NewsWrap for the week ending October 2, 2004 (As broadcast on This Way Out program #862, distributed 10-4-04) [Written by Cindy Friedman, with thanks to Graham Underhill, Rex Wockner, and Greg Gordon] Reported this week by Rick Watts and Cindy Friedman Spain's Cabinet this week approved draft legislation to open marriage to gay and lesbian couples. The proposal would change the language of 14 existing civil laws to refer to "partners" instead of "man and woman" and "parents" instead of "father and mother". It would ensure equal standing for same-gender marriages in areas including pensions, inheritance, lending, medical decisions, Spanish citizenship for foreign partners, and adoption. Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega announced the Government's action saying, "It's a great day for all because we end centuries of discrimination." She described gays and lesbians as "our family members and co-workers" and "citizens like the rest of us with obligations and rights." Although there may be some amendments along the way, the Parliament is expected to pass the bill. There's strong public support for marriage equality, with polling ranging from 62% to 70%. Most regions of Spain already offer some legal recognition to gay and lesbian couples. The current Socialist Government was elected about 6 months ago on a platform that included same-gender marriage and other social reforms. While it does not hold a majority in the Parliament, at least five national parties have previously introduced bills to create registered partnerships. Those bills were repeatedly blocked during the long reign of the Partido Popular. But even the PP is now reportedly developing its own bill to create civil unions, which would not be named "marriages" and would omit adoption rights. Adoption is definitely the most controversial element in the Government's proposal. Less than half the public support it. Even the Government's bill would allow same-gender couples to adopt only Spanish children, in order to avoid clashes with other countries. DPM Fernandez de la Vega spoke specifically to that point in her announcement, saying, "There are thousands of children already living in Spain with homosexual parents and more than 50 studies show there are no differences between children who grow up with homosexual parents and others. Most Spanish people think what is important in adoption is the well-being of the child quite apart from the sexual orientation of the parents." Lesbigay groups were surprised and pleased that the Government has acted so quickly to advance marriage equality. Spain's first legal same-gender marriages may well be performed in 2005. Spain would follow the Netherlands and Belgium in enacting national marriage equality, but it would be the first Roman Catholic country to do so. About four-fifths of Spaniards identify as Catholic, although about half admit they never attend mass. The Church in Spain has vehemently opposed the Government's plans for marriage, and has now reportedly called on the faithful to take to the streets in protest. This week, even before the Government's announcement, Spanish Bishops Conference spokesperson Juan Antonio Martinez Camino said on national television that gay and lesbian marriages would create "a counterfeit currency in the body of society" and likened their legalization to "imposing a virus on society, something false that will have negative consequences for social life." Beatriz Gimeno, president of Spain's Gay, Lesbian and Transsexuals Federation, retorted to reporters, "The Church has nothing to say about it. This interventionist tendency by the Church is the virus and must be eradicated." The Roman Catholic Church has also been actively opposing the move to create civil unions in New Zealand, where a Parliamentary committee has been holding hearings on a Government bill. In mid-September the Pope himself warned New Zealand's Catholic bishops that, "Spouses rightly deserve specific and categorical legal recognition by the state, while any attempt to equate marriage with other forms of cohabitation violates its unique role in God's plan for humanity." He went on to urge them to "defend the sanctity and uniqueness of marriage" in the face of the "challenges currently confronting" them. The New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference quickly followed up with a written statement a spokesperson presented to the Parliamentary committee. While the bishops wanted to emphasize their opposition to homophobia and their support of civil rights, they expressed a belief that it was not necessary to legally recognize same-gender couples. They said that while people were free to choose other forms of relationships, it was marriage and family that needed support. Expressing concern for the implicit message legal equality might send to society, they wrote, "[W]hen the law gives these other relationships the same recognition as it gives to marriage, it is at least naive, if not dishonest, to say that the status of marriage is unaffected." Earlier this year, the Vatican joined some 5 dozen Islamic nations in denouncing the United Nations' extension of spousal benefits to its gay and lesbian staff whose home countries legally recognize their relationships. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's directive that went into effect in February was within the scope of his authority, but his office agreed to "re-examine" it in light of the opposition. The Associated Press reports that a new directive has been issued to replace the existing one, and that it retains the partner benefits. The only difference is deletion of explicit references to "domestic partnership" and "family status," so that it reads, "the practice of the organization when determining the personal status of staff members for the purpose of entitlements ... has been done, and will continue to be done, by reference to the law of nationality of the staff member concerned." U.N. staff requests for partner benefits will continue to be granted only after authorization by their home countries. A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to restrict marriage exclusively to "a man and a woman" found 55% support in the U.S. House of Representatives this week, falling far short of the two-thirds majority it needed to advance. The House proposal would also have barred conferring the "legal incidents" of marriage on any other unions, a phrase opponents believed could jeopardize recognition of civil unions and domestic partnerships as well as marriage itself. The vote was largely along party lines, Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed, with roughly one out of six Representatives in each party crossing over. In July, the U.S. Senate killed a similar proposal by a scant majority in a procedural vote without actually voting on the amendment itself. Republican supporters admitted ahead of the House vote that they knew it would fail, although they've vowed to reintroduce it. Gay-supportive Democratic Representative from New York Jerrold Nadler said in the debate that, "We know this is not going anywhere; we know it's merely a political exercise. Shame on this house for playing politics with bigotry." Republican President George W. Bush issued a statement later that day saying, "[A] bipartisan majority of the U.S. Representatives voted in favor of a constitutional amendment affirming the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman" and declaring he is "disappointed that the House failed to achieve the necessary 2/3 vote." He continued, "Because activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are seeking to redefine marriage for the rest of the country, we must remain vigilant in defending traditional marriage." That statement reflected most of the Republican positions in the floor debate, which also repeatedly emphasized what they assert is the importance of heterosexual marriage for child-rearing. Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas warned that to "destroy" the definition of marriage as "one man and one woman" would mean "this country will go down." Texas Republican John Carter bemoaned the fact that when he was a judge, he'd handled the dissolution of 20,000 marriages. Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank responded, "I'm a gay man and I presided over the dissolution of none." Referring to the Republicans' favorite talkshow host, he continued, "I'm sorry Rush Limbaugh's been divorced three times, but it ain't my fault." The lone openly gay Republican in the House, Jim Kolbe of Arizona, spoke out against the amendment on the floor, emphasizing that marriage laws have always been under state rather than federal control. Virginia Republican Ed Schrock, who recently withdrew his candidacy for re-election after being "outed" as allegedly using a phone service to seek male sex partners, voted in favor of the amendment. In elections campaigning, the Republican Party and its religious right allies have claimed repeatedly in mailings, on the Internet and in television ads that victory for Democrats will lead to same-gender marriage rights. This theme has been particularly directed at Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry, despite his stated opposition to equal marriage rights. Kerry does oppose a federal constitutional amendment but believes states should be able to recognize gay and lesbian couples. And finally... Oregon is one of 11 U.S. states where a proposed state constitutional amendment against same-gender marriages will appear on the November ballot -- and polling suggests it may be the one state where that amendment might not pass. The amendment's opponents have managed to place four statements in the official Oregon Voters' Pamphlet that are ostensibly supporting Measure 36, according to the Associated Press. The amendment's sponsors are outraged, but the Secretary of State can delete such statements only on grounds of "obscene, profane and defamatory language" or "incite[ment of] hatred, abuse or violence." The man who wrote the statements, Dennis Moore, calls them satire, "a very ancient literary device to ridicule hypocrisy." One of his plants in support of the amendment, credited to the fictitious Defense of Heterosexual Breeding Coalition, declares that "The Bible says that marriage is for procreation" -- and goes on to say the state should therefore deny marriage not only to homosexuals, but also to all individuals who are infertile. Another reads, "Agree with us -- or burn in hell."