|
Newsletter of the Rainbow Alliance
at the University of Florida Special Note: Your help is needed. Please contribute to the Rainbow Alliance Fund. Next Rainbow Alliance Dinner Meeting, Wednesday, November 10, 2004, 6:30 pm, at Ballyhoo Restaurant on Newberry Road. 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 WordsCutting Off the Nose to Spite the FaceOne Web site called it Black Tuesday. There was some good news – the election of Barak Obama (Senate, IL) and Ken Salazar (Senate, CO), for example – but for the most part, many progressive candidates were defeated. ... and eleven states passed amendments to their state constitutions against same-sex marriage. The passage of these amendments by majorities of 57% (Oregon) to 86% (Mississippi) was disappointing, and at times troubling, and let's face it -- depressing. I felt fine on Tuesday, if any day was "black," it was Wednesday. Analysts analyzed. Did the same-sex marriage ban on the Ohio ballot work against John Kerry? He lost by a fairly narrow margin, and perhaps the marriage issue dragged enough voters over to the conservative side to make the difference. Would John Kerry be the president-elect if not for gay marriage? The Human Rights Campaign also analyzes. They feel that gay marriage did not make the critical difference. And whatever the analysis, equality for LGBT people is right. The White Houses' public statement about their victory have strongly downplayed the role of so-called "moral issues." Perhaps more important than the losses of progressive candidates is the question of how much more conservative the federal courts will be after four more years of Bush appointments. With state legislatures and the Congress working against gay rights, the courts were our best hope. Bush is already on record as favoring judges like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Interesting pair: the loudest and the quietest justices. It was Scalia who announced the beginning of a culture war in his dissenting opinion the Texas case that overturned sodomy laws in the United States. Basically, Scalia felt that homosexuals would first want to the right to have sex legally in the privacy of their own homes and then they would start asking for the right to marry! Imagine that! People who actually insist on their human rights! It seems scary, but Bush never has to face another election and like all second-term presidents, he may become preoccupied with his legacy. A few days before the election he stated that he favored civil unions for same-sex couples in response to a question about same-sex marriage. That remark did not get a lot of press play in the confusion leading up the election. However, the president's conservative supporters heard it. His shills on conservative talk television and radio suddenly go deaf when asked about this comment. If it's any comfort, many analysts feel that at least the Supreme Court is not likely to move too far to the right even with Bush appointees. There are a lot of politics between here and any appointment, and it's always possible that even the appointees of a conservative president will have a correct view of fundamental human rights. The 11 Amendments use a variety of tactics to prevent even merest "possibility of a speculation" that two people of the same sex could be considered by any means to be in a union substantially similar to and remotely construing upon them... Take a second to catch your breath. The more detail the amendments go into the more clearly they violate fundamental equality under the law. There is no reasonable to way to deny a class of people from enjoying the rights that are enjoyed by another class just because by enjoying those rights they might appear to be pretending to be... It's happening again, isn't it? These amendments tie their language and their logic in knots to attempt to prevent even the appearance of same-sex marriage. This may be their major weakness. Another problem with the amendments... The majority of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits, and many universities, colleges, and other institutions offer these benefits to their workers. Some of the amendments either state or imply that domestic partner benefits are not acceptable because they give domestic partners a benefit associated with marriage. These states and the companies that do business in them are now a competitive disadvantage. States and cities that pass sweeping bans of human freedoms are often passed by when large organizations choose convention sites, leading to the loss of millions of dollars. As we've discussed in previous issues of this newsletter, same-sex marriage has not undermined marriage in other countries. If anything has "weakened marriage" in those countries, it has been the offering of weak alternatives to marriage, i.e., civil unions, that heterosexual couples find attractive and take on instead of traditional marriage. To remedy this situation, I propose a Federal Civil Union Amendment (the FCVA), which would state: "Civil Unions in the United States shall consist only of the union of two people of the same sex. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that civil union or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon couples who could otherwise marry." A note of levity? You bet. We suffered some setbacks on Tuesday, but the LGBT advances of the last few years apparently frightened a lot of people, and the nation is suffering a bit of Backlash Fever. This fever tends to burn itself out as backlashers misread victories as mandates and reveal their true intentions by demanding legislation that will bring back the rack, boiling in oil, tar and feathers, the scarlet letter, and of course, the pillory (How they miss it!). As disappointing as defeats are, they are also tempering. We have to do a better job of making the general public aware of LGBT people – as relatives, as coworkers, as clients. The public must understand who they are voting against in these marriage amendments. And they must understand what they are voting against, that is, we have to get better and better at making the case for fundamental human rights. We are asking people to see some very traditional notions, like marriage and sexuality, in new ways – ways that open doors to a culture of diversity and inclusion. Scary ideas for some. The bottom line is that we
have to take what has happened and make something positive out
of it. We have to learn our lessons, and we have to keep working.
Imagine that day when the Supreme Court strikes down marriage
amendments. Imagine that day when 11 state legislatures approve
same-sex marriage. Imagine the day when America lives up to the
words "created equal." |
Pride Student Union Holds Intercollegiate WorkshopOn November 5-7, LGBT students from all over the state of Florida came to Gainesville to attend the Third Annual Intercollegiate Pride Conference sponsored by the Pride Student Union. The theme of the event was "Advancing LGBTQ Acceptance on College Campuses." Students participated in three days of social activities and workshops. The keynote speaker was Lyndsay Agans, who an administrator in the Department of Residence in the Division of Student Life at Brandeis University, where she is responsible for leadership and diversity training. Brandeis has been rated among the top 5 universities for LGBT acceptance. Other speakers included Charles Brown, Chris Bullins, Tamara Cohen, Kim Emery, Brandon Cardet-Hernandez, Eugene Lang, Linda Leonard Lamme, Jeanna Mastrodicasa, Megan Silbert, Catherine Tosenberger, Ben Witten. They gave workshops in four areas: Leadership, Working with Administration, Enacting Social Change, and Working Together. For more information: <http://grove.ufl.edu/~pride/conference.htm> |
Cincinnati Repeals Anti-Gay OrdinanceIn 1993, the City of Cincinnati passed an ordinance that prohibited the used of sexual orientation as the basis for any kind of protected status. In 2004, voters in that city repealed that ordinance by a comfortable margin (54%-46%). The petition drive to put the issue on the November ballot was led by Citizens for Fairness. The drive took place in a very mixed environment in Cincinnati in which an amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage was offered and the domestic partner registry in Cleveland Heights, the only one in Ohio, was being debated. The ordinance was unique in the nation for its sweeping language. Many felt that the implication of the ordinance was to prevent LGBT people from enjoying many common rights. Article 12 had been approved by Cincinnati voters in 1993 as a means of overriding the City Council's non-discrimination clause which included "race, gender, age, religion, disability, Appalachian origin, or sexual orientation." (Appalachian origin?) The measure was passed by 63% of the voters. In 10 years, the situation has changed dramatically. Cincinnati found itself alone with its strange ordinance while many other US cities had done just the opposite by adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes in their nondiscrimination policies. (For a list, see: <http://www.lgbtcampus.org/resources/nondiscrimination2.html>.) In 1996, the US Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the Colorado constitution which also specifically prohibited granting rights on the basis of sexual orientation (Romer v Evans). In the wake of the victory, the City of Cincinnati was sued over Article 12. In 1998, the case reached the Supreme Court through the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, however, they did instruct the city to review the article. The test came in early 2003 when the city commission passed a hate crimes ordinance which included sexual orientation. Supporters of Article 12 sued the city on the basis that the hate crimes law violated Article 12. At the same time, petition efforts to put repeal of the article on the ballot were underway. The mayor of Cincinnati supported the repeal citing the loss of millions of tourism, conference and investment dollars that have been lost. He also talked to his fellow citizens about the continuing image of unfairness and discrimination. A coalition of Cincinnati businesses and the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce supported the mayor's position and worked for repeal of Article 12. They cited the impact on their bottom lines and the city economy in general. Proctor and Gamble, makers
of leading brands like Tide laundry detergent and Crest toothpaste,
is headquartered in Cincinnati. As one of Ohio's most important
employers and one of the largest corporations in the United States,
P&G publicly supported the repeal. The company was attacked
for its position "supporting the homosexual agenda"
in a widely circulated e-mail allegedly authored by the American
Family Association. The AFA is an ultra-conservative fundamentalist
Christian organization which opposes any form of LGBT rights,
evolution, abortion, etc. The group called for a boycott of P&G
brands in its e-mail. |
Handy Guide to the Eleven AmendmentsEleven states passed amendments affirming that marriage in the respective states is defined as between one man and one woman. The amendments were approved in those states by various majorities ranging from a high of 86% in Mississippi to a "low" of 57% in Oregon. Table 1 summarizes the vote. The losses aren't as dramatic as they seem according to the Human Rights Campaign. First, same-sex marriage was already illegal in all these states (through baby DOMA laws),and second, LGBT groups had made no efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.
The amendments include a variety of clauses intended to define marriage as between one and one woman and prohibit anything else by a variety of means. Table 2 summarizes the clauses that are used in the amendments and Table 3 shows which amendments include which clauses.
The following summaries of the eleven marriage amendments are taken from the Human Rights Campaign Web site <www.hrc.org>. Arkansas -- This citizen-initiated measure to amend the constitution needed 80,570 signatures by July 2, 2004 to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Approximately 200,693 signatures were turned in on July 1, 2004. The Secretary of State certified the signatures on July 23, 2004. The measure amends the state constitution to read, "Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage." Georgia -- Senate Resolution 595 passed the state Senate on Feb. 16, 2004, and the state House on March 31, 2004. The measure will amend the state constitution to include the following statement: "(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties'' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship." Kentucky -- Senate Bill 245 passed the state senate on March 11, 2004 by a 3304 vote and the state house on April 12, 2004 by an 85-11 vote. The measure will amend the state constitution to read, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized." Michigan -- A citizen-initiated measure to amend the state constitution needed 317,000 signatures to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Approximately 474,000 were turned in July 5, 2004. The measure will amend the state constitution to include the following statement: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." Mississippi -- House Concurrent Resolution passed the state house on March 1, 2004 and the state senate on April 7, 2004. The measure will amend the state constitution to read, "Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state." Montana -- This citizen-initiated measure to amend the constitution needed 41.020 signatures to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Approximately 70,000 were turned in on June 18, 2004. The measure will amend the state constitution to read, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." North Dakota -- This citizen-initiated measure to amend the state constitution needed 25,588 signatures to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Proponents of the measure turned in more than 42,000 signatures, and the Secretary of State certified the signatures Sept. 1, 2004. The measure will amend the state constitution to include the following statement: "Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect." Ohio -- A citizen-initiated measure to amend the state constitution needed 322,899 signatures to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Proponents turned in 391,000 signatures. The Secretary of State has until Sept. 23, 2004, to certify these signatures. The measure will amend the state constitution to include the following statement: "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." Oklahoma -- House Bill 2259 passed the state senate on April 15, 2004 by a 38-7 vote and the state house on April 22, 2004 by a 92-4 vote. The measure will amend the state constitution to read, "A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Oregon -- This citizen-initiated measure to amend the constitution needed 100,840 signatures to be placed on the 2004 ballot. Approximately 244,000 were turned in on June 30, 2004 The measure will amend the state constitution to read, "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." Utah -- House Joint Resolution
passed the State House on February 24, 2004 by a 56-16 vote and
the state senate on March 3, 2004 by a 20-7 vote. The measure
will amend the state constitution to read, "(1) Marriage
consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.(2)
No other domestic status or union, however denominated, between
persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned,
or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as
a marriage." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ResourcesRA-online > www.ra-online.org |