Marriage Neutering in New York, New Jersey, and Old Mexico

Let's get an update, shall we? Edith Honan of Reuters tells us what is going on in New York.

A group called Fight Back New York, created with money from software entrepreneur and openly gay philanthropist Tim Gill, is pledging to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get pro-gay marriage candidates elected to the state Senate in November's elections.

Advocates aim to bring the issue of same-sex marriage to the Senate floor as early as next year. The legislature voted three months ago to reject a similar bill.

Notice that the article uses "gay" incorrectly as there is nothing in the marriage law dealing with sexual orientation - homosexual people, like heterosexual people, can now marry someone of the opposite sex. If the law is changed, everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can get a brideless or groomless pairing licensed as marriage. A lot of articles and commentaries make this mistake.

Five U.S. states have legalized gay marriage -- Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- and the District of Columbia began allowing same-sex marriages earlier this month.

But 40 other states have specific laws banning it. Voters in Maine repealed a gay marriage law recently, and the New Jersey legislature rejected a gay marriage bill.

A federal court in California is now hearing a legal challenge to the state's ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 8, that was approved by voters in 2008.

So there's your update on where things are standing. (Oh, and most of those laws aren't "bans", either.)

[Much more after the jump.]

Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage which opposes same-sex marriage, said gay rights advocates face an uphill battle.

Again, notice the language – "opposes same-sex marriage", not something like "promotes and defends marriage as uniting the sexes".

The article goes on to describe how theater groups are getting involved. Rumor has it that there are a few homosexual people in those circles, after all, and they are certainly used to dealing with fantasy.

Peggy Ackermann reports on what has been going on in New Jersey today, where activists are again asking for the state's Supreme Court to neuter marriage.

It starts out this way:

Six same-sex couples today will ask the New Jersey Supreme Court to allow gays to marry, their attorney said.

"Allow gays to marry"? They are already allowed to marry. They just haven't been able to force the people of New Jersey to neuter state marriage licensing.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2006 in Lewis vs. Harris that committed same-sex couples deserve the same rights and obligations as married people.

Why? Marriage is for something, and as such should be treated different than nonmarriage. Where is the compelling reason to treat a different kind of voluntary association the same?

Later that year, state lawmakers legalized civil unions, which were to confer all the benefits of marriage on same-sex couples without using the term "marriage."

But gay and lesbian couples and advocacy group Garden State Equality have said the civil union law has not worked and they continued to seek a law giving them the right to marry.

And what have the problems been? This...

Same-sex couples "are blocked from seeing their loved ones during medical emergencies; their state-designated status confuses medical providers, especially in times of crisis," the court papers say. "They find it harder to get medical coverage and care than do their married counterparts, as their state-imposed second-class status has encouraged employers to exclude them from coverage."

This can all be dealt with without neutering marriage. But private employers and organizations and your Aunt Edna should not be confused with state government.

Opponents maintain marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and some clergy also say legalizing same-sex marriage would impinge on religious freedom.

It isn't just clergy.

Those opposing same-sex marriage have called for the public to decide the matter in a constitutional ballot question.

And we all know why the marriage neutering advocates don't want to face that.

The state Senate voted down gay marriage in January, triggering today's return to the Supreme Court.

"In 2006, we won equality for lesbian and gay couples in New Jersey, and it's 2010 and the state has not delivered," Gorenberg said.

So if you "won equality" in 2006, then that means that you agree it is possible to have equality without neutering marriage. That means there's nothing wrong with things like California's Proposition 8, since California treats domestic partners as spouses.

Mexico City has been neutering marriage for several days now, as Tracy Wilkinson reported in the Los Angeles Times. The law also gives brideless or groomless couples adoption powers.

Judith Vazquez wore an ivory wedding dress. So did her bride.

Sorry. No groom, no bride. You're two women, not two brides.

The law was passed by the Mexico City legislature in December and applies only to the capital. It is the most far-reaching gay-rights law in Latin America and one of several measures that have put the city and its leaders at odds with the more conservative country.

"This is a historic day," presiding judge Hegel Cortes said shortly after pronouncing Vazquez and Castaneda "legitimately united in matrimony."

Does he even know the meaning of "matrimony"? Apparently not.

The federal government of President Felipe Calderon, a conservative Catholic, filed a challenge to the law last month, arguing that it violates the rights and protections of families and children. The city's legal advisor, Leticia Bonifaz, said she didn't expect a ruling for a year or more.

So, like in the U.S., it sounds like may ultimately come down to the highest court. Sounds like this isn't something done in isolation...

Under Ebrard and his left-wing party, Mexico City has enacted a number of liberal laws and programs, including the legalization of abortion, that may seem out of step with the rest of the country.

If there's anything the children of Mexico City need, it is to be adopted into a motherless home, should they survive abortion.