|
Newsletter of the Rainbow Alliance
at the University of Florida The Rainbow Alliance is the staff and faculty organization at the University of Florida concerned with matters related to sexual orientation and gender identity. RA welcomes all members of the University community who share its goals to join. |
UF Board of Trustees Adds Sexual Orientation to Nondiscrimination PolicyOn Friday, June 13, 2003, the University of Florida Board of Trustees voted unanimously to add the words "sexual orientation" to the university's nondiscrimination policy. The new rule was proposed to the Board by President Charles Young. In proposing the agenda item, Young cited several factors in favor of the policy change. First, although all university employees and students were protected from sexual harrassment under current policies, there was no protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Second, because of their sexual orientation, certain employees are barred from benefits enjoyed by other employees. Third, revision of the policy will bring UF more into line with the 61 out of 63 members of the American Association of Universities who currently have such protections. The American Association of Universities is an elite group of American research-oriented universities. The AAU includes such well known universities as Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and MIT. The University of Florida was invited to join the AAU in 1985. With the Board's decision, the only AAU university which does not include sexual orientation in its nondiscrimination policy is Catholic University of Washington, D.C. President Young's agenda item specifically states that "a detailed implementation plan on the extension of benefits to employees will be brought to the Board for approval" in September. ‘Domestic Partner Benefits' are offered by a majority of AAU universities and a large number of Fortune 500 corporations. However, this may be a more controversial decision for UF's Board of Trustees. One member of the Board has already gone on record that he does not believe such benefits should be offered. Al Warrington IV, for whom UF's business school is named, accepted the change in nondiscrimination policy, but he stated that that is where we should "draw the line." Warrignton expressed concerns that the extension of benefits to LGBT employees might appear either to "bless" or promote "that orientation." Warrington stated that he felt the Bible was quite clear on this issue. Warrington aside, the other members of the board — Carlos Alfonso, Anthony Brennan, Marshall Criser, Jr., Roland Daniels, Manny Fernandez, Mac McGriff, Joelen Merkel, Dianna Morgan, Cynthia O'Connell, Albert Thweatt, and Kyle Jones — have reserved judgement on the matter. Young stated that in the days before the vote he had contacted Board members about their position. Based on those discussions, two items were left for a later time. The first was domestic partner benefits, and the second was additional nondiscrimination language that would include gender identity and expression. The additional language is critical to cover a wide range of transgender individuals who often face misunderstanding in society at large, and even sometimes in the gay and lesbian communities. Nevertheless, the change in UF's policy signals the beginning of a process. Jeanna Mastrodicasa, associate director of UF's honors program and a longtime advocate for expanding the university's nondiscrimination clause to include sexual orientation, said in a Gainesville Sun interview,"I'll take victory No. 1 today. This is such a huge step for the University of Florida." Read about this in the Gainesville
Sun |
Former UF Softball Player Alleges Bias in Law SuitFormer University of Florida student and star catcher on the softball team, Andrea Zimbardi, has filed a claim against the University alleging that she was the victim of sexual harassment because she was a lesbian. The story was reported in the Gainesville Sun on June 6, 2003, but it had already appeared on the Internet at the Outsports.com Web site on May 21. Zimbardi recently graduated with a degree in industrial engineering. She joined the softball team as a walk-on and proved to be a valuable player. She was at one point praised as a role model. Zimbardi was an SEC honor roll student and a senior captain on the softball team. Zimbardi alleges that head softball coach Karen Johns and pitching coach Heather Compton-Butler played a role in her dismissal from the team because of Zimbardi's sexual orientation. She believes that two other players were released from the team in recent years because they too were lesbians. The stated reason for Zimbardi's dismissal was that she had spread lies and misconceptions about an assistant coach and about the program. The University of Florida Athletic Association has released a statement indicating that they stand behind the actions of their coaches and believe that no wrong was done to Zimbardi. Zimbardi had an excellent relationship with Johns, but after the hiring of Compton-Butler last Fall, things began to change. Zimbardi and Compton-Butler went running together. According to Zimbardi, Compton-Butler initiated a conversation about lesbians in sports that appeared to Zimbardi to be highly disparaging of lesbian relationships. Zimbardi felt that Compton-Butler was trying to draw her out on the subject, and she was very uncomfortable. After that incident, Zimbardi avoided Compton-Butler. However, another incident occurred late in the Fall in which Compton-Butler is alleged to have made another disparaging comment, this time aimed directly at Zimbardi. When spring practice began, Zimbardi found that she often was not notified, and she was excluded from a team dinner at Compton-Butler's home. The pitching coach claims that this was due to a simple oversight. Zimbardi's playing time was cut back severely. Zimbardi approached Johns to discuss her concerns. However, Johns was well known for her Christian beliefs and her opposition to lesbianism. Former players have stated that Johns had treated them in a similar fashion to Compton-Butler's treatment of Zimbardi, with similar outcomes. Johns defended Compton-Butler. Zimbardi was not satisfied and scheduled a February 22 meeting with her parents, Johns, Compton-Butler and athletic director Jeremy Foley. The tone of the meeting varied, but seemed to end on a conciliatory note. Nevertheless, two days later Johns gave Zimbardi a one-week suspension for telling lies and misconceptions in the meeting with Foley. Further, Compton-Butler appears to have spoken to team members about the matter, which was strictly confidential. On March 6, Zimbardi was released from the team. Since then, Zimbardi has retained Karen Doering, a lawyer from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, to investigate her case and take legal action. Doering has corroborated much of Zimbardi's story. She worked to resolve the matter without further action and to get Zimbardi reinstated before the end of the season. However, she found the University unresponsive. She regards the case as a "poster child" for how not to handle situations like this, and that the University's lack of cooperation made legal action inevitable. Zimbardi says that her main concern is not whether Johns is retained by the University, but that future players not have to suffer in the same way that she has and that the Gator women's softball program be the very best. Read about this story in the Gainesville Sun Read about this story at Outsports.com Read more in the Colorado Daily |
Member and Alumni NewsRA member Joyce Dewsbury is an archivist at Smathers Library, but she is also a talented fabric artist and member of Gainesville's Artisans Guild. Joyce recently had an opening at the Guild's home on Newberry Road. She says that the event was well attended by Guild regulars as well as those who were first-timers. Joyce uses a combination of machine and hand sewing to create pieces that range from brooches to wall hangings. She often embellishes the smaller pieces with beads. Her larger work is sometimes abstract, or she might choose a representational approach, often with symbolic overtones. Thus, her works often express ideas and emotions in addition to their beautiful craftwork. The show will be up through the end of July. A trip to the Artisans Guild is always recommended, and with Joyce's show, highly recommended. Stuff You Need at Alum's New Web Site UF Alum Rick Calkins is a licensed mental health professional. Now he has invented something new: Shopping Therapy! Rick has recently created a shop on Ebay called Ricky Dee's Emporium. What can you buy there? Retro, Atomic, Christmas, Laura Ashley, Lisa Franks, Bath and Body, Unique Posters, Wedding Florals, Picnic/patio, Silk Tropicals, Hawaiian Shirts, Costume/gemstone Jewelry, Folk Art, Handbags and More! What else could you want? Rick's got an eye for good stuff, so check it out and then bookmark it! Alum Scott Mackoul Completes "Tour de Friends" In a previous edition of RA-news, you read about the Tour de Friends, a cycling event intended to raise funds for the care of people living with HIV/AIDS and other terminal illnesses in the Washington, D.C. area. Our own UF alum Scott Mackoul took part in the ride, which started in Raleigh, NC and wound its way for 350 miles to Washington. Scott had the company of over 700 other cyclists and a volunteer support crew of over 200. Scott reports that they rode through every possible weather condition except snow. Scott's goal was to raise $5000.
He exceeded that by another $1500. Another effort he organized
to help support the event, the Team Duplex Diner, raised over
$35,000! Altogether, quite a contribution to a very worthy cause.
Congratulations to Scott, his fellow riders, and crew. |
Suit Challenges Florida's Gay Adoption BanOn March 4, 2003, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments about the validity of Florida's ban on adoption by homosexuals. Utah and Mississippi have similar bans which apply to homosexual couples, but Florida's ban also includes single gay people. Gay people are the only group considered by Florida as a class rather than as individuals to be unsatisfactory adoptive parents. Florida's gay adoption ban was passed in July, 1977. It was carried to overwhelming victory by a media campaign headed by Anita Bryant, former Miss America and spokesperson for Florida orange juice. Ms Bryant's campaign was originally intended to overturn a Miami-Dade gay rights ordinance, but the issue found "legs" and sparked a broader reaction in a state even more conservative than it is today. The main sponsor of the bill, Sen. Curtis Peterson of Lakeland, said, "The problem in Florida has been that homosexuals are surfacing to such an extent that they're beginning to aggravate the ordinary folks. We're trying to send them a message, telling them: 'We're really tired of you. We wish you'd go back into the closet.'" The only senator allowed to speak against the bill was Sen. Donald Chamberlain of Clearwater. In 2002, nine senators who voted for the ban in 1977 signed statements recognizing that they had made the wrong decision. Former Senate President (and former U.S. Congressman) Harry Johnston, former House Speaker Tom Gustafson, former House members Elaine Bloom, Tony Fontana and Barry Kutun, and former Senators Sherrill "Pete" Skinner, Paul Steinberg, Sam Bell and Sherman Winn all signed statements. Donald Chamberlain said, "This law was always wrong, and it's good to see that it's now being seriously reconsidered." Although Florida prohibits gay people from adopting, it does allow them to act as foster parents or permanent guardians. Florida also allows adoption by non-homosexual single persons. Three previous attempts during the 1990s to challenge the ban had failed, but the environment for these cases has changed rapidly in the past few years. The current case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1999 on behalf of three parties: Steven Lofton and his partner Roger Croteau, Doug Houghton, and Wayne Smith and his partner Dan Skahen. All of these men have been foster parents and are eager to adopt children they have been in their care for many years. Children can remain in foster care for many years because the number of adoptive families is much lower than the number of children to be placed. The original filing was in 1999 was thrown out in 2001 by federal district Judge James Lawrence King, who believed that the law as in the best interest of the children. The ACLU joined by the advocacy group Children First then appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were heard by Judges Ed Carnes, Stanley Birch, and Proctor Hug. The ACLU was represented by Matt Coles, and Children First by Christina Zawisza. The state of Florida was represented by Casey Walker. The suit argues that the ban should be thrown out because it discriminates against gay people and limits placement opportunities for the 3,400 foster children awaiting adoption in Florida. The suit further shows that the gay adoption ban continues a long series of unconstitutional bans through which states have historically sought to exclude selected groups from opportunities they should rightfully enjoy by all other measures. Zawisza contended that the
state's argument that children should be placed with stable,
married heterosexual couples is hollow because a high percentage
of its adoption placements are to single-parent households (25%
statewide; 40% in Miami-Dade County). Coles indicated that although
on paper the state bans adoptions by sexually active, unmarried
couples, in practice this restriction is only applied to homosexual
couples. The judges expressed a range of opinions. Carnes was concerned that overturning the ban might affect the state's right to ban any group of people from adopting, such as convicted felons. However, Birch questioned the rationality of the ban. He could see no reason for it outside a particular moral framework. Hug focused on the number of children waiting for adoption and how that need seemed to question of the rationality of the law. The state undermined its own case when, in a sworn deposition, Carol Hutchinson, the state's chief official for adoption policy, indicated that she knew of no child welfare issue that should prevent gay people from adopting children. Her remarks also hinted at the positive opportunity for children that would be created if such a large class of people was able to adopt. Recent survey results from the American Association of Pediatrics show that children fare as well in same-sex households as they do in opposite-sex households. The areas compared were emotional, cognitive, and social functioning. The study indicated that children in same-sex households are likely to be more tolerant and to be less angry. All five foster fathers attended the oral arguments. They left with a feeling of hope. It had been expected that the Eleventh Circuit would wait to make its decision in this case until after the Supreme Court made a decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Both cases turn on arguments based on the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Lawrence has now been decided in favor of protection of the right of gay persons. A decision from the Eleventh Circuit is expected before the end of summer. AAP Says Children of Same-sex Couples Deserve Two Legally Recognized Parents Site Dedicated the Lofton/Croteau Case Eleventh Circuit Court Web site About the Eleventh Circuit The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over federal cases in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The Eleventh Circuit include nine district courts: each state is divided into Norther, Middle, and Southern Districts. The Eleventh Circuit was established by Congress in 1981. Previously, Florida federal district cases were appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. About three-fourths of cases are decided by three-judge panels based solely on briefs. About one-fourth of cases go to oral argument. Oral arguments may be heard in Atlanta, Ga., Jacksonville, Fla., Miami, Fla., or Montgomery, Ala. |
State Passes
Broad Antidiscrimination Law... Minus LGBT;
|
Supreme Court Rules in Lawrence v. Texas, Strikes Down Sodomy LawsOn June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court gave a ruling in the case Lawrence and Garner versus the State of Texas. In their 6-3 decision, the justices overturned the conviction of Lawrence and Garner under the Texas sodomy law. The Court also declared that it was wrong in its decision in the 1986 case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld the right of the states to use sodomy laws to regulate the private sexual behavior of adults. They also declared that all such laws in the United States are unconstitutional based on the Equal Rights clause of the US Constitution and on the right of privacy construed from the 14th Amendment. As of the date of the decision, only 13 states had such laws still on the books. Those laws are now invalid. The case began in 1998 when the Houston police received a call indicating that someone was "going crazy" with a gun in a nearby home. When the police arrived at the home they found it quiet and entered without any warning. Upon searching the house they found no armed persons, but they did find John Lawrence engaging in sex with another man, Tyron Garner. The two were arrested, held overnight in jail, and later fined $200 each for violating the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law. The neighbor had made the original call as an act of harassment and was convicted of filing a false police report. Lawrence and Garner took their case to the Court of Appeals for the 14th District of Texas. Initially, they prevailed with a three-judge panel, but on a second hearing by all nine judges, they lost 7-2. The case was declined in the Texas appellate court, and was sent on to the Supreme Court. The case was argued before the Supreme Court by Paul M. Smith on behalf of the petitioners, Lawrence and Garner, and by Charles A. Rosenthal, District Attorney for Harris County, Houston, Texas for the state of Texas. Highlights from the Oral Arguments Smith: We think this [the Texas sodomy law] fails rational basis scrutiny... because the State basically didn't come up with anything other than ‘We want it that way. We want these people to be excluded. We'd had a distaste for them.' Its mere disapproval, or hostility, however historically based, is not sufficient. Smith: ...here you have a statute that, while it purports to regulate sexual behavior, has all sorts of collateral effects on people... they're denied visitation to their own children, they're denied public employment. They're denied private employment, because they're labeled as criminals merely because they've been identified as homosexuals. Smith: I think the State has to have a greater justification [for restricting homosexuals from teaching positions] for its discrimination than ‘we prefer pushing people towards heterosexuality.' Smith: ...while it may not have been shown in that case [Bowers v. Hardwick] or even apparent to the Court [in] 1986, I submit it has to be apparent to the Court now that there are gay families, that family relationships are established, that there are hundreds of thousands of people registered in the Census in the 2000 census who have formed gay families, gay partnerships, many of them raising children and that for those people, the opportunity to engage in sexual expression as they will in the privacy of their own homes performs much the same function that it does in the marital context, that you can't protect one without the other, that it doesn't make sense to draw a line there and that you should protect it for everyone. That this is a fundamental matter of American values. Smith: Most Americans would be shocked to find out that their decision to engage in sexual intimacy with another person in their own home might lead to a knock on the door – as occurred here – and a criminal prosecution. [Smith is calling for the Court to clarify that Americans have "a privacy right to engage in consensual sexual intimacy in the privacy of their home."] Rosenthal: ...various states have changed their position on sodomy, they've done it through the legislative process. And that's where we believe this belongs... in the State House of Texas, not this Court. The Court: ...the other side [petitioners] says Bowers ... got the history wrong. It didn't understand the relationship of the sodomy to families and in addition, Bowers has proved harmful to thousands and thousands and thousands of people, if not because they're going to be prosecuted, because they fear it, they might be, which makes it a possible instrument of repression in the hands of prosecutors. Now, that's the kind of argument they're making. Harmful in consequence, wrong in theory, understating the constitutional value. The Court: Well, in portraying what Texas sees as a family and distinguishing both married and unmarried heterosexual people from homosexual people, those things wouldn't go together if the state said at the same time that same sex couples are qualified to raise a family. [They] can adopt children, [they] can be foster parents. The Court: Does Texas prohibit
sexual intercourse between unmarried heterosexuals? Rosenthal: [There is] a longstanding
tradition in the history of Texas of sodomy being against the
law ... certainly in the 1854 Penal Code, the kinds of activity
that [are] classified now as sodomy were against the law. It seemed clear from the oral arguments that Lawrence and Garner had the stronger claim. The Texas law was clearly not consistent with Rosenthal's description of the state's interests. The justices could find no rational basis for the Texas law in Rosenthal's arguments other than his repeated assertion that the state has a right to take a stand on what it considers moral issues. Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. O'Connor concurred in the decision but offered an opinion based on more limited reasons. The outline of Kennedy's opinion is given in the quotation from the oral arguments cited above:
Therefore, in writing the majority opinion, Kennedy gets the history right, acknowledges the harmful consequences, proposes a correct theoretical basis for the decision, and examines the full scope of the constitutional value. The opening paragraph of the opinion gives an idea of the scope of the majority's ideas:
This decision strengthens and extends the federal right to privacy. Much of the decision is based on precedents established in contraception and reproductive rights cases which the Court has resolved based on the right to privacy. In acknowledging the "freedom of ... certain intimate conduct," the opinion confirms the discussion in oral arguments that the moral attitudes of the state (or the majority) are not a sufficient reason in and of themselves for laws. By grouping "certain intimate behavior" with "thought, belief, expression," the majority opinion places the right of this intimate behavior in the context of the most basic freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. This is an important limitation on the power of the state. The oral arguments are revealing as well because they show a fundamentally different approach to the issues between those affirming the Court's decision and those dissenting. Those affirming see the right to intimacy as fundamental to the relationships people establish – the desire to have such intimacy is basic to human relationships, whoever one desires to have such intimacy with. The Court has now stated that this is a fundamental right. The dissenting opinion takes a different point of view by focusing on the specific act that is forbidden. The dissent takes it for granted that the state has the right to outlaw whatever conduct it wishes to, barring any other constitutional objection, and further that the state has a specific interest in prohibiting homosexual sodomy. The dissent demands that the Court find a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy itself in the Constitution in order to overrule Bowers and find for Lawrence. Apparently, the Constitution is not that specific in these matters. In oral arguments, the questioning sought to clarify the relationship of sodomy to other kinds of behavior, such as rape, adultery, bigamy, flagpole sitting, and teaching German (!). The dissent stated that once the state is prevented from prohibiting sodomy, there is no basis for its prohibitions of adultery or bigamy. Comparisons were made between homosexual sodomy and bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity. The differences should be clear in most cases. Oral arguments clarified that the Texas position is inconsistent, because if homosexual sodomy is outlawed based on some kind of defense of the marriage relationship or prevention of "deviate sexual behavior" then it makes no sense that heterosexual sodomy, adultery, and bestiality are not against the law in Texas. An important issue in the oral arguments and in the opinions is the historical extent of outlawing homosexual sodomy and the general acceptance of homosexual relationships/sexual intimacy. Sodomy has been illegal in the US for a very long time, but the basis in the 19th century was related to prohibiting non-procreative sexual activity. In the 21st century, such a basis would not be credible. Oral arguments highlighted that the Texas sodomy law was changed as recently as 1973 to allow heterosexual sodomy but specifically prohibit homosexual sodomy, so the Texas legislature must have seen some rationale for sodomy in human relationships. Kennedy's decision referred to the creation of the category "homosexual" in the late 19th century and showed that early sodomy laws were conceived in an environment where the sexual orientation categories we use today to describe people did not exist. The complete opinions are available on the Internet, but one is struck by a central difference between the affirming opinion and the dissent. In the affirming opinion, there is a broad philosophical approach based on the nature of persons, their behavior and the their rights. The dissent seeks to bar specific behavior based on arguments that draw a series of false parallels between homosexual sodomy and a whole range of other acts and prohibitions. A telling remark from the dissent: "Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." The dissent accuses the court of taking sides in the "culture war" and interfering with the democratic process. In concurring with the dissent, Thomas states that were he a Texas legislator, he would vote to repeal the Texas Homosexual Conduct Law. He believes that it is not the Court's place to decide this matter for the people of Texas. For the first time, Lawrence makes it OK to be gay, and there is a fundamental right for all people, including homosexuals, to form relationships and to enjoy sexual intimacy without state interference or disapproval. It's a very big decision. The decision clearly reflects the trend over the past 40 years on both sides of the Atlantic of decriminalizing all aspects of homosexuality. The Court's decision helps the final 13 states in the US that continued to outlaw sodomy step into line with 37 other states and at least 50 countries. Florida was among those states. Holding the line against homosexuals is a matter of pride amongst conservative legislators, but the Supreme Court decision makes it clear it was nothing to be proud of. Lawrence makes it clear that no one was protected by sodomy laws and, in fact, "thousands and thousands and thousands" were harmed – millions if you take seriously the majority opinion's statement: The State cannot demean their [homosexuals'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Demean and control have been the exact purpose of the state in its approach to homosexuality. The majority opinion makes it clear that Lawrence does not involve "whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," that is, same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, the weight of law is moving toward accepting homosexuals as a normal and permanent part of the human population, rather than an aberration. The Supreme Court has removed one of the last bases for discrimination, and its decision clearly opens a path for state acceptance of same-sex unions and striking down barriers to such unions. "Acceptance" because the practice of most states affirms their approval of gay people in many ways and undermines their expressed interests in limiting the legal rights of homosexuals. For example, the state of Florida will allow gay people to act as foster parents for most of a child's life. On the face of it that counter's any statement that the state's interest is to promote heterosexual role models for the children. Similar arguments led to the downfall of all sodomy laws in Lawrence. "Striking down barriers" because homosexuals now have the right to exist, cohabit, create culture, care for children, enjoy long-term bonded relationships, and legally enjoy intimacy within those relationships. In terms of the reasoning in the Lawrence decision, these are all the things at heterosexuals do, except that heterosexuals are allowed access to a special kind of state contract – that automatically creates community property, rights of survivorship, and a host of other legal relationships between two people – and homosexuals are not. Gay people are probably the authors of their own destiny in this regard. As gay people live their lives openly -- do their work, make their relationships, own their homes, care for their property, raise their children – they undermine the basis for separate treatment. Such treatment is wrong on the face of it, but what gay people have done over the past decades is create a record in the society that has changed the political will of most Americans. Gay marriage may not be right around the corner. Most states ban same-sex marriage and more are considering such legislation. Some states are likely to legalize same-sex marriage, and at some point this to will come before the Supreme Court, and all these state laws will be invalidated. States, like Florida, that have so-called "defense of marriage" acts have created the future necessity of the kind of judicial activism that conservatives deplore in the Lawrence decision. It's a question of time as well. In Massachusetts, a recent poll found that 50 percent of residents supported same-sex marriage, while 44 percent oppose it. When these result are broken down by age group the results are more dramatic. Residents between 18 and 39 years old supported legalizing same-sex marriage by 62 percent. Those over 65 oppose it by a similar percentage. Young people have more positive images of gay people and are more likely to have gay friends. For them the meaning of equality in this issue is fairly simple. Gay rights activists immediately turned their attention to what might be next. Gay marriage and military service are on the table along with federal antidiscrimination law and adoption rights. Conservatives have already formulated their first response to Lawrence, the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). The FMA was first proposed three years ago by the Alliance for Marriage and would amend the US Constitution as follows:
Recent controversy has revived the FMA, and Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn), announced that he would support the FMA. What are his choices? The Republican base has been short-changed by the Bush administration. They must be re-secured before the next election. The FMA has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, though it is not expected to make it to the floor of the house. Conservatives have reasons of their own for opposing the FMA. First, it alters the Constitution. Second, it compromises state's rights. George Bush gave the FMA a lukewarm reception, as did the very right-wing Family Research Council. Nevertheless, marriage is where the battle line is being drawn. A recent editorial by Robert Bork in the Wall Street Journal stated: "One of the last obstacles to the complete normalization of homosexuality in our society is the understanding that marriage is the union of a man and a woman." He goes on to say: "Traditional marriage and family have been the foundations of every healthy society known in recorded history." This statement, or versions of it, are the core credo for conservatives in this arena. There will be several keys to the "marital line in the sand" tactic. One will be to emphasize that gay marriage could be foisted on the American people by the (obviously left-leaning) courts any day. Making this an impending possibility creates a sense of crisis and will help mobilize public opinion. Another tactic will be to play to the religious aspects of gay marriage. Though it is not possible for the government to impose same-sex marriage on individual churches, this is the scare tactic that is most likely. In Frist's remarks, he called marriage a sacrament, indicating that the rights of churches will be used to oppose same-sex marriage. Ironically, many churches will perform marriage ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples; it is the civil aspects of marriage offered by the state, and which have nothing to do with churches, that are outside the reach of same-sex couples. William R. Mattox Jr., an "award-winning writer and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors" recently wrote in USA Today that gay marriage demeans women because it "implicitly teaches that women are superfluous to men, that women make no unique and irreplaceable contribution to family life." Apparently, Mr. Mattox is unaware that there is a female counterpart to gay men, and that some of these women wish to marry members of their own sex. Do they demean men because they "implicitly teach that men are superfluous to women, etc."? Aren't Mattox's views themselves demeaning to women in their patriarchal point of view and his presumption of that all marriages should be composed of two individuals who are clear on their "unique and irreplaceable" roles? Ginning up paranoia means "proving" (apparently by stating repeatedly) that Lawrence and the feared, impending decision to mandate same-sex marriage will destroy traditional marriage, place churches in subservience to the US government, and ultimately in the Fall of the Republic. This last fear is expressed memorably by someone named Vox Day at a Web site called World Net Daily:
And what if the Roman example is not a guide? Access all the opinions and briefs in Lawrence v. Texas: |
Massachusetts High Court Considers Same-Sex MarriageIn April 2001, New England's Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven same-sex couples. The suit, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, is currently being considered by the Masschusetts Supreme Court. A decision is expected during the summer. The plaintiffs, who have been in committed relationships of seven to 32 years duration, claim that they have the constitutional right to marry under the state's constitution. The lawsuit asks that the state issue and register marriage licenses for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Their intent is to not affect in any way existing or future marriages between a woman and a man. They simply want to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. According to GLAD, the civil code that establishes marriage in Massachusetts is gender-neutral and same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Members of Massachusetts highest court have indicated willingness in the past to expand marriage to include same-sex couples. If that happens, only a specific amendment to the state constitution would return to the present system of special privileges for opposite-sex couples. Such an amendment was placed before the legislature as a result of a petition, however, the legislature allowed the amendment to die by adjourning without considering it. The governor has requested that the legislature's action be reviewed for consitutionality. Because the case invovles state constitutional issues, it cannot be appealed to any federal court, including the US Supreme Court. If the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, Massachusetts would become the first state to offer marriage to gay and lesbian couples. Vermont already allows same-sex civil unions, which have all the legal state privileges of marriage but without the title or any rights in federal benefits, such as Social Security. Same-sex marriage has been endorsed by the Boston Globe in articles and editorials. It has also been endorsed by the Massachusetts organization, the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry (RCFM), which is composed of over 400 clergy from both Christian and Jewish groups. Recent polls in Massachusetts indicate that 50% of residents favor giving same-sex couplesthe right to marry, with over 60% approval in the 18 to 39 years age group. Opinions about gay marriage vary in the gay community itself. Some well known gay commentators reject it out of hand, but apparently most gay people feel that they should have the option, whether they choose to exercise it or not. Same-sex marriage will have an impact on the gay community. Gay partnerships have been defined without the option of marriage. Will the opportunity to marry create the expectation of marriage? Will marriage become a wedge between partners who differ in their willingness to marry? What will gay divorces be like? Heterosexuals already work out their relationships with a wide range of options and questions. However, some gay people feel that patterning gay culture and relationships after traditional marriages and families is not the best choice. A similar case is working its way through the courts in New Jersey. Arguments on behalf of seven gay and lesbian couples were heard in State Suprerior Court on June 28. This case will almost certainly go to the New Jersey Supreme Court. New Jersey already allows gay men and lesbians to adopt children, and it was one of the first states to enact antidiscrimination laws based on sexual orientation. The State Supreme Court also rejected the Boy Scouts ban on gay members, a decision that was later overturned by the United States Supreme Court. Overview of the status of same-sex marriage Read a thorough review of the Massachusetts case |
Wal-Mart Extends Protections to Gay EmployeesOn Wednesday, July 2, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., announced that it will expand its nondiscrimination policy to include gay and lesbian employees. Wal-Mart is the world's largest company as well as the world's largest private-sector employer. Wal-Mart joins the 64% of Fortune 500 companies that explicitly protect gays and lesbians against discrimination. (When only the top 100 companies are considered, the percentage jumps to over 90%.) A few very large corporations, including ExxonMobil, Tyson Foods and ALLTEL, still refuse to consider inclusive policies. Wal-Mart's employee handbook will include new language covering sexual orientation, and the retailer will offer a computer-based training session promoting respect for people, regardless of their sexual orientation. The move comes after a series of discussions with gay rights groups, including Seattle-based Pride Foundation, which have been urging Wal-Mart to take steps to protect gay workers. The policy was praised as a good start, but Steven Sprenger, a partner with Washington, D.C., law firm Sprenger and Lang, which specializes in employment discrimination, said that Wal-Mart needs to make sure it is enforced. "Everybody has a policy, so simply adopting a policy doesn't provide any protection," he said, noting that Wal-Mart also has policies banning sex discrimination and yet faces a likely class-action sex discrimination lawsuit in California. The California case alleges the company discriminates against women in promotions, pay, training and job assignments. If it is granted class status, the case could represent more than one million women who have worked for the the retailer since 1998. View a list of Fortune 500 companies with nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation |
ResourcesRA-online > coming soon! |