Previous post
I believe in honesty in journalism, so as many of you know, I have a dog in this fight. Actually I have more like a pack involved in the marriage equality issue when I add my relatives and my friends that this effects. As many of you, who are kind enough to read my posts here at VG, know marriage equality is something I care deeply about. It is something I have “gone to the mattresses” for in my own state and I tend to sway more Libertarian on this topic than most of my conservative brethren. If you are still reading, grab some coffee and let’s get to it!
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that they would hear the case of three same-sex couples from three different states on the issue of marriage equality. Now, each of these couples has their own story but the couple that really caught my attention were April DeBoer and her partner Jayne Rowse. You see the two nurses have adopted a total of four of their former foster children all of whom have special needs. Now, as the mother of a child diagnosed with two disorders that make life a bit challenging-even though he is very highly intelligent and functional-I understand what kind of empathy and patience these ladies must possess in their daily lives. I have walked 1/4 of their path with my natural son and it is challenging!
What led them to this point was when making their wills they found out that Michigan, their home state, would not automatically grant custody of the children to the surviving partner if one of them died suddenly. They decided to challenge the adoption code and a judge, appointed by Ronald Reagan, told them that they should recast their case as a marriage equality case.
The Supreme Court will hear 2.5 hours of oral arguments in April and then will issue a ruling on marriage equality before the current term ends in late June. This case could put the marriage equality issue to rest in the United States, or at least that is the hope of those who support it. Supporters of marriage equality laws, generally speaking, want same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal protection that male/female married couples receive as a matter of course. If I died tomorrow, my husband would retain custody of my son, for example.
I have many friends who are same-sex married couples who have adopted children and these children are growing up in loving, stable home environments. There are studies that have determined that children raised by gay parents are as emotionally well off as their counterparts raised in straight households. In fact, a thirty year study published in the American Journal of Pediatrics in 2013 showed that children’s well being is much more effected by their relationships with their parents, than their parents sexual orientation.
“Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.”
Now, the whole reason that most states are involved in marriage in the first place (let’s be honest) is stability and taxation. When people marry, they combine incomes and become more financially stable. They buy homes and have children which they send to the schools run by the state and their combined incomes provide higher tax revenue for the state. You see how that goes, at least that is the theory.
When gays are not granted the same chance to marry, their children experience added stress from social stigma, their parents do not receive the same tax incentives and the purchase and inheritance of real property and assets become a challenging legal miasma. This does not create the same stable legal foundation and can arguably cause stress within the household which is detrimental to everyone’s mental health.
I leave you with one final thought on the topic:
“Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married.”
In short, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”, Luke 6:31.
Pat says: I am fine with same sex unions with all the protections that normal couples enjoy. My only concern is that they will push and push until they force religions to perform the sacrament of marriage for same sex couples. I don’t have a problem with religions that accept it, but don’t feel that people of faith should be forced to “perform” for them because of the law, i.e. the bakery that refused to make a cake for a same sex wedding. How do we solve this problem?
Jennifer says: Pat,
I suggest what our state did. We have a protection for clergy written into our law. So churches who object can “opt out” of performing same-sex ceremonies.
The bakery case was based on a law our state has about equal rights, the business violated that law and no matter how anyone feels about that-ignorance of the law is no excuse. Do I think she should have lost her business? No. Do I think that the state over re-acted by slapping them with a $150K fine? Yes. However, with that said, I also think that business owners have a responsibility to know the laws of the state that they do business in.
I appreciate your inquiry Pat, this is exactly what I think the party should do as a whole-engage in respectful dialogue about differences and (hopefully) we could conquer the left!
Jennifer
Kate says: Actually the bakery in question was pushed out of business by rabid gay marriage activists who used every tool available to shut them down.
Jere says: Kate is right. Go to another damn bakery who does not have an issue baking gay wedding cakes. Not a big deal for anyone other than the gay nazis who shut the bakery down.
Claire Stevens says: I am wary of so-called studies that use information that is volunteered by the people being studied. The studies used in the AAP report cited above all appear to rely heavily or exclusively on the observations of the “parents.” When this happens you have no objective observation, only reports from those with a vested interest in advancing their agenda.
It’s always tempting to let our emotions cloud our judgment when it comes to others. We want to like each other. We want to believe the best of others. Unfortunately what we want to believe and what is true are often different.
Laurie Trlak says: Claire I feel the same way. Having done graduate work in public health (I did not finish for reasons of my own health), and having designed, run, and interpreted a statistical study of my own, I am well aware that a valid clinical study must involve direct observation of phenomena. Exclusive reliance upon self reported information is not sufficient to make reasonable inferences about the meaning of the data. One can only hope that real, objective studies will produce the same results.
I, like you, am more libertarian on this particular issue. I believe gay couples should, and will, be allowed to marry. I’m a very happily married man and would like everyone to experience my kind of happiness.
Jennifer says: Steve,
Thank you for your comment! To the other folks I simply believe in liberty for all. I appreciate everyone’s observations here because they are all respectful. We are blessed with a wide range of readers here at VG and we appreciate all of you.
Jennifer
Lynne says: I took a long way around to get to a similar answer as yours. Why does the state have a compelling interest in what otherwise would be a contract between two individuals? I think the answer largely boils down to stability — to protection of children. Until recently, if a man died, his children could have been cast adrift without the protection of his marriage to their mother. Or if a woman died, the same children might have been cast adrift by their father’s denial of relationship. By marrying first, the state gives any ensuing children some protection. Economic protection of women, who historically had negligible opportunities to make a living on their own, was another consideration that is less relevant today.
But that all goes out the window in an era of birth control, surrogacy, and easy divorce. My sister and her husband decided early in their marriage that there would be no children, and of course technology supports their decision. Theirs is a partnership of emotional commitment (which shouldn’t really be the state’s business) and economic/legal commitment (which is legitimately the state’s business). Does she, as a lawyer, need economic protection? Not really. Is it a great convenience that they both receive power of attorney for each other’s affairs?
Conversely, my son has a little friend who has two wonderful daddies. Does this kid not deserve the same societal protection as my own boys? Of course he does. And the children of my divorced friends? If there were no legal records of the parental relationship that created these children, how many of them would be suffering economically now, for their parents choices? Probably several, at least.
So the bottom line, for me, is that I have to support protection of the children raised by gay parents, the same way I support protection of the children raised by straight parents. I’m not much interested in asking the state to recognize the “love” between two gay people – that’s absolutely their own business, just as the state has no particular business intruding in the question of whether I love my husband dearly. In America, I am free to associate with whomever I please. I would be happier if gay rights activists would stop focusing so much on how their love relationship deserves the same treatment as mine. Talk to me instead about the family unit, about the economic protection of spouses and about ensuring the children are taken care of.
Roger says: Jennifer,
The fact that your state has written a “protection” for clergy into the law…but not for those who sit in the pews of the church they preach in, or for who practice a faith which may object to gay marriage…is not something to be held up as an example for other states to follow. Why? Because it creates a “freedom for me but not for thee” situation and as such, it is NOT a solution to the problem at all. In fact, it should be condemned by anyone with even remotely libertarian leanings because there cannot be true LIBERTY if you accept the premise that GOVERNMENT is the GRANTOR of rights, instead of being an institution that recognizes and PROTECTS the rights of ALL.
What the baker…or photographer, or florist…who refused to provide their services to gay weddings thought they were doing was exercising both their rights of conscience and association…rights our Constitution explicitly PROTECTS. Yet those rights were superseded by the “right” to gay marriage which even its supporters admit has been created through judicial interpretation of existing laws that say NOTHING about marriage…often overriding legislative AND popular votes that dealt DIRECTLY with the subject.
Note too that when those businesses were told that they must provide their services for gay marriages, they were forced to enter into CONTRACTS against their will. Perhaps you were unaware, but wedding services are NOT at all like other businesses…like ordering lunch at a counter. They are performed only after BOTH parties agree to contracts that stipulate the terms of the service. So advancing the cause of gay marriage also comes at the price ignoring laws which state that any contract that someone enters into against their will or under duress is legally unenforceable and invalid! (BTW, as someone who has photographed weddings in the past, I NEVER worked without a contract and I know of no florists, bakers or photographers who will provide wedding services without one.)
As for your belief that the only reason government is involved in marriage is “stability and taxation”, it is also flawed as it dismisses the fact that neither of those things involve DEFINING what a marriage is…only the purpose of ACCEPTING its PREEXISTING definition as a social institution that predates government. As such government…or any agent thereof…does NOT have the right to redefine it in ANY way without the CONSENT of the governed, which usually takes the form of legislative action or public votes, like in propositions. Yet the “right” to gay marriage has not taken that route at all…it has been imposed on society by judges and agencies OVERRIDING the will of the governed. You can talk all you want about America’s changing attitudes about gay marriage…cite for me poll after poll…but the simple fact of the matter is that in every state where gay marriage has been on the ballot, voters have rejected it and only 1 state has passed it through their legislature.
The truth is that you make neither the conservative nor libertarian case for gay marriage…in fact, your take amounts to little more than an acceptance of the ends justify the means because you agree with those ends. Saying that you believe in “liberty for all” misses the fact that liberty goes both ways, which means that ANYTHING that forces ANYONE to participate in ANYTHING they object to, is not just morally wrong but would be considered legally wrong if this country actually adhered to its founding documents….
You say that you are a conservative who is libertarian on this issue…fine, then make the case for gay marriage on those terms. This article does not do that at all….
Caroline says: Just as the abortion license was secured through appeals to our compassion for those rare, difficult conundrums such as rape and incest, so too are the arguments for gay marriage leaning heavily upon our desire to signify compassion for children inspecial circumstances. When the smoke clears, we will have necessarily changed the definition of marriage from an institution designed to bind biological parents to the children that will likely issue from their pairing — an indisputable good for the greatest number of children– to a legal arrangement that privileges the desires of adults over the needs of the child. We are asked to consider the claim of deBoer and Rouse to ensure that the other spouse is automatically granted parental rights should something happen to the other. In order for this claim to be privileged as a matter of law, the law will first have to deny the child any claim to his or her own paternity. In California, birth certificates have already been changed to eliminate the category of paternity in exchange for “parent 1” and “parent 2”. I have spent some time reading about actual cases which point to a very different outcome than the rainbows-and-unicorns with which we’re constantly presented….sometomes there was a father in the picture at first, and then a gay relationship between women which eventually ends and the child ends up with someone with whom he has zero biological connection. Please read some of the stories such children have actually written at the “my daddy’s name is donor” blog. This is a trojan horse that will destroy the family by enshrining as law the fiction that biological ties, that gender characteristics, are insignificant. To say nothing of the consumer market for babies that will explode once gay “marriage” is the law of the land. do not be deceived that this is “about the children.”
11 Comments