Gay Marriage

[Kris]

June 19, 2003

Gay Marriage Plan: Sign of Sweeping Change in Canada

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

TORONTO, June 18 — Canada's decision to allow marriage between same-sex couples is only one of many signs that this once tradition-bound society is undergoing social change at an astonishing rate.

Increasingly, Canada has been on a social policy course pursued by many Western European and Scandinavian countries, and over the last few decades it has been moving gradually more out of step with the United States.

Even as the government announced on Tuesday that it would rewrite the definition of marriage, it was also in the process of transforming its drug policies by decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana and, to combat disease, permitting "safe-injection" clinics in Vancouver, British Columbia, for heroin addicts.

The large Indian population remains impoverished, but there are signs that native peoples are taking greater control of their destinies; their leaders now govern two territories, occupying more than a third of Canada's land mass.

As far as the ease with which society changes, Canada is virtually in a category by itself.

Canada is a country that has never had a revolution or civil war, and little social turbulence aside from sporadic rebellions in the 19th century and a splash of terrorism in Quebec in the 1960's and 1970's.

The country's demographics have changed dramatically since then, when the government of Pierre Trudeau opened wide the country's doors to Africans, Asians and West Indians as part of an attempt to fill Canada's huge, underpopulated hinterland. Eighteen percent of the population is now foreign-born compared with about 11 percent in the United States, with little or no debate over whether the effects of such change in culture, demographics and national identity is good or bad.

Only in the last generation have Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, with one third of the population, become multicultural polyglots, with the towers of Sikh temples and mosques becoming mainstays of the skylines and cuisines and fashion becoming concoctions of spices and patterns that are in the vanguard of globalization.

Toronto, once a homogeneous city of staid British tradition, now counts more than 40 percent of the people as foreign born. There are nearly 2,000 ethnic restaurants, and local radio and television stations broadcast in more than 30 languages.

"Everything from marriage laws to marijuana laws, we are going through a period of accelerated social change," said Neil Bissoondath, an immigrant from Trinidad who is a leading novelist. "There is a general approach to life here that is both evolutionary and revolutionary."

Mr. Bissoondath said the balance went back to the ideals of the Tory founders of Canada, who remained loyal to the British crown and who instilled a laissez-faire conservatism "that says people have a right to live their lives as they like."

That philosophy was a practical necessity in a colony that was bilingual after the British conquered French Quebec, creating relative social peace by allowing greater religious freedoms than even Catholics in England had at the time.

The live-and-let-live approach was codified by the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada's Bill of Rights. Being as young as it is, the charter occupies a vivid corner of the Canadian psyche. So when three senior provincial courts ruled recently that federal marriage law discriminated against same-sex couples, the Liberal Party cabinet decided to go along and not appeal.

While the new law will have to be passed by the House of Commons, little organized resistance has developed.

Few have complained that a national policy pertaining to something as intimate as marriage would be set by courts in Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario rather than a federal body. In part, that reflects the great relative political strength that regional governments have developed in what is known as the Canadian Confederation, where the federal government is weaker than most central governments in the West.

But it also reflects poll results that show a majority of Canadians support expanding marriage to gay couples. Last year, the Quebec provincial assembly enacted unanimously a law giving sweeping parental rights to same-sex couples, with even the most conservative members voting in favor despite lobbying by the Roman Catholic Church.

"Canada has always been in the vanguard in relation to many societies in the world," Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said Tuesday, speaking in French to reporters after he announced the cabinet's decision. "We have met our responsibilities."

Nowhere has the social change been more dramatic than in Mr. Chrétien's home province of Quebec, which as recently as the 1960's was deeply conservative and where the church dominated education and social life. Since the baby-boomer generation started the "quiet revolution" in favor of separatism, big government social programs and secularism, abortion and divorce rates there rose to among the highest in Canada. Meanwhile, church attendance plummeted.

Now the pendulum is moving in the other direction, ever so slightly.

"There is a centrist mentality in Canada that translates into the political system not tolerating the Pat Buchanans nor the leftist equivalent," Michel C. Auger, a political columnist for Le Journal de Montréal, said. "There is a unified fabric here that is a lot stronger on social issues than it seems to be in the United States."


Canada's Celebration of Marriage

The landmark ruling came down from the north with some of the simple delight of a June wedding announcement: "Same-sex couples are capable of forming long, lasting, loving and intimate relationships." In unanimously affirming the obvious, an Ontario appeals court opened the way for Canada to end the bar on marriage between partners of the same sex. Final approval of a milestone law striking down discrimination against gay couples is expected within months. But the northward flow by gay couples from the United States has already begun. Canada has no residency requirements for love-struck people intent on marriage, while Belgium and the Netherlands enacted tighter restrictions in pioneering legal gay unions.

When they head home after the vows and rice, the newlyweds will expect to be treated as legally married people here, as will gay Canadian couples visiting the United States. They should get that respect, both out of simple decency and because this nation has a long history of recognizing legal marriages performed across borders.

Unfortunately, the United States has a long way to go to match Canada's record of tolerance on this issue. In contrast to Canadian jurists, our Supreme Court is only now considering a ban on the antediluvian Texas law criminalizing intimate relations by homosexuals in the privacy of the home. And, far from liberalizing the law of the land as Canada is choosing to do, Congress responded to the gay-marriage issue in 1996 by hastily defining heterosexual union alone as the marriage standard for purposes of federal benefits in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Right now Vermont recognizes civil unions, a step short of full marriage rights, with a handful of other states installing domestic partner protections. There are cases pending in Massachusetts and New Jersey that could lead to decisions ending marriage discrimination in those states. The American public is not yet as ready to accept marriages between same-sex partners as a natural part of the landscape as polls show Canadians are, but change will be unstoppable in time, whatever the pace proves to be. Canada's choice of a clean break with the past is a stirring moment. Gay couples have a place where they can legally be joined in matrimony, and life goes on, happily ever after or not.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Stern]

I was impressed in that marijuana was being sold in front of the new city hall in Toronto....

[TLOZ Link5]

I'd give it four or five days before Rev. Fred Phelps brings his whining cultists (a.k.a.: the members of his family comprising the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church) up to Toronto in protest. *Despite the fact that I consider said cult to be so over; they haven't gotten any coverage in a while. *Not to mention that that wife-beating child slaver is not really one to be exhorting good Christian values.

[chris]

> Rev. Fred Phelps... cultists... protest... wife-beating child slaver...

What?

Whatever that was about, it sounds like it could constitute a a thread all unto itself.

Dang!

[Kris]

I don't care what anyone thinks of the Times editorial page. Stick to the topic.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Evidently, this thread took a direction after 02:30 PM which led to several posts (2 of mine included) being deleted.
I would appreciate an explanation.

[Kris]

There was nothing wrong with your posts. They were deleted only because they made no sense on their own. Sorry.

[ZippyTheChimp]

OK
I never realized Canada was such a volatile subject. :)

[NYatKNIGHT]

I don't know what I missed - I'm gone for ONE DAY, and look what happens - anyway, go Canada! I grew up being proud of my country for being the most free of all nations, now other western democracies are clearly taking the lead. Is it the conservative grip on our government? Too much t.v.? Too much sugar?

[TLOZ Link5]

Quote: from chris on 5:58 pm on June 19, 2003
> Rev. Fred Phelps... cultists... protest... wife-beating child slaver...

What?

Whatever that was about, it sounds like it could constitute a a thread all unto itself.

Dang!


Heh. *Fred Phelps is some Baptist fundie from Kansas. *The whole crux of his twisted version of Christianity is the idea that homosexuality is the most despicable of all sins. *He also says that God hates everybody because some Psalm says so ("The foolish shall not stand in thy sight; though hatest all workers on iniquity, blah blah" ), even though the passage was obviously written by the Psalmist and not inspired directly by God, so the point may very well be moot. *And then there's his whole thing with old-school Calvinism, which states that God picks like ten thousand people to be saved and the rest burn--and we all know that if that were the actual case, then Christianity never would have gotten off the ground.

So anyway, Phelps is a not-very-nice individual. *His church website has the IP address www. god hates[insert nasty three-letter word for gays beginning with F here]s.com. *He's been known to use archaic epithets in reference to gays and lesbians: though his use of the aforementioned f-word is partially explained in the FAQ section of his Website (apparently gays will stoke the fires of hell), it still does not justify his use of words like "queer," "homo," "dyke," etc. *His congregation is comprised mostly of his rather large family (he has thirteen sons and daughters, several of whom are now estanged from him), and they are known for picketing high-profile events that conflict with their (read Phelps') theology--examples: Matthew Sheppard's funeral, as well as those of other prominent homosexuals; the subsequent verdict hearing at Sheppard's murder trial; the AIDS Walk in Washington, where his infuriating presence nearly sparked a riot; the Gay Pride Parade in New York; and Baghdad during Clinton's Presidency to protest his attacks on Iraq, his affair with Monica Lewinsky and the implementation of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military regarding gay servicemen. *They hold a daily rally in a municipal park in their hometown of Topeka.

Aside from the fact that many Biblical scholars have picked apart his ideology left and right (he has been known to decline requests for debate), one of the biggest weapons his detractors use against him is the so-called Fred Phelps Exposé (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/michael_haggerty/expose3.htm), a lengthy court document chronicling Phelps' history of domestic violence and insight unto the mental state of his wife and family (those of his children who are still members of his congregation are grossly obese, perhaps due to overeating influenced by severe depression; while those who have disassociated themselves from him are in relatively good health). *From the excerpts of it that I've read so far, it's quite an excellent muckraker.

(Edited by TLOZ Link5 at 6:17 pm on June 20, 2003)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Associated Press:

Mass. Court Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Ban

BOSTON - Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.

The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 ruling ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.

The ruling closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led to its Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage.

The decision is the latest in a series of victories for gay rights advocates, but fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion.

The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal.

A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote.

Copyright © 2003 The Associated Press.


Welcome back Rush Limbaugh. :D

[Kris]

November 20, 2003

A Victory for Gay Marriage

"Without a doubt, this is the happiest day of our lives," declared Gloria Bailey, a 62-year-old Cape Cod resident. Ms. Bailey and her partner were two of the plaintiffs in this week's landmark Massachusetts ruling that says gay people have the right to marry. When the rights of disadvantaged groups are newly recognized, there is often opposition, some of it fierce, and the road ahead may be rough. But like the early court rulings striking down segregation, this has the feel of a legal revolution beginning.

The Supreme Court has begun to find privacy and equal protection rights for gays in the federal Constitution, notably earlier this year, when it struck down Texas' sodomy law. But the Massachusetts court, observing that its state constitution "is, if anything, more protective of individual liberty and equality," leapfrogged over the federal courts, ruling that at least in Massachusetts, gay equality extends to marriage.

The court's logic is persuasive. It notes that marriage is both a social institution and a privileged legal status for things like child custody and survivor benefits. Denying gays the benefits of marriage deprives them of equal protection. The court rejected the state's arguments, including its chief one, that "marriage's primary purpose is procreation." Heterosexuals can marry, the court noted, even if they are unable to have children. The ban is simply about prejudice, the court concluded, much like state laws barring interracial marriage, which lasted until 1967, when the Supreme Court struck them down in Loving v. Virginia.

This week's decision has been greeted with both dismay and joy in Massachusetts and the nation. Gov. Mitt Romney has called for a state constitutional amendment overturning it. But such an amendment cannot be put on the ballot until November 2006, and the ruling's supporters say that by then the voters will have seen that gay marriage does no harm. The decision is also likely to reverberate in the presidential election. President Bush was quick to criticize it, while most Democratic candidates expressed support for gay civil unions, which provide most of the benefits of marriage. Some opponents of gay marriage are talking about amending the federal Constitution to ban it. The Constitution has never been amended to take away minority rights, and now would be a poor time to start.

In recent years, support for gay rights has sharply increased. A newly released poll found that although most Americans oppose gay marriage, views vary a lot by age. Older people oppose it 4 to 1, while young respondents are equally divided. That strongly suggests that eventually the views expressed by the Massachusetts court will be widely held. And Americans will come to regard this week's decision as they now do Loving v. Virginia — as a statement of the obvious.


Toward More Perfect Unions

By WILLIAM B. RUBENSTEIN and R. BRADLEY SEARS

LOS ANGELES — On Tuesday, the highest court in Massachusetts issued a path-breaking decision, making the state the first to extend to gay couples not just many of the rights and benefits of marriage but the right to marry itself. In another sense, however, the decision is simply one more in a series of steps that have already provided legal rights to tens of thousands of same-sex couples throughout America.

According to data from the 2000 United States census, about one in five people who identified themselves as living with an "unmarried partner'` of the same sex now resides in a jurisdiction that grants some legal recognition to gay unions. While the census didn't count all same-sex couples — only those who identified themselves as such — it greatly advanced our knowledge about the prevalence and distribution of gay couples throughout the United States.

Counting Massachusetts, there are now four states that extend at least some of the rights of marriage to gay couples. Although their laws have no impact on federal rights or religious recognition of same-sex unions, these states have already begun the experiment of gay marriage.

The Hawaii legislature passed a law in 1997 that provides a range of marital benefits and responsibilities to same-sex couples. The Vermont legislature voted in 2000 to allow civil unions between gay couples. And in a series of laws passed in the last several years, California has extended benefits and responsibilities to same-sex couples nearly equivalent to those enjoyed by married couples.

All told, these four states have about 42 million residents, or about 15 percent of the United States population. They are also home to more than 113,000 gay couples, or 19 percent of the 600,000 or so same-sex couples the 2000 census identified in the United States. If the entire gay population is distributed throughout the country in the same way that gay couples are, that would mean that about one in five gay Americans now lives in a jurisdiction that provides some significant legal recognition for his or her relationship.

Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that recognition of such unions undermines the sanctity of marriage, harms children and demoralizes society. There is no evidence of any of this — or of any other harmful impact — in Hawaii, Vermont or California. On the contrary, studies have shown that parents' sexual orientation doesn't hurt their children. As the census shows, gay people are already parents to hundreds of thousands of children. Aren't those children better off if their family's relationships are protected by law?

Partnership is a legal reality for thousands of gay Americans, and a social reality for millions more. Thus the debate over gay marriage need not be distorted by doomsday claims that the future of America is at stake. In many ways that future is already here — and those fears have not come to pass.

William B. Rubenstein, professor of law, and R. Bradley Sears direct the Williams Project of Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA


Massachusetts Ruling on Gay Marriage Bolsters Hopes in N.J.

By LAURA MANSNERUS

TRENTON, Nov. 18 — Gay and lesbian couples who want to marry lost a round in New Jersey two weeks ago, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples have the right to marry is expected to bolster the New Jersey case as it goes to a higher court.

In New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, the Massachusetts decision on Tuesday is giving new impetus to a political and legal effort that was foundering, gay rights advocates say.

The Massachusetts ruling "should have persuasive value in the New Jersey Supreme Court," said Frank Askin, the director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at the Rutgers Law School in Newark. The New Jersey court has given broader rights to gays than the federal courts have, affording more protections, for example, to gays in adoption and parental rights cases.

Still, the prospects for legislative action, in all three states in the New York region, remain doubtful. In New York, Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, said Wednesday that legislation to extend the right to marry to gays and lesbians "is not on our agenda at all."

"I don't believe people of the same sex need or ought to be legalized in marriage," Senator Bruno said. Speaker Sheldon Silver, the leader of the Assembly's Democratic majority, has remained publicly neutral on the issue.

In New Jersey, the current legislature has only a few more voting sessions, and legislation recognizing domestic partnerships is stalled in committee.

Gov. James E. McGreevey said in a radio interview on Tuesday night that he opposed the state's sanctioning gay marriages. But Mr. McGreevey does support domestic partnership legislation, said his press secretary, Micah Rasmussen. "He wants to find ways for same-sex couples to enjoy the same benefits that other couples do," Mr. Rasmussen said.

Gov. John G. Rowland of Connecticut said after the Massachusetts ruling on Tuesday that he saw little support for such proposals in the legislature and would veto any that reached his desk.

The Massachusetts court's 4-to-3 decision was the first by a state supreme court to recognize a constitutional right of marriage for same-sex couples, although Vermont recognizes civil unions.

The New Jersey case, Lewis v. Harris, is already being closely watched around the nation. A Superior Court judge in Trenton, Linda Feinberg, dismissed the case on Nov. 5, finding that only the Legislature could establish a right to marry.

But civil liberties advocates said they thought the higher state courts would be more receptive.

And two of the plaintiffs, Cindy Meneghin and Maureen Kilian, partners since 1974, said they were encouraged that Judge Feinberg gave the case close attention. Since the Massachusetts court "acknowledged our humanity," Ms. Meneghin said, "I have equal confidence — more confidence — in New Jersey. We know New Jersey also sees this as a social justice issue, a human rights issue."

But John Tomicki, the executive director of the League of American Families, a conservative lobbying group, said the judge had issued "a clear decision that says the courts must not legislate from the bench."

"The New Jersey courts would be courting disaster for themselves if they moved in that direction," Mr. Tomicki added.

Mr. Tomicki also said that the bill recognizing domestic partnerships had run into difficulty in the Legislature because its language was too broad and that it did not have enough votes in either the Senate or the General Assembly to pass during the current lame-duck session.

But the Assembly sponsor, Loretta Weinberg of Bergen County, said she expected to bring the measure to a committee vote next month. "With a little good will, we'll get it passed in the lame duck," she said.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

February 5, 2004

Massachusetts Gives New Push to Gay Marriage in Strong Ruling

By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON, Feb. 4 — Massachusetts' highest court removed the state's last barrier to gay marriage on Wednesday, ruling that nothing short of full-fledged marriage would comply with the court's earlier ruling in November, and that civil unions would not pass muster.

The ruling means that starting on May 17 same-sex couples can get married in Massachusetts, making it the only state to permit gay marriage. Beyond that, the finding is certain to inflame a divisive debate in state legislatures nationwide and in this year's presidential race.

"The dissimilitude between the terms `civil marriage' and `civil union' is not innocuous," four of seven justices on the state's Supreme Judicial Court found. "It is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status."

The ruling came in response to a request by the Massachusetts Senate asking the court whether a bill giving same-sex couples the same rights and benefits of marriage, but calling their relationships civil unions, would comply with its November decision saying that gays had a constitutional right to marry.

The court said that such a bill "would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits. It would deny to same-sex `spouses' only a status that is specially recognized in society and has significant social and other advantages."

"The Massachusetts Constitution," the court said, "does not permit such invidious discrimination, no matter how well intentioned."

The ruling will probably give new impetus to a push by many conservatives for a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to unions joining a man and a woman.

In a statement Wednesday, President Bush condemned the Massachusetts court's latest ruling but stopped short of explicitly endorsing a constitutional amendment. "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

Wednesday's decision caused an uproar in the Massachusetts Legislature, where lawmakers are scheduled on Wednesday to vote on an amendment to the state's Constitution banning same-sex marriage. Many lawmakers in the largely Democratic, largely Roman Catholic body had supported civil unions but not gay marriage and were hoping the court would not force them to make an all-or-nothing decision.

At least one influential legislator, State Representative Eugene O'Flaherty, the chairman of the House Judiciary committee and a backer of civil unions, said he was almost certain to vote for the amendment now.

An amendment could not take effect until November 2006, because it would need to win passage in two consecutive legislative sessions and be approved in a voter referendum.

Nationally, the decision vaults the issue to a more prominent role in the presidential election, especially since the Democratic front-runner, Senator John Kerry, who supports civil unions and opposes same-sex marriage, is from Massachusetts.

It will also undoubtedly unleash activity in legislatures and courtrooms nationwide, as activists on each side of the issue seek to use the Massachusetts ruling to influence policy elsewhere.

Already, 38 states have laws defining marriage as a heterosexual institution, and 16 states are considering constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriages. Congress also passed a law in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act, prohibiting federal recognition of gay marriages and relieving states of any obligation to recognize gay marriages from states where they might be legal.

As recently as Tuesday, fueled in part by the November court decision in Massachusetts — like Wednesday's, a 4-3 ruling — the Ohio Legislature approved a strict ban on same-sex unions, barring state agencies from giving benefits to both gay and heterosexual domestic partners.

Opponents of gay marriage vowed on Wednesday to increase their efforts further and push for an amendment to the federal Constitution.

"This case will determine the future of marriage throughout America," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "If same-sex couples `marry' in Massachusetts and move to other states, the Defense of Marriage Act will be left vulnerable to the same federal courts that have banned the Pledge of Allegiance and sanctioned partial-birth abortion."

Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America, said "if the court is allowed to get away with these decisions with no accountability, it is the beginning of the crumbling of our democracy."

Proponents of same-sex marriages said they were hopeful that the Massachusetts ruling might lend legitimacy to such unions in other states. "We are really facing this onslaught of religious- and political-right attacks across the country, but we are hoping that fair-minded people will reject it and will reject this culture war," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Legal experts said there would inevitably be legal challenges filed by same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts and move to other states.

"There's going to be a fist fight in Ohio," said Arthur Miller, a Harvard law professor. "There'll be a situation, for example, in which a spouse of a couple married in Massachusetts but living in Ohio tries to inherit and make claims, and that will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court."

Same-sex couples in Massachusetts and other states began marriage plans, but several said they were proceeding cautiously. "When I see those first couples coming from City Hall, I'll say, `it's real, but it's really real,' " said Bev Kunze, 48, a telecommunications manager in Boston who plans to marry her partner of 11 years, Kathleen McCabe, 52, a city planner.

Fred Kuhr, 36, the editor of In Newsweekly, a newspaper for gay men and lesbians, plans to marry his partner, Kip Roberson, 39, director of the Sharon, Mass., public library. But he said, "There are still roadblocks in the way, and even though this is a great day in terms of this issue, I'm not jumping up and down and walking down the aisle just yet."

The prospect of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts raises practical questions: What will life be like for couples who marry here and move back to a state that outlaws same-sex marriages? Or for couples in Massachusetts who would be entitled to state marriage benefits but not federal benefits, like the right to file taxes jointly or qualify for Social Security payments?

Indeed, in a dissenting opinion on Wednesday, Justice Martha B. Sosman listed some discrepancies. For example, she noted, same-sex couples would be ineligible for federal health care or nursing home benefits, and couples living in other states would not have the right to get divorced there.

The majority opinion, however, said, "We would do a grave disservice to every Massachusetts resident, and to our constitutional duty to interpret the law, to conclude that the strong protection of individual rights guaranteed by the Massachusetts Constitution should not be available to their fullest extent in the Commonwealth because those rights may not be acknowledged elsewhere."

Elizabeth Bartholet, a family-law professor at Harvard, said that even though other states might officially disavow gay marriages, a Massachusetts marriage certificate might informally encourage recognition of same-sex unions in areas like employment, health care and education.

"It doesn't mean everyone in that state subscribes to that," she said. "It may, for example, make a real difference in terms of all kinds of employment benefits that may be available to spouses. If you're living in Massachusetts, it's going to be hard for your Texas-based employer to deny you marital benefits."

Representative O'Flaherty said he would try to determine if the Legislature might still be able to draw up a new marriage law that could provide the court with a "rational basis why marriage should be a institution between a man and a woman."

But even the state attorney general, Thomas Reilly, whose office argued against same-sex marriage in the original case, said Wednesday's ruling made clear "same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry under Massachusetts law."

The court seemed to offer one alternative. In a footnote, the decision found that same-sex unions would not have to be called marriages if "the Legislature were to jettison the term `marriage' altogether."

Some lawmakers suggested they would pass the amendment to give the public a say on it in a referendum. Gov. Mitt Romney agreed, saying "the people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."

Should an amendment pass, Mr. O'Flaherty said, legislators might ask the court to issue a stay until the amendment process was complete — a request legal experts thought the court would be unlikely to grant. Just the same, he and others asked, what would happen to same-sex marriages if, two and a half years from now, the state wound up making such marriages illegal?

Katie Zezima contributed reporting for this article.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

February 7, 2004

Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name

By DINITIA SMITH

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/02/07/arts/gay.1842.jpg
Squawk and Milou, male chinstrap penguins, are among several homosexual pairs at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan. Homosexual behavior has been documented in some 450 animal species, one researcher says.

Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.

"They did a great job," he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach.

Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."

But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?

The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.

Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said Mr. de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, `The females are very affectionate.' "

Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Mr. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. (Homosexuality, he says, refers to any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.) Last summer the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law.

"Sexual Exuberance" was also cited in 2000 by gay rights groups opposed to Ballot Measure 9, a proposed Oregon statute prohibiting teaching about homosexuality or bisexuality in public schools. The measure lost.

In his book Mr. Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild.

Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Females perform courtship rituals, like tossing their heads at each other or offering small gifts of food to each other, and they establish nests together. Occasionally they mate with males and produce fertile eggs but then return to their original same-sex partners. Their bonds, too, may persist for years.

Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Researchers have noted that in some cases same-sex behavior is more common for dolphins in captivity.

Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex.

Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, who studies homosexual behavior in Japanese macaques, is editing a new book on homosexual behavior in animals, to be published by Cambridge University Press. This kind of behavior among animals has been observed by scientists as far back as the 1700's, but Mr. Vasey said one reason there had been few books on the topic was that "people don't want to do the research because they don't want to have suspicions raised about their sexuality."

Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.

For Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University, who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, their homosexuality "is about bond formation," she said, "not about being sexual for life."

She said that studies showed that adult male dolphins formed long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Ms. Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added.

But, scientists say, just because homosexuality is observed in animals doesn't mean that it is only genetically based. "Homosexuality is extraordinarily complex and variable," Mr. Bagemihl said. "We look at animals as pure biology and pure genetics, and they are not." He noted that "the occurrence of same-sex behavior in animals provides support for the nurture side as well." He cited as an example the ruff, a type of Arctic sandpiper. There are four different classes of male ruffs, each differing from the others genetically. The two that differ most from each other are most similar in their homosexual behaviors.

Ms. Zuk said, "You have inclinations that are more or less supported by our genes and in some environmental circumstances get expressed." She used the analogy of right- or left-handedness, thought to be genetically based. "But you can teach naturally left-handed children to use their right hand," she pointed out.

Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."

But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."

Mr. Bagemihl is also wary of extrapolating. "In Nazi Germany, one very common interpretation of homosexuality was that it was animalistic behavior, subhuman," he said.

What the animal studies do show, Ms. Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think."

"You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate."

In bonobos, she noted, "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction."

"Sexual expression means more than making babies," Ms. Zuk said. "Why are we surprised? People are animals."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

February 18, 2004

Gay Marriage in the States

Lately it has seemed as if gay marriage was taking over the national policy debate. Massachusetts has been embroiled in a heated constitutional battle because of it. The presidential campaign is circling hesitantly around it. And in the last few days in San Francisco, more than 2,000 gay couples from across the country have flocked to City Hall and stood in the rain to get the marriage licenses suddenly offered to them by the city.

The Massachusetts and San Francisco events are a welcome indication that the nation is having a long-overdue discussion about the right of gay people to marry, and that the states are beginning to serve as laboratories for reform in this important area.

Americans have come a long way in a short time when it comes to gay rights. As recently as 1986, the Supreme Court rejected a claim that the Constitution protects consensual gay sex as "at best, facetious." Last year, however, the court overruled itself and struck down state sodomy laws as violating the Constitution's liberty guarantee. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy portrayed constitutional history as a forward march in which "persons in every generation can invoke" the Constitution "in their own search for greater freedom."

Gays have made significant strides in areas like employment and housing, but have faced considerably more opposition on the right to marry. There are, clearly, some people who object to any recognition of same-sex unions. But for many more, the hesitation concerns the use of the word "marriage." The uncertainty many Americans feel is reflected in the fact that poll responses on this subject vary widely, depending on the precise way in which the questions are worded.

This page fully supports the right of gay men and lesbians to marry, and we believe that in time they will have this right across the nation. But we also see a practical value in how the issue is currently unfolding. Louis Brandeis, the great Supreme Court justice, said he believed that the states should serve as social laboratories for the nation. Massachusetts and California — and Vermont, before them, with its civil unions law — are fulfilling that role right now. They have already started a national discussion of gay marriage, a very healthy thing in itself. If gay marriage takes hold in Massachusetts or California — in both states, the issue is still up in the air — it will allow the residents of slower-moving states to observe the experiment in action.

Opponents of gay marriage have been loudly calling for a constitutional amendment prohibiting any state from recognizing gay marriages. Despite the parade of horribles they haul out, their greatest fear appears to be that giving gay men and women the right to join legally and permanently with the ones they love will work out just fine, and that the American people will see that the fears being foisted on them are unfounded.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

I am opposed to permitting gay couples to marry.
I think that it should be a requirement.
:)

[Edward]

Like Zippy, I am opposed to permitting gay couples to marry, but for a different reason. :)

I think the institution of marriage has to be abolished, whether for gay or straight couples. There is no need for marriage in modern society, paternity is determined by DNA, and property issues handled by lawyers.

[Ninjahedge]

Who cares?

Let them get married, I really do not give a squawk. If people who are not religeous are allowed to be married, then it is no longer a religeous act. AS SUCH, it should be allowed, by law.

Condoned is a different thing. If the Catholic Church still forbids it, let them.

I think it is about time that gay couples have to go through marriage tax penalties, divorce court and other such legal benefits that marriage allows.

Just stop showing them kissing each other all the time on the news, will ya! (I have my own hangups about that, but it should not prohibit them from doing something like this).

[Kris]

February 21, 2004

Has the Time Arrived to Allow Gay Marriage? (7 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "Gay Marriage in the States" (editorial, Feb. 18):

Your support for gay marriage is praiseworthy. It is not the sex of the marriage partners that threatens this social institution, as conservatives would have us believe, but the willingness of each couple to abide by self-determined levels of commitment.

The divorce rate in same-sex marriages is likely to be much lower than that of heterosexual marriages. With shotgun weddings and nuptials resulting from parental pressure unlikely, gays and lesbians have a running head start to successful unions.

MATTHEW MENKEN
Princeton, N.J., Feb. 18, 2004

•

To the Editor:

The actions in California, Massachusetts and Vermont do establish social "laboratories," as you note (editorial, Feb. 18). But I am shocked to see how unperturbed you are by the vastness of this experiment.

The experiment you describe has been foisted on us by a handful of judges and local officials who have circumvented the normal legislative process. Given the large number of people potentially involved, this is reckless and irresponsible.

Considering the damage wrought by other recent social experiments, like no-fault divorce, we should be more circumspect.

FLORIAN GAHBAUER
New York, Feb. 18, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Rushing to Say 'I Do' Before the City Is Told `You Can't' " (news article, Feb. 18):

The American experience has been sustained by the idea that we are a nation of laws and not of kings, and therefore no one is above the law. Whatever our view of allowing gay couples to be afforded the same privileges as married couples, we should not take comfort in what is happening in San Francisco.

Abandoning the rule of law should not be seen as the way to solve complex social issues. Would it be applauded if, say, a conservative mayor decided on his own that in his city abortions would be prohibited or that public money could constitutionally be given to private schools? If mayors are allowed, by a nod and a wink, to ignore the rule of law, where will we wind up?

(Rev.) JOSEPH WATERS
Temple Terrace, Fla., Feb. 19, 2004

•

To the Editor:

A truth overlooked in the gay marriage debate (editorial, Feb. 18) is that marriage status granted by the states is a civil contract, not a religious one. Consequently, all marriage licenses are evidence of a civil union only.

Sanctity of marriage is a religious concept, relevant to unions consecrated by religious institutions. Perhaps the answer is to legislate civil unions for all, both straight and gay couples.

MARCY E. FELLER
New York, Feb. 18, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Gay Marriage in the States" (editorial, Feb. 18):

My partner and I, both United States Army veterans, have been living in a monogamous relationship for 17 years, with the needs and responsibilities of our heterosexual married friends but none of their legal rights. More troublesome is that the rights we do have are in grave danger.

Acceptance of gay marriage is inevitable down the line, but this isn't the year to insist on it. Gay and lesbian couples ought to push instead for full equal rights for civil unions. That will provide far less ammunition for the religious right in the coming campaign.

ROBERT REILLY
New York, Feb. 18, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Gay Marriage in the States" (editorial, Feb. 18):

I hear the question asked over and over again: How would gay marriage have any negative impact on traditional marriage?

Gay marriage devalues the holy institution of marriage even further than it has been devalued by public policy errors like no-fault divorce. Marriage is a special relationship between a man and a woman that has served the good of society throughout history. Gay marriage redefines marriage as something less than an unalienable right ordained by nature, and nature's God.

Marriage is a public institution created for the good of society, not a private institution created for self-fulfillment. If I have an ounce of gold and the government suddenly announces that sandstone will now be called gold and valued equally, what will happen to the value of my gold? It will crash, and so will the economy.

So will it be with gay marriage. Marriage will be further devalued, and so will our entire social order.

(Rev.) BILL BANUCHI
Executive Director
New York Christian Coalition
Newburgh, N.Y., Feb. 18, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Rushing to Say 'I Do' Before the City Is Told 'You Can't' " (news article, Feb. 18):

In this day and age, what we call marriage is really just civil union at the outset, and the marriage grows from within. As a 30-year veteran on the marriage front, I can say with a great deal of confidence that allowing gay marriage as an option is likely to be more beneficial than not.

For most of us, marriage begins with a lifetime commitment, and we succeed or fail on that basis. If that is the standard, and same-sex partners are willing to live up to that goal, I fail to see the harm to anyone.

ARTHUR R. SILEN
Davis, Calif., Feb. 18, 2004

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

Gay marriage devalues the holy institution of marriage even further than it has been devalued by public policy errors like no-fault divorce.
A simplistic statement, but it can be argued that no-fault divorce hastened, or maybe it was the logical response to, the erosion of the institution of marriage.

Back in the early 70s, the reality of divorce statistics was mostly unacknowledged. The normal life was: you dated, met the right partner, got married, and raised a family. Even TV programs avoided portraying single parents as divorced; they were usually widowed. At a time when homosexuals were getting rudimentary acknowledgement in society, many married people, although we never would have admitted this at the time, envied a lifestyle of relationships without the pressures of contractual commitment. In fact, one of the arguments against homosexual behavior was that there was no real committment in the relationship. How ironic that the debate has reversed.

Probably a greater cause of a divorce rate of over 50% is not the ease of getting out of a marriage, but the ease of getting into one.

[Kris]

February 22, 2004

With Albany Mum on Same-Sex Marriage, New York Gay Advocates Look to Courts

By AL BAKER

ALBANY, Feb. 21 - The census counts 46,490 same-sex-partner households in New York State, and some estimate there are a half-million gay men and lesbians living in the state. Yet New York has been strangely quiet as the issue of same-sex marriage has played out in Boston, in San Francisco, in Vermont and in other states across the country.

There have been no Stonewall-style protests, no street demonstrations at City Hall. Gay and lesbian leaders have not been besieging the State Capitol.

Two declared gay people serving in the State Legislature - both considered activists when it comes to such issues - are not exactly bombarding the legislative leaders with bills to change state laws affecting who can marry and who cannot.

While the silence might seem odd, advocates for expanding the rights of homosexuals and their families say it is based on a combination of pragmatism and resignation. Gay leaders and rank-and-file lawmakers say they do not expect Albany's leaders to address the issue of civil marriages, and certainly not to resolve it, any time in the near future.

Gov. George E. Pataki says he is comfortable with the current laws. His fellow Republican, Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, is staunchly against same-sex marriage. The Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, has not taken a position on the issue and his aides say he has no plans to bring it up in conference.

More important, the advocates say, they believe they may have a more effective means for changing the state's laws: the state's courts.

Advocates and lawyers said they were waiting for cases to emerge that may force the courts to address the constitutionality of New York's domestic-relations law, which has historically been interpreted to accept only marriages by those of the opposite sex.

At the same time, they are also looking for cases to better establish the rights of partners in same-sex relationships - primarily by testing the state's recognition of same-sex marriages performed out of state.

As such, advocates and legal experts say, they expect the issue of same-sex marriage to play out in New York in much the same way it has in Massachusetts, before panels of judges.

"I think that what will happen, more quickly than the Legislature acting, is that people will return from other jurisdictions and seek to have some level of governmental recognition, based on being married elsewhere, and that that will precipitate a court review,'' said Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick, a Democrat from Manhattan who is the Legislature's only openly lesbian lawmaker.

Advocates and gay leaders say they are not quite seeking out a test case to press the issue here but expect one to emerge from the hundreds of marriages that some estimate have taken place between New Yorkers of the same sex in Canada since two provinces of that country made it legal in July, and from the current spate of marriages in San Francisco.

Massachusetts, too, which will start recognizing same-sex marriages in May, may ultimately contribute cases, and there is talk in such disparate places as Chicago and New Mexico of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"I would say it's totally true that it's the natural progression that individuals are going to look to have their legal marriages fully honored and respected here in New York,'' said Ross Levi, director of government affairs for the Empire State Pride Agenda, the largest gay and lesbian political organization in the state. "That may lead them, very well, to the courts."

Obviously, gays and lesbians would welcome a victory to allow same-sex marriages in New York, on constitutional grounds, which would require either a court challenge or a new law. But at the least, they are looking to the marriages in other states for court victories on individual social justice issues.

For example, among other things, they want funeral leave from work when a partner dies, the ability to make medical decisions for a partner who cannot and the right to collect death benefits if a partner is a uniformed officer killed in the line of duty - all of which can be addressed in a case seeking those rights in New York's courts.

Of course, should a case reach the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, it would be received by a bench far more conservative than it has been in the last two decades, said Vincent M. Bonventre, a law professor at Albany Law School.

"That is why groups that represent gay rights are very hesitant to bring a challenge in New York courts for civil unions or gay marriages,'' Mr. Bonventre said. "Because they don't trust this court to be willing to do what it might have done in the past."

Thomas K. Duane, a Democrat from Manhattan and the only openly gay member of the State Senate, said there was also the option of the federal courts.

"If the Legislature doesn't take action, the courts will provide the leadership,'' said Mr. Duane, who is planning a March 3 forum on the topic in Albany and has drafted a marriage equality bill.

Gary D. Buseck, the legal director at Lambda Legal, a national gay and lesbian advocacy group, said the flurry of same-sex marriages elsewhere might finally prompt a serious discussion in New York's Legislature.

Short of that, he said, the developments in California, Canada and Massachusetts might well lead to court cases on recognition of marriage issues "without ever having to touch" the broader constitutional question in New York.

As an example, he spoke of the case of John Langan. A lower court ruled that Mr. Langan must be recognized under the state's wrongful-death statute as the surviving member of a gay couple who had obtained a civil union in Vermont. The case is under appeal.

"That case could just as easily have happened, or could happen in the future, with a couple that has a San Francisco marriage license who are New York residents,'' Mr. Buseck said.

Some gay leaders are also looking to New Jersey, seeing it as more likely to change its laws than New York - or at least more likely to do it sooner. Lambda is now representing seven same-sex couples from New Jersey who tried to get marriage licenses in various places within the state but failed, a case that appears headed for the New Jersey Supreme Court, its highest court

In Massachusetts, it was a court case brought by 14 people, gay and lesbian partners from across the state who all sought marriages licenses in 2001 from their town or city offices, that led to the state's highest court to rule on Nov. 18 that gay couples have the right to marry under the state's Constitution.

In California, the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, also took a legal-minded approach. Before he opened the doors to same-sex marriages, Mr. Newsom decided that the State Constitution's guarantees of equality allowed the policy; though it has led to some thorny legal questions, opponents so far are faring poorly in the courts.

New York has an array of other laws in place that address the issues that affect homosexuals, including a gay rights bill that was finally passed in December 2002 after 30 years of efforts by advocates. That measure simply added sexual orientation to race, religion, age and other factors that may not be used to discriminate against someone.

In 1989, the Court of Appeals expanded the definition of family to include same-sex partners for the purposes of inhabiting rent-controlled apartments after a tenant dies. A month after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Pataki issued an executive order making surviving domestic partners eligible for government relief, and the state provides domestic partnership benefits for its employees.

But symbolism in the case of marriage is important, too, and the issue has ignited a battle throughout the nation, become a major issue in the presidential campaign and fueled heated debates in the White House and in Congress.

"There is nothing to say that a few years from now, or sooner, that New York State won't be ready to recognize the equality that our families should have,'' Mr. Levi said.

Meanwhile, if there is little effort in Albany to change the laws to allow same-sex marriages, there is also silence on the other side of the issue. A bill that would outlaw same-sex marriages is just as stalled as the one to allow it.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

February 25, 2004

Putting Bias in the Constitution

With his re-election campaign barely started and his conservative base already demanding tribute, President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution. The amendment he announced support for yesterday could not only keep gay couples from marrying, as he maintains, but could also threaten the basic legal protections gay Americans have won in recent years. It would inject meanspiritedness and exclusion into the document embodying our highest principles and aspirations.

If Mr. Bush had been acting as a president yesterday, rather than a presidential candidate, he would have tried to guide the nation on the divisive question of what rights gay Americans have. Across the nation, elected officials and others have been weighing in on whether they believe gays should be allowed to marry, have civil unions, adopt, visit their partners in hospitals and be free from employment discrimination. Except for a throwaway line about proceeding with "kindness and good will and decency," the president's speech was a call for taking rights away from gay Americans.

President Bush's studied unwillingness to talk about the rights gay people do have is particularly significant given the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment now pending in Congress. It calls for denying same-sex couples not only marriage, but also its "legal incidents." It could well be used to deny gay couples even economic benefits, which are now widely recognized by cities, states and corporations. Such an amendment could radically roll back the rights of millions of Americans.

In his remarks yesterday, President Bush tried to create a sense of crisis. He talked of the highest Massachusetts court's recognition of gay marriage, San Francisco officials' decision to grant marriage licenses to gay couples and a New Mexico county's doing the same thing. He did not say the New Mexico attorney general found that gay marriages violate state law, the California attorney general is asking the California Supreme Court to review San Francisco's actions, and Massachusetts is considering amending its State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The president, who believes so strongly in states' rights in other contexts, should let the states do their jobs and work out their marriage laws before resorting to a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution has been amended over the years to bring women, blacks and young people into fuller citizenship. President Bush's amendment would be the first adopted to stigmatize and exclude a group of Americans. Polls show that while a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, many would prefer to allow the states to resolve the issue rather than adopting a constitutional amendment. They understand what President Bush does not: the Constitution is too important to be folded, spindled or mutilated for political gain.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

February 26, 2004

Bloomberg Explains Stand on Gay Marriage Ban

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, pelted with questions about the gay marriage issue, declined yesterday to say whether or not he supports the idea of such unions. But he reiterated his belief that there was no need for the constitutional amendment proposed by President Bush, saying the matter should be left up to states.

"I believe it is up to the states, not to the federal government," Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference in the Bronx. "The president seems to call for a constitutional amendment. I don't think we need a constitutional amendment."

The mayor declined to respond to further questions about his beliefs on gay marriage.

On Tuesday, President Bush said he would like an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage, saying the union of a man and a woman is "the most fundamental institution of civilization.'' Mr. Bloomberg's position on the amendment is his first major departure from the president on a policy issue.

In 2002, the mayor signed Local Law 24, which recognizes civil unions legally entered into in other jurisdictions. But because marriages between people of the same sex are not permitted under New York State law, the mayor will not ask the city clerk to issue licenses to gay couples, said Mr. Bloomberg's press secretary, Edward Skyler.

Mr. Bloomberg has placed himself in an interesting position with gay voters. By going against the president, he endears himself to those who oppose a constitutional amendment. But many gay voters may wish for him to express stronger support for the states to permit gay marriages.

"It's wonderful news that the mayor has publicly spoken out against this amendment," said Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, one of the largest gay organizations in the country. "We think it's important that New Yorkers hear from their mayor on this issue."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

February 26, 2004

Gay Marriage, the Constitution and Culture Wars (10 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Backs Ban in Constitution on Gay Marriage" (front page, Feb. 25):

The sanctity of marriage doesn't depend on keeping same-sex individuals from calling their union a marriage; the sanctity of marriage depends on what individuals put into it.

Why are we attacking the sanctity of our Constitution with an amendment that would prevent individuals who wish to commit to each other through marriage from doing so?

We need to remember that we have a separation of church and state and that "marriage," as a right allowed to all under the Constitution, may be different from "marriage" as performed by a church.

KATHY WALCH
Madison, Wis., Feb. 25, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Backs Ban in Constitution on Gay Marriage" (front page, Feb. 25): My partner and I go through life loving, respecting and caring for each other, and we try to do the same with every other person whose path we come across. That is also our legacy to Anna, our daughter.

In the six years of our committed relationship, we have never been told by anybody that our love and commitment are different from that of heterosexual couples. Until this week.

Now I can't help but feeling worried, pained, upset and alarmed.

MARIA MINGUEZ
Fremont, Calif., Feb. 25, 2004

•

To the Editor:

President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (front page, Feb. 25) is the step of a courageous politician.

Too many of our elected officials are afraid of alienating voters on this issue. The president's stand is morally correct and right.

Gays can call their union by any other name. But no! They want it to be called marriage. Marriage is a contract, thousands of years old. It is meant to recognize the contract between a man and a woman.

Gays can have their legally recognized commitments and unions. But they must go by another name. The term "marriage" is taken by heterosexuals. Don't rewrite the dictionary, the Bible or ancient laws of mankind.

MIKE GUTIERREZ
New York, Feb. 25, 2004

•

To the Editor:

President Bush's support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is a shrewd political move (front page, Feb. 25).

In one stroke, Mr. Bush has shored up his extreme right wing and unleashed a powerful culture war calculated to divide and dispirit his opponents.

And true to form, he once again abandons his states' rights principles and exploits the basest, most divisive elements of American culture at the expense of tolerance, compassion and a sense of national community.

This is a skillful and shameful harbinger of the nasty general election campaign that is to come.

MARK L. MOSLEY
Berkeley, Calif., Feb. 25, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Backs Ban in Constitution on Gay Marriage" (front page, Feb. 25):

The proposed amendment would do grave harm to many and nothing to protect marriage. The amendment would not only forbid gay marriage but would deny its "legal incidents."

That could include health benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance, child custody and much more.

In more than 20 years of pastoral ministry, I have seen many threats to marriage, but these threats haven't come from gay men and lesbians. I'm certain that a survey of pastors, priests and rabbis would confirm that adultery, abuse and addictions are far more destructive.

Economic hardship could be added to the list.

There are many people of faith whose voices haven't been heard in this debate. Now is the time for more of us to speak.

(Rev.) BARBARA K. LUNDBLAD
New York, Feb. 25, 2004

The writer is an associate professor at Union Theological Seminary.

•

To the Editor:

Re "Bush Backs Ban in Constitution on Gay Marriage" (front page, Feb. 25):

Perhaps all marriages should first be civil unions, and then if the couple wishes to have their "marriage" blessed, they can go to their church, temple or mosque of choice.

LAURENT A. FISHER
New York, Feb. 25, 2004

•

To the Editor:

President Bush opposes gay marriage (front page, Feb. 25). John Kerry opposes gay marriage. I oppose gay marriage. The majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.

Gay marriage is wrong and will be destructive to our society. Most people can look at nature to figure this out.

Gay marriage would threaten the domestic tranquillity, general welfare and be a injustice to a large majority of "we the people."

Gays should have a right to civil unions, but not marriage.

JAY CARLSON
Fayetteville, N.C., Feb. 25, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Regarding a proposed amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage, you write that "President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution" (editorial, Feb. 24). Since when is adding an amendment radically rewriting the Constitution?

And what is "mean-spirited" about reaffirming the definition of "marriage," an institution that has formed an essential part of human society for centuries?

Once you tamper with the definition of "marriage," any combination of members can constitute a marriage, and who is to say it can't? How exactly will one argue against this?

Also, if the definition of marriage changes according to society's fluctuating views, what is to keep society from redefining other words, like "slavery" or "religion"?

Just because we all agree on what these words mean now doesn't mean that they cannot be redefined to conform to one particular group's agenda.

It's not about gay rights but about tampering with established definitions in law.

MARY DEL RIO
Falls Church, Va., Feb. 25, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Putting Bias in the Constitution" (editorial, Feb. 25):

President Bush, like millions of his fellow Americans, is opposed to legally changing the definition of marriage.

Unlike his executive counterpart in San Francisco, who is breaking his oath of office, Mr. Bush is appealing to the rule of law and allowing the people of the United States to have a say.

If a majority wants to make marriage gender-neutral, then Mr. Bush will be voted out. Representatives in Congress and the state legislatures can vote down the amendment, and the issue will be settled.

If a majority wants to keep marriage as it has been throughout the ages, Mr. Bush will be re-elected. The members of Congress and the legislatures should follow the will of the majorities of their constituencies and the amendment should pass.

Why is this editorial page against the grand workings of democracy all of a sudden? Judges and maverick executives are making their own law in the land. It is about time to get the legislative branch to do its job!

CHRISTIAN ELLISON
Westfield, N.J., Feb. 25, 2004

•

To the Editor:

Re "Keeping Faith With His Base" (news analysis, front page, Feb. 25):

While I understand the political calculus that would lead the anonymous House Republican leadership aide quoted to say that a gay marriage ban "gets you . . . churchgoing Democrats," it is profoundly insulting on a more personal level.

As a "churchgoing Democrat," I chafe at the implicit attempt of this person to associate me with supporters of this amendment.

From the perspective of my faith, I see this proposed amendment as a convergence between blatant hatred and half-considered theology. Please spare "churchgoing Democrats" from being tarred with this brush!

BRIAN CUBBAGE
Louisville, Ky., Feb. 25, 2004


February 27, 2004

Gay Couples to Be Wed Today in New Paltz, Mayor Declares

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and THOMAS CRAMPTON

The battle over gay marriages has moved to the upstate college village of New Paltz, where the mayor announced yesterday that several gay couples would be married there today.

The mayor, Jason West, said his office expected to marry at least six same-sex couples today, in what appeared to be the first such ceremonies in New York State, where same-sex couples have historically been refused marriage licenses.

Mr. West, who is 26 and was elected last year on the Green Party ticket, said that marriages for gay couples was a matter of equal rights. "I will simply be fulfilling my oath of office as mayor to solemnize a marriage and provide equal protection under the law for all citizens," Mr. West said by telephone yesterday.

The national debate over whether gay couples should have the right to marry has gained momentum in recent months, as San Francisco and Boston began to issue licenses. In New York State, advocates and opponents of gay marriage interpret the law differently. Mr. West said the New Paltz marriages would be the first in New York State, though it was not clear last night whether the unions would be legally recognized.

"This is about family values and helping two consenting adults spend the rest of their lives together," the mayor said. "They just want the same standing as other married couples in terms of hospital visitation rights, pensions and other things."

President Bush announced this week that he would support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Governor George E. Pataki has said the issue should be decided by the states. Some states have passed laws that outlaw gay marriages. Earlier this month, Ohio became the 38th state to pass such a ban. New York does not have a ban.

In the village of New Paltz, it was a newly arrived gay couple, married in the Netherlands, that inspired two of today's participants in the ceremony. "Basically Jeff, my partner of six years, got wedding envy," one of the men, Billiam van Roestenberg, said. "He saw the pictures and wanted us to have the same." The couple met six years ago on a sidewalk outside Barney's in New York. Mr. van Roestenberg said they had decided to get married "before the Constitution changes."

Mr. van Roestenberg said he and his partner, Jeffrey S. McGowan, both 39, planned for the ceremony to take place in a bed and breakfast inn in a three-story pink Victorian house. But yesterday, more couples called and expressed interest, and Mr. West said the venue might need to be changed to accommodate everyone.

Even if the marriage licenses are issued, the real test will be how they stand up in court against legal challenges. Mr. West said he would defy any such challenges to the marriages. "I am willing to go to jail to hold these marriages," he said. "This is a stand any decent American should take."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

Mayor puts state in gay marriage debate

Staff Writer

NEW PALTZ, N.Y. -- The 26-year-old mayor of this Hudson Valley village says he will begin performing gay marriages Friday, calling it "my moral obligation."

Mayor Jason West, who won office last year on the Green Party line, said he intends to marry at least four same-gender couples at a private bed and breakfast in the village. The move could make this college village 75 miles north of New York City another flash point in national debate over gay marriage.

"We as a society have no right to discriminate in marriage any more than we have the right to discriminate when someone votes or when someone wants to hold office," West said in a phone interview. "The people who would forbid gays from marrying in this country are those who would have made Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus."

In recent months, gay marriage has exploded onto the national scene as judges and local officials have aggressively attempted to redefine marriage. A bill in the New York Legislature would ban same-sex marriages, saying a "marriage or union is absolutely void if contracted by two persons of the same sex, regardless of whether such marriage or union is recognized or solemnized in another jurisdiction."

Similar bills have died without action in the past. At least 34 states have enacted so-called defense of marriage laws.

Amid the furor, President Bush announced Tuesday that he will back a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage — citing recent court decisions.

West said he believes New York state law gives him the power to marry the couples. New York's attorney general has not issued a ruling on the question.

West won the mayor's race in this village dominated by the State University of New York at New Paltz last year at age 26, surprising many residents.

Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said nothing specifically outlaws the ceremonies.

"Bravo, bravo for the mayor," she said. "Equal rights for gay couples are long overdue. They are entitled to equal treatment under the law, including the right to marry and the family protections enjoyed by heterosexual couples."

Vincent Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School, said nothing in New York law explicitly prohibits a same-sex wedding but that the framers of the constitution "clearly were contemplating opposite sex marriages."

In Iowa, 15 gay and lesbian couples plan Friday to seek marriage licenses in Iowa City, testing state law that defines marriage strictly as a union of a man and a woman.

"I fully expect to be turned down, and that in itself is significant," said Janelle Rettig, who is organizing the event with her partner of 15 years, Robin Butler.

Johnson County Recorder Kim Painter said she will uphold state law and deny the requests.

Rettig said she and other gay and lesbian couples from Iowa City, another liberal college town, have been emboldened by support from President Bush and others for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"What is missing from this whole debate is that these are real people with real concerns and real families," Rettig said. "And when the politicians use us as their political punching bags, they lose sight that we are real people."

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

[Kris]

February 27, 2004

Gay Marriage Debate Shifts to Small New York Township

By THOMAS CRAMPTON and CHRISTINE HAUSER

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/02/27/national/27cnd-marriage.184.jpg
Billiam van Roestenberg, right, and Jeffrey S. McGowan were among the first gay couples to exchange vows in ceremonies today in New Paltz, N.Y.

NEW PALTZ, N.Y., Feb 27 — After making headlines in San Francisco and Massachusetts, the national debate over gay marriage shifted today to the Hudson Valley community of New Paltz, where the mayor performed wedding ceremonies for at least 20 same-sex couples.

"I just want to be equal," said Billiam van Roestenberg, 39, who spoke to CNN after he and his partner, Jeffrey S. McGowan , exchanged vows.

This afternoon, the State Health Department called on Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to seek an injunction to "prevent further illegal conduct" by the mayor, according to a statement issued by the department, whose commissioner, Antonia C. Novello, is appointed by Gov. George E. Pataki. The department also called on Mr. Spitzer to declare the ceremonies that had been performed "null and void."

Mr. Spitzer's office had no immediate comment.

Another couple who exchanged vows here today, Barry Nevins and his partner, who asked that his name not be published, said they had been together for more than four years, and had even exchanged rings and vows on a Caribbean cruise trip.

But today, angered by President Bush's call this week for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, they went to New Paltz to take their relationship one step further.

The mayor, Jason West, performed the ceremonies for same-sex couples, saying that it was a matter of equal rights. The 26-year old mayor, elected last year on the Green Party ticket, expressed no concern about any potential legal sanctions against him. "I will be performing these solemnizations for the foreseeable future," he said.

Governor Pataki was weighing whether he should or even could issue an executive order to halt the proceedings, according to two state officials outside the administration. In a brief discussion with reporters early in the day, Mr. Pataki said that New York State law was clear and that no new law was needed.

"This law states that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Mr. Pataki said, according to a transcript provided by his office. "Our attorneys are talking with the Health Department and with the attorney general's office to see what steps they may determine are appropriate."

Aides to Attorney General Spitzer, queried before the Health Department's request for an injunction, said that he too was trying to figure out what the state's legal position should be on Mr. West's actions today.

As in other parts of the United States, the event highlighted divisions of opinion. Couples lined up outside of the Village Hall, some carrying flowers, while a few people carried signs of protest, including one that said, "Gay marriage not morally right."

An official in the town clerk's office said that marriage licenses could not be given out to same-sex couples, and therefore the legal basis for the marriages performed today was in question.

The Village of New Paltz's Web site called the ceremonies "gender-neutral" marriages. And Joshua Rosenkranz, a lawyer for the mayor, contended that under New York State domestic law, a marriage is valid once it is solemnized by an official or judge.

Mr. Nevins, a 42-year-old hospital administrator, said that he had no idea whether his marriage to his partner would be legally recognized any more than their Caribbean marriage ceremony three years ago.

But as with many of the gay couples trying to get marriage licenses, that is not the whole point.

"It is a statement to say that no one has the right to tell me who I can marry," Mr. Nevins said in a telephone interview from the town clerk's office in New Paltz, where he was unable to get a license but was given directions to the mayor's office.

On Tuesday, President Bush, citing San Francisco's decision to issue marriage licenses to gay couples despite state laws that appear to be to the contrary, said that the union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution. He said he supported an amendment that would counteract "activist judges" who have issued rulings in favor of gay marriage.

More than 3,300 same-sex couples have gotten married in San Francisco since Feb. 12, after the mayor urged municipal officials to issue licenses to same-sex couples, and California courts are now considering legal challenges both to the marriages and to the laws that forbid them.

The comedian and talk show host Rosie O'Donnell, who has become a prominent advocate for gay rights since she announced she was a lesbian in 2002, married her partner of six years in San Francisco on Thursday, an act that she said had been "inspired" by President Bush's remarks.

In addition to New Paltz, the mayor of Schenectady was also considering allowing same-sex marriage ceremonies, according to a state official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because, with events moving so quickly, the official did not want to be seen as encouraging or discouraging such actions.

Today, television trucks converged on New Paltz, located not far from the Hudson River and the Shawangunk Mountains, a ridge of rugged and rocky cliffs popular with rock climbers.

"This would have to be the largest coverage of New Paltz since I joined the department 28 years ago," the township's police chief, Raymond K. Zappone, said.

Mr. Nevins said he and his partner had driven two hours to reach the mayor's office.

"Gay and lesbian people have been persecuted and oppressed," he said. "If Rosie O'Donnell can go and get married, I think we can too."

Marc Santora contributed reporting for this article from Albany, Thomas Crampton contributed reporting from New Paltz and Christine Hauser reported from New York City.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

February 29, 2004

Mayor Wedding Gay Couples Has History of Activism

By THOMAS CRAMPTON

NEW PALTZ, N.Y., Feb. 28 - At age 6, his father says, he refused to eat McDonald's food because of environmental concerns about plastic-foam containers.

At age 17, he declined all Christmas presents, to protest commercialization of the holiday.

On Friday, at age 26, Jason West became the first elected official in New York State to solemnize gay marriage, performing ceremonies for 25 couples.

In undertaking a ceremony that attracted hundreds of supporters and a few protesters, a house painter with a rusted-out pickup truck and unpaid university bills has galvanized the university students in this tree-lined village and, in all likelihood, has sparked a traffic jam of gay couples coming to get married next Saturday.

He has also infuriated establishment politicians and received a few nasty phone messages that he will be passing on to the police.

"I will not be stopped by the threatening phone messages or threats of jail," Mr. West said. "My main concern right now is how to continue the process while making sure not to disrupt the village too much."

Straight, single, ambitious and at ease in front of television cameras, Mr. West said two even more youthful starts of his political career ended in failure. At age 23, in 2000, and again two years later, his bids to join the State Assembly on the Green Party ticket fell flat when he won little more than 3 percent of the vote each time.

"I lost by a landslide both times," Mr. West said. "But we did successfully bring the issues of universal health care and unionizing workers into the debate."

In running last year for mayor of New Paltz, a village about 80 miles north of New York City that is home to a State University of New York campus, Mr. West used a clown on stilts and people dressed in a chicken suit to goad voters into going to the polls. He promised to fight for affordable housing, tenants' rights, environmental protection and open government.

While motivating students - one third of his voters listed campus dormitory addresses - Mr. West also benefited from a vote divided between the 16-year incumbent mayor and a long-serving village trustee who campaigned to replace him. Victorious by a margin of 64 votes out of the 869 cast, Mr. West now leads a village board of which three of five members are in the Green Party.

"It is true the voting for mayor was divided, but we won a majority of the seats because those guys had been in power so long they had lost touch with the true electorate," Mr. West said. "The people in this town are not landlords. They are young, broke and living month to month."

More than 75 percent of the 6,034 village residents are under age 35, and more than 70 percent rent their homes, according to the 2000 census. "There is no urban misery here, but many people are like me," Mr. West said. "We sometimes have trouble meeting our bills."

Mr. West conducted the marriage ceremonies on Friday wearing the only tie he owns, and a $120 suit he purchased from J. C. Penney. "One gay friend criticized my dress sense," Mr. West said.

His vehicle, a 1987 Toyota pickup with large rust holes, was given to him by his father after his own car, a 1987 Ford Taurus, had an electrical failure three weeks ago. "I am waiting for the warmer weather to see if I can revive the car," Mr. West said. "This level of existence is not something that the former village leaders can relate to."

Although he has completed all course work at the local SUNY campus for a double major in history and fine arts, with a 3.7 grade point average, Mr. West said, he has not received a degree because he still owes the university $300 in fees.

His critics decry him as young, inexperienced and more interested in publicity than in maintaining the aging village infrastructure. Critics say he should worry more about how the century-old New Paltz village sewage system is falling apart.

"A village mayor should take care of things like the village sewage system, not issues like gay marriage," said Robert F. Feldman, a long-serving village trustee who lost out to Mr. West in his bid to become mayor. "It was incredibly unfair to drag this village to international attention just to bolster himself."

Mr. Feldman further criticized plans by Mr. West to remove laws prohibiting couches or unlicensed cars from front yards in the village.

For his part, Mr. West said the laws against couches and unlicensed cars on lawns demonstrated how far removed the village's former leaders had become from its electorate.

"The former village leaders don't face the same problems of most people who live here," Mr. West said. "Some people have old cars that break down sometimes, like me for example."

As to charges of capitalizing on the current wave of attention given to gay marriage, Mr. West said he had spoken publicly on the issue as long ago as his 2000 campaign for the State Assembly.

"This really is not about me, it is about 25 couples making a declaration of love, devotion and commitment," Mr. West said. "It is totally crazy that such a small ceremony gets so much attention."


FRANK RICH

The Joy of Gay Marriage

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/02/29/arts/rich.184.jpg
Lora Pertle, left, and Cissie Bonini, lesbian newlyweds in San Francisco.

Here's the denouement of the epic drama over gay marriage. It's going to happen, it's going to happen within a generation, and it's going to happen even though George W. Bush teed off his re-election campaign this week by calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw it. As the country has now had weeks to digest, it has already happened in bulk in San Francisco, where images of couples waiting all night in the rain to be wed finally wiped Janet Jackson off our TV screens. The first of those couples, Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were celebrating a partnership of 51 years. Take that, heterosexual marriage! The most famous practitioner of mixed-sex nuptials this year, Britney Spears, partook of a Vegas marriage that clocked in at 55 hours.

Whatever their short-term legal fate, the San Francisco weddings mark a new high-water mark in one of the most fast-paced cultural tsunamis America has seen. As Evan Wolfson, the civil rights lawyer who founded Freedom to Marry, says, "An act as unremarkable as getting a wedding license" has been transformed by the people embracing it, much as the unremarkable act of sitting at a Formica lunch counter was transformed by an act of civil disobedience at a Woolworth's in North Carolina 44 years ago this month. Gavin Newsom, the heterosexual, Irish Catholic mayor of San Francisco, described his proactive strategy for advancing same-sex marriage to Time magazine: "Put a human face on it. Let's not talk about it in theory. Give me a story. Give me lives." And so now there have been thousands of gay wedding stories, many of them with the couples' parents and children in the supporting cast, at the same City Hall where Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio famously got hitched to no good end a half-century ago.

Like other provocative steps in this civil rights movement or the black civil rights movement before it, the San Francisco weddings may cause a morning-after backlash, though perhaps not as stormy as the one President Bush is courting. The big picture remains the same: this is a revolution churning unstoppably through the culture, where it took root long before the law and politicians, especially those in Washington, started to catch up. In 1986, for instance, the Supreme Court upheld antisodomy laws. But even then Hollywood was advancing the story: Rock Hudson, heterosexual heartthrob No. 1 of the 1950's, had died of AIDS just months earlier, and his homosexuality was a revelation in a country where, polls showed, only 24 percent said they knew anyone who was gay.

A few months after Hudson's death, when I was a drama critic covering the rise of AIDS casualties and AIDS plays in the New York theater, Esquire magazine asked me to write an essay contemplating the impact of gay culture on heterosexual American culture. I knew little about it beyond the theater. But as I researched the story, I discovered that the queer eye was everywhere in my supposedly unambiguously straight world, from the Calvin Klein billboards in Times Square to television's "Dynasty." Much of this influence was as unacknowledged, or unrecognized, by heterosexuals, as gay people themselves usually were.

It was an education, and some less compressed version of that education has taken place for many Americans in the years since — through real-life stories like those Mayor Newsom talks about as well as the likes of "Will & Grace." Last year, the Supreme Court finally struck down the antisodomy laws it had upheld just 17 years earlier, and now polls show that more than half of the country knows firsthand someone who is gay. It's hard to hate people you know or discriminate against them by denying them the many civic benefits of marriage. Though all polls show that only a minority are for gay marriage, that minority is still substantially larger than the one that approved of interracial marriage in 1968, a year after the Supreme Court made such marriages legal.

More revealingly, the polls find a clear majority of those ages 18 to 29 in favor of same-sex marriage. In America, generational turnover is destiny — especially when it's plugged into capitalism. In a country where only half the families are intact heterosexual marriages with children, those that break the old mold are a huge developing market — for weddings, tourism, housing and anything else American ingenuity can conjure up for consumption.

The AIDS epidemic, in retrospect, made same-sex marriage inevitable. Americans watched as gay men were turned away at their partners' hospital rooms and denied basic rights granted to heterosexual couples coping with a spouse's terminal illness and death. As the gay civil rights movement gained a life-and-death urgency, the public started to come around, and it has been coming around ever since, at an accelerating rate. As recently as 1993, the year Tom Hanks did his Oscar turn as an AIDS victim in "Philadelphia," fewer than a dozen Fortune 500 companies offered domestic partners health benefits and even a city as relatively progressive as Atlanta erupted over extending them to its employees. That now seems a century, not a decade, ago: today even Wal-Mart is among the nearly 200 such companies offering these benefits, and even a conservative city like Cincinnati is contemplating the repeal of antigay legislation, passed in 1993, that may be hindering its ability to recruit businesses.

But for all these changes, hundreds of federal marriage perks, from a survivor's right to a spouse's Social Security benefits to the sponsorship of foreign partners, are still denied to gay couples, including those who are granted separate-and-not-equal civil unions by local governments. That's why marriage, whatever the word's separate meaning as a spiritual or religious rite, will remain a pressing constitutional issue in a country founded on equality. If marriage laws were set in stone, after all, same-race marriage would still be the only legal kind.

As the fulcrum of a culture war in a presidential campaign year, same-sex marriage now promises to explode with a vengeance as yet absent in San Francisco. America would be the loser, and so might either political party. If Mr. Bush really believed that supporting a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage was a political slam-dunk, "he would have endorsed it right after the Massachusetts court decision," says Patrick Guerriero, the head of the Log Cabin Republicans.

What caused the delay? In part, it's that polls show most Americans balk at such an amendment. But now that the president's own polls are down, he's rolled the dice. He's hoping to motivate his base even if that means "embracing the radical right's effort to write graffiti into the Constitution," as Mr. Guerriero puts it. No one seems to know where Mary Cheney is, but other gay Republicans in the administration, in the Bush-Cheney campaign and in the armed services in Iraq have been driven to "soul searching" by the president's move, Mr. Guerriero says. They may have their own stories to tell. The day when a hypocritical segregationist like Strom Thurmond could demagogue one policy on marriage in public and behave quite differently in private is gone with the wind.

The president is so stymied by the very subject of same-sex relationships of any kind that he can't even say the words "gay" or "homosexual" in public. John Kerry, whose stance on gay marriage is no more coherent than his position on the war in Iraq, dodged a reporter's question about Mayor Newsom's weddings this week with the preposterous response, "I haven't really kept up with exactly what he is doing." They both wish gay marriage would just go away.

It won't. And so the vacuum will be enthusiastically filled by Defenders of Marriage eager to foment the bloodiest culture war possible. They are gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era, even at the price of turning women like Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin into the new century's incarnation of Rosa Parks. Though it's easy to laugh at Bill O'Reilly's threat to personally make a citizen's arrest of Mayor Newsom, a scene that would be less redolent of "America's Most Wanted" than "America's Funniest Home Videos," the same cannot be said of the cynical provocations of California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a purported supporter of gay rights. Last Sunday, with no evidence whatsoever, he went on network television to tell Tim Russert that San Francisco may erupt in riots. "The next thing we know there's injured or there's dead people," he added, as if to predict a re-enactment of the assassinations of a gay city supervisor, Harvey Milk, and the mayor of San Francisco, George Moscone, in 1978.

The rhetoric of die-hard segregationists is back as well, complete with its warnings of how untraditional marriages can beget polygamy and bestiality. In a strategy now adopted by President Bush, the Defenders of Marriage repeatedly complain of how "activist judges" are overruling the will of the people — and then go in search of activist judges of their own to quash Mayor Newsom, an official elected by the people. In three states, it is the legislature, not the judiciary, that is trying to speed same-sex marriage anyway.

The full-time Defenders of Marriage also like to pretend that they are "tolerant" of their misguided gay brethren, but their priorities give them away. You'd think they'd be most concerned about divorce, which ends half of all American marriages, or spousal abuse, but a study by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force last fall discovered that 334 documents on the American Family Association's Web site contained the word "homosexual" while "divorce" and "domestic violence" together merited fewer than 70 mentions. Such is the bent of the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition that they lobbied the Justice Department to deny 9/11 compensation to the domestic partners of those killed in the terrorists' attack, lest it further "the gay agenda at the expense of marriage and family."

By the time the conventions roll around this summer, gay marriages are likely to be a civic fact in Boston, the site of the Democrats' gathering. Mr. Bush is coming into New York, not only a center of gay population and activism but the home of three gay-friendly Republican hosts, George Pataki, Michael Bloomberg and Rudolph Giuliani, who can only lose if there's any replay inside the hall of the gay-baiting Houston convention of '92. If a convention like that could damage the first President Bush's re-election chances back then, imagine what a hot culture war in the much-changed America of 2004 might mean for the second President Bush, in the midst of a real war. It sounds like Chicago '68 to me. Except, of course, that the current Mayor Daley has endorsed same-sex marriage.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

March 1, 2004

Same-Sex Weddings Bring Division to an Upstate Village

By THOMAS CRAMPTON

NEW PALTZ, N.Y., Feb. 29 - Until the past few days, this Hudson Valley hamlet was the kind of place where residents often waved to strangers across Main Street and where diverse views on social issues were tolerated, if not downright encouraged. But since last week, when the mayor, Jason West, thrust it into the national debate over same-sex marriage, New Paltz has become a village divided.

"I must have overheard more than one hundred discussions about gay marriage in the last few days," said Paul D. Schembri, a waiter serving Sunday breakfast at the Main Street Bistro. "The numbers for and against are pretty much split down the middle, but there is a clear divide between the young people who support the marriages and the older residents who really hate what the mayor did."

On Friday, Mayor West, 26, a Green Party member, performed 25 same-sex marriages in the Village Hall parking lot. Since then, more than 800 people from across the country have signed onto a waiting list to wed in the village. The mayor has said he will resume performing same-sex marriages on Saturday.

Whether those same-sex couples will be considered legally wed under state law - and entitled to the same benefits as married couples of the opposite sex - is likely to be decided by the courts.

While some long-term residents say they plan to take action to stop the ceremonies, Mr. West has received strong support from those who voted for him, along with the local gay community.

Mobbed like a rock star when he made a brief impromptu appearance Saturday night at The Wave, a local nightclub frequented by gays, the mayor was pulled onto the stage by a drag queen comedian wearing a red dress.

Shoppers and clerks at the Groovy Blueberry, a shop on Main Street that sells tie-dyed clothing, heaped high praise on the mayor on Sunday morning.

"I supported him before the weddings, but now I feel inspired by him," said Errol H. Stryker, 20, a student at State University of New York at New Paltz who said he cast the first vote of his life to help elect the mayor last May.

A part-time clerk at the Groovy Blueberry, Mr. Stryker said the issue of same-sex marriage spoke to students and other young people in a village that is just a half-hour drive away from the scene of the 1969 Woodstock concert.

"Maybe you don't hear it at the Groovy Blueberry, but quite a few conservative people in this village believe gay marriage is totally wrong," Mr. Stryker said. "They tend to be older than 30 and talk about religious beliefs."

But critics of Mr. West warn that a backlash against the mayor is not far off, especially if the weddings continue.

"I am determined to impeach Jason West if the attorney general says he broke the law," said Robert E. Hebel, who has served for more than a decade on the five-person village board. "If he tries to hold weddings again next Saturday, I will go to Kingston to seek an injunction to stop him."

Mr. Hebel stressed that he had no strong views on same-sex marriage, but he faulted the mayor for failing to consult the village board and for using taxpayer money without proper approval.

Other village residents are outright opposed to same-sex marriages.

"If he keeps going with this, I might just get out there and protest," said Dan Patterson, 42, a house painter who has lived in the village for seven years. "Gay marriage is against natural law and flies in the face of human history."

More than 100 Catholic villagers expressed their views with a frosty silence after Sunday Mass at Saint Joseph's, a church just a few hundred yards from the Village Hall parking lot.

After the priest, the Rev. Maurice Moreau, told parishioners not to give interviews, dozens of them filed in silence past a lone reporter seeking their feelings.

The one member of the congregation who did agree to speak condemned gay marriage. "The Bible says a man should not be with a man," said the member, Smitty W. Conover. "God put us on earth to be married as man and wife, not as a man and man."

In addition to stirring debate, the controversy inspired 25 volunteers to answer telephones on Sunday in the Village Hall and plan this week's weddings in an atmosphere they likened to the civil rights activism of the 1960's.

"This is not about special rights; it is about equal rights," said James V. Fallarino, a university student who has volunteered for the last four days. "We are not going to back down."

A New Paltz official said the village Web site had received 18,000 hits in the last three days, more than in the last two years. And after Mayor West asked for help from other people legally permitted to solemnize weddings in the village, a justice of the peace and a city clerk from upstate New York volunteered their services, according to Rebecca Rotzler, a village trustee.

Marriage Licenses Urged

Hundreds of gays and lesbians joined the speaker of the City Council, Gifford Miller, and other politicians on the steps of City Hall yesterday to demand that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Mayors and city clerks in other communities, including New Paltz, recently started recognizing gay marriages, but Mr. Bloomberg has said he believed New York law prevents it. Mr. Miller, a likely Democratic candidate for mayor next year, urged Mr. Bloomberg to begin issuing the licenses until a court says it is illegal.

Yesterday, Edward Skyler, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, said that if proponents of same-sex marriage persuaded state legislators to change the law, the mayor would make sure the law is followed.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Kris]

March 2, 2004

From Ithaca, a New Challenge for New York State on the Issue of Same-Sex Weddings

By THOMAS CRAMPTON and MICHELLE YORK

The national debate on same-sex marriage spread to another college town in upstate New York on Monday, with city officials in Ithaca challenging the state Health Department to refuse marriage applications submitted by gay couples.

Carolyn K. Peterson, the mayor of Ithaca, told a packed news conference at City Hall that the clerk would accept marriage applications by same-sex couples and forward them to the state's Department of Health for a ruling on whether they could be granted. In doing so, she said, she would force the issue into the courts.

"I firmly believe that same-sex partners should have equal protection as other married couples do,'' said Ms. Peterson, a Democrat who took office in January.

The issue of same-sex marriage came to New York on Friday when the mayor of the village of New Paltz solemnized the weddings of 25 same-sex couples.

None of the couples had obtained a marriage license, which may open the mayor, Jason West, to prosecution. State law says it is a misdemeanor crime to perform a marriage for couples who do not have a license. It is far less clear on whether those marriages are legal.

Yesterday, Donald A. Williams, the District Attorney of Ulster County, said he would likely act against Mr. West.

"I cannot ignore charges that an elected official may have broken the law,'' Mr. Williams said, "We will carefully study the legal and factual issues before proceeding, but we have so far found no impediment to prosecution.''

If convicted, Mr. Williams said, the maximum penalty would be a $500 fine or one year in jail.

The marriage process in New York requires couples to obtain a license before undergoing a solemnization ceremony. Ms. Peterson said she had considered following in Mr. West's steps and solemnizing marriages for couples who had not gotten a license, but decided against it. "I can perform a ceremony without a license, but, though very meaningful to the couples, it would just be symbolic,'' she said.

Instead, the Ithaca officials intend to forward unsigned marriage applications to the state Health Department as a way to force a decision. Should the Health Department decline the license applications, Ms. Peterson said, the city would coordinate with students from Cornell University to give legal advice for couples to file suit. Ithaca is home to Cornell and Ithaca College.

By mid-afternoon, five same-sex couples in Ithaca had requested applications for licenses.

"We were prepared to get married today,'' said Margot D. Chiuten, 28, a landscape architect who intends to marry Shawna M. Black, 27.

The couple said they were a bit disappointed they couldn't marry on Monday, but were encouraged that the city and its legal department would be on their side. "We're trying to have a child,'' Ms. Black said. "And we don't want it to be born out of wedlock."

While the residents of the village of New Paltz remained divided over the issue of gay marriage, the surrounding jurisdiction, the town of New Paltz, entered the fray on Monday.

"I am fully in support of gay marriage, as a citizen,'' said Don Wilen, supervisor of the town of New Paltz. "I will see what I can do as an elected official, but I need to first study the impact on our community.''

However, the town's clerk, the only elected official empowered to issue marriage licenses in both the town and village of New Paltz, said she would not change her position.

"I will only issue a license to a man and woman,'' said Marian A. Cappallino, the clerk. "Until the law changes, I will keep this policy in place.''

Within the village of New Paltz, more than 120 people, mostly students from the local State University of New York campus, attended a meeting at Village Hall Monday night to provide logistical support for the marriages. Meanwhile, the mayor's opponents - mainly long-term village residents - sought ways to prevent further marriages.

"We have people looking at ways to stop the mayor doing these marriages,'' said Thomas E. Nyquist, a former mayor of New Paltz who served for 16 years until he was unseated by Mr. West last May. "Jason needs to pay more attention to being mayor.''

For his part, Mr. West, 26, on Monday said most of the village was behind his stance on same-sex marriage, adding that a group from Kansas planning a protest in two weeks will find little local support.

"Anybody coming into this community will find no support for protesting against same-sex marriage,'' Mr. West said. "It is appalling for people to come to our village to spread hate.''

The Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., said on Monday that more than a dozen supporters would visit New York on March 14 and 15.

"We will picket the Village Hall, we will picket the university and we will picket all five churches in the village after their Sunday services,'' Mr. Phelps said in a telephone interview. "Same-sex marriage is the ultimate insult to God Almighty, and somebody has got to picket these heretics.''


While Gays Rush to the Altar, Albany Takes It Slow

By MARC SANTORA

ALBANY, March 1 - When the little-known mayor of the village of New Paltz decided to start performing same-sex wedding ceremonies last week, state leaders were rocked back on their heels, struggling not only with a tangle of legal questions, but also with a situation so fraught with political peril that many are trying to simply stay out of the way.

On Monday, the mayor of Ithaca joined the list of those who have decided to press the issue by asking the state's Health Department if the city clerk can issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples and offering legal help to the couples in the event the state says no.

Even though New York has a long history of tending toward the liberal on cultural issues, some political analysts see gay marriage as one of those cases where it is hard for mainstream politician