one of the solutions deemed acceptable to a strong majority was marriage rights for gay couples.
"We support equal rights, equal treatment for same-sex couples," Mr. Sherwin, a member of the Special Committee to Study Issues Affecting Same-Sex Couples, said in an interview yesterday. "We did not reject marriage as a way to do that. All we said is that the Legislature can also and should also consider civil union and domestic partnership.
The state bar is saying one of the ways, and the best way if you look at the resolution, is marriage."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)