Box Turtle Bulletin

Census to Release Marriage Information

We reported that the President was looking into the possibility of counting same-sex marriages in the 2010 census. Now it’s official: (WaPo)

The Census Bureau will for the first time publicly release the number of gay marriages reported in a decennial census, as it plans to release raw data about same-sex relationships in the 2010 headcount, according to new guidelines released today.

The decision reverses a Bush-era policy that prohibited the release of the data. In a legal opinion published last week, Commerce Department lawyers concluded that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not prohibit the Census Bureau from publicly releasing the data, contrary to the conclusions reached by Bush administration lawyers.

It appears, however, that the data will be “released” but not “counted” so as to be compliant with Congress’ Defense of Marriage Act. Evidently there is no assumption that DOMA will have been reversed any time before 2010 or 2011.

Continuing current policy, the new guidelines state that software used by Census enumerators will recode answers given by same sex-partners who mark their relationship status as “husband or wife,” to “unmarried partner.” But then, in late 2011, Census officials will for the first time release the raw state-by-state data on same-sex couples that marked their relationship status as “husband or wife.”

Statisticians (and politicians) need not wait until 2011 for census information about same-sex couples.

The Census will first report same-sex marriage data later this year when it releases the 2008 American Community Survey. The results of the annual housing and population survey will include unedited responses regarding relationship status.

This is all good news. And a great step. And will inject valuable information into the national discourse. And for this moment we celebrate.

But if we step back a moment to look at the big picture, we see same-sex couples who have legally married in the eyes of their state, their church, their families, and their communities who truthfully report this to their government, only to have that government change their answers. And considering that the purpose of a census is to provide accurate information so as to allow for informed decision making, it is hard to fathom the logic of beurocrats and politicians deliberately deceiving themselves just so that they may refuse to acknowledge what their constituents are trying to tell them.

Some day we will all look back and marvel at the blatant discrimination with which our nation has abused its gay and lesbian citizens.

Congrats, Wisconsin Couples

Today is the day that Wisconsin same-sex couples can register as domestic partners. Most of the small list of rights and benefits deal with health care or probate issues. (Capital Times)

The extension of health care benefits to same-sex couples is one highlight of the registry. Other perks include the ability for same-sex couples to inherit their partner’s property or other assets, even if they do not have a will. Without these protections, the property and other assets of gay men and lesbians without a will would go to their parents or siblings — not their significant other — at the time of death.

What to bring if you plan to register: Couples must provide proof of residence, certified copies of their birth certificates and their Social Security numbers. For those who have been previously married, a certified death certificate or divorce judgment is required. The fee is also the same as for a marriage license, $115 in cash per couple in Dane County.

Who qualifies for the registry: Two individuals must be at least 18 years old, be of the same gender, share a common residence, not be nearer of kin than second cousins, and not be married or in another domestic partnership.

This day is historic in that Wisconsin became the first midwestern state to grant recognition of same-sex couples by legislation and it is the first state with a clause banning “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” to offer any limited recognition at all.

Anti-gays, of course, have sued to stop gay people from being able to cover their loved ones on their health insurance or visit them in the hospital. It’s not that they hate you, want to make your life as difficult as possible, or see you as an enemy in a culture war. Oh no, they just want to protect marriage, you see.

Young Republican Tells Party “You Have to Change”

For your Friday reading pleasure, let me recommend this op-ed in the Minneapolis – St. Paul Star Tribune by Madeline Koch, a young Republican with some advice for the Party:

Even though I am a proud Republican, I am just as likely to be found backing up my political affiliation with how I think our party must adapt if there is any hope for survival.

Not surprisingly, we young voters will play a large role in the future of the Republican Party, but first our governing officials must listen to us.

And Madeline is very clear on where the party can start if it wants to reach younger Americans.

First: We want gay marriage. Though we may not all be willing to march in the Pride parades or even send fiery letters to our congressmen about it, most of us believe that gay couples deserve the right to be legally wed. I can guarantee you this: The issue of gay marriage is not going to go away, and unless you start shifting within the Republican Party, you will not gain our support.

I agree with Madeline. If the Party wants to survive it needs to change. Perhaps with more voices of young Republicans – or those in more liberal states – this message will start to take hold.

British Quakers Request Religious Freedom to Support Marriage Equality

The National Organization for Marriage is right. Gay marriage IS a religious freedom issue. They’ve just identified the wrong party as victim.

Currently in the US, and much of the Western World, there are churches that devoutly believe that their faith calls for same-sex couples to enter into marriage, protected by family, conducted by church, and supported by state. Other churches do not think that chruch or state should recognize same-sex marriages.

Governments have taken sides.

They have declared that because some churches don’t wish to sanctify marriages, that therefore the state will not recognize the marriages conducted by other churches. Even the most casual glance will reveal that behind every argument against marriage equality is one theme, an argument that is never absent and which never takes a back seat to any secular claims: “I demand that the state endorse and enforce my anti-gay religious beliefs about marriage.”

Any rational person will see this for what it is: state sponsored religious preference of one church over another. In the restriction of marriage equality, it is not only same-sex couples who have lost their rights; churches have as well. But, for a number of reasons, this is seldom a part of the argument.

Now the Quakers (the Society of Friends) in Britain are highlighting this injustice. (BBC)

One of the UK’s oldest Christian denominations – the Quakers – looks set to extend marriage services to same-sex couples at their yearly meeting later.

The society has already held religious blessings for same-sex couples who have had a civil partnership ceremony.

But agreeing to perform gay marriages, which are currently not allowed under civil law, could bring the Quakers into conflict with the government.

In the UK, same-sex civil partnerships are called “marriages” in the press and in conversation, but there is one very peculiar restriction that sets these unions apart from truly being marriages: churches are barred from conducting marriage civil partnerships or allowing them on their premises. Civil Unions must be held in a civic space like a hall and there can be no religious component.

This is not acceptable to Quakers.

The Quakers – also known as The Religious Society of Friends – are likely to reach consensus on the issue of gay marriage without a vote at their annual gathering in York on Friday.

They will also formally ask the government to change the law to allow gay people to marry.

Often those who oppose equality speak in aggreived tones of a need to protect religious freedom. It will be interesting to see how anti-gay activists respond to this plea by devout Christians for a right to practice their faith.

Portugal Supremes Say No to Marriage

The A/P is reporting:

Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao, divorced mothers in their 30s who have been together as a couple since 2003, were turned away by a Lisbon registry office when they attempted to marry in 2006 because the law stipulates that marriage is between people of different genders.

Portugal’s constitution, however, also forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. The women took the case to a Lisbon court, which rejected their unprecedented challenge.

After considering their appeal against that decision, the Constitutional Court said in a statement posted on its Web site that the constitution does not state that same-sex marriages must be permitted.

By a 3 to 2 vote, they denied the constitutional right to marriage. However they did not mandate that marriage could not be granted by the legislature. And that is a distinct possibility in the near future.

However, the center-left Socialist Party has included a proposal to permit same-sex marriages in its manifesto for September’s general election. Its chief rival, the center-right Social Democratic Party, opposes the measure. Opinion polls show the two parties are neck-and-neck in voting intentions.

You’d better hurry Portugal or you may be behind Albania.

Maine’s Battle For Marriage Is On

The Associated Press reports:

Opponents of Maine’s new gay marriage law have submitted petitions seeking a November referendum on the measure. Leaders of the Stand for Marriage campaign said Friday they collected more than 100,000 signatures of registered Maine voters. Cartons containing the petitions have been turned into the secretary of state’s office to be certified.

To qualify for a November referendum, 55,087 signatures need to be certified by Sept. 4. Meanwhile, a July 17 email from Betsy Smith, senior director of Equality Maine, indicates that $241,000 have already poured into the coffers of marriage opponents, including $160,000 from the National Organization for Marriage, $50,000 from the Knights of Columbus, and $31,000 from Focus On the Family. Now it’s time for us to do our part.

And Number Eight May Be… Albania?

Back in May when Sweden became the seventh nation to recognize same-sex marriages, had we conducted a pool as to what nation would be next, very few of you would have bet on Albania. In fact, I imagine that very few of you could have found Albania on a map.

Albania is a Balkan nation tucked between Greece and Montenegro. It has a relatively conservative culture and homosexuality is not well tolerated by the people. In fact, none of its direct neighbors offer any recognition of same-sex relationships.

But Albania wants to join the European Union. And they know that passing marriage equality would present a modern progressive image to the rest of the continent. So Prime Minister Sali Berisha took a surprising step by announcing that the country would move in that direction. (BBC)

Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha has announced his party will propose a law legalising same-sex marriage.

It is an unexpected move in a country that is still one of the most conservative in the Europe and where homosexuality was illegal until 1995.

Mr Berisha acknowledged the proposed law might provoke debate but maintained that discrimination in modern Albania had to end.

This bill, which will be voted on in the fall, has the expected opposition of Catholic and Muslim leaders. But while Albania is primarily Muslim, this is not a strongly religious nation. While most residents still associate themselves with Christianity or Islam, over 70% of residents do not attend services and consider themselves to be non-religious. Practicing religion was banned during the 1944-1990 Communist regime.

I know too little of Albanian politics to make any predictions at this time. Although Berisha and his right-wing Democrat Party hold 74 of 140 seats and the bill is reportedly popular among the legislators, I am not sure whether they vote in a block or whether there may be defectors. Additionally, I’ve not heard whether the opposition Socialist Party is putting up a strong objection to the bill.

But should Albania become the eighth nation to enact marriage equality, this may well serve to shame some more progressive nations that pride themselves on their culture and civility.

Washington Anti-Gay Petition – 137,689 Signatures

The Washington Secretary of State has announced the total number of signatures turned in by the anti-gay coalition seeking to block the domestic partnership enhancements enacted by the legislature. With 137,689 signatures submitted, anti-gays only have a 14.2% cushion for error over the 120,577 valid signatures needed. The average historical error rate in Washington State is about 18%. **

WhoSigned.org, along with a couple of other petitioners, has requested that the state provide them with a listing of the names so that they can make it public. Supporters of Referendum 71 claim that signatories should be exempt from laws that require public disclosure of signatories and are suing to keep the names on the list private.

“We have a one-size-fits-all shoe that is going to result in the inappropriate disclosure of petition signers, who will then be exposed to boycotts, threats, harassment and so forth,” Pidgeon said.

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon seems to be unaware of the meaning and purpose for petitions. He seems to think that “stand up and be counted” should not allow for any public consequences for such an action.

A judge has put a temporary restraining order on the state until a hearing is held on Wednesday. Considering that other states have found the listing of anti-gay petitioners to be legal and that the State will be siding with those who wish full disclosure, I think it unlikely that anti-gay advocates will be able to convince the court that they should have special rights.

Meanwhile, the state will move forward with reviewing signatures one by one to determine their validity. They will likely fall about 7,500 short.

Ultimately, Gary Randall and the other organizers have not well served those they claim to represent. The most likely scenario is that there are inadequate signatures for a referendum but those who did sign will be exposed to public scrutiny.

The end result is that some friendships will be ended, some customers lost, some families shattered, and some respect will be lost. Further, the campaign may well be embarassed by a large number of signatories who publicly denounce the campaign and explain that they were fooled and defrauded.

And all for nothing.

** Reader Dan notes below that the proper numbers to compare are not the cushion of 14.2% and the historical error rate of 18%. Rather, we should note the error rate which this petition could have which would allow it to still have sufficient valid signatures. And that is 12.4% of the total signatures submitted.

Comparing this maximum error rate of 12.4% to the historical rate of 18% further solidifies my expectation that this petition will fail to qualify for the ballot.

Focus President Jim Daly Misrepresents Anthropology

This isn’t the first time Focus has misrepresented the entire field of anthropology. Last year Focus staffer Glenn Stanton and Citizenlink claimed:

Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said there\’s a clear consensus among anthropologists.

“A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female,” he said. “Those two parts of humanity join together, create new life and they both cooperate in the legitimization of the child, if you will, and the development of the child.”

Stanton’s claim prompted rebukes from actual anthropologists including Bill Maurer, the anthropology department chair at UC Irvine and Damon Dozier, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) Director of Public Affairs. Dozier reminded us in 2004 the AAA Executive Board issued the following statement in response to President Bush\’s proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

But Focus apparently didn’t learn anything about anthropology in the last year since Stanton’s bone-headed remarks. Yesterday, Focus president Jim Daly wrote in the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog:

And that is why marriage is universally and fundamentally about male and female. Examine how leading anthropologists over the last 80 years – from the Royal Anthropological Institution’s Notes and Queries, to Edward Westermarck, George Murdock, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, Bronislaw Malinowski, Kathleen Gough, Ward Goodenough and Pierre van den Berghe – define marriage across all cultures – religious and secular – and see how constantly you encounter references to male and female, procreation and off-spring legitimization as the universal and primary qualities of this sacred institution.

It should be noted according to Daly’s bio on Focus’ website, his only degree is a BS in business administration.

But most of all I find it disappointing Daly and Focus are again misrepresenting an entire field of science in their war against gay families.

Focus President Jim Daly may be contacted at: jim.daly@fotf.org
And the Washington Post’s “On Faith” editor can be reached at: onfaith@washingtonpost.com

Washington Anti-Gays Turn in Petitions with Tiny Cushion

On Sunday, anti-gay activists in Washington turned in signatures to place on the ballot a referrendum on whether a law granting same-sex couples domestic partnerships all the rights, responsibilities, and obligations as marraige (but not the name). Accoding to organizer Gary Randall of the Faith and Freedom Network,

We delivered a little over 138,000 signatures on 9,359 petition sheets to the Secretary of State’s office in Olympia a few hours ago.

Because the petition will require 120,577 valid signatures, they have a cushion of less than 15% to allow for errors, duplicates, unregistered signatories, incorrect addresses and other invalid signatures. This is a very small margin. Although many say this is too close to call, I think it is likely that when verification is complet that this effort will prove to have been in vain.

However, even though the signatures may not be adequate, there will be those who suffer from Saturday’s effort.

First there are those 5,700 couples who have to wait for their rights – which were to have been recognized on Sunday. They have waited long enough, and I suspect that much of the decision to go ahead and turn in the petitions was based on spiteful desire to harm these couples for as long as they could.

And there are 138,000 people who will now have recorded for posterity and for public scrutiny on a searchable website their action to deny rights to their neighbors. Sadly, some of them were gay supporters who were deceived and lied to – but they too will be tarred as unkind, selfish, spiteful neighbors.

Washington Anti-Gays May Have Failed

Tomorrow is the deadline to file signatures to put Washington’s domestic partnership enhancement law on the ballot. And those collecting signatures may not have succeeded in their goal to stop gay couples from achieving the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as opposite-sex couples. (Seattle Times)

In a statement released Friday, the Referendum 71 campaign says it will have the minimum 120,577 petition signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. But organizer Gary Randall also says they don’t have enough extra signatures to act as a cushion for errors.

I’m not certain what “enough extra signatures” means, but unless there is a substantial cushion, it is almost certain that they did not meet their goal. Most of those who administer petitions will advise a cushion of at least 20 – 25% to allow for errors, duplicates, and bogus signatures.

Randall is asking R-71 supporters to drive additional signatures to the state Capitol on Saturday afternoon, to make the deadline for referendum petitions.

The office is not open Saturday but elections officials have made an appointment to meet with the anti-gay campaign at 2:00 p.m. The odds of large numbers of supporters driving to the Capitol at a specific time are, well, less than likely.

It is too soon to be certain, but I’m guessing that the anti-gay effort may have failed.

Maine Marriage Update

According the the Family Research Council’s website, anti-marriage activists in Maine appear to have collected enough signatures to allow for an adequate buffer.

Mainers are sending a strong message to their elected officials, who voted in May to redefine marriage. Needing roughly 56,000 petition signatures to place a “People’s Veto” of this legislation on the November ballot, the pro-marriage coalition has exceeded all expectations by collecting over 90,000 and counting.

This does not appear, however, to be the total that has been collected and processed but rather those reported to the the anti-gay effort. We should know at the end of the month the actual number that is turned in.

Washington’s Referendum 71 Deadline

This Saturday is the deadline for the presentation of signatures to the Washington Secretary of State so as to put on the ballot a proposition to reverse the state legislature\’s vote for Domestic Partnership enhancement. If enough signatures are not collected, the bill will become law, granting to Washington\’s gay couples virtually all of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.

To reach the ballot, Referendum 71 will need 120,577 valid signatures and should turn it at least 150,000 to allow for a buffer. As of last Thursday, the campaign had reported to anti-gay group Concerned Women for America that they had collected about 75,000.

Although there was a big push over the weekend, it may be difficult for the Protect Marriage campaign to collect, count and organize enough signatures. They will decide on Friday if they will go forward and present such signatures as they have collected. (Seattle Times)

Larry Stickney of Protect Washington, said Monday he didn’t have an estimate on the number of signatures gathered so far, but “we think it’s going to be very, very close.”

Stickney said those heading the campaign will decide on Friday whether to keep the appointment. “If it’s close we’ll keep the appointment,” he said. “If it’s not, we’ll probably pull back.”

This will not be a straight-forward decision for the organization.

(see update below)

WhoSigned.org has pledged to put a searchable database of all signatories online. Should Protect Washington have only a small amount over 120,577 signatures, they run the risk of not only having invalid signatures disqualify the referendum but of having all of their signers suffer the consequence of having their neighbors think less of them.

And, indeed, the opinion of ones neighbors does play a big part in anti-gay activism in Washington. And it is reflected in the difficulty that this campaign has had in drawing the sort of organized support that previous anti-gay efforts have had.

An excellent article in the Seattle Times discusses the change in Washington\’s religious right and why many conservatives are holding back from this effort. Some are tired, some focused on the economy or other issues, but it seems that some conservative Christians are recognizing that their obsessive attack on the rights of their gay neighbors are tarnishing their image.

Senior Pastor Emeritus Jan Hettinga, 64, of Northshore Baptist Church, and an organizer of 2004’s Mayday for Marriage rally, said many at his church feel they’ve “been there and done that” on political issues, and “all we got was really, really bad press and a bad image.”

Branding the disagreement over same-sex marriage as hatred and bigotry was a smart strategy by gay-rights supporters, Hettinga said. “No Christians I know want to be considered haters.

Pastor Joseph Fuiten, senior pastor at Cedar Park Assembly of God Church in Bothell, is questioning just to what extent the church should spend its time doing what he has done so much in the past

Ref. 71 “drags us backward into a negative fight we’re not going to win.”

“I don’t want the church to be viewed as oppressive, [and] as opposed to people living their lives and eking out whatever happiness they can.”

He says he believes that different times call for different strategies and says that now, with the country less in sync with his traditional values, and many hurting because of the economy, people need to hear about hope, not about hell.

“God is not coercive,” he said. “The idea that people ought to be free to live their life and live the way they want to — I don’t object to that.”

I suspect that many religious leaders in Washington are hoping that the signature drive fails. A vote is a no-win situation for them. Either they lose at the polls, thus giving political ammunition to gay rights supporters, or they lose in the public\’s perception of them as bullies and bigots.

While we should be prepared to battle in Washington in November, this will be a battle that few really want and which may be averted entirely this weekend.

UPDATE: Brian with WhoSigned.org has provided us with the following clarification.

Our understanding is that the Elections Division of the Secretary of State has to certify that the Ref. 71 petition has sufficient valid signatures before it becomes part of the public record. If the petition has insufficient valid signatures, it is not certified, does not become part of the public record, and cannot be the subject of a public records request.

WhoSigned.org and KnowThyNeighbor.org can only make accessible what the Washington Secretary of State makes public.

UPDATE 2: Brian has a further clarification, based on his conversation with the Elections Division.

Signatures actually become public records when they are electronically scanned after submission by the petitioners. This happens regardless of whether they have sufficient valid signatures so they are available for public records request.

If the petitioners submit signatures and they are made public record, we will be requesting that public record and making the information accessible online.

Anti-Gay Maine Campaign’s Lack of Grassroots Funding

From Bangor Daily News

[Mark Mutty, one of Stand for Marriage Maine\’s campaign leaders,] predicted Wednesday that they will file “a very significant amount of signatures well in excess of the minimum” by early August. In addition to [$100,000 from] the Roman Catholic Diocese and [$160,000 from] the National Organization for Marriage, the organization also received $50,000 from the Knights of Columbus in Washington, D.C., and $31,000 from the Focus on the Family Maine Marriage Committee but only $400 from individuals.

Mutty pointed out that his organization\’s Web site has only been up for less than two weeks and he predicted that the number of individual donations will increase dramatically as the campaign ramps up.

Well duh. Almost anything would be a dramatic increase over $400.

In contrast

Connolly said Maine Freedom to Marry has already received support from a national organization, in this case, $25,000 from the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, D.C. But he pointed out that his organization has already received donations from 352 individuals.

I’m sure this means nothing. But it’s interesting to note that at present the battle is between the big religious institutions and the citizens.

Episcopal Church to Collect and Develop Liturgical Recognitions of Same-Sex Unions

The Episcopal Church has taken a step forward in recognizing same-sex marriages. By a vote of 104 to 30, the House of Bishops has just voted begin the “consideration of theological resources and liturgies for the blessing of same gender relationships” and to “collect and develop theological resources and design liturgies, and report to the 77th General Convention for further action.”

Wording:

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 76th General Convention acknowledge the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call for a renewed pastoral response from this Church and for an open procession for the consideration of theologicalresources and liturgies liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships; and be it further

Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological and liturgical resources and design liturgies, and report to the 77th General Conventionfor further action consideration; and be it further

Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work, and inviting theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved that bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same gender marriage civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church, and be it further

Resolved that this convention continue to honor the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality; and be it further

Resolved that the members of this church be encouraged to engage in this effort

The House of Delagates will likely confirm the resolution. And the Episcopal Church will begin the process of determining precisely what liturgy will be used to bless same-sex unions. Further, it appears to me that the Church may have given permission to Bishops in marraige or domestic partner states to generously accomodate recognition and provide some blessing of such unions.

Follow this story at Episcopal Cafe