When mommy or daddy comes out of the closet..
| July 27th, 2004Maggie Gallagher recently posted a synopsis of reader email. One item struck me:
Seven adult children with a gay parent wrote to me; most of these were children of divorce whose mother or father left the marriage as part of the coming out process. None of these had favorable experiences.
I am not surprised to learn children suffer when homosexuals marry opposite sex partners, become parents, and later find they can no longer tolerate the situation. I would not be surprised to learn these children suffered before, during and after their mommy and daddy’s divorce. Likely mommy and daddy suffered too.
This is one of the reasons I support legalizing same sex marriage.
July 27th, 2004 at 4:21 pm
Gee. Both of my parents are straight and I wouldn’t describe going through their divorce as a pleasant experience. But neither was living with them as a married couple.
This comment was written by pseu.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2004 at 4:30 pm
I suspect when a homosexual marries someone of the opposite sex, they are more likely to divorce than the average couple. It’s just a guess….
I would also guess that growing up with parents whose marriage is under stress for any reason would be painful. I would also guess that marriages between in the closet homosexuals and heterosexuals are, on average, more stressful than other marriages.
As it happens, my parents are now divorced. If asked, I would rate the divorce as an “unfavorable” experience. However, I would rate living at home during highschool with bickering parents even more unfavorable. I was totally relieved when the divorce finally went through, and the level of stress in my life dropped.
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2004 at 5:57 pm
surprise surprise, divorce is viewed unfavorably by the children. My parents divorced when I was 11. I would say that was quite a _negative_ experience.
Has _little_ to do with one of the parents being ‘gay’.
as to the rest, well.. does she think that most people who had _great_ experiences would write to her? A woman with a known distaste for gay parenting (to put it mildly). Why should they? I think her extremely small anecdotal sampling is just a ‘tad’ skewed.
for what its worth? zilch.
This comment was written by Trey.Report this comment to the moderators
July 27th, 2004 at 6:10 pm
Weirdly, I’ve actually known a number of people whose parents broke up a marriage to live as gay and in one case to change sex. All of them, insofar as they express anything other than the usual stress kids of divorce would express, tend to say that if the parent had just been out in the first place…..
But never did I feel there was a huge gap of understanding between my experience as a kid whose parents were divorced and theirs.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2004 at 2:03 am
As Lucia said, if parents are unhappy together, sure the divorce is traumatic as it’s a major change, but it is preferable to living as a child in a miserable family where the adults are in a constant state of conflict. And the idea of a gay person forcing himself or herself to marry a member of the opposite sex and have kids and pretend not to be gay, and then divorcing and coming out, makes me feel yeah this is negative because they felt like they had to do something which from their perspective unnatural (basically, living a straight life when they are not straight). That is the negative thing, not the divorce itself. Usually, no make that always, a divorce is a symptom of something else.
This comment was written by Anna in Cairo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2004 at 7:00 am
I’m going to throw my weight in with the other commenters so far… it’s more the divorce (your parents don’t love one another, do they really love you?) that is traumatic than the coming out process. Besides, who’s to say all these “coming out” people were actually completely homosexual? Couldn’t they have been bi?
Purely hypothetically, if I were bi, but married a man because I loved him, lived for 15 years and decided… “You know, this isn’t working out, we are not good marriage partners” and divorced, then fell in love with a woman as my next serious relationship… that might look like I was secretly a homosexual all along, but truely I had no particular urge to swing either way.
This comment was written by wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2004 at 12:35 pm
I didn’t have a favorable experience with my straight as a stick, still married parents, either.
This comment was written by shannon.Let’s ban straight marriage and refuse to allow them to adopt.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2004 at 9:07 pm
I agree with pseu, that divorce in and of itself is not a pleasant experience to the children of the broken marriage, having also been there. I also think that the adult children of parents who divorce because of one parent coming out was probably perceived to be more difficult for them since they were children when being gay was still quite frowned upon in our society. I think that if gay marriage was legal, then a lot of people would be able to pursue their inherent dreams of having a family, without having to try and fit the mold of the societal norm (heterosexual marriage) to do so, and thus save the children from having to go through an ugly divorce. That is not to say that same sex couples won’t ever divorce. The same pressures for divorce in our society are universal to all citizens, gay or straight.
This comment was written by spot.Report this comment to the moderators
July 28th, 2004 at 10:49 pm
I agree with most comments in that divorce is most difficult on the children. I can not see divorce as a reason to support same sex marriages.
This comment was written by humidor.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2004 at 2:52 am
Here’s a snippet from an LA Times article about same-sex parenting upon divorce of same-sex couples….
>>LA Times: “But advocates for gay couples say changes in technology and family structures make those arguments out of date. The last census found about 27,000 households in the state where children were being reared by parents of the same gender.”
Perhaps most people assume that adoption and assisted reproduction are the primary means by which homosexual men and women become parents. While these methods each carry their own ethical issues for society and for prospective parents (same-sex couples, singles, married, whatever), and they also raise questions about the potential reduction of the child population living with same-sex couples should SSM be enacted, something else comes to mind.
Most of the children in same-sex households have come from marriages (between men and women). By my estimate based on Census data, upwards of 90% of these children have parents whose marriages have been dissolved. They have both moms and dads and have the potential legal protections of other children of divorce. (Isn’t that equal treatment?)
While a child in such a home may have an additional adult who dutifully serves as a social step-parent, that second adult is not the legal replacement of the non-custodial father or mother. Unless parental relinquishment takes place, adoption is not an option. That’s the way it is for man-woman couples, as well. (Equal treatment?)
Now, presumably SSM has its child-centered interest in these families. While I’m undecided about the presumption of joint custody, it seems to me that in theory, at least, joint custody would align with the unisex doctrine of parenting and the gender-neutral idea of SSM. At the outset it would give a homosexual parent equal standing with the child’s father or mother; and it would remove much of the gender-bias in determination of custody. And for the child it would be one way in which society could encourage both moms and dads to remain involved in the upbringing of their children. (Equal before the law, again.)
There are pros and cons, and other possibilities, but I’ve not seen SSM advocates address the practical ways that may be available to fortify existing legal protections for the vast majority of children living with same-sex couples, or homosexual individuals, outside of marriage today.
Even if we assumed enactment of SSM, what about the children of divorce living with the many same-sex couples who wouldn’t go for state sanction of their adult relationship? Would society be compelled by the presence of such children in same-sex households to extend marriage-like status again to non-marriage?
If not, then, how does their presence today connect with the pro-SSM case?
And if more homosexual men and women were to marry each other rather than fall into mixed-orientation marriages, wouldn’t that mean that the already tiny population of children in same-sex homes would diminish in size significantly?
I want to say that there is much unknown about such mixed-orientation marriages and it is probably a mistake to dismiss them as too odd to be sustained with both love, affection, and responsibility.
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2004 at 5:50 am
Chairm >>And if more homosexual men and women were to marry each other rather than fall into mixed-orientation marriages, wouldn’t that mean that the already tiny population of children in same-sex homes would diminish in size significantly?
Chairm, are you suggesting that smaller numbers of children experiencing their parents’ divorce and later living with a parent and a same sex step spouse or partner is a bad thing?
>>I want to say that there is much unknown about such mixed-orientation marriages and it is probably a mistake to dismiss them as too odd to be sustained with both love, affection, and responsibility.
You say little is known. I suspect there have been few definitive studies. That said, I would need to read see quite a few reliable studies showing that marriages between homosexuals and heterosexuals are just as stable and happy as those between two heterosexuals before I drop they assumption they tend to be less happy and stable.
I believe thatconjugal affection contributes inordinatesly to the bond between married partners. Deep conjugal affection is difficult if one partners is a homosexual married to a heterosexual!
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2004 at 10:31 am
I want to say that there is much unknown about such mixed-orientation marriages and it is probably a mistake to dismiss them as too odd to be sustained with both love, affection, and responsibility.
Actually there is much known about such marriages from the people who have been in them. It’s not a matter of them being ‘odd’; it’s a matter of it being difficult to sustain a loving, happy marriage when one partner has neither sexual nor romantic interest in the other because of their gender. Especially when that marriage was not entered into openly and knowingly.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2004 at 12:22 pm
I’m with Wookie here; I know of a homosexual couple that divorced and one partner then went and married a person of the opposite sex. There are also people who lived a liberal life and then, divorce and one or the other of them becomes conservative, or deeply religous, or switches religons.
Divorce is hard on a child; but there are worse things.
I think that in cases where people who either do not admit, even to themselves, that they are gay, or who fake it for a number of years and finally get tired of it, cause problems becaause the other spouse is double-whammied; first, they aren’t wanted, second in some ways they never were. That is turn the world upside down and tel me I am now right-side up confusing, upsetting etc. etc. Yes, this can occur with two heterosexuals too. So heterosexual parent starts wondering whats up with themselves? Are they secretly homosexual? Unattractive to the opposite sex (especially now, when they are starting to grey) etc. etc. And homosexual parent ma be exploring their new found sexuality (I don’t mean being promiscuous. I mean finding out about themselves more concretely)
Which puts the kisd where?
This comment was written by Rachel Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2004 at 1:39 pm
If SSM is enacted and fewer mixed-orientation marriages occur in the future, there will be fewer children born to homosexual mean and women. The size of the child population of children who migrate from those marriages to same-sex households would diminish over time. What, if any, weight does that prospect hold for the way in which some SSM advocates link the claimed adult right to marry someone of the same sex with the well-being of the already small population of children living in same-sex homes?
>>Lucia: “Deep conjugal affection is difficult if one partners is a homosexual married to a heterosexual!”
An assumption that may not apply to the individuals who chose to enter, and to stay, in such marriages. At least not to the extent that is implied in your bias.
>> mythago: “it’s a matter of it being difficult to sustain a loving, happy marriage when one partner has neither sexual nor romantic interest in the other because of their gender. Especially when that marriage was not entered into openly and knowingly.”
Does marriage hinge on romantic interest now? That may apply to same-sex union but it is not inherent in the marriage idea.
>>Rachel Ann: “Which puts the kisd where?”
Yes, how do the children fit into the SSM argument? Shouldn’t the childcentric view emphasize keeping both mom and dad — even if divorced — active in the life of their children? The enactment of SSM won’t transform into a parent the same-sex partner of one of the parents. And since there will be many, many, many same-sex couples who will not sign-up for SSM, what about the kids that are now pointed to as reason to change marriage law? Do we extend marriage to non-marriage, for example?
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
If SSM is enacted and fewer mixed-orientation marriages occur in the future, there will be fewer children born to homosexual mean and women.
Not following your reasoning. One might just as well argue that SSM means MORE children born of homosexual couples, because now that they have a stable framework for building families, same-sex couples will be more eager to become parents.
Does marriage hinge on romantic interest now?
Do you believe romantic interest is not a goal of marriage?
Look, I’m sure there are couples where one partner is homosexual that get along perfectly well. (It used to be more common for lesbians and gay men to marry for social protection and have ‘arrangements’ for lovers.) I’m not sure how that’s at all relevant to SSM.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2004 at 2:56 pm
I think his reasoning is pretty clear–legal same-sex marriage is going to mean, in the long term, that less homosexuals will feel compelled to make an opposite-sex marriage and have children for cover. Even today, most children with a homosexual parent came out of some variation on that theme. Everyone I’ve ever met *my* age who has a gay or lesbian parents had the parent come out and leave a straight, “sham” marriage with children.
This comment was written by Amanda.But more people will be having children inside same-sex marriages, so it will even out.
No matter where they come from, the fact is that gays and lesbians have children and that isn’t going to change. And those children will reap the benefits from legalizing same-sex marriage, even if those marriages are between parents or a parent and a step-parent.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2004 at 3:08 pm
I think his reasoning is pretty clear–legal same-sex marriage is going to mean, in the long term, that less homosexuals will feel compelled to make an opposite-sex marriage and have children for cover.
Sure, but as you note, that doesn’t mean the overall homosexual birth rate will decline; more homosexuals may feel comfortable marrying and having children, knowing it doesn’t require a sham marriage. So to assume SSM = less children born to gays is not a good assumption.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2004 at 3:48 pm
>>An assumption that may not apply to the individuals who chose to enter, and to stay, in such marriages. At least not to the extent that is implied in your bias.
I have known or known of, three couples who entered such marriages. None stayed in the marriage; all divorced.
Obviously, this is not a scientific sample, and I do not claim it to be one. However, I believe, it is likely marriages between these couples are less stable than average. I would need to see reliable studies to convince me that these marriages are as stable as marriages between heterosexual couples.
You ,Chairm may be predisposed to the opposite opinion. You have not explained why you think these marriages are likely as stable as others — you simply claim that my belief may be a bias.
By that token, yours is a bias as well. You are obviously free to hold your opinion and base them on your experiences. However, I would point out, in your case, you have suggested no reason why these marriages should be just as stable as others.
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2004 at 1:11 am
My question still stands. If the presence of the children is used to justify SSM, whatabout the presence of children in homes where the adults would stay outside of marriage? Should marriage be extended to non-marriage?
>>mythago: “One might just as well argue that SSM means MORE children born of homosexual couples, because now that they have a stable framework for building families, same-sex couples will be more eager to become parents.”
More eager maybe (doutbful) but less capable. Or do you assume that adoption and ART would provide such couples with children at a rate comparable to marriage (between men and women, of course)?
>>mythago: “I’m sure there are couples where one partner is homosexual that get along perfectly well. (It used to be more common for lesbians and gay men to marry for social protection and have ‘arrangements’ for lovers.) I’m not sure how that’s at all relevant to SSM.”
Romance may be one goal, as you put it, but marriage does not hinge on something so fleeting. Romance comes and goes. And comes and goes again. It is probably the least stable reason (or impulse) to marry another person — especially where children enter the picture.
As for “shams”, it seems to me that the same-sex homes of which I’m aware (not a random sampling by any means) do have their own arrangements for outside lovers. In fact, the couples who have stayed together the longest (10-20 years) either have lost interest in sex with each other (especially the lesbian couples) or have from the start treated each other more like intimate friends (former lovers or intermittent lovers) than anything resembling monogamous married partners.
Why is it a sham for men and women to marry (despite sexual prefs) but not for these same-sex couples to claim their relationships are the equivalent of marriage?
>>Amanda: “No matter where they come from, the fact is that gays and lesbians have children and that isn’t going to change. And those children will reap the benefits from legalizing same-sex marriage, even if those marriages are between parents or a parent and a step-parent.”
But ART children are less than one-half of one percent of all the children born each year; and adopted children are 2% of all the children living at home. Even if you double those rates for same-sex couples, the child population in same-sex homes will not grow, but shrink very, very much, if fewer homosexual men and women have children in marriages with their opposite sexes. So fewer and fewer children would be touched by SSM in the future, should SSM be enacted.
Based on what has happened elsewhere, only a small portion of same-sex couples would bother to sign-up for SSM. Loads of children would not “reap the benefits” (indirectly). Besides, about 90% of the homosexual population doesn’t enter same-sex union, and 97% doesn’t live with children. That is not going to turnaround, I think.
If people really wanted to help the children in same-sex homes, they’d acknowledge that the vast majority are children of divorce and that it is important to include both active moms and dads in their lives. Where does that fit in the SSM argument?
>>Lucia: “you have suggested no reason why these marriages should be just as stable as others.”
One of the planks in the SSM platform is that marriage is inherently stabilizing for the couples who make the adult decision to bond their lives together. Apparently there are couples who do not fit well in the SSM doctrine of marriage.
Why would SSM make same-sex union more stable? Are same-sex couples going to breakup less often than they do today? Are there studies from places where SSM has been enacted? What is the current rate of dissolution of such couples in the USA? What portion of the homosexual population live as couples and what portion live with children in such arrangements? Are they inherently unstable?
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2004 at 9:15 am
My question still stands. If the presence of the children is used to justify SSM, whatabout the presence of children in homes where the adults would stay outside of marriage? Should marriage be extended to non-marriage?
The case for marriage equality does not hinge on the presence of children. Childless homosexual couples should have the same access to marriage as childless heterosexual couples like my husband and I.
The fact that extending civil marriage to recognize already existing marriages between homosexual couples would benefit children is a positive features, which advocates of marriage equality note.
No one is suggesting extending recognizing non-marriage as marriage. They are suggesting that the current civil laws recognize existing marriages– just as laws in many states recognized common law marriages, and laws in many countries codified marriages in the past.
As to the presence of children in households with unmarried parents: I think, all other things being equal, it is preferable that children live with two adults who are committed to each other for many reasons. However, I do not think as a practical matter, the law can prevent unwed mothers, widows and widowers etc. from keeping their childern.
In the case of adoption, my understanding is the state balances many factors, including the marital status of the couple, when placing adoptive children. I do not see any reason to any advantage to blocking adoptions by single parents when that might force a child to be kept in less beneficial surroundings.
As to your final question: I cannot see any reason why we should block marriage equality even if marriage equality might not re-invigorate heterosexual marriage. That would be ridiculously high standard!
In terms of logic, such a suggesting would be akin to suggesting that we should not allow African Americans to attend college unless it caused more white Americans to value and attend college!
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2004 at 1:35 pm
Interesting argument, Chairm, and very wordy. But no matter how much language you use to pad the argument that it’s okay to discriminate against a minority because they are a very small minority, it’s still a dumb argument. There are probably more homosexuals than Jews in this country, but no one would say that makes it okay to ignore discrimination against Jews.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2004 at 1:42 pm
>>>Chairm: “As for “shams”, it seems to me that the same-sex homes of which I’m aware (not a random sampling by any means) do have their own arrangements for outside lovers. In fact, the couples who have stayed together the longest (10-20 years) either have lost interest in sex with each other (especially the lesbian couples) or have from the start treated each other more like intimate friends (former lovers or intermittent lovers) than anything resembling monogamous married partners.”
This sounds to me like one of those “homos can’t have monogamous relationships” arguments that is so annoying. Maybe you also have statistics on how many heterosexual couples cheat on each other? (I don’t, but I’m sure it’s no less than homosexuals.) Along the same lines, how many heterosexual couples do you know that have the same sexual passion for each other as they did when they first married? Getting bored with the monotany of every day life, losing your libido, those are *human* conditions — not homosexual conditions. Don’t pretend like homosexual marriages are the only ones with flaws.
And maybe I’m a strange one, but neither myself or any of my friends approve of such “arrangements.” Yeah, we’re all fags. Romance is not a good basis for marriage, but neither is platonic friendship.
(By the way, two of my (male) friends have been married for 15 years. They were virgins when they met and they’ve never been with anyone else. They also have sex 3 times a week. Damn those platonic homosexual marriages.)
This comment was written by James D.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2004 at 6:06 pm
Last numbers I saw, the conservative estimate is something like half of straight marriages have some infidelity, and the high end estimate is 80%. Straight people should not be allowed to marry, clearly. They can’t keep it in their pants.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2004 at 9:44 pm
the same-sex homes of which I’m aware (not a random sampling by any means)
Indeed.
It’s very easy to make up theories (they will/won’t have children) or guessimate from one’s own experience–mine, by the way, is that same-sex couples are like mixed-sex couples in terms of love, romance, ‘arrangements,’ infidelity and the like.
I’m still not sure what your argument has to do with extending marriage to same-sex couples.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2004 at 5:05 am
>>>I cannot see any reason why we should block marriage equality even if marriage equality might not re-invigorate heterosexual marriage. That would be ridiculously high standard!
That is not the standard I’ve suggested here.
>>>But no matter how much language you use to pad the argument that it’s okay to discriminate against a minority because they are a very small minority, it’s still a dumb argument.
That is not what I’ve argued.
SSM advocates have emphasized the children in same-sex homes. The real issue is the status of the adults and not the well-being of the kids. Otherwise there’d be acknowledgement that by far most of the children in these circumstances already have two parents — both moms and dads — and that social policy ought to encourage the active involvement of both.
And the few children who do not have both moms and dads, are adopted or ART kids. It’s the ART kids who get the homes that are deliberately designed to be fatherless or motherless. Their adult choice did that, not society, not misfortune.
Social policy dealing with children raised by single parents, or divorced parents, or same-sex couples, or grandparents, and so forth ought to emphasize reaching the children. Not granting marital status to non-marriagable couples. Or to single people who are not married (which no one has suggested here but it is part of the logic of this aspect of the SSM argument). There is no overriding childcentric reason to change marriage law to treat same-sex union between adults as if it were marriage.
>>>I do not think as a practical matter, the law can prevent unwed mothers, widows and widowers etc. from keeping their childern.
That’s something we can agree on — afterall I think that even divorced dads and moms ought to retain their parental status where a same-sex partner enters the picture. And I think I’ve remarked that there may be circumstances in which a child’s interests might best be served through adoption by a homosexual adult (single or coupled). I do not advocate taking children away from their parents.
>>>Don’t pretend like homosexual marriages are the only ones with flaws.
That misrepresents what has been said.
>>>I’m still not sure what your argument has to do with extending marriage to same-sex couples.
That is what I’ve been saying about the part of the SSM argument that points to the children in same-sex households.
A sidenote: This morning I was going to extend my thanks for the civil tone of the discussion on this topic. I see that things have taken a mildly sour turn. In any case, I realize I am a sort of interloper here among the majority of commentators who are pro-SSM. So the civil remarks were appreciated. And I’ll step-off here.
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2004 at 5:24 am
>>The real issue is the status of the adults and not the well-being of the kids.
The status of the adults and the well-being of the kids are both important. Kids benefit when they live in stable households headed by two adutls rather than one harried adult who needs to provide constant supervision alone. It is counter productive for the government to forbid one group of parents from marrying and forming such household. It harms kids.
Refusing the parents a beneficial status and harming kids simultaneously is just silly.
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2004 at 9:31 am
That is what I’ve been saying about the part of the SSM argument that points to the children in same-sex households.
You’re misunderstanding the argument. If marriage provides certain benefits to children–stability, two parents, inherent legal rights, etc.–there is nothing about these benefits that makes SSM a bad idea. If marriage doesn’t, as you seem to be arguing, provide those benefits, then why does it matter if we give same-sex couples marriage?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2004 at 12:42 pm
Actually, SSM advocates only started pointing out that the children of gays and lesbians are children just as much as those with straight parents only AFTER the anti-gay crowd started pretending that marriage was and is only about children.
This comment was written by Amanda.I have no idea what kind of child-centric marriage policy you think is feasible. For one thing, asking any couple if their marriage is to be a fertile one in order to grant them the right to marry is invasive, which is EXACTLY why the anti-gay crowd usually doesn’t go so far as to suggest laws that ban all non-fertile people from marrying.
The main argument for allowing SSM is that in a free country that prizes equality, stripping one group of their rights on the basis of their sexual orientation is against our very principles. And all the stuff about children is a diversionary tactic coughed up by the religious right to scare people into supporting bigoted positions they wouldn’t otherwise support. They don’t take it seriously–as has been pointed out all over the place, stopping gays and lesbians from adopting children just means that more children will grow up without a loving home. If the right really cared about children, they would support everyone who turns an unwanted child into a wanted one.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2004 at 12:53 pm
Amanda,
I think no one would block marriages between infertile heterosexuals even if asking them their fertility status were not invasive. Often, it would take only seconds to ask, and states don’t require anyone to ask the question.
I think most people think these marriages are perfectly fine, and would be shocked if someone proposed banning them.
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2004 at 8:57 am
Good point, Amanda: SSM advocates talking about children are only responding to the procreationist crowd.
But if we’re there…..Let’s consider the reality of a partnership with one divorced partner with kids . I’m in one. My partner’s ex is a great guy and they ahve a positive co-parenting situation. Their kids definitely have an involved mom and a dad, and me as a sort of useful aunt.
BUT because I can’t marry their mother, we don’t have protections that I would have if I were a non-adoptive step parent. Like the pension, or the tax-breaks on inheritence, or health care. Fortunately, my employer will allow me to cover the kids on my health care. But because we aren’t married legally, that coverage becomes a taxable benefit. That’s a very big financial hit.
So although I am in the same situation as a non-adoptive step parent, I can’t actually provide my partner’s kids with any of the same protections, because some religions are offended that we are both female. My afmily is more at risk and more financially unstable. Yeah, it’s all about the kids. Sure.
This comment was written by IT.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 9:03 am
>> I think no one would block marriages between infertile heterosexuals even if asking them their fertility status were not invasive. Often, it would take only seconds to ask, and states don’t require anyone to ask the question.
Asking would be pointless. And monitoring/enforcing a fertility requirement would be highly invasive either in the form of trial marriages or marriages that are subject to dissolution on the state’s schedule for marital childbearing. It is simply not plausible and makes the infertility argument a nonstarter. Better to acknowledge that the larger portion of children in same-sex households are children of divorce and relatively few are obtained by alternative means.
Fertility is demonstrated by engaging in the procreative act (mating man with woman) on a regular basis without contraception for a couple of years or more. AND bringing the pregnancy to full term. That is to say, infertility is not something someone can simply declare knowingly unless the state required each couple to engage in premarital sexual relations (probably making cohabitation a practical necessity) and premarital childbearing. This would undermine marrige.
Infertility is perhaps better labelled as subfertility. It is not sterility — which is the inability of a man to produce sperm or a woman to produce eggs. Even men with vasectomies and women with tubal ligations are not sterile in that way; their surgical sterilization can be reversed. In fact, a woman can be artificially inseminated by her husbands sperm that’s been collected from his urine. Sterility, not subfertility, is probably the medical condition most closely analogous with all same-sex couples.
The US government stats I’ve seen suggest that less than 2% of *childless* married couples (where the woman is of childbearing age) are sterile due to medically necessary surgery. These folks are disabled reproductively.
It is the *form* of the same-sex combination that makes it incapable of producing offspring together. That form can not be fertile and, thus, cannot be infertile. It is sterile but not due to contraception, aging, nor disability. Such a union is sterile even if both individuals would prove fertile with the opposite sex.
Which returns us to the ‘mixed-orientation’ marriages that have populated the same-sex households that have resident children.
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 10:51 am
…”As for “shams”?, it seems to me that the same-sex homes of which I’m aware (not a random sampling by any means) do have their own arrangements for outside lovers. In fact, the couples who have stayed together the longest (10-20 years) either have lost interest in sex with each other (especially the lesbian couples) or have from the start treated each other more like intimate friends (former lovers or intermittent lovers) than anything resembling monogamous married partners”…
as for couples having lost interest in sex or having open relationships… this happens more times than the world would like to admit for HETEROSEXUAL couples too. after 30 yrs of marriage, hets are more likely do the ‘birthday & holiday sex’ thing than get it on every night like bunnies. so does this mean they should not be allowed to stay/get married and enjoy the companionship they’ve built over the years?
also fyi, not all same sex households who have children get those kids from previous mixed sex marriages. more and more get their children through adoption, surrogacy, insemination, and other ‘arrangements’.
This comment was written by stay at home dad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2005 at 11:48 am
Asking would be pointless.
Funny, but they used to ask. Hawaii, for one, required people seeking a marriage license to sign an affidavit stating they were ‘neither infirm nor impotent.’ Why would it be pointless, other than you don’t like the idea? After all, isn’t marriage about procreation?
Plato, despite his wishes to be a philosopher-king, is not the basis for the Constitution. So claiming that because some ideal man-woman Form is intrafertile, that only man-woman combinations–regardless of whether they could in fact be fertile–are allowed to trump the Constitution is beyond reason.
Unless you can point me to a state that requires couples to be able to make babies with one another in order to marry or stay married, you’re blowing smoke.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 5:59 pm
>> stay at home dad: not all same sex households who have children get those kids from previous mixed sex marriages. more and more get their children through adoption, surrogacy, insemination, and other ‘arrangements’.
By far most children in same-sex households were NOT obtained through these alternatives which may account for 5-10% (if we allow generous padding to include surrogacy and unofficial buddy donors). That means about 90-95% of children in same-sex households were created in previously procreative homes — mostly marriages. The existence of even the tiny population of children in same-sex households, and in the SSM argument, very much depends on the procreative model of marriage — and the dissolution of marriages.
–
>> stay at home dad: as for couples having lost interest in sex or having open relationships… this happens more times than the world would like to admit for HETEROSEXUAL couples too.
More, perhaps, but it is not the typical arrangment that it seems to be with same-sex couples. And it is not espoused as the marriage ideal. It is broadly discouraged, at least for the man-woman combination, if the caution against poly-marriage is any indication.
The folks I know actually claim this is one of the most significant strengths of their egalitarian households. I’m no wallflower on these topics. I’ve engaged in very interesting discussions with friends and neighbours who live in same-sex households and who support SSM as an alternative to marriage — an ideal that is taylored to the unisexed combination — but they’d have the state enact SSM as marriage for the sake of the message the change would make about homosexuality, not about marriage. I think that a broader sampling of SSM discussions also supports this observation.
Most of the SSM argumentation does ring the bell of “family diversity” — except when it comes to assuming the very worst about mixed-orientation marriages, which are automatically derided as shams and, as one commentator at Family Scholars remarked, “spectacularly pointless”.
–
mythago switches the topic.
>> Hawaii, for one, required people seeking a marriage license to sign an affidavit stating they were ‘neither infirm nor impotent.’
You concede this is an example that society has presumed marriage to be procreative. However, what *would be* pointless is the very thing you demand:
>> mythago: Unless you can point me to a state that requires couples to be able to make babies with one another in order to marry or stay married, you’re blowing smoke.
With this you concede that the infertility argument of the SSM side consists of making an implausible demand.
>> mythago: Why would it be pointless, other than you don’t like the idea? After all, isn’t marriage about procreation?
Because couples generally do not know, cannot know, if they’d be fertile together unless they engaged in premarital sexual intercourse in an effort to bear children together. A declaration of fertility would add little to the standing presumption of procreativity in the social institution of marriage.
To illustrate: of all married couples who experience subfertility, about half already have had a child. Most of the remainder can have their tubal ligations and/or vasectomies reversed or otherwise overcome — without going outside of their marriage for donors. Your thinking would have the State Fertility Squad search medical records and probe into the sexual relations of couples who’d have undergone years of effort to carry a pregnancy to term; and on some supposedly noninstrusive criteria the state would unilaterally dissolve their marriages, as if those marriages had been “trial cohabitations”.
Pointless.
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
March 21st, 2005 at 8:46 pm
You concede this is an example that society has presumed marriage to be procreative.
HAD presumed. In 1994, Hawaii struck that requirement from its laws, referring to it (in the legislative record) as “archaic.” Society also used to presume that a married woman’s civil identity was subsumed into her husband’s when she wed, “as a little rivulet runneth into the Thames” being the charming metaphor for couverture.
So you really don’t want to play the game of pretending that at a certain point–oh, say, 1993 in Hawaii–where whatever the laws said about marriage were frozen in time, and the people’s desire to change those laws meant nothing.
It’s very simple: states have explicitly and implicitly torpedoed the idea that marriage, centrally, is for baby-making. Deal with it.
A declaration of fertility would add little to the standing presumption of procreativity in the social institution of marriage.
Wrong. It would allow the State to treat a marriage as null and void from inception if it were fraudulent, i.e. at least one affiant knew that s/he was unable to procreate. It would at the very least allow such a marriage to be voidable. And I’d guess that elderly couples, couples where one member is transgender, and couples where at least one is surgically sterilized “generally know” they can’t breed. And it would allow a legal remedy for someone who wasted the best year.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2005 at 6:12 am
>>By far most children in same-sex households were NOT obtained through these alternatives which may account for 5-10% (if we allow generous padding to include surrogacy and unofficial buddy donors). That means about 90-95% of children in same-sex households were created in previously procreative homes … mostly marriages. The existence of even the tiny population of children in same-sex households, and in the SSM argument, very much depends on the procreative model of marriage … and the dissolution of marriages.>>
What? Um, no. This just means that, if you’re a gay man or lesbian who doesn’t come out of the closet until after you’ve married and had children, you don’t feel the need for any more sprogs. Gay people don’t _need_ straight marriage to procreate, as demonstrated by the smaller proportion of couples who do use surrogacy, etc.. This scenario is just a very likely outcome in a heterosexist society. More and more gay people are coming out earlier, and more and more gay couples are receiving legal recognition as parents, so more and more gay couples are having kids on their own.
And if our society were less inclined to disparage gay unions and gay parenting, maybe those dissolved marriages wouldn’t exist in the first place. I know that this is like arguing for birth control with a pro-life fundamentalist, but it’s something to think about. Also, there’s nothing bad about the dissolution of a sham marriage wherein both partners are being cheated out of real love and one partner is desperately unhappy. I don’t see any reason to grieve that arrangement.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:30 am
mythago,
I did not say that such a provision would add nothing. I said it would add little. And I did not emphasize the civil law, but the social institution which the law acknowledges but does not create. Yet even in civil marriage, the provison would add little.
Fraud already is grounds for annulment in Hawaii and other jurisdictions. And, as noted in the dissenting opinion in Baehr, the Hawain legislators updated their marriage law for the sake of disabled men and women only; there was no legislative intent to remove the man-woman criterion of marriage.
The Baehr plurality opinion misconstrued the law. That flawed opinion was repudiated by the state constitutional amendment and by the legislature’s findings which reaffirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman.
So. You have narrowed your argument to a comparison of the unisexed combination with disabled individuals. And with the elderly, who *become* sterile through maturation.
In both cases, there are many such couples who had children prior to their becoming sterile or physically incapable. Society, and the government, can continue to recognize the marital status of these couples whie also recognizing the marriagability of couples who’d enter marriage disabled or elderly.
The disabled and the elderly do not contradict the central purpose of the procreative model.
Impotency was once thought to be the sole cause of male sterility. And as it turns out, in most jurisdictions (not sure about Hawaii) one can petitition for annulment based on deception regarding a spouse’s sterility or unwillingness to have children.
But I would not oppose a provision that made it explicit that deception regarding procreativity in a marriage is grounds for annulment. It would add little, given the personal dimensions of the potential defect, but it might buttress against errant judges.
–
Even taking into account ARTs and surrogacy and donors, almost all of the adult homosexual population does not live in same-sex households with children. To provide same-sex households with children on the scale that mixed-orientation marriages have done to-date, it would take a huge increase in the use of these alternatives.
Point is that this is not so simple as might be imagined.
Whatever one might think of SSM, it is inescapable that there is a host of thorny ethical issues in the use of alternatives to having children via sexual intercourse. These issues apply to married couples as well as single individuals and same-sex couples. Moreover, additional issues arise where a child is created for a home that is either fatherless or motherless by design rather than by misfortune. Marital status within our society includes the right to procreate with one’swife or husband; this leaves open the future prospect of same-sex procreation (combination of egg-egg, for instance) if SSM were to be enacted.
Today, the alternative means of obtaining children are used by a tiny segment within a tinier segment living in such arrangements. Such examples feature much more prominently in the SSM argument than do the vast majority of children in same-sex households who are the children of divorced moms and dads. This is just part of the central plank of the SSM argument: sever procreation from marriage. Or just change the meaning of procreation to be “adoption” or somesuch.
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 10:10 am
This is clearly a case where you can make the data say anything you want.
This comment was written by Brad.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 10:55 am
I think what distress exists for children of a gay parent who divorces a heterosexual partner goes deeper than the surface here. The distress has more to do with family secret-keeping and trust than being gay per se. Note how the conservatives are always pointing out that the break up of “low conflict” marriages is always worse on the kids, because it’s such a surprise. Well, it’s not that the conflict is low; it’s been forced underground. So it’s alarming to find out that their parents have “secrets” that have never been revealed. In a sense, finding out that the parent you thought you knew is gay is no different than suddenly finding out that you were adopted, or that your father is not really your biological father but the milk man your mother had an affair with, or that your mother is not your mother, but your grandmother, and your oldest “sister” is in fact your mother, and so on. Or any other fact about your parent that was hid from you.
This comment was written by silverside.Report this comment to the moderators
March 25th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
And I did not emphasize the civil law, but the social institution which the law acknowledges but does not create.
Emphasize whatever you wish, but marriage is a legal institution.
The Baehr plurality opinion misconstrued the law. That flawed opinion was repudiated by the state constitutional amendment and by the legislature’s findings which reaffirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman.
How did the Baehr court misconstrue the law? Details, please. The constitutional amendment did not in any way ‘repudiate’ the legal reasoning of Baehr, which you clearly haven’t read or I wouldn’t have to repeat myself. Baehr said the existing marriage law was not constitutional, and remanded it to the legislature. The Hawaii legislature had three options, basically:
1) Put back in all that stuff about procreation.
2) Allow SSM.
3) Amend the state Constitution so that laws against same-sex marriage are Constitutional.
Whatever one might think of SSM, it is inescapable that there is a host of thorny ethical issues in the use of alternatives to having children via sexual intercourse. These issues apply to married couples as well as single individuals and same-sex couples.
Yet the law, and society, manage to cope. We presume a husband is the father of the wife’s children, regardless of whether that is physically possible. We have laws permitting sperm donors. We have, if you can believe such a thing, adoption.’
Marital status within our society includes the right to procreate with one’swife or husband
It does? Where is there a right to force your wife to have your baby, or to require your husband to impregnate you?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
mythago offers another lawyerly distraction from the topic of the thread.
False dichotomy.
It is because marriage is the foundational social institution that the civil law acknowledges it in the first place. Unmarriagable domestic partnerships may merit some sort of state recognition, however, that is a social policy matter best decided (subject to subsequent changes) in the legislative forum, not court chambers.
And, as I explained earlier, even if you want to emphasize the legalities, the addition that you proposed would add very little.
Not in any way? Read the details in the opinions. Without the Kool-Aid.
In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court opined that the marriage law was to be presumed unconstitutional. It also expressed its predisposition to discard the man-woman criterion of marriage. On both points, the amendment rejected, disowned, repudiated the plurality’s opinion. Perhaps you have not read the amendment and think the plurality’s opinion was confirmed somehow.
As for miscontruing the law, in addition to the changes to the annulment provision, they applied Loving incorrectly. And they saw sex discrimination where they wanted to create a suspect classification for sexual orientation. For starters.
Sure, in the summary disposition in 1999, the plurality attempted to claim some wiggle room because it had been firmly instructed by The People that the court cannot reserve to itself the power to enact SSM.
They remanded to legislature? Technically, yeh. But read the plurality’s confuddled footnote. It is an example of how a committee in court chambers expresses its reluctance to cede legislative power on a social policy matter.
When it comes to Kool-Aid, try moderation and a designated driver.
And these entail ethical issues that are subject to social policy decided by The People and their elected representatives. That is how a self-governed society copes with changing needs, priorities, and options. It is also a key way in which society may express its desire to conserve and strengthen the things from which society benefits.
Anda-hopanda-skipanda-jump.
Somehow the right to procreate within marriage has been knavishly misread as the absolute license to coerce one’s wife or husband.
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
it’s not knavish to read that as a declaration of coersion as acceptible. that’s what you said, whether you meant it or not.
change the verb, to allow for a clear metaphor for what you actually said:
“marital status within our society includes the right to visit with one’s wife or husband.”
it’s a right posessed by both parties. if you’re in the hospital, and you don’t want visitors, because they have a right to it, they get to visit you in the hospital.
if you have a right to procreate, then the other parties action becomes mandatory.
if your statement were true, if either party wanted a child, the other party would be forced to comply.
but that isn’t the case.
This comment was written by karpad.reproduction and marriage are unrelated. one can procreate without marriage, and one can be married without procreation.
so for the love of god, stop with this arguement. children have no more to do with marriage than puppies do.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2005 at 3:01 am
A modicum of common sense reading and reasoning was assumed. Not that agreement was assured, of course.
It had not occured to me that, if there was a right to marry, and if a would-be bride wanted a groom, the chosen party would be forced to comply.
Too on the nose?
Another example: the right to free speech does not mean the power to force others to listen. It does mean there is a coexisting right of others to read, watch, listen, and so forth, free of government interference. And, of course, this does not translate into an absolute right to yell, “Fire,” in a crowded cinema.
One’s right to expression of one’s thoughts does not force others to pay attention. Likewise with the right of a husband to impregnate his wife or a wife to be impregnated by her husband.
For example, the USSC acknowledged the right to marriage and procreation, but there was no mention of governmental force made available to mandate that one’s choice of groom or bride will marry and procreate against his or her consent.
The marriage idea acknowledges the freedom to procreate together, certainly. A societal expectation to do so, yes. A moral and personal obligation, yes, for the most part. But compliance subject to court-order, police-enforcement, or legislated mandate, nope.
Perhaps I was too generous in thinking that it was knavish to misread into my remark something so sinister as compulsory procreation. Maybe Kool-Aid comes in supersized servings.
>> karpad: “[R]eproduction and marriage are unrelated. [O]ne can procreate without marriage, and one can be married without procreation. [S]o for the love of [G]od, stop with this arguement. [C]hildren have no more to do with marriage than puppies do.”
In other words, you concede that, in the SSM argument, marriage has nothing to do with procreation. That puppies and children are of a kind. And that God is relevant to the discussion of marriage.
Or is that a knavish summary of what you just said? Sure it is, apart from the first sentence. Which does shed light on the SSM response here to the observations about so-called mixed-orientation marriages and the children of divorce who’ve migrated with custodial parents to same-sex households.
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Unmarriagable domestic partnerships may merit some sort of state recognition, however, that is a social policy matter best decided (subject to subsequent changes) in the legislative forum, not court chambers.
So you believe in the abolition of the U.S. and State constitutions? Because that’s what you mean by saying ‘not court chambers’–that marriage laws, alone among them all, should not be subject to Constitutional scrutiny.
In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court opined that the marriage law was to be presumed unconstitutional. It also expressed its predisposition to discard the man-woman criterion of marriage. On both points, the amendment rejected, disowned, repudiated the plurality’s opinion. Perhaps you have not read the amendment and think the plurality’s opinion was confirmed somehow.
And again, you admit that you don’t understand basic Constitutional law and haven’t read Baehr. For our audience at home: the Baehr court found that Hawaii’s marriage law violated the equal-protection clause of the Hawaii state constitution (not of the US Constitution) in that it discriminated on the basis of gender without a compelling state purpose justifying that discrimination. In response, the people of Hawaii amended their constitution.
What you don’t get, Chairm, is that I don’t have a problem with the people amending their Constitution. That’s their right, and it is the proper way to address a court decision that quite correctly finds a law unconstitutional. What’s not correct is to attempt to eliminate judicial review and existing Constitutional law because you don’t like the result.
“For starters,” if you had the smallest grasp of Constitutional law, you’d understand why the Hawaii supreme court found strict scrutiny for gender under its state constitution (again, not under the US Constitution). You might also be able to explain to me why it ‘incorrectly’ applied Loving.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2005 at 1:52 am
[Off-topic]
Unlike federal courts, state courts have no court chambers. If a state court duly deferred to its legislative branch, judicial review would be abolished. The initiative to amend a state’s written constitution must rest with the judicial branch, according to our system of self-government. However, when the intention to amend the state’s written constitution via the court is answered by a contra amendment ratified by the people of that state, this can only mean that the court was not repudiated in that instance. And if someone mentions a state case, it must mean that he thought the state case was a federal case. Also, when an opposing commentator has gotten previous points wrong and then insists on repeatedly attempting to divert a thread toward revisiting a court case, the discussion is dragged back on-topic.
And so mythago has huffled and puffled and the straw house has come down.
[/Off-topic]
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2005 at 1:53 am
As for the topic of the post at the top of this thread, on what basis might one predict that the experiences of children of mixed orientation marriages might be made less unfavorable should SSM be enacted?
This comment was written by Chairm.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2005 at 4:12 am
Wow, you really can become obnoxious when you’re losing the logical argument badly.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2005 at 7:38 am
It’s very Derrida of him–to paraphrase, we declare an argument won in order to win it.
If a state court duly deferred to its legislative branch, judicial review would be abolished.
You don’t believe that state courts should have the right to review a state legislature’s laws regarding their constitutionality?
Amp, I don’t really expect him to explain why Loving was misapplied or why the Baehr court should have stuck to heightened scrutiny. I’m also not holding my breath for an explanation of why the California decision was or wasn’t correct.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2005 at 7:39 am
“Mixed-orientation marriages”–would those be the men’s-magazine ideal where you’re straight and your wife is bi?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2005 at 8:27 am
wookie Writes:
July 28th, 2004 at 7:00 am
…Besides, who’s to say all these “coming out”? people were actually completely homosexual? Couldn’t they have been bi?
Purely hypothetically, if I were bi, but married a man because I loved him, lived for 15 years and decided… “You know, this isn’t working out, we are not good marriage partners”? and divorced, then fell in love with a woman as my next serious relationship… that might look like I was secretly a homosexual all along, but truely I had no particular urge to swing either way.
——————
thank you for recognizing that there are BI people out here. i get so tired of people telling me that bi is just a stage to becoming gay. i was in a gay relationship for 13 years and am now in a straight relationship for the past 9. so what am i? an ex-gay? nope. i’m bi, dammit! i happened to fall in love with a man the first time and a woman the 2nd. but i’ve had gay friends accuse me of ‘giving in to the more socially acceptible solution’ or ‘taking the easy way out’ or that i’m only with my wife because i wanted kids. i wanted kids in my gay relationship, we just weren’t financially able to do so then and back then the options were more limited.
then i have to put up with the smug happiness of my straight friends who think i’ve ‘finally seen the light’ or just ‘gotten over that stage’.
grrrr…
there are bi people. really there are.
This comment was written by stay at home dad.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2005 at 10:51 am
but i’ve had gay friends accuse me of ‘giving in to the more socially acceptible solution’ or ‘taking the easy way out’ or that i’m only with my wife because i wanted kids.
This is a good cue that these people are ex-friends.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators