Online Additions

"To Have and to Hold: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate" Online Chat Transcript

The following is an edited transcript from the AAVC Online Chat on January 25, 2005: "To Have and To Hold: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate." The text has been edited for flow and typographical errors.

Moderators: Professor of Political Science Molly Shanley
and Jo Ann Citron '71

AAVC-Samantha Soper
Welcome everyone. We will be starting in about 10 minutes.

Twiss Butler '52
Jo Ann - Because I am a slow typist, I thought I'd mention to you ahead of time that I am interested in noting the shift that Gay men have made from the shaky legal workaround of "right to privacy" to situating nondiscrimination claims under the 14th Am. equal protection provision. It seems to me that this leaves lesbian women in a parallel position to Black women - the men's claim is constitutionally recognized, but the women's is valid only (and less securely) for racial discrimination and, assuming that Gay men are able to prevail with the 14th Am. claim, for sexual orientation discrimination. Otherwise, like all women, they fall under the fact that women are still denied a guarantee of equal protection. I wish that women generally had a clearer view of their situation, but even Ruth Bader Ginsberg isn't going to tell the Great American Family Secret, it seems. Twiss

AAVC-Samantha Soper
Hello and welcome to the AAVC/Vassar Quarterly online chat. We will go for about one hour. I now turn it over to Molly Shanley and Jo Ann Citron '71.

Molly Shanley
Welcome. We thought that it might be nice to know about the interests some of you have, and issues you'd like to see us discuss together

Meg Gaines 77
How about, why marriage? As the New Yorker cartoon so aptly put it, "Haven't we suffered enough?"

Molly Shanley
Meg, do you mean why ANY marriage, or why the push for same-sex marriage?

Meg Gaines 77
I mean any marriage. I favor it.

Molly Shanley
Meg, why?

Cathy Pasymowski 69
For your information I have been married for 35 years. My husband, was raised a Roman Catholic. He Attended St. Joseph's Prep, Jesuit Highschool in Philadelphia (1960) and graduated from Villanova University in 1964. We now attend Saint James the Less (formerly Episocopal parish) in Phiadelphia that is traditional Anglican in its doctrine. For many years I have been active in the Pro Life movement and have been a volunteer at a Christian crisis pregnancy center in Philadelphia. Our son graduated from Vassar in 2002. I believe in the traditional marriage-man and woman.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Cathy, does that mean that you do NOT believe in same-sex marriage?

ruth kirk baacke 68
Hello - I'm the mother of a gay son who married his partner of 6 years last summer in Lowell MA. I feel very strongly that same-sex marriage is a question of equal rights for all regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
Wow--big topic--hard to know where to begin. I'll jump in. When we talk about marriage, do we mean a religious or civil union?

Cathy Pasymowski 69
I do not believe that such a "marriage" is practical or advisable.

Deirdre Bourdet 00
Why not?

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
If a hetero couple can't have spousal rights, how do we equate that to a gay couple?

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
I agree even if marriage is an imperfect institution for all of us.

Leslie Thomas 98
Ruth, who do you agree with?

Meg Gaines 77
The European, German, French models of state unions and leaving marriage to churches -- which, btw, my church does all the time -- gay marriages that is. The former Congregational churches -- now the UCC

Michael Taylor 96
I think it would be key to define some terms at the start of this chat.

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
Yes, the europeans separate marriage into civil and religious. That might solve a lot of problems.

Brenda Feigen66
You believe, Cathy, in women not having a choice and people not having a choice about whom to marry. End of story. I hope we can rise above this level and that you take your concerns to your various churches.

Molly Shanley
Some people would say that "marriage" should be left to religious groups and "civil unions" are appropriate for the state.

Cathy Pasymowski 69
Marriage is the cornerstone of human society. Despite its problems it has withstood the test of time. So-called alternative marriages simply do not, in the long run, work for the benefit of society.

Leslie Thomas 98
How has marriage withstood the test of time, Cathy?

Deirdre Bourdet 00
Actually, marriage has been a constantly changing institution. Look at what it looked like as recently as the 1800s!

Leslie Thomas 98
And what qualifies "the benefit of society?"

Michael Taylor 96
Cathy, marriages today are nothing like they were even 20 years ago.

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
But marriage hasn't really survived. Any damage that can be done to marriage has already been done by Brittney Spears!

Brenda Feigen66
No. We want equality. Not separate and unequal, second-class status. Read the Lawrence decision about same-sex sex. It applies totally to same-sex love.

Leslie Thomas 98
Brenda, Could you clarify the Lawrence decision? I'm not familiar with it.

Molly Shanley
I would really be interested to know whether those who favor same-sex unions favor same-sex MARRIAGE or civil unions for all.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Molly and I can probably answer questions about Lawrence.

Cathy Pasymowski 69
It has existed for since the beginning of human history and will continue to do so.

Meg Gaines 77
But marriage isn't the same as love -- I have loved lots of people but lived with the same woman in a marriage-like state for 16 years.

Brenda Feigen66
How does Cathy know what, in the long run, works for society when we haven't had anything close to same-sex marriage until this past year???

Deirdre Bourdet 00
Cathy, you might want to check your history. Marriage ahs not existed since the beginning of human history. Gay people and gay sex, however, has.

Leslie Thomas 98
I do think Meg's point about the difference between marriage and love is significant.

Michael Taylor 96
Cathy, marriage has NOT existed since the beginning of human history and most certainly not as it is currently defined by U.S. federal law.

Meg Gaines 77
When did marriage begin?

Jo Ann Citron '71
Marriage is mostly about property, not about love.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
And hetero marriage hasn't exactly been a huge success historically - look at divorce rates.

Jeff '74
Marriage worked wonderfully for men for centuries before women could vote and before they could divorce.

Brenda Feigen66
Domestic partnerships as in California are nice for state issues but don't go to social security and other very important benefits. Who cares when marriage began. It exists now only for straight folks, at least in the U.S.

Jo Ann Citron '71
No, marriage exists for gay folks as well. In Canada, in MA, and in Europe

Meg Gaines 77
I'd be interested in knowing if it was largely religious or areligious in origin.

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
Marriage used to be an informal relationship between fathers who would give their daughters away for their political and economic convenience. If the fathers promised you, you were married. The Catholic Church jumped in to assure a job for the priests.

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
Read "The Traffic in Women."

JillC
so Jeff, do you suggest women quit their jobs and not be allowed to ask for a divorce?

Meg Gaines 77
Is that historically accurate? When?

Jo Ann Citron '71
"Traffic in Women" is by Gayle Rubin.

Brenda Feigen66
When I was a kid (24) I married a man. I want the same right to the same benefits now that I'm with a women. Shouldn't matter. As far as Massachusetts goes, marriage only extends to what the state can provide. The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as far as I'm concerned but we need the USSC to say so.

Jo Ann Citron '71
In a volume ed. by Rayna Reiter titled "Towards an Anthropology of Women."

Leslie Thomas 98
Re: Brenda's point, can we clarify the issue of same-sex marriage? Why do gay men and lesbians want it? Isn't it equality? Also, as for the comment about property--exactly. Why should gays and lesbians have any less right to the "benefits" of marriage? Isn't that the issue at hand or am I woefully wrong?

Cathy Pasymowski 69
Sexual partners are not a committed marriage.

Leslie Thomas 98
For those of you who are against same-sex marriage, would you clarify why you are against it?

Jo Ann Citron '71
Why do you think that gay couples are no more than sexual partners, Cathy?

Molly Shanley
What do others think about Leslie's question?

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
I think it's more than that because people can get spousal benefits without being married.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Are you insinuating Cathy that gay relationships are only sexual?

Michael Taylor 96
You cannot get EQUAL benefits without being married, however.

Brenda Feigen66
That's the issue. Cathy, you're so off base, it's unbelievable. Do we know how this affects children of same-sex couples? How happy they were when their parents could marry? How awful the Florida decision is that says that gays can't be adoptive parents only foster parents?

Molly Shanley
You COULD get equal benefits if everyone had access to civil unions and only civil unions, and marriage was left to churches and other non-civil organizations.

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
I agree w/ molly.

Brenda Feigen66
I don't think we should let Cathy dominate this, because clearly she's in the minority and, like so many, on the right is probably trying to disrupt this chat.

Michael Taylor 96
I'd be fine with that, Molly. But then people would scream that we were taking marriage away from them.

Deirdre Bourdet 00
I also agree with Molly, but I think that the term "marriage" is too entrenched in our culture to be suddenly relegated to the church-performed ceremony.

Brenda Feigen66
What we do has no effect on THEM. That's the crap they're throwing out.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Me too - (agree with Molly) but is it realistic when you consider the power churches have in our society?

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
People, including the Vice President, misunderstand what the history of marriage is.

Abby
That reminds me of the SAME vs. EQUAL question debate in school segregation.

Molly Shanley
Yes. One of the things I'm trying to find out is whether it is "marriage" that is desired, or the benefits that come with that status at present.

Twiss Butler '52
I earlier wrote to Jo Ann that I hope we could get the constitutional facts on the table, since same-sex marriage is going before courts all the time. As many of you know, Sexual orientation discrimination is simply another form of sex discrimination and, as Wm. Coleman Jr. said to justice Powell in 1983 (Bob Jones U.): "We didn't fight a civil war over sex discrimination and we didn't pass a constitutional amendment against it." The Court did not disagree. So. Gay men have sensibly abandoned the shaky "right to privacy" as a basis for the claim to nondiscrimination on the basis of homosexuality. But, like black women ostensibly protected from discrimination under the 14th Am., lesbians can't hope for anything but a little protection on sexual orientation alone - but no other form of sex discrimination. Shouldn't we be pushing to get this cross-cutting of rights stopped. The issue here is really sex discrimination.

Cathy Pasymowski 69
The purpose of marriage is for the mutual love and affection of a man and a woman and for the procreation of children. Children need the benefit of both a father and a mother. Each has something unique and different to offer the child. A child needs the balance of loving father (male) and a mother (female).

Meg Gaines 77
I was really sick -- my kids were very small. One would've gotten social security until adulthood, the other nothing because she was born to my partner. If my partner died, her family might try to take our daughter -- who's been with us for 11 years since she was born.

Brenda Feigen66
I'm an atheist but I still want to get married. Nothing to do with religion but equal rights to and in an institution I can't be part of because of the gender of the person I love.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Cathy, none of the research supports your position.

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
A child needs love.

Leslie Thomas 98
Brenda--the issue of Florida parents only being allowed to be foster parents and not adoptive parents strikes me as similar in hypocritical quality to the belief of some pro-lifers that abortion is okay in the case of rape or at the risk of the mother's health. Isn't the professed issue underlying pro-life that life begins at conception? I'm not trying to shift the topic, but it seems like a parent is a parent whether foster or adoptive. How can Florida distinguish between the two and how are they justifying this?

Micah Buis 2002
Cathy -- just because they have a mother and a father doesn't make certain that they are receiving any love.

Michael Taylor 96
So, Cathy, would you deny marriage to a man and woman who have chosen not to have children? Or are past child-bearing age? Or are unable to have children?

Alvin Puentevella00
I respect parts of what the church means to us but I think it's high time that we actually separate church and state in practice.

Brenda Feigen66
Can't figure out the Florida court. Foster children can be taken from their parents at the whim of the state, thus creating emotional turbulence when these children need stability.

Jeff '74
Cathy, If children need a father and a mother, then would you prohibit divorce?

Deirdre Bourdet 00
I agree Alvin---and I think that the biggest obstacle facing equal marriage right activists is this country's continual blurring of the secular line.

Brenda Feigen66
I also think the Florida court's decision would be overturned if it could get to the USSC, at least before Bush makes worse the balance of power on it.

Molly Shanley
So do I take it, Alvin, that you would keep marriage as a sacrament for those who wish that blessing, but not equate that with the state-recognized relationship?

Cathy Pasymowski 69
No, I wouldn't deny the right of a man and and woman to be married. If they have children that is wonderful. The have a huge responsibility to raise that child with love.

Meg Gaines 77
Our kids have 2 moms and 2 dads -- isn't that twice as good?

JillC
Yes Alvin, separation of church and state would be great, but given the people of this country (voting Bush) they enjoy the church and state together.

Michael Taylor 96
Then you have just negated the argument that marriage is about procreation. You're saying it's about a commitment between a man and a woman?

Cathy Pasymowski 69
No, it just causes confusion.

Deirdre Bourdet 00
That is why there is a First Amendment, though! Let's enforce that part of it!

Brenda Feigen66
This is ALL about semantics and it shouldn't be. Whatever it's called we need and deserve equal rights with people who marry people of the opposite gender. That means that straight folks who are married would have to relinquish the label, marriage.

Leslie Thomas 98
I know lots of gay couples who have raised very healthy, well-balanced children. I don't particularly understand this idea that children need the balance of a man and a woman. Cathy, could you clarify what you mean? What balance, exactly?

Jo Ann Citron '71
No, straight folks don't have to relinquish anything, Brenda.

Alvin Puentevella00
Molly, I think any marriage will have to be recognized by our society - eg. our State.

Brenda Feigen66
The first amendment dictates separation of church and state. People like Cathy don't want that separation.

Cathy Pasymowski 69
No marriage has two parts. 1. The love of a man and a woman and 2. The procreation of children as a result of that loving relationship.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Procreation and marriage are not synonymous.

Molly Shanley
Brenda--that's what I'm suggesting. A two-tier or two-track system is unacceptable. But what about civil unions for all? Is there some "added value" to marriage?

Jo Ann Citron '71
Not even the conservative Supreme Court thinks so.

Alvin Puentevella00
Jill - I think a lot of it has to do with support... it's happening. Let's work on building the constituency base.

Leslie Thomas 98
Haven't you ever known anyone, Cathy, who is in a loveless marriage and who has stayed with their spouse because of the children? Those children see through that, and it becomes more traumatic than anything.

Meg Gaines 77
Cathy's not saying they're synonymous -- just the sine qua non of "Marriage."

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
I agree there is a lot of purely semantic discussion going on - whatever you call it, gays deserve the same opportunities as straights.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Procreation is not the sine qua non of marriage, nor is the reverse true either.

Brenda Feigen66
So true, but gays/lesbians have the right to procreate and be in loving relationships so said relationships should be called marriage (even if they don't procreate either).

Alvin Puentevella00
By the way, it doesn't really help to be aggressive in trying to find some kind of consensus.... and further understanding. Let's please be mindful.

Jo Ann Citron '71
The right to procreate is a fundamental right under our Constitution and it applies to individuals, not just married couples.

Brenda Feigen66
I just don't think people like Cathy want to have their relationships called civil unions.

Deirdre Bourdet 00
Can we move on with the discussion, away from trying to convince Cathy to change her mind? I don't think this is a very productive use of our time here tonight, given that it seems she is the only participant convinced by Pres. Bush's rhetoric.

Leslie Thomas 98
I agree with Ruth. What is the justification for the division? Are we really still not aware of civil rights and equality? Have the civil rights movements and multiple waves of feminism taught us nothing?

Molly Shanley
That's what I'm trying to find out.

Twiss Butler '52
Cathy - I'm the mother of five, married for forty-something years, both spouses of Catholic background, and I'm concerned at the way that this discussion is being dominated by really arbitrary extraterrestrial assertions. The problem certainly is, as many have suggested, the blurring of the secular-religious line. And the current privileging of heterosexual marriage partners who are free to marry, divorce, and whatever else - and still maintain benefits denied to other couples.

Cathy Pasymowski 69
There is nothing in the Consitituion that requires the separation of church and state. The First Amendment is clear. The state cannot interfere with the free exercise of religion no more that it can infringe on the right to free speech or the press. The first Amendment is to protect the individual from abusive government.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Cathy, you are simply not correct.

Jo Ann Citron '71
The Constitution guarantees that the state not establish religion.

Deirdre Bourdet 00
Cathy, please read the OTHER part of the First Amendment.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Could we please bracket the discussion that Cathy has initiated -- temporarily -- . . .

Molly Shanley
Friends, please focus on Jo Ann's question. It will give us common ground and a place to start.

Brenda Feigen66
If we read Lawrence, and I have it here, we see that (Catholic) Justice Kennedy uses the words "liberty" and "justice" to guarantee same-sex sodomy is not illegal. Sandra Day talks about Equality. We are on the same page as they are.

JillC
Folks that take issue with gay marriage, what problem do you think there is with gay marriage and please do not respond morally

Jo Ann Citron '71
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the state cannot prefer religion over non-religion.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Could we please ask if there are questions out there that Molly and I can focus the discussion on. . . .

Molly Shanley
Do you have specific questions or concerns sparked by the VQ article? Or, why did YOU enter the chat room?

Jo Ann Citron '71
If not, we can return to the free-for-all.

Brenda Feigen66
Okay, so focus us.

Alvin Puentevella00
Amendments are a great thing. Clunky, but it works when there's enough need.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Should we begin with someone's earlier question about Lawrence?

Molly Shanley
Why do you prefer marriage to civil union for all?

Meg Gaines 77
I think we should focus on strategies for moving this equality effort forward.

Molly Shanley
Great.

Michael Taylor 96
Well, the article talks about civil unions for all. I don't think that's any more realistic for Americans right now than marriage equality across the country...

Alvin Puentevella00
Can't separate moral judgments. It is inscribed in the spirit of our laws.

Twiss Butler '52
I would really appreciate it if the lawyers present would address the equality question I have raised as to the constitutional status of discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

Meg Gaines 77
Marriage or civil unions? How will that go over -- how can we get it to go over?

Molly Shanley
So think about Meg's question about strategy.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Molly how do you envision in a practical sense creating civil unions for all?

Brenda Feigen66
Molly, the only reason for preferring "marriage" is that's the word that's been and will continue to be used. It does not have religious connotations. As you know, many people are married by judges in city halls, etc.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
I agree Brenda.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Twiss, because sexual orientation is not a protected category under Equal Protection law, there is no way of guaranteeing equality to homosexuals.

Michael Taylor 96
And it's far easier to change the legal definition of marriage than to rewrite 1,100+ federal laws to allow for same-sex partners.

Jo Ann Citron '71
The Massachusetts court did just that: they changed the definition of marriage.

Jo Ann Citron '71
After Goodridge, marriage in Massachusetts means the union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

Meg Gaines 77
Brenda -- we will get them to quit calling it marriage in the city hall -- and leave that word for churches -- many of which would marry you and your partner with great celebration and joy.

Leslie Thomas 98
But hasn't marriage over time become religious? Don't the vows say, "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder?" I haven't been to a wedding in a while, but the last one I was at seemed pretty inextricably intertwined with religion.

Brenda Feigen66
Sexual orientation, I beg to differ, is protected. The level of scrutiny so far accorded discrimination on that basis is not as strict as I'd like it to be, BUT it got us what we needed in Lawrence.

Michael Taylor 96
Leslie, that's only if you have a religious ceremony.

Meg Gaines 77
Leslie -- not civil marriages.

Jo Ann Citron '71
No, Brenda. Equal protection was not what got us Lawrence.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Lawrence was decided under substantive due process, which is quite different.

Deirdre Bourdet 00
Brenda, I disagree that the term marriage does not have religious connotations. That is why equality is so difficult, because many if not most people in the US associate marriages with being in a church, even if the vows and terms are pretty god-free.

Brenda Feigen66
My marriage had nothing to do and no words about god, and I was married by a federal judge when I married a man. I agree about Lawrence. As I just said, Lawrence went on the principles of liberty and justice.

BrendaFeigen66
I wish it had been on equal protection grounds but I think they were paving the way for marriage, frankly.

Michael Taylor 96
So, why are Americans so opposed to marriage equality but not divorce -- which goes against the religious sacraments of marriage?

Meg Gaines 77
So, that's good, right? We would like marriage to have religious connotations, entirely.

Molly Shanley
Brenda speaks of marriage before a judge. That is a civil ceremony, and in my view might well be a civil union.

Deirdre Bourdet 00
Because they've been told that gay marriage will diminish the value of their own straight marriages.

Leslie Thomas 98
Deirdre--that's exactly my point. It seems to me that the majority of the country would connotatively define "marriage" as religious. And just as the last election showed, people are very swayed (obviously) by the impact of ethics, "ethics," and morality on politics. I realize it's obvious, but I think it's a scary reality. Church and State are very blurred.

Molly Shanley
What about commitment ceremonies--what role do they play?

Michael Donnelly 07
I think bringing the Establishment Clause of the first amendment makes a lot of sense for this conversation. Does marriage as it currently stand qualify as "an establishment of religion?" Furthermore, does it prevent some people from practicing their religious beliefs to their logical conclusions? I can think of a number of religions/religious conferences of clergy that do or would sanction same-sex marriages or unions.

Brenda Feigen66
Yes, Molly, but you've got to get all the straight non-religious maybe couples to give up the privilege of the word, again all SEMANTICS.

Michael Taylor 96
As far as I know, none of my friends are getting divorced because my husband and I got married last year... but perhaps I should ask them? :-)

Deirdre Bourdet 00
Yeah, I'd like to ask those people how their marriage has suffered from the past year's nuptials. :)

Brenda Feigen66
Commitment ceremonies are just the best they've been able to do. I wouldn't spend the money on a gown for one.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
How can gay marriage possibly have a detrimental effect on straight marriage? I just don't get it.

Michael Donnelly 07
Perhaps "civil marriages" do not directly reflect the views of any single religion, but doesn't it look like perhaps we are creating a new religion? Judeo-American-Christianity?

Brenda Feigen66
You folks in Massachusetts are very lucky and you're the ones who should be pushing for your marriages to be recognized by the feds and other states.

Michael Taylor 96
I actually think civil unions are detrimental to religious marriage.

Jo Ann Citron '71
I agree, Michael.

Meg Gaines 77
Why?

Jo Ann Citron '71
Eventually, if civil unions are available to all, lots of people will choose them over marriage.

Michael Taylor 96
As we see in Europe.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Correct.

Brenda Feigen66
I don't care about religious marriage, just marriage and I agree civil unions are detrimental and distracting and CLEARLY a 2nd class status thing

Meg Gaines 77
I disagree -- I think people love the pomp and circumstance of marriage.

Jo Ann Citron '71
They don't have to be second class.

Meg Gaines 77
Right

Brenda Feigen66
If we don't have the choice to do what straights do, it is 2nd class by definition.

Jo Ann Citron '71
If enough people chose civil unions and if the government made no distinction between civil unions and marriage, then civil unions would take over a good part of the civil marriage world.

Meg Gaines 77
If all unions are civil -- then they're all first class

Alvin Puentevella00
You could have a traditional marriage in a defunct church structure :)

Brenda Feigen66
Not if it's only for gays.

Molly Shanley
I think if there were civil unions, lots of straight couples would choose it.

Jo Ann Citron '71
The point is to make civil unions an option for everyone.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
You can have pomp and circumstance in a civil union ceremony.

Meg Gaines 77
Agreed-- hooray!

Alvin Puentevella00
You can have it with Elvis!

Jo Ann Citron '71
You can have pomp and circumstance in a commitment ceremony, for that matter.

Molly Shanley
Or you can have pomp in a church wedding after the civil unions ceremony, as in Mexico, etc.

Michael Taylor 96
I only support civil unions if the government gets out of the marriage "business."

Meg Gaines 77
Me, too.

Molly Shanley
Right. I'm not advocating a two-tier systerm

Leslie Thomas 98
I agree that civil unions would sweep the nation if they were a reality. What exactly is the etymology of "marriage?"

Jo Ann Citron '71
Well, we're about to lose social security altogether, which removes one of the major benefits of marriage.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Just kidding.

Brenda Feigen66
WHY do we need to talk about god and church. This is still (at least for a few more minutes) a secular society with an institution called marriage. And pomp can be in church, as well as, civil weddings like mine at the Harvard Club -- lots of pomp, I can't have with Joanne.

Twiss Butler '52
Do you disagree with my understanding that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination? Why separate it, unless to facilitate equal protection claims which will be valid for men but scarcely so for women. "Levels of scrutiny" are the invention of the Haves, to put it very politely. They work like Achilles and the Tortoise. I would add that trying to drag this in under the First Amendment is missing the point of how heterosexualism pays off for those who claim it. It's a sex definition matter, not a religious one.

Michael Taylor 96
To answer the question of moving the fight for marriage equality forward... we need to find a way to educate opposite sex couples on the benefits they receive that same-sex couples do not.

Brenda Feigen66
I don't think we're going to lose social security. Those republicans will lose their seats. Still I agree, it's scary.

Molly Shanley
Yes, Michael. Thanks for returning to Meg's good question.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Can we talk about Twiss' question?

Molly Shanley
Yes

Brenda Feigen66
Yes, we need to educate and put them on the spot where they have to say openly that we deserve what they get. Now, all I hear is that we may have lost the election for Kerry.

Michael Taylor 96
The problem with Twiss' question is that most people see sex as a natural thing and sexual orientation as a choice.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Brenda do you feel that gay men have more rights than lesbians?

Brenda Feigen66
Not more rights, but more respect and more sense of entitlement.

Meg Gaines 77
I don't understand Twiss' point regarding how it would work for men but not women.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Me either.

Molly Shanley
Twiss, would you clarify your question?

Jo Ann Citron '71
But the courts have held that a lot of the discrimination that gay people experience is actionable under existing laws that prevent discrimination based on gender.

Brenda Feigen66
In Hollywood, gay guys are gods; lesbians are virtually invisible at best.

Dale Paul 2000
Twiss' point(s) are apt and hint at the strategies for progress on this issue.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Remember, that there are no laws that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Meg Gaines 77
Dale -- enlighten us.

Richard Nunan 74
To Michael: Most people over 50 see sexual orientation as a choice. In 20 years, that issue will be a dinosaur.

Brenda Feigen66
There are cases. And, yes there are laws. California prevents just that kind of discrimination.

Michael Taylor 96
Richard: True, but I don't want to just sit back and wait...

Molly Shanley
I second Meg--Dale, give us your thoughts.

Dale Paul 2000
Arguing matters of religion and faith are bound to become heated--as in the collective chiding of Cathy here--but a systematic critique of human notions of difference...now, that's something all together different, and you'll recall we've done it before...

Twiss Butler '52
My basic point is that we still have a problem with a 14th Am. equal protection guarantee that only works for men. Women keep trying to squeeze under the door, but the Court is not fooled.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Richard, I know many people over 50 who don't believe sexual orientation is a choice.

Brenda Feigen66
I don't agree with this because whatever the courts grant gay men, they'll have to grant lesbians.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Twiss, I think that equal protection is working as well for women as for men these days. Or are you saying that gay men have an easier time invoking gender discrimination than lesbians do?

Meg Gaines 77
Women benefit from equal protection as well.

Dale Paul 2000
There was a time in the not-so-distant past when racial essentialism ran amok in the United States and elsewhere (arguably, it still does in varying degrees).

Brenda Feigen66
AND if you read Ruth's opinion in VMI you'll see that gender has now been elevated to strict scrutiny. Really.

Richard Nunan 74
Ruth, as a "person over 50", I agree of course.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Gender does not receive strict scrutiny, Brenda.

Jo Ann Citron '71
It still benefits only from a mid-level scrutiny.

Dale Paul 2000
Gender and sex essentialism--whether via the mouths of Santorum or of Stephen Gould--is the same kind of mixed-up and incorrect logic.

Meg Gaines 77
But both genders equally benefit from that scrutiny -- at least from my reading

BrendaFeigen66
"Exceedingly Persuasive" reason for any distinctions based on gender with the burden on the defendant. I have to disagree with you and I've chatted with other constitutional scholars about this.

Meg Gaines 77
What's essentialism?

Jo Ann Citron '71
Essentialism is the view that gender differences are not culturally constructed but are sort of hard-wired.

Ruth Trimarchi '78
Could you explain the Stephen Gould comment? Thanks.

Brenda Feigen66
Yes, both genders benefit, but that's not the point. More bad discrimination has always existed against women.

Brenda Feigen66
Ah, essentialism as in Larry Summers.

Twiss Butler '52
I just noticed Jo Ann's comment on laws that prohibit discrimination based on "gender" - but they are not ultimately supported by the constitution and can be enforced wholly, partly, or not at all - and the not at all is for the very logic of men's 14th Am. birthright, much more likely to be the result for women. I think that this is a legal mess.

Brenda Feigen66
I think we have to get back to sexual orientation which is NOT the same as SEX.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender ARE supported by the Constitution, Twiss -- by the very equal protection clause in the 14th amendment that you mentioned earlier

Alvin Puentevella00
Do stats exist for the percentage of people in this country who are for or against same-sex marriage or civil unions?

Jo Ann Citron '71
There have been lots of polls that you could find via Google.

Michael Taylor 96
Whether or not orientation is a choice is irrelevant. If any man can choose to marry any woman under virtually any circumstances, then any woman should be able to choose any other woman.

Molly Shanley
People are talking about legal doctrine. Meg, I think, was thinking also about political strategies for gaining acceptance of same-sex marriage. Any thoughts?

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
So, this is about marriage. Gay orientation/choice should really relate. Shouldn't we talk about the institution of marriage and what it is?

Molly Shanley
It seems there are differences of opinion. For some it is religious, for others secular.

Michael Taylor 96
From a legal standpoint, it's thousands of tax benefits and legal responsibilities.

Alvin Puentevella00
Molly, would this be a state-by-state push or federal?

Dale Paul 2000
On strategies, there's a short book, released last year, that should be required reading. Lisa Duggan. "The Twighlight of Equality."

Meg Gaines 77
Also -- should our efforts be aimed at the courts or the legislatures? Court of public opinion goes without saying. Strategies?

Lynn Thomson Scott 64
Yes, but if spousal benefits are already being given, economic ramifications aren't relevant.

Jo Ann Citron '71
I think this conversation is pointless, Samantha.

Molly Shanley
Alvin--I don't understand your question. I don't have and am not advocating a strategy--legal or political. I'm just trying to clarify what it is that people are wanting to defend or obtain.

Leslie Thomas 98
Alvin--here's a link I found on Google. I have no idea of it's credibility, but it seems at a quick glance to say the country is pretty evenly divided.

Dale Paul 2000
Prof. Duggan doesn't provide practical strategies so much as attempt to reorient the conversation and encourage our rethinking the problem and thus the potential solutions.

Michael Taylor 96
Well, Washington state has a case going to the Supreme Court in March. California actually has a bill to propose an equal definition of marriage.

Twiss Butler '52
Political strategies are a fine thing for getting farm price supports or a big tax package passed, but are a pathetic and ineffectual way to approach basic issues of human and civil rights. And, not surprisingly, going on political strategies alone yields crummy results.

Leslie Thomas 98
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Twiss what's the alternative?

Brenda Feigen66
The problem is that we have a Court we can't count on, scary what's going to happen to it.

Molly Shanley
Twiss' position is clear; use the courts.

Richard Nunan 74
Leslie: evenly divided on what? Gay marriage or civil unions. The latter are a lot more acceptable to a lot of people than the former.

Meg Gaines 77
Given Lawrence etc. -- don't we have a better chance in the courts -- though I agree it's scary.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
To political action?

molly shanley
I think there IS possibility in the courts. And Vermont and Massachusetts took two different routes.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Courts are political.

Michael Taylor 96
Better chance in the courts, where the opposition's argument fails on legal grounds, but we run the risk of ending up like the abortion "issue" politically.

Brenda Feigen66
We have to do both - legislative and legal and challenge Defense of Marriage Act.

Michael Taylor 96
Perhaps we need legal experts to fight for "suspect class" status for gays and lesbians?

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Any more info on the Washington state case?

Meg Gaines 77
Interesting point, Michael -- where the courts get ahead of public opinion and it comes back to bite us in the butt.

Brenda Feigen66
The abortion case should have gone off on equal protection grounds just as our issue should.

Michael Taylor 96
Washington state: Oral arguments to be heard March 8th (I think that's the date).

JillC
What is suspect class

Michael Taylor 96
We merged two cases here.

Brenda Feigen66
I agree about suspect class status for us, but mid-level review would probably be enough.

Michael Taylor 96
We're expecting a decision in the summer. Expecting favorable, but not sure whether favorable like MA or like VT.

Jo Ann Citron '71
A suspect class is one that has heightened protection under the 14th amendment.

Molly Shanley
Michael--what are the plaintiff's arguing?

Jo Ann Citron '71
There are only two: race and national origin

Brenda Feigen66
And requires that there be a compelling state interest in allowing the distinction to stand.

Meg Gaines 77
Why race?

Jo Ann Citron '71
Race because of slavery.

Michael Taylor 96
Molly: Actually, I don't know the specifics at the moment.

Twiss Butler '52
Thank you, Ruth, for asking. I mean that on such basic rights issues, the legal basis must be worked out without asking what a current court favors, or whether the present administration is so disposed. Then it is the hard task of lobbying the public. Public opinion is ultimately what moves politicians, with what people think of as political strategy of importance only at the end point.

Jo Ann Citron '71
National origin because of internment of Japanese during the war.

Meg Gaines 77
Right -- I thought he was talking about the Washington case... not the levels of scrutiny.

Brenda Feigen66
Whereas mid-level says there has to be an important state interest, and I doubt the state could come up with an important state interest for keeping us 2nd class citizens.

Molly Shanley
A lot of views have been aired, but it has been very difficult to follow a sustained conversation. We should think about how to do that in the future.

Dale Paul 2000
Can we get some Springer-style final thoughts?

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Maybe this isn't the right forum for this discussion!

Molly Shanley
Maybe AAVC will help us think of a format that would work better.

Brenda Feigen66
What is?

Jeff '74
blog

Michael Taylor 96
Yes, blog.

Meg Gaines 77
Matthew's Mug!

Jo Ann Citron '71
This format can work, but only if people slow down.

Abby
Maybe more of a panel-style discussion, rather than a free-for-all chat?

Brenda Feigen66
I guess a strong moderator and something in writing.

JillC
Agreed, I think public opinion has to develop first

Meg Gaines 77
Can't imagine how to control this effectively - it's too anonymous

Molly Shanley
Brenda, a strong moderator would have to block people's keyboards.

Meg Gaines 77
Amen

Alvin Puentevella00
How about some salient questions posed beforehand to guide us

Richard Nunan 74
Jo Ann: Perhaps you could control topic focus more, but it's just really hard to do in this medium.

Michael Taylor 96
A blog could allow for Hosts to post an article or links and for participants to respond to specific questions and comments.

Leslie Thomas 98
Perhaps this discussion/chat could have a follow up after folks have had a chance to process all the 17 topics (or more).

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
How about a conference at VC?

Michael Taylor 96
Conference would ROCK! Expensive, though...

Meg Gaines 77
Matthew's Mug!!!

Brenda Feigen66
Public opinion seems to be swaying to our side but if they'd waited for that Brown never would have been decided, and yes, Molly, we'd find ourselves unable to type. A conference at VC is fine though hard to get to from here.

Jo Ann Citron '71
We could let Molly organize it in conjunction with her course. I'll drive down.

Molly Shanley
I'll have to leave that to the AAVC folks--"that" being a conference. What about a roundtable at Reunions?

Meg Gaines 77
Yes.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Good start.

Brenda Feigen66
Roundtable at reunions means we'll never be together again.

JillC
Yes for roundtable

Pat Lichtenberg 90
Don't forget LAGAVC's spring conference.

Cathy Pasymowski 69
Next time have the discussion lead by persons representing both sides of the issue. Contact the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and the Ludwig VonMises Institute.

Jo Ann Citron '71
But straight people don't attend that

Molly Shanley
Thanks, Pat. We can continue to talk about possible formats and venues.

Brenda Feigen66
We also need to talk to people who aren't just us, but aren't Cathy either.

Dale Paul 2000
This reminded me a bit too much of Chris Matthew's program, and I don't know if the world really needs more hot air. I would have love to hear more thoughts from the two featured guests.

Ruth Trimarchi '78
Would another net-forum work better? For example a yahoo room that allows for slower more reasoned responses?

JillC
It would be great to have a posting of the opposed views than continue discussion.

Cathy Pasymowski 69
Why should persons such as myself should be excluded?

Jo Ann Citron '71
They shouldn't.

Michael Taylor 96
I find value in having Cathy's views a part of the mix.

AAVC-Samantha Soper
I will send out a survey to everyone who participated tonight to gather feedback to make this type of discussion more satisfactory.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
It's just easier in person to understand each other.

Brenda Feigen66
No. We don't need to hear more reasons for our being 2nd class citizens. Tired of it. Wouldn't listen to a bunch of men saying women should be barefoot and pregnant.

Molly Shanley
They shouldn't. We need to figure out a method by which to focus discussion, though.

Meg Gaines 77
Of course not. But it'd be great if we could connect more -- I'd love you to meet my family, Cathy. I think you'd find it familial.

JillC
Agreed

Brenda Feigen66
I need enlightenment from people with political and legal strategies not arguments with the devil.

Alvin Puentevella00
Let's have marriage here. No Hitlers.

Pat Lichtenberg 90
This is a start. The thinking and talking will continue.

Richard Nunan 74
There are other reasons people object to changing status quo besides virulent hostility to some "out group"...

Brenda Feigen66
What?

Molly Shanley
Any closing thoughts?

Michael Taylor 96
Being opposed to marriage equality is not the same as being opposed to LGBT folks. If we can't discuss the issue, then no one's minds will ever change.

Meg Gaines 77
Just that we need to listen to each other -- better and better.

Cathy Pasymowski 69
God is love.

Brenda Feigen66
Molly - let's continue the conversation and, if necessary, discuss the reasons we need, for all of our sakes, to keep the conversation rationally aimed at how we will achieve equality. God is bullshit.

Dale Paul 2000
Mike's point is apt. I'm opposed to marriage but identify as gay.

Brenda Feigen66
You may not have met the right person yet. You're young

Molly Shanley
Brenda--Of course let's keep talking. My conversation with you is one of the longest-running I've had.

Brenda Feigen66
Absolutely.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Dale why are you opposed to marriage? All kinds?

Dale Paul 2000
All marriage = bad.

Ruth Kirk Baacke 68
Why?

Brenda Feigen66
That's what I thought in the '70s

Alvin Puentevella00
You don't believe in symbolically cementing relationships?

Alvin Puentevella00
It's like a blood pact, no?

Meg Gaines 77
Now it's getting really interesting.

Brenda Feigen66
Now I see the benefits it confers and I want the same as when I had a man in my life.

Alvin Puentevella00
Continuation of family

Dale Paul 2000
Well, that thinking is back. Vintage feminism.

BrendaFeigen66
Doesn't even have to be related to children.

Dale Paul 2000
With a queer twist.

Brenda Feigen66
Feminism includes queer.

Twiss Butler '52
Brenda - I would love to define a way to keep God, the Tooth Fairy, and my Imaginary Friend ruled out of the discussion.

Meg Gaines 77
Agreed.

JillC
Ok Twiss,but Santa is in.

Brenda Feigen66
I can help with that. The point is to move forward an agenda that is FOR equality and justice for gays and lesbians.

Dale Paul 2000
There is not one feminism but rather mutliple feminisms...not all of them so queer.

Brenda Feigen66
OY

Meg Gaines 77
Yes -- and we'll have to do a lot of listening along the way.

Meg Gaines 77
Molly and Joanne -- thanks! You gals are brave.

Brenda Feigen66
I've been in the Women's Movement for a long time, so please don't tell me what feminism is. It's way too huge a phenomenon.

Alvin Puentevella00
How do we keep God in the conversation and have same-sex marriage and civil unions at the same time?

Jo Ann Citron '71
Any legal questions from anyone before I sign off?

Brenda Feigen66
No God or you lose me.

Meg Gaines 77
Where can I get married???

Jo Ann Citron '71
Massachusetts

Brenda Feigen66
Nowhere really

Alvin Puentevella00
Can't disrespect other people's beliefs, Brenda

Michael Taylor 96
Jo Ann: Any thoughts on IRS issues?

Jo Ann Citron '71
IRS?

Jo Ann Citron '71
As long as Defense of Marriage Act is in force, the IRS is not going to give anything to same-sex couples

Michael Taylor 96
Much of the issues that can't be handled by contracts revolve around tax benefits...

Jo Ann Citron '71
No federal tax benefits of any kind to s-s couples. that is clear

Michael Taylor 96
Is there a legal argument to be made about opening up tax benefits without challenging the def. of marriage?

Jo Ann Citron '71
No.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Afraid not

Michael Taylor 96
Just a thought...

Molly Shanley
I'll talk with the folks at AAVC and see if we can come up with other ideas. It was nice to talk with you all. Bye.

Jo Ann Citron '71
Pat Cain at Iowa is doing the best work in the country on tax issues

Jo Ann Citron '71
She's Vassar '68

Michael Taylor 96
Kewl...

Roger Rojo 71
Thank you, Prof. Shanley and Jo Ann and Samantha. You know how to reach me if you want.

Twiss Butler '52
All that tax talk sounds like we are getting down to what opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to keep for themselves, along with patriarchal hierarchies.

Michael Taylor 96
Well, bye all, I'm off to host a meeting for LGBT Civil Rights in Washington state, so I'll be continuing this with other folks. :-)

Jeff '74
Thank you Prof. Citron. Great chat.