David Weigel, a journalist who covers and blogs about conservatives and libertarian politics for the Washington Post, got into some controversy when tweeting about ‘bigots’ who fight against same-sex marriage. While he did retract from his endorsement of the term, he reiterated his opposition to laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation:
I’m a bystander in the same-sex marriage debate — I haven’t given to any cause on either side. But in 2006 I did vote against a Virginia same-sex marriage amendment, which passed. I didn’t, and don’t, think social issues should be subjected to votes like that. I don’t support much direct democracy in general — this is a republic, and we shouldn’t throw these kinds of decisions to the electorate at large.But why was I willing to be so disrespectful to one group of activists? Unlike with most activists, I don’t really see the direct impact on their lives, or on the lives of the people who agree with them, of the cause they oppose. Antitax protesters are threatened by higher taxes. Anti-health-care-bill protesters fear their coverage will get worse. Anti-meat-eating protesters believe animals are being murdered and the environment is being made worse.
Even the birther movement has always made a kind of sense — oust Obama from office, and you get a chance to reverse what damage you think he’s done to your country.
But who’s threatened by legal same-sex marriage? Whose life is made worse? If there was science suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents are worse off than children raised by traditional families, that would be one thing, but I haven’t seen it. We’ve watched legal same-sex marriage in several European countries and several states, and it hasn’t ushered in some decline in the quality of life, or marriage, for those who don’t participate in it.
That’s what I don’t understand. That’s my bias, for now. I’ll happily entertain arguments for the contrary.
Hawaii’s state legislature passed legislation legislation affording same-sex couples many of the same rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. The state House of Representatives passed the bill by a 31-20 vote late Thursday, but Republican Governor Linda Lingle has until early July to sign or veto the groundbreaking new law.
Marriage equality in the ‘Aloha State’ has a long history, as it was in 1991, in a decision by the State Supreme Court that invalidated laws that prohibited same sex couples from wedding. However as a reaction to this action, voters passed a constitutional amendment empowering the legislation to define marriage as a heterosexual insitution. That referenda did not close the door on civil unions though.
If approved, Hawaii will become one of six states including California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington granting civil union status to same sex couples. Full civil marriage are legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, DC. Marriages performed in other states are recognized in Maryland, New York and Rhode Island.
The legislation has sparked an intense lobbying effort by the Catholic Archdiocese and many religious groups seeking a veto from Governor Lingle.
Reade more about Hawai’i’s new civil union law and the efforts surrounding the legislation in the Honolu Advertiser.
Former First Lady Laura Bush, in her soon-to-be-release memoir Spoken From The Heart has gone on the record to outline her counsel to her husband about the use of same-sex marriage as an election strategy in the 2004 elections:
“In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead.”
Read more excerpts from Spoken From The Heart at the Daily Beast.
Same-sex marriage may not yet be legal at the federal level or in every state, but the U.S. Census Bureau is seeking to count same-sex married couples in the 2010 Census, and is reaching out to gay and lesbian communities across America to solicit their help in capturing an accurate picture of their relationships. Che Ruddell-Tabisola, the national LGBT partnership leader for the Census Bureau, commented on the Bureau’s efforts to capture same-sex couples in its count:
“Our job is to get an accurate count. … One of the most important things is for same-sex couples to know that it is 100 percent safe to participate in the census.”
Safe for two reasons:
First, individuals’ census data are confidential. Second, nowhere on the 2010 census form does the government actually ask for anyone to identify his or her sexual orientation. Boxes exist for “male,” “female” and for spousal relationship. The existence of a same-same marriage or partnership is surmised from the data.
The 2010 Census form does not actually have a category for same-sex couples or gays and lesbians to self-identify. Rather, the Bureau is asking same-sex couples to mark the appropriate gender box and select “married” on the Census form, regardless of whether same-sex marriage is legal in their respective state or not. In previous years the Census Bureau has assumed it was a mistake when a Census form included two individuals of the same sex and the “married” box was checked, and the Bureau graciously corrected the gender on those forms to reflect a heterosexual couple. In 2010, the Bureau is assuming that where a form indicates two individuals of the same gender and “married”, that in fact it is a married couple and will count it as such. The Bureau will extrapolate data based on marital status and gender to determine how many same-sex couples there are in the United States for the first time since the government began collecting this information.
As Iowans set to celebrate the one year anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling this Saturday, the general political tone in the state seems to be one of acceptance. After a year of gay marriage in the mid-Western state, many Iowans are simply not phased by the change and they say society has not changed dramatically. The political tide of the gay marriage issue in Iowa has also changed over the course of the year, just follow Iowa Democratic Governor Chet Culver on the issue:
Prior to the ruling, Culver said he would be willing to call legislators into special session to “do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman.” On the day of the court’s decision, Culver released a tepid statement, saying he wanted to review the ruling with the attorney general before “reacting to what it means for Iowa.” It was nearly a week before the governor released a statement saying that while he personally believed marriage was between one man and one woman, he was “reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution” to overturn the court’s ruling.
Flash forward to this week, just a few days before the ruling’s one-year anniversary, and Culver’s position has become more steadfast.
“We stood firm for the civil rights of every Iowan by saying loudly and clearly that any and all efforts to add discriminatory amendments to our state constitution have no place in our state constitution,” Culver said, later adding: “The overwhelming majority of Iowans do not want to amend our constitution in such as a way that’s discriminatory. I think that’s the bottom line.”
Two people who have been involved in the gay marriage debate are Anthony Brown, Director of the Cedar Rapids Gay and Lesbian Resource Center, and Reverend Tom Capo of the People’s Choice Unitarian Universalist church in Cedar Rapids. Brown and Rev. Capo note that the change in Iowa over the past year has been a positive one:
Brown said all Iowans are equal, and the ruling has made such a difference in how the rest of the country views Iowa. He said it’s made Iowa on top when it comes to be progressive with civil rights issues.
Reverend Capo at has seen many couples get married in his church, many even from out of state. “I was in Texas before I came to Cedar Rapids. All I could do was bless unions that were not legal. It was wonderful to bless these unions, but to be able to say I actually married a gay or lesbian couple and they have the same rights as everybody else, is just a wonderful thing,” said Rev. Capo. Despite the changes, he says he’s found people that didn’t notice any changes. “Most of them say they haven’t seen any difference and actually most of them are coming around to a point where they say it’s not affecting them, so live and let live,” said Rev. Capo.
