The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of America

TOP6NEWS - August 26, 2004

1-NEWS: New GLAD/ACLU suit in CT

2-NEWS: SJC says MA lesbian doesn't have to pay child support

3-NEWS: OR judge orders county to begin issuing licenses again

4-NEWS: GOP strengthens pro-m plank

5-OP-ED: H. Hewitt: Will Kerry fight for m?

6-OP-ED: Christianity Today gives answers to 13 arguments for ssm

________________________________________________________

1-NEWS: New GLAD/ACLU suit in CT

Complaint at: http://www.glad.org/marriage/Kerrigan-Mock_complaint.pdf
Gays File Lawsuit To Wed In State
Advocates Taking Issue To The Courts
August 26, 2004
By DANIELA ALTIMARI, Courant Staff Writer (Hartford, CT)
http://www.ctnow.com/hc-gladsuit0826.artaug26,0,4632230.story
Three months after Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to permit gay marriage, seven same-sex couples filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking the right to marry in Connecticut.

Standing shoulder to shoulder at a mid-afternoon press conference in Hartford, the couples said they deserve the same legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.

...

________________________________________________________

2-NEWS: SJC says MA lesbian doesn't have to pay child support

SJC: Lesbian not required to pay child support after separation
By Theo Emery, Associated Press Writer | August 25, 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/08/25/sjc_lesbian_not_required_to_pay_child_support_after_separation/

BOSTON -- A woman who agreed to have a child with her lesbian partner, but split up with the mother before the baby's birth, cannot be forced to pay child support, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday.

The 4-3 ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court comes in the case of a Northampton-area lesbian couple, identified in court documents as "T.F." and "B.L.," who lived together from 1996 to 2000. They broke up before T.F. had a baby boy by artificial insemination in July 2000.

The case predates the high court's November ruling legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts. The court did not consider that decision in this case, saying it "stands on the same footing" as similar cases involving unmarried heterosexual couples who live together.

...

________________________________________________________

3-NEWS:OR judge orders county to begin issuing licenses again

Oregon judge: Issue gay marriage licenses
By Associated Press
Thursday, August 26, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gay-Marriage-Oregon.html

CORVALLIS, Ore. - An Oregon county that stopped issuing marriage licenses until a court could decide whether gay marriage was legal has been told to again offer them to couples.

Senior Judge Wayne R. Harris ordered Benton County on Wednesday to resume issuing the licenses, saying officials had failed to provide a service. Though his order didn't specifically mention same-sex couples, officials expect licenses only will be given to marriages between a man and a woman. ...

________________________________________________________

4-NEWS: GOP strengthens pro-m plank

GOP platform pushes for gay marriage ban
By Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer | August 25, 2004
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-gop-gays,0,406146.story
NEW YORK -- Republicans endorsed an uncompromising stand against gay marriage Wednesday while struggling to accommodate the views of activists who declared that such a hard line could cost the GOP the election.

A panel made up largely of conservative delegates approved platform language that calls for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and opposes legal recognition of any sort for gay civil unions.

...

________________________________________________________

5-OP-ED: H. Hewitt: Will Kerry fight for m?

The Wrong Question
It isn't a question of whether or not John Kerry opposes same-sex marriage. The question is whether or not he'll fight to save traditional marriage.

by Hugh Hewitt
Weekly Standard 08/26/2004 12:00:00 AM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/503dccnt.asp
JOHN KERRY is still in hiding--and still sinking--but if he ever does surface for an on-camera meeting with the press, it will no doubt be dominated by Christmas-not-in-Cambodia and magic hats from CIA men. I hope a second press conference can immediately be scheduled to catch up on all the other broken glass his careening campaign has left in its wake.

John Kerry was for reducing troop strength in South Korea before he was against it. And John Kerry was against national missile defense before he was for it. Both subjects need even more dizzying elaboration. But he especially needs to get us the latest version of his gay marriage stance.

...

IT SEEMS CERTAIN that same-sex marriage and a federal amendment to prohibit it should be front and center in any presidential debate devoted to domestic issues. It seems just as certain that Kerry will intone his "I am opposed to gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions," and that a friendly press corps will leave it at that.

But the marriage issue is a driving force in the election, as the vote in Missouri and future votes in other states, including Ohio, will prove. It is not an answer to say "oppose / favor" referring to gay marriage and civil unions. There needs to be a plan as to how to achieve that end because, unimpeded by legislative action, judges have been pushing decisions that impose same-sex marriage, decisions that will inevitably hop state barriers. Either you are in favor of obstructing the export of same-sex marriage or you are in favor of its inevitable transfer via judicial decree. That's the question that needs to be asked: "John Kerry, since you opposed DOMA, what actions do you support to prevent the courts of one state from imposing their rulings on another state?" Followed by: "If federal courts strike down DOMA, thus providing for the export of same-sex marriage from one state to another, would you then support an amendment to the federal Constitution to prohibit such export?"

If Kerry tries to avoid this issue with calculated doublespeak, the mainstream media will no doubt attempt to help him carry off the ruse. And then the new media--which brought the Swift boat story to the front pages--will have to do the work of the old media, again.

________________________________________________________

6-OP-ED: Christianity Today gives answers to 13 arguments for ssm

Thirteen Bad Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage
Why the rhetoric doesn't stand up under scrutiny.
Christianity Today By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott | posted 08/26/2004 8:00 a.m.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/009/18.51.html
Now that gay marriage is our most talked-about domestic policy issue, it is time to rebut faulty arguments that bedevil it. While we could provide biblical and theological grounds for what follows, we will focus on the practical and social effects of changing society's first and most basic institution.

Bad argument No. 1
"Gay marriage is a basic human right."
There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy—anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage—children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married.

Bad argument No. 2
"Gay marriage is a civil right."
This is based on the false assumption that homosexuality is the same sort of human difference as race. But while the difference between sexual orientations is profound (one desires the opposite sex and procreates while the other does neither), racial difference has no intrinsic bearing on love and marriage. This is why philosophically opposed African American leaders such as Shelby Steele and Jesse Jackson agree that "gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue."

Bad argument No. 3
"Opposition to gay marriage is discrimination."
Let's not mistake rational restriction for unconstitutional discrimination. Just as we rightly restrict marriage against polygamists, there is no constitutional reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for millennia: the union of a man and woman. This does not deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws," since this restriction applies equally to every individual.

...