DOCSLIB.ORG

S. 598, the Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of Doma on Amer- Ican Families

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
S. 598, the Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of Doma on Amer- Ican Families S. HRG. 112–120 S. 598, THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMA ON AMER- ICAN FAMILIES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JULY 20, 2011 Serial No. J–112–35 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Oct 18, 2011 Jkt 070639 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70639.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC S. 598, THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMA ON AMERICAN FAMILIES VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Oct 18, 2011 Jkt 070639 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70639.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC S. HRG. 112–120 S. 598, THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMA ON AMER- ICAN FAMILIES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JULY 20, 2011 Serial No. J–112–35 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 70–639 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Oct 18, 2011 Jkt 070639 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70639.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHUCK SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Oct 18, 2011 Jkt 070639 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70639.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 3 Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota, prepared statement .............................................................................................................. 140 Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 10 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 3 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 161 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator form the State of Vermont .................... 1 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 188 Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ................... 44 WITNESSES King, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa ........... 6 Lewis, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ...... 4 Minnery, Thomas, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado ................................................................... 14 Murray, Susan M., Ferrisburgh, Vermont, statement .......................................... 17 Nadler, Hon. Jerrold, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ....................................................................................................................... 8 Nimocks, Austin R., Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund, Wash- ington, DC ............................................................................................................. 35 Solmonese, Joe, President, Human Rights Campaign, Washington, DC ............ 33 Sorbo, Andrew, Berling Connecticut ...................................................................... 16 Wallen, Ron, Indio, California ................................................................................ 12 Whelan, Edward, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC .......................................................................................................................... 37 Wolfson, Evan, Founder and President, Freedom To Marry, New York, New York ....................................................................................................................... 39 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Austin R. Nimocks to questions submitted by Senator Grassley .. 47 Responses of Evan Wolfson to questions submitted by Senator Klobuchar ....... 53 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD American Civil Liberties Union, Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office; Christopher E. Anders, Senior Legislative Counsel; and Ian S. Thompson, Legislative Representative, Washington, DC, July 20, 2011, joint letter ................................................................................................... 54 Amnesty International, Larry Cox, Executive Director, July 19, 2011, letter and attachments ................................................................................................... 58 Andreas, Jen, Pastor, Lord of Life Lutheran Church, Ames, Iowa, July 23, 2011, letter ............................................................................................................ 63 Burrows, Marvin, Hayward, California, statement .............................................. 64 Carey, Rea, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, statement ................................................................................................... 71 Chabot, Don and Jim Nimmo, Courage Campaign Members, Los Angeles, California, statement ........................................................................................... 75 Cooper-Harris, Tracey L., statement ...................................................................... 76 Chrisler, Jennifer, Executive Director, Family Equality Council, Boston, Mas- sachusetts, July 19, 2011, letter ......................................................................... 83 (III) VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:53 Oct 18, 2011 Jkt 070639 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\70639.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC IV Page Coleman, Jonathan Strickland, and Rick Kerby, Courage Campaign Members, letter ...................................................................................................................... 98 Cumiskey, Kathleen and Robin Garber, Courage Campaign Members, Los Angeles, California ............................................................................................... 99 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Washington, DC, Survey ......................................................... 100 Docto, Wilfredo T., Co-Owner, Moose Meadow Lodge LLC; Waterbury, Vermont, July 15, 2011, letter and chart ........................................................... 136 Drinkwater, Bill and Ernest Reid, Cumberland, Rhode Island, letter ................ 139 Gaddy, C. Welton, Reverend, President of Interfaith Alliance, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 142 GLAD, Boston, Massachusetts, GAO Report ......................................................... 144 Geckler, James, Providence, letter ......................................................................... 156 Hallowell, Ted, statement ....................................................................................... 157 Huckaby, Jody M., Executive Director, PFLAG National, Washington, DC, statement .............................................................................................................. 163 Igoudin, A. Lane and Jonathan D. Clark, statement ........................................... 170 Johnson-Young, Jill, Riverside California, statement .......................................... 175 Kalend, Mark W., Alameda County, California, statement ................................. 180 Kazan, Steven, Kazan, McClain, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley, PLC, Oakland, California, statement ........................................................................................... 183 Kirchick, Jason, Stowe, Vermont, July 18, 2011, letter ....................................... 186 Koehl, Robert and Stylianos Manolakakis, Courage Campaign Members ......... 187 Lerner, Rabbi Devon, former Executive Director for the Religious Coalition for the Freedom To Marry in Massachusetts, statement ................................. 190 Lewis, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia ...... 192 Leyland, Jane A., statement ................................................................................... 194 Maatz, Lisa M., Director, Public Policy and Government Relations American Association of University Women, Washington, DC, statement ...................... 201 Marrero, Christopher, Winooski, Vermont, July 18, 2011, letter ........................ 204 Minnery, Thomas, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado, statement ................................................ 205 Montgomery, Colleen, CPA, Burlington, Vermont, letter ..................................... 220 Murray, Susan M., of Ferrisburgh, Vermont, statement ..................................... 221
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Broken Bargain: Full Report
    A BROKEN BARGAIN Discrimination, Fewer Bene!ts and More Taxes for LGBT Workers Full Report June 2013 National Center for TRANSGENDER EQUALITY With a foreword by Authors Partners This report was authored by: This report was developed in partnership with: 2 Movement Advancement Project Freedom to Work The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) is an Freedom to Work is a national organization dedicated independent think tank that provides rigorous research, to the notion that all Americans deserve the freedom insight and analysis that help speed equality for LGBT to build a successful career without fear of harassment people. MAP works collaboratively with LGBT organizations, or discrimination because of their sexual orientation advocates and funders, providing information, analysis and or gender identity. For more information, visit resources that help coordinate and strengthen their e!orts www.freedomtowork.org. for maximum impact. MAP also conducts policy research to inform the public and policymakers about the legal and National Partnership for Women & Families policy needs of LGBT people and their families. For more The National Partnership for Women & Families works to information, visit www.lgbtmap.org. promote fairness in the workplace, reproductive health and rights, access to quality a!ordable health care, Center for American Progress and policies that help women and men meet the dual The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a think tank demands of work and family. For more information, visit dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through www.nationalpartnership.org. ideas and action. CAP combines bold policy ideas with a modern communications platform to help shape the National Center for Transgender Equality national debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Guide University ER1.Pages
    THE FREEDOM TO MARRY A Discussion Guide for University Students Page 1 Package Contents and Screening Notes Your package includes: • 86 minute version of the flm - the original feature length • 54 minute version of the flm - educational length • DVD Extras - additional scenes and bonus material • “Evan, Eddie and Te Wolfsons" (Runtime - 6:05) • “Evan Wolfson’s Early Predictions” (Runtime - 5:02) • “Mary Listening to the Argument” (Runtime - 10:29) • “Talia and Teir Strategy” (Runtime - 2:19) • Educational Guides • University Discussion Guide • High School Discussion Guide • Middle School Discussion Guide • A Quick-Start Discussion Guide (for any audience) • Sample “Questions and Answers” from the flm’s director, Eddie Rosenstein Sectioning the flm If it is desired to show the flm into shorter sections, here are recommended breaks: • 86 Minute Version (feature length) - Suggested Section Breaks 1) 00:00 - 34:48 (Ending on the words “It’s really happening.”) Total run time: 34:38 2) 34:49 - 56:24 (Ending on “Equal justice under the law.”) Total run time: 21:23 3) 56:25 - 1:26:16 (Ending after the end credits.) Total run time: 28:16 • 54 Minute Version (educational length) - Suggested Section Breaks 1) 00:00 - 24:32 (Ending on the words “It’s really happening.”) Total run time: 24:32 2) 24:33 - 36:00 (Ending on “Equal justice under the law.”) Total run time: 10:15 3) 36:01 - 54:03 (Ending after the end credits.) Total run time: 18:01 Page 2 Introduction THE FREEDOM TO MARRY is the story of the decades-long battle over the right for same-sex couples to get married in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the March for Life's Background Paper on the History of Planned
    Planned Parenthood Under Fire The nation’s largest abortion provider faces its worst crisis ever By Jeanne Mancini Summary: Whatever your view of abortion, it’s hard not to be appalled by the recent undercover videos of Planned Parenthood personnel casually discussing how they can profi t from the body parts it “harvests.” The powerful, politically connected nonprofi t enjoys massive government subsidies, as well as invaluable aid from the mainstream media who help it pretend to be what it is not: a broad-spectrum provider of healthcare. Now it faces efforts to end taxpayer subsidies for its lucrative business. n July 14, 2015, a small nonprofi t organization, the Center for Medical OProgress (CMP), released a video that marked the beginning of a tidal wave of Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards public opposition to the nation’s largest abor- tion provider, Planned Parenthood Federation livers, and brains are being obtained? Is of America. The video was part of a much Planned Parenthood unlawfully altering October 2015 bigger, broader three-year undercover “sting” abortion procedures to obtain intact baby parts or whole babies? Is Planned Parenthood project detailing a horrifi c reality: Planned CONTENTS Parenthood harvests and sells baby hearts, performing illegal partial-birth abortions to lungs, livers, and brains. At press time, 10 facilitate obtaining those organs? such videos had been released by CMP with Planned Parenthood Under Fire more expected in the weeks ahead. The CMP videos also focus public attention on Planned Parenthood as a government- Page 1 The footage raises a number of critical legal subsidized agency and provide an insightful questions.
    [Show full text]
  • June 1, 2021 the Honorable Shelley Moore Capito 172 Russell Senate
    June 1, 2021 The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito The Honorable Mike Crapo 172 Russell Senate Office Building 239 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable John Barrasso The Honorable Cory Booker 307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 717 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse 530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senators Capito, Barrasso, Whitehouse, Crapo, and Booker: We write to express our support for the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act (ANIA) and to encourage you to reintroduce and advance the legislation. The innovative programs established in this bill support currently operating nuclear reactors and the next generation of reactor technologies. ANIA would direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to continue to modernize its regulatory review processes. Efficiencies in the environmental review process and reviewing new license applications will help enable nuclear energy to deploy at a rapid enough scale to support decarbonization. In addition, preemptively reviewing U.S. Department of Energy sites for demonstration reactors can help companies partner with the National Labs to test out innovative concepts, including advanced methods of manufacturing and construction. Awarding prizes to first mover companies supports competition, but also recognizes the challenges of being first through the licensing process when using innovative technologies. The targeted credit program to preserve the existing nuclear fleet, the foundation of our nation’s low carbon electricity, allows plants to continue decreasing operating costs without prematurely shutting down. Advanced nuclear, due to its dispatchable and high temperature attributes, can also be used to decarbonize other energy sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 July 27, 2011 Dear Senator: RE: ACLU Urges Support and Co
    WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE July 27, 2011 Dear Senator: RE: ACLU Urges Support and Co-Sponsorship of the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598) On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-partisan organization with more than a half million members, countless additional AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION activists and supporters, and fifty-three affiliates nationwide, we are writing WASHINGTON to urge you to support and co-sponsor the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598). LEGISLATIVE OFFICE TH 915 15th STREET, NW, 6 FL WASHINGTON, DC 20005 T/202.544.1681 The Respect for Marriage Act, which was introduced earlier this year by F/202.546.0738 WWW.ACLU.ORG Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), would repeal the discriminatory, so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in its entirety, as well as provide all LAURA W. MURPHY DIRECTOR married couples certainty that regardless of where they travel or move in the NATIONAL OFFICE country, they will not be treated as strangers under federal law. The Respect 125 BROAD STREET, 18TH FL. NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400 for Marriage Act would return the federal government to its historic role in T/212.549.2500 deferring to states in determining who is married. OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS SUSAN N. HERMAN PRESIDENT When DOMA (Public Law 104-199) was passed by Congress and signed ANTHONY D. ROMERO into law in 1996, gay and lesbian couples could not legally marry in any EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR state, and it was not until 2000 that Vermont made national headlines with ROBERT REMAR its civil unions law. Today, gay and lesbian couples can legally marry in six TREASURER states – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont – as well as in the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Nds of Marriage: the Implications of Hawaiian Culture & Values For
    Configuring the Bo(u)nds of Marriage: The Implications of Hawaiian Culture & Values for the Debate About Homogamy Robert J. Morris, J.D.* (Kaplihiahilina)** Eia 'o Hawai'i ua ao,pa'alia i ka pono i ka lima. Here is Hawai'i, having become enlightened, confirmed by justice in her hands.1 * J.D. University of Utah College of Law, 1980; degree candidate in Hawaiian Language, University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Mahalo nui to Daniel R. Foley; Evan Wolfson; Matthew R. Yee; Walter L. Williams; H. Arlo Nimmo; Hon. Michael A. Town; Len Klekner; Andrew Koppelman; Albert J. Schtltz; the editors of this Journal; and the anonymous readers for their assistance in the preparation of this Article. As always, I acknowledge my debt to feminist scholarship and theory. All of this notwithstanding, the errors herein are mine alone. This Article is dedicated to three couples: Russ and Cathy, Ricky and Mokihana, and Damian and his aikAne. Correspondence may be sent to 1164 Bishop Street #124, Honolulu, HI 96813. ** Kapd'ihiahilina, my Hawaiian name, is the name of the commoner of the island of Kaua'i who became the aikane (same-sex lover) of the Big Island ruling chief Lonoikamakahiki. These two figures will appear in the discussion that follows. 1. MARY KAWENA P0KU'I & SAMUEL H. ELBERT, HAWAIIAN DICTIONARY 297 (1986). This is my translation of a name song (mele inoa) for Lili'uokalani, the last monarch of Hawai'i. Her government was overthrown with the assistance of resident American officials and citizens January 14-17, 1893. The literature on this event is voluminous, but the legal issues are conveniently summarized in Patrick W.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Thesis Entitled “A White Wedding? the Racial Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada”, Under the Supervision of Dr
    A White Wedding? The Racial Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada by Suzanne Judith Lenon A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto © Copyright by Suzanne Judith Lenon (2008) A White Wedding? The Racial Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in Canada Doctor of Philosophy, 2008 Suzanne Judith Lenon Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education University of Toronto Abstract In A White Wedding? The Racial Politics of Same-Sex Marriage, I examine the inter-locking relations of power that constitute the lesbian/gay subject recognized by the Canadian nation-state as deserving of access to civil marriage. Through analysis of legal documents, Parliamentary and Senate debates, and interviews with lawyers, I argue that this lesbian/gay subject achieves intelligibility in the law by trading in on and shoring up the terms of racialized neo-liberal citizenship. I also argue that the victory of same-sex marriage is implicated in reproducing and securing a racialized Canadian national identity as well as a racialized civilizational logic, where “gay rights” are the newest manifestation of the modernity of the “West” in a post-9/11 historical context. By centring a critical race/queer conceptual framework, this research project follows the discursive practices of respectability, freedom and civility that circulate both widely and deeply in this legal struggle. I contend that in order to successfully shed its historical markers of degeneracy, the lesbian/gay subject must be constituted not as a sexed citizen but rather as a neoliberal citizen, one who is intimately tied to notions of privacy, property, autonomy and freedom of choice, and hence one who is racialized as white.
    [Show full text]
  • Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act: Deciding, Democracy, and the Constitution
    Wardle 5.0 10/15/2010 10:14 AM SECTION THREE OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: DECIDING, DEMOCRACY, AND THE CONSTITUTION Lynn D. Wardle TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction: DOMA and Self-Government .................................... 952 II. Five Dimensions of the Controversy Over DOMA .......................... 954 III. The Politics of DOMA ......................................................................... 959 A. The Legislative and Popular Politics of DOMA .......................... 960 B. The Academic Politics of DOMA ................................................. 964 C. The Judicial Politics of DOMA Litigation ................................... 965 IV. The Constitutionality of DOMA Section Three Under Structural Federalism and Separation of Powers Principles .............................. 973 A. Section Three and Federalism Doctrine ....................................... 974 B. A Short Primer on the History of Federal Regulation of the Meaning and Incidents of Family Relations for Purposes of Federal Law ...................................................................................... 976 C. Federalism Self-Contradictions by Opponents of Section Three of DOMA .............................................................................. 982 V. Popular Sovereignty, Constitutional Consensus, and Same-Sex Marriage Recognition ........................................................................... 985 A. Popular Sovereignty and Institutional Re-Constitution ............. 986 B. Constitutional Consensus and Same-Sex Marriage
    [Show full text]
  • Top of Page Interview Information--Different Title
    Oral History Center University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California The Freedom to Marry Oral History Project Evan Wolfson Evan Wolfson on the Leadership of the Freedom to Marry Movement Interviews conducted by Martin Meeker in 2015 and 2016 Copyright © 2017 by The Regents of the University of California ii Since 1954 the Oral History Center of the Bancroft Library, formerly the Regional Oral History Office, has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and Evan Wolfson dated July 15, 2016. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Defense of Marriage Act, Will You Please Go Now! Joanna L
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 2012 Defense of Marriage Act, Will You Please Go Now! Joanna L. Grossman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Joanna L. Grossman, Defense of Marriage Act, Will You Please Go Now! Cardozo L. Rev. de novo 155 (2012) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/334 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. C ARDOZO L AW R EVIEW de•novo DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, WILL YOU PLEASE GO NOW! JOANNA L. GROSSMAN* The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. Go. GO! I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Marvin K. Mooney, will you please go now! INTRODUCTION These are the opening lines of Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!, a Dr. Seuss book that my three sons and I have read literally hundreds of times. It has all the usual appeal of a Dr. Seuss book – euphonious rhymes, made-up words and objects, fantastical creatures. But it has something else, too. An air of mystery. The entire book revolves around trying to get rid of Marvin K.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKING the BALANCES: an Examination of Separation of Powers Issues Raised by the Windsor Case Derek Funk*
    CHECKING THE BALANCES: An Examination of Separation of Powers Issues Raised by the Windsor Case Derek Funk* INTRODUCTION The legal definition of marriage is currently a prominent issue in political debates and courtrooms across the nation. Up until the late 1990s, state and federal law universally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.1 The push for recognition of same-sex marriages began to gain momentum in 2000, when Vermont became the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex civil unions and registered partnerships.2 In the next few years, several other states across the nation changed their definitions of marriage to include same- sex couples.3 Nevertheless, the federal definition of marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), enacted in 1996, continued to define marriage as meaning only a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.4 As more and more states changed their definitions of marriage, same-sex marriage advocates criticized the federal definition of marriage, arguing it *. J.D. Candidate, 2015, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. 1. See Marriage, GALLUP.COM, http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx (last visited Dec. 20, 2014). 2. See Timeline: Milestones in the American Gay Rights Movement, PBS.ORG, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/stonewall/ (last visited Oct. 28, 2014); Gay Marriage Timeline: History of the Same-sex Marriage Debate, PROCON.ORG, http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000030 (last visited Oct. 28, 2014); History and Timeline of the Freedom to Marry in the United States, FREEDOMTOMARRY.ORG, http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of- marriage (last visited Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • How Doma, State Marriage Amendments, and Social Conservatives Undermine Traditional Marriage
    TITSHAW [FINAL] (DO NOT DELETE) 10/24/2012 10:28 AM THE REACTIONARY ROAD TO FREE LOVE: HOW DOMA, STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS, AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES UNDERMINE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE Scott Titshaw* Much has been written about the possible effects on different-sex marriage of legally recognizing same-sex marriage. This Article looks at the defense of marriage from a different angle: It shows how rejecting same-sex marriage results in political compromise and the proliferation of “marriage light” alternatives (e.g., civil unions, domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiaries) that undermine the unique status of marriage for everyone. After describing the flexibility of marriage as it has evolved over time, the Article focuses on recent state constitutional amendments attempting to stop further development. It categorizes and analyzes the amendments, showing that most allow marriage light experimentation. It also explains why ambiguous marriage amendments should be read narrowly. It contrasts these amendments with foreign constitutional provisions aimed at different-sex marriages, revealing that the American amendments reflect anti-gay animus. But they also reflect fear of change. This Article gives reasons to fear the failure to change. Comparing American and European marriage alternatives reveals that they all have distinct advantages over traditional marriage. The federal Defense of Marriage Act adds even more. Unlike same-sex marriage, these alternatives are attractive to different-sex couples. This may explain why marriage light * Associate Professor at Mercer University School of Law. I’d like to thank Professors Kerry Abrams, Tedd Blumoff, Johanna Bond, Beth Burkstrand-Reid, Patricia A. Cain, Jessica Feinberg, David Hricik, Linda Jellum, Joseph Landau, Joan MacLeod Hemmingway, David Oedel, Jack Sammons, Karen Sneddon, Mark Strasser, Kerri Stone, and Robin F.
    [Show full text]