|
 |
 |
 Wednesday, December 31, 2003
THREE STRIPES OF GAY OPINION ON MARRIAGE: David Blankenhorn
...It should hardly come as a surprise that G/L opinion on this issue is not monolithic. At the same time, if your only source of information was the mainstream press (especially the New York Times) you could certainly be forgiven for believing that almost every G/L person in the country is a strong proponent not just of SSM, but in particular a vocal proponent of what Andrew Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, and other mainstream-press spokespersons on this issue often call the "conservative" case for SSM. In brief, that case is: We respect and revere traditional marriage as a social institution; we only want that institution broadened in a way that would permit us to be a part of it. I'm not sure what label to give this POV -- for the moment, let's call it "assimilationist," in the sense of, we are normal people who want to be a part of the normal mainstream. A second position is the one spelled out very eloquently by Rinnert. In brief, that case is: We are different and proud of it, and while we demand equal rights, we see no need to mimic or assimilate ourselves into conservatizing, heterosexual institutions such as marriage; we can and should create our own institutions and ways of living. A third position is one put forward very strongly by people such as Nancy Polikoff and William Eskridge. Their position is: achieving SSM is one important step toward the larger goal of "denormalizing" marriage (Eskridge) and/or eliminating marriage altogether as a category in law and public policy (Polikoff). Let's call this position "deconstructionist." Here's my own take on these three positions. I respect and can identify with the assimilationists and have no real quarrel with the counterculturalists. It's the deconstructionists that I view as a clear and present danger. more
RIGHTS VS. EQUAL PROTECTION: Jim Henley
...But talk of rights as such is a red herring when it comes to gay marriage. The real issue is an equal protection argument, not an individual rights one. There is no constitutional "right" to food stamps. Food stamps could be ended tomorrow legislatively, and no one could say Boo, from a legal perspective. However, the equal protection clause makes it clear that, if you do have a food stamp program, it's constitutionally forbidden to have food stamps for "everyone but Jews." State denial of state benefits to "suspect classes" has to pass a "strict scrutiny" test. The State clearly confers benefits on couples by recognizing their marriages. The State clearly denies those benefits to gay couples. That is a clear invitation to strict scrutiny. I believe strict scrutiny is passed by finding a "compelling state interest" in the exclusion. I disbelieve that gay marriage opponents have found anything even close to a compelling state interest in their hodgepodge of arguments so far, as I've said before. more Tuesday, December 30, 2003
NEW QUESTION!
I have lots more to say (replying to Barry Deutsch; why can prisoners marry?; and more), but the new year deserves a new question, so here it is. Is marriage a right? If so, what kind of right is it? We're used to thinking of marriage in rights terms, in part because we're used to thinking of everything in rights terms. But here are a couple things to chew on w/r/t rights-talk in the same-sex marriage debate: 1) If there is a right to marry someone, that right is already in place. Any adult can marry somebody. 2) If there is a right to marry the person you love (barring nonconsensual situations), prohibitions on incestuous marriage would appear to violate that right. 3) Is there a right to marry the only kind of person you could desire sexually? That seems to be the definition that SSM proponents are implying, with, again, the obvious bars to nonconsensual relationships. What this is, then, is a right to societal honor and special treatment for a relationship with the only kind of person you could desire sexually. (And yes--I realize homosexual relationships aren't "just about sex"--but if we're not talking about sex then again, everyone already has the relevant right to marry, since presumably all of us can care for and be committed to members of the opposite sex.) So: Does this right exist? If so, how come? What's the justification for asserting this right? If not, is there some other right to marry that would explain, e.g., why it's wrong to ban miscegenation, or prohibit prisoners from marrying?
FUN WITH PROCREATION (isn't it supposed to always be fun?): Eve replies to Gabriel Rosenberg
I really wanted this to be short. It isn't. Please don't kill me. My exec-summary of Gabriel's post: 1) What's the point of saying marriage only exists because of procreation? 2) You're treating all men and all women as if they were interchangeable. 3) Since opposite-sex couples can marry when they won't be parenting (e.g. old people), why can't same-sex couples? 4) If we "send the message" that fathers are unnecessary, what is the real effect going to be? And, is the presumed harm of more same-sex parenting more important than the benefits of solidifying legal relationships in gay-couple-headed families that are already raising children? 5) "Fathers are necessary but any guy will do" means guys can still abandon their kids because mom can always pick up some other random guy to be daddy. 6) Men who don't marry their babies' mommas are schmucks; don't blame SSM for their actions. 7) Men aren't necessary for families, but if you father a child you have "a responsibility" to that child. Couples raising kids should be married. Intercourse can lead to babies, and thus can lead to lasting responsibility. Enough summary. Let me burrow in. I apologize in advance for the length!!!! 1) I wanted to point out that marriage isn't a catchall term for "chosen emotional relationships that society honors." That's the point of talking about the cultures that created social roles for male homosexuality without considering those relationships "marriages." It's possible to argue that the distinction between "marriage" and "honored chosen relationship" is out of date, that the former is now entirely coterminous with the latter, but a) realize that this is a big change!, and b) that does mean that society now can only honor relationships by calling them marriages. Where does that leave the recovery of friendship, a topic where I know Gabriel and I have a lot in common?
FUN WITH PROCREATION: Eve replies to Gabriel Rosenberg, second part
2, 3 and 5) Gabriel is misunderstanding my view of the necessity of men. To be honest, I wonder why he thinks I meant "any man will do"! That would be a genuinely weird thing for a family advocate to think. It's obviously best for kids--barring abuse or neglect--to be raised by their own two married parents. That's the main thing marriage is for. However, any time an opponent of SSM says that, the initial objection is, "What about couples who can't conceive?" So I addressed that objection by pointing out that those couples can still give adoptive children (who aren't going to be raised by their own two married parents no matter what) a mom and dad. (And infertile opposite-sex couples don't reinforce a cultural belief that fathers aren't necessary, either.) And yes, I do think a mom and a dad are better for kids than a fatherless or motherless household. I think it's better because I believe gender is a deep reality, one of the biggest factors in shaping our views of ourselves and our place in the world. That's why gender difference appears across cultures and throughout history. To be more concrete: I think a motherless or fatherless household is incomplete, sub-optimal, not to be encouraged, because boys need to learn to be men and to relate to women, and girls need to learn to be women and to relate to men. That's a big part of what people who grew up with a father and mother say that they gained, and it's a big part of what people who grew up without father or mother say that they lacked. Let me ask Gabriel a question that mirrors his questions: When people who grew up in mother + grandmother-headed households say, "I never had a daddy," or, "I never learned what men are supposed to do in a family," are they really only articulating the problems of three-generation families? Or are they saying something about the deep importance of gender?
FUN WITH PROCREATION: Eve replies to Gabriel Rosenberg, third part
4, 6, and 7) Over the course of the 20th century, the percentage of fatherless children in this country has changed. It went way up between 1960 and 1990, and recently began a small decline. Why did that happen? I think the belief that fatherlessness is just an "alternative family structure" stymied early efforts to fix this problem; does Gabriel agree? Gabriel writes as if marrying your baby's mother or father is the obvious choice, the default, and only jerks and losers don't do it. But it's often really hard. It often requires major, unexpected sacrifices from both parents. (You didn't expect your contraception to fail. You didn't think about whether she'd get pregnant. And suddenly you're yoked to this person who was supposed to be just a tryout, just a possibility, not a lifelong part of your family, let alone a spouse.) People need societal support in order to make good decisions. Again, to mirror Gabriel's questions: Does he think SSM would lead to no change in the number or percentage of children being raised in motherless or fatherless households? Would the change be minuscule, and if so, on what basis does he predict that? Obviously, everyone is responsible for his own actions. (Although I think Gabriel is working from an overly black-and-white model of "bad man abandons kids," rather than the more common and messier "father often doesn't know how to fit in to mother's family and isn't encouraged to marry her.") But Gabriel's position here is an argument against all cultural honor for marriage and for responsible parenting. He's saying: Don't structure marriage around promoting fatherhood, because fathers who leave kids are responsible for their own actions. How is that different from, Don't structure societal expectation, cultural honor, marriage education, etc. around promoting fatherhood, because fathers who leave kids are responsible for their own actions? Marriage law is part of how society promotes fatherhood.
FUN WITH PROCREATION: Eve replies to Gabriel Rosenberg, final part
Finally: To my mind, Gabriel's most compelling point is implicit: How do we strengthen relationships between children and their de facto caretakers, when those caretakers aren't married to the kids' parents (whether biological or adoptive)? It is best for children to be legally tied to more than one person. But Gabriel is speaking as if SSM fixes this problem. Under a legal-SSM regime, there are lots of kids who would be left still tied to only one person. Why not focus on strengthening, e.g., second-parent adoption laws, so that particular people who are already responsible for particular children--whether they're sleeping with the children's legal parent or not!--can be aided by law in fulfilling their responsibilities?
NO ONE TEACHES YOU HOW TO LIVE: Eve replies to Mark Barton
I have a small point and a larger point. Let's start with the small one. Is it really true that the only way society can honor relationships is to call them marriages? I don't believe that. That's part of my ongoing project of reestablishing a strong value for friendship. Larger point: In re role models for gay kids, I'm working on three premises: 1) Many people who later identify as gay take a while to form or discover (or both) that identity. That wasn't really true of me--although identity is always complicated, I experienced the alienation to which I think Mark is referring from an early age due to my sexual orientation (which is one reason I talk about it so much!)--but it is true of a lot of people. 2) Gay kids benefit as much as anybody else does from being raised by their own two married parents. This premise is strongly borne out by the experience of the actual gay men and lesbians I've known. So societal expectations that strengthen the husband/wife family help gay kids, even if those expectations also exact costs from gay kids. 3) The "family romance"--the child's struggle to find a place in the world, played out through his or her role in the family--is a deeper and more primal motivating force than sexual orientation. Together, these three premises convince me that even for gay kids, the benefits of shoring up the husband/wife family outweigh the costs.
NO ONE TEACHES YOU HOW TO LIVE: Mark Barton replies to Eve
Eve: The sons say they had no one to teach them how to be men. The daughters say they had no one to teach them what to look for in a man, what role a man should play in the family. Mark B.: I keep seeing the importance of role models emphasized. I think it's oversold, sometimes to an unhealthily chauvinistic degree, and I think it doesn't imply anything about SSM without some rather dubious auxiliary assumptions, but those aspects have been hashed out already. Let me instead ask, what about role models for gay and lesbian kids? (Note that I'm using "gay and lesbian" in the mainstream sense of same-sex attracted, not the conservative Protestant sense of in the habit of having same-sex sex.) Of course, the vast majority of gay and lesbian kids will continue to be born to straight parents in opposite-sex relationships, and there's not much we can do about that, but then neither is there much we need to. Growing up with straight parents is inevitably a little difficult for gay and lesbian kids, because they're not going to have the close-up example of a healthy same-sex relationship to draw on later. But just as the analogous problem for straight kids is oversold, it's by no means necessarily a big problem, and it's certainly not a problem worth ripping gay and lesbian kids away from their biological parents for. What is a big problem is if visible examples of healthy same-sex relationships are also lacking in the surrounding community. And not just healthy same-sex relationships, respected healthy same-sex relationships. Respected to the same degree that the relationships accessible to their straight siblings are respected, including being eligible for state endorsement via civil marriage. I'm mindful here of my partner's family reunion. It was a huge gathering, including every sort of biracial couple and three gay couples. And in the middle of it was a girl of about fourteen, who was a friend of my partner's first cousin once removed. She was lesbian, and miserable, because she'd been getting a frosty reaction at home. And the cousin wanted her to see that life, and families, could be better than that. Now the official Catholic and also the conservative Protestant position is that this is the whole point. Same-sex relationships are not just second-class, they're "gravely immoral," and the sooner gay and lesbian kids learn that the better. The last thing we should be doing is offering role models of same-sex relationships. So I'm curious as to what extent Eve or Maggie would defend this.
FAITH HEELERS: George McAllister replies to Marc Gellman
[George McAllister is a graduate student in Williamsbug, VA.] In catching up on the blog after being out of town for a while, I find myself a bit confused by Mark Gellman's response to Andrew Sullivan on 7 Dec. Both here and elsewhere, there is disagreement on what the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) prohibits. Sullivan argues that it prohibits all unions between same-sex couples--marriages, civil unions, &c.--while Gellman argues that it does not. Neither of them presents any real argument for their position; they merely assert it. Though I am only a meager law student, indulge me in trying to correct that shortcoming. First, the quote: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." First, what are the "legal incidents" of marriage? The usual list: hospital visitation, Social Security inheritance, and so on. The FMA prohibits construing any constitution or law as requiring that those things be conferred on anyone who is unmarried, and as the previous clause limits marriage to different-sex couples it is forbidden for any constitution or law to be construed as conferring those benefits on same-sex couples. This is a very straightforward and (I expect) uncontroversial construction. Now a hypothetical. Imagine that after the approval of the FMA some state legislature passes Vermont-style civil unions that confer upon same-sex couples all the legal incidents of marriage save the name. The statute might read, "Same-sex couples get hospital visitation, joint adoptions--you know, all the legal incidents of marriage save the name." What, when read in the light of the FMA, does this law do? Absolutely nothing. For no state law can be construed (by anyone, not just by courts) as conferring the legal incidents of marriage on unmarried people. Therefore this law cannot be construed as conferring those incidents on same-sex couples. It is unconstitutional on its face. I agree with Sullivan, then, that the FMA would destroy all current and future civil unions. And--speaking now in my role as a meager graduate student in public policy--duh. The proponents of the FMA (present company excepted, of course) are just as opposed to civil unions as they are to same-sex marriage. Only someone with the political and legal acumen of cheese would pass up the opportunity to prohibit civil unions, which are a threat that has repeatedly materialized, at the same time they prohibit same-sex marriage, a threat that is still only hypothetical, though admittedly more real than before thanks to Massachusetts and all that.
STUDIES STUDIES STUDIES: Bob Folker replies to David Barnes
[Bob Folker is self-employed in Atlanta, GA.] Barnes: To quote the Stacey paper (PDF): "Relative to their counterparts with heterosexual parents, the adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste, whereas the sons of lesbians evince the opposite pattern--somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste". Folker: I've seen this mentioned three times in this site in a negative way. However, one could just as well consider this positively: the females as less repressed and the males as more responsible. Could it be that SS parent households are better? I don't claim that, but anyone brought up in one probably has had to think long and hard about sexual roles. My point is, why do so many assume that SSM is worse for kids? It may be different in some respects, but no marriage is identical to any other, because each is composed of two unique individuals. Unique, yet equal under the law, and it seems apparent that SSM should be viewed the same way.
SLIPPERY SLOPERY: Mark Tardiff replies to Gabriel Rosenberg
Gabriel Rosenberg seems to minimize or even deny the novelty of the Goodridge decision by claiming that the court "construed man to be person, which is not novel at all." This formulation is not entirely accurate. It would be more precise to say that the court construed man to be neuter, in that the sex of the partner in marriage is irrelevant, something which is most definitely novel. However, the novelty I was pointing to is not in what the court did, but in what the court claimed the authority to do, namely to change the definition of marriage, something unprecedented in the entire common law tradition. A court that, in principle, has the authority to change the definition of marriage necessarily has, in principle, the authority to change it to include polygamy. Given the support already present among family law specialists for polygamy, it is not that farfetched to think that a future court will do just that. With regard to my second concern Gabriel introduces the term "classification" but otherwise basically repeats the argument about disappearing legal differences: "The less gender and racial classifications are used throughout the law, the less relevant they become elsewhere in the law." The problem with this, as I pointed out last time, is that it is not grounded in the text of the decision itself. I have read and reread the decision, trying to follow carefully the logic of the court's argument, and I cannot find any argument that leads from gender classifications disappearing to SSM. The classification I do find the court using is a different one: sexual orientation. The claim is made that individuals are denied access to marriage "because of a single trait: skin color in Perez and Loving, sexual orientation here." In the summary paragraph before the decision is handed down, the claim is made that the department of health provided no rational basis for the present policy which, for the court, "suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual." If the decision stands, the heterosexual/homosexual classification will be eliminated. Signs are that the monogamist/polygamist classification will be the next to be challenged.
WELCOME RELIGIOUS VOICES IN DEBATE: David Benkof
Ever since the Massachusetts Supreme Court narrowly held that the state must grant marriages to same-sex couples, defenders of the Goodridge decision have argued that its impact is only on civic marriage, and thus religious defenders of the traditional definition of marriage have nothing to fear and should get out of the way. This reasoning is not only flawed, it insults the millions of Americans whose traditional faiths call on us to defend marriage as a central institution in society defined as a union between a man and a woman. The idea that people's religious beliefs should not influence their stances on our nation's legal institutions goes against important American traditions. For example, many outspoken advocates for the abolition of slavery were members of Protestant churches. A century later, the Quakers played a key role in coordinating conscientious objection to the Vietnam War. And Martin Luther King boldly quoted the Book of Isaiah in his "I Have A Dream" speech, calling on our leaders to live up to the highest expression of our founders' beliefs. Religious Americans have every right to participate in the national debate about marriage without being forced to cite civic reasons. Religious teachings are sufficient cause to get involved in the political process and take a stand on a public issue--especially with marriage, which is not just another public-policy issue. Rather, marriage is a rare building block of society that already has a firm definition rooted in our nation's religious heritage and is not up for negotiation. Perhaps the only good analogy is to the week. Our week has seven days for no other reason than the Judeo-Christian belief that God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. The final outcome of the same-sex marriage debate will only represent the views of our nation's entire populace if traditionally religious people are encouraged to take a stand based on their beliefs just like everyone else.
GLAD ON MASS. CIVIL UNIONS: From Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
You've probably heard that the Massachusetts legislature asked the state Supreme Judicial Court whether a "civil unions" bill would satisfy the Court's ruling for equal marriage rights in GLAD's case, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health. Here's the inside scoop: -- It is not uncommon for the SJC to be asked advisory questions from the legislature. -- The SJC has asked for interested parties to submit briefs. The question will not be argued in court. -- GLAD will submit a brief emphasizing the importance of full marriage rights for same-sex couples, not a "separate, but equal" civil unions status. We know other supporters of equality will also submit briefs. We are confident that the Court will rule in keeping with their original decision -- that the state constitution requires FULL equality and will not tolerate any separate, second-class status. According to Harvard constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, "The opinion is unambiguous: there is no legally defensible way to read it and conclude that anything short of marriage for same-sex couples could possibly satisfy the state constitution." As the organization behind the Goodridge case, GLAD will continue to stand up to any and all efforts to block or water down the decision, in the courts and in the legislature. We will keep you posted as we move forward. Even as we work to keep this victory won, GLAD is looking toward the near future, when the Court's decision takes effect and same-sex couples can marry in Massachusetts. We are pleased to share with you a new, more complete version of our "Frequently Asked Questions about Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health & Getting Married in Massachusetts", as well as a version in Spanish. The updated version includes answers to questions about the effects of marrying in Massachusetts, from taxes to immigration to families with children. Both of these are available at www.glad.org/marriage. Happy Holidays, The GLAD Legal Team
LOVE IS A BATTLEFIELD... OF SYMBOLS: This has been your only Pat Benatar reference of the day, I promise
...The thing is, though, that keeping gays from marrying isn't the point. The point is to preserve loving, socially rich family relationships against the percieved encroachment of distanced, individualized, contractarian interactions. To put it in Marxist terms, they fear the commodification of social interaction. Gay marriage is simply a symbol of this cold and lonely world. We can't make a law that says spouses have to love each other (rather than simply making a convenient deal), so the struggle is fought out on the symbolic terrain of gay rights. Divorce used to be the proxy battle for the love-versus-contract struggle. Though divorce could easily be seen as helping the cause of love -- by allowing people to get out of marriages that could never be loving -- it was seen as the opposite, as an affirmation that marriage was a contract that could be cancelled rather than a social obligation. Today, gay rights make the most convenient avatar for fears about the dissolution of loving marriage because this is the biggest public question about marriage being asked today, and because the libertarian justifications often given for the right to marriage evoke the kind of depersonalized society that social conservatives fear. ...My response to these fears is twofold. First, I think that, while "thick" relationships are very important (especially within a family), creeping commodification is not quite as prevalent or as undesirable as social conservatives fear. ...Second, I think fighting gay marriage is a counterproductive symbolic struggle for defending loving and non-commodified relationships. more
"AND I WAS A FEMALE IMPERSONATOR": Break for fiction from Eve
It's possible that readers of this site would be interested in my short story, "Desire," the rough draft of which can be found here. It's weird, it comes in five parts, and it is (now that the MPAA has suffered cultural degradation) probably PG-13 or maybe R-rated. It's about identity and "realness" and similarly postmodern stuff. Also about gay stuff and marriage, though not gay marriage.
REPLY TO EVE'S REGISTER COLUMN: Barry Deutsch
...How many premises of Eve's argument are wrong? 1. Did the precedents Eve mentions really lead to gay marriage? First of all, Eve implies that these precedents (hate crimes, the ERA, anti-discrimination laws) were essential--or at least important--to the Goodridge decision. In fact, they barely mattered at all; to claim they led to gay marriage is either deceptive or wildly mistaken. ... 2. Did the legislators have no idea that gay marriage might result? ...First of all, in all the cases Eve mentions, opponents argued that the proposed legislation would lead inevitably to same-sex marriage (and thus, they seemed to think, to the collapse of civilization). So the legislators were faced with contrary expert opinions, some arguing that this legislation could someday lead to gay marriage, some arguing the opposite. Given this history, it's ridiculous to claim that legislators weren’t aware of the possibility of gay marriage. ...Eve's story of tragically ignorant legislators, who were simply never told that same-sex marriage was a theoretically possible outcome of the ERA and other changes, is compelling--but it's also fiction. 3. The U.S. is ruled by a Constitution - not by a majority. I wonder what Eve would say if a majority of voters--in a referendum, say--passed a law denying gays and lesbians the right to free speech? The courts would (I assume) overturn such a law on Constitutional grounds. Would Eve object, on the (correct) grounds that the framers of the First Amendment didn't foresee it being used to give equal rights to gays, and therefore this is a case of the courts changing what the legislature voted for? more [Eve says: Again, I'll reply briefly but not tonight...given that tonight is already tomorrow.] Monday, December 29, 2003
REPLY TO EVE'SREGISTER COLUMN: Gabriel Rosenberg
At his new blog, Gabriel writes: Her first point, that marriage only exists because of procreation, does not explain why same-sex couples should be excluded. ...Her second point does attempt to distinguish between same-sex couples and other nonprocreative pairs. I have several problems with this argument. First of all, it treats all women (and all men) as interchangable train parts. A child's mother may be replaced by any other woman, but by no other man. All that matters is that there is a woman and a man as parents. Eve talks about the problems of a child being raised by his mother and grandmother, but it would seemingly be all right if the child were raised by his mother and grandfather. It is also clear that some opposite-sex couples marry even when the purpose is not to give a child a mother and a father. For example, when two eighty-year olds marry it is not likely they plan on having children. The fact that people marry for other reasons does no harm to marriage. What exactly is the harm in same-sex couples getting married? Eve says the harm comes in "sending the message" that men (hence fathers) are unnecessary in forming a family. I'm not certain what Eve perceives the consequence of this message will be. ... ...Under the old message of "fathers are necessary, but any man will do", though, such men still might leave as long as they believe the mother of their children will meet some guy--any guy. More importantly if a man does walk away from his responsibilites, which occurs today without SSM, he bears full blame for his actions. I think it would be sickening to try blame same-sex marriage for his crimes. more [Eve says: I will reply soon! But not tonight.]
TWO PARENTS VS. MOTHERS AND FATHERS: Elizabeth Marquardt and Mike Pignatello, at MarriageMovement.org
Mike Pignatello writes: I'd like to explore the issues of adoption and conception a little further because, for those who are fundamentally supportive of equal rights (like Elizabeth, if I may presume!), these issues seem to be the sticking points preventing their support of SSM. I appreciate Elizabeth's comments in support of gay adoption, and I think it's great that many other SSM opponents support gays and lesbians adopting children, particularly when groups like the Family Research Council actively advocate that gays and lesbians should not have the right to be parents at all, for any children whatsoever. But if gay parents adopting unwanted kids is so great, then there is a tremendous contradiction here in the anti-SSM position: some anti-SSMers support same sex parents who adopt, but don't support same-sex parents who conceive. Opponents seem to prefer that kids be raised in homes with opposite sex parents, yet somehow, with adoption, gay parents will suffice. The contradiction in supporting one process (adopting) and not the other (conceiving) for the same outcome ("family") is usually excused by saying this: an exception to the rule can be made for gay parents, ostensibly because having "some parents" is better than having no parents at all, and because adoption itself is an exceptional circumstance. So the "requirement" that a child have both a mother and father can presumably be excused in the case of adoption, but not for conception. Which leads us to the interesting implication that same-sex parents who adopt are somehow BETTER THAN same-sex parents who conceive, i.e. the parents with NO biological ties to the child are somehow better suited to parenting, and more acceptable to society as parents, than the family in which one parent does actually have a biological tie to the child. Strange twist. At its most basic level, opposition to SSM (for some in this blog) comes down to disapproval about how same-sex couples might choose to have children: adoption or conceiving. So for those like Elizabeth who are, at the very least, accepting of the concept of gay families, the sticky issue here is reproduction. But this creates a dilemma for opponents, because they are basing their ideas on the premise that they "suspect" SSM will increase the use of in vitro fertilization, leading to more families that are missing at least one biological parent. Elizabeth's reply is here.
THE ONLY INTERESTING THING I'VE SEEN SO FAR ABOUT THE POPE'S DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE: From David Blankenhorn
DISTINCTIONS (CONT.): I can't let go of this issue of the "sanctity" of marriage. Today the New York Post has a story with the headline: "MARRIAGE IS GOD'S GIFT: POPE." The reporter says: "John Paul said marriage, which the Vatican defines as a sacred union between man and woman, is a 'divine' gift that should be defended by society." Actually, the Pope said no such thing. What he actually said is that marriage is a "human and divine reality" and a "human and divine gift." That formulation, which the Post apparently feels free to abbreviate, is precisely accurate. For people of faith, marriage has an important religious dimension. At the same time, marriage for all people is -- first and foremost; notice which word the pope uses first -- a "human" reality. Unlike some of the journalists at the New York Post and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, this pope is a serious thinker, including about the subject of marriage, who uses words carefully. So the next time someone wants to say that marriage is essentially a "religious" issue, you can say: Well, for what it's worth, the pope disagrees. link
RESPONSE TO EVE'S GOODRIDGE COLUMN: From The Right Coast
...The logic of her argument against same sex marriage--that marriage is about protecting children--seems to suggest that it is problematic for gay couples to adopt or have children. This is a premise that is often omitted from social conservative arguments against same sex marriage, but would appear to be an important part of that argument. ...The point in her second paragraph [i.e. there's a possible slippery slope to polygamy], however, seems naively academic. If the judges were motivated by consistency, then Tushnet might be right. But they are not: they are motivated by the belief 1) that same sex marriage should be allowed and 2) it is discriminatory for such marriages not to be allowed. It may be discriminatory that polygamy is prohibited, but the judges do not think it should be allowed (nor is there a strong political movement in favor of it), and therefore one should have no worry that it will be protected. more Eve replies: 1) Not sure what TRC means by "problematic." If he means, "In order to oppose SSM you must oppose all adoptions and parenting by same-sex couples," I strongly disagree. If he means, "Married, mom-and-pop couples should be favored in adoption law where possible and encouraged by society," I strongly agree. 2) Right now there is a tiny, nascent polygamy movement, and a tiny, nascent, separate "polyamory" movement. Only time will tell whether these things fizzle or flourish. The received standard wisdom of the judging class and the political power of nascent social movements change over time. I don't think it's naive to start worrying and working against pro-polygamy legal interpretations (like those offered here) now.
JOINT GAY/STRAIGHT COUPLES RETREAT EMPHASIZES SIMILARITIES: From the Washington Blade, D.C.'s main gay newspaper
It is often said that the key to making any relationship work is good communication. An interfaith group is hoping to put that concept to the test in early January, by focusing on what gay and straight couples have in common during a retreat in suburban Maryland. This "Day of Couple Unity" will bring together about eight gay couples and eight straight couples to discuss ways to strengthen committed relationships, the lead organizer said. The gathering takes place Jan. 10 at the Meeting House in Columbia, Md. The event is the brainchild of Pamela El-Dinary of Clarksville, Md., who has been married for 13 years. ... "One thing I was really clear on was I didn't want this to be a discussion about what is it to be gay versus married," she says. "It's more about talking about being a couple, and the joys of that." But, at the same time, she says she also realizes that some of those gay-versus-straight issues will most likely pop up. With recent legal battles for equal marriage rights for gay couples being fought in Massachusetts, Arizona, New Jersey and Canada, the legal differences between married straight couples and unwed gay couples are drawing increased attention from the national media. Flaherty says the event should underscore the fact that couples of all types are essentially the same when it comes to matters of the heart. more
CONSERVATIVES FILE LEGAL CHALLENGE TO DISSOLUTION OF CIVIL UNION: Washington Blade
Socially conservative state lawmakers and religious officials are challenging an Iowa judge's decision to dissolve a lesbian couple's civil union by appealing to the state's Supreme Court. The divorce, between Kimberly Brown, 31, and Jennifer Perez, 26, has caught the attention of gay rights opponents who say the ruling could open the door to Iowa recognizing same-sex marriages. Gay groups assert the ruling will not pose a challenge to the state's existing laws that have banned gay marriage since 1997. ...The Iowa Liberty & Justice Center, the legal arm of the Iowa Family Policy Center, filed an appeal on behalf of six Iowa legislators, two state religious leaders and U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The parties are arguing "couples who are civilly united are not married under Iowa law" and that Vermont law defines "marriage as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman." ...A few other states are also seeing similar legal challenges to civil unions performed out of state. An Indiana lesbian couple is facing the end of their Vermont-based civil union. And similar cases are cropping up in Connecticut, Texas and West Virginia. Activists say that because of the legal ambiguities that come with civil unions, such a case underscores the need for gay men and lesbians to fight for marriage rights. more
POLYGAMY SUPPORTERS HEARTENED: More Washington Blade; ACLU quote
Mark Henkel, a "constitutional conservative" and polygamy advocate, said two recent gay rights victories should pave the way to decriminalizing polygamy laws. He claims the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning state sodomy laws and a Massachusetts case that some say will legalize gay marriage in the Bay State should help polygamists. "The government does not have the authority to be in the marriage business in the first place," said Henkel, founder of TruthBearer.org, a Web site devoted to the decriminalization of polygamy. ... Utah polygamists Tom Green and Rodney Holm are currently challenging their convictions for having multiple wives based in part on the Supreme Court’s sodomy ruling. Holm’s attorney is arguing that there must be some other rational basis to ban certain behavior other than sheer moral disapproval. Legal scholars say that while it is possible the bigamy charges against both men could be dropped as a result of Lawrence vs. Texas, their other convictions would likely remain. Green was found guilty in a separate case of child rape because his first wife was 13 when they first married and began having sex. Holm, a former Utah police officer, was also convicted on two counts of unlawful sex with a minor. "Yes, I think [Lawrence vs. Texas] would give a lawyer a foothold to argue such a case," said Art Spitzer, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union. "The general framework of that case, that states can't make it a crime to engage in private consensual intimate relationships, is a strong argument." more
MORE CRITICISM OF THAT NYTIMES POLL STORY: More Washington Blade
Gay conservatives and a media watchdog group harshly criticized a New York Times story published Sunday, Dec. 21, claiming the article distorted President Bush's stance on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and sensationalized the already "complex" and "sensitive" issue of gay marriage. The article, which appeared as the lead story on the front-page, also used a disproportionate amount of "anti-gay" quotes, activists said. ...The Times story, written by Katharine Q. Seelye and Janet Elder, did not fully report President Bush's comments made during an ABC News interview last week in which he said, "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that." The Times article left off the portion of Bush’s comment that said "if necessary," reporting only that "last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, 'I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that.'" ...[Andrew] Sullivan noted on his Web site that the "flag-burning amendment was supported by around 80 percent of the public, and the balanced budget amendment by around 85 percent--and yet both failed." He said that 55 percent was an anemic level of support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. more
DOES AMERICA NEED A MARRIAGE AMENDMENT? Debate from Dallas-Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Yes: "After two decades of propaganda about homosexuality and the 'gay rights' movement, including one-sided media presentations depicting gay as great with no downsides (other than 'homophobia'), the common sense of the public still prevails. "...This ought to be good news for social conservatives. But infighting among members of various conservative religious and political organizations threatens to frustrate the effort to win passage of an amendment." more No: "The Constitution is a precious document that has endured for more than 200 years as our greatest democratic bulwark because it speaks to the essentials of good government structure: justice, freedom and fairness; a balance between federal and local rights; and the separation of church and state. "It is no place to embed social and cultural issues." more |
||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|