Poll: National Support for Marriage Equality Soars

In the US, the  balance of support on gay marriage continues to shift, and rapidly. Not only is total support increasing, so is the intensity of that support. In a new NBC / Washington Post poll, those "strongly" in favour increased from just 18% in 2004, to 32% in 2012. Conversely, the proportion "strongly" opposed collapsed from 51% to 31% over the same period.

Commentary at Seattlepi illustrates how this is an almost exact flip from the time when Republicans used gay marriage as a wedge issue to weaken the Democrats. This time around, the wedge issue will be setting Republicans against each other. (In all the recent wins for equality over the past year, victories have come with the help of GOP senators and politicians. In Colorado, where the state House is facing a bill to introduce civil unions, the Republicans are said to be evenly divided in a 3 - way split: for, against, don't care).

Support for same-sex marriage is up sharply in a dramatic public opinion shift from as recently as three years ago, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Monday morning.

The national poll showed 49 percent of Americans favoring marriage equality with 40 percent opposed. Support among younger voters approaches 60 percent. Only two groups among those surveyed — voters over 65 and Tea Party supporters — werein opposition.

The figures are an almost precise flip on the issue from an NBC/Journal poll in October of 2009. At that time, 41 percent favored same-sex marriage while 49 percent were opposed.

In 2004, Republicans used more than 20 statewide ballot measures, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, to get evangelical voters to turn out at the polls for President Bush’s reelection.

Same-sex marriage was opposed by a 30-62 percent margin in an NBC/Journal survey taken at the time.

“Progress is happening: The Republican Party, in what its presidential candidates are saying, is out of step with the mainstream,” said State Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, sponsor of Washington’s marriage equality legislation.

via seattlepi.com.

These results are also bad news for NOM and the other opponents of gay marriage. After the victory in New York last year, they pledged to raise money to campaign against any Republicans who voted in favour, a pledge they have repeated wherever gay marriage has advanced. In doing so, they may help their targeted officials, more then they hurt them. More voters say that they are more likely to vote for a supporter of marriage, than for an opponent.

In Valentine's Week, Marriage Equality Advances: Update

If anyone still has any doubts that marriage equality is on the move in the US, just consider how  many advances there have been in just the past few days, in this week of St Valentine:

• In Washington state, on Monday governor Chris Gregoire signed the enabling legislation.

• Also on Monday in New Jersey, the state Senate approved a bill, which then passed in the state House Thursday. Gov Christie vetoed, as promised, on Friday.  Proponents now have two years to muster enough votes to override. (Or they could try next year to go the referendum route, after all, or they could hope for a favourable ruling from the state Supreme Court.)
• In Maryland on Tuesday, Valentine's day, key committees approved a bill which was due to go to the full House of Delegates Thursday, and was finally passed late on Friday. It must still go to the Senate, but as they approved a similar bill last year, that should not present a problem. Thereafter, Governor O'Malley has promised to sign.
• In Colorado, a bill for civil unions (not full marriage) was approved by a state Senate committee yesterday. It is expected to pass easily in the Senate, and will then go to the House.

These have been on the radar for some time, with extensive press reporting. Two others were less widely predicted:

• The Illinois General Assembly introduced a gay marriage bill yesterday, after it cleared the House rules committee February 8th.
• Legislation is due to be introduced in Rhode Island today.

• A West Virginia delegate introduced a bill for civil unions.

Meanwhile, the Maine campaign to repeal Proposition  and reinstate marriage equality, appears to be going well. Organisers submitted far more petition signatures than required, and polling shows strong support.

These are steps forward, not achievements completed. There are still hurdles to be overcome, in each:

• Even after signature by the governor, Washington's new law faces a voter's referendum for repeal.
• Any override of Gov Christie's veto in New Jersey will be a tough ask. It may not happen.
• The Maryland bill can pass in the House (where it came short last year). As in Washington, there will likely be a voter referendum for repeal.
• Prospects in Illinois, R.I. and Colorado are also uncertain.
• The WV bill is largely just symbolism. It's unlikely to pass.

And in Minnesota and North Carolina, there are existing proposition campaigns to write discrimination into the state constitutions.

Even so, the momentum is clearly in the direction of equality. That's seven states where the initiative is moving forward, and two heading in the other direction. Even if there are some setbacks, these will be reversed - just as New York last year reversed it's earlier Senate defeat with the help of three Republican senators, and as Maine is on course to reverse 2009's proposition for repeal, with a counter proposition to re-instate marriage for all, free of discrimination.

In every vote taken in state legislatures so far, there have been a few Republican legislators crossing party lines to vote their consciences, for equality. Catholic bishops and some other religious leaders are actively campaigning to restrict marriage - but in every public campaign, there are other faith leaders and prominent
Catholic politicians who are arguing, from religious principles, for justice for all.

Full marriage equality is clearly on the way - and that will include full inclusion, in at least some churches.

Related articles

• A GOP Reckoning On Marriage Equality (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)

NH Voters Oppose Gay Marriage Repeal

<p style="text-align: justify;">With a number of US states in the news over reports of moves to provide for same - sex marriage (legislative initiatives in Washington, New Jersey, Maryland and Illinois, a voters' referendum in Maine, and last week's court victory in California), and high profile push-backs in Minnesota and North Carolina, it is easy to overlook what is happening (or not) in New Hampshire.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">When the Republicans made major electoral gains in November 2010, regaining control of the State legilature, they were quick to announce their plans to repeal the legislation for <a class="zem_slink" title="Same-sex marriage" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage" rel="wikipedia">marriage equality</a>. Since then, there have been a series of delays. First, there came the announcement that although repeal was important, it would not take place in 2o11, but would wait until 2o12. Late last year, it was said that repeal would take place early in 2012 - then that was pushed back until "after the GOP primary". The primary came and went - and the candidates most visibly opposed to equality were bottom of the poll. Then, it was said that repeal would take place some time in February. It has still not been sheduled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">A report on fresh opinion polling illustrates precisely why the political leadership is getting cold feet - repeal is a clear vote loser.</p>

<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>The University of New Hampshire Survey Center on Feb. 7 polled Granite Staters on same-sex marriage, as it has several times since 2009. This time, citizens were asked if they support or oppose repeal of the law. Results indicate 59 percent oppose and 32 percent favor repeal.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>"It's been the same each time we ask — about 2-1 in favor of same-sex marriage," said survey center director Andy Smith. "It's not an issue most people care about one way or the other. Proponents are very much in favor, opponents are very much opposed. But for most people, it's a shrug."</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Smith said the polling numbers are so strong that, Republican majority or not, he predicts the repeal bill will not ultimately pass the N.H. House and Senate.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>"I don't see there's going to be a real strong push to pull this through," he said. Legislators "can push against public opinion somewhat, but if you have your eye on November, you don't want to jeopardize your own seat and you don't want to jeopardize party control."</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: right;"><em>via <a href="http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20120212-NEWS-202120332">SeacoastOnline.com</a>.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">For Catholics, the religious dimension is of particular interest.</p>

<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em style="color: #000080;">"It's a time of change and the momentum is with gay marriage," said Michele Dillon, chair of the sociology department at UNH, who specializes in sociology and religion.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em style="color: #000080;">Poll after poll shows what Cox calls the "millennials" — those age 18 to 29 — overwhelmingly favoring same-sex marriage. "The younger generation is perplexed that it's even an issue," Dillon said. "They're just totally ahead on that."</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>The UNH poll indicates 71 percent of those age 18 to 34 "strongly oppose" repeal of New Hampshire's gay marriage law with another 14 percent somewhat opposing repeal.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>In a PRRI poll taken last June, 62 percent of millennials favor gay marriage, including 49 percent who identified themselves as Republicans.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Dillon, who studies issues like gay marriage through the lens of both sociology and religion, said gay marriage is the new contraception issue for many Catholics, in particular. <strong>"Years ago, committed Catholics said 'We can be good Catholics without adhering to the Catholic teachings on contraception,'" she said. "Now it's happening with gay marriage. Most Catholics disagree with some aspect of church teaching."</strong></em></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Today, Feb. 12, is World Marriage Day. Expect the bishops and other conservative sources to interpret this in terms exclusively related to what they erroneously think of as "traditional" marriage. Marriage, however, has undergone many transformations in Western history, and as I showed in discussing Pope Benedict's praise of marriage to Italian politicians, the social benefits of marriage apply to all marriages - not only those approved by Catholic bishops.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We too, can celebrate World Marriage Day.</p>

<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" title="Enhanced by Zemanta" href="http://www.zemanta.com/"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" style="border: none; float: right;" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=c06951f9-3902-4ceb-91cc-a2b8793c7585" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" /></a></div>

Religion and Gay Marriage: Reactions to Prop 8 Ruling.

[caption id="attachment_21905" align="aligncenter" width="254" caption="Proposition 8 election map"]<a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Proposition-8-election-map.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-21905" title="Proposition 8 election map" src="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Proposition-8-election-map-254x300.png" alt="" width="254" height="300" /></a>[/caption]
<p style="text-align: justify;">Catholic bishops have been quick to react to yesterday's court ruling that California's Proposition 8 ballot was unconstitutional, speaking of their disappointment at what they see as the "injustice" of the ruling (an ironic choice of words, as it is the business of the courts above all, to deliberate and rule on matters of justice.  The learned judges in this case, confirming earlier decisions by lower courts, have found that the "injustice" lay in creating two classes of persons, one with lesser rights than the other). Frances De Bernardo at New Ways / Bondings 2.0, recalling the active role that the bishops played in perpetrating the original injustice, reflects on the harm that has done to the Catholic Church in California, and draws an important lesson from it: the urgent need, going forward, to move from a political stance on the matter to a pastoral one:</p>
&nbsp;
<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Though this case temporarily provides a victory for the marriage equality movement in California, there is still work of reconciliation work to be done in the Catholic Church there.  In a <a title="‘Catholic Church Doesn’t Need to Take Another Battering’" href="http://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/catholic-church-doesnt-need-to-take-another-battering/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #000080;">post two weeks ago</span></a>, I mentioned that a California friend told me that the hierarchy’s heavily funded campaign to pass Proposition 8 has had a harmful effect on the pastoral life of LGBT Catholics and their allies in California.  Many have become alienated from the church and left it because of the vociferous anti-gay nature of the campaign and its rhetoric.  While the hierarchy has been focused on the political nature of the marriage debate, it’s time that they started to look at the pastoral component of it, too, and begin the much needed work of reconciliation–for the good of the entire church.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: right;"><a href="http://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/the-catholic-factor-of-proposition-8/">Francis DeBernardo, Bondings 2.0</a></p>
</blockquote>
&nbsp;
<p style="text-align: justify;">Other denominations that were active in the Prop 8 campaign against marriage, have expressed similar and predictable disappointment. I am more interested though, in the mounting evidence of an opposite, supportive view from faith leaders.<!--more--></p>
&nbsp;
<h4 style="text-align: justify;">Religious support <em>in favour</em> of justice and equality in marriage.</h4>
&nbsp;

Last week, an English bishop declared his support for gay marriage in the UK. In Washington DC, an Episcopal bishop has declared similar support for marriage equality in Maryland.

&nbsp;
<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>The new Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Washington, D.C., on Tuesday endorsed the legislative campaign now underway to legalize same sex marriage in Maryland.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>The Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, wrote on the Washington Post website that gay marriage opponents should not be so certain the Bible is on their side. In her reading the Bible</em></span></p>

<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>... condemns exploitative sexual activity that is the antithesis of loving, committed relationships. The Bible is silent on the subject of same-gender monogamous relationships.</em></span></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
&nbsp;

In Pasadena, Rev Susan Boyle called the ruling a "victory", reversing the Catholic bishops' argument from religious freedom:
&nbsp;
<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>The Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Pasadena, where they have refused to sign marriage licenses for any couple until gay couples could be legally wed, went straight to rejoicing.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Russell, an Episcopal priest, called it a victory for</em></span></p>

<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>...all Americans who believe that the "liberty and justice for all" in the pledge we teach our children really means ALL. It is also a victory over those who erroneously believe that the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment gives them freedom to write their theology on marriage -- or anything else -- into our Constitution.</em></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Russell dismisses the notion this tramples on freedom of religion, saying in a statement that everyone is</em></span></p>

<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>... just as free today to decide for themselves whether God equally blesses our marriages. What the 9th Circuit Court said today is that they are NOT free to decide whether the Constitution equally protects them.</em></span></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
&nbsp;
<h6 class="zemanta-related-title" style="font-size: 1em;">Related articles</h6>
&nbsp;
<ul class="zemanta-article-ul">
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2012/02/prop-8-to-supremes-plus-some.html">Prop 8 To The Supremes Plus Some Interesting Poll Data</a><em> (Enlightened Catholicism)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://www.mlp.org/article.php/Proposition8RuledUnconstitutional">Marriage Equality Victory: Proposition 8 Unconstitutional</a> <em>(More Light Presbyterians)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/prop-8-gay-marriage-san-diego-mayor.html">Prop. 8: San Diego mayor, once a gay-marriage foe, cheers ruling</a> (latimesblogs.latimes.com)</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" title="Enhanced by Zemanta" href="http://www.zemanta.com/"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" style="border: none; float: right;" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=9e0f77c5-1fe3-4c94-a4f7-57863d188843" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" /></a></div>

Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - US Federal Appeals Court

<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for the two couples who successfully sued to overturn the ban have repeatedly said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.</em></span></p>
<p style="text-align: right;"><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hie675q-TXnQzNlLkF78P9IXJudw?docId=5d193919b0204fff9bf8c18933d46481">Associated Press</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It's not finally over until the Supreme Court agrees, but this is a big step forward.</p>

<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" title="Enhanced by Zemanta" href="http://www.zemanta.com/"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" style="border: none; float: right;" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=271543c1-244b-4f7a-9836-1521983333b0" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" /></a></div>

<p style="text-align: justify;">When British PM David Cameron threw his weight behind the proposal for British recognition for gay marriage last year, he said it was because he was a Conservative, not in spite of it. Mr Cameron, like many modern politicians, is not noted for strong religious observance or belief - but Time Montgomerie is different. He is both a prominent Conservative MP, <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"> </span><span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">the editor of the ConservativeHome website for Tory activists, </span>and an outspoken Christian. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"> (I</span><span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;">n 1990 he founded the influential Conservative Christian Fellowship (CCF) with David Burrowes, a Tory MP who now leads the campaign against gay marriage). But in announcing his support for gay marriage, he has used arguments remarkably similar to those of Mr Cameron. Expanding the concept of marriage to include all couples, he says, will not weaken the institution, as the opponents fear, but will strengthen it.</span><span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"> </span></p>
 <a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Tim+Montgomerie2.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-21859" title="Tim+Montgomerie2" src="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Tim+Montgomerie2-e1328528834937-300x239.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="239" /></a>
<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: #000080;">Mr Montgomerie said: "Conservatives should want as many people as possible to live in institutions and social norms that promote stability, faithfulness and compassion. Marriage is an institution at the centre of society. It is because I value it so much that I want it to be extended. This is not about equal rights. It is about extending an incredibly important social institution." Admitting the Tories previously had a "terrible" record on gay rights, he said: "To put it kindly, it has dragged its feet for a long time." He pointed out that Mr Cameron had consistently favoured gay rights since becoming party leader.</span></em></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: #000080;">What David Cameron is embarked upon is an incredibly important project – to make social conservatism fashionable again. Marriage is civilising, stabilising, a hugely important institution for bringing people together. But if marriage is fossilised and exclusive, that has only limited reach. His attempt to enlarge and modernise the institution should not be seen as a threat to marriage but as its saviour."</span></em></p>
<p style="text-align: right;">-<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prominent-tory-disowns-religious-right-and-supports-gay-marriage-6579531.html"> The Independent</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" title="Enhanced by Zemanta" href="http://www.zemanta.com/"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" style="border: none; float: right;" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=618b5e2e-84e5-47ce-be1c-4bb2cf938107" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" /></a></div>

Religious Divides in Support for Same-Sex Marriage

It is often assumed, quite incorrectly, that the disputes over marriage equality are between those standing up for religious belief (especially Christian belief), and secularists on the side of human rights. The fallacy of this assumption is neatly illustrated by this graphic, in a post at the Public Religion Research Institute, drawing on a comprehensive analysis of data from the Pew Research Institute. This clearly shows that the disagreement is not between religion and human rights, but between the different shades of religious affiliation. Two of the three groups with the strongest support for equality are from religious groups - but not Christian religion (Jews, and other non-Christian faith groups).

Even within the Christian faith, there is clear division between denominations. White and Hispanic Catholics, and White Mainline Protestants, all show clear majority support for equality. (The research does not break out Black Catholics):

• White Catholics: 56% in favour, 39% opposed
• Hispanic Catholics: 53% in favour, 37% opposed
• White Mainline Protestants: 52% in favour, 40% opposed

The arguments from "religious freedom" against legal recognition for all marriages must surely also take into account the freedom of those people of faith that support same - sex marriage, both in other faith groups, and within their own denominations. (In

Of the groups broken out for analysis, only Black Protestants, Mormons and Evangelicals are opposed  - but, it must be said, very strongly.

Beyond Secular vs. Religious: Religious Divides in Support for Same-Sex Marriage

In 2011, majorities of most religious groups favored allowing gay and lesbian couple to marry legally, illustrating that the old narrative of battle lines between secular supporters and religious opponents no longer serves as an accurate characterization of the landscape of the same-sex marriage debate. In the general population, 2011 was also the first year on record in which supporting same-sex marriage was not a minority position. In May, several surveys (all asking slightly different versions of the same question) found that a majority of the public supported allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry. PRRI’s May survey found that 51% of Americans were in favor, and 43% were opposed.

-full analysis at   Public Religion Research Institute.

This strength of feeling from the opponents, and the rather milder feelings of supporters, must be assessed together with the evidence from several sources that opposition is dropping in degree, as well as in extent, while supporters are growing in both numbers and intensity of feeling.

The striking contrast between the views of younger people, including younger Evangelicals, and their older co-religionists shows clearly that this shift within the churches towards more widespread, and more intense, support for marriage equality will surely continue to grow:

There are large generational differences between Millennials (age 18-29) and older Americans on the issue of same-sex marriage. Sixty-four percent of Millennials favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, a rate that is more than 20 points higher than among those ages 30 and above (42%). This generational gap persists within every religious group, including more conservative religious groups. For example, 66% of Catholic Millennials favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, 15 points higher than Catholics ages 30 and above (51%). Even among white evangelical Protestants—the group most opposed to same-sex marriage—nearly 4-in-10 (39%) white evangelical Protestant Millennials favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, a rate that is more than 20 points higher than that of white evangelicals ages 30 and older (18%).

-   Public Religion Research Institute.

Related articles

• Gay / Lesbian Church Weddings for Denmark, 2012.

• Catholic vs. Catholic on Marriage Equality in Maryland (New Ways Ministry blog)
• Faith Initiative Launches to a Full House (PrideSource, Michigan)

The NOM Lie on Marriage Equality Popular Votes.

2012 is shaping up to be a big year for marriage equality, with legislative moves for approval in place in three states, and a ballot initiative  in Maine to restore it, repealing Proposition 1 of 2009. Opponents have set up ballot battles in Minnesota and North Carolina, and a possible legislative repeal in New Hampshire (although the Republicans who now control the state legislature appear to be backtracking on repeal - they know that voters are against it, and several of their caucus members have libertarian instincts which leave them opposed to removing rights already granted).

Catholics are in the thick of it, with Gov Chris Christie (NJ) and bishops predictably against, and Governors O'Malley (Maryland) and Gregoire (Washington) declaring in favour, and actively rallying support.  I'm not going to get into any detail on any of these: I'll leave that to the extensive commentary available from any number of American news sites and blogs. However, there is one regular claim made by the opponents of marriage, and especially by the NOM (supported primarily by Catholic money and staff) that is simply, demonstrably untrue - and I cannot understand why the Americans have not vigorously pointed this out :

"Thirty-one states have voted on the definition of marriage and every one voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, said in a statement. "Not only will we mount a successful referendum campaign, we will hold every Washington legislator accountable for his or her vote."

Read more here: Tri-city Herald

Not so fast, Mr Brown. In 2oo6, exactly this was put to voters in Arizona, as Proposition 107:

To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.

The proposition went down, 48% to 52%.

The reason for the failure was probably overreach, in trying to eliminate not only full marriage equality, but also any recognition for  other forms of union. A modified proposition to ban only full marriage passed, two years later. So, yes. Arizona has voted to ban same-sex marriage, but it is not true that every ballot proposal against equality has passed.  Brian Brown's bluster notwithstanding, note that prejudice can be defeated at the ballot box, as it was in Arizona in 2006. Although not a vote on full equality but on "near-marriage", NOM also lost in Washington, in a 20o9 referendum that promised everything but the name.

Also worth noting is that his promise to mount a successful campaign, and hold legislators "accountable", is an empty one. NOM, and the other organisations actively opposing equality, are running out of money. Unlike 2008, when they could channel all their resources on California, or 2009, when they spent it all in Maine and Washington, this year they are promising to spend in at least six states. The bulk of their funding comes from a handful of (anonymous) large, out-of-state donors, which this year will be thinly spread.  Financial support for equality typically includes a much higher proportion of small, local donors.

NOM and the like should prepare for more defeats this year, at the ballot box, and in state legislatures.

Related articles

• Washington Poised for Marriage Equality (mlp.org)
• Editorial: Moving Ahead on Marriage Equality (nytimes.com)
• Governors O'Malley And Gregoire Criticize Christie For Advocating A Popular Vote On Marriage Equality (thinkprogress.org)
• Maine poised for 2nd public vote on gay marriage (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• New Hampshire Marriage Equality Repeal Vote Delayed Until at Least February (towleroad.com)

Greens call for free ALP vote on marriage laws

HUNDREDS of same-sex marriage advocates, some dressed as Jesus Christ and the Pope, gathered in Brisbane as part of a national day of protest yesterday.

Gay and lesbian rights protests were held across the country ahead of the ALP National Conference in December."

-Sydney Morning Herald

What Constitutes a “Family”? Empirical Study Finds A Wider View

Religious conservatives are regularly referring to the “traditional family” as a foundation for their beliefs, but there is no such thing. The conservative interpretation of the so-called traditional family is  a relatively modern invention, created to fit the conditions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Western Europe and North America. In earlier times, and other parts of the world. family structures varied enormously from  this particular model.

Family history, like all other history, is constantly changing to fit new circumstances, so it should be no surprise that conceptions of family in the twenty first century are continuing to evolve, to fit a world that is no longer what it was in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Some of these changes are obvious, but like so much that is familiar, can easily be “hidden in plain sight.” A new study by sociologist  Brian Powell brings this into plain view. (His study is specifically of American views, but with the emergence of a shared world culture, many of his findings will also have relevance across a much wider geographic region.)

The central finding is that people no longer define “family” as mom pop and kids, but also include   same-sex couples with children (Children seem to be central: childless couples, gay or straight, are not seen as “families”, but just as couples). However, there is an increasing movement towards acceptance. An important finding, familiar from previous studies on the subject, is that people who know gay people (more accurately, who recognize that people they know are gay), are more supportive than those who are not aware that family members or acquaintances are gay. This simply reinforces the necessity for the wider political struggle, that wherever possible, gay men and lesbians should come out openly, in as many contexts as possible. Coming out personally will improve acceptance in our circles of friends and family. Politicians and other public figures who come out   do so indirectly for the wider community.

I particularly liked an argument on gay adoption that I have been using regularly: framing arguments in terms of the “the best interests of the child” can work to our advantage, not those opposed to gay adoption. (In adoption considerations, the best interests of the child require placement with the best parents available. Sometimes, they will be gay).  Indeed, the claim made (but not elaborated on in the reports I have seen), is that the interests of children may well be a more effective argument than others in making the case for more general equality of same-sex couples.

From the New York Times

A majority of Americans now say their definition of family includes same-sex couples with children, as well as married gay and lesbian couples.

At the same time, most Americans do not consider unmarried cohabiting couples, either heterosexual or same-sex, to be a family — unless they have children.

The findings — part of a survey conducted this year as well as in 2003 and 2006 by Brian Powell, a sociology professor at Indiana University, Bloomington — are reported in a new book, “Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family,” to be published on Wednesday by the Russell Sage Foundation. Since the surveys began, the proportion of people who reported having a gay friend or relative rose 10 percentage points, said Professor Powell, the book’s lead author.

“This is not because more people are gay now than in 2003,” he said. “This indicates a more open social environment in which individuals now feel more comfortable discussing and acknowledging sexuality. Ironically with all the antigay initiatives, all of a sudden people were saying the word ‘gay’ out loud. Just the discussion about it made people more comfortable.”

The book concludes that framing the equality of same-sex couples in terms of “the best interests of the child” might prove to be a more successful political argument than others.

Related articles at Queering the Church

• The Gospels' Queer Values
• Traditional "Family Values"; "Traditional Family" Values.
• Church Marriage: Required Only For Priests?
• LGBT community: The Real Defenders of Traditional Marriage.
• "Traditional Marriage Is Between Men": US Bishop.
• An Ignorant Mexican Cardinal, vs  Authentic History of Marriage
• Natural Law, Natural Sex, Natural Families.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Now I Know Who All These People Running Around My House Are (bilerico.com)
• Who's a family? New study tracks shifting US views (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

The Real Mama Grizzlies: Lesbian Moms?

Sarah Palin, With Bear

Sarah Palin's understanding of wildlife appears to be no better than her tenuous grasp of social history.  Mrs Palin has been very much in the news over her enthusiastic promotion of a band of crazies  thoughtful, conservative candidates who agree with her own views on education and "traditional family values".   The women in this band she likes to describe as "mamma grizzlies", most recntly Christina O'Donnell in Delaware.

The problem with the conservative view of the "traditional" family and its values is that has little relation to history, and is in fact a relatively modern invention. The problem with her adoption of mamma grizzlies as her model is that they too scarcely embody the "family values" she claims to support.  Real life mamma grizzlies do not live or mate in the nuclear families she so admires. Rather, they mate in promiscuous, polygamous groups, then raise their young as single mothers - or in collaboration with other females, as family units headed by two women.  The closest human counterparts to real-life "mamma grizzlies" are lesbian couples, with kids - not exactly Christian O'Donnell.

Bruce Bagemihl in Biological Exuberance describes the family structure of grizzly bears, based on an analysis of 18 published, peer-reviewed academic papers. He notes that while grizzlies (and Black bears) are largely solitary creatures, they do sometimes form short-term social groups around specific food sources. Mating is indiscriminate and polygamous, with both males and females mating with multiple opposite sex partners for conception. After mating, the males have no further part in child-rearing.

Consequently, many grizzly mammas raise their young as single parents - unless (as many do) they team up with another female for co-operative parenting.

The two mothers become inseparable companions, travelling and feeding together throughout the summer and fall seasons as they share in the parenting of their cubs.. ....... A bonded pair jointly defends their food, and the two females also protect one another and their offspring (including protecting them from attack by grizzly males). The cubs regard both females as their parents, following and responding to either mother equally; bonded females occasionally also nurse each other's cubs. If one female dies, her companion usually adopts her cubs and rears them as her own.

Bagemihl is careful to point out that there are no observations to suggest that these relationships are sexual, but that is not my point. Rather, I want to draw attention to the abundant evidence from history, anthropology and zoology that "natural" sexual and family relationships are far more varied than the simplistic formulations of  "traditional family" propagandists would ever like to admit.

Sexual activity is not always exclusively for procreation and not always between opposite-sex partners; the partners in procreation are usually opposite-sex (not always - some lizards reproduce from female pairs), but the parties in biological parenting and child-rearing are not always the same; and there are instances where same-sex parents have clear advantages over the alternatives, especially where the alternative is not "one mom and one pop", but a single mother, as in the case of the Grizzlies.

There are thousands of animal species that are known to have homosexual relationships, some even more frequently than heterosexual relationships (for example bighorn rams, female bonobo chimps and male giraffe). Many other animal species, especially birds, form same-sex parenting couples, by adoption or surrogacy. In human societies, there are likewise numerous examples where standard practices include same-sex relationships in addition to opposite sex-marriage - and the evidence from research is that just as in the animal kingdom, same-sex couples are at least as capable of good parenting, and sometimes even better, than opposite - sex couples.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sarah Palin's Top 10 Tea Party Mamma Grizzlies (middletownmike.blogspot.com)
• New Sarah Palin Ad Welcomes Grizzlies Of All Genders (As Long As They're Not "Politicos!") (mediaite.com)

• The Gay Side of Nature (time.com)
• Why It's OK for Birds to Be Gay (livescience.com)
• Sexual Fluidity Is Natural in Animals (gayrights.change.org)
• Parental care linked to homosexuality (nature.com)
• Same-Sex Parents, Furred and Feathered. (It's a Queer World)
• Natural Law, Natural Sex, Natural Families (It's a Queer World)
• Africa's Male Wives (It's a Queer World)

Books:

Bagemihl, Bruce: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions)

Crompton, Louis: Homosexuality and Civilization

Naphy, William G: Born to be Gay: A History of Homosexuality (Revealing History)

Roughgarden, Joan: Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People

Portugal Clears Last Hurdle to Marriage Equality

The Portuguese parliament approved legislation to recognise same sex marriage some time ago, but there has been little news since then. The reason was simple - the country's President was against the principle, claiming that it was against his Catholic conscience, but was reluctant to take a principled stand against it himself. Instead, he forwarded the bill (more accurately, four of its five articles: he had no objection to the clause which prohibits gay adoption) to the constitutional court for review, obviously hoping that they would find cause to obstruct it. Instead, the court has now approved the legislation. In principle, the President could still veto the law, but I would think this unlikely. The measure has enough support in parliament to override a veto; if he was reluctant to exercise his veto earlier, he is less likely to do so now that there is confirmation that the measure is constitutional; and uniquely for an overwhelmingly Catholic country, even the local bishops have not been overly vigorous in opposition. I would think that we can take it that Portugal will soon be the sixth European country, and the second strongly Catholic one (after Spain), to approve same sex marriage.

Only one thing can really stand in their way - whether Denmark or Iceland get there first: both of these Nordic, Lutheran countries are also on the way to full marriage equality (as are Slovenia and Cyprus).

From On Top magazine:

Portugal's Constitutional Court has OK'd a gay marriage bill approved by lawmakers, Portugal's IOL Diario reported.

President Anibal Cavaco Silva said he forwarded four out of five of the bill's articles to the Constitutional Court because “he had doubts about its constitutionality.” The excluded article bans adoption by married gay and lesbian couples. Cavaco Silva, a Roman Catholic and a member of the PSD party, groups which oppose the legalization of gay marriage, has remained mum on why he set aside the adoption measure.

In an opinion released Thursday and written by Justice Victor Gomes, the court's majority agreed the bill is constitutional. Two judges disagreed.

Portugal's Socialist-controlled Parliament, led by Prime Minister Jose Socrates, approved the gay marriage bill on February 11.

The president still has the option of vetoing the legislation, but Socrates has said he is prepared to overturn the veto.

The Vatican has vociferously opposed laws that grant gay couples the right to marry. Pope Benedict has called for the ouster of Socialists in Spain who approved a gay marriage law in 2005, but the church's opposition in the Catholic stronghold of Portugal has been muted. However, Benedict is widely expected to criticize the bill when he visits Portugal next month.

If approved, Portugal would join five European countries – Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and, most recently, Sweden – in legalizing gay marriage.

Related posts, gay marriage in Europe:

Gay Marriage - Coming to Iceland?

Gay Marriage, in Church: Denmark Next?

Marriage Equality: In Europe, a Human Right?

Marriage Equality: Is Cyprus Next?

Gay Marriage Europe Wide: 10 Year Forecast

Marriage Equality On All Continents!

Marriage Equality Gains More Ground

20 Years ago: Berlin Wall Falls; Death Knell for Apartheid; Birth of Marriage Equality

Gay Marriage - in Church

Iowa Gay Marriage: Here To Stay.

The first anniversary of marriage equality is a good time to take stock. When the state Supreme court ruled in favour of marriage for all last year, many people in this rural, mid-West and moderately conservative state were outraged.  Opinion polls showed that most voters did not support same sex marriage, and opponents vowed to fight for repeal. When the Governor and the Democratic controlled state legislature did not take immediate action towards changing the state constitution, the opposition vowed to turn marriage into an election issue. Superficially, the signs look good for them, with the Republican candidate for governor leading in the polls. But, for all the brouhaha, marriage is here to stay.  On this at least, you can safely ignore the sound and the fury – it signifyeth nothing. 

The death warrant for repeal was signed last week, when the legislative session ended without taking any action to initiate a process for a ballot on a constitutional amendment. This effectively eliminates any prospect of a successful ballot to repeal same sex marriage.    The problem for the conservative activists is the time scale: the earliest that the issue can appear on a  ballot is now four (and a half ) years away, in November 2014, as any proposal must first be approved by two successive two-year state legislature sessions. With strong Dem opposition to repeal, this will require a Republican takeover of the state legislature as well as the governor’s mansion, and a subsequent retention in 2012.  Is this likely? Even if it is, this will not necessarily be enough.  Many Republicans are learning that social conservatism is no longer the hot button route to electoral success that it used to be, and are more concerned to campaign on economic and financial concerns. They will know that opposition to gay marriage and support for changing the constitution do not always go hand in hand. Even in September last year, a poll showed that Iowans were evenly split on the issue of changing their constitution, even as they continued to oppose the principle of marriage.  So, even if there is a Republican takeover of the legislature, a vote for a ballot will not be guaranteed next session – and is still less likely for the next one, following 2012.

Still, let us imagine the worst:  let us assume that somehow, legislators get it right, and a constitutional amendment makes it to the ballot for 2014.  Will it pass? My view is simply – no way.  By then, Iowans will have lived with marriage for nearly six years. They will have learnt that all practical purposes, it has made little difference to their lives – except that some small businesses will found that they have been making some money from it, and some individuals will have found themselves unexpectedly attending weddings of family or colleagues that they did not even realise were gay.

When the Massachusetts court introduced marriage way back in 2004, even some liberals were angered. The battles for public opinion and in the legislature were heated and intense – and close. With the powerful backing of the Catholic church, opponents almost succeeded in forcing a popular ballot,  If they had done so, marriage there may well have been overturned. However, they did not quite get to force that ballot. Today, marriage in Massachusetts is a non-issue, and even the new Republican Senator will not support overturning it.

In another six years, Iowa will feel the same way.  Marriage equality in the mid-West, as in the North-east, is here to stay.