|
 |
 |
 Friday, July 01, 2005
WEDDING PLANNERS' OBJECTIONS TO VT CIVIL UNION PROMPTS DISCRIMINATION CHARGE: From CNSNews.com
Should a Vermont couple, wedding planners, be forced to host a same-sex civil union ceremony at their family-owned inn, if they object to such unions? A lesbian couple says yes, and it has filed a discrimination charge against the innkeepers, accusing them of violating Vermont's Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act. The innkeepers, identified only as Jim and Mary, say they did not refuse to plan or host the reception--but Jim did tell the woman who called him that he would have a hard time putting his heart into the event, given his Roman Catholic beliefs about marriage. The Liberty Counsel, which is representing Jim and Mary, has asked that the discrimination charge against them be dismissed on the grounds that the innkeepers, although they expressed reservations about the civil union ceremony, did not refuse to plan and host the event. The Liberty Counsel says there must be an exemption to the discrimination charge based upon the free exercise of religion, free association, and the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. (Jim and Mary have eight children who help run the inn, which is located on the same property as the family's home.) more posted by Eve at 6:21 PM | link 0 comments 
MUSLIM CONFERENCE FOCUSES ON FAMILY ISSUES: From the Hartford Courant
Thousands of Muslims are converging on downtown Hartford for a three-day convention beginning today, the first to be held at the new Connecticut Convention Center. The Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim American Society are co-sponsoring the event, which is focused on family issues. Programs range from helping children maintain a Muslim identity in school to surviving anti-Muslim backlash as a family; from enhancing marital relationships to preventing spousal abuse. One panel discussion is devoted to "the death bed of the family -- gay marriages, premarital sex, cohabitation and single parents." "Even though Muslim society is strongly focused around the family, we are still experiencing the same pressures, in terms of what is happening to the family in this society," said Naeem Baig, a spokesman for the Islamic Circle of North America, which is based in New York. more posted by Eve at 5:12 PM | link 0 comments
WHAT'S THE EXCUSE FOR INACTION NOW?: Gary Bauer
When Congress voted last year on a proposed federal marriage amendment to preserve traditional marriage, many politicians on both sides of the aisle opposed the amendment. Not one senator would publicly say that he or she supported homosexual marriage, but many dismissed a federal amendment as unnecessary because marriage was a state issue and no federal judge had threatened the meaning of marriage. A federal marriage amendment, opponents implied, was a solution in search of a problem. Last month, a federal judge in Nebraska struck down that state's marriage amendment, thus creating the problem for which a federal marriage amendment is now the only solution. But it didn't take a crystal ball to see it coming. Back in 2000, 70 percent of Nebraskans expressed the desire that marriage remain between one man and one woman. A single judge decided he knew better. While this is not the first time a judge has sought to redefine marriage against the people's will, this is the first time a state constitutional amendment has been struck down. It was the supposed strength of these state amendments to which many politicians alluded when they falsely claimed that a federal marriage amendment was unnecessary. Senator John McCain called an amendment un-Republican because it imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid stressed that he "believe[s] in the sanctity of marriage" but that, "before we tinker with our most cherished rights, we should allow the states to deal with this issue..." The Nebraska judge's decision is irrefutable proof that those who say marriage can be handled state by state are categorically wrong. more posted by Eve at 5:09 PM | link 0 comments
NO PRESSURE?: Marty McKeever replies to Eve
[my post here--Eve] Your last bit about "yes" and "no" does as good a job of illustrating the absurdity of SSM as anything I could say. If yes, then we've redefined family in a way that has nothing to do with marriage. If no, then we've redefined marriage in a way that has nothing do with family. Two sides of the same bent coin. Bernstein misses the forest for the trees with this gem: "[gay] people get into it because they have nurturing instincts that are so pressing they feel they must." You mean men and women have "nurturing intincts" that rise head and shoulders above their "sexual orientation"? Gee! Who'd have thought such a thing! Ayers and Brown would certainly disagree, based on this one: "Many heterosexual couples would resist the notion that there is a clearly defined role for one partner based on the fact that she's a woman, and a distinct role for the other partner based upon the fact that he's a man." There are no clearly defined roles for men and women anymore. Being male/father and female/mother are not "roles". And they are not "nurturing instincts" either. They are biological imperatives with zero regard for anyone's "orientation". Are there really heterosexuals who would resist this notion? posted by Eve at 4:54 PM | link 0 comments
NO PRESSURE?: Mark Miller replies to Eve
[my post is here--Eve] First, I think we need to clarify that there is a distinction between the phrase 'social norm' and 'social expectation'. There is a clear social expectation that opposite sex couples will have children. This is because sexual relations, which is an expected part of marriage, normatively results in procreation unless there is manual intervention such as birth control or health related reasons. This is different for same-sex couples where sexual contact cannot result in procreation, therefore, it is not expected from a social standpoint. But I'm not sure that 'social norm' is an accurate phrase in this context because, in my opinion, the 'norm' of wanting to raise a family applies equally to both same sex and opposite sex couples. But to answer your question, I think the answer is 'yes'. If same sex couples are granted legal recognition, with that should come the responsibility of being expected to raise children. To me, that comes with it just as the commitment of sexual fidelity does. I don't really see the problem with the 'mainstream'-ing of reproductive technologies that result in at least one of the partners being kept out of the biological drama. That technology is currently available to opposite sex couples and seems to me no different than adoption, where both partners are effectively kept out of the biological drama. I think that argument is being used arbitrarily against same sex couples. I've never seen any SSM opponent discourage the use of those technologies for opposite sex couples. That brings up the argument of the idea that children need mothers and fathers. I agree that is a good idea to foster this, even for the government to foster using its resources and pulpit. But the fine line between fostering and/or encouraging it versus legally requiring it needs to be considered. The reality is that the government does not require it. The culture is making it less and less dishonorable, certainly less than it was 25 years ago. Divorce, re-marriage, single parenthood, children conceived through technology have all been normalized. The question is how far should the government go to foster the creation of the nuclear family (mom-dad-children) and should that effort include the scarlet letter that seems to be legitimizing same sex relationships. Also, I happen to share your concerns that we'd be "creating a class of marriages where we're neutral at best on whether they should raise kids, rather than encouraging it, when part of the point of marriage is that society expects and encourages married couples to bear and rear the next generation and also be contributing to the idea that everyone makes individually-tailored rules for marriage, there are no expectations or social norms that should be conformed to, and would expect that attitude to spill over into other areas, e.g. sexual fidelity." I feel those have more serious cultural consequences than the reproductive technology and mother-father idea areas. posted by Eve at 4:45 PM | link 0 comments
THE HETEROSEXUAL CASE FOR SSM: Ian Ayres and Jennifer Gerarda Brown
[More on the role of social norms and shared understandings of marriage. --Eve] ...For example, as heterosexuals, it is easier for us to see the ways in which the exclusion of gay couples from marriage is actually weakening the private and social demands for legal commitments. This reduced demand for heterosexual marriage can most clearly be seen in the small but growing group of heterosexuals who refuse to marry now because of discrimination. You can search long and hard without finding a heterosexual couple who refuses to marry in Massachusetts because the state legalized gay marriage. But you can find different-sexed couples who refuse to marry in other states where gay friends and family members cannot. Just google the phrase "hetero holdouts." It's increasingly embarrassing (outside of Massachusetts) to invite gay friends to come celebrate your marriage. The Ethicist column in the New York Times Sunday Magazine has responded to readers struggling with the question of whether it’s moral to take a marriage benefit that is invidiously denied others. Some people don't want to drink from a whites-only water fountain. Our own Episcopal parish has joined other churches across the country in declining to marry heterosexual couples in a world where same-sex couples cannot. ... Defining marriage literally in terms of gender is increasingly out of step with aspirations that many heterosexual couples have for their relationships. Many heterosexual couples would resist the notion that there is a clearly defined role for one partner based on the fact that she's a woman, and a distinct role for the other partner based upon the fact that he's a man. But this is the off-putting assumption that underlies a requirement that marriage must include one man and one woman. The lack of marriage equality has also eroded societal demands for legal commitments. Employers increasingly are allowing same-sex and heterosexual couples to qualify for benefits if they merely claim to be domestic partners. They think it's unfair to deny same-sex couples these benefits in a world where they can't marry; and next they conclude that it's unfair to deny unmarried heterosexual couples these benefits in a world where unmarried same-sex couples qualify. more posted by Eve at 11:34 AM | link 0 comments
LET THE GAMES BEGIN: Sandra Day O'Connor announces retirement
here posted by Eve at 10:49 AM | link 0 comments
NO PRESSURE: Eve
Thinking about that Robert Bernstein quote (below)--he notes the lack of pressure on gay couples to raise children. I'd be interested to hear from supporters of same-sex marriage on whether or not that should change. Should we expect gay couples to raise children, "give your mother grandchildren," etc? My married friends, before they do in fact have kids, get tons of joking or nosy or casual statements implying that they should "start their family," get going on the childbearing. Kids are considered just part of the package deal of marriage. There are at present no similar norms for gay marriage. Should there be? (For my own part, I think there are big problems in answering either "yes" or "no." If yes, the expectation that gay married couples will/should raise children would further "mainstream" the problematic reproductive technologies that Elizabeth Marquardt has been all over, where at least one player in the family drama [the biological mother or father] is intentionally kept out of the marriage, and further chip away at the idea that children need a mom and dad. If no, then we've created a class of marriages where we're neutral at best on whether they should raise kids, rather than encouraging it, when part of the point of marriage is that society expects and encourages married couples to bear and rear the next generation; we'd also be contributing to the idea that everyone makes individually-tailored rules for marriage, there are no expectations or social norms that should be conformed to, and I would expect that attitude to spill over into other areas, e.g. sexual fidelity. But I'm just laying out my stance b/c it isn't fair to be coy while asking for others to put their opinions out there--what I really want is to hear from you all, especially from those who support gay marriage.) posted by Eve at 10:27 AM | link 1 comments
ACCIDENTAL: From the Washington Blade
[Approaching from the other angle, you might say that managing the consequences of intercourse is really hard, which is why societies have universally developed marriage as a response. --Eve] "I think it should be perfectly obvious to anyone who thinks about it that gay parents are going to be more committed on average than heterosexual couples," Bernstein, 79, says of raising children. "They don't get into it by accident or because of pressure from society or their parents. These people get into it because they have nurturing instincts that are so pressing they feel they must. As a result, they make marvelous parents." more posted by Eve at 10:21 AM | link 0 comments
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
STATEMENT OF UCC HEAD: Rev. John H. Thomas
...United Church of Christ Book of Worship teaches that "Marriage is a gift of God, sealed in a sacred covenant. Through that love, husband and wife come to know each other with mutual care and companionship. God gives joy. Through that joy, wife and husband may share their new life with others as Jesus shared new wine at the wedding in Cana." Book of Worship further says that "the scriptures teach us that the bond and covenant of marriage is a gift of God, a holy mystery in which man and woman become one flesh, an image of the union of Christ and the church." The reference to "man and woman," to "husband and wife," cannot be denied. At the same time it must be confessed that these references are as likely to represent a description of the relationships the biblical writers and their later interpreters saw around them as they are a timeless prescription of what kind of relationships are to be privileged. And it is absolutely clear that the vocation of marriage described in Book of Worship--to offer care and companionship, to share joy with others, and to imagine the intimate unity of Christ and the church--is a vocation that same gender couples are able to live out as faithfully and as effectively as heterosexual couples. In addresses in conference meetings this spring in Connecticut and Southern California Nevada, I have argued that much of the societal resistance to extending marriage rights to same gender couples reflects the same history of resistance we in the United States, and in the church, have shown toward extending citizenship to the stranger, the alien, the other. Throughout our history we have found ways to limit citizenship whether it was the refusal to allow women to own titles to property or have the right to vote, whether it is our ongoing resistance to grant immigrants, migrants, and refugees work permits or naturalization documents, whether it was a system that made some among us "three fifth" citizens and, until only recently in our history, denied them voting registration cards. Even our forebears in New England argued over who should be admitted to baptism when membership in the church and citizenship in the commonwealth were nearly coterminous. Withholding a marriage certificate remains one of the few remaining ways of limiting full citizenship to some among us who are perceived to be alien or "other." How do we square this with the frequent biblical admonition to "treat the alien in our midst as a citizen?" Not to tolerate. Not to grant second class status. But to treat as citizens. more posted by Eve at 2:21 PM | link 0 comments
HEAD OF UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST ENDORSES SSM: From the Associated Press
With a possible historic vote looming on a measure supporting same-sex marriage, the head of the United Church of Christ on Tuesday publicly endorsed the resolution for the first time. The Rev. John H. Thomas said Tuesday that the church's General Synod "should affirm the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender persons" to have marriages "equal in name, privileges and responsibilities to married heterosexual couples." "I believe our local churches, as they are able, should move toward the development of marriage equality policies," Thomas added during a speech at Emory University. That remark drew a lengthy standing ovation from the audience of about 200. The same-sex marriage resolution is one of three expected to be voted on by the General Synod at its annual meeting this weekend in Atlanta. If it passes, the church would be the first mainstream Christian denomination to officially support the marriages of gays and lesbians. Church members could also choose to support a "one man, one woman" marriage resolution or a resolution calling for prayer and study of the same-sex marriage issue. Recently, backers of the third option endorsed the same-sex resolution and condemned the "one man, one woman" resolution as discriminatory. The 1.3 million-member United Church of Christ has a history of supporting gays in its denomination, dating to 1972, when it ordained the first openly gay minister and established a gay caucus. more posted by Eve at 2:19 PM | link 0 comments
A LOSS, IN NJ, FOR PROPONENTS OF SSM: Joanna Grossman and Linda McClain
...The Concurring Opinion: Marriage Manages "the Sexes"? In his concurring opinion in the New Jersey case, Judge Parrillo makes an even more dramatic appeal to the marriage-is-procreation argument. The concurrence specifically criticizes Goodridge's characterization of commitment as the sine qua non of marriage. It warns that this "distillation of marriage down to its pure 'close personal relationship' essence strips the social institution 'of any goal or end beyond the intrinsic emotional, psychological, or sexual satisfaction which the relationship brings to the individuals involved.'" The double quotations marks are used here because Parrillo himself is quoting from Daniel Cere, the Director of the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture at McGill University. Cere further notes what he believes to be the importance of marriage's broad embrace of "the fundamental facets of [traditional] conjugal life: the fact of sexual difference; the enormous tide of heterosexual desire in human life, the massive significance of male female bonding in human life; the procreativity of heterosexual bonding, the unique social ecology of heterosexual parenting which bonds children to their biological parents, and the rich genealogical nature of heterosexual family ties." Marriage, Parrillo concludes, manages the fact that "there are two sexes." Its purpose is "not to mandate procreation but to control or ameliorate its consequences." This argument that marriage "manages" the sexes sounds disturbingly like a much older and extremely invidious one--which held that marriage serves the supposedly important public purpose of ordering relations between the sexes. At the time, the "order" imposed was that of a hierarchical relationship between man and wife--in which the man was dominant and the woman lacked the most basic rights. Today, constitutional norms of sex equality would bar a return to this kind of "order." So, too, should they bar the imposition of an "order" that excludes same-sex couples. Can Marriage's Central Purpose Really Be to "Tame" Straight Men? If one doubts that Cere's point is to return to the past, one need only consult a just-released report, The Future of Family Law: Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America, which was co-authored by Cere's Institute. This report argues that contemporary conflicts over family law rest on a deeper conflict between two competing visions of marriage: the older (and to the report's authors, superior) model of conjugal marriage and the newer (and to the report's authors, deeply troubling) model of marriage as merely a "close personal relationship." The report uses striking language about marriage as a way of life involving the "struggle" to bridge "sexual difference." Marriage, in their eyes, is a way of regulating otherwise unruly heterosexual desire--a desire that otherwise causes "immense personal and social damage." Heterosexual marriage, in the eyes of the report, is meant to avoid "the passive, unregulated heterosexual reality [of] multiple failed relationships and millions of fatherless children." ... Will this ominous picture of heterosexual life emerge as a persuasive contemporary justification for why marriage must remain a unique relationship between one man and one woman? It remains to be seen, but we hope not. Even if this vision did carry the day, how would allowing same-sex couples to marry hinder the institution of marriage from managing this heterosexual sexual ecology? Indeed, why wouldn't a similar argument about managing desire and channeling it into socially constructive avenues (like long-term, marital commitment) pertain to the benefits of marriage for same-sex couples? (Indeed, some supporters of same-sex marriage extol its potential to channel or domesticate homosexual desire.) Given that gay men and lesbians do become parents and nurture children, surely they, too, as Goodridge concluded, would benefit from the security and stability afforded by the institution of marriage. more posted by Eve at 1:44 PM | link 0 comments
CANADA APPROVES SSM: From the Canadian Press
It was fought in courtrooms, in legislatures, in street protests, and one of the most turbulent debates in Canadian history was settled Tuesday with a vote in Parliament. The House of Commons voted 158 to 133 to adopt controversial legislation that will make Canada the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. ... But there was no unanimity even within Liberal ranks. More than two dozen Liberal MPs voted against the controversial Bill C-38, to cheers from the Tory caucus. One even exiled himself to the backbenches to vote against the bill. Joe Comuzzi resigned his cabinet seat Tuesday as minister for northern Ontario's economic development. ... But Conservatives promise the debate isn't over yet. Leader Stephen Harper said he will bring back the same-sex marriage law for another vote if he wins the next election. "There will be a chance to revisit this in a future Parliament," Harper said. "Our intention is to have a free vote." How Harper might handle the issue in future is unclear since almost every provincial and territorial government has made gay marriage legal. The Liberals said Harper has only one tool at his disposal: the Charter's notwithstanding clause, an escape hatch which no federal government has ever used. more posted by Eve at 10:50 AM | link 0 comments
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
MARRIAGE AND PRIVILEGE: Stephen H. Miller
[I can't read the PDF because I'm on my home computer, a.k.a. Ol' Molasses. Will read when I get in to the office tomorrow. For now, to address Stephen's libertarian points, maybe intercourse needs rules more? For more on marriage and libertarianism, try here. --Eve] The American Political Science Association issued this release [PDF] on critical views toward gay marriage--from feminists and lesbigaytransqueer activists who'd like to do without marriage altogether. The author of the study, Jyl Josephson, director of women's studies at Rutgers University, writes: For some queer critics of the same-sex marriage quest, the current heterocentric vision of marriage inappropriately associates the public granting of a privacy privilege with adult citizenship for those professing lifelong, monogamous sexual relationships. Their objection is not so much to the fact that same-sex couples wish to have such relationships recognized, but rather to privileging this form of sexual relationship above all others. Surprise, the libertarian in me doesn't think this is totally off the walls. Government should recognize and enforce private contracts between individuals, but perhaps we should leave it to the voluntary institutions of civil society to support and encourage those types of relationships that their adherents feel ought to be supported and encouraged. I happen to favor marriage as a stabilizing institution; but I don't think it's right for everyone. And I have qualms about government using its awesome power to "promote" it with a broad range of incentives. Still, it will be a long trek to the time when state and federal governments don't see themselves as mandated to use the laws and tax code to favor matrimony over other relationships--and certainly, in the view of some (not all) IGF authors, that's well and good for society as a whole. And as long as government is both recognizing and "privileging" heterosexual marriage, surely it's unacceptable not to do the same for same-sex marriage, too. link posted by Eve at 8:38 PM | link 0 comments
THIS TIME ON "TODAY," THAT WEDDING JUST MIGHT BE GAY: From the Philadelphia Inquirer
...For the first time in its six-year history, Today's annual wedding contest is open to same-sex couples, NBC rep Allison Gollust confirmed yesterday. ... Goal for the annual Today event has always been to have the winning couple get legally married on the show, Gollust says. Responding to increased pressure from gay advocacy groups, Today changed its policy last week. Under the old rules, each couple had to consist of a male and female. Gender references have been dropped in the new rules. The contest is open only to "currently engaged couples, who are legal residents of the United States currently residing in the continental U.S." Each member of the couple must be at least 21 as of June 13, when Today began accepting entries. Today "is not taking a stand for or against same-sex marriage," Gollust says. "We're just clarifying the rules based on new developments in the law. Anyone who can legally get married should be able to participate." more posted by Eve at 8:16 PM | link 0 comments
Monday, June 27, 2005
THE GIRL WITH THE SILVER EYES: Willo Davis Roberts (via Eve)
[Started re-reading a favorite kids' book, and ran across this powerful passage. This always happens: these issues, of marriage, family, kinship, are so fundamental to our lives and identities that just about everything I read in my off-hours has some relation to the stuff I post here. But this segment just leaped out at me, because I didn't remember it from my (many, many) readings of the book. ...Katie, here, is nine, which is probably about how old I was when I read this for the first time. --Eve] There were lots of other snapshots of people who didn't look familiar, and then one that did. Katie didn't need the handwritten caption beneath the picture of the dark-haired, laughing young man. Joe. That was her father. She wondered where he was, and if he even knew yet that Grandma Welker had died. He wasn't much of a one for writing letters, although he usually sent a card for his mother's birthday, and one for Katie's. They were usually late, as if Joe didn't remember until the actual day. And at Christmas he sent a box for them both; Katie still had the teddy bear he'd given her when she was seven. She'd slept with it for almost two years. Last Christmas, though, he'd only sent a card and a check, and told Grandma to buy Katie something. The "something" had been a new winter coat and a pair of boots, and while she loved the cherry red coat with its matching hood, Katie wished he'd picked out something especially for her, himself, like the teddy bear. Of course, she was way too old for teddy bears now. She wished she could let him know how much she'd like to have books, but he didn't stay in one place long enough for her to write to him very much. And when she did write, he didn't write back, although sometimes he'd call on the phone. Katie always felt excited when he called, and shy, too; ahead of time, she'd think of what she wanted to say the next time she got the chance, and then when he was talking long distance from Texas or Montana or wherever he was, her mind would go blank. Last time, he'd said to her, "Remember, I love you, baby," and after she'd hung up Katie went out in the back yard with the chickens and avoided everybody for a while. She wasn't sure what that had made her sad, to be told that her father loved her, but it had. posted by Eve at 4:02 PM | link 0 comments
SETTING UP A BROKEN FAMILY FOR YOUR UNBORN CHILD: Elizabeth Marquardt
here and here. "How heartwarming! All these adults, so desperately wanting a baby, taking elaborate care to conceive one and putting in place a joint custody order with enforced child support, visitation, and a role for one or more 'co-parent's partners' in the child's life--before the baby is even born!" posted by Eve at 3:47 PM | link 0 comments
I'M NOT WILLING TO SETTLE FOR CRUMBS: Kim Severson
...I would love nothing more than to marry my partner. I love this girl. I want the dinner and the dance and the promise of her Social Security check if, God forbid, she dies young. I want a joint tax return and the family discount at the health club. I also want some return for the years I've spent giving straight people wedding presents. I want everyone at the office to gasp at my engagement ring and pitch in for a bad bakery cake to celebrate. I want the magic of the day I was conditioned to hope for. That's not going to happen by going to Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2003. Sure, I might get the cake and a little slice of symbolism, but any legal or financial advantage would dissolve once we left the state. For gay couples like us, marriage is about collecting paper. ... Even if we did decide that one more piece of paper might actually make us married, the government wouldn't care. Consider, for example, our medical insurance. She is covered by the domestic-partnership benefits of my job. That's great, until you run headfirst into the federal tax law. Because the Feds don't think gay weddings are real, even if we did get married I'd still have to pay taxes on an extra $9,370.20--what her medical coverage is worth. ... The truth was, we didn't want to rush it. Isn't the whole point of getting married to have your brothers make stupid toasts and your mother cry and your friends swear to help keep you together when you're falling apart--to craft a public sharing of love? Marriage is not about driving to a place where you don't live or settling for a ceremony that will be recognized only there. more posted by Eve at 3:42 PM | link 0 comments
Sunday, June 26, 2005
"CONJUGAL MODELS" OF MARRIAGE: Gabriel Rosenberg
[Too long to excerpt.... --Eve] ...Here the dichotomy could best be said to be between a "functional model" of marriage and a "rite based model" of marriage. In the former whether a relationship is treated like a marriage is determined on a case-by-case basis with flexible factors asking whether it "functions" like a marriage. In the latter a relationship is treated as a marriage if and only if the couple went through the proper ceremony. It is essentially the same argument as to whether common law marriages should be recognized. On this point, the report is at its strongest. The ALI report and the LCC report both advocate moving in the direction of the "functional model" (although in Canada the approach is at least 25 years old) and Cere responds with many valid and strong criticisms backed by research showing that cohabitation does not do the same thing as marriage. ... The last two statements demonstrate part of the problem in lumping same-sex couples in with cohabiters. They are willing to make a marriage commitment and thus it would be unjust to treat them as if they had not done so. It would be unwise because in arguing against same-sex couples being able to marry when they are raising children, the state is forced to argue that marital status makes no difference for the well being of the couple or their children. Finally we note that when states refuse to allow same-sex couples to marry it leads states, local governments, and private corporations and unions to develop "domestic partnership" registries or other alternatives that get treated like marriage. Marriage maintains its heterosexual status, but at the cost of its normative status. The second possible outcome discussed is redefining marriage as couple-centered. What Cere really means is redefining it as gender neutral, but he believes this is inherently couple-centered and the opposite-sex requirement is absolutely necessary for the "child-centered" view to hold. If you don't buy that equivalence ("same-sex permitted=couple-centered" "opposite-sex exclusive=child-centered) this whole section of the report makes no sense. ... Of course none of the judges in the same-sex marriage cases are arguing that a child-centered view of marriage is discriminatory or the idea that marriage is crucial for children is discriminatory. They just fail to see how restricting marriage to a man-woman union does anything to help the children of opposite-sex couples and it seems to hurt the children of same-sex couples, precisely because marriage is so important for children. Of course, this concern is one advantage of having the legislature initiate same-sex marriage while emphasizing the great value it would have for children. The government would not be making a statement about the legitimacy of views that people should only marry someone of the opposite-sex, or that children do better in such marriages. Just as the current laws which allow interfaith couples to marry do not mean that those who think such marriages are a bad idea, and those who worry about the children of such marriages are discriminatory. more posted by Eve at 4:02 PM | link 0 comments
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|