|
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:
Gay Marriage: What’s Happening Now
The battle over gay marriage continues, and the trenches are in Massachusetts and California.
With each decision on gay marriage, these state governments shape this contemporary civil rights struggle.
Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled (twice) that the state will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning May 17, 2004. A majority of the court decided it was discriminatory to relegate lesbian and gay couples to civil unions, which don’t provide the full rights of marriage. For more on the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, click here.
In the meantime, anti-gay marriage groups and the state’s governor, Mitt Romney, are doing everything they can to keep gay nuptials from happening in Massachusetts.
First, Romney tried to petition the state’s Supreme Judicial Court to postpone the May 17th deadline, since the Massachusetts legislature has given preliminary approval to a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the state. If his petition had been successful, it would have delayed lesbian and gay marriages until November 2006, when voters will decide to accept or reject the amendment.
A statewide vote is not likely to occur before 2006 because the state legislature must pass the amendment again during the 2005-6 legislative season.
However, Governor Romney was unable to petition the court because the state’s attorney general, Thomas F. Reilly, refused to represent Mr. Romney in the case. State law requires that the governor be represented in court by the attorney general or someone appointed by the attorney general.
The New York Times reports that Attorney General Reilly refused to participate because he believes that there is little reason for the court to reconsider an issue that it has ruled upon twice in the last six months. Although he too opposes same-sex marriage, Reilly, a Democrat, may have decided not to involve his office in the situation because he is considering running for governor himself.
Since Governor Romney is unable to file the petition, C.J. Doyle, director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, has done so in his stead. Mr. Doyle argued that the court should allow the amendment process to be completed before permitting a law that would violate that amendment. However, the amendment process began after the Massachusetts courts ordered the legalization of gay marriage.
Digging up the past
Governor Romney has taken another approach to preventing (or at least postponing) gay marriage in his state. He has revived a 1913 statute that prohibits Massachusetts from issuing marriage licenses to couples that would not be allowed to marry in their home states. Romney says that lesbian and gay couples that reside in the 38 states that define marriage as a heterosexual union should not be allowed to marry in Massachusetts.
But Governor Romney doesn’t have total support from his staff. One clerk, David Rushford of Worcester, says he will issue licenses anyway. He doesn’t plan to ask lesbian and gay couples about the state they come from or to monitor whether or not they plan to become Massachusetts residents. "Should we be the gatekeepers?" Mr. Rushford told The New York Times, "My answer is no."
California
California is trying to determine if the 4,000+ same-sex couples married in San Francisco have the right to retain their marriage licenses or if the state has the right to take them away.
On February 12, 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city clerks to extend marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. A month later, the state’s Supreme Court ordered a halt to the nuptials because state law bans them.
Now, at issue is the validity of the marriage licenses already granted. Some argue that the state has every right to take them away since the city of San Francisco had no authority to issue the licenses in the first place.
Others say that nullifying the licenses would amount to taking away rights already granted. The Boston Globe reports that city attorney Dennis J. Herrera argues that a couple, once married, has "property rights" in that relationship. Herrera represented the city of San Francisco during a hearing on April 21, 2004; he explained to the state Supreme Court that a marriage cannot be dissolved unless the couple itself asks the state to undo the marriage. Herrera claims that the state attorney general has no right to seek an end to an existing marriage.
The ties that bind
California’s treatment of this issue may affect gay marriage in Massachusetts. If lesbian and gay couples in Massachusetts receive marriage licenses as scheduled on May 17, and a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is approved two years later, what will happen to the thousands of marriages legalized in the interim? Will they look to California as a precedent?
Unlike California, Massachusetts has sanctioned gay marriage. It will, therefore, be difficult for the state to rationalize taking away a right that it has legally granted. After two years of same-sex marriage, will Massachusetts citizens take that right away? How will peoples’ attitudes towards gay marriage change as lesbian and gay couples begin married lives?
Discuss these issues with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. Stay aware of women’s rights issues by signing up for an e alert on the topic. And don’t forget to register to vote and contact your representatives to let them know what you think.
Update Posted on: 4/28/2004
click here to go to next section
return
to top
|
