This isn't just about couples, it's about families

Here's an article from the New York Times about children of gay and lesbian parents speaking up for marriage equality.

Let me drown...Let me go where you don't know

"Hard Life" by Bonnie Prince Billy, or WIll Oldham, local favorite

See a palace rise from a two room flat

Bless this bride...

ideas to chew on.

In this article, John Borneman argues that marriage has inaccurately been "represented as the definitive ritual and universally translatable regulative ideal of human societies". We think of marriage as something that happens everywhere and is therefore normal despite the varying nature of relationships named marriage.

Considering all the various forms of marriage throughout history and across the world, how is it justifiable to impose a strict definition of marriage as "one man and one woman"?

I am such a public radio junkie...

You are too? Well then, click here to read or listen to Terri Gross' interview with Margaret Talbot. Ms. Talbot has been blogging about the Prop 8 trial for The New Yorker's Web site, and she has written about it in this week's issue of the magazine.

Children and Same Sex Marriage

The New York Times recently ran this story about children's ideas on the topic of same sex marriage.

Coretta Scott King on Same Sex Marriage

In honor of today's holiday, I thought I'd post a link to an article with some quotations by Coretta Scott King, the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Before Mrs. King passed away in 2006, she denounced the constitutional amendment proposed by then-president George W. Bush in 2004 that would have restricted the institution of marriage to unions between one man and one woman. In 1998, she had invoked her husband's name and his life's work in support of LGBTQ rights, saying,

I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.

Regardless of Mrs. King's beliefs and statements, there are many people who resist calling the question of same sex marriage a civil rights issue.

Please feel free to post your thoughts ...

Update on the Trial

Today, the Supreme Court ruled against broadcasting the trial.

The Courage Campaign has set up a site on which people are liveblogging the trial, though. There is plenty of coverage of the trial, but I still find the resistance to broadcasting it surprising.

Prop 8 Trial Begins in California

The federal trial on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 began today. One unusual thing about this trial is that there will be witnesses testifying on the stand.

The U.S. Supreme Court banned cameras in the courtroom as of today, until at least Wednesday. Some witnesses who oppose same sex marriage expressed concern that they would be the object of harassment or ridicule, and so the defense claimed that they would be unwilling to testify if the cameras were allowed. I wonder if it's possible to turn off the cameras when those who object or are uncomfortable with public exposure are testifying, but have others sign releases and leave the cameras on the rest of the time. I'm sure there's a legal reason why that wasn't introduced as a possibility, but I know very little about courtroom procedures.

And now, some maps that need no introduction...

DOMA Testimony from 1996

Hello, everyone. Forgive me for being silent for a while. I had to take a hiatus to finish last semester, spend holidays with my family, and then start this new year. Now I'm very ready to get moving again with our project, and excited about it.

First, I'll finish an entry I began a few weeks ago. There's a debate going on right now over whether or not the Proposition 8 trial should be televised. If it isn't televised, the judge has agreed to have delayed broadcasts on YouTube. It should be interesting to compare this trial to these transcripts and those of other legislative debates in the states.

Another book I've been looking at is a reader edited by Andrew Sullivan and originally published back in 1997, shortly after the Defense of Marriage Act passed, called Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con - A Reader. It collects a lot of material from all sides of the issue of same-sex marriage, both historical and (at the time) contemporary, just as we are kind of doing here.

One thing I find really fascinating is the debate over DOMA on the floor of the House and Senate. For example, here is an exchange between Congressman Barney Frank (who, in case anyone doesn't know, is gay and a Democrat) and the late Congressman Sonny Bono, who was a Republican (whose daughter Chastity was a lesbian and has now transitioned to male.)

Mr. Bono: I just want to say this; I owe this to Barney, and I want to go on record that I'm not homophobic; I'm not a bigot, and I'm not pandering to hatred, and I like-I like Barney, and I love my daughter. I simply can't handle it yet, Barney. It's nothing - nothing else, but at least I want to honestly say that to you, and throw aside all the legal rhetoric. I wish I was ready, but I can't tell my son it's okay, or I don't think I can yet. So if I could -

Mr. Frank: Would you yield to me?

Mr. Bono: Yes.

Mr. Frank: I would ask that the gentleman have an additional minute, and I thank the gentleman and I appreciate candor and the decency that motivates it. I would say two things. It's not that I feel less. This bill says that I and many others are less. It says that-and no one is asking for a stamp of approval. What we're saying is, if we pay taxes, if we work, we simply want to be able to get the same financial benefits and the same responses other people do.

And secondly, in terms of handling it, and I understand that but no one is asking you to do any more than leave us alone and let us have the same rights as anyone else. Let us have the rights in any State that decides, because that's all the amendment says. If the state - if we can persuade a state legislature to do it, if we can win a referendum, if we can have a court decision not be overturned, let us be like anyone else. So no one is asking you to do anything else, and if it bothers people, turn your head, but don't inflict legal disabilities that carry out that feeling.

Mr. Bono: I ask for an additional thirty seconds.

Chairman Hyde: Without objection.

Mr. Bono: I hear you. I really do hear you. And my response back to you is, you're absolutely right, but the other side of it is this has taken people to as far as they can go, and then no justifiers - I don't want to justify it because I can't. You just go as far as you can go, and that's why I want to say to you again, honestly, I can't go this far as you deserve even, but - and I'm sorry, but I think that's the whole situation here, and I think we could argue it legally for hours and days, but that's what it's going to get down to. (pp. 223-224)

And a debate between Barney Frank and Congressman Hyde:

Mr. Frank: We are talking here about a desperate search for a political issue.

Mr. Hyde: Political! I wish I'd never heard of this issue. This is a miserable, uncomfortable, queasy issue. There is no political gain. But there is a moral issue. ... Nobody wants to talk about it. We are forced to talk about it by the courts. ...

Don't assume that people are doing this for political profit. People don't think the traditional marriage ought to be demeaned or trivialized by same-sex unions. If to men want to love each other, go right ahead. If you want to solemnize your love affair by some ceremony, create one. But don't take marriage, which for centuries has been a union between man and woman, and certainly is in this country, and try to say that what you're doing is American.

Mr. Frank: I guess my problem is this. There are plenty of people here who have had marriages that have meant a great deal to them. I salute that. I don't for a minute understand how it demeans, and I would ask the gentleman to explain that to me. The gentleman's marriage, the marriages of other members here, are based on a deep love, a bond between to people. I don't think I demean it. I don't know how I could demean it. How does anything I do in which I express my feelings toward another demean the powerful bond of love and emotion and respect of two other people?

To accuse someone of demeaning something so powerful as the marriage of two people, that is a fairly tough accusation. And I must tell you, my friend, I don't think it is deserved.

Mr. Hyde: A loving relationship between people of the same sex ought to be their relationship. It ought to be private, and keep it private.

Mr. Frank: You use the word demean, how does it demean you?

Mr. Hyde: Because many of us feel that there is an immoral -

Mr. Frank: How does it demean your marriage? If other people are immoral, how does it demean your marriage? That's what you are saying.

Mr. Hyde: It demeans the institution. It doesn't demean my marriage. My marriage was never demeaned. The institution of marriage is trivialized by same-sex marriage. (pp. 225-226)

There's so much to be said about this. So many issues are raised, here: public vs. private, for example; legislation and morality; and something that really surprises me: feelings! So often people claim that the legislative process is only governed by rational thought, but in fact, the way people feel about something is often the deciding factor in these cases. I also find it interesting that the question of personal relationships vs. the "institution" comes up a lot ... as if there's something somewhere - some object that exists outside of each separate marriage that is "the institution." Someone brought this up at our public meeting: that Hyde actually says don't take marriage, as if it's a commodity or solid thing that one group or another owns.

What are people's thoughts on this, I wonder? Please comment.

More progress...

Published: December 21, 2009

by The Associated Press

Mexico City lawmakers on Monday made the city the first in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, a change that will give homosexual couples more rights, including allowing them to adopt children.

The bill passed the capital's local assembly 39-20 to the cheers of supporters who yelled, "Yes, we could! Yes, we could!"

Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard of the Democratic Revolution Party is widely expected to sign the measure into law.

The bill calls for changing the definition of marriage in the city's civil code. Marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman. The new definition will be "the free uniting of two people."

The change would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, apply for bank loans together, inherit wealth and be included in the insurance policies of their spouse, rights they were denied under civil unions allowed in the city.

Also, a study reports that legalizing gay marriage could bring $2 million to New Jersey.