|
 |
 |
 Friday, July 16, 2004
ALTAR EGO: Michael Bronski
...But even though winning Goodridge v. Department of Public Health--and defeating various challenges to it so far--has redeemed the American Way of Life for many gay men and lesbians, some queer political activists are raising questions about the limits and long-term worth of same-sex marriage. It's not that these activists don't believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Rather, the vital questions they pose are, "What might we lose, and who might be harmed by same-sex marriage?" Such questions stem from a longstanding division among queer activists dating back to the '60s. One side has stood firmly for gaining equal rights, while the other, "liberationist" side has celebrated a politics of difference, arguing that gay culture has its own ethos from which straight people could learn a thing or two about justice and love. Not surprisingly, this debate has resurfaced in what many in the gay community are calling "the great divide" over the fight for same-sex marriage. What's interesting this time around, however, is that alongside the well-worn plea for gay cultural liberation is emerging a critique of gay marriage based on class rather than culture. Indeed, the push to legalize same-sex marriage has been so rushed and emotionally heady--no one, not even the litigators who fought so hard for it, thought we'd win anytime soon--that complicated legal issues with particular implications for the working poor and people of color were quite simply ignored. Couple that with the desire among many gay and lesbian people to be "normal," and the result has been that a lot of thinking has taken place inside the box--and a very small box, at that. WHAT'S NOW called the great divide over same-sex marriage was anticipated by lesbian legal theorist and activist Paula Ettelbrick in her fall 1989 article "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?", published in Out/Look: National Gay and Lesbian Quarterly, when she wrote that "marriage defines certain relationships as more valid than all others." These days, a running joke among gay men and lesbians is that, with marriage as an option, parents are hounding them to the altar just as avidly as they do their heterosexual siblings. Ettelbrick went on to say that the creation of this new, "more valid" relationship for gay people "runs contrary to [one of] the primary goals of the gay and lesbian movement: ... the validation of many forms of relationships." In the absence of legal civil marriage, lesbians and gay men gleefully invented their own panoply of romantic and household configurations that worked--at least as well, if not better in many instances, than the traditional mom and dad and kids at home. But more-recent critics of same-sex marriage are not simply worried that the antic good old days of lesbian communes and gay-male extended families of [censored!--Eve] buddies (which, of course, still exist) will become endangered. In a cogent and important article, "Speak Now: Progressive Considerations on the Advent of Civil Marriage for Same-Sex Couples," just published in the Boston College Law Review, lawyers Kara S. Suffredini and Madeleine V. Findley argue persuasively that while same-sex marriage will provide advantages to some people--those with incomes that are middle class or higher--it could have deleterious effects on other groups. Suffredini and Findley examine a myriad of commonly accepted myths about the benefits of same-sex marriage and discover that, often, they deliver far less than they promise, especially if you are poor. The most obvious example, perhaps, concerns health care. One of the most compelling arguments same-sex-marriage advocates make is that civil marriage will give partners, and any children involved, access to one partner’s health insurance. Yet as Suffredini and Findley point out, this is true only if one partner has health-care benefits--and most people working low-paying, hourly jobs do not. But there are more overt economic drawbacks to being poor and getting married, the authors argue, which gay men and lesbians from the lower classes will have to suffer if they wed. For example, the aptly named "marriage penalty," which kicks in when a married couple who both work and earn similar incomes end up paying more in taxes than if they were single, tends to affect same-sex couples more egregiously than different-sex couples. That’s because the tax laws assume the traditional arrangement in which one spouse (usually the husband) will be the primary wage earner and that the ancillary wage earner will make considerably less. In that case, a married couple’s joint tax rate equals out; but when incomes are comparable, as is more often the case with gay and lesbian couples, they end up paying more taxes. ... A more draconian "marriage penalty"--and one that affects women on the lowest level of the economic scale--results from the Bush administration’s so-called welfare-reform policy, designed to discourage out-of-wedlock births. ...All of this is intended to induce--or coerce--poor women to get married. But for many low-income households, getting hitched may also mean losing the earned-income tax credit that many single mothers depend on, thus putting them in an even more vulnerable economic position. So the idea that marriage helps solve the economic problems of poor women--heterosexual or lesbian--is simply myth. The situation worsens when you consider some of the social-policy changes engendered by same-sex marriage. Over the past 15 years, various private companies and some municipalities have instituted domestic-partnership (DP) programs for gay couples who do not have the right to marry, which granted an array of economic and health-care benefits to the unmarried domestic partners of their employees. This alternative system of benefit sharing was, for the most part, an effort to extend fairness to gay and lesbian people. But since the advent of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, both private and public-sector DP programs in the state have undergone erosion. Because they were instituted out of a sense of fairness to gay men and lesbians, and not to promote viable economic and ethical alternatives to traditional marriage, it makes perfect sense (to some) that they will disappear as legal civil marriage becomes available across the country. The result is that marriage will not be simply a choice for some gay people, but compulsory if the couple needs any of these benefits, even if they are not inclined to marry. But the other reality is that DP programs--where and when they exist--are not only a boon to gay couples who participate in them, but mark a shift toward recognizing alternatives to traditional marriage. Realistically, many, many GLBT relationships, for a wide variety of reasons, do not fit the traditional-marriage template--and yet they need health care and other benefits, too. Many choose to form what Suffredini and Findley call "diverse forms of partnership and households." They cite the example of a lesbian co-parenting couple who wish to include the child’s biological father in their family configuration. But there are many others as well: a gay male couple caring for a former partner of one of its members who is ill from AIDS, say, or a gay or lesbian couple who takes on the care of an aged parent. (Who cares if these examples play into that anti-gay right-wing stereotype--gay or lesbian people who form ethical and sustained romantic relationships with more then two people?) ... THERE IS NOTHING wrong with fighting for same-sex marriage as long as it is part of a larger package, a larger scheme in which all the myriad issues affecting GLBT families are addressed. ... Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry, and one of the prime movers in the struggle for marriage equality, says that although he has not yet read Suffredini and Findley’s article, he is wary of their arguments: "The denial of marriage harms all gay people but falls harshest on people of lesser means, immigrants, people who are ill, children, and in general people who are vulnerable. They need a safety net, however imperfectly our society accords these things through marriage," he says. "Although I believe marriage should not be the only way that people should access protections--I believe in universal health care--it is an important way that people can access them. Many of these protections--Social Security, immigration regulations, qualifying for public assistance--cannot be replaced by private agreement or with the help of an expensive lawyer, which many people cannot do. Marriage gives that protection with the words 'I do.' It is a choice and an option that the vast majority of people who have it, exercise." Further, Wolfson thinks that, like it or not, no matter how one feels about marriage equality, this is the fight we are having now, and it is essentially about the larger place of gay people in America. ... Same-sex-marriage advocates have argued that marriage is nothing more than a personal choice, that what gay people were denied is the "freedom to marry." But marriage--or any legal or social contact [sic, possibly "contract"?--Eve]--never concerns only one or two people. It concerns the entire fabric of the society in which they live. ... The fight should not simply be for same-sex marriage equality, but for reforming marriage laws to make them equitable to meet the needs of all families. more
WHO WILL STAND FOR MARRIAGE?: Washington Blade editorial
...The idea of using our lives as political footballs was originally the brainchild of Republicans, of course. First the president backed the Federal Marriage Amendment in a cynical ploy to energize his conservative base. Then the Republicans in the Senate rushed a vote on the measure to put moderate Democrats on the defensive just before their convention. ... But on the whole, Republicans were cleverly outmaneuvered on the issue by Democrats, who devoted almost all their time during what was supposed to be a debate on marriage equality instead asking why the Senate was even discussing the question, since there are so many other issues out there of greater importance. ... To the contrary, we were treated to a procession of Democrats who took to the podium to note for their record that they, too, believed marriage ought to be limited to that sacred union of a man and a woman. But not to worry--the Defense of Marriage Act would protect the country from the scourge of married homosexuals. For some reason, these same Democrats, whose voices rose in indignation as they shamed their Republican colleagues for wanting to "write bigotry into the Constitution," never stopped to explain how it is that their beloved DOMA wasn't writing that same bigotry into federal law. ... It’s hard to say when we will actually witness our full equality--including marriage equality--be defended in Congress by the men and women who are elected with our dollars and our votes. But it will certainly come later rather than sooner if we don’t actually ask it of them. The Democrats certainly won Round 1 of the great gay marriage debate, but what about Round 2? If "pro-gay" senators won't defend our equality or our dignity even when they have the votes in the bag, what can we expect when their arguments about the Defense of Marriage Act don’t work anymore? Because someday soon, DOMA will be struck down; or marriage laws will be opened up to gay couples in other states on their own. ... We will not trick our way to equality, while everyone is looking the other way. The case for our freedom to marry is a strong one, and it’s way past time we started making it. more
FMA AND LIBERTARIANISM: Josh Claybourn
...The 600 pound gorilla in the whole discussion is one's view of government. There isn't a lot of writing that I'm aware of explaining or defending "Christian libertarianism," but it's more prevalent than you probably realize. At the root of Christian libertarianism is the biblical conviction that God grants men the freedom (never the permission) to sin. It allows Christians to transform the culture through the church and the family. This transformation is no business of the state's. The early Christian church, and America's Founders, saw this and kept the church and state in two different spheres, permitting the church to influence the populace (and the state) freely. The church best flourishes in that sort of environment. The virtuous life cannot be brought about by government. The state should not be called upon to bring about the virtuous life. The price is subservience to the state. Many will view this as a cop-out or shirking from God's wishes, but I am a libertarian precisely because I wish to protect traditional values and culture from the state. San Fransisco's mayor Gavin Newsom is a wonderful example of the problems that can befall a church that so closely ties its precepts to a secular state. It's time for the church to consider its own marriages apart from a secular state. more, plus a big ol' comments-box discussion Ramesh Ponnuru responds here, basically asking, Okay, so why have marriage licenses at all? Josh replies here but doesn't, IMO (this is Eve speaking), really answer Ramesh.
NOW STATES CAN FOCUS ON TRUE THREATS TO MARRIAGE: Jane R. Eisner
...I agree that the traditional institution of marriage is under an assault more ferocious than the 1,000-year storm we just saw in New Jersey, and that this assault is not a welcome development. Since the finest research -- and every bit of common sense -- tells us that children do best when raised in happy, stable, two-parent marriages, civil society has a vested interest in promoting an institution that helps create a good outcome for the next generation. But we don't know whether gay marriage will wreck the institution with all the force of a terrorist attack, as the good senator implies, or strengthen it beyond our imagination. So now that the push for the amendment is yesterday's news, here's what we can do to really defend marriage: Follow the advice of such radicals as, oh, Lynne Cheney and leave it up to the states to decide what constitutes a marriage, a civil union, a domestic partnership, whatever. Massachusetts will go its way, Vermont will try another approach, and surely in Texas there'll be something else again. States have long been the laboratory for social experimentation and can best weave the crazy quilt of regional and demographic differences that shape Americans' attitudes on this complicated issue. ... While they're at it, states should examine their divorce laws and procedures, because nothing has chipped away at the notion that marriage is forever as much as the social acceptability and legal ease of leaving it. How marriage defenders can harp on gay unions and ignore no-fault divorce is one of the great mysteries of this debate. Just as important is to encourage couples to marry before they have children and dismantle the barriers that stop them from doing so. Gay people are a fraction of the population, probably in the single digits. But the number of children born out of wedlock in 2002 was 34 percent -- up from 5.3 percent in 1960 -- and among black children the percentage was a disastrous 68.2 percent. These trends are devastating marriage. So is the increasingly prevalent notion that it exists on a separate planet from child-rearing, as if a child's need for the commitment, stability, support and love of two bonded parents is as easily discarded as an old TV. We can blame popular culture for some of this, but only some. For decades, everything from welfare regulations to economic policies have made it harder and less attractive for people, especially men, to marry, especially in poor communities. That's possible to turn around: Minnesota, for instance, found that offering income supplements to poor, working families stabilized marriage and reduced domestic violence. Defend marriage? Help dad get a job. more
MARRIAGE CASE MOVES CLOSER TO HIGH COURT: From The Oregonian
The Oregon Court of Appeals on Thursday agreed to step aside and allow a lawsuit challenging the state's marriage law to go directly to the state Supreme Court. The move, which still needs Supreme Court approval, would significantly speed up a lawsuit that seeks to force the state to allow same-sex couples to marry. A spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, which brought the suit, said her group had wanted the Court of Appeals to hear the case. "We felt that the Court of Appeals would likely rule in our favor," said Rebekah Kassell. But the legal and political picture is far from clear. A member of the Defense of Marriage Coalition, which opposes extending marriage to same-sex couples, said he wasn't surprised. But Tim Nashif, whose group sponsored a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, said he did not want to see the Supreme Court rush and try to rule before the November election. ... The legal and political fight over marriage in Oregon started in March when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after determining that state marriage law violated the rights of gays and lesbians. Gay rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the state, which had refused to recognize the Multnomah County marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples. Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank L. Bearden ruled that state marriage law violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, but said the Legislature should have a chance to fix the problem, possibly by passing a civil unions law. more
ATTEMPT TO BAN SSM BRINGS ATTENTION TO ALLARD: From the Scripps Howard News Service
Time was running out, defeat was never in doubt, but Sen. Wayne Allard was still scribbling out arguments to defend his proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. ... Allard would later read those words Wednesday on the floor of the Senate, but in the end that argument wouldn't matter. The Senate voted 48-50 against a procedural motion, effectively keeping Allard's amendment on the Senate shelf. Opponents called the vote a clear defeat for President Bush's agenda. An upbeat Allard said it was a first step in a process that could take years. If nothing else, it officially signaled the beginning of what could be a long, hot summer of partisan rhetoric from all sides. Suddenly, Allard has stepped out of the shadows of national obscurity and into that heated limelight. By the time Allard's marathon day was done Wednesday, the mild-mannered man from Fort Collins, Colo., was facing the biggest national media throng of his career. For better or worse, the gay marriage issue has made him a lightning rod in one of the most emotional debates of his times. Until now, his biggest national profile has been on defense issues or his widely publicized push for anti-cock fighting legislation. ... Roger Brown, Allard's senior legislative assistant, said that a Democratic senator from a Western state had told Allard, "I'd like to vote with you, but then I wouldn't get a Finance Committee seat." more
SENATORS GET AN EARFUL ON GAY MARRIAGE BAN: From the Cincinnati Post
U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine's offices logged more than 6,500 calls Monday and close to another 4,000 Tuesday urging the senator from Ohio to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The offices of Ohio's other senator, George Voinovich, received 15,000 phone calls about the amendment this week alone, roughly 30 times the number it gets during a typical week and the largest volume it has ever gotten on a single issue. "Our phones are still going off," Voinovich spokeswoman Marcie Ridgway said Wednesday, just as the Senate was preparing for a procedural vote on the amendment. ... Senators' offices reported that they were deluged with calls, letters and e-mails from constituents weighing in on the amendment. DeWine's offices in Washington and Ohio got so many calls that an extra person had to be assigned to answer the phones, said the senator's spokeswoman, Amanda Flaig. Of the more than 11,000 calls received this week, only 659 were from people who opposed the amendment. Voinovich's office did not have a tally on calls it received, but Ridgway said they were overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment. Both DeWine, of Cedarville, and Voinovich, of Cleveland, were targeted by groups pushing for the amendment. The Family Research Council included the two Republicans on its "high priority" list of 25 senators to contact. The Alliance for Marriage also contacted groups in Ohio and asked them to call or write to the senators and urge them to support the amendment. ... Though DeWine and Voinovich had been undecided about the need for a constitutional amendment, both voted in favor of the measure on Wednesday. ... Both of Kentucky's Republican senators, Jim Bunning of Southgate and MitchMcConnell of Louisville, announced their support for the amendment early on and were not among the senators targeted by the lobbying groups. Even so, Bunning's office said it received more than 3,000 calls on the amendment this week, running overwhelmingly in favor of the amendment. more
LESBIAN COUPLE FIRST ON BIRTH CERTIFICATE: From the Boston Herald
In a milestone for same-sex parents, a married lesbian couple from Jamaica Plain is believed to be the first homosexual pair recognized as parents on their child's birth certificate. Cora Roelofs and Liz Steinhauser are named as mother and "second parent'' on a certificate issued by the town of Wellesley and approved by the state Department of Public Health. "We hope people realize this is both justice and a joy, and we hope they support our family,'' said Roelofs, who gave birth June 4 to a boy who was conceived through artificial insemination. The birth certificate was issued June 29. The milestone became possible when same-sex couples gained the right to marry in Massachusetts on May 17. Under state law, married couples that have a child through artifical insemination are automatically recognized as parents. Officials with the state Department of Public Health said yesterday no final decisions have been made on whether to change the wording on birth certificates, which currently have spaces for a mother and father. Gay rights advocates said they know of a few same-sex parents that are both listed on a birth certificate, but Roelofs and Steinhauser, who were married June 3 and gave birth the next day, are believed to be the first. more
CONGRESS WEIGHS D.C. DOMA: From the Washington Blade
A Republican congresswoman from Virginia introduced a bill on July 7 that would prohibit the District of Columbia from legalizing same-sex marriage or recognizing such marriages from other states. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, whose district includes the cities of Fredericksburg and Williamsburg, dropped her bill into the legislative hopper without any co-sponsors and without releasing a statement elaborating on her reasons for introducing the legislation. Davis' bill, H.R. 4773, is just one sentence long. It states, "In the District of Columbia, for all legal purposes, 'marriage' means the union of one man and one woman." ... District Mayor Anthony Williams and a majority of the members of the D.C. Council have said they strongly oppose such laws, saying they favor, in principle, the legalization of same-sex marriage. Norton said she would enlist the help of House Democratic leaders to oppose Davis' bill. Norton and other Capitol Hill observers said the lack of co-sponsors and the apparent decision not to draw immediate attention to her bill suggests that Davis may be seeking to lay the groundwork for attaching the measure in the form of an amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill. The influential House Appropriations Committee was scheduled to mark up the city's fiscal year 2005 appropriations measure this week. ... The bill to ban gay marriage in the District comes as D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams still holds back a legal opinion by the city's chief attorney on whether D.C. laws permit the city to recognize same-sex marriages issued in Massachusetts or other states. Sources close to the city government have said the opinion by D.C. Attorney General Robert Spagnoletti, who is gay, holds that same-sex marriages from others states could be legally recognized in the District. ... The Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance, a small D.C. group of veteran activists, has cautioned Williams against releasing the opinion and against recognizing same-sex marriages from Massachusetts for the foreseeable future, fearing congressional intervention to bar gay marriage in D.C. more
THESE KANSAS CITY-AREA MINISTERS CALL FOR DEFEAT OF SSM BAN: From the Kansas City Star
A group of Kansas City area ministers said Thursday that a proposed ban on gay marriages in Missouri is unfair and should be defeated. The Aug. 3 constitutional amendment is "unnecessary and mean-spirited," said the Rev. Jim Eller, minister at the All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church in Kansas City, where the forum was held. About a dozen ministers attended.Gays are entitled to the same legal rights as other couples, Eller said. "As a religious leader, I am called to stand for justice, equity and human dignity, as God as is my witness," Eller said at the forum sponsored by the Constitution Defense League, formed to oppose the proposed marriage ban. The group circulated at the forum a list of 92 ministers from a range of faiths, including Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Jews and Methodists, who are opposed to the ban. The ministers argue that Scripture embraces loving, committed relationships and denounces discrimination, which is what they believe the gay marriage ban amounts to. ... Supporters of the gay marriage ban were not invited to the forum, but Vicky Hartzler, spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, said there are thousands of clergy in the state who favor the amendment. Hartzler said the Bible says God created men and women with the intent they be together. more
RENEWED STATE EFFORTS MADE AGAINST SSM: From the New York Times
...Legislatures in seven states have already approved amendments that will be put before voters this year, starting with Missouri on Aug. 3 and Louisiana on Sept. 18, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah will follow in November. Supporters of amendments have also collected enough signatures in Arkansas, Michigan, Montana and Oregon to place proposed amendments on ballots this fall. Those signatures are being reviewed, but experts believe most, and probably all, will succeed. In Ohio and North Dakota, signatures are still being collected. Organizers in both states say they are confident they will gather more than enough signatures to get on the ballot in November, an assessment opponents do not dispute. Amendment supporters said that although the federal amendment was soundly defeated in the Senate on Wednesday, the setback would energize conservatives to go to the polls for state amendments. ... Opponents of the Ohio amendment said they hoped to recruit support from Ohio businesses, saying that the measure would discourage highly qualified gay and lesbian employees from coming to Ohio. Alan Melamed, campaign manager for Ohioans Protecting Our Constitution, which is fighting the amendment, said it included broad language that could make domestic partner benefits for opposite-sex couples unconstitutional. Many major corporations and several colleges in Ohio offer such benefits to their employees. But proponents of the Ohio amendment said it would not prohibit private companies from offering domestic-partner benefits. Missouri, which will vote on its constitutional amendment during an Aug. 3 primary, is being watched as a bellwether for how other states may vote. The Legislature approved the amendment with overwhelming support. But opponents contend that many voters remain open to arguments that it is discriminatory. more
RULING IN CHILE FORCES GAYS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN CLOSET, PARENTING RIGHTS: From Knight Ridder
[I note that the father in this case is also unable or unwilling to raise his children within marriage, and is also sending messages about sex, parenting, and marriage that conflict with "the Roman Catholic Church's definition of traditional families." --Eve] Judge Karen Atala had the love of her three daughters and commanded the respect of Chilean lawyers arguing cases in her courtroom. Now, all across the deeply conservative Andean nation, she's known simply as "the lesbian judge." Atala became an unwitting public figure and international gay-rights symbol when Chile's Supreme Court, in a controversial 3-2 decision May 31, overruled two lower courts and awarded custody of her children to her ex-husband, Jaime Lopez. The small-town judge wasn't an alcoholic, promiscuous or a negligent mother--reasons Chilean courts usually place children in the custody of their fathers. Atala's "grave" mothering mistake was admitting she's a lesbian who took a partner. In South America's most conservative nation, the court ruling sought to bolster the Roman Catholic Church's definition of traditional families. Monsignor Cristian Contreras, an auxiliary bishop in Santiago, praised the "commonsense" approach of the judges. Gay rights groups have been galvanized by the decision, and Chile is seeing a debate like the one under way in the United States over state-sanctioned marriage and the inheritance rights of same-sex couples. How it plays out in Chile might affect gay rights throughout Latin America. ... De Ramon said her partner was seeking treatment for a deep depression that followed the loss of her daughters. Atala's girls--aged 9, 5 and 4--now are living with Lopez. Lopez, a lawyer, has since had his new girlfriend move in. more Thursday, July 15, 2004
THE UNBEATABLE INFERTILITY ARGUMENT: Maggie responds to Michael Triplett
[Sorry for the delay--this got buried in my inbox--but I think the issue is well worth revisiting. --Eve] The heart of the problem (or disagreement) is what I consider an impoverished image of the relationship between law and marriage. Marriage is a pre-liberal institution. It was not and cannot be created merely by law and cannot be reduced to its legal incidents. Lawyers have a hard time with this concept. For a discussion of how and why family law became inarticulate about the relationship between marriage and children--and alternatives to a punitive/incentives view of how marriage law protects children, seem my law review article (PDF) in the Notre Dame Journal of Law and Public Policy. To say that law works solely by directly punishing or creating disincentives (or incentives) is to misunderstand the law's role in many things, but especially marriage. To imagine that punishing infertility or requiring couples to make fertility oaths would strengthen the capacity of marriage to protect children is also to misunderstand in just a big core way, how social institutions function. Especially one like marriage.
FAMILY STRUCTURE: Mark Barton replies to Chairm Ohn
Chairm Ohn: These three speculative points are subject to assumptions about marriage. First, that sexual preference is not fluid; [...] Mark B.: I don't claim to speak for lesbians or bisexual men, but the fairly standard experience of self-identified gay men is that their orientation (in the sense of who they're attracted to) is not at all fluid. Same-sex attraction starts full strength at puberty and doesn't waver. Chairm Ohn: [...] that the experience of mixed-orientation marriages is more spectacularly pointless and unstable than the average marriage. Mark B.: Which is only to be expected given that one major form of glue holding together an average marriage, namely sexual intimacy, is likely to be largely absent or unsatisfactory. Chairm Ohn: Second, that gay men who marry women in order to, e.g., have their own children are generally prone to unsavory sexual behavior; Mark B.: Note that I don't claim that gay men who marry women specifically in order to have children are particularly prone to dangerous sexual behaviour. On the contrary, I doubt that happens very much in the first place. Nowadays there are better ways of having the opportunity to raise children than marrying someone you're not at all sexually attracted to. What I claim is that gay men who marry women in order to be thought heterosexual are prone to dangerous sexual behaviour. But this is uncontroversial--it's why for example that HIV is coming to be a disproportionate problem for the African-American community. Indeed the first guy I ever slept with couldn't have been a sorrier case study: he was African-American, he had a girlfriend on the side to keep up appearances, but he was also very resistant to using condoms because he didn't identify with the gay community that all the safe-sex advertising was pitched at. I hope he and his girlfriend are still alive. Note further that I only mention any of this to underline the fact that merely disallowing SSM will have a negligible effect on whether gay men get traditionally married. The only thing that will have an effect is severely punishing, legally and socially, any other option. But not only has this been found to be unconstitutional, it would also have the major adverse consequences I point out. Chairm Ohn: [...] that may or may not be so within or without marriage--as per the common view among gay activists that monogamy need not mean sexual exclusivity in SSM. Mark B.: Note that even gay activists who think that open relationships are often good also think that these have to be negotiated, and that dangerous sexual practices engaged in unilaterally are inexcusable. Chairm Ohn: If SSM would have the influence on gay domesticity that its advocates predict, we might expect more same-sex couples would be attracted to SSM (if enacted); and fewer would start mixed-orientation marriages to have children. Mark B.: I think any suggested influence of SSM on gay domesticity is probably oversold. Gay domesticity arises naturally as soon as homophobia is checked. Chairm Ohn: There'd be a reduction in the volume of children migrating from man-woman couples to same-sex couples through divorce. It is difficult to imagine that assisted reproduction and adoption could make up the difference. The tiny volume of same-sex households raising children might be expected to diminish below current levels. Mark B.: My point exactly. Withholding SSM is unlikely to have much effect but to the extent it does it's likely to be counterproductive.
CHURCHES LEARN IRS DO'S, DON'TS: From the Kansas City Star
Dennis Slavens thinks he now has a better understanding of how far he and his fellow clergy can go when talking politics. "I think we have more rights than what we recognize," the pastor of the Antioch Family Worship Center said after a meeting Wednesday in Overland Park. The issue has been contentious in Johnson County, where some ministers are calling on churches to participate more in politics and a political group has begun monitoring church services to look for possible legal missteps. And it has been contentious across the nation, amid reports that Bush-Cheney re-election workers are seeking campaign help from religious groups. ... But for the most part, according to the IRS, churches and other tax-exempt organizations cannot participate in any campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Those organizations cannot endorse candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate, the IRS says. But, as Miller pointed out, the law doesn't prohibit ministers from speaking out. They can address political issues from the pulpit, he said. And, as individuals, they can endorse candidates away from their church, such as in advertisements, he said. Here are some examples of what churches can and cannot do, according to the IRS: Speaking from the pulpit about issues such as same-sex marriage is acceptable. But during a church service, a religious leader cannot urge the congregation to vote for a specific political candidate. Inviting a candidate to speak at a church is OK. But the church must provide an equal opportunity to other candidates seeking the same office. Holding a forum at church and asking candidates to speak is fine, but not if the forum is operated to show a bias for or against any candidate. Tax laws lie behind the IRS standards. Organizations such as churches that benefit from their tax-free status face certain rules that do not apply to taxable groups. One of the laws, about a half-century old, pertains to politicking. Several weeks ago the Internal Revenue Service sent a letter to major political parties, including the Democratic and Republican national committees, advising them of the law and the role groups such as churches can play in political debate. "Organizations may encourage people to participate in the electoral process by sponsoring debates or forums to educate voters, distributing voter guides, or conducting voter registration or get-out-the-vote drives," the letter said. If those activities show a preference for or against a certain candidate or party, however, "it becomes a prohibited activity." Churches that violate the law face penalties, including the potential loss of their tax-exempt status. That happened several years ago to a church in New York. more
CHRISTIAN GROUPS SAY THEY WON'T GIVE UP: From the Washington Post
Despite a defeat in the Senate yesterday, evangelical Christian groups said they would continue to push for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but some predicted that it would be a 10-year battle. In the short term, the amendment's religious backers said they would turn their sights toward referendums at the state level. At least nine states, and possibly as many as 12, will have state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage on the ballot in elections this summer and fall. ... Colson and other evangelical leaders said the Senate vote achieved several objectives, including energizing grass-roots conservatives, forcing senators to take a stand and forging bonds between the Republican Party and socially conservative black churchgoers who have traditionally been steadfast Democrats. They acknowledged, however, that their failure to win a simple majority on a procedural vote to cut off Senate debate starkly revealed the obstacles before them. In addition to opposition in Congress, they face strong public reservations about amending the Constitution as well as disagreements among social conservatives over what the amendment should say. Polls show that support for such an amendment varies greatly, from as low as 36 percent to as high as 60 percent, depending on how the issue is framed, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Support is higher if the proposed amendment is worded positively -- defining marriage only as a union of a man and a woman -- than if it is worded negatively, as prohibiting same-sex marriage. Support also drops substantially if the public is presented with an alternative to amending the Constitution, such as leaving the issue to the states to decide. ... In a last-minute bid to increase support for the amendment, some Republican senators on Monday proposed to reduce it to a single sentence: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a man and a woman." They suggested eliminating the second sentence, which would prohibit courts from interpreting either the federal or state constitutions to require that "the legal incidents" of marriage be given to same-sex couples. The wrestling over the text stemmed, in part, from disagreements over the meaning of the second sentence. Some constitutional scholars contend that it would block Vermont-style civil unions, which confer state-level benefits of marriage but not federal protections, such as Social Security. Other scholars say it would allow them. The wrangling also reflected divisions among the amendment's religious backers. Some members of the Arlington Group, such as the Christian Coalition, favor an amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but not civil unions. Others, such as the Traditional Values Coalition and Concerned Women for America, want to ban both. Minnery said the refusal of Senate Democrats to allow a vote on an abbreviated text showed that "liberals are scared to death of a one-sentence amendment because they know it would be popular." But he said conservatives also are worried about a single sentence, because they are not sure how courts would interpret it. more
ACCEPT US AS PARENTS, PAIR ASK IN APPEAL: From the Cincinnati Enquirer
Ohio's legal system has yet to recognize a Mason lesbian couple as parents with equal responsibilities. But their 31/2-year-old son, Joshua, does. "When we left him this morning with the child-care provider, he said, 'I love you, Mommies!'" said Cheryl McKettrick as she and her partner, Jennifer McKettrick, stood outside an Ohio appeals court Tuesday after a hearing over the women's legal parental status. The Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals in Middletown is considering whether the women's shared-custody agreement for "Baby J" should be legally accepted, giving both women legal authority to make important decisions for the child. ... The McKettricks publicly declared their lifelong commitment to each other in a 2000 ceremony, which has no legal standing because Ohio does not recognize same-sex marriages. Jennifer gave birth to Joshua, the product of an egg that Cheryl donated and was borne by her partner. The women began preparing for a shared-custody agreement even before Joshua was born. But as of now, "the law hasn't really made a declaration as to either parent at this point," Sawyer said. Because of the legal uncertainty, the women have hit snags. When Joshua was an infant, he was running a fever and the McKettricks decided he needed to go to the hospital. While he was in distress, the women spent precious minutes helping a hospital employee "figure out how to put our names in the (computer), and who is his parent and who has his insurance," Jennifer McKettrick said. He got the care he needed. But the women fear a hospital administrator might balk someday. "If someone challenges either parent's authority, what do they do?" Sawyer said. The agreement would avoid that--and would ensure that the child would continue to receive financial and other support if one of the women would die or if the couple would separate. more
NEW GOP SSM BAN TACTICS: From The Hill
Realizing that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage faces little chance of passing soon, if ever, House Republicans yesterday discussed alternative approaches, including stripping federal courts of jurisdiction over the issue, passing a federal law to define marriage and using the appropriations process to ban gay marriage in Washington. All the legislative action on gay marriage is currently in the Senate, but the House GOP is rapidly developing its own tactics. Leaders will take their first step next week when they take up Rep. John Hostettler’s (R-Ind.) "jurisdiction stripping" bill. This would bar federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to gay sex and marriage. While the House will not debate a constitutional amendment before the summer recess, it might take it up when Congress resumes in September. Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters yesterday that he plans to use "jurisdiction stripping" measures to achieve other social policy goals as well. For example, he will push legislation to stop federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Constitution establishes only the Supreme Court but leaves it to Congress to "ordain and establish" the lower federal courts. Arguably, therefore, Congress has the right determine the federal courts' jurisdiction. ... DeLay said the time is "not quite ripe" to apply the GOP's new legislative tactics to the issue of abortion. more
COURT ALLOWS GAYS IN YUKON TO MARRY: From CBC News
The Yukon has become the fourth jurisdiction in the country to legalize gay marriages. Justice Peter McIntyre ordered the Yukon government Wednesday to change its definition of marriage to, "the voluntary union for life of two persons, to the exclusion of all others". The Yukon Supreme Court also ruled that two gay men, Stephene Dunbar and Rob Edge, should be able to marry, and they will, this Saturday. A lawyer for the two men said his clients were discriminated against when the territory turned down their request for a marriage licence. Jim Tucker likened their situation to a famous American civil rights case. "Telling [them] that they could get married by the use of banns in their church is analogous to telling Rosa Parks that she could take a cab," he said. Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie praised the court, saying the judge's decision demonstrates how courts can be used to extend freedoms to all Canadians. "I think it's great when due process can reach these conclusions on behalf of any particular group of citizens in this country. It shows this country is very open to all views and I think that's a good thing and the Yukon is no different," Fentie added. The premier did not comment on the judge's criticism of the territorial government for not issuing the marriage license in the first place. Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia also allow same-sex marriages. The federal government has asked the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion on proposed federal legislation to legalize gay marriages. link Wednesday, July 14, 2004
GAY MARRIAGE VS. AMERICAN MARRIAGE: Kay S. Hymowitz
These days everyone has a strong opinion about marriage, but no one seems to be sure what it is, exactly. Is it a sacramental union? Is it a public recognition of a committed love relationship? Is it a state scheme for distributing health insurance and tax breaks? Or given what two eminent anthropologists writing recently in support of gay marriage in the Washington Post describe as a "startling diversity of socially approved forms of marriage," is the institution too varied to fit into a single, dictionary-neat meaning? The anthropologists are right about one thing: human beings have come up with almost as many ways of getting hitched as they have languages to tell mother-in-law jokes. ... But beneath all the diversity, marriage has always had a fundamental, universal core that makes gay marriage a non sequitur: it has always governed property and inheritance rights; it has always been the means of establishing paternity, legitimacy, and the rights and responsibilities of parenthood; and because these goals involve bearing and raising children, it has always involved (at least one) man and woman. What's more, among the "startling diversity" of variations that different cultures have elaborated on this fundamental core, our own culture has produced a specifically American ideal of marriage that is inseparable from our vision of free citizenship and is deeply embedded in our history, politics, economics, and culture. Advocates for gay marriage cite the historical evolution of that ideal--which we might call republican marriage--to bolster their case, arguing that gay unions are a natural extension of America's dedication to civil rights and to individual freedom. But a look at that history is enough to cast serious doubt on the advocates' case. Strange as it seems, America's founding thinkers were as interested in the subject of marriage as any of Fox TV's bachelorettes. Given the political experiment that they were designing, they had good reason, for they understood the basic sociological truth that familial relations both echo and shape the political order. "To the institution of marriage the true origin of society must be traced," James Wilson, a member of the Continental Congress and later a Supreme Court justice, wrote in 1790. Before the Revolutionary War, legal philosophers and statesmen like Wilson filled magazines and speeches with discussions of what kind of marriage would best live up to the principles of the new country. It's not surprising that they zeroed in on one quality in particular: self-government. ...Given that marriage was originally a religious sacrament, the Founders understood that the institution retained, even in their secular republic, an element of spirituality, an assertion that man is something higher than the beasts and more than a merely material being. The ceremony confers a special, human dignity upon our relations. In addition, they understood that marriage is a contract, regulated by the laws and ultimately enforceable by the state, that spells out property relations between the spouses, as well as their inheritance rights and those of their children. Therefore, marriage is intrinsically a government concern. In addition to these time-honored beliefs, the Founders brought a more modern idea to the matrimonial drafting table. Like many of their educated contemporaries in Western Europe, they had come to think of marriage in a way congruent with emerging ideals of individual liberty and democratic equality. In the old world, marriage was originally a matter of caste, class, or clan. Courtship was closer in spirit to bartering than romance; young people were to be traded off by elders intent on solidifying family ties and merging family fortunes and acres. By the late eighteenth century, however, Western Europeans were increasingly emphasizing marriage as a love-match between two self-determining individuals. Young people were free to choose for themselves with whom to spend their lives, and love could transcend class barriers to recognize the intrinsic personal worth of the beloved. ... Most important, republican marriage provided the edifice in which couples would care for and socialize their children to meet the demands of the new political order. If republican marriage celebrated self-government, it also had to pass down its principles to the young; it was supposed to perpetuate as well as to embody the habits of freedom. So whereas in all Western societies, the state concerns itself with fostering the institution of the family because it is the mechanism by which the society reproduces itself, in America that state concern takes on a special urgency, because of child rearing's unique momentousness to the national project. ... ..."Throughout the history of Massachusetts, marriage has been in a state of change," a group of historians of marriage, family, and the law asserted in an amicus brief in the case that legalized gay marriage in [Massachusetts]. Gay marriage "represents the logical next step in this court's long tradition of reforming marriage to fit the evolving nature of committed intimate relationships and the rights of the individuals in those relationships." But detaching the "tradition of reforming marriage" from the multifaceted tradition of republican marriage not only starts history around 1968, but it also presents a seriously distorted picture of why the American government is in the marriage business at all. ... In fact, gay-marriage proponents generally treat children as a distraction from the state's interest in marriage rather than crucial to it. They impatiently insist that history has settled the matter: it has definitively separated child rearing and marriage, demonstrating conclusively that marriage is a changing and elastic institution that can easily accommodate homosexuals. "When a third of children are born out of wedlock, when contraception and abortion are available on demand, when you have single-parent adoption legal in every state," Jonathan Rauch, the author of the recent Gay Marriage, has opined, "the debate is over about detaching marriage from parenthood--indeed was over years ago." Andrew Sullivan, along with Rauch one of the most thoughtful and eloquent advocates writing today, agrees: the argument that marriage has anything to do with children, he says, "fails socially and culturally because in our culture at this time, procreation is not understood to be an essential part of what it is to be married." But it's worth considering just how recently--and how haphazardly--Americans closed "the debate . . . about detaching marriage from parenthood." For most of American history, republican marriage remained the reigning paradigm: a self-reliant and child-centered couple, who had freely chosen each other in a spirit of equality and mutual affection and who would pass on to their young not just property but also the qualities needed to live in freedom. That reign only came to an end in the late 1960s as divorce laws loosened and Americans began pulling off their wedding rings at record rates. Divorce is such a conundrum for the nation because it follows directly from American principles even while threatening to subvert them. During the Revolutionary era, marriage theorists understood that a nation that loves liberty had to tolerate some divorce; if it was a matter of principle that you chose to enter into wedlock, it was also a matter of principle that you had to have some way of choosing to get out, at least under some circumstances. A number of early writers--including Thomas Paine, whose problems with Mrs. Paine gave him a personal stake in the issue--urged Americans to take a tolerant approach toward the practice. Still, even though divorce was more accepted in this country than in many parts of the world, it remained rare, a last resort and one that worried people deeply. That was no longer the case by the late 1960s, when squeamishness on the subject evaporated, the marital exit door flew open, and not only the battered and the miserable but also the merely unfulfilled came pouring out. ...The soaring rates of divorce signaled a fundamental transformation in the American idea of marriage. As Americans crowded into the divorce courts, they were casting aside the complex--and demanding--vision of the Founders. Marriage was becoming a minimalist institution; people now thought of it as an intimate relationship between two adults, having little to do with children and nothing to do with propagating the political and moral culture. ... So what are we to make of the fact that these mom-and-apple-pie young people tend to be more in favor of gay marriage than their parents and grandparents are? The great irony is that their traditionalism enlarges their sympathy for gays' hunger for 'til-death-do-us-part commitment; after all, that's what's they want, too. Odd as it sounds, gays and the children who grew up in single-parent homes share the experience of standing outside and looking longingly through the window at the peaceful, Norman Rockwell family reading or playing Scrabble in front of the fireplace. Rauch and Sullivan, in particular, have written touchingly of marriage as a solemn, even spiritual, union, a momentous public vow to another person that comes with profound responsibilities and aspires to transcendence. If you add together young people's earnest devotion to marriage and their interest in the civil rights movement (insofar as they have studied any American history at all, it's likely to begin with Rosa Parks and end with Martin Luther King), you have a generation for which gay marriage seems merely commonsensical. But what the young neo-traditionalists have trouble understanding is that their embrace of the next civil rights revolution, as many of them are inclined to see the fight for gay marriage, is actually at war with their longing for a more stable domestic life. Gay marriage gives an enfeebled institution another injection of the toxin that got it sick in the first place: it reinforces the definition of marriage as a loving, self-determining couple engaging in an ordinary civil contract that has nothing to do with children. That's no way for marriage to get its gravitas back. It is marriage's dedication to child rearing, to a future that projects far beyond the passing feelings of a couple, that has the potential to discipline adult passion. "The gravity of marriage as an institution comes from its demand that love be negotiated through these larger responsibilities [surrounding procreation]," Shelby Steele has written in response to Andrew Sullivan. Ignore those responsibilities and you get, well, you get the marital meltdown that this generation was hoping to transform. more
CATS AND DOGS STILL NOT LIVING TOGETHER: David Blankenhorn
From today's editorial in the Salem, Oregon Statesman Journal: "We have yet to hear of a happily married straight couple who called it quits because marriage licenses have been issued to gay couples in Oregon ... If gay marriage threatens the underpinnings of traditional marriage anywhere in the country, we should be seeing evidence in Oregon by now. In fact, life has pretty much gone on as usual for heterosexual couples in the months since Multnomah County issued more than 3,000 marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Those licenses did not entice straight people to suddenly 'turn gay.'" Well, now that we know that the civil-disobedience same-sex marriage ceremonies in Oregon a couple of months ago haven't caused straight people all over that state to "turn gay," that pretty much settles the issue, doesn't it? After all, hasn't everyone who opposes SSM been predicting that that would happen? Imagine, weeks and weeks have gone by, and no outbreak of "turning gay" yet! And no rush (yet!) of straight married couples suddenly filing for divorce, saying that same-sex couples tying the knot caused them to do it. The fact that people of good will can make these statements -- the fact that they apparently sincerely believe that opposition to SSM is actually grounded in the expectation that marriages will collapse overnight and in fears about people "turning gay" -- tells me that opponents of SSM have simply not yet successfully explained the ways in which SSM is likely over time to weaken marriage as an institution. If we are going to argue about this, shouldn't the argument at least be a serious one? link
ADULT CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES: Stacey Simon
[Stacey Simon is an attorney in New York City.] I felt compelled to reply to Cassidy and say you are the exception NOT the rule. I am the daughter of two moms. I am now 30 years old. I am an attorney in New York City, with a successful career and am married -- to a man. I have always felt nothing but love and joy in my household with my two moms. I grew up without any complexes about my mothers' sexuality, but instead grew up with an open mind and without the prejudices most kids have. My dating and sexual relationships with men and my friendships with women have always been fulfilling, perfectly normal and comfortable. I also grew up knowing several other families like mine, with gay parents. All of those children, including myself, were (and are) happy humans and all grew up to be straight (heterosexual), married with children and successful careers. I am a firm believer that anyone with love and compasssion to share with a child shoud be a parent and thier sexuality should be irrelevant to their capacity to love a child. There are enough heterosexual couples who have children who should NOT be parents. A heterosexual couple is no better equipped to be parents just because the household it is comprised of a man and a woman. And maybe some gay couples shouldn't be parents, but not because they are gay, for the same reasons that some heterosexual couples shouldn't be parents -- not everyone is cut out for parenthood. We shouldn't be so quick to draw lines -- homosexuals make bad parents and heterosexuals make good parents -- that's preposterous and narrow minded! Maybe Cassidy's parents wouldn't have made good parents if they were a part of a heterosexual couple either. Maybe they weren't capable of the love and support that is necessary to be a parent. On the other hand - if Cassidy grew up with love and support and that just wasn't enough, I seriously doubt that any heterosexual couple could have given her what she needed to make her happy. Another note to Cassidy -- instead of feeling like a science experiment -- you should have the mentality of an adopted child . . . your parents wanted you enough to find a way to have you instead of other couples who go "oops -- the condom broke so I guess we're having a baby". I and many other children I have come to know who were raised in gay households are very happy and well adjusted humans and do not feel cheated in any way. In fact, I have a greater capacity for tolerance so that I feel better off than other people I know. And I do not say this out of fear for speaking the truth--it is the truth!
GOP STRATEGY LIKELY TO BACKFIRE: R.K. Becker
If gay marriage spreads rapidly throughout the United States within the next few years with increasingly meek opposition, the Republican leadership and strategy will bear a significant part of the blame. Not that the Democratic leadership wasn't disingenuous in their early claims that Republicans were just using the SSM as a partisan "wedge issue." They knew full well that the issue had been thrust on the country by SSM activists and judges, not the GOP. But it didn't take long for the Republicans to start acting very much as if they only saw this issue as the Democrats described it. Hence the plan to introduce the FMA this week, when it clearly doesn't have the votes, only for the purposes of getting Democrats on the record against it, in the hope that this will lead to a gain of Republican seats in November's elections. In other words, politics trumps saving marriage, and (in my opinion) saving America from ultimate cultural collapse. If politicians really care about an issue, they will try to maximize the number of supporters on both sides of the political aisle, not hope to maximize the opposing votes across the aisle. When it comes to voting on an issue which you truly care about, play to win (on the issue, not the party), or don't play at all. I'm afraid that this ploy is going to look like politics to most voters, and won't have the results that the GOP is hoping for. The tragedy is that it may well cause a further eroding in the public's opposition to SSM. Why is it so hard to get moderate and conservative Democrats to support some measure that will at least contain the rush toward SSM? Especially when over two-thirds of Dems supported DOMA. I can't help getting the distinct impression that Republicans don't really want any substantial number of Democrats to support any measure which may prevent or contain SSM. Though I realize that Democratic special interest groups are putting the pressure on their party to hold firm, most Dems know full well that a wide perception that the party has come to represent the values of the Hollywood/college campus culture has been the main factor in their loss of Congressional seats, not only in the South, but in the more rural and old blue-collar parts of the North as well. Dems can't afford to enforce discipline on representatives from these areas. Thirty years ago, it was Democrats like Sam Ervin and Emanuel Celler that led the opposition to the ERA. Those who really want to stop SSM should be working with conservative Democrats, not ignoring them. But this is so typical of the strategic blunders of the Republicans in recent years, and it is one reason why I still consider myself a culturally conservative Democrat, as much as that species has been disappearing.
FAMILY STRUCTURE: Chairm Ohn replies to Joshua Jasper and Mark Barton
[Chairm is a retired educator "currently traveling in the American Heartland."] Josh Jasper said: "The main difference in a child having two parents of the same sex is going to be in growing up with a hostile culture, and probably with the GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual and transgendered) culture as a support for the parents. I don't think that's comparable to having one's parents divorce and re-marry, and I'd be interested in hearing any ideas on why that might be." By far most of the children living with same-sex couples are the offspring of previously procreative marriages with the opposite sex. They have the same potential legal protections as other children of divorce. And they do have both moms and dads. The second adults in these same-sex relationships are more like social (rather than adoptive) stepparents who must cope with a blended family; but with the added complication of standing in for the opposite-sex parent. And doing so in a supposedly gender-neutral manner as companion of the custodial parent. On that score it is worth considering the emerging trend of state legislatures enacting the presumption of joint custody. This seems to dampen the rate of divorce. It also increases the involvement of both parents in the lives of their children after divorce. That is a good thing for the children. So where would that place most of the second adults in same-sex households that raise children if not in the realm of something like social stepparents? Mark Barton wrote that "On the one hand you won't succeed in getting gay men into opposite-sex marriages simply by making same-sex marriage unavailable." Mr. Barton concludes that gay men in opposite-sex marriages would "be spectacularly pointless or even counterproductive because (i) such marriages are not particularly stable, (ii) men in such marriages are likely to be cheating with other men in unsavory circumstances that promote STDs, and (iii) gay men are not particularly likely to father children except in such marriages." These three speculative points are subject to assumptions about marriage. First, that sexual preference is not fluid; that the experience of mixed-orientation marriages is more spectacularly pointless and unstable than the average marriage. Second, that gay men who marry women in order to, e.g., have their own children are generally prone to unsavory sexual behavior; that may or may not be so within or without marriage -- as per the common view among gay activists that monogamy need not mean sexual exclusivity in SSM. | ||||||||||
