Marriage in CA, on TV and in MT
- CALLED OUT INFORMATION SERVICE
March 1, 2000
1. The upcoming statewide vote in California over Proposition 22 has
been the subject of much debate and argument. A brief look at Prop. 22 is
available online at
This site can be expected to continue to develop coverage over this
attempt to forbid non-heterosexual covenantal relationships as the March 7
election date approaches.
2. A fuller look at the upcoming vote is avaiaalble from the San Jose
(CA) Mercury News. One of their most recent articles, "Prop. 22: Signs,
stickers tell of emotion of marriage debate", reports that the signs in one
neighborhood last week:
urging a yes vote on the anti-gay marriage initiative first
were altered to read ``Yes on Bigotry.'' Then they disappeared
altogether, and residents received identical letters from
``The very real gay person living amongst you.''
``Take a moment to imagine what it's like to see half your
neighbors displaying contempt for you on their front lawns,''
the letter stated, ``and kindly keep your bigotry to yourself.
At least allow me the delusion of living someplace I am not
There is much more to this article at either
3. A column written by an associate professor of law at the University of
Illinois titled "Who Wants To Marry a Gay Multimillionaire?" has been
published in newspapers from St. Louis to Miami.
In it, author Carlos Ball observes that the TV show aired a couple weeks ago
"makes me think that heterosexuals are doing a pretty good job demeaning
the institution of marriage, without any help from gays and lesbians."
Observing the trivialization of marriage by such a program -- and the
lack of outcry against such a program -- Ball points out that this
a clear double standard that violates fundamental notions of
fairness and equality. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry each
other, even if they meet only minutes before the legal
ceremony. A gay or lesbian couple is denied the opportunity to
marry even if they have been devoted to each other for years.
In fact, when compared with the spectacle on TV of a
heterosexual marriage between two strangers, same-sex marriage
seems downright dignified. As the Vermont Supreme Court
recently stated, state recognition of committed same-sex
relationships is nothing more than ``a recognition of our
The full text is at
4. The Billings, Montana Gazette reports that the state "commissioner
of higher education on Friday rejected a controversial proposal to
expand health insurance coverage to partners of homosexual University
Dick Crofts explained that "while the rationale for the change was
justified, there were flaws in the proposal.", citing the lack of
clarity of state law as to whether same-gender partners can be
considered dependents and the concern that "the change could create more
costs for employees on existing plans, already under considerable fiscal
pressure with reduced benefits and higher out-of-pocket expenses", although
Crofts also "couldn't say how many would have fallen under same-sex partner
coverage, but earlier officials estimated the number to increase by less
than 1 percent."
http://www.billingsgazette.com/region/20000226_reg10.html is the
location of the online version of "U-System won't get same sex health
-- Posted by Called Out moderator
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com