Much of existing family law is predicated on marriage being something that involves both a husband and a wife, as it has been throughout history. If we are truly to have "marriage equality" so that the voluntary association of two men or two women must be treated, under law, exactly the same as natural marriage, I'm curious as to how this would work in the following areas:
Adoption – Same-sex couples would have just as much standing to adopt as a bride-groom couple, correct? Some people who devalue either masculinity or femininity, fatherhood or motherhood, and devalue sex-integration don't see this is a problem, but I think most people do, even if they support neutering state marriage licensing. This reality has meant that Catholic adoption agencies, in order to be true to their convictions, have had to cease operations in states with neutered licensing.
Paternity Assumption – In a bride-groom couple, for the protection of the child (and to keep the state from being on the hook for child support), the groom is considered the legal father by default of any child born to the bride. Would the non-carrying lesbian be considered the default parent of a child her partner carries, whether or not she agreed to the pregnancy, and regardless of how that pregnancy was accomplished? If not, then neither should a groom. Would a lesbian woman be held accountable if it turns out that her partner is secretly bisexual and turns up pregnant?
Child Custody - Women are often given preference over men in child custody matters, even when the man begs for custody. How would this work when it comes to same-sex couples who are being divorced? Would fathers being divorced from mothers gain more from this? Would the biological parent, if any, be favored? If not, what implications would that have when it comes to traditional stepfathers and stepmothers?
Child Support – Would the spouse who is not biologically related to the children still be forced to pay child support? It happens with bride-groom couples, but couldn't someone argue that they've never engaged in reproductive behavior and thus shouldn't be saddled with child support? If so, how could that argument be accepted while treating a groom being divorced from a bride equally (or will courts be forced to admit that homosexual sodomy and heterosexual coitus are not equivalent - and invade our bedrooms)? If there are two men, and one turns out to be bisexual or donates sperm, resulting in a pregnancy, is the other man's income to be included in figuring child support as happens when a bride and groom marry? (Yes, sperm donors have been held liable for child support.)
Abortion Rights - One woman gets pregnant, there is a split, the other woman - who has paid for the reproductive medical treatments, perhaps donated the eggs, and wants the children - sues to block abortion. Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights? Oh, I can see the dilemma now! I suspect abortion rights will win that battle, especially if feminists realize that men could also use any precedent set.
Community Property was based on the idea that a marriage was creating a cooperative microcosm of society with a division of labor, more likely than not to raise children biologically related to both spouses, thereby perpetuating society. In order to treat all couples equally, would the concept of community property be diminished?
Alimony – Largely based on community property and division of labor, the concept has lost some importance with the equal access of women to the workplace. Again, would the concept of alimony be weakend? Surely, a man should not have to pay alimony because he married a woman while another man avoids paying it because he married another man? That wouldn't be equal.
Marriage Statistics - Would government agencies be allowed to collect, compile, and release statistics that distinguish between natural and neutered marriage? If not, marriage statistics could show marriage as being less favorable than they have in the past in terms of longevity (of the participants as well as the marriage), fidelity, domestic violence, poverty, mental health, positive effect on children, etc.
What has changed in Massachusetts and states that have subsequently neutered their licenses, and is the law still catching up? I don't see how we can neuter marriage licensing nationwide without it changing marriage for all, even those bride-groom couples who have been married for decades.
Remember – true equality works both ways. If highly noisy, persistent, and effective activist groups accomplish their goal of neutering marriage nationwide, what happens if they need to direct their energies to something new, especially if they discover things about state-licensed marriage that are not friendly to their subculture? I think we could kiss goodbye any hope of moving away from no-fault divorce. It would not surprise me if the "equality" groups were to subsequently demand taxpayer funding on-demand for all third-party reproduction. After all, many bride-groom couples can conceive for free. Shouldn't we correct this "inequality"?
I do not believe that the voluntary association of a man and a woman is the same kind of voluntary association as two women or two men, and I do not see a moral or legal obligation for the state to treat all three as the same. I see a state interest in licensing and encouraging natural marriage that is not met in either of the other two kinds of unions. It is obvious to me that what keeps same-sex "marriage" and natural marriage from being equal has less to do with state licensing requirement and more to do with the nature of the sexes and the differences between them.
The rights of children must be protected, as they do not consent to the circumstances of their birth, or the relationships their parents have. Whether marriage neutering gains or loses ground, we still have third-party reproduction, and something else should be put in place to protect the right of a child to both her mother and her father. Of course there will be instances in which, for the child's protection, access to one or both of her parents would have to be restricted or terminated, and redirected to an adoptive mother or father. But third-party reproduction has already deprived, by design, children of a mother or a father, and neutering marriage can only reinforce that.
Adoption – Same-sex couples would have just as much standing to adopt as a bride-groom couple, correct? Some people who devalue either masculinity or femininity, fatherhood or motherhood, and devalue sex-integration don't see this is a problem, but I think most people do, even if they support neutering state marriage licensing. This reality has meant that Catholic adoption agencies, in order to be true to their convictions, have had to cease operations in states with neutered licensing.
Paternity Assumption – In a bride-groom couple, for the protection of the child (and to keep the state from being on the hook for child support), the groom is considered the legal father by default of any child born to the bride. Would the non-carrying lesbian be considered the default parent of a child her partner carries, whether or not she agreed to the pregnancy, and regardless of how that pregnancy was accomplished? If not, then neither should a groom. Would a lesbian woman be held accountable if it turns out that her partner is secretly bisexual and turns up pregnant?
Child Custody - Women are often given preference over men in child custody matters, even when the man begs for custody. How would this work when it comes to same-sex couples who are being divorced? Would fathers being divorced from mothers gain more from this? Would the biological parent, if any, be favored? If not, what implications would that have when it comes to traditional stepfathers and stepmothers?
Child Support – Would the spouse who is not biologically related to the children still be forced to pay child support? It happens with bride-groom couples, but couldn't someone argue that they've never engaged in reproductive behavior and thus shouldn't be saddled with child support? If so, how could that argument be accepted while treating a groom being divorced from a bride equally (or will courts be forced to admit that homosexual sodomy and heterosexual coitus are not equivalent - and invade our bedrooms)? If there are two men, and one turns out to be bisexual or donates sperm, resulting in a pregnancy, is the other man's income to be included in figuring child support as happens when a bride and groom marry? (Yes, sperm donors have been held liable for child support.)
Abortion Rights - One woman gets pregnant, there is a split, the other woman - who has paid for the reproductive medical treatments, perhaps donated the eggs, and wants the children - sues to block abortion. Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights? Oh, I can see the dilemma now! I suspect abortion rights will win that battle, especially if feminists realize that men could also use any precedent set.
Community Property was based on the idea that a marriage was creating a cooperative microcosm of society with a division of labor, more likely than not to raise children biologically related to both spouses, thereby perpetuating society. In order to treat all couples equally, would the concept of community property be diminished?
Alimony – Largely based on community property and division of labor, the concept has lost some importance with the equal access of women to the workplace. Again, would the concept of alimony be weakend? Surely, a man should not have to pay alimony because he married a woman while another man avoids paying it because he married another man? That wouldn't be equal.
Marriage Statistics - Would government agencies be allowed to collect, compile, and release statistics that distinguish between natural and neutered marriage? If not, marriage statistics could show marriage as being less favorable than they have in the past in terms of longevity (of the participants as well as the marriage), fidelity, domestic violence, poverty, mental health, positive effect on children, etc.
What has changed in Massachusetts and states that have subsequently neutered their licenses, and is the law still catching up? I don't see how we can neuter marriage licensing nationwide without it changing marriage for all, even those bride-groom couples who have been married for decades.
Remember – true equality works both ways. If highly noisy, persistent, and effective activist groups accomplish their goal of neutering marriage nationwide, what happens if they need to direct their energies to something new, especially if they discover things about state-licensed marriage that are not friendly to their subculture? I think we could kiss goodbye any hope of moving away from no-fault divorce. It would not surprise me if the "equality" groups were to subsequently demand taxpayer funding on-demand for all third-party reproduction. After all, many bride-groom couples can conceive for free. Shouldn't we correct this "inequality"?
I do not believe that the voluntary association of a man and a woman is the same kind of voluntary association as two women or two men, and I do not see a moral or legal obligation for the state to treat all three as the same. I see a state interest in licensing and encouraging natural marriage that is not met in either of the other two kinds of unions. It is obvious to me that what keeps same-sex "marriage" and natural marriage from being equal has less to do with state licensing requirement and more to do with the nature of the sexes and the differences between them.
The rights of children must be protected, as they do not consent to the circumstances of their birth, or the relationships their parents have. Whether marriage neutering gains or loses ground, we still have third-party reproduction, and something else should be put in place to protect the right of a child to both her mother and her father. Of course there will be instances in which, for the child's protection, access to one or both of her parents would have to be restricted or terminated, and redirected to an adoptive mother or father. But third-party reproduction has already deprived, by design, children of a mother or a father, and neutering marriage can only reinforce that.
Finally, is it really equality if there are still people who are prevented from marrying the other adults they love due to the circumstances of their birth or their sexual orientation? There are polyamorists who swear they are just as much polyamorist as they are gay, and cousins, who certainly didn't choose the circustances of their birth, who are not allowed to marry in many states. If marriage is based on the desires/feelings of the adults rather than the kind of union that can be procreative, what is the basis for limiting marriage licensing to just two particpants, or denying marriage licenses on the basis of consanguinity? Or, is marriage really based on the amount of hounding done by a lobby group?
(This is a modified version of a posting I originally published at The Opine Editorials.)
Brilliant. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteVery well written! Thank you! The circa 3.5% of LGBTs are so powerful and want their life-style push onto the 96.5% of us. They talk about 'Tolerance" and show us their intolerance. At least in California they indoctrinate our children and grandchildren as of preschool with their agenda. And what scares me most is the fact .... what is next? For sure polygamy and incest and then? Bestiality and, and, and....
ReplyDeleteHere are some responses to your questions. Its a bit lengthy so I'll address each of your concerns separately.
ReplyDeleteAdoption - You wrote that "... Catholic adoption agencies, in order to be true to their convictions, have had to cease operations in states with neutered licensing.". This is factually incorrect. First off, the non-discrimination clauses that make it possible for same-sex couples to adopt predate any contemplation of same-sex marriage. In MA, this non-discrimination requirement has been the law since 1989. And Catholic Charities complied with the requirement for years, placing children with qualified same-sex couples! In 2005, four bishops made the decision to shut down the adoption services - perhaps because their own actions (placing children with same-sex couples) was inconsistent with their rhetoric against same-sex marriage?
Also noteworthy - their choice to get out of public adoption has had little impact, as they were not facilitating a significant number of public adoptions in the first place AND other agencies have stepped up to pick up the slack. Catholic Charities remains free to facilitate private adoption as they wish.
Are you telling me that states do not allow adoption agencies to give preference to married couples over unmarried couples?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePaternity Assumption You wrote: "Would the non-carrying lesbian be considered the default parent of a child her partner carries, whether or not she agreed to the pregnancy, and regardless of how that pregnancy was accomplished?"
ReplyDeleteI think YES is the answer to that question. At least it was in the case of Miller-Jenkins v Miller-Jenkins, two women united by civil union in Vermont who later split up, after the birth of a child conceived through artificial insemination.
In the eyes of the court, the concept you refer to would more properly be called "rights and responsibilities of the presumed parent(s)" - understanding that the term applies both to those who beget and those who raise and nurture.
We'll see how long this lasts.
DeleteChild Custody - The law, in most jurisdictions, no longer presumes that the mother should have custody. Furthermore, fathers who seek custody in contested cases usually win.
ReplyDeleteCustody is usually determined on the basis of who has been the primary caretaking parent.
I would be interested in seeing that data. Not hearing this from fathers... heck, not hearing it from lawyers and many woman, either.
DeleteStudy 1: MASS
Delete2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%)
5 year duration
29% of fathers got primary custody
65% of fathers got joint custody
7% of mothers got primary custody
Study 2: MASS
700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody
6 years
67% of fathers got primary custody
23% of mothers got primary custody
Study 3: MASS
500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody
6 years
41% of fathers got sole custody
38% of fathers got joint custody
15% of mothers got sole custody
Study 4: Los Angeles
63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful
Study 5: US appellate custody cases
51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html
Child Support - You wrote: "Would the spouse who is not biologically related to the children still be forced to pay child support?"
ReplyDelete... found on the internet ....
California's Supreme Court rules that unmarried, same-sex couples are lawful parents and must provide for their children if they break up. The court ruled that if both same-sex partners intended to parent a child conceived by artificial insemination, then both partners have an equal right to child custody and child support, even if one partner has no genetic link.
See, the court doesn't merely look at a genetic link. It looks at other legal and social links, such as:
1) adoption by the partner(s)
2) joint attendance at prenatal Dr. appointments
3) participation in Lamaze classes
4) Whether both parents held the child out to their families as an extended member of the family
You posit that a lack of "reproductive behavior" might constitute some kind of argument against responsibility for child support ... but the reality is that courts look to "parenting behavior" within the couple.
And as for the sperm donor you mention, held liable in court for child support? The parties in that case handled the insemination on their own, leaving the court without a third party to confirm their claims. Had they used a doctor - as they should have - there would have been no such expectation of child support.
Again, we'll see how long this lasts.
DeleteAbortion RightsYou write: "Currently, a wife can get an abortion even if her husband objects. Will "gay rights" trump abortion rights?"
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Why would they? If you look to the courts reasons for NOT allowing a man (husband or not) to prevent a woman from seeking an abortion, you'll see that they still hold up in the context of a same-sex couple.
Why would they? Because gay rights trump EVERYTHING.
DeleteCommunity Property You write: "In order to treat all couples equally, would the concept of community property be diminished?"
ReplyDeleteFirst off, lets be clear. The US only has 10 community property states, mostly in the west. The remainder recognize separation of marital property.
Here's how the IRS explains community property: "The theory underlying community property is analogous to that of a partnership. Each spouse contributes labor (and in some states, capital) for the benefit of the community, and shares equally in the profits and income earned by the community. Thus, each spouse owns an automatic 50% interest in all community property, regardless of which spouse acquired the community property. Spouses may also hold separate property, which they solely own and control, but the law in the community property states does not favor this."
You raise the question about whether this should be any different for same-sex couples, without providing any reason why it should be.
Community property is based on the idea that there is a division of labor in the marriage due to the two sexes.
DeleteBased on the gendered division of labor? Perhaps in 1953 that was the case! The contributions that two people make to their shared well being and wealth are not limited by gender!
DeleteSince 2011, the IRS has recognized that same-sex couples can possess community property between them.
Alimony You write: "Surely, a man should not have to pay alimony because he married a woman while another man avoids paying it because he married another man?"
ReplyDeleteAlimony is the court ordered provision for one's spouse after divorce or separation. More and more, it is the ex-wife who is ordered to pay the ex-husband. Because gender is not among the factors that the court considers, making the customary calculation of spousal support (almost) equally fir for same-sex couples as it is for opposite-sex couples.
I say "almost", because DOMA gives the payor of a dissolved opposite-sex relationship the ability to claim alimony as a tax deduction. No such option is available to same-sex couples.
Wrapping this up ...
ReplyDeleteYou write: "I do not believe that the voluntary association of a man and a woman is the same kind of voluntary association as two women or two men, and I do not see a moral or legal obligation for the state to treat all three as the same."
Nobody is trying to take away your ability to believe that. You can continue as long as you like to ignore the substantial similarities between these different voluntary associations and to fixate on the differences. You can continue to claim that these differences are the defining characteristics of marriage despite obvious evidence to the contrary. You can continue to contort your rationale so that it covers those you favor (who, coincidentally, are like you) while excluding those others who are unlike you.
You write: "I see a state interest in licensing and encouraging natural marriage that is not met in either of the other two kinds of unions."
There are many state interests met by all three types of associations, including the state's interests in seeing that children are raised in stable households. Is there another state interest we should consider, and any indication that recognizing same-sex unions would undermine that state interest in any way? And is there any reason why that state interest should trump the interests of the two individuals who'd marry?
You write ... something about polygamy and incest. And your anonymous commenter adds something about bestiality.
The answer is that
1) the differences between these types of associations are marriage are substantial and relevant (unlike the differences between opposite-sex and same-sex couples who'd marry)
2) the state's sound rationale for exclusions of these other types of associations from marriage doesn't evaporate with the recognition of same-sex marriage
"You can continue to claim that these differences are the defining characteristics of marriage despite obvious evidence to the contrary." You haven't provided any evidence that these other voluntary associations are the same kinds of associations.
DeleteWhat is the basis for SSM? Why is it needed, and what the moral obligation to provide it?
I used to think the bestiality argument was flawed, until Leftists, the very same people leading the push to neuter marriage licensing, started claiming that certain other species should be considered persons and that there is no justification for treating animals differently than humans.
Marriage is the basis for same-sex marriage. It is a kind of relationship. Here's the best description of it I've ever found:
DeleteMarriage is an unconditional, life-long commitment between two persons who promise to share all of life and love, home and hearth, body and soul; marriage necessarily involves both the fullest of communication, the deepest of understanding, and the strongest of personal loyalty and trust between two people.
...
through one another, each partner confronts the ultimate meaning of his/her life precisely by sharing life unconditionally with another person
...
Marriage is exclusive in so far as everyone else is excluded from the innermost circle of intimacy, both sexual and personal, shared between the two partners—no one else has access to the inner heart and mind, as well as the body, of the partner in exactly the same way. For this same reason, marriage is also inclusive because all of one's life—one's finances, career, leisure time, friendships, relationship to family friends, even one's other so-called soul-mates—must be understood from the stand-point of, and in light of, the marriage commitment. Put differently, the whole of one's life, history, successes, failures, hopes and dreams, joys and sorrows, are included in the relationship between two people.
These are the defining characteristics, and they are neither unique nor exclusive to opposite-sex couples.
Coitus, on the other hand, is exclusive to opposite-sex couples. And quite common outside of marriage. Even rape is coitus. Something that occurs widely outside of marriage can hardly be the key characteristic that defines it!