Gay Marriage Comes To A Boil

It's been a busy week for activists on both sides of the debate over gay marriage.

In Ohio, the governor is one step closer to signing into law a bill that would be one of the country's strictest bans on same sex marriage.

In Massachusetts, a group of prominent Democrats has sent state lawmakers a letter urging them to defeat a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

And in Iowa, the state Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether it should overturn a divorce agreement granted to two lesbians who want to end the civil union they obtained in Vermont.

In each case, there is much at stake both privately and publicly, but the stakes vary greatly depending on who you ask.

Gays and others say it's a matter of civil rights - adjusting the laws to ensure that they are entitled to the same legal protections and benefits that are given to married heterosexuals.

At the other end of the ideological spectrum are the conservatives who argue that gay marriage goes against their religion and the natural order of things, and thus should be banned, by constitutional amendment if possible.

Then there are the Americans in the middle - who generally have no objections to gays having legal rights such as pension, inheritance, and medical benefits - but don't think such partnerships should be called marriages.

In Ohio Tuesday, state lawmakers in the House voted 72-22 to approve changes made by the Senate in a same sex marriage ban bill, which now goes to Gov. Bob Taft.

Taft is expected to sign the measure, which says that same sex unions would be "against the strong public policy of the state."

The bill also prohibits state employees from getting marital benefits spelled out in state law for their unmarried partners, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Thirty-seven states have passed laws recognizing only marriages between men and women. Gay rights groups consider Ohio's legislation particularly restrictive because of the benefits ban.

Rep. Michael Skindell, a Democrat opposing the bill, argues the legislation does nothing to protect marriages, which he points out often fall apart because of poverty, drug and alcohol abuse and unwanted pregnancies.

Also, the bill "is a message of discrimination against gays and lesbians that is unacceptable," he said.

GOP Rep. Bill Seitz, the bill's sponsor, responded that the law won't remove any existing benefits that same sex or domestic partners currently have.

In Massachusetts, lobbying on the issue has reached a fever pitch as the calendar counts down to Feb. 11, when the state legislature is to convene a special joint session to consider a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and woman.

State lawmakers are under pressure to take some kind of action in Massachusetts, where the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that gay couples have a constitutional right to the benefits of marriage.

The state Senate has asked the court to issue a clarification of its ruling - which they hope will provide them guidance on whether Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's landmark ruling.

The Democrat who controls the agenda of next week's joint session of the Massachusetts state legislature - state Senate President Robert Travaglini - says he won't allow a vote on the proposed constitutional amendment unless lawmakers have received the advisory ruling they have requested from the court.

A group of prominent Massachusetts Democrats - the House delegation - announced Tuesday that it has sent state lawmakers a letter urging them to defeat a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In the letter, the delegation argues that changing the constitution is not the appropriate way to resolve differing opinions about gay marriage, which the state's highest court appeared to endorse in its ruling last fall.

"We are firmly committed to protecting the rights of religions to recognize only such marriage or other unions that they deem legitimate," says the three-paragraph letter, which was signed by all 10 members of the delegation. "But it has long been the case that states recognize marriages between people that would not meet various religious tests."

In Iowa, divorce is the issue.

Kimberly Jean Brown and Jennifer Sue Perez, both of Sioux City, Iowa - partners in a civil union formalized two years ago in the state of Vermont - got an Iowa judge to grant their divorce this past November.

The judge says he didn't notice the gender of the petitioners when he granted the divorce, but when he found out, he decided to let the decision stand because the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize each others' laws.

Disagreeing with the couple and the judge are U.S. Rep. Steve King, six state lawmakers and the Church of Christ of Le Mars and its pastor, who asked the court to block the divorce, saying Iowa law does not recognize a marriage between two women.

The legality of the divorce decree is now under review by the Iowa Supreme Court.