"Gay-marriage defeat puts legal arrangements in question" is the headline to a story today in the Louisville Courier-Journal. Some quotes:
The amendment approved by Kentucky voters last week states "that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized." * * *A story last month in the Columbus Dispatch reported that Ohio's constitutional prohibition(which was adopted Nov. 2):Married couples receive a variety of legal rights automatically — more than 1,000, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights organization. Such rights entitle spouses to file taxes together, visit each other in the hospital, sign up for benefits, and make medical and burial decisions for each other.
About 30 years ago, unmarried couples — same-sex and heterosexual — began seeking some of those rights, said University of Louisville law professor Robert Stenger, who teaches constitutional and family law. They have used a variety of legal tools, including contracts, trusts and wills, which spell out some of those rights.
Such agreements become particularly important when the relationship ends. "If you had people who lived (together) and were financially interdependent for some time, and at the end one person ends up with all the marbles, ... courts could come along and say there was some contract to the contrary," he said.
Still, contracts cannot match all of the rights that come with a marriage license. For example, one unmarried partner cannot sue over the wrongful death of the other. And if one unmarried partner in a relationship dies, the other cannot receive Social Security payments as a survivor, no matter how long they lived together.
Callahan, a professor of philosophy and director of the women's studies department at the University of Kentucky, also noted that she cannot put Crossen on a health insurance plan through the university. No Kentucky public university — nor any local government agency in the state — has offered such benefits to unmarried partners of employees. And all sides agree the amendment shuts that door for the future, although private companies could offer such benefits.
Many gays and lesbians, meanwhile, say they fear the amendment is a first step toward eroding other rights. "When you scapegoat a group, you never quite know where it's going to end up," said Sue Strong of Lexington, citing President Bush's plans to push for a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage.
* * * would add some of the farthest-reaching legal limits in the country to the state constitution. Like voters in 10 other states, Ohioans will consider a proposal, in this case State Issue 1, to restrict marriage to a union between one man and one woman.An AP story from Nov. 3 reported:It says: "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions." What sets Ohio’s amendment apart is the second sentence.
"This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Opponents contend the second sentence will have a negative impact on unmarried heterosexual couples, for instance, prohibiting a person from obtaining power of attorney to help an ill or incompetent partner, from having visiting rights in hospitals, and even from obtaining orders of protection in domestic disputes.
No proposal in the other states with issues on the ballot, or in six states that previously approved similar constitutional amendments, contains such specific limits, according to a review by The Dispatch.
"Ohio’s amendment is far and away the most extreme of any of the amendments being proposed," said Alan Melamed, of Ohioans Protecting the Constitution, a coalition of gay, business and labor groups that oppose the issue. "The only thing that approaches it is what the Virginia legislature passed earlier this year."
Virginia’s Affirmation of Marriage Act, which took effect July 1, was approved despite objections from Democratic Gov. Mark R. Warner. Gay activists labeled it the most restrictive in the nation. It is not a constitutional amendment, but rather a legislative enactment.
The law says, in part, "A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It also says civil unions, contracts and arrangements from other states are void in Virginia.
COLUMBUS -- Ohioans on Tuesday backed up the nation's toughest law banning gay marriage with an even broader constitutional amendment against civil unions.See also this column by Thomas Oliphant in the Boston Globe and this transcript from an interview this week on the PBS program "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." (Thanks to How Appealing for these last two links.)Issue 1 bans same-sex marriage under the Ohio Constitution and prohibits state and local governments from granting legal status to unmarried couples of either sex. The amendment, the only statewide issue on the ballot, gathered equal support from men and women, blacks and whites, according to a statistical analysis from voter interviews.
With 37 percent of precincts reporting, 1,284,153, or 63 percent, supported the measure, while 767,604, or 37 percent, opposed it. * * *
[More] See this Adam Liptak article in the Nov. 12th Washington Post, headlined "Caution in Court for Gay Rights Groups."
Posted by Marcia Oddi at November 12, 2004 07:51 AM