|
Newsletter of the Rainbow Alliance
at the University of Florida Next Rainbow Alliance Dinner Meeting, Wednesday, March 10, 2004, 6:30 pm, at On the Border, on Archer Road just east of 34th Street. Other Dates to Remember:
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. |
First WordsFor Better or For WorseIn 2000, Californians approved Proposition 22 by 61% to 39%. The referendum stated that, in California, marriage was betweeen one man and one woman, and that same-sex marriages contracted in other states would not be honored in California. A clear victory for traditional values. Or was it? Prop 22's immediate effect was to prohibit same-sex marriage, but its long-term impact may have been to increase awareness of the discrimination against same-sex couples and against LGBT people in general. Prop 22 also provided the pretext for the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsome, to authorize the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Apparently, there is a conflict between the state constitution, which guarantees equal treatment before the law (as many constitutions do) and Prop 22, which guarantees unequal treatment. Newsome is putting that conflict to the test. It seems likely that, as in Massachusetts, there will have to be a more rational basis for denying equal protection than the will of the majority. Respect for gay persons and the lack of rational basis is what basically decided Lawrence v. Texas. Conservatives had argued that the Supreme Court's decision in that case would clear the way for "gay activists" to work toward same-sex marriage. Perhaps they were right -- that's the way it's happening. Conservatives also feel that same-sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage. Although this is a frightening and credible statement to some, it's hard to say if it actually means anything. No one is proprosing a single change to the marriage contract. What opponents of same-sex marriage seem to overlook is that the marriage contract already applies to a wide variety of emotional, social, and financial relationships. The content of a relationship is irrelevant to the State as long as the people entering into the relationship are of different sexes. That seems like a low standard. Is that what some are trying to defend? Once marriage is possible in the LGBT community, we will face a new challenge -- making marriages work. There are already plenty of long-term same-sex relationships. What we will have to learn is how the availability of marriage will change the dynamics of gay relationships. Some gay commentators have worried about that impact, but whatever complexities the LGBT community might face with the legalization of same-sex marriage, these issues can hardly be a meaningful argument for denying equal treatment under the law. It's hard to see why a community that is used to navigating incredible complexities in relationships and in this society would find marriage so daunting. As time goes on, it seems likely that we will find that gay people get married for the same wide variety of reasons that other people do. I feel certain those realtionships will succeed or founder for the very same reasons as all other marriages. In a word, it will be very normal, and making gay normal is what opponents fear more most of all. In a sense, the LGBT community is about to enter a new relationship, and a permanent one -- with marriage itself. For better or worse... For LGBT people who are parents or who seek to make their relationship permanent or who seek to express the depth of their love or who seek the security and protection of marriage, it will be better. For a humorous look at the same-sex marriage debate, see the Gator Gay-Straight Alliance's "12 Reasons that Same-Sex Marriage Will Ruin Society." |
Rainbow Alliance Awards: Your Support Is Needed!This year, the University of Florida Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Concerns Committee* and the Rainbow Alliance will again give the Rainbow Alliance Awards for LGBT Service/Research. This is the fourth year that the awards will be given, and the second that the Rainbow Alliance is providing funding. Your support is needed! The Rainbow Alliance is requesting that its members and friends contribute to the Rainbow Alliance Fund at the University of Florida Foundation so we will have plenty of funds for this year's awards and be able to ensure the continued growth of the fund. It's easy to contribute. Just write a check and put it in the mail. Follow the directions given below in "Contributing to the Rainbow Alliance Fund." About the Awards Two awards up to the amount of $500, will be awarded to students at the University of Florida whose applications demonstrate excellence in either service or research to the LGBT community. -- Service: Successful applicants will have demonstrated exemplary service to the UF and general Gainesville communities on behalf of gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender (GLBT) peoples. Such service may include efforts to eliminate homophobia, promote GLBT causes, and create safe spaces and activities for GLBT individuals. -- Research: Successful applicants will have performed research within the last year or have completed a proposal to conduct research within the next year that focuses on a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender topic. Awardees are selelcted by a specially appointed subcommitee of the LGBT Concerns Committee. The awards will be announced in April 2004. *The UF Lesbian/Gay//Bisexual/Transgender Concerns Committee serves as a vehicle for systematic and periodic assessment of the quality of life of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and.transgender individuals at UF and makes recommendations regarding the need for educational programming, establishment of specific services and programs, and other similar matters; examines and recommends revisions in university policies and procedures having potentially negative consequences for gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender individuals; and serves as a forum to which various individuals and groups can express concerns related to issues of homophobia. For a complete listing, see <http://www.aa.ufl.edu/committees/lgbtcc.htm> Note: All members of the University are invited to serve on the LGBT Concerns Committee. The committee is often at the forefront of LGBT issues at the University. |
Marriage UpdateThe same-sex marriage issue is changing so rapidly that there are days when it's an hour-by-hour story. The following is a quick summary of what is happening both for and against smae-sex marraige across the U.S. California -- San Francisco began to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on February 12. Over 3600 couples have been married. On Friday, March 5, the California Supreme Court heard arguments. Opponents' requests for injunctions against issuing the licenses were refused in lower California courts, but those hearings are scheduled for March 29. Illinois -- Approximately 300 protesters rallied outside the Cook County, Ill., administration building in downtown Chicago on Thursday demanding that Cook County clerk David Orr issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. A law passed by the Illinois legislature in 1996 bans same-sex marriage. Orr has called the law unconstitutional and discriminatory but has said he won't break it. Chicago mayor Richad Daley recently came out in favor of legal marriage for gays and lesbians but has not called for marriage licenses to be issued. Kansas -- A proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution banning gay marriage recently cleared the House and moved to an uncertain fate in the Senate. New York -- New Paltz -- Mayor Jason West performed 25 same-sex marriages on February 27. West has postponed a second round of same-sex weddings planned for Saturday, March 6 so he can consult with state attorney general Eliot Spitzer next week. West said Friday that he decided on the one-week postponement to help foster an atmosphere of trust between Spitzer and himself. Spitzer issued a legal opinion Wednesday that gay marriage is illegal in New York but could be open to a constitutional challenge. Long Island -- On March 5, about 50 gay and lesbian couples rode from city to city in search of a town clerk willing to issue them marriage licenses. Albany -- The Lambda Legal Defense Fund filed a suit against the stat of New York on behalf of a same-sex couple on March 5. The case argues that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the state constitution's guarantee of equality for all New Yorkers. The case is the first of its kind to be filed in New York since the Massachusetts high court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to full marriage under that state's constitution. Oregon -- Portland -- Multnomah County Commissioners affirmed that their oath of office requires them to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The first licenses were issued on March 3. (More on Oregon at <http://www.oregonlive.com/special/gaymarriage/>) Washington -- Seattle -- Seattle's mayor said Sunday the city will begin recognizing the marriages of gay employees who tie the knot elsewhere, although it will not conduct its own same-sex weddings. Mayor Greg Nickels was to sign an executive order Monday giving same-sex spouses of city employees all the benefits of heterosexual spouses, including health insurance. He also planned to send a proposal to the City Council that would extend that recognition to employees of city contractors and protect the rights of all same-sex married couples in Seattle. Wisconsin -- The Wisconsin assembly approved an amendment to the state constitution on Friday, March 5 to ban same-sex marriages or civil unions to counter efforts elsewhere to legalize the partnerships. After an all-night meeting, the lawmakers voted 68-27 to back the proposal and send it to the state senate. More approval from lawmakers and voters would also be required for it to become law, with a statewide referendum coming no earlier than April 2005. Wisconsin statutes already define marriage as a contract between a husband and a wife and do not recognize same-sex marriage. But backers fear a judge would overrule that. "Amending our statutes is not going to address the problem," said Republican representative Mark Gundrum, the amendment's main author. Stay current at the Advocate Web site.
As of February 6, 2004 when Ohio's DOMA legislation was signed into law, 39 states have Defense of Marriage Acts. Three states have statutory language that pre-dates DOMA (enacted before 1996) defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Read more at http://www.stateline.org/stateline/ |
||||||||||||||
ResourcesRA-online > www.ra-online.org |