SAME-SEX PARENTING: Mark Miller replies to Michael Brazier

Brazier writes: "To point out the obvious: marriage is not, and never was, reducible to having 'your relationship acknowledged.' The civil rights argument for SSM works only if marriage can be so reduced."

That seems to be the main argument against SSM, that it 'reduces' marriage to a "right." But that doesn't work, certainly from a legal point of view. How else do you explain that institutionalized criminals have a right to marry? If marriage (or legal acknowledgment--i.e.: civil unions) is not a civil right, then what is it in your view? And what about it legally justifies the discrimination against same-sex couples?

Brazier writes: "Every child has by nature a mother and a father; the point of the state's recognizing marriage is to encourage each child's natural father and mother to discharge their duties to the person they brought into the world. Adoption is a backup, meant for children whose natural father and mother will
not or cannot do their duty. When the natural parents fail, any decent citizen may choose to substitute for them (hence we allow single people to adopt.) But reasoning from adoption policies to marriage is judging the normal by the exceptional."

To point out the obvious, marriage is not, never was about encouraging natural parents to discharge their duties to the person they brought into the world. I'll grant that the benefits of marriage do "support" parents in the discharge of those duties. But your argument is that adoption policies should not apply to marriage policies--which makes no sense since your argument against acknowledging same-sex relationships is based on the "biological" fact that same-sex couple cannot be parents. You are saying that the law should allow and support for people to discharge their duties--even to children they are not biologically linked to. But this logic does not apply to SSM?
posted by Eve at 9:01 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home