03/24/09 Sacramento Bee:
Two college students are "circulating petitions for a ballot initiative that would strike the word 'marriage' from state laws and substitute 'domestic partnership,'" reserving to domestic partnerships all the rights and benefits previously associated with state recognition of marriage.
Like the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee reports initial opposition to the proposed initiative. The Chronicle reporter claims that the initiative will probably not gain enough support to qualify for the 2010 ballot.
Showing posts with label Domestic Partnership Initiative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Domestic Partnership Initiative. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
YES on a new word for civil marriage: law professor Nancy Polikoff to speak at University of Melbourne Law School on April 2nd
03/15/09 Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage:
For 30 years, American University Law Professor Nancy Polikoff "has been writing about and litigating cases involving lesbian and gay families." She favors substituting another name for marriage as a civil institution - "civil partnership." For her "alternative vision," she recommends the 2006 "Beyond Marriage" statement. See als0 her 2008 book, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families Under the Law.
Hers is a version of a proposal that Pepperdine University law professors Douglas Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer have recently advanced (here and here) for California, and that authors of a Domestic Partnership Initiative hope to qualify for the 2010 ballot. Katherine M. Franke, Director of Columbia Law School's Gender & Sexuality Law Program, also thinks that the "marriage alternative" proposal is a "great idea."
Polikoff will discuss her book in an April 2nd lecture at a University of Melbourne Law School. forum on April 2nd. (Her reform proposal is as likely to elicit opposition in Australia as it does in the United States.)
For 30 years, American University Law Professor Nancy Polikoff "has been writing about and litigating cases involving lesbian and gay families." She favors substituting another name for marriage as a civil institution - "civil partnership." For her "alternative vision," she recommends the 2006 "Beyond Marriage" statement. See als0 her 2008 book, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families Under the Law.
Hers is a version of a proposal that Pepperdine University law professors Douglas Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer have recently advanced (here and here) for California, and that authors of a Domestic Partnership Initiative hope to qualify for the 2010 ballot. Katherine M. Franke, Director of Columbia Law School's Gender & Sexuality Law Program, also thinks that the "marriage alternative" proposal is a "great idea."
Polikoff will discuss her book in an April 2nd lecture at a University of Melbourne Law School. forum on April 2nd. (Her reform proposal is as likely to elicit opposition in Australia as it does in the United States.)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Cultural divide over gay marriage inspires negotiation
03/19/09 National Law Journal Legal Pad:
"In the wake of Proposition 8, compromise abounds almost as much as contention. Many of these seem to center around removing the word 'marriage' from the argument."
03/18/09 Jewish Daily Forward:
A "compromise, proposed by Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn, would grant federal civil union status to state-sanctioned gay marriages and civil unions, but it would link that new status to guarantees of religious liberty ... [University of Southern California law professor David Cruz] does not support the compromise proposal, since most states do not allow gays and lesbians to join in marriages or in civil unions. 'So to many gay and lesbian people, the so-called compromise offers nothing,' he said."
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PROP8LEGALCOMMENTARY HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS PROP8LEGALCOMMENTARY ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.
"In the wake of Proposition 8, compromise abounds almost as much as contention. Many of these seem to center around removing the word 'marriage' from the argument."
03/18/09 Jewish Daily Forward:
A "compromise, proposed by Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn, would grant federal civil union status to state-sanctioned gay marriages and civil unions, but it would link that new status to guarantees of religious liberty ... [University of Southern California law professor David Cruz] does not support the compromise proposal, since most states do not allow gays and lesbians to join in marriages or in civil unions. 'So to many gay and lesbian people, the so-called compromise offers nothing,' he said."
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PROP8LEGALCOMMENTARY HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS PROP8LEGALCOMMENTARY ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.
Monday, March 16, 2009
ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence and Columbia Law School Profesor Katherine M. Franke on the California Domestic Partnership Initiative
03/13/09 Focus on the Family CitizenLink.com:
Two college students hope to qualify the California Domestic Partnership Initiative for the 2010 ballot by collecting enough voter signatures on a petition they are circulating for that purpose. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that their undertaking is "unlikely to get immediate backing from established gay rights groups, which are awaiting a decision in several legal challenges to Proposition 8 before deciding whether to ask voters to overturn the measure." Nevertheless, Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence tells CitizenLink.com that such groups favor the proposed Initiative:
"It's sort of like, 'If we can't redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, then we're going to wreck it for everybody,'" Lorence Said.
03/16/09 Gender & Sexuality Law Blog:
Law professor Katherine M. Franke is Director of Columbia Law School's Gender & Sexuality Law Program. She thinks that the proposed Initiative "is a great idea," even though she prefers legislative reform, along the lines of a similar proposal by Pepperdine University law Professors Douglas Kmiec and Shelley Rox Saxer. But she also finds that the proposed Intitiative "will surely garner opposition from marriage fundamentalists both within and outside the lgbt community."
Franke views the Initiative as an example of what she calls "disestablishing marriage." She means "disestablishment of marriage as a state-sponsored institution." Unfortunately, that characterization initially appears at odds with her purpose. Under the idea that she, Kmiec and Saxer favor, marriage would not be literally disestablished; rather, the institution would no longer remain a civil institution. As far as I can tell, she does not use "disestablished" in the sense of "withdrawal of state support from an exclusively religious institution," as Kmiec and Saxer might do if they found "marriage disestablishment" helpful. Franke appears to favor withdrawal of state support from an institution whose defining normative values the state should not recognize. That idea looks nothing like disestablishment along the lines of separation of church and state. Franke complains that In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008), allegedly precludes her "state withdrawal" position by making marriage a fundamental right. But constitutions and laws generally reflect cultural norms, sometimes quite unwisely. So perhaps Franke will also offer a compelling argument for her view, or at least one more compelling than that it represents a strategic advantage over waiting a generation for federal and state constitutions to guarantee equal protection to the right to marry?
Source: 03/16/09 ADF Alliance Alert
Two college students hope to qualify the California Domestic Partnership Initiative for the 2010 ballot by collecting enough voter signatures on a petition they are circulating for that purpose. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that their undertaking is "unlikely to get immediate backing from established gay rights groups, which are awaiting a decision in several legal challenges to Proposition 8 before deciding whether to ask voters to overturn the measure." Nevertheless, Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence tells CitizenLink.com that such groups favor the proposed Initiative:
"It's sort of like, 'If we can't redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, then we're going to wreck it for everybody,'" Lorence Said.
03/16/09 Gender & Sexuality Law Blog:
Law professor Katherine M. Franke is Director of Columbia Law School's Gender & Sexuality Law Program. She thinks that the proposed Initiative "is a great idea," even though she prefers legislative reform, along the lines of a similar proposal by Pepperdine University law Professors Douglas Kmiec and Shelley Rox Saxer. But she also finds that the proposed Intitiative "will surely garner opposition from marriage fundamentalists both within and outside the lgbt community."
Franke views the Initiative as an example of what she calls "disestablishing marriage." She means "disestablishment of marriage as a state-sponsored institution." Unfortunately, that characterization initially appears at odds with her purpose. Under the idea that she, Kmiec and Saxer favor, marriage would not be literally disestablished; rather, the institution would no longer remain a civil institution. As far as I can tell, she does not use "disestablished" in the sense of "withdrawal of state support from an exclusively religious institution," as Kmiec and Saxer might do if they found "marriage disestablishment" helpful. Franke appears to favor withdrawal of state support from an institution whose defining normative values the state should not recognize. That idea looks nothing like disestablishment along the lines of separation of church and state. Franke complains that In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008), allegedly precludes her "state withdrawal" position by making marriage a fundamental right. But constitutions and laws generally reflect cultural norms, sometimes quite unwisely. So perhaps Franke will also offer a compelling argument for her view, or at least one more compelling than that it represents a strategic advantage over waiting a generation for federal and state constitutions to guarantee equal protection to the right to marry?
Source: 03/16/09 ADF Alliance Alert
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Domestic Partnership Initiative would substitute "domestic partnership" for "marriage" in California law
03/11/09 SF Chronicle Politics Blog:
"A lot of people who voted for Prop. 8 did so because their religious beliefs tell them marriage is between a man and a woman. They aren't necessarily against same-sex couples, but they can't go against their religious beliefs," initiative-backer Ali Shams said. "With this option we're allowing them to bypass that dilemma."
03/10/09 SF Chronicle:
Two college students have received approval from the California Secretary of State to circulate a petition to qualify a Domestic Partnership Initiative for the state's 2010 ballot. On January 12th, the California Attorney General received their request for a title and summary of their proposed constitutional amendment. Yesterday the California Attorney General prepared the title and summary.
The Domestic Partnership Initiative appears to anticipate a version of a proposal by two Pepperdine University law professors that was discussed in the oral arguments. (For discussion in the oral arguments, see also the 03/06/09 LA Times editorial favoring the proposal.) Pepperdine University law professors Douglas Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer would substitute "espousal" for "marriage," except that they would defer to the state legislature to enact their reform by statute. Unlike proponents of the Domestic Partnership Initiative, they would also protect exercise of religious conscience with respect to marriage ceremonies, and would protect the federal DOMA rights and benefits of married couples.
03/10/09 ADF Alliance Alert:
This alert has information about the proposed Initiative, and about Yes! on Equality's January 26th request for a title and summary of the California Marriage Equality Act Initiative.
"A lot of people who voted for Prop. 8 did so because their religious beliefs tell them marriage is between a man and a woman. They aren't necessarily against same-sex couples, but they can't go against their religious beliefs," initiative-backer Ali Shams said. "With this option we're allowing them to bypass that dilemma."
03/10/09 SF Chronicle:
Two college students have received approval from the California Secretary of State to circulate a petition to qualify a Domestic Partnership Initiative for the state's 2010 ballot. On January 12th, the California Attorney General received their request for a title and summary of their proposed constitutional amendment. Yesterday the California Attorney General prepared the title and summary.
The Domestic Partnership Initiative appears to anticipate a version of a proposal by two Pepperdine University law professors that was discussed in the oral arguments. (For discussion in the oral arguments, see also the 03/06/09 LA Times editorial favoring the proposal.) Pepperdine University law professors Douglas Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer would substitute "espousal" for "marriage," except that they would defer to the state legislature to enact their reform by statute. Unlike proponents of the Domestic Partnership Initiative, they would also protect exercise of religious conscience with respect to marriage ceremonies, and would protect the federal DOMA rights and benefits of married couples.
03/10/09 ADF Alliance Alert:
This alert has information about the proposed Initiative, and about Yes! on Equality's January 26th request for a title and summary of the California Marriage Equality Act Initiative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
