|
Women's Rights
What's New? - Archive
WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide.
Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Women's Rights Archives page.
Since Women's Rights is in many ways an umbrella issue, WomenMatter will highlight related updates from other Life Issue areas here:
One Up, One Down: States Pick Sides on Gay Marriage
The civil rights movement is not confined to the 1950s and 60s. We are experiencing it now, in 2004, through the current struggle for gay rights.
It’s clear that the contemporary gay rights movement is gaining momentum, because its opponents are speaking more and more loudly.
In addition to hosting "Marriage Protection Week" in October 2003, President Bush opposed gay marriage in his State of the Union address in January 2004, making it clear that the issue is among his top priorities.
Bush warned "activist" judges against defining marriage as inclusive to same-sex couples, and he suggested that he would support a constitutional amendment that would decisively ban gay unions.
Nevertheless, after the State of the Union, on February 3, 2004, the Massachusetts state Supreme Court reconfirmed its previous ruling that gay marriage complies with the state constitution.
Marriage in Massachusetts
The court reasserted its position because the Massachusetts state Senate challenged its November 2003 ruling, which effectively legalized gay marriage in that state.
State legislators argued that civil unions are a sufficient response to the court’s mandate that gay and lesbian couples be awarded full rights.
The court disagreed. In her statement, Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall explained that “the dissimilitude between the terms ‘civil marriage’ and ‘civil union’ is not innocuous, it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status."
Justice Marshall points out that the difference in language represents a difference in rights. Civil marriage corresponds to full rights under the law, while civil unions amount to restricted rights.
(Civil unions vary from state to state. The most recent state to offer domestic partnership rights, New Jersey, allows gay and lesbian couples hospital visitation rights, tax exemptions, and state health insurance. However, it does not grant custody rights to children, the right to inheritance in the absence of a will, the right to file a joint tax return, the right to family leave benefits, nor the liability for a partner’s financial debt.)
Ohio ban
On the day that Chief Justice Marshall and three of her fellow justices confirmed the rights of same-sex couples, Ohio legislators challenged them.
On February 3, 2004, the Ohio Legislature approved a ban on same-sex unions. It is the 38th state to do so, but Ohio’s law is more restrictive than most. In addition to outlawing any legal recognition of gay and lesbian partnerships, it bars state agencies from providing benefits to domestic partners.
Some corporations and organizations in Ohio, such as Ohio State University, are concerned about the bill, claiming it will hurt the states’ image and possibly its business. Specifically, Ohio State is concerned with recruiting qualified professors and researchers, now that it must compete against the other Big Ten schools that do offer domestic partner benefits.
An "urgent" issue?
The New York Times reports that the bill’s chief sponsor, Representative William J. Seitz (R-Cincinnati) considers the “protection" of marriage urgent since states like Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey are granting rights to gays and lesbians.
Since marriage is regulated by the states, it is states that are on the front lines of this battle. Although the federal government may step in with an amendment to the U.S. constitution, states are now crafting amendments themselves.
A constitutional amendment would clearly define marriage as “a union between a man and a woman," language that would be difficult if not impossible for judges and legislators to work around. Only if the amendment were repealed would gay and lesbian couples be able to win marriage rights.
The importance of marriage
Our representatives clearly support the institution of marriage, and Bush’s Healthy Marriage Initiative spends $1.5 billion to support it. The vague objective of the program is to endorse the concept of marriage as the building block of society. The program’s specific targets are primarily poor, urban minorities and youth.
Many recognize marriage as a fortifying material within the nation’s structure. Yet, it is only available to some. If marriage strengthens the country, the community, the family, why leave out a large number of committed, loving couples that want to participate?
State against state
While some state legislatures are planning amendments, others are discussing increased benefits to same-sex partners.
Anti-marriage groups are meeting across the country, but so are pro-marriage groups. Activists on both sides are holding town hall meetings and trying to recruit members to their cause.
It may very well be a make or break campaign issue in the near future.
Question your candidates. What does it mean to offer civil-unions and not marriage? Does it make sense to offer hospital visitation rights but not inheritance rights to same-sex couples? What does it mean for government to be regulating marriage? Is that an important function of Congress? Of the Constitution?
Ask yourself and your friends these questions. Read more about gay rights, as WomenMatter has written extensively on this issue. Discuss with other readers in one of our online forums, and, when you’re ready, contact your representatives and let them know what you think.
Article Posted on: 2/9/2004
click here to go to next section
return
to top
|
