COURT TO GAYS: DON'T ASK US: Alan Hirsch

...Scalia's magnanimity comes free of risk: He knows that gays, a relatively small and historically marginalized group, face a tremendous uphill fight in the political arena. Other judges, too, turn a blind eye to this reality. When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down that state's prohibition of same-sex marriage, Justice Robert J. Cordy chided his colleagues for usurping the role of the legislature and added: "There is no reason to believe that legislative processes are inadequate to effectuate legal changes in response to evolving evidence, social values, and views of fairness on the subject of same-sex relationships."

No reason? One wonders what Justice Cordy thought when, the next year, 11 states amended their constitutions to protect the institution of marriage from feared contamination by same-sex couples. Several of those states went further, denying same-sex couples any of the tangible rights and benefits accompanying marriage. Justices Cordy and Scalia ignore the fact that the deck is stacked against certain minority groups. And they, like President Bush, ignore the historical role of the courts in protecting such groups.

In one of the proudest moments in America's jurisprudential history, the famous "footnote four" in the 1938 case of United States v. Carolene Products, the Supreme Court acknowledged that courts should generally accept results arrived at through the democratic process. But, the Court suggested, there are exceptional circumstances when the Court must subject such results to greater scrutiny. One such circumstance, the Court proposed, is when "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities" mars the political process. ...

A depressing irony in President Bush's State of the Union address has gone unnoticed. In the very next sentence after calling for an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, Bush observed that "a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable." He was talking about fetuses. Someone should remind the president that the unborn are not the only members of society who cannot defend themselves at the ballot box. And we all should think twice before amending the Constitution to prevent judges from protecting those who, through no fault of their own, cannot protect themselves.

more
posted by Eve at 7:05 PM | link 0 comments

SANDRA BULLOCK ON MARRIAGE: Various

[Okay, so this is the kind of news story in which I have exactly no interest: Apparently S. Bullock was quoted as saying, "Why is marriage the pinnacle for everyone? People get married for the wrong reasons. We need to start looking at different packages, whether it's living together, or being with six partners or dedicating your life to taking care of flowers." This quote did, though, spark an interesting if scattershot discussion in the comments here. Some snippets of the discussion (all quotes from different commenters):]

"At the risk of sounding like a Republican (I'm a lifelong Democrat and I don’t even want people to THINK I might be a Republican!), marriage has a place in our society. It really is good for the stability of society and the family. As far as I'm concerned that goes for same sex marriages. Who isn't for stability and love? It's not a question of need but if Sandra B. decides to have children, having two parents at home is a lot better for kids. Take it from me. Kids are harder to raise than you think. They are cute and cuddly when they are infants but they grow up fast and are a lot of work and cost a lot of money. Two heads are beter than one."

............

"Marriage is more compatible with many aspects of human nature, resulting in a society which does not have to spend as much time/energy/resources socializing people into accepting one of its building blocks. It still requires socialization -- but not as much as the constant re-education needed to get people to accept a modern communal style of living. (For example, compare the efforts required to establish and continue the kibbutzes in Israel. It's not impossible, but it takes a lot less energy to perpetuate a society built around marriage than it does to perpetuate one built around other concepts.)"

.............

"Family structures are often driven by economics. Whether hunter-gatherers, medieval nobles, or modern Americans, how people arrange their romantic relationships, living arrangements and childcare is driven in large part by what works economically. The atomic family unit is specific to historical periods and economic situations, as is the hunter-gatherer band and the clan system of the Scottish highlands.

"So, in that sense, there's something too simple about generalizing to human nature from any time's or place's family relationship. The fact is, humans have made so many changes to our environments, and have socialized each other so much, that it is very difficult to say what 'human nature' is."

............

"By the way, I'm an adult who lives with a 15-month-old girl and her parents (among other folks). The arrangement means that there are more adults around to watch the toddler; less isolation from adult company, compared to what some (not all) other parents experience; and it means that her parents can afford to go to college. If you read the literature on communal housing arrangements, intentional households, and intentional communities, you'd run into plenty of articles written by parents who find it an excellent arrangement for raising children."

more
posted by Eve at 8:50 PM | link 0 comments

REPORT: CT COULD LOSE $1 MILLION/YEAR IF CIVIL UNIONS ALLOWED: From the Boston Globe

Connecticut could lose nearly $1 million a year because of decreased inheritance tax revenue if the state allows civil unions of same-sex couples, a new legislative report says.

Municipalities would also pay a price, up to $1.5 million a year for health insurance, pensions and other benefits for town and city workers who enter into civil unions, according to the legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis.

The report provided general cost estimates, but said the true cost of civil unions is difficult to estimate. ...

The primary financial effect on the state budget would be lost revenue from the succession tax. Under state law, wives and husbands inherit property from their spouses tax-free, but unmarried partners are required to pay taxes. ...

Sen. Andrew McDonald, a Stamford Democrat and co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the lost revenue proves the inequities gays and lesbians now face.

"Under current law, (same-sex) partners are at a real economic disadvantage because they are considered to be legal strangers -- they're no more connected than if you left a bequest to your neighbor down the street," McDonald said. "To me that underscores very real economic discrimination."

The loss of tax revenue is "the price we will pay to end this legal discrimination," McDonald said.

more
posted by Eve at 3:24 PM | link 0 comments

DEFENDING MARRIAGE, REJECTING INJUSTICE AND DISCRIMINATION: Archbp Alexander J. Brunett

...Marriage existed before churches and governments because the union of a man and woman is unique in its ability to create children and give them the best environment for growth and wholesome development. Defending marriage between a man and woman is a matter of critical importance because it is a building block for the family, which in turn serves as the foundation for society.

Proponents of legalizing same-sex unions characterize marriage as a right. They even use terminology associated with the civil-rights struggles of the 1960s. Some of the rights they claim under the banner of "gay marriage" may indeed be legitimate and the bishops of Washington believe this is a subject for legitimate public debate.

We believe, however, that this debate will gain legitimacy only if it focuses on the God-given right of all people to dignity and equality, and not from a distorted understanding of marriage. Catholic Church teaching makes it clear that if such benefits were to be legislated, they must be granted without damaging the essential character of marriage between a man and a woman. ...

Proponents of same-sex unions and so-called gay marriage have accused those defending marriage as mean-spirited and intolerant. To them I would say that Catholic Church teaching on the dignity and equality of all persons is no less clear than our teaching on matrimony. We reject all unjust discrimination, recognize the inherent dignity of all people and strive to provide every person with equal protection under the law. Our track record here in Washington will confirm that point.

We must, however, defend our teaching that marriage was not created by the church or state but by God, and that the union of a man and woman in marriage is ordered by God and nature for the common good.

more
posted by Eve at 5:41 PM | link 0 comments

IT'S NOT ANTI-GAY TO BE PRO- MOM AND DAD: Kathleen Parker

...But within the larger context of the same-sex marriage debate, [Romney's] meaning might be understood as something else. Not that gays have no right to families of their own, but that in principle, children's interests are best served by having both a mother and a father.

Most Americans agree with that statement -- which is imminently reasonable and which surely is just as true for gay children as for straights. How many gays or lesbians, after all, would prefer to have had no mother, or no father, as the case may be? ...

Again, nothing Romney said suggests either that he would break up gay couples or try to prevent abused children from finding a safe home, even with a same-sex couple. Believing that children are best off with a mother and a father is a principle, not a strategy for hurting people who happen to be homosexual.

The Globe editorial also relies on the testimony of children to make a case for same-sex marriage. Doubtless these are lovely children who love their parents, but they ARE children. One, an 11-year-old boy whose parents are lesbians, spoke at a recent demonstration outside the governor's office, saying:

"My family is just an ordinary family, and I don't know why we can't live together and be happy."

Again, no one has said this child can't live with his two mothers or that he can't be happy. What traditional-family advocates believe is that an 11-year-old boy also would benefit from having a dad. By endorsing same-sex marriage, society effectively declares otherwise.

Obviously, he's better off without a dad who is also an abusive, pill-popping, philandering drunk. But once again, the worst dad possible should not be our standard for defining family policy.

Ultimately, there may be no resolution to these differences in perspective. No one can fault gays and lesbians for wanting spouses and children of their own. We all -- hetero and homo -- seem to be equally deranged on that score. But the essential question is not what adults want, but what is best for children.

more
posted by Eve at 5:36 PM | link 0 comments

POLYGAMY: Marty McKeever replies to Jonathan Rowe

Jonathan asks:

Question: What if, because of overwhelming drives in human nature, the new polygamy, put into practice in a system that does its best to ensure that it is consensual and adult, looks a lot like the "old polygamy"? What if, in this world, the Donald Trumps and Bill Gates of the world end up with hundreds of wives to the exclusion of "lesser" men? Would this still be okay?

An unimportant question. The question at hand is, would that be Constitutional?
posted by Eve at 9:09 PM | link 0 comments

CANADIAN POLITICIAN, SSM, CATHOLIC CHURCH: From the Hill Times

Rookie NDP MP Charlie Angus says he was confronted by his Catholic parish priest over his open support of the Liberal government's legislation to legalize same-sex marriage about three weeks ago and was told he will be denied holy communion during mass if he votes with the government on the controversial legislation.

Mr. Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ont.), a devout practising Catholic who has an active church life, hasn't been to Sunday mass since and said he doesn't know when he'll go back.

"I haven't decided what I will do," said a despondent Mr. Angus in a telephone interview with The Hill Times from his riding last week. "I go to mass not to have to deal with problems, but to get a respite from them, so with the friction... it doesn't really make me feel on Sunday morning like getting up and going." ...

Father Lemire is also the coordinator for the "Marriage Campaign" in the diocese and has taken a leading role in a campaign urging Roman Catholics throughout the region to target Mr. Angus and Liberal MP Anthony Rota (Nipissing-Timiskaming, Ont.), who is also a Catholic and supports same-sex marriage.

Father Lemire said that "it's a cause of scandal and concern that both [Mr. Angus and Mr. Rota] profess to be good practising Catholics and yet vote in favour of the legislation."

more
posted by Eve at 8:59 PM | link 0 comments

BASE ADOPTION ON PARENTAL FITNESS, NOT MARITAL STATUS: Detroit Free Press editorial

If two adults who are married can adopt a child and a single adult who is unmarried can adopt a child, should not two single adults living in the same household be able to adopt a child? It only makes sense.

But Michigan Children's Ombudsman Lynne Martinez bought herself a boatload of drama when she offered that logic in her most recent report to the governor and Legislature. Among the seven recommendations in the report -- issued last October but apparently not read by some lawmakers until last week -- Martinez suggests that the state adoption code be changed so as not to automatically disqualify two unmarried adults from adopting.

Her rationale is simple: "All decisions regarding who should be given consent to legally adopt a child should be based on parental fitness, not on marital status."

Martinez's report points out that unrelated adults may be foster parents to a child, but if they form a bond with that child and want to become legally responsible, only one of them may actually adopt. That means the child would be limited to health benefits from only one parent, even though the other may have a more complete policy; only one parent could authorize health care; if one parent dies, the child might collect Social Security or other financial benefits, but if the other does, the child would not; and if the non-adoptive parent should die or become incapacitated, the child would have no legal relationship to the other adult in the household. It also means only one parent would be liable for child support if the two should separate.

more
posted by Eve at 5:06 AM | link 0 comments

POLYGAMY: Jonathan Rowe

...Question: What if, because of overwhelming drives in human nature, the new polygamy, put into practice in a system that does its best to ensure that it is consensual and adult, looks a lot like the "old polygamy"? What if, in this world, the Donald Trumps and Bill Gates of the world end up with hundreds of wives to the exclusion of "lesser" men? Would this still be okay?

more
posted by Eve at 5:03 AM | link 0 comments

TRANSSEXUAL FATHERHOOD?: Joanna Grossman

Can a pre-operative female-to-male transsexual be a "father"? That was the question in In re Marriage of Simmons, a recent appellate decision in Illinois.

The Simmons case raises interesting questions about transsexual marriage and legal parenthood. It also reflects the continuing difficulties courts are having in attempting to reconcile traditional laws with nontraditional situations.

From "Bessie" to "Sterling": Born Female, But Certified Male

From a young age, Bessie Lewis experienced discomfort with having a girl's body. In psychiatric terms, he suffered from "gender dysphoric disorder" -- a condition that occurs when a person's anatomical sex and gender identity are mismatched. (Throughout this column, I will follow the appeals court in referring to Sterling as "he" "out of respect," as the Illinois court did, -- rather than to beg the questions this column will discuss.)

To ease his dysphoria, Bessie began taking male hormones, which gave him the outward appearance of a man; he had facial hair, male pattern baldness, a deep voice, and bigger muscles. In this transitional state, he married a woman, Jennifer Simmons.

Several years later, the couple decided to have a child with the help of artificial insemination. Before proceeding with the insemination, they entered into a written agreement with each other. It specified that "the husband" agreed that from the moment of conception, any children produced from the insemination would be his legitimate children; that he waived any right to disclaim parental responsibility; and that the children would have the same rights as his natural children. In short, Sterling agreed to take on all the obligations and rights of fatherhood, and Jennifer agreed to his doing so.

Shortly before the child was born, Lewis underwent surgery to remove his internal female organs; however, he retained his external female genitalia. A hysterectomy was performed to remove his uterus, and an oophorectomy was performed to remove his ovaries.

When Jennifer Simmons gave birth to a child, Sterling was listed on the birth certificate as the father.

Several years later, pursuant to a procedure set out in Illinois law, Lewis obtained a new birth certificate for himself. Once he presented an affidavit from his doctor that he had undergone "surgical operations," his sex was officially changed from "female" to "male." Lewis also officially changed his name to Sterling Robert Simmons.

The Issue in the Case: Was the Simmons' an Invalid Same-Sex Marriage?

Over the years, the relationship between Sterling and Jennifer deteriorated. When their child was almost seven years old, Sterling filed for divorce under Illinois law and requested sole custody of their child. Jennifer opposed the petition.

In particular, Jennifer argued that their marriage was invalid as a same-sex marriage. (Like a substantial majority of states, Illinois law expressly prohibits marriage between two individuals of the same sex.) And because their marriage was invalid, she contended, Sterling could not be the child's legal father. Moreover, since he had never legally adopted the child, and had no biological relationship to the child, he had no basis for seeking custody.

The trial court agreed with Jennifer. It decreed the marriage void ab initio (that is, invalid from the outset), because, in the court's view, Sterling was still female -- so the marriage had been an invalid same-sex marriage throughout its tenure. ...

Finally, Sterling argued that he should be granted parental rights under a common law theory of de facto parenthood: The child called him "Daddy," and believed him to be his natural father. But the court held that the IPA superseded any prior common law theories of parental rights. The court also held that for the IPA to cover "evolving social structures" and "nontraditional relationships," the legislature would have to amend it; the court wouldn't interpret the IPA to apply to these relationships unless the legislature said as much. ...

Treating a person as one sex, when he has been living as the opposite, is bound to impose harsh results sometimes. Here, Sterling was living as a "husband" and raising a child as a "father," co-parenting the child he treated as his own from birth. But the court took away both statuses from him.

Since Sterling is separated from Jennifer, he may not care as much about losing the retrospective status of "husband," but he certainly cares -- as his suit has proven -- about losing the status of "father" -- and therefore, that of "parent," for he cannot be deemed child's mother, either, even though the court sees him as female. ...

What relevance do sex characteristics possibly have to parenthood? And how dare we ask persons to alter their bodies so profoundly in order to establish their status as parents? Worse, Illinois law picks out a subset of all persons -- based on a psychiatric condition -- to inflict this brutal choice upon. Illinois law has a dramatic, disparate impact on those who happened to suffer from this condition.

It may be time, now that this ruling has been issued, for that discrepancy to be separately challenged -- as an infringement of privacy and due process. What is the "rational basis" for asking some persons to have irrelevant surgery so that they may become parents? In my view, there is none.

more
posted by Eve at 6:12 PM | link 0 comments

FILIPINO MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS PROTEST "TWO-CHILD" BILL: From AsiaNews

[An excellent Amartya Sen piece on population control is here. --Eve]

Some 10,000 people marched in Manila against the "Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act," also known as the "two-child" bill.

The bill, which has already been approved by a committee of the Filipino Congress, provides economic incentives to couples who choose to have only two children and funds for a vast promotional campaign on the use of contraceptives. It also includes fines and jail for those who oppose population control measures. ...

Filipino Bishops have said the bill "is a violation of the privacy and autonomy of couples and families." By contrast, for the bill's backers, population control is the only means to lift people out of poverty and misery.

Archbishop Mariano Aniceto, chairman of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines' Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, insisted that "poverty was not a result of overpopulation but of wrong economic prioritization." ...

Manila Mayor Jose "Lito" Atienza Jr, a well-known pro-lifer, was among the protesters. "I cannot in conscience agree to a measure that would brainwash people into thinking that the solution to poverty is population control," he said. "It is just an alibi for failure of the government. Effective governance, anchored on positive values, is what is needed to genuinely address the problem."

Mayor Atienza added that the "two-child" bill was a "tool promoting abortion and a culture of death."

more
posted by Eve at 6:07 PM | link 0 comments

WHAT SSM MEANS FOR MOMS AND DADS: Douglas Tynan replies to Maggie Gallagher

[Replying to this post. --Eve]

One of the major confusions that editorial writers have is confusing a political statement by groups such as the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry or the American Psychological Association with research. There is really a dearth of research on children raised by gay couples and the studies cited by the American Academy of Pediatrics in their statement two years ago supporting second parent adoption (legalization of both gay parents) is research largely published in the Journal of Homosexuality and related journals with largely gay editors. There was one study in Developmental Psychology about two or three years ago done in England looking at lesbian couples and the authors commented on the detached style of the partner of the mothers. In other words, they found some differences worth discussing but their findings were buried under politics. The APA in particular has abandoned its scientific ideals in favor of polities. And in the column cited, while Romney does not talk about religion, the Boston Globe does.

For what its worth, I prefer to keep religion out of this discussion entirely and look at the cold, hard realities of gay marriage:

We know the following about gay marriage/civil unions:

From surveys done in Vermont we know that sexual fidelity is very important to the overwhelming majority of married heterosexuals, but is very important to less than half of gay couples seeking civil unions in Vermont.

Gay couples are by biological definition sterile.

Divorce rates appear higher, and again, in surveys, permanence of marriage is not as valued in gay couples as in straight couples.

So my summary, when I am asked, is that most marriages between heterosexuals are for people in their 20's & 30's and those people have expectations that marriages will produce children, be life long and they value fidelity. Of course these are ideals and some marriages may only achieve 2 or 3 of these ideals.

But if people are to marry without any of these three ideals as goals, I am not sure if most would consider it a marriage.

"Sterile, temporary and non-monogamous does not sound like marriage to most of us, regardless of our religous beliefs."

I think that's the 5 second sound bite that may be useful.
posted by Eve at 8:48 AM | link 0 comments

STRAIGHT TALKING: From the Wall Street Journal

[Also discussed here. --Eve]

...On Wednesday, though, a new offense, by a new perpetrator, surfaced at Harvard: heterosexism.

In a Crimson article, writer Anna M. Friedman reported on negative reaction to a campus speech last Saturday by the actress-musician Jada Pinkett Smith. Ms. Pinkett Smith, who is married to the actor Will Smith, was in Cambridge to receive the "Artist of the Year" award from the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations. As part of the foundation's Cultural Rhythms show, Ms. Pinkett Smith performed with her band. She also talked to the audience about her life and career, and noted that her ability to overcome disadvantages--she said she was the child of teenage heroin addicts--was proof that if you follow your dream "and don't let anybody define who you are" you can succeed. Personal happiness is possible too, she added: "Women, you can have it all--a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. . . . To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas, be open."

Nice, motivational stuff, it would seem, and many in the audience felt inspired. Not all, though. Among the campus groups affiliated with the foundation is the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance, or BGLTSA, and it didn't like some of what it heard. A co-chair of the group, Jordan B. Woods, told Ms. Friedman that part of Ms. Pinkett Smith's speech was "extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable." In other words, Mr. Woods and others in BGLTSA explained, by focusing on a heterosexual relationship, Ms. Pinkett Smith took such a narrow view that some in the audience felt left out. Nobody called her a homophobe. Through ignorance, she just came off as "insensitive."

more
posted by Eve at 8:41 AM | link 0 comments

"POSTCARDS FROM BUSTER" TWO-MOMS EPISODE: David Frum

[Interesting discussion in comments here, also. --Eve]

...Yesterday's [Washington Post] Style section had a front-page story on Christian evangelicals active on Capitol Hill and another story right beside a recent public screening of the now-famous lesbian episode of the PBS children's series, "Postcards From Buster." ...

Even when confronted with affirmative evidence that there is rather more to the Buster story, Montgomery contrived not to notice it. "Pieper [one of the women featured in the Buster Vermont episode] said the producers had been looking for two-mom families and settled on hers after another option fell through. They liked how Emma and her siblings and moms interacted." In other words, this is not a case of some over-active imagination over-interpreting Tinky Winky's handbag. Buster's producers consciously intended to use their position of trust as publicly funded broadcasters of children's programming to advance a highly controversial agenda of their own. For them to act shocked, shocked, shocked that anybody might object is highly disingenuous. And for a reporter to feign shock along with them is doubly disingenuous.

more
posted by Eve at 8:37 AM | link 0 comments

AUSTRALIAN DIVORCE RATE DROPS: From The Sunday Telegraph

DIVORCE rates have dropped for the first time in nearly 20 years, new research shows.

Australians are showing a renewed commitment to marriage, according to a new report released exclusively to The Sunday Telegraph yesterday.

The international study, conducted by the University of Western Sydney, revealed the divorce rate dropped by four per cent in the past two years.

Professor Martin Dowson, the director of the UWS Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation research centre, said it was possible the divorce rates could fall by a further 15 per cent over the next five years. ...

"Marriage figures in Australia are on the rise. People's negative experiences of divorce in their childhood cause them to commit more strongly." ...

And more couples are choosing to walk down the aisle. In 2003, 106,400 marriages were registered in Australia -- an increase of 3260 marriages since 2001. ...

Australian Bureau of Statistics research shows couples are waiting until they are older -- 29 for women and 31 for men -- before tying the knot.

more
posted by Eve at 8:35 AM | link 0 comments

WATCHDOG GROUP WANTS POLYGAMOUS JUDGE UNSEATED: From the Salt Lake Tribune

Hildale Justice Court Judge Walter Steed -- an admitted polygamist with three wives and 32 children -- should be removed from the bench, according to a recommendation by Utah's judicial watchdog group.


The Judicial Conduct Commission claims Steed violated the law and his oath of office by engaging in bigamy.

In documents filed with the Utah Supreme Court, the commission concludes that removal from the bench is the only appropriate sanction because "Steed does not intend to change his living arrangements, which means he will continue to violate Utah law." ...

Parker claimed during a Jan. 20 hearing before the Judicial Conduct Commission that because Steed's wives were adults, the Utah Attorney General and Washington County Attorney offices had both declined to prosecute him for bigamy.

"He is really here because of his religion and because of the way that he organizes his family in his private life," Parker told commission members.

more
posted by Eve at 8:31 AM | link 0 comments

REPORT FROM YALE SSM CONFERENCE: Tom Sylvester

[This was the paragraph I found most interesting. --Eve]

...[Matt Coles of the ACLU] also talked about giving legal recognition to other non-marital relationships, given the increasingly large numbers of people aren't getting married. Was marriage law created to induce people to marry? Or should the law be about reflecting relationships that exist? He argued that people are going to want and need some kind of legal structure that will recognize non-marital relationships. And the law may slowly be going in that very direction.

more
posted by Eve at 8:28 AM | link 0 comments

SSM AND SCAPEGOATING: Tom Sylvester

...Perhaps Mr. Jackson has been concerned with father absence for years, but the link between same-sex marriage and high rates of father absence among blacks is incredibly tenuous. Given poverty, unemployment, incarceration, discrimination, education, out-of-wedlock childbearing, and so on, the import of same-sex marriage is miniscule. It's sad to see some (by no means most, of course) black church leaders jump on the anti-gay bandwagon. There are many complex reasons behind the fact that two-thirds of black babies are born out of wedlock, but the "homosexual agenda" isn't one of them. This is classic scapegoating.

more
posted by Eve at 8:26 AM | link 0 comments

BY THE WAY (in re Esperanza): Eve

I realize I could have been clearer about how that "Esperanza/poly-marriage" post came to be written, and what I hoped to learn from it. Partly I was unclear because I was operating on intuition. I wanted to see what kinds of arguments would have to be made to support "polyamorous" marriage: What would you have to think marriage is? What would you have to think it is for? Which arguments would strike you as valid or invalid? My main thing is fiction writing, not journalism, so the easiest way to get at these questions, for me, was to create a persona, live in her skin for a while, and see what she'd say to the obvious questions. Where would she feel like she's really getting a raw deal? What would she think she's earned, and why?

I'd be really interested to see which of her premises and argument-strategies (argh, that sounds more Machiavellian than I mean--I just mean which arguments she thinks are valid and which aren't) people agree with, and which they reject. (For one easy example, I think the argument(s) she makes about sexual fidelity are just kinda lame. They're not even really arguments--they're a kind of rote, moralizing condescension.)

I do think comparing Esperanza's premises and strategies to one's own would be helpful in the same-sex marriage debate, but it's also at least as helpful--maybe more--in other marriage-related debates: for example, whether government and/or culture should promote marriage, and how. What would be promoted and why?

So anyway, that's what I was trying to do there. If people find it interesting, please jump on in, since I do think there's more to say here; if not, though, I will accept it and move on!
posted by Eve at 8:15 AM | link 0 comments

THE NEW POLYGAMY: Jason Kuznicki

...I think it is helpful to break the issue into three distinct questions.

First: Is there anything about the new polygamy that clearly harms the participants?

Second: Is there anything about it that clearly harms others?

Third: Is it desirable--or possible--to offer government recognition for these unions?

In a sense, question one is none of my business, as I am not in a union of this type. I can say, though, from knowing some people who are, that I do not see any indication of harm. It's not a scientific observation, of course, but I also don't know of anyone who has done any hard research on the topic.

As to question two, Jon Rowe's original point seems strong in some ways and weak in others. Rowe writes,

We outlaw polygamy for precisely the same policy reason why we would demand the recognition of gay marriage: the meaningful chance for any individual to marry a person they love. The gay man, like the single-unlucky male in a polygamous society cannot marry any person he loves.

Now, if consenting polygamy were overwhelmingly one-man-plus-multiple-women, this would certainly be a problem. If, however, these unions were balanced out by an equal number of one-woman-plus-multiple-men partnerships, then the objection would disappear. Likewise, it is difficult to see any danger to allowing gay-only or lesbian-only polygamous unions, as these do not upset the sex ratio that we are trying to preserve.

So far, then, I don't have any moral objections to consenting adult polygamous unions. I have tremendous difficulties, though, when I try to answer the third question, and to understand just how these unions will be recognized by the government.

Whatever long term social effects may arise from same-sex marriages, their legal institution would be very simple to bring about. This is not the case with polygamous unions, where, if we are to avoid the possibility of exploitation by one overly-powerful partner, the web of mutual rights and obligations among the participants must grow exponentially with each addition to the union. How would a group of eight, say, make decisions about property, children's education, and so forth? Gabriel Rosenberg makes some very good points in this area, and in general I agree with his rejection of government-sanctioned polygamy as too legally difficult and far too open to abuse.

So: To my polyamorous friends, please, do not think for a moment that I oppose your unions or that I think them improper. Please recognize, though, if you can, that where same-sex civil marriage could be accomplished easily, overnight, and with a minimal chance of abuse, the same does not seem true of civil polygamy.

more
posted by Eve at 8:11 AM | link 0 comments

THE NEW POLYGAMY: Gabriel Rosenberg

...I would tell Esperanza, I wouldn't say that you were necessarily wrong, but what is it that you are asking for? Same-sex couples are asking that the same rules of marriage that apply to everyone else apply equally to them. Just read the laws gender neutrally. That cannot be what Esperanza is asking for. She must be asking for distinct rules. Before we can judge whether we should rewrite the marital laws to conform to these new rules, we must know what they are. So Espereranza please tell us how you would rewrite the thousands of statutes and policies which deal with marriage. Then we can begin to examine what effect these numerous changes might have. For example, the anonymous libertarian polygamist Eve refers to writes:

None of us took our marriage vows lightly; we thought and talked and made contracts to spell out how the relationships would work and how they'd end, if they end. It works for us.

Is Esperanza also proposing that every married "group" will define their own unique obligations and divorce rules? Such a system would be replacing civil marriage by a system of private contracts. A few libertarians have proposed this style of "private marriage" which gets the government out of the marriage business (other than the usual enforcement of contracts). I can think of a number of a problems with such a system, but I don't want to be attacking a straw man. So I would like Esperanza to spell out how precisely her new system of marriage would work. Would each person in the group be bilaterally married to each other person? Would there be some proper subset of pairs which are married (and others which are not married)? Or would there just be one group "marriage"? If the latter, how does one define spouse? In any of these cases how would divorce work? Is there a limit to the number of people that can be involved in this group? Can new people enter into an existing group? What bilateral obligations exist? What obligations does one have towards the group as a whole? These are just a few of the questions that must be answered before we can begin to evaluate Esperanza's plan.

more
posted by Eve at 8:08 AM | link 0 comments

IN DEFENSE OF POLYGAMY: Tim Sandefur

... The right to marry is a right based on contract--which means, based on the right of more than one person to exercise and trade their liberty as they see fit. The reason for recognition of gay marriage is that if two men wish to be married, that violates nobody else's rights, and therefore I don't have the right to stop them. (Well, that's the rough version.) If that theory is correct, then the exact same thing goes for consensual adult polygamy: a person certainly should be free to marry any person he loves, who is also a willing participant.

Note that the only argument that Rowe (or Jason Kuznicki) seems to be able to come up with against polygamy is to say that it isn't really consensual. Well, that might be true, but that begs the question. The relevant proposition is: consenting adults should be free to arrange their marriages as they see fit, so long as it violates nobody else's rights. Pointing to child exploitation in no way contradicts that proposition--indeed, it is perfectly consistent with it. Now, if in practice it turns out that there is no such thing as consensual polygamy, then polygamy would be banned, no problem. But if there is consensual polygamy, the state should not interfere with it. ...

[Another blogger, KipEsquire] makes a long argument that because he has difficulty imaging contractual solutions to the complexities of plural marriage, that therefore such solutions must not exist, and therefore marriage must be restricted to two people: "The legal implications of the [modern] status of marriage require, metaphysically, that it be between two and only two people"--a statement that makes about as much sense as saying that the legal implications of banking requires, metaphysically, that finance contracts must be between two and only two people. Contract finds a way.

And of course, Kip then turns around in a sentence and admits this and utterly destroys his own argument when he says:

If consensual polygamists want to try to build a bird's nest from the individual twigs and strings of contractual arrangements, then by all means they have a right to do so (assuming no externalities, especially to the children of such arrangements).

Well, if people can build that nest from individual twigs, then they have the right to find a more efficient way of arranging those twigs. After all, you could say that a husband and wife should have to arrange the individual strings of contractual arrangements about children, estates, tax benefits and whatnot. But instead we just call that group of arrangements "marriage." Why? Because "marriage, qua legal status, is extremely efficient economically. It saves time. It saves resources (e.g., lawyers drafting documents). It saves money." Exactly. And if "consensual polygamists" wish to build their bird's nest in the same "extremely efficient" way, then, assuming no externalities, they "by all means... have a right to do so"--which is exactly what I was saying all along.

more
posted by Eve at 8:03 AM | link 0 comments

ADVENTURES OF ESPERANZA: Eve

Am still thinking about the implications of the whole "types of polygamy" thing. (See below.) So let me walk through an argument, based in part on people I've known in polyamorous relationships. In this post, I'm using the persona of "Esperanza"--who is in long-term relationships with Lisa and Jack, and who is raising two children--to argue from a perspective that is definitely not my own, but that I think isn't presented in the mainstream media today because it's not (yet) assimilated, comfortable, or expedient. Stuff in bold is arguments against "Esperanza"'s position; everything else is in "her" voice. (Sorry for length....)

1. Marriage is how we show our love and commitment to one another. I agree.

2. But if we let you all marry, how will we know who makes the decisions, really? How will we know who should be listened to when you disagree? How do you know when the parents of a single woman disagree over, for example, her medical treatment, when she's incapacitated? It's not a great situation. But it's a lot better than treating one of my life partners as if she's "real family" and one of my life partners as if he's a stranger... isn't it?

3. We encourage people to marry so that someone will take care of them. But you've already got someone (Lisa or Jack) to take care of you. Why can't you settle for marrying just one of them? Because I don't love Lisa but not Jack, or Jack but not Lisa. I don't love one less than the other. I love them differently, because they're different people. Jack is the father of my older child (the younger one is adopted), but Lisa has been a part of both my kids' lives from the beginning. Why should I choose? Why should I tell my children that one of their parents is more important than the other? (If I choose Jack, I'm cutting Lisa off from children who call her "Mama"--I'm "Mommy"--and if I choose Lisa, I'm preventing my children from having a father. Is either of those options really okay?)

4. Marriage domesticates sexuality. I agree. It's astonishing to me that today, heterosexuals can practice what is essentially fake polygamy, forming halfhearted and traumatically shattered families one after the other, when I can't get legal recognition for the stable family of which I'm already a part. ...I also think it's kind of crazy that we think love is so scarce, so fragile, that we can only love one other person fully. Not only does this deny the reality of family life (where we generally love two parents, and/or multiple siblings, with an abiding passion), but it's pretty obviously based on an ahistorical and culturally-biased model of the nuclear family rather than the extended family.

5. If people can marry more than one person, doesn't that mean marriage no longer implies sexual fidelity? Oh, honey, that ship has sailed. Your wedding ring doesn't make you a no-fly zone anymore--easy divorce has seen to that. Even barring divorce, it's not as if open marriages are illegal--unlike poly marriages. And if you do think marriage requires sexual exclusivity, I'm still not sure what your problem is. Do you think you'll cheat on your wife if polygamy is legalized? Do you think your wife will cheat on you if she can suddenly marry me? Because if the answer isn't "no," I think your marriage has more problems than a political discussion can really address.

6. Polygamy is rooted in oppression of women. Sigh. What we usually think of as "polygamy," in which one man can marry many women, but no other family groupings are accepted, is definitely oppressive to women. But that has nothing to do with my life. This is like the '70s arguments that no women should marry because marriage is rooted in women's oppression. We learned that we can reshape marriage to be a more egalitarian arrangement, based on love and commitment rather than on a man's ownership of a woman. Similarly, my relationships with Jack and Lisa aren't based on a man's ownership of two women; they're an egalitarian and loving commitment we've all made to one another, despite societal discouragement. Who are you to tell us we're oppressive or regressive?

7. OK, so you're, personally, not oppressed. But if you can marry Jack and Lisa, what will stop abusive polygamists from promoting their way of life? I understand the concern here. I'm a feminist. But please, consider these two points before you say that feminists should oppose poly-marriage:
a) Most of the problems with fundamentalist religious polygamous communities arise from three sources: in this order, violence against women; statutory rape; and welfare fraud. All of these acts are already illegal. We know that "normal," "traditional" marriages aren't security against rape, battering, or other abusive acts. Poly-marriage won't be a guarantee against those acts either. But it's the abusive acts that should be prosecuted, not poly-marriage as such--just like with "regular" marriage.
b) In every culture in which polygamy has promoted and sheltered abuse, "polygamy" has meant one man with many wives. We know that only allowing that model hurts women. But the poly-marriage model, in which one woman can take many husbands or (perhaps more likely) individuals can make varied, married arrangements to share their family lives, has never been tried. "Poly" families already exist, are already raising children, and are already trying to build lives despite lack of governmental recognition. However, we will continue to face discrimination and discouragement unless we can legally protect our family relationships.

7. There really aren't a lot of families like you. No kidding. My family is constantly degraded--in both the mainstream and the gay press--as immoral and unstable. Not a lot of people want to put up with that kind of demonization. I don't know how my minority status somehow became an argument that I'm immoral. I kind of thought we were beyond that.

Eve again: Okay, so I've channeled Esperanza. My question for you: Is she wrong?
posted by Eve at 3:56 AM | link 0 comments