I have to agree with Philip, this seems to be nothing more than a political maneuver to make himself look better in order to get more votes.

If he was reelected, he'd probably keep on finding reasons as to why it couldn't be repealed yet.

In fairness, alot of Democratic Senators voted for DOMA in 1996, including Joe Biden and Paul Wellstone, and Bill Clinton signed it. I believe DOMA was a means the prevent the passage of a marriage amendment.

Arlen Specter has said that he supported the intolerant DOMA this year, so the best thing to do is be cautious with his comment on his support of repealing DOMA. However, Joe Sestak is trustworthy in his support of the necessary repeal of DOMA, thus people who look for honesty on same-sex marriage between the two should trust Joe Sestak. Hopefully, the Respect for Marriage Act will become law, along with President Obama's approval of it.

Having studied H.R.3567 and in reading and rereading the bill introduced, called the "Respect for Marriage Act" I have found that it is nothing more than another aspect of the Defense of Marriage Act. While it repeals DOMA it sets up another failure in the wake by continuing to allow states to discriminate against same sex couples. In sending this link I urge you to please read the bill CAREFULLY and pick apart its very deceptive wording.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19776696/Respect-for-Marriage-Act-9-14-09-for-INTRO

Section 7 is the passage which carries the deceptive language

"Sec. 7. Marriage

‘(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

‘(b) In this section, the term ‘State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.'."

One could most certainly argue that this is a quasi federal recognition of same sex marriage rights. State rights are still denied unless same sex couples either move to a same-sex marriage state, or already live in one. The reason I say "quasi" is for the fact that with this wording the federal government has proposed in article seven seems, in my opinions, that they could actively deny federal rights to couple's marriages if that state still refuses to address that couple as married simply because it is a same sex marriage. This is unconstitutional especially under article 1 of the 14 Amendment which states:

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since marriage is a legal protection allowing states to deny legal protections to equal citizens is breaking the 14th amendment. Insofar as most opposition to allowing full recognition of same sex marriage stems from a religious ideology on what "all" marriages are; the fact is that way of thinking completely underscores all secular marriages that do not follow or refuse to follow in religious ideology. Those who are staunch in their opposition to the recognition of same sex marriage claim they have religious freedom to impose their ideology of what marriage is in terms of government recognition to all citizens, however this appears to be contrary to the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A redress is basically this:

Redress
redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [<OFr. redresser.]

However when you separate civil marriage from religious marriage, you get two separate institutions that respect both the freedom from and of religious establishments. Insofar as to say civil marriage is a government run entity separate from religion based marriage depriving a person of those rights because of religious dictation, as in many political terms, is unconstitutional, and undermines core democratic principles this country was founded on. While many have strong opinions on what marriage is, civil marriage "IS," as stated just above, a government based entity and does not enforce nor asks religious establishments to honor such marriages as their own. For religious institutions to intervene with government run systems because of a perceived misunderstanding on a civil right, does no good to anyone and does not warrant a redress when those protections and the name of those protections are extended to minorities.

Insofar as to say extending legal protections, policies, and rights to minorities is a wrong to set right, and a redress is needed; one could argue that a redress is warranted against the freedom to exercise religion because of it historical trends that lead to the dehumanization, and mistreatment of disenfranchised members and groups of society. Such an instance of religiosity intervening with the marriage rights of people. A perfect example of this would be the harsh anti-democratic words of Judge Leon Brazile. Brazile sentenced the Lovings to a year in prison or a twenty five year expulsion from the state due to breaking anti-miscegenation laws by getting married in a state that allows recognizes them as a married couple, then moving back to Virginia in which interracial marriage was banned.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." - Judge L. Brazile 1959

While religion is a recognized establishment to the people, it does not have to be recognized by the government. The words of judge Brazile are a perfect example of the eradication of the line of separation between church and state. Brazile used his religion, as so did the supreme court of Virginia after him, to impose religious based ideology on a long held secular institution of legal protections for couples for bias and unsupportable reasons.  It wasn't until 1964 when the federal Supreme Court issued a statement, which was against the will of the people, that such anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional because they deprive persons of a fundamental constitutional right based on their race.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

It has been concluded by the secular world, as well as every scientific association that dedicates itself to studying natural phenomenon, that homosexuality and sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, like race, sex, and disability. One could argue that because sexual orientation is not a choice and is a important aspect of human beings, like race, gender, and disability, to deny equal rights and protections, as well as the socially acknowledged names of those institutions, is similar to the anti-miscegenation laws before 1964. While similar to the anti-science arguments against evolution, many people opposed to extending marriage rights to same sex couples deny any evidence based off these credible organizations and either use religiously inspired rhetoric or unscientific "counter evidence" to enforce their opinions and beliefs as fact, or truth. Insofar as they have a right to constitute such ideologies, based on no credible evidence, within their congregations and denominations, it is unconstitutional for such groups of religions to then try to use political capital to elect bias officials and lobby for laws that will support their religiously imposed sanctions and thereby enforce their beliefs onto all people, even on the entirely unwilling.

An argument also proposed by such individuals, opposed to the full inclusion of same sex marriage recognition, is the notion of Civil Union. While an interesting idea it falls short on many fronts. Firstly civil marriage and civil unions are two distinct things. Just from a social perspective, while many call it a case of semantics, in states that previously had "all but marriage" policies of civil unions found that even over a period of time acknowledgement of equality for civil unions compared to civil marriage was not equal and that same sex couples were treated, by and large, as separate and unequal, despite having all the same legal protections. From a critical thinking perspective one would agree that if you give all the same rights to an institution why not supply the original name as well? Now there is a de facto argument to be made here. If the government rewrote the word marriage with the word union, for the civil marriage, then enforced that policy, which would be unconstitutional because it abridges the rights of citizens to call their legal marriages marriage, then over time civil unions would be seen as equal for all. However, this is an unrealistic ideal in this day because of the social importance to marriage in people's lives, as well as being adopted long ago by the government as a fundamental civil institution. This is not to say this will change in the future, but that is more distant than near and it is more effective to extend rights to same sex couples than to completely rewrite the law then enforce that change in law on all citizens when it is quite apparent people are unwilling to allow the government to strip them of their marriage rights to appease the few religious establishments that only see marriage in a single absolute construct. It should be noted that in allowing the ideologies of these establishments, which have no place in government, to be used to codify the idea of rewriting a fundamental right, you not only abridge the rights of the people but the importance of the First Amendment.

A counter argument used by many constitutional lawyers and scholars, as mentioned in the paragraph above, is to allow same sex couples to marry now and in the future, if viable and only if it is needed, we could slowly change the word marriage into union for all. This could stop the prolonged integration of discrimination based off of religious establishments who shares similar terms for similar arrangements, but according to historical relevance even by changing the name of something doesn't guarantee others will not restate their arguments in a new frame of reference. In  many cases where laws were passed that gave all the rights to marriage but not the name, those same people, who agreed in those policies later recanted their arguments and began to attack the second class statuses as being "to close to marriage." One would agree that these actions are not just derived from or by keeping marriage an institution of opposite sex recognition, but also as an institution of higher status against same sex couples to enforce and rationalize discrimination. This is unconstitutional and must be avoided.

The wording of H.R.3567 (respect for marriage act) continues to allow discrimination towards same sex couples. It undercuts the 1st Amendment as well as article 1 of the 14th Amendment by allowing states to deny equal protection to all citizens based off of a religious interpretation of governmental policies (civil marriage). Although this bill could be seen as a step in the right direction, its wording is decisive and further action to enact same sex marriage across the entire United States must be addressed. If not we will see another Virginia v. Lovings situation in the near future. A counter argument for this bill by supporters could state that this bill will make it undeniably difficult for the Federal Supreme Court to continue to uphold the discriminatory policies that force same sex couples to migrate in order to have equal access to fundamental rights. However in many instances relying on the FSC has shown to have disadvantages and can stall the progression of equality if the court rules in favor of the state over the people who are denied their rights. We must work on all fronts to help reframe this bill to completely repeal The Defense of Marriage Act and treat all citizens of the United States equally, in both the state and federal jurisdictions.

Sincerely

Chris Marshall

Hi there Chris,

I read your comment with great interest, and make the following observations.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".  This Clause holds the states to a standard of equality of treatment of their citizens.  I am sure that you are familiar with the three-tiered methodology whereby the federal courts (and whereby some, but not all, state courts) adjudicate equal protection challenges.  In short, the standard of review adopted by the reviewing court turns on whether or not the group of persons adversely impacted by the law comprises a "suspect class", and on whether or not the right infringed by the challenged legislation is considered by the reviewing court to be a "fundamental" right.  In those cases where members of a suspect class are adversely impacted by the challenged legislation, or when the exercise of a fundamental right is infringed upon, the usual presumption of constitutionality is abandoned, and the statute in question is presumed to be unconstitutional until it is shown that the statute in question is not unconstitutional (see United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), Footnote Four, which suggests that, in those cases where challenged statutes adversely impact discrete and insular minorities, reviewing courts should apply a higher standard of review than is usually applied under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment).

I would argue that the wording of the "Respect for Marriage Act" (RFMA) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but instead violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (see Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954)).  This is because the RFMA is a federal statute, prescribing recognition of gay marriages by the US government in those cases where such marriages are recognized as valid by the states, and proscribing recognition of gay marriages by the US government in those cases where such marriages are not recognized as valid by the states.  The provisions of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment apply only to state action, and not to federal action; this Clause would not be offended were the US government to predicate its recognition of gay marriages upon the recognition of such marriages by the states.  Suppose, for example, that the State of Georgia flatly refused to recognize gay marriages, whereas the State of Massachusetts explicitly recognized such marriages (as is currently the case).  One could argue that the State of Georgia violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating gay couples differently from heterosexual couples (because state action is implicated in this example), but this is a very different argument from the argument that one would invoke in challenging the RFMA.  One could argue that in recognizing gay marriages performed in Massachusetts, but refusing to recognize gay marriages performed in Georgia, the US government violates equal protection considerations; however, this argument would have to invoke the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

I can see how easily this confusion could arise.  The key is to remember that equal protection violations involving the US government are prohibited by the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, whereas equal protection violations involving the state governments are prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  For the purpose of analysis, these two constitutional provisions are applied almost identically.

I completely agree with your First Amendment analysis.  Those individuals who are staunchly opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds ignore the fact that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (which is made binding on the states through "incorporation" by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) prohibits the government (both federal and state) from inscribing religious dogma into law and public policy.  Furthermore, the US government should never place its imprimatur on the denial of gay marriages by the states in those cases where such denial is predicated on religious considerations; this is a clear-cut violation of the Establishment Clause.

Opponents of gay marriage frequently invoke the specious argument that the recognition of gay marriages would undermine their religious convictions.  This is patent nonsense.  No church could ever be forced to marry a gay couple in violation of that church's religious beliefs, just as no church can currently be forced to marry a divorced person in violation of that church's religious beliefs.  Simply stated, the recognition of gay marriage by the states or by the federal government does not infringe the Free Exercise Clause.

Another issue that is of central importance in this debate pertains to the nature of homosexuality.  I firmly believe that homosexuality is innate - that it is an immutable characteristic.  An overwhelming majority of mental health professionals argue that homosexuality is merely a variant of human sexuality, in the same way that left-handedness is merely a variant of laterality.  But suppose, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality involves conscious moral choice.  Making this assumption, gay persons should still be afforded the same rights as are granted to heterosexuals.  Religion is without the slightest doubt a learned behaviour, subject to change (which occurs all the time, as people convert from one religion to another, or as they cease to be religious); nevertheless, we afford substantial constitutional protections to religious choices.  (Note, again that I do NOT believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice; I firmly believe, as a gay man, that my sexual orientation is as much a part of my identity as is my eye colour, height, or bone structure.)

The First Amendment also guarantees the rights to freedom of intimate association and freedom of expressive association.  These rights are of critical importance to gay persons, and exist independently of equal protection considerations.  Freedom of intimate association enables me to form intimate bonds with the people or person of my choice, whereas freedom of expressive association enables me to form alliances with other people for the purpose of furthering a political agenda.  It is interesting to note that the US Supreme Court, in handing down Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) predicated its analysis entirely on a due process challenge to state sodomy statutes, and did not invoke a First Amendment analysis.

I am confident that gay marriage will eventually become legal throughout the US.  Gay marriage is now a reality in six states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire), and the governor of New York has stated that he now has support for a bill that would legalize gay marriage in the State of New York.  Five states also recognize gay relationships and grant to gay couples all of the substantive rights of marriage, but not the name (these states include California, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, and Nevada).  Another four states grant to gay couples a limited subset of the rights of marriage (Colorado, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Maryland).  In short, we have won recognition of gay relationships in no fewer than 15 states, in less than a decade.  Clearly, the trend in our society is towards the recognition of gay relationships, and ultimately towards the recognition of gay marriage, notwithstanding defeats such as that which we suffered with the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

PHILIP CHANDLER

Absolutely amazing work Philip. Thank you for your corrections I completely forgot about the due process clause. I will modify my paper and send it to you for review. Your piece is a perfect compliment as well as a clarifying assessment. I am not a legal scholar and I will admit that. I study the mind and the body more than anything.

As a gay man who is engaged with my fiancé Ruben, I understand where you believe that sexual orientation is innate. Perhaps I should have made that more apparent in my post. There is much repeatable and concrete evidence that point to sexual orientation being completely innate. However, because of the complexity of sexual orientation it will take years to discover a causal link. What we know now for certain is that is not a cause of Nurture.

APA division 44 also made very clear points that, even if homosexuality was a choice, whether conscious or unconscious, it does not warrant justification for the mistreatment and discrimination we face; nor does it warrant prohibiting us from our marriage rights. While we look at it as an issue similar to Laterality, sexual orientation is far more complex than that. By far more, consider it in this aspect:

You have an apple. You know that apple is made of molecules and atoms, you know there are chemicals in that apple like citric acid, sucrose, etc that are all molecules. Well now you break each of those molecules down into their atoms. We could even go a step further and then use Avogadro's Number (6.022x10^23) to determine the number of particles in that apple by its mass in grams. What we see, feel, and understand, in our own sense, about sexual orientation is the apple as itself; round, shiny, red, glossy, etc.  What science has done was it broke down what homosexuality is, and what it isn't with repeatable correlations and scientific evidence over the span of 60 years on sexual orientation. Basically they have broken down the apple (sexual orientation) into molecules and now we are in the process of breaking it down into simpler explanations like the atoms of the apple.

What we as humans are looking for is the single particle in the mass of particles in the apple itself. This search for a single reason to something is called the "fallacy of the single cause." The complexity of those particles in that apple, like the complexity of sexual orientation is prodigiously unfathomable. Certainly we can determine the number of particles, but unlike an apple in chemistry, sexual orientation is even more complex in the realm of psychology, psychiatry, and sociology. We might never know what sexual orientation is causally connected to within our lifetimes.  But as a person of your intellect, you should know that you cannot play on the fallacy of appealing to belief for answers. Just because we and many of our own people feel homosexuality is innate, doesn't mean our opinions trump science. The same can be said for those who are our oppressors. Those who feel their knowledge in the belief that people can "come out" of homosexuality and the number of people they know believe that to be true makes it true and overrides the actual evidence that disproves that. I agree with you and feel that sexual orientation is innate, however I do not let that override the evidence given by the APA, AMA, and ASA which all agree that there is evidence that it is innate but not enough to officially conclude.

It really doesn't matter if homosexuality is proven as innate or not and here is a reason of why. Take for instance the theory of evolution. After people finally understand the differences between a scientific theory as compared to the English definition of a "theory," people who are against a scientific theory, fact, or evidence dismiss the presented evidence and logic and expect even more evidence, sometimes to the point of impossibility. Despite having more evidence for evolution than any other scientific theory; it does not convince such people. This fallacy is called "moving the goal post." It doesn't matter if they prove that homosexuality is innate, people who are against homosexual people will still present that fallacy as justification that they are right and we are wrong because even scientist can't keep answer on that level of complexity. However, one should know when they are being targeted by the fallacy of many questions and usually can dismiss the attacker on grounds of arrogance and complacency.

Again I thank you for your comment and corrections concerning constitutional amendments and law. It was quite helpful. I hope my knowledge of psychology also helped you on the concept of sexual orientation. Just remember what Martin Luther King Jr. said thought about time. It can be used constructively or destructively. The notion that time will cure all ills is what can lead to social stagnation for further oppression. We have to fight, especially the language in this bill. While it is a step in the right direction as you said it is still a violation of our constitutional right to Due Process of the 5th amendment. We should not stand for another DOMA, nor should the families of today have to wait another 14 years before they can be giving our full equal rights.

Hi Chris,

I really enjoyed reading your message - particularly the manner in which you pointed out the fallacy of resorting to simplistic explanations for an issue as complex as homosexuality.  I personally believe that homosexuality is "hard-wired", either before birth or during the very early years of childhood.  You may be interested in the outcome of twin studies which have tried to quantify the extent to which homosexuality is inherited - I have written this up at http://gayequalityandthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/03/loving-sinner-whilst-hating-sin.html (an essay posted to my blog, in which I dissect the tired old argument that it is possible to "love the sinner but hate the sin" in relation to gay sexual orientation).  I would certainly appreciate constructive criticism of this essay.

I have also written about the relationship between gay marriage and religious freedom, in a nation predicated on venerated principles of separation of church and state - if you have the time, please read the article I posted at http://gayequalityandthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom-why.html, in which I discuss the manner in which it is entirely possible for gay marriage and religion to co-exist, provided each movement respects the rights of the other movement.

My worst fear is that the origins of homosexuality will eventually be pinned down, and that this will then used against us.  I can visualize ugly bigots declaring that the "etiology" of homosexuality has finally been discovered, and that it is now possible to "cure" gay people by addressing whatever genetic or other factors influence sexual orientation.  There is so much evil in the world that I simply cannot rule out the possibility of pregnant women taking tests, when the technology is released, to determine whether their fetus is gay or heterosexual - and selectively aborting those fetuses that test positive for homosexuality.  It is for this reason that I am actually very uneasy about efforts to determine the origins of homosexuality...

The gay community suffered a demoralizing setback last year, when the voters of California amended their state constitution (Proposition 8) so as to prevent the recognition of gay marriages in that state.  However, there was a major silver lining to this dark cloud, and this silver lining can be used in future cases implicating the rights of gay Californians.

In handing down in re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384] (2008), the California Supreme Court went further than any appellate court had ever gone in terms of recognizing gay persons as a class deserving of heightened protection under the relevant equal protection provisions of the state constitution.  The state high court held that gay persons comprise a "suspect class" for the purposes of state equal protection analysis.  This is critical, and a brief explanation of the meaning of this term is furnished in order to enable the reader to understand the legal and social issues at stake.

A suspect class is a group of people who have suffered a history of invidious and purposeful discrimination at the hands of the majority, where the discrimination in question is triggered by the expression of a characteristic that is "immutable", or changeable only at unacceptable personal cost to members of the class in question (in re Marriage Cases, supra; Hernandez v. Robles (2006) (dissent authored by Chief Judge Judith Kaye)); furthermore, the characteristic in question bears no relationship to the ability of members of the class in question to contribute to society, and the class in question is relatively politically powerless.  The California Supreme Court found that these four factors were met unequivocally.  Turning to the issue of political powerlessness, the state supreme courts of both California and Connecticut noted that there are no openly gay US Senators, perhaps only two openly gay US Representatives, no openly gay state governors, no openly gay judges on any of the US Courts of Appeals, etc.  Whereas the Connecticut Supreme Court held that gay persons comprise a "quasi-suspect class" for the purposes of state equal protection analysis, the California Supreme Court went even further, opining that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is as pernicious, cruel, and ugly as discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.  Although Proposition 8 passed by a very narrow majority (52% to 48%), this aspect of the state court's reasoning was not overturned (the standard of review adopted by a court of equity cannot be dictated by majoritarian sentiment or by legislative bodies; this lies at the heart of the separation of powers doctrine, and is central to the role of the courts as independent arbiters of the laws).

Any legislation that adversely impacts members of a suspect class is presumptively unconstitutional, and the burden falls on the state to prove that the legislation in question is not unconstitutional.  This turns the ordinary presumption of constitutionality on its head; ordinarily, a legislative enactment or executive policy is presumed to be constitutional unless and until it is demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the measure in question is not constitutional.  Furthermore, the measure in question must survive "strict scrutiny" if it is to survive constitutional challenge.  Strict scrutiny requires that the state demonstrate that the measure in question promotes a "compelling" state interest, that the measure in question is "narrowly tailored" to promote that goal or interest, and that the measure in question promotes the state interest in the least restrictive manner possible (i.e., the measure in question must sweep no more broadly than is absolutely necessary to promote the state interest at issue).  Application of this highly demanding standard of review almost always results in the measure being declared unconstitutional (this standard of review has been described as "strict in theory, fatal in fact").

Although the California State constitution was amended by Proposition 8 to prohibit the recognition of gay marriages in that state, gay people remain a suspect class for equal protection considerations in all other legal contexts.  In short, any measure (other than the marriage statute) that discriminates against gay Californians will be viewed by the state courts with the same degree of disdain and skepticism as is reserved for measures that discriminate against racial, ethnic, or religious minorities.  Few commentators have explained this, or examined the ramifications of this holding with respect to other issues.  Furthermore, passage of Proposition 8 did not eliminate domestic partnerships in California - this option remains open to those gay couples who wish to formalize their relationships.  Domestic partnerships, under California law, afford all of the substantive rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage (at the state level) to gay couples, without the name.

The Hawaii Supreme Court, referring to the language adopted by the framers of the Hawaii state constitution in 1978, also held that classifications on the basis of sexual orientation are suspect; this aspect of the landmark decision (Baehr v. Miike (1996)) was not disturbed by the passage of a state constitutional amendment similar to that passed in California.  Two state supreme courts now hold, as a matter of law, that gay persons comprise a suspect class for the purposes of equal protection analysis.

In short, there remains much for us to celebrate, notwithstanding the obvious loss we sustained with the passage of Proposition 8...

You mentioned that you were gong to modify your paper and then send it on to me to review - I am most flattered by this, and would very much like to read your paper.  In return, please read the above two essays (hyperlinked) pertaining to the rights of gay Americans.  I can be reached at philipchandler domain EarthLink dot net, and I sincerely look forward to receiving your paper...

Warm regards,

PHILIP CHANDLER