California Chief Justice Interviewed

Patt Morrison interviewed retiring California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, and some of the interview was adapted into her column for the Los Angeles Times. Although I certainly disagreed with George's decision striking down Proposition 22 (which restated California's statute law defining marriage as a bride+groom union), thus neutering state marriage licensing, I appreciated his affirmation of Proposition 8, which added the bride+groom requirement to the state constitution. Also, reading up on his career in various sources, it sounds like he has had a highly accomplished and respected career (I wonder if marriage neutering advocates would say the same thing about a judge who upheld a law like Prop 22?). If you are interested in law and the courts, you should read the whole piece. Below the jump are some highlights relevant to this blog. On California’s ballot proposition process:

How does the will of the people through the ballot figure into California's system of law?

The process [is] almost like a fourth branch of government. [The court spends] a lot of time trying to interpret initiative measures. We have competing initiatives; we have some that run afoul of statutory provisions or constitutional provisions; it's difficult to ferret out in some instances what the voters intended because these are not a model of the best draftsmanship. We occasionally have to invalidate something put forth as the people's will because it comes into conflict with their own constitution, by which they placed limitations on their own ability to legislate.

On neutering marriage:

The trio of same-sex marriage matters that came to the court — from the outside it looks like the same subject, but the underlying issues are very different.

Exactly. It's the same subject but three distinct issues. Each involved limitations on governmental power: on executive power, on legislative power and on judicial power. Each of them provides a giant civics lesson.

[In] the first case, the court intervened to put a halt to the same-sex marriages authorized by the mayor of San Francisco. Our ruling was that it was not up to any one of the hundreds or thousands of executive officials in California to decide which laws are valid or invalid. If there is a doubt, go to court and file a lawsuit. Within hours, the mayor filed a lawsuit. The trial judge found the [anti-same-sex] marriage laws unconstitutional. The court of appeals reversed, we took up the case and by a 4-3 vote reversed the court of appeals and upheld the trial court.

The second was on the Legislature's passage of the bill that limited marriage to persons of the opposite sex and the parallel initiative that did the same thing.

And the third element, the court had to pass upon the validity of [ Proposition 8], the people's repeal of that part of the constitution which had been the basis for our ruling in the same-sex marriage case. We upheld the people's right by a 6-1 vote to amend their constitution to eliminate the right which we had recognized and which had been the basis for our decision.

Did anyone ask you to perform a same-sex marriage when it was briefly legal?

I was asked to perform one ceremony in the interim period and I declined, because I knew I would have to pass on the validity of Proposition 8. If it were to become legal once more, I would have no reluctance.

So he personally believes a brideless or groomless pairing could be marriage, enough so that he would perform the legal ceremony himself.

Dear Mr. Man + Woman = One Big Lie

Sex Ed 101

Human beings have corresponding sexual organs. It's primary function is to procreate on a biological scientific level. Human beings being social creatures do more then just mate and abandon their offspring. We all bond and form relationships through our biological kinship as children with our parents. It's how we are able to survive beyond birth.

Our first social interaction is with our mother, this is something highly encouraged in modern day society. Babies born for instance are placed on the mother's chest, babies are to be with mother's along their bedside, and moms whenever possible are encourage and supported to breastfeed.

We also know through science, women don't just self-produce. Human life is created with an egg released at the time of ovulation in a woman's body, if sperm is present from the conjugal act (ejaculation of millions of sperm from a man's penis inside a woman's vagina) conception may occur and human life is created. Hopefully for the nest 38 weeks of gestation a human being will be present in a woman's uterus. Again hopefully a woman may have natural childbirth and have a new born baby.

Man + Woman (Heterosexual Sex) = Baby

My six year old is just figuring that one out!

Not all sex is equal. Just saying.... I'm not a hateful bigot, but I have to say that's a really uninformed poster.

There are plenty of posts here on Opine for anyone who has any more questions on this unique way every human being is created in which I can link marriage to healthy fathers for a mother's offspring. It does sound quite logical considering a woman needed his sperm to create a baby.

Renee Aste Lowell Massachusetts

Additional resources

Reproductive System Information from Body GuideWarning: Diagrams of internal/extremal sexual organs.

Even More Poll Dancing

News sources, including the Los Angeles Times, are touting yet another poll saying that Californians are in favor of marriage neutering. This is not to be confused with the other recent poll. Hmmm, I wonder why this is being done now? Ann M. Simmons has the LATimes.com blog entry.

The poll was conducted in English and Spanish by the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Public Religion Research Institute, an organization focused on religion and values. It was based on random phone interviews with more than 3,300 Californians over a two-week period in late June, examining the religious-based attitudes toward same-sex marriage two years after Proposition 8 was approved.

Again, one need not identify as religious, believe in God, read the Bible, attend church, or anything else of that sort to understand that the state has an interest in licensing marriage as a bride+groom institution that it does not have with other kinds of voluntary personal relationships, nor to believe voters should be the ones to decide.

Meanwhile, 29% of Californians polled said they believed Proposition 8 was bad for the state, compared with 22% who believed it was “a good thing.”

A total of 51% of Californians said they would vote to allow homosexuals to marry if a vote similar to Proposition 8 were held tomorrow, compared with 45% who said they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal, the survey showed.

Same-sex marriage is not illegal. It isn't state licensed, but nobody is going to be arrested or fined or ticketed for having a ceremony, exchanging rings, making promises, having a reception, opening gifts, going on a vacation, living together, sharing a bed, changing names, and asking employers, businesses, and others to consider them married.

I also wonder how many of the people answering the poll were aware of the realities of California law when it comes to domestic partnerships?

Then the story details how the poll, which is essentially asking people if they make a distinction between a a same-sex couple that has chosen to be together and a both-sexes couple that has chosen to be together, treats the respondents differently on the basis of what skin color/ethnicity they were born with, and the religions they choose to practice (probably as a result of the religious orientation). Go figure.

The same reporter had the paper's print story, which has more information about the rest of the poll. For more on that and the latest about Roy Ashburn, see my namesake blog.

Marriage Patterns Drive Fertility Decline

Marriage Patterns Drive Fertility Decline via Science Daily

Researchers at the University of Sheffield have applied an evolutionary 'use it or lose it' principle when studying past marriage patterns, to show that marriage can influence the evolution of age-patterns of fertility.

You married your husband, not your kids.

House of Hurt: 'Separated' Couple Stuck Living Together Through Divorce

Initially as the viewer you think it is about a divorcing couple who can't sell the house. Really it's about a woman, who left her husband for her kids. She demands that after 18 years of marriage she should be able to be a stay-at-home mother, because that's what he promised. They had three children together, at the time of the divorce that youngest was about eight.

The poor guy who was making 150k annually was maintaining this woman's hyper-mommy lifestyle with an uber-million dollar McMansion, horsing riding lessons, and an extend van that fit at least ten people. All this wife did was complain she wasn't getting enough from the settlement, as she pushed away her husband no ability to be a father to his own children. At the end of the show, the dad sad and alone trying to figure out what he did wrong and the mother hugging her three kids.

The husband actually comments on his own story... here is part 3 of 3.

"In every contested divorce I know of, everyone has lost, financially, emotionally, and the kids. It is hard being one of 2 parents, it must be horribly hard to do it alone, why would you do that when the kids still have a mom?Husbands and wives out there here is my final advice. Do everything you can to keep it together, counseling, back off the life style, whatever it takes. If you can’t make it work don’t go to battle with the person you loved for so many years. Swallow your pride, swallow your anger, compromise. You will be better off in the long run, and it will be so much better for your kids. Two parents are always better than one!Ok, I better send this before that margarita wears off and I chicken out."

Marriage and low birth weights....

via Mercator "The Increasing Protection of Marriage on Infant Low Birth Weight Across Two Generations of African American Women," Journal of Family Issues

This study used data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) on two generations of African American women who gave birth from 1967 to 2005 to describe changing relationships between marital status and low birth weight (LBW) across the generations.

Intergenerational findings also suggest that marriage across generations was most protective against infant LBW; the lowest risk for LBW was found among women who were both married when they gave birth to their infants and had mothers who were married at the time they themselves were born.

The report's abstract here.... you have to pay for the full article.

Poll Dancing Again in California

The UPI brings us the latest retread.

A slim majority of 51 percent of likely voters in California favor permitting same-sex marriage in the Golden State, a new Field Poll indicates.

Yes, we’ve heard this before.

The survey results are nearly the same as those of a Field Poll taken six months before Californians approved Proposition 8 in 2008 banning gay marriage, the Sacramento Bee reported Tuesday.

So what does that tell us? Polls like this are unreliable because people lie about how they’ll vote? The wording of the poll question is problematic? Perhaps the sampling group is too small.

Here comes some really important information:

However, support for gay marriage drops to only 44 percent when voters are given the option of civil unions, the newspaper says.

California already has this. California's domestic partners law treats domestic partners as if they were spouses.

The poll of 672 likely voters has an error rate of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

That is too small of a sample.

What happens is that a headline saying something like "majority of Californians support gay marriage" gets widely heard/read. The actual details? Not so much.

What matters most is that both times the voters of California have voted on the matter, they've voted in favor of the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing. Licenses are issued on our behalf. We have the legal and moral authority to set the requirements.

Finally talking about divorce

One too many times when one of my peers decide to divorce, I usually get shut down if I'm one bit critical. I say decide, differing from those who need to separate. I'm making a distinction here.

"If she wasn't happy, then why stay." Then figure out what's wrong in her relationship. "We need to support her." Support what? Her self-centered narcissism?

The Divorce is Contagious Study has been widely talked about in the media. None of the mainstream media I've seen has spoken that divorce as being contagious is good for anyone, rather the media has had segments on ways to prevent and protect yourselves from this divorce phenomenon.

"One Black Couple Who's Beaten The Odds, So Far"

One Black Couple Who's Beaten The Odds, So Far by Katia Riddle via NPR

Marriages are so rare in neighborhoods like theirs that one expert described them as "marriage deserts." And according to the 2000 census, seven out of 10 black mothers are unmarried. To combat these trends, a non-profit organization called the Center for Urban Families offers free classes in Baltimore that focus on relationship skills. Kendra and Brian did the program before they were married.

Kendra, Brian and the kids are living in a four-bedroom house with Kendra's two brothers and sister as well as her mother. Brian is driving a bus. Kendra takes care of the kids. Brian says the hardest part of the last year, for him, is accepting all the responsibility he's come to shoulder."You gotta take care of everything — the family, the household, all that — you gotta take care of everything. Everything is in your hands," Brian says. "Sometimes you get frustrated." In the meantime, they continue trying to save money. Kendra combs the Internet for apartment listings. Brian says when he has doubts, he repeats the following to himself: "Compromise and stay healthy. You know, stay positive."Three simple vows that are holding their marriage together.

Center of Urban Families: Helping Fathers and Families Work The system discourages poor African-American men from becoming involved parents

By Joseph T. Jones Jr.

My life is a tale of two boys with two very different dads.

When my first son, Trey, was born 30 years ago, I was what they now call a "baby daddy" — a young, unmarried high school dropout with a bad drug habit and a rap sheet. I never considered marrying my son's mother. In fact, I just disappeared from her life after the baby was born. As a result, Trey grew up feeling abandoned and hostile.

When my second son, Corey, came along 15 years later, I was not the same man who fathered Trey. By then, I was happily married with a college degree and a promising future. Corey is my whole life. He just finished his freshman year in college studying engineering.

I am sharing this painful, personal story so that middle-class Americans might better understand why so many poor, young, African-American men drop out of high school, father children out of wedlock and then wind up in prison. The answer: Many of them were reared, like my first son, by a single mother on public assistance and missed the essential, nurturing presence of a full-time father.

An Example of Ongoing Attacks on Dr. Laura

I have a follow up to a recent piece I wrote about how Dr. Laura's support of bride+groom parenting has resulted in ongoing, often misinformed attacks on her. This time, a writer has expressed his dislike of Proposition 8 and gleefully relayed a report by a friend of his who harassed Dr. Laura at a recent appearance. As far as I know, she has never backed Prop 8 on her show or her website.

I'm still waiting for a cogent argument defending Prop. 8, the initiative that changed the California Constitution to limit marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

First and foremost, Proposition 8 doesn't need an argument defending it. It is law - part of the state constitution. The time to argue over Prop 8 was before it was passed by voters. Now that it has passed, the argument is: It was duly adopted. If Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, no defense would be enough. That someone even asks for defense of Proposition 8 reveals that either they don't understand the Constitution, or they are fine with laws that violate the Constitution, as long as someone gives a "cogent argument defending" it. As for me, I don't care if a law is a "good idea", if it violates the Constitution, then either the Constitution needs to be amended or the law really isn't a good idea because the negatives outweigh the positives. The burden is on critics to show that Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Amendment, in effect now) is unconstitutional. They haven't presented a compelling argument that it is.

Marriage Neutering Judge Retiring

Maura Dolan reports on this LATimes.com blog that California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George is retiring. He is credited with authoring the ruling striking down Proposition 22 (and precedent) and thus neutering marriage licensing in California for several months until Proposition 8 passed. He's had a long career full of other decisions, of course, but that is what he's known for these days.

This means he won't have to run for retention on the November ballot. California voters have thrown members of the state’s high court off the bench in recent memory.

Governor Schwarzenegger will appoint a replacement.

More on Decision in Massachusetts Case

The Los Angeles Times ran a commentary by author Andrew Koppelman on the decision in the Massachusetts case. It is mostly about his apparent dislike of the Tenth Amendment, so although I intended to anaylize it here, I instead posted my thoughts over at my namesake blog.

Plenty of other people are weighing in on the ruling:

Matthew Franck at RealClearPolitics.com

Jacob Sullum at Reason

Kirk Johnson at the New York Times

Maggie Gallagher at Human Events

Cal Thomas at Townhall.com

LA Times Reminds Us They're Against the CMA

Despite the recent ruling by a federal court on DOMA, the editorial board at the Los Angeles Times believes the federal government (a federal judge) should tell a state how to issue its own marriage licenses – in this case, that the California Marriage Amendment should be removed through striking down Proposition 8.

What is the rational basis for laws that deprive gay and lesbian couples of the right to wed?

There is no right to a state-issued marriage license – not for anyone. Gay and lesbian individuals have the same access to state marriage licenses as anyone else. Some have exercised that access.

The arguments that have emerged so far - that same-sex marriage is bad for child-rearing and that it damages heterosexual unions - fall apart under the slightest scrutiny.

Sure, if you live in denial about counterfeiting and the differences between mothers and fathers.

They then go on to cite U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro's decision – you know, the one that said states set marriage laws?

In this year's trial on the proposition, however, even its defenders were unable to show that same-sex marriage threatened the traditional institution of marriage.

You mean "defenders" like the administration that has denounced DOMA? [Edit - My mistake. I thought they were talking about the case in Massachusetts. Still, the burden of proof is on those who want change.]

And not only is there ample reason to doubt that the children of gay and lesbian couples are any worse off than those in traditional families, that's not reasonable grounds for denying marriage based on sexual orientation.

Marriage licenses are not being denied on the basis of sexual orientation, any more than driver's licenses are being denied on the basis of preferring bicycling or bus riding.

[Much more after the jump.]

Many people make less-than-ideal parents. They aren't denied a wedding license because of it.

This is like saying that kids today are obese, but that doesn't mean they are kicked out of gym class. Gym class won't always make kids healthy, but it can help. All other things being equal, married spouses make better parents. We want to encourage people to raise children within wedlock, not treat marriage as merely one of many things someone can do on Valentine's Day or a way to get insurance or a way to pretend that the pairing of two men is no differen than the pairing of a woman and a man.

District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is expected to rule in the Proposition 8 case this summer, has been asked to consider the more complicated question of whether homosexuals constitute a "suspect class," or a group of people who have suffered unreasonable discrimination; if he did so, laws that could adversely affect that group would have to meet a stricter level of judicial scrutiny.

Imagine if Native Americans said they should be able to issue University of California degrees to members of the tribe, and legislation passed that reaffirmed that people need to go to do UC coursework in order to get a UC degree. The tribes are a suspect class, a group of people who have suffered unreasonable discrimination. Those UC degrees would help them, wouldn't they?

Tauro, in his opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act last week, wrote that denying marriage to homosexual couples was so clearly a failure to provide equal protection that it qualified as unconstitutional discrimination even without considering the question of a suspect class, because it was based on nothing more substantive than a belief in the immorality of homosexuality.

He's wrong. There are people who do not think homosexual behavior is immoral, and they still believe the state has an interest in maintaining the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing. There are homosexual people who believe this.

The lack of a solid justification for laws against same-sex marriage suggests that, like the sodomy law, they're based only on a traditional moral belief.

They're based on the reality of the difference between men and women, and the reality that only the uniting of a man and a woman can naturally create children, who do not consent to their parentage. That’s the bedrock foundation of marriage law. However, it isn't up to those who defend traditional, well-established law to prove their case. The burden of proof is on those who want such a significant change, and the case of the marriage neutering advocates has been lacking.

What has their positive case been?

We want it. Then you have to persuade society. State marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state.

Interracial marriage used to be outlawed, too. In some places, yes, but that was wrong and corrected. To steal from Greg Koukl, this is like when two people go to a bank to withdraw funds. The first one is told that his accound doesn't have sufficient funds. That person asks the teller to check again, and sure enough, the funds are there. The second person is also told he doesn't have sufficient funds. "That’s what you said to the last person," he says. Yes, but this time, it is true. The second person has never even been to that bank before, while the first person has a long history at that bank. A bridless or a groomless pairing is not marriage.

It's good for us. It's good for kids. It's good for the local economy. California has domestic partnerships that treat the partners as spouses. In a few more years, we may see that they provide as much benefit in these areas as a marriage license can, given that many of the social benefits of marriage result from uniting the sexes. However, the voters may vote in a way that is consistent with the greatest good, as society is comprised of more than homosexual people and the children they've brought into their homes.

The editorial's statement is akin to walking up to a property owner and saying "Hand it over." The property owner says, "I don’t want to." The person asking for the property says, "Why not?" Then, if the property owner doesn't answer or gives an answer that doesn't satisfy the person asking for the property, the asker says, "Well, you didn't give me a good reason, so now you have to hand it over." It is up to the people of a state to set limits on their state marriage licensing. The people have spoken, and law provides equal access regardless of sexual orientation (as it would if the bride+groom requirement was removed). It is legal to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently. Overturning Proposition 8 would be unwarranted judicial activism. Marriage neutering advocates keep insisting that the people of California now support their cause. If they really believed that, they would repeal Proposition 8 via another proposition.

"hf2hvit" at 6:38 AM July 13, 2010:

Serial killers and rapists in prison can marry. Gays can not. What is the rationale?

As I noted, gay people can marry. As far as prisoners – I imaging convict rights groups keep that one in place.

In some states, living in sin for seven years awards...MARRIAGE! Gays cannot marry. What is the rationale?

I don't think shacking up should automatically result in a legal marriage, either. Would you help me change that?

Many heterosexuals marry with no intent of having children.

Yes, but most marriages will produce children and they are the only kind of pairing that can naturally produce children and provide them with a parent of each of the two sexes, bound in legal obligations.

Child-rearing had nothing to do with their decision.

So if someone knocks up your sister or daughter, you would not think, absent the guy being abusive, that he should marry her? Maybe you wouldn't, but a lot of people do think that way. You're advocating the removal of that social pressure, which will result in more children being raised out of wedlock.

Maybe the infertile should not be allowed to marry.

Right to privacy and reproductive rights.

"lodmstrong" at 8:08 AM July 13, 2010:

It strikes me as very self serving to demand one alternative form of marriage (gay marriage) while completely ignoring or even fighting against other alternative forms of marriage.

Any argument made against these other forms of marriage could also be used against gay marriage.

Yes, but you see this "right" to change marriage is apparently only a right for people who have very loud and effective activist organizations. The answer I've seen from them is "we're not asking for that" or "nobody is asking for that". Well, some people are asking for that.

"kroneborge" at 8:10 AM July 13, 2010:

Aren't many laws based on this? The decisioin not to allow pologamous marriages or incestous marriages are certainly a moral judgement.

Right. All laws are based on morality.

See my Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant

What's Wrong About '8: The Mormon Proposition'

The months after Prop 8 was passed, we saw a peek beneath the mask of the rage and bigotry behind the people who were against it. Behavior that at times even brought about the condemnation from many neutered marriage advocates. With the recent release of a movie spent on preserving or re-kindling that emnity, John Turner of the Wall Street Journal seeks to dispel some of the more egregious misrepresentations, and relates them to previous anti-religious fervor from the days of the American Frontier and beyond.

As a small, non-violent minority, the Mormons pose no such threat. The specter of Mormon money raised in the film seems like a latter-day version of older fears about Jewish financiers controlling the American economy and government. The Mormon effort made a difference only because Californians are roughly evenly divided on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Indeed, the fact that small minorities—gay and Mormon—can influence public policy through their activism reflects the basic health of our democracy. Thousands of people, many of whom had not previously been politically active, wrote checks, called neighbors and protested at rallies. While such observations are no consolation to California gay couples aspiring to legally marry, Proposition 8 did much to further the most vital political value of all, civic engagement.

Divorce rates in homosexual couples... needs further study

Saw this factoid in a Yahoo feature...

If you're in a male same-sex marriage, it's 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than a heterosexual marriage. If you're in a female same-sex marriage, this figure soars to 167 percent

With gay marriage only being six years old, I'm surprised that even such a fact could be established. Female same-sex couples are more likely to marry then male same-sex couples, but I'm assuming the male same-sex couples that do indeed marry have a stronger established relationship and not doing it entirely out of political activism. These male homosexual relationships I would consider closer to 'bro-mance' then to marriage.

PCUSA Delegates Don't Support Neutering Marriage

Here is another instance where people are clearly not hateful of homosexual people, nor disapproving of homosexual behavior but still not willing to replace marriage with a counterfeit.

Delegates to the Presbyterian Church (USA) convention voted to allow clergy that openly, unrepentantly practices homosexual behavior. The policy would have to be approved by a majority of the church's presbyteries to go into effect. Rejected, however, were proposals to neuter marriage and not to punish clergy performing "weddings" for brideless or groomless couples.

Marriage neutering advocates keep pushing, and the votes were close, but at least they did not pass. More of my comments - ones that focus on the Bible and church matters - is over at my namesake blog.

Judge Judy - Sperm donor asked to give up parental rights

Massachusetts Case a Blow to DOMA

Wow, so the federal courts have found the Tenth Amendment! A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled against DOMA.

Associated Press Legal Affairs Writer Denise Lavoie reported:

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

It did not "ban gay marriage" – states were still offering marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples. It was supposed to prevent the federal government from recognizing neutered marriage licenses, or for one state's neutered marriage licenses to force other states to neuter their marriage laws.

The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

We'll see, won’t we?

[Read much more after the jump.]

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Say, where does the Constitution assign Medicaid to the federal government in the first place?

Tauro agreed and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.

Where is it written that a state is required to take federal funding in the first place?

The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

So... all of the states that continue to define marriage as one man+one woman can still do so, and the federal government should stay out of it, right? So – wouldn't this prevent California's Proposition 8 from being struck down by a federal court? Or is this one of those funny one-way walls?

In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit," Tauro wrote.

It is not necessary to disapprove of homosexual people nor homosexual behavior to affirm that marriage is something between a man and woman. Governments rightly distinguish between actions constantly.

Gill and Marcelle Letourneau married in Massachusetts in 2004 after being together for more than 20 years.

When Gill, a U.S. postal worker, tried to add Letourneau to her family health plan, she was denied. The couple were forced to get separate insurance for Letourneau, who has a medical transcription business at home and does administrative work for the local Visiting Nurse Association.

Didn't Obama already change this by Executive Order? Also, doesn't that state have medical insurance for everyone anyway?

The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.

So, what are the implications, given that only a portion of the law was challenged? Other states are still not required to recognize brideless or groomless couples as married, even if they have a license from Mass.?

An appeal would be considered by the First Circuit, which also includes Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire.

Of course, how likely is Obama's DOJ likely to appeal this? And if so, how strongly will they fight for DOMA, given that Obama has expressed his opposition to DOMA? I suppose it depends on whether or not they think they can further aid the neutering of marriage by taking the matter to a higher court – in other words, they are only likely to appeal if they think they will end up losing.

From Reuters (Reporting by Ros Krasny; Editing by John O'Callaghan):

A U.S. district court judge in Massachusetts ruled on Thursday a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of states to define marriage.

Again with "ban".

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment," Tauro said in his ruling. "For that reason, the statute is invalid."

But don't most weddings and marriages involve "interstate commerce"?

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yes, and it is ignored constantly.

I'm a little fuzzy on what happened with Utah. Was it actually required by the federal government to ban polygamy to become a state, or what there just an "understanding" that polygamy would have to go away for statehood to happen? Seems to me that polygamy would also be a matter of state law, and thus one state could allow one person (say, a federal employee) marry ten others, and all ten of those people would get federal employment benefits as a result.

30 Years of China's One Child Policy - 20 Months of Prop 8

Two items that may be of interest to readers of this blog were posted today at my namesake blog.

Hannah Beech wrote in Time about the effects of China's "one child" policy, which has been in place for thirty years.

The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimates that by 2020 there will be at least 24 million "bare branches" - men destined to stay single because there are not enough wives to go around. As more of those boys become bachelors, China risks all sorts of social plagues - from criminal gangs to greater trafficking in women.

So what's the solution going to be? Guys taking foreign wives or leaving China? Polyandry? Killing off some of the men?

Read more.

Also, California's Proposition 8 was approved by voters over 20 months ago and immediately enacted. And what has happened?

And gosh, despite the dire warnings of the marriage neutering advocates, it is still illegal to discriminate in housing and employment based on sexual orientation (or race, ethnicity, etc.); it is still illegal to stalk or assault people who identify as gay or engage in homosexual behavior; it is still illegal to vandalize their property. There have been no reports of Mormons breaking into the homes of same-sex couples. There are no separate drinking fountains, no internment camps. Same-sex couples can still live together, have ceremonies, and get domestic partnerships. There is no effort gaining any traction to change these things. California has not been destroyed by natural disasters.

TMI for most, but relevant

Ticking Biological Clock Increases Women's Libido, New Research Shows via Science Daily

Another Voice For Equality

There's a certain marriage neutering advocacy organization that regularly points out that various famous people support the neutering of marriage. This group is certainly not unique – most issue groups will note famous people who agree with them. But is it really any surprise when someone who makes their living in front of the camera in Hollywood says they are in favor of marriage neutering? This is a community that has a notorious track record when it comes to marriage. There are weekly publications that center mostly around the babies these people are having out of wedlock, their series of short marriages, their infidelities, sham/stunt marriages, and so forth. All of these things are "okay" as long as these people have never expressed "traditional values."

For most issues, a famous person's opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. What is important is not which of these people takes a public stand, but their reasons for taking the position that they do. Many of them would suffer professionally if they stood up in defense of marriage – not because the audience would reject them, but because there are a lot of people in positions of power in their industry that would stop working with them.

There is almost no risk in being a celebrity and publicly proclaiming your support for marriage neutering. Very few people who believe in maintaining the bride+groom marriage requirement in state marriage licensing will boycott an entertainment production because an outspoken marriage neutering proponent is involved. But would the reverse be true? All one has to do is look at what continues to be brought up as a reminder not to cross these advocacy groups; they continue to take credit for hurting a career.

Every single member of SAG could sign a letter calling for marriage neutering. It wouldn't make it the right thing to do.

I'm for marriage equality – that the legal aspects of marriage should be equally applied under the law; it doesn't matter what religion, if any, the particpants claim, or their skin color or sexual orientation. I'm for the freedom to marry - that every unmarried adult should be free to find an unmarried consenting adult of the opposite sex who is not closely related to them and get a marriage license with that person.

Hawaii Governor Vetoes Civil Union Bill

Marriage neutering advocacy groups are expressing disappointment and outrage, saying they were hoping she would sign the bill into law. However, if she had, it would have been mere months before the very same groups would have been testifying under oath that civil unions are a slap in the face. That has been what we've seen in California, where state law treats same-sex domestic partners (and both-sexes domestic partners, if one or both are over a certain age) as spouses. Read Associated Press Writer Herbert A. Sample's coverage.

While I lean towards allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships, I do not think states are obligated to offer them and marriage neutering advocates have used them as Trojan Horses in other states, like California. Same-sex couples deperate for a civil union or a marriage license have some states and other countries from which to choose. Likewise, first cousins who wish to get a marriage license can only get them in certain places.

Divorce is Contagious study

Divorce is Contagious study... it's working paper

Breaking Up is Hard to Do, Unless Everyone Else is Doing it Too: Social Network Effects on Divorce in a Longitudinal Sample Followed for 32 Years

Divorce is the dissolution of a social tie, but it is also possible that attitudes about divorce flow across social ties. To explore how social networks influence divorce and vice versa, we utilize a longitudinal data set from the long-running Framingham Heart Study. We find that divorce can spread between friends, siblings, and coworkers, and there are clusters of divorcees that extend two degrees of separation in the network. We also find that popular people are less likely to get divorced, divorcees have denser social networks, and they are much more likely to remarry other divorcees. Interestingly, we do not find that the presence of children influences the likelihood of divorce, but we do find that each child reduces the susceptibility to being influenced by peers who get divorced. Overall, the results suggest that attending to the health of one’s friends’ marriages serves to support and enhance the durability of one’s own relationship, and that, from a policy perspective, divorce should be understood as a collective phenomenon that extends far beyond those directly affected.

I know of a baby-boomer couple, now in their 60s. Over time they lost their friends to divorce. You take sides and lose one of the spouses, or both. Second wives/husbands are odd, sometimes you may refer to them by the name of the first or reference a memory of the first marriage. At one time they even considered it (divorce).

Where I'm Coming From

I am convinced that men and women are signficantly different from each other in important ways. That understanding is a foundational principle for much of what I believe about the issues we discuss here. Conversely, I've noticed that some of the people who disagree with positions I take on these issues are not convinced that the differences in the sexes are as significant or important. I don't think this is a coincidence.

The difference between men and women is one of the underlying reasons for where I am coming from when I write...

I'm convinced that sex is for marriage, that marriage unites the sexes, that life begins at conception, and that children, all other things being equal, are best raised by their married mother and father who have lots of great sex with each other.

...

I'm convinced that the state has an interest in the uniting of a bride and groom in marriage that is doesn't have with other kinds of relationships, because it is the only kind of relationship that may naturally produce children in a cohesive partnership that unites both basic elements of society, and provides the next generation of citizens with legally, financially, socially, spiritually bonded role model, guardian, nurturer, and provider from each of the two sexes.

Read the rest of my statement at my namesake blog.