|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
TOP 6 NEWS - JUNE 29, 2004 1-NEWS: Basic Rights OR files suit against petition drive 2-NEWS: ACLU threatens OK DOMA amendment vote 3-NEWS: Liberty Counsel intervenes in FL m case 4-NEWS: Canadian Liberals win - barely 5-NEWS: Conference of Mayors tables vote on opposing FMA 6-OP-ED: "Dutch Decline" A few ssm has made a difference in Netherlands _________________________________________________ 1-NEWS: Basic Rights OR files suit against petition drive Gay-rights group files claim Basic Rights Oregon acts on complaints about alleged practices by some Defense of Marriage signature gatherers Tuesday, June 29, 2004 JAMES MAYER Oregonian
An Oregon gay-rights group filed an election law complaint Monday against certain practices in the initiative petition drive to place a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the November ballot. Basic Rights Oregon claims that some circulators for the Defense of Marriage Coalition required local food bank clients to sign the petition before receiving food boxes; falsely swore that signatures were witnessed when petitions were left unattended at churches; misrepresented the petition and used coercive signature collection techniques. "The numbers alone were upsetting," Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, said. "But the nature of these complaints was especially disturbing." The secretary of state's office -- which includes the Elections Division -- will investigate the complaint to determine whether the charges warrant referral to the attorney general for action, said Fred Neal, a state elections manager. Tim Nashif, political director of the Defense of Marriage Coalition, said the complaint was bogus. Basic Rights Oregon, he said, is seeking publicity. The deadline for filing petition signatures for the state ballot is Friday. Misconduct by petition circulators does not necessarily disqualify signatures, Neal said. That decision depends on the nature of the violations, he said. Rebekah Kassell, the gay-rights group's communications director, declined to say how many complaints of violations the group received. "Our biggest interest is initially to keep this off the ballot," Kassell said. "But if they are successful, we want the measure to get on the ballot through legal means." The complaint is confidential under state law, but Margaret Olney, an attorney for Basic Rights, outlined the charges in a letter to Nashif. The letter cited two examples of petition circulators using food pantries to gather signatures. In one case, Olney wrote, people distributing food June 1 in a small church in Lowell announced that registered voters "need to sign this petition against gay marriage." A patron who complained to Basic Rights said she felt her refusal to sign would jeopardize her ability to get emergency food. Nashif denied that his group had anything to do with coercing voters to sign in order to get food. "To say that anyone would be behind a tactic like this is just absolutely insulting," he said. Nashif's group has used churches extensively in pursuit of signatures, and the letter cites witnesses' accounts of petitions left unattended in church vestibules. State law requires circulators to attest to personally witnessing every signature. Nashif countered that the campaign has been scrupulous about instructing churches to designate someone to be a circulator. Churches were given specific instructions in writing and by telephone never to leave petitions unattended, he said. Olney said the rights group also thinks some churches went too far in promoting the measure. In one case, she said, a pastor asked all registered voters to raise their hands. Then he asked those who had signed the petition to lower their hands and gave the petition to those with their hands still in the air. To reach the ballot, sponsors of proposed constitutional amendments must submit a minimum of 100,840 valid signatures of registered voters. Nashif said last week that the coalition hopes to turn in about 130,000. James Mayer: 503-294-4109; jimmayer@news.oregonian.com ________________________________________________________ 2-NEWS: ACLU threatens OK DOMA amendment vote Republican leader urges attorney general to defend gay marriage ban 2004-06-28 The Associated Press
The Oklahoma Senate's top Republican urged Attorney General Drew Edmondson Monday to "vigorously defend" a proposed constitutional amendment barring gay marriage against a planned lawsuit seeking to keep it off the ballot. In a letter to Edmondson, Sen. James A. Williamson, R-Tulsa, said the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have announced plans to sue the state to stop a planned referendum on the Marriage Protection Amendment, State Question 711, in November. Charlie Price, a spokesman for Edmondson, said his office had reviewed Williamson's letter. "If and when a lawsuit's filed, we'll do our job," Price said. The proposition, authored by Williamson, would define marriage in the Oklahoma Constitution as only between one man and one woman. It would also prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Williamson said courts and governments in other states, including Massachusetts, have legalized homosexual marriage. _________________________________________________ 3-NEWS: Liberty Counsel intervenes in FL m case Contact: Mat Staver - 407-875-2100 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 29, 2004 Liberty Counsel, County Clerk, Church and Businesses Intervene in Lawsuit to Defend Traditional Marriage in Florida Key West, FL - On Friday, June 25, Liberty Counsel attorneys intervened in a case to protect Florida's definition of marriage from a court challenge by same-sex couples who want state-approved marriage licenses. Liberty Counsel attorneys intervened in Higgs v. State of Florida in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court in Monroe County, Florida, on behalf of Liberty Counsel, a national public interest law firm that is actively involved in defending the traditional family, Holmes County Clerk Cody Taylor, Keys Chapel Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and several local business owners who will be affected by the lawsuit. Liberty Counsel's President and General Counsel, Mathew Staver, drafted Florida's Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which was proposed in 1996 and passed in 1997 by the Florida Legislature. The DOMA states: "Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state." In addition to DOMA, Florida law also defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." Liberty Counsel works with legislators around the country in drafting and enacting DOMAs and has defended DOMAs and other marriage laws. Liberty Counsel recently received two judicial orders stopping a renegade New York mayor and town council members from defying New York law by performing same-sex marriages in New Palz, New York. Liberty Counsel successfully defended the first-ever challenge to a state DOMA in the Georgia case of Burns v. Burns, was successful in similar litigation in Connecticut and is currently handling the California cases of Thomasson v. Davis, defending the rights of the voters to limit marriage to one man and one woman, and Thomasson v. Newsom, attacking San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's illegal actions in issuing "same-sex" marriage licenses. Staver said, "America became the greatest nation in the world due in large part to its commitment to the traditional family structure. We must fight back against the forces that seek to undermine what has served as the cornerstone of American society since its inception." Staver added, "Not only law but common sense itself makes evident the fact that the state of Florida has a profound interest in preserving marriage between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of any other arrangement." Staver concluded, "Suits like these will fuel the drive to pass a federal constitutional amendment to once and for all time preserve marriage as one man and one woman." ### ____________________________________________________________ 4-NEWS: Canadian Liberals win - barely Gay Canadians Hail Election 'Victory' by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Newscenter Ottawa Bureau Posted: June 29, 2004 11:14 am ET (Ottawa) Canadian gays Tuesday were celebrating what they regard as a victory in Monday's federal election that left the Liberals clinging to power as long as they are propped up by the country's two smaller parties. "Yesterday was a great day for equality," said Alex Munter, Co-Chair of Canadians for Equal Marriage. "Canadians have overwhelmingly voted for parties committed to equality for all Canadians, including lesbian and gay people. Now Parliament needs to move forward with equal marriage legislation. One-quarter of Canadians still cannot access equal marriage, and they must be put on an equal footing with the rest of us." Going into the election polls showed that the Conservative Party could win either a minority or possibly a majority government, but a series of blunders by party candidates unleashed a wave of concerns among voters. During the six-week campaign Conservative leader Stephen Harper attempted to say little about same-sex marriage, other than that his government would oppose it. He would not say whether he would use the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution which allows governments to override court decisions. But, the man who was touted as the party's likely justice minister was eager to talk. In an interview with a documentary filmmaker MP Randy White said that a Conservative government would redefine the Charter of Rights and use the notwithstanding clause to overrule court rulings it doesn't agree with, such as same-sex marriage. "Well the heck with the courts, eh. You know, one of these days we in this country are gong to stand up and say, the politicians make the laws and the courts do not." The film was turned over to the Liberals in the last days of the campaign, and made available to the media. Another statement in the film was: "If the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is going to be used as the crutch to carry forward all of the issues that social libertarians want, then there's got to be, for us conservatives out there, there's got to be a way to put checks and balances in that." "So the notwithstanding clause . . . should be used and I would think that not just for the definition of marriage, but I think you'll see more uses . . ." Throughout the campaign same-sex marriage advocates have dogged Harper as his campaign crisscrossed the country. At a stop in Guelph, Ontario, Laurie Arron, political coordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage, and a fellow activist were accosted when they pressed Harper on the Conservative position on gay marriage. Then it was revealed that the party would encourage legislation taking away a woman's right to chose. Voters were also uneasy with Conservative Party stand supporting the US war in Iraq. "Canadians got the message that the Conservative Party is dominated by those with regressive Reform Party values," said Laurie Arron, Political Coordinator for Canadians for Equal Marriage. "Canadians soundly rejected those values as being anathema to the kind of society people want." But, the election showed that the public is dissatisfied with the Liberals, already in power for three consecutive terms, over a series of scandals involving millions of dollars. In Quebec, the party was hit hard by the separatist Bloc Quebecois. In Ontario, the New Democrats and Conservatives had gains, and in the west, Conservatives ruled. "The loss of a handful of supportive [Liberal] MPs was more than compensated for by the election of NDP and Bloc MPs who support the Charter and support equal marriage for same-sex couples," said Arron. "It's also heartening that the only Conservative elected in the Greater Toronto Area, Belinda Stronach, supports full equality for lesbian and gay people in all laws. Clearly there is no political advantage in opposing equal marriage for same-sex couples. In fact, the results of the election show that MPs who supported equal marriage for same-sex couples did better than those who opposed it." Scott Brison, the gay Progressive Conservative MP who refused to join the merged Conservatives and ran as a Liberal handily won his Nova Scotia riding. Real Menard was reelected for the Bloc in Quebec. Libby Davies was reelected for the NDP in British Columbia, as was Bill Siksay, who replaced Svend Robinson. But, Glen Murray, the first openly gay mayor in Canada lost his bid to sit in the House of Commons as a Liberal. ©365Gay.com® 2004 ___________________________________________________ 5-NEWS: Conference of Mayors tables vote on opposing FMA Monday, June 28, 2004 Mayors set aside resolution opposing federal gay marriage ban The Associated Press
BOSTON- A deeply divided gathering of the nation's mayors was unable to reach consensus Monday on a proposed resolution opposing a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage. The U.S. Conference of Mayors voted 46-44 to table the resolution, with opponents arguing that the organization should send forth resolutions on which there is widespread agreement. An attempt to revive the resolution was also defeated by a mere two votes, 47-45. Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat running for governor in Connecticut, said that he suspected that this was an issue that mayors don't want to deal with right now, with many facing elections this fall. He said he opposes the constitutional amendment and voted against the motion to table the resolution. The close votes, he said, also indicate that "there is no broad-based support in the nation to amend the Constitution of the United States to discriminate." Ed Henderson, mayor of Napa, Calif., called the mayors' non-decision "a wimpy thing to do." "I think it's dodging the issue," Henderson said. The resolution was co-sponsored by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, and passed unanimously by a conference committee on Saturday. ______________________________________________ 6-OP-ED: A few ssm has made a difference in Netherlands June 29, 2004, 9:24 a.m. Dutch Decline Losing interest in matrimony. By Joshua Livestro in National Review Online
To a Dutch observer of American society and politics, it all looked just a little too familiar. The long lines in front of the Massachusetts registry offices, the glare of the media spotlights, gay-marriage proponents crowing about a "historic breakthrough." The scenes were virtually identical to those in Amsterdam three years ago, when amid much fanfare, the world's first legal gay-marriage ceremonies were conducted by the city's mayor. If the U.S. continues to follow the Dutch script, the next few months will see more jubilant headlines about the overwhelming demand for marriage licenses among homosexuals, a few more model gay couples getting married, and then...silence. With its aim achieved and the campaign over, gay-rights activists will simply drop the issue of marriage altogether and move on. And what, exactly, will they have accomplished? The first legal gay wedding ceremonies in the Netherlands took place on April 1, 2001. By November 2002, however, gay-marriage enthusiasts were forced to admit that interest in this new institution was fading. Since April 2001, each quarter has brought a further decline in the number of gay marriages, falling from 2,500 in 2001 to less than 1,500 last year. As of April 2004, only 5,916 of Holland's roughly 55,000 gay couples had tied the knot. The floodgates had been forced open by gay-marriage activists, but through them came just a trickle of mainly lesbian couples (lesbians make up only 20 percent of the homosexual community in the Netherlands, but they now make up more than half of all married homosexual couples). It seems that so far 90 percent of Dutch homosexual couples have declined the historic opportunity to get married. This already far-from-impressive statistic gets even worse when we take into account the fact that cohabiting gays and lesbians are actually just a small minority within the larger homosexual community. Gay organizations' own figures, which put the size of the gay community in Holland at around 1.5 million (almost 10 percent of the total Dutch population of 16 million), seem a wild exaggeration. But if accurate these figures would give the impression that with only a little bit more than one-third of 1 percent of Dutch gays and lesbians actually married, interest in marriage among homosexuals is virtually nonexistent. A government-sponsored study on sexuality in the Netherlands among people ages 18 and older came up with a more realistic figure of 350,000 gays and lesbians. Even on this cautious estimate, however, married gays and lesbians comprise no more than 3.3 percent of the total number of adult homosexuals. By comparison, by the end of 2003, heterosexual married people made up 60 percent of the total Dutch population ages 18 and older (and 75 percent if the categories of widowed and divorced are included). Some would say this doesn't matter - that the minimal interest among homosexuals in getting married is itself another good reason for legalizing gay marriage. After all, if few homosexual couples get married, there's little chance of a Trojan Horse scenario whereby gay married couples could somehow work to undermine heterosexual marriage from within. The positive version of this argument is made by Andrew Sullivan in his so-called conservative case for gay marriage. He claims that allowing gays to marry would not only not undermine marriage, it would also help strengthen an institution under threat of countercultural erosion. It would do so, he says, not just by boosting marriage statistics, but more important by presenting marriage as something to be desired, a special status worth fighting for. If true, this would be an important argument in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Unfortunately for Sullivan (and the Netherlands), however, the Dutch experience has shown the exact opposite of what he predicts. The Trojan Horse scenario only existed in the minds of gay-marriage activists looking for a strawman to burn down. After all, no serious opponent of gay marriage has ever argued that the fact that my gay neighbor suddenly has the right to get married would make me, a heterosexual married man, want to file for divorce. But by lobbying so intensively for a change in the law, the gay-marriage campaign did contribute to a change in people's attitude toward marriage. And there is little doubt that it has been a change for the worse. Since the start of the Dutch gay-marriage debate - in which gay-marriage activists successfully made the case for separating civil marriage from the legal rights and duties involved with the raising of children - the percentage of Dutch babies born out of wedlock has skyrocketed. As Stanley Kurtz has also pointed out (here and here), in the 15 years since the beginning of the long march toward gay marriage, the illegitimacy rate in the Netherlands has risen from 11 percent (1989) to over 31 percent (2003). As it turns out, 1989 - the year in which gay-marriage campaigners filed their first legal challenge to the existing marriage laws - is something of a tipping point in marriage statistics as well. Before that year, both the absolute number of marriages and the marriage rate (number of marriages per 1,000 people) were on an upward trend. Since 1989, however, that upward trend has turned into a downward slope, from more than 95,000 new marriages in the peak year 1990 to just over 82,000 - including 1500 gay marriages - in 2003. This equals a decline in the marriage rate per 1,000 people from 6.4 at its peak in 1990 (out of a population of under 15 million) to just 5.1 in 2003. It is, of course, possible that these figures don't matter to the American debate. Maybe American homosexuals, unlike their Dutch brothers and sisters, are eager to march down the isle in record numbers. Maybe the American public will respond to the gay-marriage debate not by losing interest in marriage as an institution, but by wholeheartedly recommitting themselves to holy matrimony. And besides, maybe it's just a coincidence that the birth of the gay-marriage movement in the Netherlands coincided with the start of the decline of the institution of marriage. Maybe - but it would be an awfully big coincidence. If Andrew Sullivan is right, and the Dutch experience simply doesn't matter, America has nothing to worry about. But if he's wrong, the question won't be whether or not homosexuals are interested in getting married, it will be whether, several decades from now, Americans will still be interested. - Joshua Livestro is a columnist with Dutch political magazine Vrij Nederland and the Benelux edition of Reader's Digest. |
|
|
|||||
 |
||||||||
| Copyright © 2001 - 2009 The Catholic University of America. | ||||||||
 |
||||||||
