A BUNCH OF NEWS ITEMS

(all in one post so as to distract less from the ongoing conversation about David Blankenhorn's book; and in no particular order; and, edited to remove one story that was less relevant to this site than I initially thought, because apparently I can't read.)

Minnesota to consider hospital visitation for gay partners

Time profile of Tim Gill, "the gay mogul changing US politics"

Disney relaxes its rule on gay weddings
posted by Eve at 4:57 PM | Link | 0 comments

Maggie Gallagher on Carpenter and Blankenhorn

I want to address this point of Dale Carpenter's:

". . .(And why do we care what marriage radicals think anyway? Though prolific in academic journals, they’re a small group and are not very influential in public policy. They won’t be able to control how heterosexuals or homosexuals think of their marriages or how they practice them. . . "

It's not unrelated to the problem Dale and David are having in "achieving disagreement" BTW. Dale is basically insisting that the only kind of evidence he would acknowledge is scientific proof of unilateral causality. David is arguing (Or perhaps I should say I am arguing) rather differently: It is very hard to hold in your head at the same time two opposing propositions: "Marriage is about uniting social and biological parenthood: getting men and women to make and raise their children together" (a big idea that generates a lot of subsidiary notions like "people who want children should marry" to name one) at the same time accepting the central argument for gay marriage, which is an equality argument: "there is no morally or socially relevant difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples that is justly related to marriage, and so it is unjust (bigoted) to exclude same-sex couples from marriage."

This is not a fringe argument of nutjob left radicals, it is the main logic that leads to SSM. The inability of many mainstream SSM to acknowledge that a. this requires changing core understandings of marriage in ways that b. reasonable people might be concerned about is hidden under Dale's demand that the burden of proof be shifted to those who are oppositng dramatic change in marriage, not to those who are advocating for it.

The question is not: what are the motivations of the people advocating for SSM? I take Dale and Jon and others at their word that they have no intention or desire to undermine marriage. I also take at their word people like Judith Stacey, a pro-SSM sociologist who clearly understands SSM as part of a move to embrace more diversity in family forms as the social norm.

The question is: what is the main idea SSM advocates are asking us to embrace and what implications over the long term will accepting this core idea about gay marriage have for our ideas about marriage in general? I don't see how one can avoid noticing that the "no relevant difference" is in fact the main argument. Go to any public hearing, read any newspaper article, listen to just about any SSM supporter on this website or any other. This is what "marriage is discriminatory" means.
posted by maggie at 11:22 AM | Link | 33 comments

Carpenter v. Blankenhron (Round 2)

A sampling from Dale Carpenter at Volokh.com:

"When it comes to gay marriage “causing” harm by leading to bad attitudes about marriage, Blankenhorn gives us only the first of these six. He has only correlation. And even this, it turns out, is suspect.

I’m not just playing with words here and I’m not requiring “scientific proof” analogous to demonstrating pathological processes in the body. I’m asking for a standard degree of reliability in inferences and an accounting when the correlations seem explicable by numerous other factors and are sequentially all wrong (more on that below). There’s good reason to be suspicious of an argument that a correlation allows us to infer a causal relationship. There’s a correlation between people who buy ashtrays and people who get lung cancer, but this hardly proves that buying ashtrays causes lung cancer. If we relied on correlation alone, we’d think all sorts of crazy things were causally related.

Consider what can be done with a correlation used to “infer” a “likely causal relation.” People in countries without same-sex marriage are more likely to believe women should stay at home and not work, that men should be masters of their households, that there should be no separation of church and state, that people should not use contraception when they have sex, that divorce should never be permitted, and that sodomy should be criminalized. If these correlations exist, have I demonstrated the existence of a “cluster of beliefs” that reinforce one another and “go together,” undermining the arguments against SSM?

Or consider the more sympathetic correlations to SSM that Blankenhorn ignores. Countries with SSM are richer, healthier, more democratic, more educated, more liberal, have more egalitarian attitudes about women, etc. Have I shown that the absence of SSM is likely causing harm in those unfortunate backward countries that refuse to recognize it?

Here’s another correlation helpful to the conservative case for SSM: countries with SSM are enjoying higher marriage rates since they recognized it. Have I shown that SSM likely caused this?

Even Blankenhorn’s mere correlation is suspect, in a way very similar to Kurtz’s. Non-traditional attitudes about marriage in countries with SSM preceded the recognition of SSM, just as signals of marital decline in Europe preceded SSM. Though I haven’t gone back and checked the previous international surveys from the 1980s and 1990s, I’ll bet my mulberry tree they show that. Besides, even the survey data Blankenhorn relies on show that he’s got a problem. In one survey, the data comes from 1999-2001, before any country had full SSM. In the other survey, the data comes from 2002, when only one country (the Netherlands) had full SSM.

How could SSM have caused a decline in traditional marital attitudes before it even existed? Of course, Blankenhorn is still free to argue that non-traditional attitudes greased the way for SSM, but this doesn’t show that SSM caused or even reinforced non-traditional attitudes. What Blankenhorn needs, even as a starting point, is some evidence that non-traditionalist views rose after SSM. He doesn’t have that.

Of course, even if he had the sequence right, he’d still have the problem of trying to deal with the existence of multiple other factors that have plausibly fueled non-traditionalist attitudes. Here, too, Blankenhorn has the same problem as Kurtz. Just as we can plausibly surmise that factors like increased income, longer life spans, more education, and women’s equality – rather than SSM – have caused actual marital decline, so we can plausibly surmise that factors like these have caused a rise in non-traditionalist attitudes about marriage. . .

John Corvino chimes in on Indegayforum with "David Blankenhorn's Lazy Logic."
posted by maggie at 11:20 AM | Link | 0 comments

CT SSM Update: Two Dems Split on Marriage

From the Stamford Times. The House Judiciary Committee in Connecticut is expected to vote shortly on bill introducing gay marriage:

". . .Morris, D-140, said he supports gay rights, but believes the term marriage should be reserved for a partnership between a man and a woman. Tong, D-147, says marriage is a civil right and withholding it from same-sex couples equates to state-sponsored discrimination.

"I think that both of us have experience with civil rights issues," said Tong, who represents North Stamford, Westover and Western New Canaan. "Both of us have experienced discrimination in our lifetime, very serious discrimination."
Last November, Tong became the first Asian-American elected to state office in Connecticut. He compared the denial of marriage for same-sex couples to racial discrimination. Until 40 years ago, he noted, some states would not have let him marry his wife, who is white.

"Separate but equal is inherently unequal. We know that from our U.S. Constitution, from our constitutional case law," Tong said. "If you set up two separate legal regimes, over time, and it doesn't take that long, two separate sets of legal standards, of entitlements, two sets of treating people will develop."
Morris, who is black and a minister, represents predominantly minority South Norwalk. Morris insisted his objections to gay marriage are not religious, and said many of his constituents "feel that marriage is historically, culturally, traditionally and, from a state perspective, a right between a man and a woman."

Gay couples are entitled to equal rights under the civil unions law passed in 2005. That law, which took effect last year, mirror's Connecticut's marriage law in all but name.

Civil unions provide "all the benefits of a married person that the state is legally able to confer," Morris said. "However, it specifies that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Historically and culturally that has been the case. I haven't heard any testimony to this point that would support the government redefining marriage."

Monday's 11-hour hearing saw testimony from a parade of advocates both for and against gay marriage. . . ."

posted by maggie at 11:57 AM | Link | 0 comments

The Mormon Advantage

As long as we are on the subject of Mitt Romney, an excerpt from my latest column:

"Why is it that all the Dem candidates are still married to their first spouse, while among the current crop of leading GOP contenders, the only guy with just one wife is the Mormon?

Truth is, I don't think this is just an accident. There's something about Mormons the rest of us ought to pay attention to: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do much better than almost any other faith group at sustaining a marriage culture -- and they do this while participating fully and successfully in modern life. Utah is above the national average in both household income and the proportion of adults who are college graduates.

While reading about Romney's cash victory, I was already deep into the hot-off-the-Oxford-Press book, "Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers", by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus. This book tells you more about the sex lives of Mormon (and other) teens than you ever wanted to know. For example, 77 percent of Mormon teens age 13 to 17 support saving sex for marriage, compared to 74 percent of evangelicals, 52 percent of mainline Protestants, 51 percent of Catholics and 27 percent of Jewish teens. It's not that LDS teens are unusually prudish, either. Mormon teens were more likely than any other religious group (except Jews) to agree that "sex would give you much pleasure". They are also far more likely than any other religious group to say it would make them feel guilty (77 percent, compared to 66 percent of evangelicals, 52 percent of mainliners, 47 percent of Catholics and 45 percent of Jewish teens.) The vast majority of all teens report their mothers would be upset if they had sex, but even here, Mormon moms stand out: 96 percent of LDS teens say having sex would upset their mother, compared to 89 percent of evangelicals, 83 percent of mainliners, 81 percent of Catholics and 79 percent of Jewish teens. . ."

posted by maggie at 11:39 AM | Link | 0 comments

Dodd Asks: What If Your Child Was Gay?

I, for one, will go on record as saying, as an honest loving parent, that if either of my two sons were gay, I would still not think its a good idea to redefine marriage AND I would hope they would agree with me. As a parent, one can always hope! From the Associated Press:

"Democratic presidential hopeful Chris Dodd told high school students Wednesday that people debating gay marriage should ask themselves just one question: What would you do if your child were gay? Dodd said anyone who would deny a gay child the right to be happy isn't being honest.

"We ought to be able to have these loving relationships," the Connecticut senator said. Dodd, the father of 2-year-old and 5-year-old girls, said his daughters could grow up to be lesbians and that he hopes they would have the opportunity to enjoy marriage-like rights.

"They may grow up as a different sexual orientation than their parents," he said. "How would I want my child to be treated if they were of a different sexual orientation?" . . ."

posted by maggie at 11:35 AM | Link | 13 comments

Romney Calls for FMA

In the New Hampshire Union Leader:

"Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says his successor's decision to recognize the Bay State marriages of out-of-state gay couples reinforces a need for a federal constitutional amendment establishing marriage as being between a man and a woman.

"As the governor of Massachusetts having seen the advent of same-sex marriage in my state, and recognizing that with the new governor, people are going to be coming to Massachusetts, getting married in Massachusetts and then going home to their home states, it strikes me that you have to have a national standard," the Republican Presidential candidate said yesterday. . . "

posted by maggie at 11:32 AM | Link | 1 comments

New Study: Why Has Child Abuse Declined?

Finkelhor and Jones contemplate in the latest Journal of Social Issues, here.
posted by maggie at 12:39 PM | Link | 0 comments

Italian Archbishop Under Police Guard

April 4 report from Reuters: "Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, the head of Italy’s bishops’ conference, was under police guard after “Shame on you Bagnasco” was spray-painted on the doors of his Cathedral of San Lorenzo over his comparison of gay rights to incest and pedophilia. He made the comments at a meeting of church workers over the weekend, according to a newspaper report. A police spokeswoman said the archbishop, who has been vocal in the Vatican’s campaign against a bill in the Italian Parliament that would grant rights to unmarried couples, including homosexuals, was being accompanied by a police escort. Last week, the bishops’ conference issued a directive ordering Catholic lawmakers to vote against the bill."
posted by maggie at 12:22 PM | Link | 0 comments

Indiana State Marriage Amendment Fails in Committee

In Indiana, the language has to be approved twice by the legislature before going to the voters. This bill passed last year. It looks like its back to the drawing board in Indiana:

"Same-sex marriage ban collapses
Vote likely ends this year's bid to amend constitution
By Bill Ruthhart

An Indiana House committee rejected a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, signaling a major victory for the gay-rights community and big employers that opposed the amendment.
The move, a blow to conservative supporters, likely killed the initiative for the 2007 legislative session. . .

The amendment failed to pass after a 5-5 vote Tuesday night in the House Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee. A majority of votes was needed for the resolution to survive.

The decision was highlighted by an emotional speech from Rep. Terri J. Austin, D-Anderson, who voted against the amendment.

"I have cried over this. I have prayed over this. I have sought advice from everyone I know to try and come to the right decision in my heart," Austin said, her voice quivering, her eyes filled with tears.

"I know some people will be disappointed in me, but I'll have to live with that."
Like most other members of the committee, Austin said she supported the amendment's first sentence, which defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
But, like other Democrats, her support for the amendment's first section was outweighed by concerns over its second phrase, which said state law "may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

That sentence, foes of the amendment argued, could jeopardize domestic-partner benefits, weaken domestic-violence laws and hurt Indiana companies' ability to recruit top employees.

Amendment supporters dismissed those concerns. They also argued that the amendment's second sentence was critical because it would prevent Indiana courts from circumventing marriage by creating same-sex civil unions. . ."

posted by maggie at 12:19 PM | Link | 0 comments

Kurtz on David Blankenhorn

Over at the Corner.
posted by maggie at 12:12 PM | Link | 2 comments

David Blankenhorn Replies to Dale Carpenter

David Blankenhorn replies to Dale Carpenter over at Family Scholars:

". . . I’m grateful to Professor Carpenter for his thoughtful responses. . .

Carpenter’s confusion on this rather fundamental point seems to stem from the fact that I do state in the article that, using the tools of the social sciences, Stanley Kurtz could never — I could never, no one could ever — prove scientifically whether, and how much, gay marriage by itself is causing marriage as a social institution to get weaker. It simply cannot be done. Speaking of the cluster of related, marriage-weakening trends (easy divorce, lots of unwed child bearing, lots of nonmarital cohabitation, a belief that marriage is an outmoded institution, and the embrace of gay marriage), I say in the article:

Because these behaviors correlate and tend to reinforce one another, it is virtually impossible for the researcher to pull out any one from the cluster and determine that it alone is causing or is likely to cause some personal or (even harder to measure) social result. All that can be said for sure is that these things go together.

Many of Kurtz’s crtics make this point. I make this point. And now we know that Dale Carpenter agrees (and then some!) with this point. But here is where the confusion begins.

Just because we cannot scientifically demonstrate beyond any doubt that A is causally related to B, that does not mean that it is impermissable or a violation of good scholarship or good judgement to make reasonable (if qualified, and modest) inferences about a likely causal relationship between A and B! Apparently, according to Carpenter, at least when the topic is gay marriage, once we concede the truism that correlation does not demonstrate causation, we must fall into complete silence or profess only studied agnosticism about the entire issue of what seems to be causing what. But that is obviously rediculous. By that standard, no one could ever again say that anything is causally related to anything! . . .

In my article, I lay out new evidence strongly suggesting that, around the world, a cluster of marriage-weakening trends and attitudes (one of which is the embrace of gay marriage) hang together and appear to be mutually reinforcing. No, I cannot prove causation beyond any doubt (no one could); and no, scholars cannot measure with scientific precision the exact degrees and instrumentalities of causation. But to me, the evidence suggesting mutual reinforcement, a kind of syndrome of related attitudes and behaviors — i.e., evidence suggesting some form of causation — is quite persuasive. Carpenter is free to disagree, of course, but to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than simply repeat back to me that correlation does not prove causation.

To illustrate the numbers I present, in my article I quote some strident, long-term anti-marriage crusaders who love gay marriage, in large part because they believe that adopting gay marriage will weaken marriage as a social institution. Carpenter is not buying, and to show how anyone can find a quotation about anything, and how ”dueling quotations” mean nothing, he quotes some other anti-marriage crusaders who oppose gay marriage because they believe that coopting gays and lesbians into marriage will actually strengthen (or at least fail to deal a blow to) marriage as an institution.

I am familiar with these authors. I discuss them in my book. I even quote some of the sames ones (such as Michael Warner) that Carpenter quotes. But I also go further than Carpenter — beyond “dueling quotes,” which I agree proves very little — and try to situate those arguments sociologically. I demonstrate what I think is a pretty self-evident point: On the marriage-is-the-problem cultural left, support for gay marriage is overwhelming. Yes, a few people, like Warner, do argue that gay marriage basically means bringing more people into a bad institution. On the other side of the spectrum, a few right-of-center or more conservative-libertarian authors (like, I presume, Dale Carpenter) argue that gay marriage basically means bringing more people into a good institution. But as I try to show in my book, the dominant, most influential idea about gay marriage on the cultural left today is that gay marriage basically means: a) securing equal rights and recognition for gay/lesbian relationships and gay/lesbian parenting; and b) changing marriage in ways that will delight the institution’s most determined critics. Further, I argue at some length in my book that these people are right. Gay marriage is not merely about adding a few more people to an unalterably bad institution, or to an unalterably good one; it is instead largely about changing the institution. Now, Carpenter is free to disagree, of course, and he may be right, but to be taken seriously (at least by me), he has to do more than simply quote back Michael Warner to me. . ."

posted by maggie at 5:17 PM | Link | 3 comments

Children of Gay Parents Speak for Themselves

Two moms, four moms, divorce, absent dads, no big deal the kids do fine

:"Children of gay parents speak for themselvesBy Paula Bock
The Seattle Times

SEATTLE - For the first 10 years of his life, Will Chase lived with his birth parents. Then he lived with his mother and her lesbian partner, and then he lived with his father, his father's girlfriend and the girlfriend's kids. Among the three situations, he says, "All the values, the culture, the traditions that are passed along in families - it's all exactly the same."
Much discussed, little understood and not often heard from, they are the children of two-mommy or two-daddy families. While politicians debate whether their parents should marry and psychologists proffer conflicting studies about how the children may or may not differ from those raised in "traditional" families, the kids are doing what kids do best: Growing up.
And, it seems, growing in number. In 2000, 162,000 children lived with same-sex parents, according to the U.S. Census. Gay and lesbian parenting groups estimate the number now at somewhere between 4 and 14 million. Many of the children have added a mother or father into their lives after a parent came out; others have been adopted by same-sex couples; and an increasing number of children are created by same-sex partners who plan from conception to parent together.
Let pundits pontificate on their talk shows. We'll consult the real experts. Who better to tell you about their lives and perspectives than the kids themselves?
Here are the stories of four young adults, in their own words, distilled from recent conversations with writer Paula Bock.
---
Kellen Kaiser grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, among the first "chosen children" of lesbian partners. In Kaiser's case, the agreement was among three mommies: her birth mother, Nina Kaiser; Nina's best friend, Helen Wagner; and Nina's lover, Margery Ferrar. Nina and Margery split up when Kaiser was 6 months old; Margery retained a strong parental role. When Kaiser was 5, Nina married Kyree Klimist, who later (with sperm from a donor) gave birth to Kaiser's brother. Kaiser, now 25, considers all four women "Mom." She has a tumultuous relationship with her father.
IN MY MOTHER'S generation, if you were a lesbian, you pretty much had to give up the idea of child-rearing. My mother was one of the first to go for it.
I don't know how the plan was hatched. I do know about my conception. Mom was to go to Europe for the summer and come back pregnant. My mom was really hot, so there wasn't any question she'd do it.
My mother met my father outside the Louvre. They were two lonely Americans in Paris. They hung out a couple days. They partied. He wanted to sleep with her. She says, "I'm a lesbian." He says, "It's cool." From my father's perspective, he thought he had overcome her sexual preference, he was the exception. Which is, like, so male!
It takes so much for (gay men and lesbians) to have kids that there's a lot more thinking, examining what it means to be a parent, a family. My mom kept daily journals about what I was feeling and interested in until I was 8. She has every card I've ever received. She has all my baby clothes. Every book I ever read. I am well-loved. There are family stories of Margery walking me back and forth saying Zen koan, Helen doing the Charleston, Nina making organic baby food by hand.
My mom always said: Kudos to all single mothers out there because we had four people and all four of us were exhausted!
Generally, I would just call, "Mom!" and whoever came running. Parent-teacher conferences? All four. There's a way of presenting to children that everybody's different, that there is no normative model. Friends lived with grandparents. Friends had divorced parents. I knew most people had a mom and dad; that was just one of many variations.
The family tree is brutal. My (kindergarten) teacher would give assignments, draw your family tree, and my family tree looked upended. She was confused: "Who is this child?" That's when my parents started the Lesbian and Gay Parents Association.
I went to a bilingual school where most of the kids were Latino. I remember really wanting one of those awesome dresses Catholic girls get ... lots of crinoline, lots of lace. I did get my big dress for my parents' wedding when I was 5. It was white tulle with puff sleeves and little blue bows. My parents wore tan suede pants and little silk shirts with matching orchids. It was a Jewish ceremony at a gay synagogue.
I was thrilled. My mother had dated some women when I was a child, and I saw this as a sign of stability. Nina and Kyree aren't together anymore, but they parent together and acknowledge a lifelong love for each other, which is more than I can say for most divorced people.
Having four mothers is a mixed blessing. If you don't get what you want from one you just go to the other. On a cash-flow basis, it's great. In terms of attention, it's great.
Really, it's only bad for my boyfriend. Four mothers-in-law! Big shoes to fill because I'm used to unconditional love all the time.
I could never date someone for whom I seem a novelty. My boyfriend (Elan Fuss) hung out with lesbians. I can take him to a leather bar. He's remarkably homophobia free for someone who's served in the (Israeli) Special Forces. We went to Torah study together; I used to try to distract him.
When I was a teenager, I was a little wild. There was a study they did of children of lesbians. It says they're promiscuous for a certain amount of time and then go onto serial monogamy. I'm like, really? And how does that make them different from anyone else?
My perception of masculinity has been largely shaped by mass culture. I definitely go for macho men. When we got together, my boyfriend had a crewcut, he smoked cigarettes. He's a man's man.
My big plan is to gather all my friends, live on the ranch, a commune model, build little cabins for everybody.
I have a lot of elder care to deal with at some point. I'm actually thinking of opening a lesbian retirement home because I have four lesbians to start with, and if you add all the ex-girlfriends, you have business forever!
But yeah, I'll get married, too. I'm planning to write a book: "How to Plan a Gay Kosher Wedding for 250." Elan's whole (special forces) unit, Orthodox Jews, leather men, Israelis, lots of aging Berkeley hippies. I'm all about community.
---
At 24, Hank Cattell has a black belt in tae kwan do and is studying public health at Portland State University. He grew up in West Seattle before moving at age 12 to Portland, where his mother, Mary Schutten, and her partner, Cathryn Cushing, merged families, an arrangement Cattell calls "alternative-lifestyle Brady Bunch."
THE STRESS had nothing to do with having two moms. It was living with two other children my age. I had been an only child. Maybe I was a little spoiled. We fought a lot over the usual stupid things: television, food, whatever. We went to family counseling, which was really helpful.
At school, people would say, "They're your sisters?" I would be like, "Yeah, well, they're my mom's lesbian lover's children." I enjoyed the shock value. Once they figure out I am serious, they're curious as to how I was born, if I'm a test-tube baby or something.
My mom was married to my dad. They got divorced (when I was 2), and my mom is a lesbian. Mom had a few different relationships with various women who I still really like. It's like I have lots of aunts. If there wasn't a stigma attached to it, it never would have been an issue for me at all.
I had a very normal childhood. My mom raised me (to believe) some people are gay, some are straight, it doesn't really matter. It took awhile to realize there are people who don't like homosexuals.
Middle school was extremely unpleasant. My mom decided to send me to a private Lutheran school. In seventh grade, one of my teachers would talk about homosexuality and how it's a sin. I was Methodist at the time; my mom and I would go to church every Sunday. I really believed, then. I couldn't imagine my mom going to hell. That really hurt me. It seemed utterly ridiculous that God would create someone in such a way and then punish them for being just who they are.
I started arguing with the teacher and the other students. I didn't actually tell them my mom was gay. The other kids would ask me if I was gay. I'd say I know people who are gay and they're really good people. I told my mom, and she took me out immediately. I went to Meany Middle School, which was very comfortable, very cool.
My dad is not very involved. I'd see him once or twice a year. I haven't seen him since I graduated from high school, but we talk on the phone. A lack of connection more than any kind of dislike. My mom had five brothers, so I have lots of uncles, and I had a "Big Brother" who I saw every week for years. It is good to have role models, but I don't think that has to mean a biological father or stepfather. I do notice a difference between myself and other guys. For one thing, I've always been more comfortable around women than other guys are. For a long time, I didn't have many guy friends. Whenever guys would joke about wanting to have sex with a woman or make crude remarks, that always made me uncomfortable. I think guys bond a lot with that kind of stuff. I never really liked sports. That doesn't have anything to do with my mom. My mom loves sports. Now, it's not difficult to have male friends because there's a much wider array of interests.
I was really excited when gay marriage temporarily became legal here. My mom and Cathryn were married by a judge in the courthouse downtown. For me, marriage is society acknowledging your union, and I think that's beautiful even if you're not religious. I don't understand people that have such animosity toward homosexuals. If they knew my mom and Cathryn, they could easily change their mind. If your parents are gay, it's a blessing because you'll have more freedom to explore your own sexuality. I never felt nervous about telling my mom who I was attracted to. She always said whoever you choose to be with, I'll support that - just as long as they're good enough for you!
I remember as a kid, being attracted to both boys and girls. For the most part, I wanted to be nothing but straight, just because it's easier. I accepted I was bisexual when I was 16. It was actually my first long-term relationship with a girl, and she never had any problem with it; she's bisexual, too. Since then, I've had some terrible experiences when I've told friends because they think I'm gay and I don't know it.
My mom is always ready and willing with lots of advice and support, though sometimes talking about issues of sex with my mom makes me uncomfortable. Not because she's weird about it - just because she's my mom!
---
Katie Dahl-Lomatewama includes the surnames of both her mother, Inez Lomatewama, and her mother's ex-partner, Lisa Dahl, in her signature. Dahl taught Katie to cook and was there during hard times. At 19, Katie dreams of becoming a chef and owning her own restaurant. She's taken courses at the Culinary Institute of America in New York.
WHEN I WAS about 4 or 5, my dad died. About a year later my mom met her partner, Lisa. Even though they broke up about six years ago, I still consider Lisa my mom.
(As a kid) it was confusing because there was a whole bunch of court stuff going on. My grandparents kidnapped my brother and took him on the Hopi reservation. My mom couldn't get him back because she's not Hopi; my dad was. They were trying to kidnap me and my sister, so we had to flee (from Southern California to Seattle).
After all the court stuff, my mom got to keep me and my sister. It was good. My parents weren't rich, but they could think of fun things for us to do. One year, we went to all the festivals in Seattle. When the ferries were cheap, on nice summer days, we'd pack up some food and sit on the deck in the sun and have a picnic. We were really into card games. I enjoyed cooking with Lisa. I remember the first time she let me make spaghetti and put in whatever I wanted.
We'd send my grandparents family pictures of the four of us on the ferries and they'd cut Lisa out.
Lisa has really short hair, I guess you'd say she's kind of butchy. Sometimes I'd be embarrassed to go into bathrooms with her; people would look at her funny (thinking she was a guy), but now we just kind of laugh. What else can you do?
Mostly what I miss was not having a whole family. I'd hear people say, "I'm going to visit my grandparents or my uncle." After a while, we did see my grandparents again, but they'd always get into how bad Lisa is or how I act like my mom ... so it wasn't that enjoyable.
I got into arguments at school, but it wasn't that big of a deal. Other kids would say (about Lisa and my mom), "Oh, that's gross. That's not right." They'd question my identity, but I never did. If I was a lesbian, I wouldn't have trouble admitting it because my family was always really open about that.
I didn't go to middle school. My parents didn't like Issaquah schools because they thought they were homophobic. They said they were going to home school us, but that didn't really happen. It was more like a huge summer for two years. Then I went to NOVA (alternative high school in Seattle). It was very nice, and so many teachers were open. I was way behind. They didn't think I was going to be able to catch up. I had to work really hard, but I did graduate.
When my parents broke up, I was really scared we wouldn't be family anymore - after all we worked for! My mom used to drink, and it got really bad, and sometimes she'd disappear and not call. But Lisa would be there. There wasn't a time when Lisa wasn't there for us. My mom casually drinks now, but it's under control. She and Lisa are best friends and they talk every day ... about their girlfriend problems!
A good parent is someone who basically will always love you and help you out whenever you need them. That's Lisa. She's my mom.
---
Will Chase grew up in a small town in conservative New Hampshire, so he was worried what other kids would think when a woman moved in with his mom, shortly after his parents divorced. Now 30, Chase thinks the experience gave him a broad worldview and is why he gravitates to places where people are tolerant. Three years ago, Chase moved to Seattle, where he's a spin instructor and works for Holland America.
IN A SMALL town, it wasn't easy being different. Initially, I guess I was ashamed. It turns out nobody batted an eye because I went to a really small, ultra-progressive Waldorf School. Nobody really cared. I was a pretty well-liked kid, really involved in sports and theater and busy.
For the first 10 years of my life, I lived in a traditional family, then I lived with two women, then, when I was 16 or 17 my dad decided it was time for me to come out from under my mother's skirt. That's his words. Which gives the impression he was this gruff logger, which he is, a professional carpenter by trade. But he's actually a gentle man. A good man. ... He was seeing a woman who had two daughters. So we had this normal family dynamic going on, which was nice.
But that's the thing. There really wasn't a difference between the families. All the values, the culture, the traditions that are passed along in families - it's all exactly the same. If anything, they're probably a little more tolerant in single-sex households. It's probably easier to understand each other because, y'know what? You've been there. That leads to good child-rearing.
When you have a man and a woman, you have yin-yang. There's a certain amount of tension that winds up in hard feelings.
My mom represented stability for me. She was the rock. She believed in me when I thought I was going to become a professional mountain biker, and she supported me monetarily and emotionally. I know I can always count on her. I hate to say it, but I'm attracted to women who look like my mother. I have an appreciation for her beauty: short and a little curvy, and an enthusiastic outlook on life.
My dad was the guy I could have fun with. We'd hang on the weekend. Go fishing. Watch baseball. He'd follow my passion of the moment.
Maryanne (my mother's partner) was a wonderfully philosophical woman. She was everything my dad wasn't. She was always around and always available. She was the one I'd go to whenever Mom said no because she'd always say yes. (Not initially. I'd have to wear her down a bit.)

Now, there are lots of kids with single-sex parents. Back then, I was the only kid I knew. But it's funny, my mom's mom was the first woman in her town to actually leave her husband for another woman. My grandfather was ex-military and a very public figure. So when he found out that his wife was having an affair with this woman, he decided to sue her for alienation of affection. I can't believe you can sue someone for that, but apparently you can. So this came out in the paper, big headlines, early `70s. Apparently my mom went to my grandfather and told him if you don't drop the lawsuit, I'll never talk to you again. So he dropped it.

My idea of family? White house, white picket fence, two cats in the yard, 2.5 children. Actually, I have no assumptions or predictions. I hope to be with a person who loves me and supports me, and I love and support them. If we have children someday, that's just icing on the cake.

posted by maggie at 10:57 AM | Link | 8 comments

"Garriage?"

This reminds me of a reader who once suggested to me that gay unions be called "pairrages":

What's In a Name? 'Civil Union' Fails the Test

By Robert M. Zaleski
New Jersey Law Journal
March 30, 2007

New Jersey has a new law permitting civil unions. Now it's time to coin a name for such relationships that satisfies critics on both sides of the aisle.

The common legal definition of marriage is "the civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman, united in law for life." Therefore, same-sex couples cannot become married without redefining the word. However, redefinition would deny both gay and heterosexual couples the ability to communicate full and accurate information about their marital status and sexual orientation through use of a single word. Linguistically, the value of the word "marriage" would be decreased because it would now convey less information.

So, what's in a name? Actually, quite a lot. Techno geeks, hip-hoppers and advertising executives are creating new words and phrases with rapid and relentless urgency. American English is an ever-expanding language that is constantly evolving to reflect advances in technology, shared experiences and cultural growth. This metamorphosis should not be ignored or avoided, but embraced. A language is enriched by the addition of new words that enhance the ability to draw fine distinctions.

The first rule for any group seeking equal protection should be that it must place its appearance on the record in clear, proud tones. People of color never fought for the right to be called "white" and women never fought for the right to be called "men." To the contrary, both groups maintained genuine pride in their heritage, their identities and the differences that distinguished them from their oppressors. Given this model, gay pride cannot be squared with a demand for gay couples to be called by a name that robs them of their identity. The goals should be equal protection and dignity.

The arguments of those who feel that same-sex couples are not entitled to equal protection have been rendered moot by the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006). But what about those who agree that same-sex couples are entitled to fair and equal treatment but also contend that marriage, as traditionally defined, is an institution that deserves to be acknowledged and honored? Should this group's desire to retain domain over the word "marriage" be dismissed out of hand?

The struggle for gay equality has always been based on an ideology that trumpets the virtues of acceptance, tolerance and sensitivity. The gay community could demonstrate its commitment to those ideals by allowing its counterparts to retain the designation of "marriage" in exchange for their willingness to endorse equal rights and equal dignity. Gay-rights groups have predictably adopted the position that any label other than marriage would create a separate and demeaning status. I disagree. In a political environment that has assumed no more than two possible results, I see a third. Same-sex unions must be given a new name that fits seamlessly into American English while carrying the same force and dignity that has been assigned to the word "marriage."

"Civil union" is a sterile, bureaucratic phrase; it is a clanking, cast-iron designation that trivializes and dishonors the relationship between same-sex couples. At best, it is uninspired and barren. It is technically accurate but is devoid of emotion, requires an explanation and is practically impossible to use in conversation. It is tantamount to naming your first-born son "Chromosome XY" or "Offspring With Testicles."

Let the new word be "garriage." The "g" is borrowed from the word gay and connotes the same-sex status of the committed couple. And let the new verb be "garry," which would be conjugated in identical fashion with the verb "marry," thereby enabling these words to be used interchangeably in conversation.

It may only be a matter of time before a New Jersey resident who has entered into a civil union is subsequently denied benefits, rights or privileges under one of many federal laws contingent on marital status. This problem cannot be avoided through passage of a state law that provides for same-sex marriages. There is no guarantee that federal courts will extend such benefits to same-sex couples simply because New Jersey has declared them married. Nevertheless, the new statute should provide that garried people who apply for federal benefits may answer that they are married, if answering otherwise would result in ineligibility.

So, what's in a name? Actually, sometimes very little. Using the word "marriage" at the state level will not guarantee benefits and protections to same-sex couples at the federal level. Still, it is hard to fathom that their interests would be properly served by legislation that forces them to settle for "civil unions." Maybe it's time to settle down and get garried.

posted by maggie at 10:17 AM | Link | 45 comments

HOPE AGAIN: Christianity Today on church outreach to divorced families

here
posted by Eve at 10:03 PM | Link | 0 comments