The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of America

TOP6NEWS - September 1, 2004

1-NEWS: Pro-ssm decision appealed in WA

2-NEWS: AR Supreme Court allows for interveners

3-NEWS: SSM could affect swing state votes

4-NEWS: NGLTF, HRC donate $600,000 to defeat OR amendment

5-OP-ED: Canadians on how to get ssm in 7 easy steps – invite the media

6-OP-ED: B. Shapiro: Battle between morality and friendship

________________________________________________________

1-NEWS: Pro-ssm decision appealed in WA

King County prosecutor appeals ruling favoring gay marriage
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/188838_nwbriefs01.html
King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng yesterday appealed a Superior Court judge's ruling last month that keeping gay and lesbian couples from marrying serves no legitimate purpose.

...

________________________________________________________

2-NEWS: AR Supreme Court allows for interveners

Supreme Court Allows Group to Intervene in Lawsuit
Tuesday August 31, 2004 4:54pm
http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0804/169880.html
Little Rock (AP) - The Arkansas Supreme Court Tuesday granted a requested by leaders of an effort to constitutionally ban gay marriage to intervene in a lawsuit against the measure.

...

________________________________________________________

3-NEWS: SSM could affect swing state votes

ANALYSIS: Gay marriage could affect swing state vote
By ROBERT TANNER, AP NATIONAL WRITER
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-CVN-Gay-Marriage-States.html
NEW YORK (AP) - The war in Iraq; jobs and the economy; terrorism. For voters nationwide, those issues seem sure to determine the outcome on Election Day. But in several critical swing states, the conservative push to amend state constitutions and ban gay marriage is giving delegates and party officials a way to lure a group of voters - especially traditional churchgoers - who could tip these states to President Bush.

Pollsters and analysts disagree how much impact voters on these ballot initiatives will have in their states - unless the presidential race gets very close. If it does, they say the edge would go for the GOP.

"It's going to get people out to vote," said Ohio delegate Donald Miller, a retired industrialist from Fostoria. "If we can get the congregations to register and vote, it's going to make a huge difference."

...
Amendments are on the Nov. 2 ballot, or pending approval, in 11 states, including four swing states:
- Arkansas, which Bush won in 2000 by 50,172 votes.
- Oregon, which former vice president Al Gore won by less than 1 percent, or 6,765 votes.
- Michigan, which Gore won by 217,279 votes. The ballot question in Michigan has yet to be certified.
- Ohio, which Bush won by 165,109 votes. The question has yet to be given final approval.
...
Same-sex marriage has already been a divisive and attention-getting issue in recent months. Bush pushed, unsuccessfully, for Congress to agree to a constitutional amendment banning such marriages, after Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages under court order.

...
For those in support, it's about morals and tradition. In Arkansas, David Purifoy, a volunteer with the Family Council, is sending packages to pastors as well as talking with friends, neighbors and members of his congregation.

"Not every church member is going to feel the same way," said Purifoy, from Greenwood. "But moreso than not, the churches are going to favor not changing the definition" of marriage. And that, he would bet, will help Bush, even if conservative Democrats also support the question.

For swing states, those incremental numbers are everything, said Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.
"This is a big issue in Ohio. It's going to be an issue that will draw out a lot of voters," said Blackwell, a delegate who spoke to ministers at the gathering with Miller. "Turnout is going to be very, very key."

________________________________________________________

4-NEWS: NGLTF, HRC donate $600,000 to defeat OR amendment

Gay-rights groups give to defeat measure
Two national gay and lesbian groups donate thousands of dollars to oppose a measure banning same-sex marriage
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
BILL GRAVES Oregonian
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1094039862318270.xml
National gay-rights groups are spending heavily to defeat a measure banning same-sex marriage in Oregon, a state they say has the best chance of defeating such measures.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has given $500,000 to the Oregon group opposing Measure 36, which is on the Nov. 2 ballot. It would amend the state Constitution to say that marriage only between a man and a woman is legal.

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay and lesbian rights group in the country, also has pledged $100,000 to the opposition group, called No on Constitutional Amendment 36.

...
No on Constitutional Amendment 36 also has received contributions from Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, Service Employees International Union and about 2,000 individual donors, said Rebekah Kassell, press secretary.

"We think we're going to spend between $2.5 million and $3 million, most related to television ad buys," she said.
The Defense of Marriage Coalition does not expect to raise that much money, and it expects a tougher battle than other states face, said Georgene Rice, communications director.

"I'm not anticipating we'll win by a large margin," Rice said, "but I think we can win."
National gay and lesbian groups say they are concentrating their spending on Oregon because they see it as the state with the best prospects for defeating a measure to ban same-sex marriage.

Polls show a majority of voters support similar measures in 11 other states this fall, said J. Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign.

But a poll conducted for opponents of Measure 36 in Oregon show "Oregon is a statistical dead heat, with neither side above 50 percent," Smith said. "It is a good place to put resources. . . We know there is a very good chance to defeat the measure in Oregon."

...

________________________________________________________

5-OP-ED: Canadians on how to get ssm in 7 easy steps – invite the media

August 31, 2004
How to change the world in 7 steps
Invite the media to your wedding
by Ian Taylor, Never Say No Comment Inc.
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/chg310804.htm
Some advice for couples in states, provinces, or territories that still discriminate against same-sex couples.
On January 14, 2001, over 30 uniformed police officers, some on horseback, and untold others in plain clothes, stood guard outside and inside a Toronto church for what a judge would later decide was the world's first same-sex marriage ceremony.

Inside, one-third of the floor space of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto was devoted to the news media, who far out-numbered the few protesters that were outside, some wearing devil masks and impersonating the radical religious right.

...
For almost 20 years, I've been helping MCCs generate news media coverage around equality issues and now we're at the stage where we must expand the effort in a big way.

Some people will say they're tired of seeing this issue in the news media and they're right - it's gone on too long. The answer is more media coverage, not less. Will you help?

...
If you're committed to changing the world and you're planning a same-sex marriage or a commitment ceremony, consider "going public." You never know what the results might be.

Here's how you can make history.
1. After consulting with everyone directly involved, issue an invitation to the news media through a "news release." Tip - you don't have to invite all the news media, it's your event. Pick select reporters or outlets that are likely to be supportive. Consider offering an exclusive to one media outlet - I recommend the largest daily newspaper in your area. Do not invite radio stations, since this is a visual event and besides, many commercial radio stations are hotbeds of right-wing bigots who are best ignored. If you're invited to an open-line show, be prepared for anger and bigotry and don't lose your cool.

2. Target the mainstream media, not the so-called gay media. Your goal is to reach as many mainstream people as you can with the message.

3. Have someone help you with the media before hand and on the special day - believe me, you'll be too busy with other details. If there's a strong, supportive equality organization in your community, consider seeking their help and support. Remind them that it is your event, however you'll appreciate having someone on the day of the wedding to provide interviews when you're busy.

4. If you invite lots of media, be prepared for all kinds of weird, wacky and wild media requests for access and special photos. Decide what's best for your issue and cause and don't be afraid to say "no thanks" to unacceptable requests. Allow media photographers lots of access and room during the ceremony - even if it's very distracting. You'll appreciate the quality of photos that will result, even though photographers can be disruptive. Your goal is to generate the best photographs and so is there's.

5. Invite some local politicians and carefully record their replies to your invitation. One of them just might send you a congratulatory reply that you can "leak" to the news media. Imagine if some right-wing politicians sends you a form letter supporting your marriage. Bingo - you've got news.

6. Seek police protection where necessary, even by asking for local politicians to help you. If your event becomes publicly known ahead of time and there are any security concerns, ask your local police department for protection.

7. Carefully choose a location that sends a message. No message is more powerful than marrying in a church or religious location, since the photographs will illustrate both freedom to marry and freedom of religion. If your event is not a religious one, then consider holding the ceremony in front of a city hall, legislature building or a non-supporting church building. Have a plan in case you're arrested so that when you get to make that single phone call, you call the media.

________________________________________________________

6-OP-ED: B. Shapiro: Battle between morality and friendship

Of Yale, hookers and tolerance
Ben Shapiro
September 1, 2004
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20040901.shtml
Last Sunday, I picked up a copy of Boston Magazine while sitting in the green room at the Fox News studios in Watertown, Mass. Leafing through the publication, I came across an article titled "Confessions of an Ivy League Callgirl," written by Jeannette Angell, a university lecturer with a master's degree from Yale. The fact that she was a Yalie caught my eye -- as a Harvard Law student, I've already adopted our communal animosities -- and so I read the piece.

Apparently, Angell began trading sex for cash after receiving her doctorate in social anthropology. But what was shocking was not Angell's experiences but her insistence that she not be condemned for her actions. "Please don't be so quick to call us hookers, to judge us," she wrote. "We could be your mother, your sister, your girlfriend, your daughter. Even your college professor. No, I take that back. It's not a matter of saying that we could be. We are."

The logic goes something like this: If you have a relative who engages in a sinful act, the act cannot be condemned. After all, blood is thicker than morality, right? Loyalty to the tribe comes before loyalty to moral values.

It's a successful tactic often employed by proponents of liberal social policy. Just this week, Michael Moore wrote in USA Today that most Republicans are actually social liberals. As proof, he cited a supposed interview with a "proud Republican." "Would you discriminate against someone because he or she is gay?" Moore asked the man. "Um, no," the man answered. Moore comments: "The pause -- I get that a lot when I ask this question -- is usually because the average goodhearted person instantly thinks about a gay family member or friend."

...
In order to assuage the moral qualms of conflicted social conservatives, social liberals have created a whole new system of morality. Social liberals redefine right and wrong: It is right to value your friends and family, and wrong to condemn them for moral failings. According to the social left, in any pitched battle between traditional morality and friendship, those who side with traditional morality are morally wrong.

And so tolerance has become the new morality. Those who condemn homosexuality are morally wrong. Those who condemn prostitution are morally wrong. Those who condemn abortion are morally wrong. Tolerance is moral -- and traditional morality is simply intolerant. Moore rips the traditional morality crowd as a bunch of conspiratorial bigots: "Your people are up before dawn figuring out which minority group shouldn't be allowed to marry today."

...
The new religion of tolerance provides a slippery slope into moral oblivion. All activity must be tolerated, since sympathy for friends and family trumps traditional morality. With tolerance for sin comes acceptance of sin, and with acceptance, promotion. With Roe vs. Wade, Americans grudgingly tolerated abortion.

With tolerance came acceptance: Those who received abortions were no longer seen as immoral. Instead, they were the moral equals of ordinary mothers. Finally, abortion was promoted as a valuable alternative to pregnancy completion -- and those who condemned abortion were slandered as sinners.

...
The same progression holds true for gay marriage: tolerance, acceptance and promotion. The first step is always tolerance, and tolerance must be attained by appealing to sympathy. The easiest way to gain sympathy for social liberalism is to point out close friends or relatives participating in sin, and then dare us to condemn their actions.

So can we condemn Jeannette Angell as a whore? Can we condemn homosexuality or abortion as sinful? Of course we can. Morality cannot survive in a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) context. If morality extends only to those far removed from our personal lives, it has no meaning. To preserve traditional values, justice must take precedence over sympathy.