Archive Version of
Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples Online from 1995-2022 Demian and Steve Bryant originally founded Partners as a monthly newsletter in 1986. By late 1990 it was reformatted into a bi-monthly magazine. Print publication was halted by 1995 when Demian published Partners as a Web site, which greatly expanded readership. In 1988, the Partners National Survey of Lesbian & Gay Couples report was published; the first major U.S. survey on same-sex couples in a decade. In 1996, Demian produced The Right to Marry, a video documentary based on the dire need for equality that was made clear by the data from the survey mentioned above. The video featured interviews with Rev. Mel White, Evan Wolfson, Phyllis Burke, Richard Mohr, Kevin Cathcart, Faygele benMiriam, Benjamin Cable-McCarthy, Susan Reardon, Frances Fuchs, Tina Podlodowski, and Chelle Mileur. Demian has been the sole operator during the last two decades of Partners. Demian stopped work on Partners Task Force in order to realize his other time-consuming projects, which include publishing the book “Operating Manual for Same-Sex Couples: Navigating the rules, rites & rights” - which is now available on Amazon. The book is based on the Partners Survey mentioned above, his interviews of scores of couples, and 36 years of writing hundreds of articles about same-sex couples. It’s also been informed by his personal experience in a 20-year, same-sex relationship. Demian’s other project is to publish his “Photo Stories by Demian” books based on his more than six decades as a photographer and writer. |
Homeland Insecurity 2004 Presidential Candidates Regarding Same-sex Couples by Demian © March 3, 2004, Demian One of the most contentious issues of the pending presidential election is a Constitutional amendment to prevent legal recognition of same-sex partners. While purporting to target legal marriage, contracts such as Civil Unions and other domestic partner plans would likely be crippled or destroyed. This Constitutional amendment is a potent weapon of mass destruction. This extreme action is meant to cut out an entire class of people from full participation as American citizens. This amendment would provide homeland insecurity for hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples. It is a manifestation of hatred against gay men and lesbians. [Please see our article Constitutional Amendment: Codifying Hatred] All the presidential candidates have been asked about their positions on legal marriage in many written and broadcast interviews. The only candidates to strongly advocate legal marriage for same-sex couples are Democrats: Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), Rev. Al Sharpton, and former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun. Opposing any sort of recognition of same-sex families is the Republican Party, which has been primarily responsible for launching the anti-marriage Constitutional amendment, in spite of party rhetoric regarding keeping the Federal system from interfering with states’ rights. In the guise of protecting the “sanctity of marriage,” and poised to support the amendment is the current president, George W. Bush, as well as his second-in-command, Dick Cheney. As legal marriage is a civil, not religious, status, it is difficult to find any logic in the use of the word “sanctity.”
Continuing to forbid legal marriage to same-sex couples does absolutely nothing to protect those who are married. It only prevents those who wish to be married from gaining legal status for their same-sex family.
Because legal marriage is a contract between the state and a couple — and not between the couple and any religion — it triggers an enormous list of benefits, rights and responsibilities that are completely unavailable in any other way. [Please see our Marriage Benefits List and Legal Marriage Primer] None of our parents were required to ask the entire nation for permission to get a legal marriage license. Yet this is essentially what we are now required to do. In order to get treated the same as all other Americans, we need the support of a majority, which must include those of all orientations. Over the years, polls have indicated a growing, positive attitude toward same-sex couples and legal marriage. [Please see: Legal Marriage Surveys] State courts, have realized the importance of treating all citizens the same with positive rulings on allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples in Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Massachusetts. [For the court findings, please see our articles Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Massachusetts.
The following chart shows the public positions that the major presidential candidates have taken. (Links were provided here, then removed, when they no longer had a Web site.):
Green Party Candidates for U.S. President While the Democratic Party has had platforms in the past that were pro-legal marriage for same-sex couples, they have yet to make it a pro-active issue. In contrast to the Republican and Democratic parties, the U.S. Green Party has made legal marriage, and civil rights in general, integral to their politics:
Although the Green Party Platform specifically supports legal marriage for same-sex couples, only Peter Camejo makes a supportive statement on his campaign Web site. (Links were provided here, then removed, when they no longer had a Web site.):
More pro-marriage quotes — from political, religious, and other sources — may be found in our article: Quotes: Legal Marriage
Also see:
The Democratic Party has gone on record in stating its opposition to a Federal amendment. Individual Democrats, however, do not have a unified, positive outlook toward gay men and lesbians, and the families they create. So, unlike the courts in Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Massachusetts — who have ruled in favor of legal marriage for all citizens — Democrats have not stood solidly behind legal marriage for all citizens. The Democratic front-runner, John Kerry told the Boston Globe, on February 24, 2004, that he would support a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage, so long as it also ensured that same-sex couples have access to all legal rights that married couples receive. This, of course, would be impossible because separate is never equal. Any marriage alternative would not be recognized by any other state, nor by the Federal system. “If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection,” said Kerry. He stressed that he was referring only to the state, and not the federal, Constitution. He opposes any amendment that did not include a provision for Civil Unions. On the other hand, Republicans have been completely negative, actively moving to create a hostile legal environment, as well as a nation at war against diversity and homosexuality in particular. The following statement from George W. Bush makes clear his anti-gay sentiment:
The court violated no sacred or legal principles. In fact, the court re-enforced a state’s constitution, which is one of the most precious institutions we have as a democracy. Further, Bush has confused law and legal standing with the religious concept of sacredness. American law forbids taking any one religion as a basis for law.
This document excludes single parents, extended family structures, those who are not “faith-based,” and same-sex couples.
Research has repeatedly shown that a loving parent is more important than if the parent is male, female, gay or straight. Children raised in gay and lesbian households fair the same as opposite-sex couple households. Claims like Mr. Bush’s place same-sex families outside of the culture, earmarks them for disenfranchisement, and exposes his truly radical, right-wing nature.
Calling a court “activist” is the whine of a poor looser, of someone who does not like a court’s ruling. It is a weak attempt to cast a court ruling as being, somehow, wrong, that the court actually took the law into their own hands. This claim denies the court’s rightful, legal responsibility of interpreting law as well as maintaining a check and balance on the other branches of government. If there has been any “activist” court, that would be the one that broadcaster Daniel Schorr said had made a “judicial coup” when it got Mr. Bush elected president. The Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) is widely thought to be unconstitutional and only awaits one state to allow legal marriage for a suit to be brought to Federal court in order to obtain recognition by the Federal system and between the states. This is why Bush thinks the DoMA law is not enough to prevent legal marriage for same-sex couples. Bush further states he would support a Federal Constitutional amendment to outlaw the relationships of same-sex couples — not only if legal marriage was available — but even if the second-class status of Civil Unions was available and it undermined the “sanctity of marriage.” Presumably, Civil Unions would undermine a “sanctity” the same way a legal marriage would — by recognizing the legitimate claim that same-sex couples are families, that they deserve the same treatment that opposite-sex couple receive. And from the current president’s second in command:
Cheney’s reference to 2000 pertained to a debate with the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Senator Joe Lieberman (Connecticut):
It seemed to have slipped his mind, in 2000, that there already was a Federal law — DoMA — that defines marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. Presently, Dick’s daughter, Mary Cheney, has been campaigning for him. As a lesbian, one wonders how she will be able to continue talking to gay and lesbian groups about voting for her dad, when he so clearly dismissed gay families.
With the presidential election at stake, Dick Cheney appears to be very willing to disregard state’s rights, cut out same-sex families from Constitutional protection, and jeopardize the legal standing of his own daughter.
Because legal marriage is a contract between the state and a couple — and not between the couple and any religion — it must be considered as any other legal agreement and be made available to everyone. In many right-wing circles, the discussion regarding legal marriage never enters the realm of civil law. For them, it is a narrowly focused Biblical, or religious discussion. This means that the debate is not one of civil rights, but rather one that of dogma. The best counter to prejudice and ignorance is one-on-one education. Tell everyone how important legal marriage is to your family — your friends, relations, co-workers, and elected officials. Lobby Your Representatives
E-mail the U.S. president:
U.S. House of Representatives:
U.S. Senate:
All congressional contacts: Voting The best remedy to injustice is voting for those who support civil rights. Register to vote.
On-line voter registration: Evaluate candidate’s based on their support of same-sex couples. Vote!
You do not need to be a registered voter to tell your representatives what to do. However, you would be able to vote better people into office if you register.
|
© 2022, Demian None of the pages on this Web site may be reproduced by any form of reproduction without permission from Partners, with the exception of copies for personal, student, and non-commercial use. Please do not copy this article to any Web site. Links to this page are welcome. |