SSM AND PARENTING: Mary Catelli replies to Gabriel Rosenberg (postscript)

I realized something about Mr. Rosenberg's arguments last night and e-mailed about it. Now that he has made it explicit, I am expanding on my points.

The relevant explication is: "The primary issue raised by seemingly everyone was that 'parent' could be interpreted so broad so as to include grandparents, nannies, whole communities, etc. I have taken what is basically Lucia's advice and modified parent with the word 'legal.' That eliminates nannies, roommates, lovers, and groups of three or more. It eliminates stepparents unless the stepparent adopts, in the process terminating any other biological parent's legal status. While I am aware of grandparent adoptions, they generally also terminate the biological parent's legal status."

"...The distinction between caregiver and legal parent matters in law; the distinction between biological or adoptive parent does not. It is, after all, distinctions in law that we are discussing here."

"Despite the preamble finding that 'the best interests of a child are promoted when a child has as many persons loving and caring for the child as possible,' the law as I read it does not allow for more than two legal parents."

"For now let us simply note that groups are not and cannot be legal parents."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My points:

This basic argument is: Homosexual adoptions are now allowed by law. These other arrangements are not. Therefore, we must cut and chop our marriage law to fit our adoption law.

Why not chop our adoption law to fit our marriage laws? Repeal the statutes allowing same-sex parent adoptions, and void the judge-granted adoptions, and impeach the judges who grant them, and we're all set, as far as this argument goes. And why not? Why should adoption law be treated with such reverence and marriage law with such contempt? Adoption has been, throughout history, far more variable than marriage; many, perhaps most cultures, do not even permit it. Mr. Rosenberg's premise "Gay people are parents" is not based on the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not. If same-sex parent adoptions should be treated with respect, because that is what the law permits (currently, and here), so should marriage for heterosexuals only, because that is what is the law permits.

Mr. Rosenberg cites that a child is best cared for by as many people as possible, but his only argument against it is that the law doesn't permit it. May I remind him that judges have granted same-sex adoptions without explicit provision in law for them? One sympathetic judge could void his entire case. A judge might objects on grounds for "the potential for greater conflict and confusion in custody and decision making" but then, the judge could object on the same grounds to a same-sex parent adoption, or even a stepparent adoption. A simple inspection of newspapers would prove him right. Would he then be entitled not to grant them then?
posted by Eve at 4:30 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home