Maine Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage; New Hampshire Next?

Maine is now the fifth state in which same-sex marriage is allowed. "Maine Gov. John Baldacci... who hadn't indicated how he would handle his state's bill, quickly signed it." New Hampshire's legislature is expected to send a bill to their governor on Wednesday legalizing same-sex marriage. This would solidify New England with only Rhode Island not allowing same-sex marriage. Rhode Island has a bill that has been introduced, but it is not expected to pass.

Same-Sex Marriage to become law in CT

It appears the CT legislature is poised to make same-sex marriage the law in the Nutmeg State. There was significant resistance from religious groups fearful of the lack of exceptions for faith-based organizations, but it appears that the legislation has been amended and now the bill is likely to pass.

"Obviously the Supreme Court decision in 'Kerrigan' has made same sex marriage the law of the state of Connecticut," said Senator John McKinney. "What we're trying to do is make sure that there are protections for religions and religious organizations with respect to the performing of marriage ceremonies and celebrations of marriages."

"It appears that the religious liberties issues are being addressed and that's a very good thing," said Pat Korten of the Knights of Columbus. "Obviously, the bill that came out of committee had virtually nothing of that sort. This is major progress."

This has been coming for a while, and I think it is inevitable that same-sex marriage is essentially law of the land in the USA. I disagree with the philosophical arguments, but they are not incoherent. Now is the time for Conservatives to honestly assess what same-sex marriage in all (or at least most) states means for them. And how they want to explain this move to the children.

Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage

One issue which was already red-hot in 2008 - and is sure to get even more explosive with a Democratic majority at the Federal level in 2009 - is Same-Sex Marriage. While most advocates would call 2008 a bad year, because of the loss in California, the fact is that significant progress was made toward remaking the political landscape in favor of legal recognition of same-sex unions. More state courts have mandated recognition, there is a greater awareness of the challenges faced by same-sex couples, and the opposition is growing tired of the fight.

Personally, I have opposed the recognition of same-sex unions as "marriage" for some time, but have been sympathetic to the problems of loving couples without the protection of "marriage." I was saddened when same-sex partners had no rights to information about their loved ones who may have been hurt or killed in the attacks on 9/11/01. I was angered by stories about same-sex couples crossing state lines and suddenly losing medical coverage or inheritance rights that they depended on.

For a while, I pushed the idea of a "next of kin" rights package, which would allow the designation of an arbitrary person for hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. rights. But no one seemed interested in following that particular idea set. My impression is that advocates want nothing less than the full social and civil recognition implied by the word "marriage", and opponents don't want to offer any compromise. President-Elect Barack Obama is on record as supporting "civil unions" but opposing "marriage for same-sex couples."

What I wonder at this point is whether we have moved beyond the area where compromise is possible? The logic compromise is "civil unions", where traditional couples keep the name "marriage" and same-sex couples do not, but where the word is equivalent from a legal standpoint. But this moderate course more and more is anathema to both sides, because the wrestling has ceased to be over the rights and conditions of the couples and has become about the social acceptance and normalization of same-same lifestyles.

What do Mod-Bloggers think? Is there still a reasonable middle road here, or are we heading toward an abortion-style reckoning where a winner-takes-all solution is imposed from above?

eHarmony forced to support same-sex matching services

I have used eHarmony a few times over the years, without great success. I like their "compatibility-matching" business model, and the fact that they allow you to build intimacy over time, rather than being designed to get couples to "hook up" (with its myriad meanings) in the shortest time possible. I even know a few married couples, and long-term daters who met thru the service. It has always been focussed on bringing its services to single, non-divorced, heterosexual people seeking long-term relationships. And it has worked well to differentiate them in a crowded marketplace.

Somehow I missed that the NJ attorney-general had successfully forced eHarmony to begin supporting same-sex couples, as well as their traditional model. The AG has not gotten a court to force the issue, but instead bullied eHarmony into capitulating rather than face an uncertain court case and/or negative publicity.

Since there are plenty of competitors offering same-sex matching (Match.Com comes to mind immediately), this seems like less a case of "fighting discrimination" than making a point that same-sex unions are (or should be) normative. I am interested in someone from the other side presenting an argument that eHarmony's previous practices were illegal or harmful to society. But as of now, this all seems like the wrong move by all involved.

CT Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

That is right, folks. It is official. I knew it was coming, but it still is shocking to me. Nice to know the culture war will be coming to my home state for a while. Maybe it'll boost the economy for a bit. Even angry protesters need to eat and sleep somewhere, right?

What is a "Civil Union" and how does it differ from "Marriage"?

Something often lost in the Same-Sex Marriage debate, is the question of what exactly a so-called "Civil Union" is. FactCheck.Org has up a great article that lays out exactly what he difference is, and why it is too much for some and not enough for others.

Other federal areas in which couples in civil unions don't have the same rights as married couples include immigration (a partner who's a foreign national can't become an American by entering into a civil union with someone) and veterans' and military benefits (only opposite-sex spouses have a right to pensions, compensation for service-related deaths, medical care, housing and the right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries). Gay couples, however, may actually benefit when applying for programs such as Medicaid or government housing that require low-income eligibility. A spouse’s income is included in such applications, but a same-sex partner’s income is not.

Very interesting and enlightening. It may change my opinion about which is the right way to go on this issue.