To Form a More Perfect Union: Marriage Equality News

NZ: Right to civil union paramount, despite slow uptake

Link: Massey University

Excerpt:

Same-sex couples may not be flocking to tie the civil union knot just yet. But that is no reflection of how highly they value the right to do so if they choose, says a Massey researcher and author of a new paper on civil unions.

Dr Mark Henrickson, a senior lecturer in social work at the Auckland campus, says the recently-publicised slow uptake among both heterosexual and same-sex couples formalising their relationship since civil unions became legal three years ago is irrelevant.

“It is the right to legal recognition of same-sex relationships, rather than recognition of relationships per se, that forms the foundation of lesbian, bisexual and gay support for government recognition of same-sex relationship,” he says in a new paper titled Civilised Unions, Civilised Rights: Same-Sex Relationships in Aotearoa New Zealand. The paper is the latest to be published from a major on-going survey into the lives of lesbians, gays and bisexual people, titled Lavender Islands: Portrait of the Whole Family, launched in March 2004.

His survey, conducted during the period of robust public debate on civil unions prior to the Civil Union Act being passed in 2005, found that the majority of the 2,269 respondents strongly supported civil union legislation. An overwhelming 95 percent of those in relationships and 93 percent of singles supported government recognition of same-sex couples.

But despite 66 per cent of partnered respondents and 63 per cent of single respondents saying they would undertake legal recognition of a relationship at some point in the future, “the actual uptake of civil unions has been somewhat less than survey data would suggest,” says Dr Henrickson.

[...] 

While more same-sex couples may get hitched via civil union in the future, Dr Henrickson says one implication of his study is that public officials reduced the demand for same-sex marriage simply by legalising it.

[...]

[jw]

Commentary: Ordinary, Like Us

Link: Independent Gay Forum
by Jennifer Vanasco

Excerpt:

First published in the Chicago Free Press, May 7, 2008

Young gays and lesbians want to be married. And have kids.

That's what the first survey of the aspirations of gay and lesbian youth discovered.

Rockway Institute reported that more than 90 percent of the lesbians and more than 80 percent of the gay males they surveyed "expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30."

About two-thirds of the males and just over half of the females said they thought it was very likely they'd have children.

What's extraordinary about this is just how very ordinary it is.

Ordinary for mainstream society, I mean. When we think of straight young people, we assume they want to get married and have children. There are always those who don't, of course, but they tend to be eccentric outliers.

The gay community, though, has long assumed the opposite of itself (especially gay men), and the mainstream world has assumed the same. Gays were thought to be promiscuous. Gays were artists, not parents. Gays were the outrageous life of the party, not couples who were in bed by 10 p.m.

But maybe the ordinariness of the survey results should not be such a surprise.

The survey participants were 16- to 22-year-olds in urban areas; they've grown up in a world where there are out gay members of Congress, out celebrities and rock stars, out mayors and athletes and CEOs and writers.

They've grown up with gay-straight alliances in their schools, with classmates who had out and happy gay parents, with discussions about whether saying "That's so gay" constitutes prejudice.

Gay and lesbian youth want stable marriages and children?

Of course they do.

Because they have grown up in an America where being gay is starting to seem unremarkable. Where being gay doesn't need to mean living a particular way. Where being gay doesn't have to mean putting limits on your future.

[...]

There have always been gays and lesbians who wanted monogamous partners and children, but until the past couple of years, they've been hidden from mainstream society by the gays and lesbians who get more attention – the promiscuous, the party-goers, the style tastemakers.

We love that part of our community. The absolutely fabulous gays are the ones that help define us as being creative, artistic, fun. They're the ones who help us feel special. Different.

But we're also the same.

And that basic similarity is what young gays and lesbians see right away. They have access to it. They know – already! at their age! – that they can have the life they want, whatever that life is.

They can do the party circuit. They can be successful government officials, or artists, or business owners. They can be parents.

Being gay doesn't limit them, because being gay is only one part of who they are. Or perhaps it's that the definition of being gay has expanded. It no longer means only eternal singlehood and a furtive life lived in gay bars and dark city parks. If a lesbian wants to be married, she doesn't have to pretend that she's living with her "best friend." If a gay man wants to be married, he doesn't have to marry a woman and then seek sex in public restrooms.

Now she can marry a woman, and he can marry a man.

And our gay and lesbian youth are planning to do exactly that.

[jw]

Hunter College Poll of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Americans: Marriage rights matter most to younger gays

Link: iMAPP.org

Maggie Gallagher posted this item . . .

Excerpt:

A nationally representative poll (using Knowledge Networks internet panel data) of gays, lesbians and bisexuals has been released by Hunter College, paid for by HRC.

[...]

Same-sex marriage did not make the list of the top 5 political priorities of GLBs overall. It skyrockets, however, among 18-25 year olds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The full report, in PDF format, is here.

The report says:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jw]

Gay and Lesbian Youth Want Long-Term Couple Relationships and Raising Children

Link: Newswise Social and Behavioral Sciences News

This item appeared on Newswise yesterday. It refers to a study that appears to have been published some time ago, but many blogs are picking it up. Regardless of its timeliness, it's worth putting out there.

Excerpt:

In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, social scientists have found that many lesbian and gay youth have expectations of spending their adult life in a long-term relationship raising children. More than 90 percent of females and more than 80 percent of males expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30. Two thirds of females and more than half of males expressed likelihood that they would raise children in the future.

“These findings, while appear to be representative of urban lesbian or gay youth’s aspirations, are a glimpse into the future of the LGBT community,” said Robert-Jay Green, PhD, executive director of the Rockway Institute, a national research and public policy center located at Alliant International University. “If these young people realize their expectations, the LGBT community will be a vastly different place in 20 years, with many more families and children. The implications are staggering for how the lesbian/gay community will be different in the 21st century than in generations past, when it was mainly a secret society of singles.”

The study was conducted by Anthony R. D’Augelli, H. Jonathon Rendina and Katerina O. Sinclair of Pennsylvania State University and Arnold Grossman of New York University and published in the Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling (Vol. 1, No. 4, 2006/2007, pp. 77-98). The researchers interviewed 133 young people from the New York City area who said they were “almost totally” or “totally” lesbian or gay. The participants were age 16 to 22, and they were asked about their future relationship and parenting plans.

One-third of males and one-half of females in the study reported being in a relationship. Males reported fewer and briefer relationships than females. In both genders, approximately 70 percent of participants expressed satisfaction with their relationship.

When asked about expectations of future relationships, 66 percent of males and 80 percent of females rated future long-term relationships as “extremely important” or “very important.” Eighty-two percent of females and 61 percent of males hoped to be partnered during the next five years. Ninety-two percent of females and 82 percent of males expected to be monogamously partnered after age 30, and 79 percent of females and 73 percent of males expected to live with their partner. Sixty-four percent of females and 37 percent of males said it was “extremely likely” they would marry if allowed by law.

When asked about expectations of child-raising, 36 percent of females and 20 percent of males said it was “extremely likely” they will raise children. Overall, 67 percent of males and 55 percent of females expressed some degree of likelihood that they would raise children. Of those who expressed some likelihood, 58 percent of males and 54 percent of females expect to be raising their own biological children. Forty-two percent of males and 32 percent of females expect to adopt. Sixteen percent of males and 14 percent of females expect to be foster parents. Thirty-six percent of females and 17 percent of males expect to help their partner raise her or his biological children.

D’Augelli and colleagues cautioned that the participants in this study may not be representative of all lesbian and gay youth in the U.S. Because these participants lived in or near a major urban center, they likely were more aware of lesbian and gay community resources and more likely to be connected to support programs and services. The researchers suspected that because they might not be exposed to same-sex relationships or to social services directed to lesbian and gay youth, youth in rural areas might have different responses, although no data were collected to test for such urban/rural differences.

Dr. Green of the Rockway Institute commented: “We seem to be witnessing the mainstreaming of lesbian/gay youth, with many of them wanting exactly what heterosexual youth have always wanted - the whole American dream complete with kids and the minivan. This should not be surprising when one considers that most lesbian/gay youth also have been raised in very mainstream heterosexual families with similar values and parental models.” He continued, “Although some lesbian/gay adults may prefer less conventional lives, most agree that the primary issue is whether these youth will be given the equal legal rights to realize their couple and family aspirations just like their heterosexual peers.”

Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin comments:

Expectations of Domesticity

One of the arguments from anti-gays in opposition to marriage equality is that gay people don’t want marriage anyway. But a new study from the Rockway Institute suggest that not only do gay youth want to be part of a couple, they expect to be.

In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, social scientists have found that many lesbian and gay youth have expectations of spending their adult life in a long-term relationship raising children. More than 90 percent of females and more than 80 percent of males expect to be partnered in a monogamous relationship after age 30. Two thirds of females and more than half of males expressed likelihood that they would raise children in the future.

As gay youth become more aware that they have the opportunity and the right to live their lives openly and with someone they love, the more they grow up expecting to do just that.

It’s ironic, in a way, that the failure of heterosexuals to live up to their own expectations has not jaded gay kids. In a time of 50% heterosexual divorce these kids still believe that love is powerful and meaningful.

[jw]

VT: Audio--Tom Little and Craig Bensen on the same-sex equal rights study

Link: Vermont Public Radio

Excerpt:

When civil unions were created in Vermont eight years ago, they were the result of heated and prolonged debate that started with the question of how to guarantee equal rights to same-sex couples. Now a new commission has released a report that studies whether that equality has been achieved. Tom Little is the chair of the Commission on Family Recognition and Protection.  Craig Bensen is the President of Take It to the People, and is a pastor at the Cambridge United Church, a group that supports traditional marriage and wants a statewide referendum on the issue of same-sex marriage.  They spoke with VPR's Jane Lindholm about the issue.

Listen (Flash)

MP3 (Open or download)

[jw]

VT: Editorial--A new reality

Link: Rutland Herald

The atmosphere surrounding the issue of gay marriage has changed substantially since the furor that gripped the state eight years ago. That was when the Vermont Legislature became the first in the nation to institute civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

A commission appointed by the Legislature last year to study the issue of gay marriage has presented its report amid a resounding absence of controversy. The commission held a series of meetings around the state to hear all sides of the issue, but mostly what they heard were pleas by Vermonters to enact full marriage equality by moving beyond civil unions to civil marriage.

Two groups opposed to gay marriage decided at the outset to boycott the hearings, but their absence could not account for the lack of interest by opponents. Eight years ago no one could have silenced the opposition by calling for a boycott. Back then the opposition was deep and broad and determined to be heard.

Eight years later the opposition is still there, and in some quarters it is deeply felt, but it was not determined to be heard. That is a reality that the commission noticed. Something has happened in the intervening time.

One thing that happened was the cause of marriage equality has advanced elsewhere in the nation, and it is not such a novel or threatening idea. Marriage is now available to gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts (as well as in Canada and some European nations), and civil unions are a reality in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire. In fact, New Hampshire passed a civil unions law last year without a court ruling compelling the legislature to act.

Further, Vermont has lived with civil unions for eight years and has learned two things from the experience. First, honoring homosexual relationships does not hurt heterosexual relationships. Rather than threatening the stability of the family, civil unions extend respect for families to gay and lesbian partners.

Second, civil unions, while furthering the stability of families, remain an unfulfilled promise of equality. The only reason that gay and lesbian couples are denied the full rights of marriage is because of their sexual orientation. The commission heard much testimony about the second-class status of civil unions for those couples who believe that the full rights of marriage are the only way to provide equal rights to all.

The commission did not make a recommendation to the Legislature, though many of its members have expressed sympathy with the idea of gay marriage. The commission took seriously its charge to report on what Vermonters were thinking, rather than pushing their own agenda.

Tom Little, chairman of the commission, was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when civil unions were adopted, and he learned then that the people's voice can be the most powerful voice of all. By preparing a report reflecting the lessons learned by the people of Vermont over the past eight years, he has demonstrated a new reality for all who wish to look: that marriage equality for gay and lesbian Vermonters is an idea whose time has come.

[jw]

VT: Civil unions fall short, but panel neutral on next move

Link: Burlington Free Press

Excerpt:

A panel charged with studying Vermont's eight-year experiment with civil unions for same-sex couples found this separate track from marriage fails to provide the equality and fairness promised when the law was passed in 2000.

The Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection also concluded that the state's social and political climate has moderated toward greater acceptance of gays and lesbians since the volatile public debates over initiating civil unions.

The 11-member panel didn't, however, recommend that the Legislature pass a bill that would replace civil unions with same-sex marriage.

"The charge didn't really ask us to do that," said Tom Little, commissioner chairman, a former Republican House member and chief author of the state's civil union legislation. "The commission believes that making such a recommendation would undercut the purpose and usefulness of its work and this report."

The commission proposed four areas for further study.

Are Massachusetts' same-sex marriages more readily understood and more portable across the country than Vermont civil unions?

Can Vermont's income tax system be changed to ease the burden that civil union couples face in filing returns?

What's the best science on the impact of different family structures on children and should this be a factor in the debate over same-sex marriage?

If Vermont adopted same-sex marriage, what would happen to couples with civil union licenses?

Little said it would be up to policymakers to review the report, which includes summaries of testimony from eight hearings and a collection of legal briefs, and then decide what to do.
The Legislature will be prodded.

"You can absolutely expect us to be back in 2009 pushing the issue," said Beth Robinson of the Freedom to Marry Task Force. Robinson was one of the lawyers who filed the court case challenging the constitutionality of Vermont's marriage restrictions.

[...]

Stephen Cable of the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council disagreed, challenging the validity of report because of the low turnout among opponents.

"They didn't hear the other side," Cable said. "Trust me, there are thousands."

His organization expects to issue its own report by summer, which Cable said would respond to assertions by the commission and provide Vermonters with "information that has never been discussed in this debate -- the significance of marriage and the social good it provides."

Cable said he believes the legislative leaders who established the commission -- House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, and Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham -- will push gay marriage next year. "I believe they are setting the stage for a vote."

Robinson disagreed with Cable's view that many Vermonters boycotted the hearings. "We don't know if there are people out there who didn't come to speak their minds because of a couple of opposition leaders," she said. She noted that in 2000, organizations on both sides of the debate didn't do much coaxing to get "standing-room only crowds" at public hearings.

This time, she said, "there wasn't a spontaneous outburst of opposition."

Symington hadn't read the report, but explained what she was looking for when she and Shumlin created the commission.

"What I wanted to learn was what is the experience of our Vermont neighbors who have civil unions?" she said. "And what public good is served by continuing to have separate status for same-gender couples?"

[jw]

Vermont commission stops short of recommending full marriage

Link: AP via Boston.com

Excerpt:

A special commission appointed by legislative leaders to study same-sex marriage stopped just short in its final report Monday of recommending that the state become the second in the country -- after Massachusetts -- to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

more stories like this

The Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection was appointed last summer to study whether Vermont, which became the first jurisdiction in the United States to offer legal recognition to same-sex couples with its civil union law in 2000, should take the next step.

The 11-member panel, chaired by the former legislator Thomas Little, who chaired the House Judiciary Committee when it wrote the 2000 law, said it decided not to make a final recommendation, because to do so "would undercut the purpose and usefulness of its work and this report."

"It is the role of Vermont's policy-makers and elected officials to read and reflect on this report and in their best judgment determine what steps to take in their role as public servants of the people of Vermont," it said.

But in its findings the commission said "such a change in the law would give access (to same-sex couples) to less tangible incidents of marriage, including its terminology (e.g. marriage, wedding, married, celebration, divorce), and its social cultural and historical significance."

It added that full same-sex marriage "would likely enhance the portability of the underlying legal consequences of the status. ... The tangible same-sex marriage benefits ... raise serious questions about the operation of the civil union law and warrant additional research and serious attention."

And it said, "There is credible social science research supporting the conclusion that raising children in a gay or lesbian coupled family, per se, has no negative impacts on the well-being of children," but added that the topic needs further study.

[...]

Supporters of same-sex marriage, including Beth Robinson of the Vermont Freedom To Marry Task Force, welcomed the report.

"They reported what they saw and heard, which is exactly what I was hoping they'd do," said Robinson, a Middlebury lawyer. "The vast majority of people who testified spoke compellingly about why this is an important step for Vermont to take."

Two leaders of the opposition to civil unions in 2000, Rev. Craig Bensen of Cambridge and president of the group Take It To The People, and Stephen Cable of Rutland and the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, said they were not surprised by the commission's report.

Bensen questioned whether producing a report that contained no definitive recommendation pro or con for gay marriage was a good use of time and resources. "I wonder what the purpose of this report was." Then he added that some of the legwork would be done when a bill is introduced in the Legislature, as is expected to happen next year. "They did the research for this."

[...]

Issuance of the report came too late for legislation to be passed this year; lawmakers are expected to adjourn their 2008 session within two weeks.

But Robinson vowed her forces would continue pushing the matter.

"We've never made a secret of the fact that we're planning to come back in '09 and we're going to be here talking about these issues and looking to move forward, absolutely," she said.

 

[jw]

IA: Study says allowing gay marriages would boost state's economy

Link: QCTimes.com

Excerpt:

DES MOINES — A UCLA study says same-sex marriage, if allowed in Iowa, would be a boon to the state economy.

The study arrives as the Iowa Supreme Court is considering an appeal of a Polk County case that overturned the state ban on same-sex marriage.

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law estimates that same-sex weddings and related tourism would lead to $160 million in spending over the next three years.

The total economic activity related to same-sex marriage would give the state an extra $5.3 million per year in tax revenue, the study says.

“This study demonstrates that equal marriage rights for same-sex couples are not only good for those couples, but they’re good for the state budget,” said a statement from co-author Lee Badgett, the research director of the Williams Institute.

[...]

[km]

VT: Marriage report due

Link: Times Argus Online

Excerpt:

The long-awaited report to the Vermont Legislature on the possibility of expanding marriage rights to same-sex couples will be released Monday.

Tom Little, the chairman of the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection, said members of the legislatively created group will meet at the Statehouse on Monday at 3 p.m. in Room 10 to unveil their findings.

[...]

Little said members of the group will discuss the highlights of the report at that meeting, the process of holding a series of public hearings across the state and "what lies ahead."

"Of course, what lies ahead is really out of our hands," Little said, referring to possible legislative action that may follow the report.

Democratic leaders of the Vermont House and Senate formed the committee – comprised of 11 Vermonters, including Little, a former Republican state legislator who oversaw the writing of the 2000 civil unions law – last summer to determine if it is time for the state to take the next step in expanding the rights of gays and lesbians.

The commission held a series of public hearings across the state during the fall and winter, and overwhelmingly heard support for changing state law to allow same-sex couples to marry.

According to its charter, the commission will deliver copies of its report to the Judiciary Committees in both the House and Senate – committees that are expected to be shut down or nearing the end of their work this session by the time the report comes out next week.

[...]

[jw]

NM: Study says same-sex couples have increased

Link: Las Cruces Sun-News

Excerpt:

SANTA FE—The number of same-sex couples in New Mexico has increased about 35 percent between 2000 and 2005, a study released last week showed.

Researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law found New Mexico in 2005 was home to 6,063 same-sex couples. Of those couples, 27 percent were raising children, the study found.

Chuck Jones and his partner, Richard Parker, who have adopted two sons, have seen evidence of more same-sex couples who have families at his son's school. They were the only same-sex couple at the school five years ago. Now, there are two other couples like them.

"People are beginning to see that gay families are just like any other families," Jones said. "Our biggest concern is getting our kids fed and to bed early enough so they get enough sleep."

The UCLA study, based on Census Bureau data, shows same-sex couples live in all the state's 33 counties. Santa Fe County has the highest percentage, while Bernalillo County has the highest total number.

[...]

Gov. Bill Richardson has pushed for a law that would give same-sex partners many of the same benefits as married couples, but the measure was shelved by the Senate in this year's session. Richardson's office said the governor will try again to get the bill passed in next year's session.

[km]

Study: LGBT Parents More Involved In Schooling

Link: 365Gay.com

Excerpt:

A study of LGBT parents has found they are more likely to be involved in their children's K-12 education than the general parent population. 

It found that the parents were more involved in school activities and were more likely to have consistent communication with school personnel. In addition, both LGBT parents and children of LGBT parents often report harassment because of their family structure.

The report, "Involved, Invisible, Ignored," was prepared by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, in partnership with the Family Equality Council and COLAGE.

It examined school experiences of LGBT-headed families using results from surveys of LGBT parents of children in K-12 schools and of secondary students who have LGBT parents.

Compared to data from the National Center for Education Statistics LGBT parents are more likely to attend a parent-teacher conference in the past year (94 percent to 77 percent) and more likely to volunteer (67 percent to 42 percent).

Current estimates indicate there are more than seven million LGBT parents with school-age children in the United States. 

"Family and education are two of the most important aspects of children's lives," said GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings.

"This report casts doubt on schools' inclusion of different kinds of families in our education system. LGBT parents are actively engaged in their children's education yet are often not accepted by school communities. Further, their children are often harassed in school simply because of the makeup of their families. All families in a school community should be valued and respected as equals."

More than half of LGBT parents described various forms of exclusion from their school communities: being excluded or prevented from fully participating in school activities and events, being excluded by school policies and procedures, and being ignored and feeling invisible.

In addition, LGBT parents reported mistreatment from other parents in the school community and even from their children's peers at school. Twenty-six percent of LGBT parents in the survey reported mistreatment from other parents and 21 percent reported hearing negative comments about being LGBT from students.

Parents whose child's school had a comprehensive safe school policy that protected students from bullying and harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender expression/identity reported the lowest level of mistreatment and that there were no differences between the no-policy and generic-policy groups.

[...]

[jw]

Australia: Relationship rights in limbo; access to report blocked

Link: Sydney Star Observer

Excerpt:

NSW [New South Wales] Attorney General John Hatzistergos has blocked access to a Law Reform Commission report on relationship recognition and same-sex parenting rights that has sat in limbo for two years, on the grounds he will table it in parliament sometime in the future.

But he revealed that same-sex de facto couples could have access to the federal courts to settle parenting and property disputes under plans with the Rudd Government.

A freedom of information request by the Sydney Star Observer was denied this week under the “deferral of access” section of the Act, for documents which have been prepared but are yet to be presented to Parliament. The Attorney-General’s office would not indicate when the report would be released.

“The Law Reform Commission’s report on relationships was very extensive, included many recommendations and took the LRC itself seven years to complete. The Government has been working to develop a full response before releasing it, which will be done when this process is complete,“ a spokesman for the Attorney General told SSO.

“Also, the new Federal Government’s decision to take up referral of power from states on same-sex de facto property settlements has meant that the NSW Government has had to
revisit a majority of the recommendations in the report.”

The Federal Government could proceed with these new property rights for same-sex couples without further negotiation or amendments to NSW legislation as the powers were already referred in 2003.

NSW Law Reform Commissioner Professor Michael Tilbury said his report was completed and handed to the previous NSW Attorney-General in June 2006.

“We considered the question of registered relationships for same-sex couples and we reported on that to the Attorney-General, but it’s obviously part of a larger consideration and we’re still waiting to see the outcome of that,“ Tilbury said.

Hatzistergos, who has consistently opposed any further same-sex relationship recognition in NSW, can indefinitely block the report’s recommendations from ever becoming public. Previous reports by the Commission have recommended step-parent adoption provisions to include same-sex de facto relationships.

[...]

[jw]

VT: Opinion--Study on traditional marriage benefits flawed

Link: Burlington Free Press
By Jacqueline S. Weinstock

Excerpt:

I am writing to take Dr. Patrick Fagan up on his request to engage him on the data, and on that basis, to challenge his use of the data to argue against extending marriage rights to same-sex couples ("Traditional marriage critic gets it wrong," March 8). After careful review of Dr. Patrick Fagan’s argument, I note three significant problems:

-- Dr. Fagan seems to have completely ignored the available research evidence on child outcomes for same sex families.

[...]

-- The same-sex parented family was not one of the family structures Dr. Fagan examined as part of his comparative analysis. Yet this does not stop him from claiming "traditional marriage is a foundational institution for the good of society because it is best for children.? This is an all too common and misleading strategy employed by those against extending marriage rights to same-sex couples: they compare select family structures — for example, two-parent heterosexual households and single-parent households — and then draw the over-reaching conclusion that children do better in families with a biological mother and a father married to each other.

[...]

-- Family structure is a much less meaningful variable than family processes when it comes to helping us understand child outcomes. Indeed, a wide range of human development and family scholars and other professionals have come to recognize that family structure in and of itself is not a meaningful factor. As Dr. Susan Golombok put it in 2000, "in itself, family structure makes little difference to children’s psychological development. Instead, what really matters is the quality of family life."

What this means in the current debate is that we ought not to be focusing on parents’ gender or sexual orientation, but rather on the quality of family life. If we were to bring this focus to the conversation, we would, I believe, reach the logical conclusion that the quality of family life for children with same-sex parents would only be improved with the extension of marriage rights to their parents. In this way, these families might receive the many legal and social benefits of marriage that help support quality family life.

This is precisely the conclusion reached by a large number of major professional organizations, including the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Anthropological Association, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers, American Sociological Association.

I trust that this will also be the conclusion we Vermonters will reach.

 

Jacqueline S. Weinstock of South Burlington has a doctorate in experimental psychology and is associate professor of human development and family studies at the University of Vermont.

[jw]

Europe: Gay group shocked at ignorance among Euro politicians

Link: Pink News

Excerpt:

Last week's meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe exposed some members' ignorance about gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans people, according to the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA).

The committee was holding its first hearing on a report on LGBT rights in the member states.

A panel of four experts addressed the committee, including an ILGA-Europe representative.

The 47-member Council of Europe promotes and protects democracy, educational and sporting co-operation and created the European Court of Human Rights.

[...]

"I think it would be fair to say that all panel members were shocked by the level of understanding of issues related to LGBT rights by some members of the committee," said Maxim Anmeghichean, programmes director for ILGA-Europe.

"Arguments of homosexuals being on the sideline of evolution because we cannot reproduce, that marriage should be protected under constitution, that children in homosexual families will also grow up homosexual, and even that biologically homosexuals can't have children (all of the speakers started such statements by saying "of course, I am against discrimination of homosexuals, but") are just few examples."

However, the committee did decide to merge three motions, on legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, on freedom of assembly and expression for LGBT in member states and on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, into one report.

Mr Anmeghichean said ILGA-Europe will continue its advocacy efforts to ensure the report reflects needs and aspirations of LGBT people throughout Europe.

The legal situation on same-sex partnerships varies across the Council of Europe area: around 20 countries enable registration of a partnership, while a similar number have no legal recognition at all.

A few countries expressly prohibit same-sex marriage in their constitutions, while three member states currently allow civil marriage of same-sex partners.

Andreas Gross, a Swiss Socialist who is preparing the report, said before last week's meeting:

"Intolerance toward lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people is still clearly present in our societies.

"Lesbian and gay people have the same fundamental rights as anyone else."

[km]

Around the U.S., High Courts Follow California’s Lead

Link: New York Times

Excerpt:

The California Supreme Court is the most influential state court in the nation.

That’s not just talk. The numbers back it up.

A new study counted up the number of times the decisions of state high courts were followed in other states — in other words, how often one state’s decision played a direct role in shaping a decision elsewhere. That sort of citation analysis is a common measure of influence, and there is a cottage industry of rankings for judges, law professors, law reviews, law faculties and the like.

According to the study, published in December in the University of California, Davis, Law Review, the California Supreme Court won by a landslide.

In the 65 years ending in 2005, more than 24,000 state high court cases have been followed at least once. California leads with 1,260 decisions. Washington is next, with 942, and Colorado is third, with 848. New York comes in 10th and is only about half as influential as California, with 627 followed cases.

[...]

The study itself said that California’s size and diversity gave its Supreme Court an enormous inventory of interesting cases to choose from; that lower-court decisions there tended to present the pertinent issues well; and that the Supreme Court had a professional legal staff whose main job was to analyze petitions for review.

Ronald M. George, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, said the court had not commissioned the study, and he added that the most interesting result was not his court’s dominance, which may be at least partly based on the state’s population, but the good showings of high courts in states with fewer people, notably Washington and Kansas.

But there is something special about the California Supreme Court, as the packed courtroom last week for arguments in a same-sex marriage case demonstrated. Lawyers on both sides said they expected the ruling, which will be issued in the next three months, to be quite influential.

At the hearing, Chief Justice George quoted repeatedly from a 1948 decision of his court, Perez v. Sharp — the first state high court decision to strike down a law banning interracial marriage. Over the next two decades, the rest of the nation followed it, culminating in a similar ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 1967.

The California Supreme Court must now decide whether to follow the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the only state high court that has endorsed same-sex marriage.

Chief Justice George, discussing the study Friday, did not talk about the same-sex marriage case, of course. But he did say a little about his court’s citation philosophy.

“We look for wisdom wherever we can find it,” he said.

[jw]

High number of Irish same-sex couples living in US

Link: Pink News

Excerpt:

New research into US Census Bureau data has revealed that 1,200 Irish-born gay men and lesbians are living with a same-sex partner in America.

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy also found that two-thirds of Irish-born same-sex partners are women and 15% are raising children.

The Irish government is expected to bring forward proposals for a form of civil partnerships at the end of this month.

They have been legal in Northern Ireland since 2005.

Gary Gates, Senior Research Fellow at the Williams Institute, said:

"Irish policy makers should look beyond their shores when they consider the possible effects of civil partnership legislation, some of which might be good for the Irish economy."

"Such legislation could help to entice a very talented group of Irish-born emigrants back to their homeland."

The study also points out that the Irish legislation could make it easier for global companies to move lesbian and gay employees, their partners, and families from one country to another without risking the economic penalties and logistic challenges associated with non-recognition of their relationships.

Gates notes that, "without legal recognition, it can be difficult for partners of gay and lesbian employees to obtain work permits and they can be subject to challenge regarding their parental rights."

[...]

[jw]

Study: Same-sex couples earn less than heterosexuals

Link: Greatreporter.com

Excerpt:

caption: Rhonda Stubbs holds her 3-year-old daughter Chrystrell, and lives in Bushwick, Brooklyn, N.Y., with her civil union partner Michelle Minthe and their daughters Lamel, 9, and Shabrina, 12. (Photo by Zachary Goelman)

Researchers at the Williams Institute at UCLA found a large income gap between same-sex couples and married heterosexuals - even more pronounced among non-white gays and lesbians, who make up 20% of same-sex parents.

In the summer of 2004 Della Nagle and Ruth Pinkham dropped their kids off at summer camp, hopped on a flight from San Antonio, Texas, to Niagara Falls, Canada, got married, and quickly flew back home.

Nagle, 46, and Pinkham, 52, have been in a committed lesbian relationship for 22 years. Both are public school teachers, each with 20 years of experience. They have eight children. The four youngest still live with them in their six-bedroom San Antonio house.

The state of Texas will not recognize their wedding. They cannot register as domestic partners, and are not protected by anti-discrimination legislation.

“We often think about leaving the state,” said Nagle, who was born in Corpus Christi and has lived in San Antonio for 18 years. “But I don’t know anywhere else where we could afford to live like we do on our incomes.” 

Nagle and Pinkham each earn $50,000 annually. And statistically, they’re living well. In Texas, same-sex households with children take in, on average, only $53,000 a year, compared with the $67,500 average household income for a heterosexual family with children.

Using data culled from the 2005 census, the Williams Institute at UCLA has been drawing up state-by-state statistics on gay and lesbian couples and found that across the country same-sex couples raising children earn less than their heterosexual counterparts.

The numbers surprised some in the gay and lesbian community. 

“That’s shocking,” said Anne Stockwell, editor-in-chief of the Advocate, a 40-year-old gay and lesbian periodical published in Los Angeles. The UCLA report shows that individual gay men in same-sex relationships earn, on average, almost $7,000 less than married men.

“It’s long-held conventional wisdom that gay men earn more,” Stockwell said, because of media portrayal of gays and lesbians as metropolitan and well off.

“For the researchers, these results were not surprising,” said Adam Romero, a Public Policy Fellow at the Williams Institute who worked on the study.

“Studies across time show that gay men still earn less than married men,” he said. “The data on Texas is representative across the United States.”

[...]

Rhonda Stubbs and Michelle Minthe lied and said they were sisters when they signed a lease with their landlord for a fourth-floor walk-up in the predominantly black and Latino neighborhood of Bushwick, in Brooklyn, N.Y. They’d previously tried to be open about their sexuality and were told they were unwanted in an apartment in the Bronx.

Stubbs, 30, has two biological children aged 16 and 12, and together with Minthe has adopted two more, ages 9 and 3. Both women are unemployed cooks, on welfare.

Stubbs says they have trouble finding work. As cooks, employers often want them to work late hours.

“They ask if I’m married,” Stubbs said. “I say yes. Then they ask if my husband can take care of the kids some nights so I can work, and I say I don’t have a husband, I have a wife,” she said. Stubbs added that she usually doesn’t get called back. 

Stubbs says she’s lucky to have family and neighbors who help take care of the kids and the house. Across the United States, same-sex couples find the support of community in the absence of legal protection.

Mark and Andy Sutherland-Trevino, who legally merged their last names, raise seven adopted children in San Antonio. Andy Sutherland-Trevino gave up a fast-food management position for a part-time job as a special needs assistant, where he takes in only $15,000 a year, to spend more time at home with the children. 

His partner is the primary breadwinner, making $37,000 annually as a clerk for the public school board. Together they earn just below the national average household wage for gay parents.

Despite their untypical living arrangements, it’s the traditional reliance on family that helps them get by.

“Mark’s parents live next door,” Andy said. “So we have grandma and grandpa to help with the kids.”

[km]

AZ: Study--Gay couples in Arizona lack resources

Link: Arizona Republic

Excerpt:

caption: Tina (left) and Jennifer Merrell, a same-sex couple who live in Phoenix, share a little playtime with their daughter, Samantha.

 

Gay and lesbian couples in Arizona generally make less money, are less likely to own a home and have fewer resources to raise children than their married counterparts, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles.

The results of the study being conducted state by state are shattering many long-held stereotypes.

More than 16,930 same-sex couples lived in Arizona, according to the mid-decade U.S. Census.

Gay men earn less than straight men," said Adam Romero, a public-policy fellow who co-authored the study. "Even when you hold constant occupation, race, geography, they earn less and that's something economists would call discrimination."

Women in same-sex relationships earn more than married women - $31,336 on average compared with $25,231. Romero attributed this to married women stepping out of the workforce more often to raise children.

"When you only look for households where children are present, same-sex couples do much, much worse," he said.

Same-sex parents in Arizona have lower median household incomes, $39,000 a year compared with $54,000 for married couples.

Tina and Jennifer Merrell know that situation firsthand.

"We're legal strangers," said Tina, a 37-year-old chemical analyst for Freescale Semiconductor in Chandler.

"We can't get married so we can't participate in the 1,500 benefits and responsibilities that come along with marriage."

The Merrells, who have been together since 1989, are among the 18 percent of same-sex couples who are raising children in Arizona. Only Jennifer has full parental rights to Samantha, their 16-month-old daughter. Tina is named as the child's guardian in a legal document that must be renewed every six months.

"It's exasperating that we have to sign it every six months," Tina said. "Fortunately, we have a pediatrician who is very respectful and understanding if there's a delay and Samantha has a doctor's appointment."

[…]

All of the demographic studies studies done by The Williams Institute are available here. 

[jw]

FL: Will Marriage Ban Lure Voters?

Link: Tampa Bay Online.com

Excerpt:

[...]

This year, Florida will have a similar [marriage] amendment on its ballot, leading to speculation that it will affect voter turnout and maybe election outcomes - particularly since the apparent GOP nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, isn't popular with religious and social conservatives.

The amendment "absolutely" will drive conservative voters to the polls, said state GOP spokeswoman Erin VanSickle. "It's a Republican issue."

Opponents of the amendment even have suggested it was planned to help Republicans.

But political scientists who have studied the effect of ballot issues on voter turnout say that the conventional wisdom is probably wrong.

Citing elaborate statistical studies that compared voter turnout in states with and without issue questions on their ballots, the experts say the effects, if any, are limited.

They are likely to be even more limited in a state like Florida with hard-fought presidential campaigns, the experts said.

"Most voters who come out are going to be coming out to vote for the president," said Dan Smith, a University of Florida political scientist who specializes in researching ballot issues.

He said that would "overwhelm" an amendment-related turnout.

The Statistical Picture

Smith and other experts said ballot issues do have some effect on turnout, but it's small.

The statistical studies indicate that in midterm elections, a high-profile ballot issue can increase turnout by about 2 percent.

In presidential election years, it's about 1 percent, Smith said.

[...]

What happened in Ohio in 2004?

John Matsusaka, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, said the statistical studies compared Ohio with similar states without referenda on their ballots and found little or no effect from the referendum.

The studies allowed for other differences, including high-profile Senate races on the ballots, he said.

"It might even have helped the Democrat" - Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry - by driving opponents to the polls as well as backers, Matsusaka said.

Bush won Ohio in 2000 with a slightly larger margin than in 2004.

Smith said a study he did found that Ohio counties with high support for the 2004 gay marriage ban did not have the highest turnout, contradicting the idea that the ban drove voters to the polls.

[...]

[km]

Second-class marriages? The debate over New Jersey's civil union law

Link: NJ.com: Jersey Blogs
by Kelly Heyboer

Commenting on the report released yesterday by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, Kelly Heyboer comments that, a year after celebrating the start of civil unions in New Jersey, "reality has set in." She surveys some blogospheric opinion, below.

Excerpt:

The report prompted bloggers around the nation to take a second look at New Jersey's civil unions. Did gay marriage activists make a mistake by settling for civil unions when they really wanted a marriage law? Has New Jersey created a two-class society?

[…]

From Pam, blogging at Pam's House Blend:

This is why letting the civil unions experiment go forward in various states is a success for our rights in the long run-- without a doubt these civil unions will continue to be confirmed as inferior to civil marriage. There's no reason for them to exist when a recognized institution is already in place that grants legal responsibilities and rights across the board without question.

And that's the question that can and should be asked of the presidential candidates who support civil unions. New Jersey's path to marriage equality is clear and the state's process of assessing civil unions in real world situations that can involve life and death makes it obvious that desire of candidates to tout second-class status is only a cover for public discomfort with tackling the issue.

From Zak822, responding at Pam's House Blend:

I am amazed that anyone did not expect this. And equally amazed that folks act like the passage of civil union laws was the end of the fight.

It was the beginning, not even Round 1. It was the walk to the ring.

If the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community wants these laws respected, it will take many, many court battles to force compliance on the part of recalcitrant employers.

If you sit back and wait for employers to see the moral rightness of your position, your rights will never be respected or honored.

From Hank Butehorn, blogging at CWA-NJ Conservatives with Attitude :

The preservation of marriage as one man and one woman is of essential importance. The institution is the building block of the family and all societies. Once the institution and foundation are minimized, marginalized or destroyed, the structures it upholds will follow the same path shortly thereafter.

In addition to the underlying marriage issue, there is the issue of removing the voice of the people. The court and Legislature have prevented the people from voting on this issue. They should let the people decide whether they favor the preservation of marriage as one man and one woman; tens of thousands of signatures have been obtained to put the issue on the ballot. Apparently the legislature does not believe the people cannot be trusted enough to decide this issue.

From John Aravosis, blogging at AmericaBlog:

Rather than just asking for marriage from the beginning, I still think it's much smarter to push for civil unions, then work your way to marriage as society increasingly becomes accustomed to those civil unions (no locusts) and thus is increasingly willing to give gave couples more. It's what the religious right does all the time. They don't actually try to repeal Roe v. Wade, they slowly whittle away at it until Roe is just a shell of its former self. They gradually and incrementally approach their goal in a way that the public shrugs off and accepts because each small step doesn't seem that big a deal.

From TeddySanFran, blogging at firedoglake:

If you're growing up gay in New Jersey, you can take scant comfort in the law your state has enacted. When the kids at school taunt you for being "gay," at least you know your friends who are gay moms are treated equally under the law. Except, of course, they are not. If you are hoping to visit your civil-unionized partner in the hospital, you'd better hope the nurse on duty understands that a civil union makes you immediate family -- because there is little recourse if the nurse doesn't get it. "But that's my civil-unionized partner" just doesn't have the same strength as "But that's my wife." Ask any number of people who've tried to see their partners in the emergency room. Ask any number of people who've tried to include their civil-unionized partners on their health insurance . . .

Marriage is marriage.

Civil unions aren't.

[jw]

NJ: Opinion--Marriage vs. civil union: What's in a name matters

Link: Star-Ledger
by Steven Goldstein

Excerpt:

Today is the one-year anniversary of New Jersey's civil union law. For same-sex couples for whom today might have been a cause for celebration, this has been a year of survival through legal and personal hell. The law has wreaked havoc on same-sex couples' lives because too many employers, hospitals and others throughout the state do not recognize civil unions as marriage.

According to a report released today by the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission - the agency charged with evaluating the effectiveness of the law - companies across New Jersey have refused to grant health benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. Because the civil union law doesn't give same-sex couples the freedom to marry, many companies don't consider civil union partners to be spouses who qualify for health coverage. My organization, Garden State Equality, has received 564 complaints over the past year from civil union couples denied equal health coverage. Lambda Legal reports having worked with more than 100 such couples.

[…]

Take the case of a couple from Montclair who testified before the commission. Over the past year, they and their two children have been to the emergency room four times. In one instance, one of the moms had a potentially life threatening condition.

Rather than process the couple as quickly as they did other couples, emergency room staff interrogated the couple about their relationship after the women said they were in a civil union. The staff didn't care that a civil union was supposed to give the couple the same rights as married spouses. As other patients were rushed into care, the civil union couple had to present every legal document under the sun.

What was the difference between the women in a civil union, and the others who received more expeditious health care? The term "civil union," no matter the intent of the law, wasn't good enough. The term "marriage" was.

For too many families across New Jersey, the warning of former New Jersey Chief Justice Deborah Poritz has proven prophetic. "What we name things matters, language matters," she wrote in her dissent in the 2006 Supreme Court decision that led to civil unions rather than marriage for same-sex couples. "By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the state declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples."

[…]

New Jersey is a fairer state than this. Gov. Jon Corzine has said he'd prefer to sign a marriage equality law next year rather than this year, lest a new state law become an issue in the 2008 presidential election.

But to same-sex couples across New Jersey, the failure of the civil union law isn't a political issue. It's personal. Same-sex families across New Jersey are suffering emotional and financial pain - sometimes devastating pain - because marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world consistently accepts.

Governor and dear legislators, if you look in your hearts and truly believe that justice delayed is justice denied, you can only come to one conclusion. The time for marriage equality is now.

Steven Goldstein is chairman of Garden State Equality, the statewide organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights.

 

See Garden State Equality's Civil Unions Don't Work site.

The report's conclusions:

1. For the overwhelming majority of civil union couples who testified, the federal
Employment Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known by its acronym
ERISA, is the reason employers have given for not recognizing their civil unions.

2. In Massachusetts, a marriage equality law has prompted many employers to
provide equal benefits to same-sex wives or husbands.

3. The testimony presented by many civil union couples indicated that their
employers continue to discriminate against them, despite their familiarity with the
law.

4. Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class
status.

5. The Civil Union Act has a deleterious effect on lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and intersex youth and children being raised by same-sex couples.

6. Many witnesses testified about the unequal treatment and uncertainties they face
during a health care crisis, particularly in hospital settings.

7. Institutional interaction with civil union couples has been less than optimal.

8. Testimony indicates that the Civil Union Act has a particularly disparate impact
on people of color.

9. The requirement that same-sex couples declare civil union status, a separate
category reserved for same-sex couples, exposes members of the United States
military to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

10. The classification of civil union may place marital status in question when one of
the partners is transgender.

 

[jw]

NJ: Report says civil unions make 'second-class status'

Link: AP via Newsday.com

Excerpt:

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. - A commission established to study same-sex civil unions in New Jersey has found in its first report that civil unions create a "second-class status" for gay couples rather than giving them equality.

The report stops short of recommending that the state allow gay marriage. But it does find that gay couples in Massachusetts, the only state that now allows gay marriage, do not experience some of the legal complications that those in New Jersey do.

[...]

State lawmakers made New Jersey the third state to offer civil unions with a law adopted in 2006 in reaction to a state Supreme Court ruling that year that found gay couples were entitled to the same legal protections as married couples.

The civil union law sought to give gay couples those benefits _ but not the title of marriage. As a part of the same law, the review commission was created to look into whether it was working.

Gay rights advocates say the civil unions do not deliver and have pledged to push lawmakers to vote to allow gay marriage. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would be willing to sign such a bill into law _ but doesn't want the issue to be taken up before the presidential election.

The activists say that civil unions, in practice, do not offer the legal protections that marriage does. The commission largely agreed with them.

The commission held three public hearings last year where the majority of the testimony came from people who were in civil unions and said they were still not being treated the way married couples are by government agencies, employers and others.

[...]

[km]

Report: The Impact on Oregon's Budget of Introducing Same-Sex Domestic Partnerships

Link: Williams Institute

The Impact on Oregon's Budget of Introducing Same-Sex Domestic Partnerships [27-page PDF]
By M.V. Lee Badgett, R. Bradley Sears, Elizabeth Kukura, and Holning Lau
February 2008

This analysis by UCLA’s Williams Institute estimates the impact on Oregon’s state budget of same-sex domestic partnerships. Using the best data available, we estimate that allowing same-sex couples to enter domestic partnerships will result in a net gain of approximately $1.5 million to $3.7 million to the State’s biennial budget. This net impact will be the result of savings in expenditures on state means-tested public benefit programs and an increase in state income tax revenue.

[jw]

TX:: Study: Same-sex couples with kids earn less than married couples with kids

Link: www.statesman.com

Excerpt:

The same-sex couples in Texas who have children have lower household incomes and home ownership rates than heterosexual, married couples with children, according to a new study released on Thursday.

The study, sponsored by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, found that, in Texas, the average household income for a same-sex couple with children is about $53,000, while married couples with children have an average income of $67,500.

Researchers analyzed data from the 2000 U.S. census, comparing same-sex, "unmarried partner" households with different-sex, married couples.

The institute will provide snapshots of same-sex couples compared with married couples for all states, says Adam Romero, public policy fellow at the institute, which works to advance public policy and sexual orientation law through research

So far, about half of the states' analyses have been completed, and the rest are expected in the next two months.

For individual states, this study is the first of its kind, Romero said. Though there have been studies on same-sex couples, none have used 2000 census data on the state level, he said.

[...]

It provides information about those who are most directly affected by the lack of employment discrimination protections, hate crime and anti-same sex marriages laws, Romero said.

Although the study shows that members of same-sex unions are more likely to work than married individuals, Romero said there are neither relationship-recognition nor employment-discrimination protection laws for them in Texas.

"Same-sex couples look very similar to married couples," Romero said, "but we know they're treated unequally before the law."

[km]

MD: Marriage for same-sex couples could help state budget

Link: wtopnews.com

Excerpt:

Same-sex marriage in Maryland could boost the state's ailing budget.

That's according to an analysis from the Williams Institute at UCLA that says Maryland could save $3.2 million a year if it extended marriage rights to same-sex couples.

About 7,800 of Maryland's same-sex couples would marry if the law allowed them to, the analysis found. Maryland has more than 15,600 same-sex couples based on U.S. Census data.

Extending rights could reduce the rate of spending for state and federally supported programs like Medicaid.

"The state will also see lower spending on public assistance and that's because marriage is not just about rights and benefits. It is also about responsibility," says Lee Badgett, research director at the Williams Institute.

[...]

A bill was introduced Friday to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. About 49 Maryland lawmakers say they support it.

[km]

Same-sex couples in Ohio increasing, parenting, study says

Link: The Plain Dealer

Excerpt:

Same-sex couples are raising nearly 12,000 children across Ohio and more than 2 percent of the states adopted children, researchers at the UCLA law school reported Tuesday.

And the number of same-sex couples in the state is growing, the study found, jumping from just under 19,000 in 2000 to nearly 30,700 by 2005.

The Census Snapshot of Ohio compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles adds limited commentary to data distilled from the 2000 Census and more recent census updates. Researcher Adam Romero said he hopes the data will better inform debate about related legislation in Ohio.

But Romero and the report stress a regular message of the gay community that same-sex couples are mostly similar to married ones, aside from their sexual orientation.

Romero said the main difference highlighted in the report of same-sex parents having less income than married ones shows the need for same-sex couples to be allowed to marry so they can share and transfer benefits to their children.

[…]

[jw]

Studies: Same-Sex Couples Just as Committed as Heterosexual Counterparts

Link: HealthDay News via washingtonpost.com

Excerpt:

Same-sex couples are as committed and happy in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, find two studies in the January issue of the journalDevelopmental Psychology.

The authors of the studies say their findings challenge the stereotype that same-sex relationships aren't as healthy or secure as heterosexual pairings.

In the first study, researchers at the University of Urbana-Champaign compared 30 committed gay male and 30 committed lesbian couples to 50 engaged and 40 older married heterosexual couples, as well as dating heterosexual couples.

The researchers found that all the couples had positive views of their relationships, but the more committed couples (gay or straight) resolved conflict better than the heterosexual dating couples.

The belief that committed same-sex relationships are "atypical, psychologically immature, or malevolent contexts of development was not supported by our findings," noted lead author Glenn I. Roisman. "Compared with married individuals, committed gay males and lesbians were not less satisfied with their relationships."

[…]

The second study -- conducted by researchers from the University of Washington, San Diego State University and the University of Vermont -- examined how sexual orientation and legal status affected relationship quality among 65 gay male and 138 lesbian couples in civil unions, 23 gay male and 61 lesbian couples not in civil unions, and 55 married heterosexual couples.

The three-year study found that same-sex couples were similar to heterosexual couples in most relationship areas and that legal status didn't seem to be the overriding factor affecting same-sex relationships.

[…]

The researchers did find that same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to end their relationships than same-sex couples in civil unions or married heterosexual couples. This suggests that protections offered by a legalized relationship may have an impact on same-sex couples, said the researchers, who plan to examine that question in future research.

More information

The American Psychological Association discusses gay, lesbian and bisexual issues.

SOURCE: American Psychological Association, news release, Jan. 22, 2008

 

[jw]

Opinion:: Gay Relationships - Straight Marriages: Comparison Wars

Link: American Chronicle
by Dave Muskera

 

Excerpt:

John Cloud, a writer for the Times Magazine, recently penned an article about gay relationships. Mr. Cloud, himself an openly gay man, first tells of the breakup of his own seven year relationship the year before, then delves into what he calls the existing "academic research on relationships" to fill out his theme that gays and lesbians may be somehow "different" from straights in their relationship dynamics.

While Cloud admits the heterosexual research is "abundant", he also concedes the scarceness and relative newness of studies dealing directly with homosexual pairs.

[...]

The main point I want to highlight is that all these "studies" - in most reported publications - seem to be comparing apples to oranges - and I´m not talking about the gay-straight dichotomy. That is to say, they compare gay and lesbian couples "living together" in committed relationships to heterosexual "married" couples.

You know, as in "marriage" - that legal relationship status granting numerous (both state and federal) privileges and responsibilities. That damnably difficult and expensive to legally dissolve piece of paper. You know - "marriage" - that family thing the US Congress felt compelled to defend by passing into law a crappy piece of legislation known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) under the Clinton Administration in 1996. This ´law" basically baring gays and lesbians from ever becoming "legally married" in this country. You know - "marriage"- that institution, in such bad need of "protection" that droves of evangelicals supposedly flocked to the polls casting ballots in favor of altering their state constitutions rather than risk letting gay people into the marriage club. In essence, they voted to keep gays outside in the relationship wilderness of just "living together." Marriage, that event that often takes place in June with much pomp and circumstance, the wearing of special clothing, the giving of rings, the exchange of "vows" and the wedding kiss, the cutting of cakes and the toss of flowers...all attended and witnessed by a happy, tearful and cheering crowd of family and friends.

Now I pose some questions for consideration: How do we stack all this "marriage" lore and culturally approved ritual and ceremony (not to mention the legal aspects)up against two men or women who meet, fall in love (or lust –as the case may be) and end up spending five, ten or even fifty years together? Gay folks do this trick on a regular basis and most often without the benefits of family, church or cultural approval and sanction. With no reliance on the powerful bonding symbols of the straight marriage industry and without the legal ties that, let´s face it, sometimes keep straights in otherwise unsatisfactory marriages. How can we even begin to compare relationship dynamics under such unequal circumstances? If studies of this type have any hope of making real and useful contributions, they need to start by comparing gay couples to "unmarried" straight couples (not married ones!) in relationships of similar length.

[...]

What we should be researching is not how gay relationships stack up against traditional heterosexual "marriage" but rather what is it that keeps same-sex couples together when they have little or none of the recognition or privileges associated with legal marriage. When they cannot share, without risk of harassment or attack, even a simple long goodbye kiss at an airport. When they cannot walk hand-in-hand in a park without being called names or threatened with bodily harm. When even the minimal display of public affection is interpreted as shoving their orientation down someone´s throat. Where they might have to threaten their way into a hospital room just to be at the bedside of an ill partner. How is it that they stay together and overcome such barriers? Why do they stay together at all?

[...]

[km]

Study: What Straights Can Learn From Gays about Relationships and Parenting

Link: Newswise Social and Behavioral Sciences News

Excerpt:

Psychological studies of lesbian and gay couples reveal two key factors that promote healthier relationships and provide examples for all couples: (1) flexibility about gender roles, and (2) equal division of parenting and household tasks.

“It all comes down to greater equality in the relationship,” says Robert-Jay Green, PhD, executive director of the Rockway Institute and a nationally recognized researcher in both family issues and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender relationships. “Research shows that lesbian and gay couples -- by virtue of being composed of two partners of the same gender -- have a head start in escaping the traditional gender role divisions that make for power imbalances and dissatisfaction in many heterosexual relationships.”

Green is Distinguished Professor at the California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University, the nation’s largest nonprofit training institution for doctoral clinical psychologists. In a series of studies he conducted with Michael Bettinger, PhD, and Ellis Zacks, PhD, lesbian couples were found to be emotionally closer than gay male couples who, in turn, were found to be emotionally closer than heterosexual married couples. Lesbian and gay male couples also showed dramatically more flexibility in the way they handled rules and roles in the relationship. Thus they avoided the traditional division of labor and division of expressive versus instrumental roles toward which heterosexual couple typically evolve over time despite their best intentions, especially after the birth of children.

[...]

[km]

D.C./MD: Local gay couples earn less than married counterparts

Link: Washington Blade

Excerpt:

New analyses show that local same-sex couples often earn less than married men and women.

According to data recently released by the University of California’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation, married couples trump same-sex couples in nine of 16 categorical salary comparisons.

Gary Gates, a Williams Institute senior research fellow, said the analyses “break down some very common stereotypes” of gays.

“Same-sex couples are much more diverse than I think our media presentations would indicate,” he said.

The most significant differences emerged among Maryland couples with children. Analyses show those same-sex couples there earn $32,811 less on average than married couples, who make $91,383.

Among couples with children living in the District of Columbia, the discrepancy is less pronounced. Same-sex couples there make $16,123 less on average than married couples, who make $115,408.

“I think there’s a fair bit of evidence that same-sex couples with children really defy many of the stereotypes we think about when we think about same-sex couples raising kids,” Gates said.

Analyses show that 7.6 percent of the 3,678 same-sex couples living in D.C. have children under age 18, compared to 1.6 percent of married couples. In Maryland, 21 percent of the state’s 11,243 same-sex couples and 49 percent of its opposite-sex couples have children under age 18.

Gates said it’s possible that same-sex couples earn less than married couples because a large portion of same-sex couples with childre