Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 06:44:18 -1000 From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice) Subject: SA 163: Kentucky SSM Senate Testimony Aloha kakahiaka kakou. It appears that yet another front is opening up in Kentucky! Great to read you in print again Martha! Remarks of Everett Hoffman, Executive Director, ACLU of Kentucky House-Senate Judiciary Committee, Kentucky General Assembly, August 19, 1997 In a few months, my wife Cathy and I will be celebrating our tenth wedding anniversary. As that date approaches, I often think of the vows we took together: "To have & to hold from this day forward / for better or for worse / in sickness and in health / to love and to cherish / as long as we both shall live." These are the traditional vows that express the core values of the institution of marriage -- indeed, they are the very embodiment of traditional family values. A couple's lifelong commitment to one another is special, and it is certainly appropriate for the Commonwealth of Kentucky to adopt policies that promote this kind of commitment between two people. That is why it is baffling to me why we would want to adopt policies placing unwise and unjustifiable restrictions on the opportunity of marital commitment. The American Civil Liberties Union opposes all legislation denying legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, and the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who want to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage. Civil marriage is the way our society defines our most intimate, committed relationships. It is also the device our society uses to identify our partners for virtually every situation in which it is important to identify the person who is closest to us -- for everything from retirement programs to critical medical decisions to the simple right to be together in crisis situations, like hospital emergency rooms. State-sanctioned marriages confer an enormous array of practical rights that greatly affect one's ability to receive benefits, acquire wealth and care for children. Denying lebians and gay men the right to marry denies them simple, basic dignity and has serious practical and legal consquences. This is discrimination. It is wrong, and we in the ACLU believe it is unconstitutional as well. For more than sixty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the right to marry is a central part of the liberty protected by the Constitution's Due Process clause. The Court has said that "it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage and family relationships." Because marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, goverment is prohibited from denying it to whole classes of people without compelling justification. This year, we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, in which the Court struck down the Commonwealth of Virginia's prohibition against interracial marriage. Because the only conceivable justification for prohibiting interracial marriage was the maintenance of White Supremacy, the Court found that Virginia had violated not only the Lovings' fundamental right to marry but also the Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection of the laws. Although the deplorable history of White Supremacy and racism that formed the basis of the Loving decision are unique, the principles of fundamental liberty and equal protection cited by the Court are universal. Just as 30 years ago, the Commonwealth of Virginia could produce no legitimate and compelling reason to deny interracial couples the right to marry, the testimony presented before this committee today demonstrates that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has no legitimate and compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. It is important to emphasize that what we are talking about is civil marriage -- a legal institution. Legal recognition of same-sex marriages would not mean that a particular church or temple must change its views. The religious view of same-sex marriages will remain a matter for individuals and their religious communities to determine. Finally, we must recognize that the institution of marriage has not been a static one -- it is an institution that continues to evolve over time. Indeed many traditional notions of marriage that prevailed for centuries are now obsolete. Just as marriage has traditionally been defined as a union between people of different sexes, prior to Loving, it was also traditionally defined as a union between people of the same race. At one time, marriage was also "traditionally" understood to sanction male ownership of women as property. And until relatively recently, rape, assault, and other kinds of domestic violence and abuse were thought of as natural components of marriage that should be tolerated. As a civil institution, marriage has become more egalitarian over time, with the focus increasingly on consent and commitment. Recognition of same-sex marriages is the next logical step in this progression. ~~~~~~~~ Testimony of Martha Barnette House-Senate Judiciary Committee, Kentucky General Assembly August 19, 1997 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today in opposition to Bill Request 143. My name is Martha Barnette, and I am co-chair of the Fairness Campaign's Civil Marriage Team. I'm a native Kentuckian and a resident of Jefferson County, where I work as a writer for a beauty magazine. It's been more than eight joyous years now since my partner and I made a solemn pledge to care for each other for the rest of our lives. Like anyone else, I want to make sure that she is legally protected in all the ways that any other spouse would be. Clearly, the issue is not whether a church should bless our partnership (even though many of them would!) but whether the state should deny us access to a public institution that provides a host of legal rights and responsibilities that help couples take care of each other at some of the most difficult and vulnerable points in any family's life. Now, some will try to convince you that the resounding ruling in our favor in Hawaii was an isolated case of liberal judicial activism. In reality, however, the march toward civil rights for same-gender couples is a *worldwide* one. Throughout Scandanavia, same-gender couples already have won most of the rights of civil marriage. Similar laws may soon pass in Spain, France, Finland, Belgium, Brazil, and the Netherlands. Just last month in Canada, the government of British Columbia extended all the rights of common-law marriage to its lesbian and gay citizens. In fact, in our own country, recent polls show that, contrary to widespread misconceptions, the public is hardly united in opposing such unions. The most recent Newsweek poll showed that the percentage of Americans opposed to such marriages has now dropped to just 56 percent, and a national poll of college students in January found that fully 76% of them *support* civil rights for same-gender couples. That's because fair-minded Americans are beginning to consider this issue carefully, and ask themselves: How in the world would it harm my marriage if the couple down the street can wed? How would it "destroy" the institution of civil marriage if more committed, law-abiding couples are lining up to participate in it? Further, remember that anti-marriage bills like the one before us today were introduced in 26 states this year -- and in 17 of those 26 states, those bills were *beaten back*. It'll look mighty ugly in the history books if our state's lawmakers rush to pass such divisive and unnecessary legislation. Today you've heard stories of undue hardships endured by Kentuckians denied access to the civil institution of marriage; many more are in the materials we've provided. Let me add my own. Ten years ago, I'd planned to spend the rest of my life with a woman from Brazil. But her visa expired -- and because we could not obtain a civil marriage license like other couples -- immigration officials came for her at work, and within days, she was deported. Now, I'd like to ask you to picture your spouse or your sweetheart, and then imagine having to stand by and watch helplessly as your own government tears from you your beloved, and ships that person out of the country forever. In conclusion, I would respectfully remind you of your responsibility as lawmakers to consider this issue carefully, to fairly consider the facts -- and our families -- to take into account the views of the many people whosereligious beliefs differ from your own (we know that you've heard from many of them; you can expect to hear from many more). We and countless other Kentuckians believe that BR 143 is a divisive, unwarranted attack on us and our families, one that scapegoats and stigmatizes law-abiding citizens, and we urge you to oppose it. ~~pau~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______ /o |\ \/| (__ |/ | Darwin \_______/\| _/ \_ ~~~~~~ Fred and Martin, strangers before all but 16.7% of the law, and fading fast. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =================================================== Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 10:15:54 -1000 From: lambda@aloha.net (Martin Rice) Subject: SA 168: More SSM Testimony from Kentucky Aloha awakea kakou. Testimony Before the Joint House and Senate Judiciary Committee Commonwealth of Kentucky 19 August 1997 Joan C. Callahan I am Dr. Joan Callahan, of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Kentucky, where I teach and do research on ethics and public policy. Let me begin by explaining my physical appearance today. I am a 50-year-old woman who is quite bald. I have not shaved my head in protest of the measures that have been put before this committee, even though that would be more than appropriate, and I invite some of you to consider it. My bald head is one side effect of chemotherapy. I am one of the 184,000 American women diagnosed with breast cancer this year. I hope I will not be one of the 44,000 American women who will die from breast cancer this year. I wish that, today, I were putting my (limited) energy into a hearing or committee meeting on how we can learn why this disease has reached epidemic proportions among American women. I wish that, today, this committee were engaged in trying to discern how our real social problems might be defeated -- problems such as crushing poverty in this commonwealth; or ensuring that all our people have adequate health care; or ensuring that all our children have completely open futures because they all start out equally well nourished, with equally good schools to receive them and equally supportive homes to see them through to adulthood. However, these kinds of concerns are not on our agenda today. Rather, the issue before us is, though as a philosopher, I hesitate to say it, a largely philosophical one -- namely, the issue of who has and who has not got "family values." I turn, then, to the issue set for us. And I shall address it under, if you will, two hats. The first is the hat that identifies me in the way I have already told you about: I am employed by the flagship university of this Commonwealth to work with students and to research and write on questions of ethics and public policy. The second hat identifies me in a very different way: as the partner of Jennifer Crossen and coparent of David Crossen, who are here with me before you today. Let me tip my first hat first. I have made a copy of my curriculum vita available to the Committee. I respectfully inform you of my credentials. I am one of the virtual handful of women at the University of Kentucky who hold the rank of full professor. I assume that this is sufficient to establish that my academic colleagues and our University administrators believe that I am not only competent to teach and write in my areas of study; but that my work is sufficiently outstanding to justify my placement among the University's highest ranked teacher-scholard. That said, what I have to say under my professional hat is brief and it is this: There simply is no credible secular argument for the claim that intimacy, including physical intimacy, between persons of the same sex is morally wrong. Period. End of story. Now there are, of course various *religious* arguments against homosexual interactions. But *my* understanding of the United States of America is that no state in this great union should be in the business of establishing religion through its laws. The simple fact of the matter is that there is a stable minority in all human populations whose orientation is toward establishing their intimate relationships and life partnerships with persons of their same biological sex. This stable minority is just as "natural" in human societies as, say, a relatively stable minority of people who can sing beautifully or who are mathematical geniuses. In sum, then, there is simply no compelling moral argument for the wrongness of same-sex intimacy and partnerships. If anyone thinks he or she has such an argument, I invite you to lay it out before us for examination. Let me finish under my other hat -- the one I wear as a woman in a life relationship and as a mother. I indicate to you my life partner, Jennifer Crossen. I trust you will agree that she certainly appears to be a wholesome, healthy, and robust woman. I assure you that she is all these things. And that is lucky for us. Jennifer is self-employed as a horseback riding instructor in Lexington and, as a self-employed person, she must purchase her and David's health care coverage independently. It would cost us more than three times as much to purchase for Jennifer and David the coverage I could purchase for them through my job if I were a man -- a privilege my heterosexual colleagues are given systematically and without a second thought. It is lucky for us that I am facing cancer rather than Jennifer. Had she been the one of us with this disease, getting the treatment for her on her insurance that she could otherwise get on my insurance would completely devastate us financially. We are, then, very lucky that I'm the one who is sick. I submit to you that I work as hard and as well as an employee of the Commonwealth of Kentucky as any of my heterosexual colleagues. Given this, it is simply not fair that I am provided less in the way of compensation for my work only because my life partner is a woman. Nor can I purchase health care for David through my job. And that is just not fair to David. I came into this child's life in 1988 when he was a year and a half old. I have fully parented him since then, sharing completely the economic and social responsibilities of a second parent. I am the only second parent he knows -- he last saw his biological father when he was three. He no longer remembers him -- wouldn't know him if he sat down beside him at this table today. But David knows me; and he knows me as a parent who has, as long as he can recall, been there and helping through everything from learning to swim, to learning to ride a bike, to learning to read and write, through learning to use power tools. And I have been there despite the fact that this Commonwealth does not allow me to be recognized as his parent and despite the fact that some of our legislators continue to waste valuable time, energy, and state resources on doing everything that can be done to ensure that I am not able to provide for my family as well as heterosexual citizens are able to provide for their families. I am Jennifer's spouse of over nine years now. I know that. And she knows that. And our families and friends know that. I am David's parent for all of his conscious life. I will always be his other mother. I know that. And David knows that. Yet, some who are here today would have you believe that we do not have family values. Shame on them. Shame on you, Senator Philpot, shame on you ... ~~~~~~~ Testimony of Rebecca Elliott, age 21 Kentucky House-Senate Judiciary Committee, August 19, 1997 Since the death of my mother in October of 1980, my father has been my sole caretaker. Dad has taken me to every piano lesson, driven car pool, attended plays, recitals, and graduations, stayed up late nights with me when I was sick, and listened when I needed to talk -- even if it was after midnight. I have always been the number one priority in my father's life, and he has consistently provided me with everything I need. I have often felt very fortunate to have my father, and I am proud of my dad for being himself. My father is a gay man, he is a wonderful single parent, and his lifestyle has fillled my life with enrichment, diversity, strength, determination, and love. I know many gay families, and I have spent years in the company of gay people. My life has been filled with men and women who are rich in culture and education, and those who were lacking in money or schooling were made rich by the love and commitment they shared. I have known gay couples who have been together longer than many straight couples, and I have also known couples who split up. I have had the benefit of continuing to have lasting relationships with the small number of men my father dated in my youth. My home life has never been unstable, and Dad has chosen carefully the adults he wanted to people my life. I have been provided with many quality role models, both gay and straight. The gay adults in my life have all been stable, moral people, but what about their children? Children of gay parents, including myself, are all just regular kids. Despite the fact that many people believe children of gay parents will be gay, most of us are straight, and we have normal relationships with other-sex people. We are active in sports, the arts, academia, and social activities. Just like our parents, we want the same things most other people want: equitable treatment, successful futures, marriage, children, and love. The only truly unfortunate part about being the child of a gay parent is that many people hate our parents, call our families immoral, or worse, disregard our families altogether. Children of gay parents are often rendered invisible by those people who choose to believe that homosexual men and women do not have children. When the children are acknowledged, decisions are often made about their welfare without consulting the children in question. As a child who has grown up in a homosexual family, it has been hard to find my voice in the face of those who either believe I don't exist or that I have been brainwashed into my beliefs. Dealing with the fact that many people turn a deaf ear to my words has been difficult, but, on the contrary, I have never suffered because of my father's sexual orientation, I have only endured other people's ignorance. Bearing the brunt of others' fear, however, has taught me how to recognize discrimination. I know what oppression looks like, I've seen it, and when it happens to me, I've been taught how to fight it. I have been made a stronger person, and a stronger woman, by my father's struggle for acceptance and my quest for a voice. If anything, I have benefited from having my gay dad as my parent. I have learned that all people do not have to share the same beliefs and lifestyles to be respectable human beings. I have gotten more love and attention than many other children I know, and I have been taught how to be strong and confident in the face of oppression. Good gay parents teach their children the same things good straight parents teach: value diversity; be open-minded; respect others; be an individual; stand up for what you believe; and above all else, love people strongly, truly, and with integrity. I should know what good gay parents teach their children. I am the child of a gay parent, and I love my gay dad. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts." --Dan Quayle ~~~~~~ Fred and Martin, strangers before all but 16.7% of the law, and fading fast. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~