Presumed Maternity: Part II
| July 16th, 2004In “Presumed Maternity” I mentioned that, Dr. Susan Shell was under the impression gays and lesbians didn’t want presumed parenthood as part of marriage. She also suggested their desire to avoid presumed parenthood is a reason same sex marriage should not be enacted. That sounded wrong to me then; it still does.
The Boston Heraldreports:
Cora Roelofs and Liz Steinhauser are named as mother and “second parent” on a certificate issued by the town of Wellesley and approved by the state Department of Public Health.
Visit the paper, you’ll see the two women who look pretty darn happy! It seems they are very specifically happy with the right to presumed parenthood:
Roelofs and Steinhauser said yesterday that denying them recognition as legal parents is rooted in discrimination that was correctly labled as such in the court decision legalizing gay marriage.
Yes. I still think this is an important marital benefit advocates of same sex marriage long for.
July 16th, 2004 at 9:30 am
Indeed, it is.
This comment was written by shannon.Pretty much the number one reason we’d marry if we could.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2004 at 11:39 am
I can’t help but wonder if Dr. Shell really, truly believes same-sex couples don’t want this presumed parenthood, or if SHE doesn’t want them to want it.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2004 at 12:36 pm
Mythago, I tend to think the latter. I have never heard any advocate of same sex marriage say that they marriage– but stripped of this right.
I seem to frequently see custody cases where gay rights groups provide amicus briefs in favor of the non-birth parent– and never for the birth parent. If we read NOW’s page, they mention this right. Plus, it is a right under the general heding of “parenthood” rights.
Naturally, we don’t see this as the constant topic of discussion on blogs or articles– but that’s because it’s just one of the many, many rights that gays and lesbians want to gain through marriage.
Naturally, I am noting these and posting them because Shell is creating (or imagining) this fiction and trying to use it as a prong to block same sex marriage.
Well.. and I liked the picture of the happy mothers with their baby!
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 7:49 am
Wouldn’t it be nice if legal parenthood were secure apart from marriage.
If people, all people, were treated as though they had full rights and personhood by virtue of being human, without the state defining and codifying their relationships.
Without us having to pretend that marriage only treats people unequally in its absence, not also with its presence.
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 9:36 am
When I was a little girl, it was presumed that I would grow up, marry, and naturally have children. That was sexist.
Now that I am a middle aged lesbian it is presumed that I will marry and have children. That is heterosexist.
I would rather see new legislation or revamping of old legislation secure the rights of gays and lesbians, rather than the packaged selling of marriage as the only way to go. For queer politics to secure marriage rights BEFORE securing housing and job security is to present a classist and heteronormative politcs. Is this truly securing rights, or is it assimilation? Especially if the majority of the rights go to a minority of queers.
Who benefits when even gays and lesbians codify monogomy and the nuclear family?
Patriarchy perhaps?
This comment was written by S. Ellett.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 10:13 am
“Presumption at law” has a specific meaning. It does not mean “your family and neighbors assume you will do X”.
The presumption of paternity means the court assumes a particular person is the father unless proven otherwise. This is similar to the presumption of innocence, which means the court assumes a person is innocent unless proven otherwise.
I’m pretty sure that those who are working to secure marriage rights are also working to secure other rights, pursuing rights is not an either/or decision. I also doubt rights are obtained faster by suggesting right #1 must be secured before right number #2 etc. Attempting to make the process order dependent simply permits those who oppose gay rights to focus opposition on one right at a time.
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 10:32 am
Can I ask: are you “pretty sure” because this is what you have first hand experience with, or are you “pretty sure” because it doesn’t make sense to you that some rights might be privileged over others. From what I have seen, queer activists have rather jumped on the marriage bandwagon at the expense of attention to housing and employement equality. Living where I do, in the south, it is entirely conceivable that prejudicial (and still legal) choices could be made to the detriment of gays and lesbians. I’m pretty sure that legalizing same sex marriage will mean squat to the rights of most gays and lesbians that I know in the face of more tangible (and legal) discrimination.
I still have objections to attaining rights at the price of assimilation into a patriarchal/heteronormative society. Does this mean that rights only extend to those gays and lesbians that conform?
This comment was written by S. Ellett.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 10:39 am
I’m pretty sure because gay rights groups as a whole advocate a wide range or rights, and work to advance all of them. Naturally, some individuals end up working on one particular right more than others for a variety of reasons.
At the same time, I’ll admit that one particular right may suddenly become the focus of attention for a large variety or reasons. One reason can be that it seems as though there is opening to make an advance. Another reason might be that it may seem there is a sudden attempt on the part of opponents to push in that area.
What rights do you think you might lose if marriage were extended to same sex couples?
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 11:12 am
I don’t understand how an objection on grounds of coercion (based on extending rights only to those who conform, i.e. marry) translates into you asking for a list of rights that might be lost, lucia.
Clearly, rights that aren’t there in the first place cannot be lost. And coercion never took anybody’s rights away; its entire power is in getting them to sign them away themselves for fear of a worse fate. On the other hand, awarding rights to some but not others (unless they change their behavior to fall in line) is a pretty time-honored strategy to quell the forward motion of a movement.
For the record, I’m heterosexual. I’m also unmarried and quite anti-marriage. I realize that my heterosexuality means that if my life situation with my partner should become bad enough, I have the option of strolling down to the courthouse any time I please. And I know that’s a “reward” given to me for doing what society wants, i.e. pairing with a man.
I know that it’s not fair for society to provide me with an “out” and not provide other people with the same option. I support everyone being provided with the same options. On the other hand, it is ridiculously unfair for society to present to all of us ONE option, marriage, with the expectation that those who don’t choose it are SOL when it comes to the definition of family, insurance, adoption, etc.
So while I will support the defeat of my state’s anti-gay constitutional amendment and agree with the principle that what is available to me should be available to a lesbian, I will never demand that what is pushed on me get pushed on a lesbian. And I’ve seen a lot of straight “allies” using that kind of happy horseshit rhetoric regarding the same-sex marriage issue.
You know. About how marriage is a beautiful and sacred institution and people are the same in the eyes of God and all that. That unmarried people (gay or het) are being shorted because they’re excluded from a sacrament. That there is any inherent value in a marriage license, any value at all apart from the rights we bestow upon the married so that legal marriages still happen.
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 11:50 am
I guess I just misunderstood you. I wasn’t”getting” your concern. I’m hunting around for questions that, if answered, might make me understand.
Reading your answer, it’s clear the question I asked helped slightly– but not entirely. (Meaning, I think I’m progressing toward understanding your objection, but not completely. Which means… I may ask what seems another silly question. They are meant as questions btw– not rhetorical devices to make points.)
If you are anti-marriage in general, and consider it coercive for heterosexual couples, then I can begin to understand what you are saying. I didn’t automatically get that position. I just thought you were suggesting marriage rights are less important that the other rights. Instead, I think your view is closer to the idea that they aren’t very important at all. (Except in so far as “if one groups gets it, the other should too.”)
I happen to disagree. I think marriage rights are important to those who want them. I also think any advance in treating people evenhandedly is an advance that helps push other things forward.
I’ll admit, I’m in the “happy horseshit” camp. I’m married, and I value marriage. At a minimum, it does benefit me, and it would even withouth the tax benefits etc. I don’t think gays who wish to marry should be deprived. I also don’t think we should coerce people who don’t wish to marry to marry.
Strangely enough, I think some — but not all–rights may be expanded to singles when marriage is provided to same sex couples. (But, my prediction could be wrong.)
The reason this might happen is that, in some cases, rights are linked to marriage precisely because married couples are not gay! Or at least, some people really don’t mind that gays are deprived of those rights.
On the sacramental aspect– I think the trend has been for some churches to recognize same sex marriages. I suspect the law will have little impact on church’s decision in this regard. (The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize civil divorce.) In my mind the political question is one of law– religion.
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 12:10 pm
At a minimum, it does benefit me, and it would even withouth the tax benefits etc.
Without the tax benefits, etc., there IS no such thing as legal marriage. What is it that you believe you’re benefited by?
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 12:25 pm
(I think, also, you may be attributing some of S. Ellett’s arguments to me? Just want to point that out, because though I agree with her posts, and did involve myself with your response to one of her posts, I don’t want my own interpretation of her comments to be taken as defense by their speaker.)
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 1:18 pm
“What rights do you think you might lose if marriage were extended to same sex couples?”
Well, that’s the crux. I don’t have rights to lose. They aren’t there in the first place. I do not see how marriage will insure that housing and job discrimination are eradicated. Especially if the right to marriage is determined on a state to state basis.
I personally don’t advocate marriage, gay or otherwise, on my feminist principles. However, I do not think that gays/lesbians should be denied the right to marry. What I object to is the mainstreaming of queer politics in a way that mirrors some of the worst of patriarchal/classist norms. All while more pertinent issues are sidelined.
Lucia: how do you see same sex marriage (nice how gay and lesbian is written right out of the phrase!) changing civil liberties for queers? How will same sex marriage bring my civil rights up to the level of yours? How does mainstreaming queer culture prevent hate crimes?
This comment was written by S. Ellett.Report this comment to the moderators
September 9th, 2004 at 2:22 pm
Without the tax benefits, etc., there IS no such thing as legal marriage. What is it that you believe you’re benefited by?
This comment was written by lucia.Societal recognition! (And you are right– I confuses you and S. Ellett! )
Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
In terms of gay marriage, I don’t have a problem, but still I think of that old adage: Be careful what you wish for. Advocates like to lovingly recite all the benefits to marriage like health insurance. What they don’t seem to appreciate is how raked you can get in a divorce. Ask a middle-aged straight person who lost all savings, pensions, etc., and will spend their old age catching up. The courts are often unfair, despite promises of equal treatement. And what a custody mess they are in for! Already, with fathers rights, custody has become more controversial, complicated, and expensive than ever. I don’t think that lesbian (birth) mothers necessarily think of this when they decide to marry their partner. Oh yea, she’s great now. But a couple of years down the road when you find you she’s an unrepentant alcoholic who drove the kids around in a stupor, you’ll find out what you’re up against. If she’s your live-in, you kick her sorry ass out of the house. But if you’re MARRIED to her, all of the sudden she can accuse you of lying or alienation, etc. etc., and before you know it, you’re in a lengthy court battle and this idiot gets unsupervised visitation or even custody.
This comment was written by silverside.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Actually, I’d find legal marriage would be a much better way of handling the alcoholic angle (or anything similar).
This comment was written by karpad.what if the problem parent was the one who was the problem? The parent attempting to save the children would have many fewer stumbling blocks if there was a status of legal marriage in place, or at the very least, joint adoption, which is currently not legal in all states. If the party got a DUI with the kids in the car, both divorce and full custody to the other one in a hetero relationship are near certainties.
Gays and lesbians who split up are also not entitled to alimony or child support. While the payer thereof may think the absense is an advantage, the hypothetical recepient may very well need (not just want, but need)
Marriage, and any committed relationship, is a risk, calculated or not. but same sex couples currently have all those same risks, but none of the legal benefits of marriage the goverment grants hetero couples.
such a commitment may be foolhardy, expensive, and a waste of time and effort, leaving everyone involved bitter and broken, but don’t same sex couples at least deserve the chance ot make the choice to end up bitter, lonely and broken?
Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
silverside, if you think you “get raked” in a divorce, imagine what it’s like when your relationship has zero legal standing at all. Shared property? Sorry, you don’t have any. Custody? You’re not the biological parent, are you?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2005 at 7:39 am
My point is that a lot of these so-called protections in marriage are more promise than fact. Despite your faith that “no one” with a history with alcoholism could possibly get custody over a non-alcoholic this is not a given. If you follow these matters, it is absolutely astonishing how often a battering or incompetent parent, especially if that parent has greater access to financial resources, can win. Like any court proceeding, money is the key to the outcome. If you were in a criminal court, you wouldn’t necessarily expect to walk out with just results unless you had a good attorney. If your attorney is asleep the whole time (as happened in an infamous case in Texas), well, too bad you’re on death row when you were out of town at the time the crime occurred. Same holds true in domestic matters. It is perfectly possibly for one party to walk away with all the material assets. Or for one party to get hammered by the IRS after the divorce because your ex-spouse had shady business dealings you never knew about (although the IRS has “innocent spouse” defenses, it is exceedingly hard to prove.) You can be held legally responsible for your spouse’s debts. If one party cleans out your savings accounts or the kids’ college accounts, too bad. Try getting it back.
Divorce courts and family courts are not necessarily fair or free from political pressures. The faith that gay couples will get an impartial judge as to dividing assets and such is somewhat dubious, probably more so than for straight couples giving homophobia.
This is NOT an argument against gay marriage. It’s simply stating the benefits to legal marriage are often overstated, and that the possible downside can be tremendous, especially if it turns out that your ex-spouse is vindictive or basically a con. Bringing in the state to mediate is not necessarily a big improvement over wrangling it out yourselves. If you are both fairly honorable people to start with, then you could probably arrange your divorce amicably just as amicable straight marrieds do, and the court simply signs off on it. But if the relationship is more problematic than that, you will find that courts just don’t have the time, expertise, or interest to dig in and really find out what’s going on. And it will cost you 20K+ to find this out.
This comment was written by silverside.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2005 at 8:19 am
and our point, silverside, is that as it stands, gay couples have all of the negative aspects of marriage, including your beloved kids going to the alcoholic and getting screwed out of all your finances, while enjoying none of the benefits.
This comment was written by karpad.and if gay couples did get legal marriage, they’d be just as entitled to be cynical and force any partner to sign a prenup as hetero couples.
your statements really seem akin to telling someone legally forbidden from literacy “hey, reading’s not so great anyway.” the point isn’t whether or not they actually choose to read. the point is that it’s a choice about how to conduct their lives that they are legally forbidden from making.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Well, not exactly. Since gay couples cannot file joint income tax returns, they will not be in a situation where one person gets a “surprise” after a breakup (a final collection notice from the IRS is a scary thing, especially when you had no idea. Take my word for it.) Your ex-partner’s profligate spending and credit card debt remains that person’s legal problem, not yours. You will not find yourself handing over half your pension to someone who cleaned out the checking account. They have no standing to do so.
Yes, the argument can be made that when marriage is happy, there are some legal, tax, and benefit advantages. And as I have made very clear, I favor people being able to marry regardless of the gender of their partner. However, I think that there is a tendency, perhaps because marriage has been denied to same-sex couples, to see it through rose-colored glasses. Yes, in some cases marriage might facilitate a more equitable breakup (divorce). But don’t bet on it. In fact, it has been argued that the way divorces are structured as legal entities, the process ENCOURAGES fault-finding, finger-pointing, and personally destructive tactics. Especially in states like New York, which do not recognize no-fault divorce. Such things tend to accelerate acrimony, and the argument has been made that attorneys, at least in some cases, encourage this. You and your boyfriend/girlfriend may have broken up on fairly easy terms. But if you are legally married, and lawyers, guardians, psychologists, and the like get involved in the breakup process, the cost goes through the roof and the results are not necessarily any better or more equitable than they would have been otherwise. Plus you will find yourself living for years with the courts hanging over your life. You may find yourself required to provide a copy of your tax return to your ex-spouse on an annual basis. You may find your home rescrutinized by “authorities” everytime there is a custody or visitation dispute.
What I am trying to say is that it is important to not unduly romanticize marriage. It’s important to know the downside (like inherited debt) as well as the good parts (access to your partner’s health insurance).
This comment was written by silverside.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2005 at 10:58 am
I don’t think anyone here is out to “romaticize marriage.” In fact, pretty much every arguement I’ve ever heard in favor of SSM could be easily framed by a b-grade standup comic.
“Of course I support gay marriage. Gay people deserve the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. I kid, I kid. I love my wife. marriage is an adventure you share with other people. Like crashing in the Andes and having to eat your buddies.”
and what is the deal with airline food, huh?
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 9:13 am
Your ex-partner’s profligate spending and credit card debt remains that person’s legal problem, not yours.
Unless, of course, you were a co-signer on their credit card, or had a joint bank account. You can get screwed over badly without ever getting married. If your breakup with your same-sex boyfriend or girlfriend was not amicable, you’re STILL going to have lawyers involved–only more so. You think it sucks to pay a lawyer to argue over custody of yours and your ex-spouses’s kids? Imagine paying a lawyer to try and persuade a state court that even though you have no legal relationship to the kid, you should get visitation rights.
Of course marriage has obligations as well as benefits, of course marriage law is not perfect, of course every couple should consider carefully whether they want marriage. What does that have to do with fighting for the right of same-sex couples to marry if they so choose?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 11:59 am
I’m not crazy about the concept of marriage, but the basic problem I have with it is that it prescribes an extremely narrow model of family and childrearing. It’s got all sorts of sexist assumptions coded into it, often coded in religious terms (which I don’t care for, either).
However, simply abolishing marriage isn’t going to happen. There are too many legal and social constructions wired into it, and too many families that already exist that are based on the concept of marriage. Not to mention the emotional baggage.
So, strategically, I think the best approach is to change the social construction of the family by broadening the concept of what forms marriage can take. Accepting the idea that two people of the same sex can be married would undermine the idea that marriage requires fixed gender roles.
This comment was written by FoolishOwl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Again, I made the point that I fully support the rights of same sex couples to marry. Mazel Tov to all who wish to marry; may you live a long and happy life together. Only I think the legal benefits to marriage in general, whether you are gay or straight, tend to be overstated, and the potential liabilities are seldom acknowledged.
Ask how many people who are contemplating getting married if they knew that their partner’s business dealings will become THEIR problem by marrying and signing a joint return. Not nearly as many who are vaguely aware of the marriage tax or deductions for dependents.
We don’t tend to educate people on these things, and the discussion of marriage as an institution gets gooey eyed, with visions of tiered cakes and all.
It should be more rational, but probably won’t. In deciding whether you want to go into business as a sole proprietor, partnership, or corporation, you are far more likely to go over all your options and identify the legal and financial advantages and disadvantages of all of them as they relate to your needs. People don’t tend to this with marriage, except in a vague way - We want to make a “commitment” etc. In reality, a commitment is what you make of it, and marriage may hinder or help this, depending on what kind of spouse your partner turns out to be.
Apart from supporting the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry, I do have some concerns that the marriage debate and its focus on health insurance benefits, immigration rights, etc. has a tendency to deflect attention on how utterly screwed up this stuff is and how much it needs to be reformed to be fair to everyone.
This comment was written by silverside.Report this comment to the moderators
January 28th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
So the problem is that people don’t know their rights and responsibilities, and need to make an informed choice when they legally marry. No argument there.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators