Comment (60)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiBeyond same sex marriage
Civil unions, same sex marriage, then what? The final stop on this train ride is the complete de-gendering of society.
The “I’m against same sex marriage but favor civil unions” position is the major unheralded casualty of the California Supreme Court decision redefining marriage. Politicians from across the political spectrum have taken refuge in this dodge, believing it allows them to navigate the treacherous shoals of powerful but divided public opinion about same sex marriage. The court’s ruling has shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that civil unions are not a stable political or social compromise, however rational and reasonable that position may appear to be. Here is why.
California has had registered domestic partnerships since 1999. In the years since, the state legislature has steadily increased the rights for which registered domestic partners automatically qualify. Hospital visitation was granted that very first year. In 2000, the legislature granted domestic partners the right to make medical decisions for each other, the right to use stepparent adoption procedures to adopt a partner’s child, and the right to sue for a partner’s wrongful death.
In 2002, the legislature gave domestic partners the rights to receive copies of each others’ birth and death certificates. The legislature also changed the inheritance rules for domestic partners who die without a will, mandating that their property be distributed between the surviving partner and any blood relatives on the same terms as married couples. Legislation passed in 2003 required domestic partners to pay alimony and child support.
Thus, registered domestic partnerships have been available in California since 1999, and their status has been continually upgraded. The benefits of domestic partnerships now mirror the benefits of marriage very closely. Yet, that has never been enough. The pressure for the complete redefinition of marriage has continued without missing a beat.
Can we be confident that even same sex marriage is the ultimate goal? I think the honest answer is no. The freight train of same sex marriage will not stop at the station called simple “equality.” The legal equivalence of same sex couples with opposite sex couples means that marriage will no longer be society’s most reliable method of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to each other. Marriage will become a gender-neutral creation of the state, which actively detaches children from at least one of their parents. Parentage will not flow automatically from the marital union, but will have to be assigned by the state. The final stop on this train is the complete de-gendering of society, along with the continual incursion of the state into civil society.
The state must hold that mothers and fathers are completely interchangeable. Biological parents married to each other become officially equivalent to one parent plus their lover. The state will be indifferent as to whether children have any connection with their biological parents.
The experiences of other countries with same sex marriage illustrate that this is no mere expansion of an existing institution. In Spain, the words “mother” and “father” were removed from birth certificates in favor of “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B”. Courts in Canada have assigned parental rights to three adults. Similar experiences from Massachusetts and the UK leave no doubt that the state will have to continually intervene to prop up same sex marriage, and the gender-oblivious society that comes along with it. Sexual orientation will be viewed as immutable, with sex itself as a mere social construct.
As Douglas Farrow, a Canadian academic asks in his book, A Nation of Bastards, is this really what we intended to do?
Gays and lesbians have as much political power in California as in any state in America. If civil unions could have ever been a viable political compromise position, it would have been here. Any candidate who favors civil unions, is really saying that he favors the continual progress of this train toward the destination of same sex marriage, and perhaps even beyond to the ultimate radical goal of a completely non-gendered society.
This ruling gives the electorate the chance to gain genuine clarity from the candidates. The “I oppose same sex marriage, but favor civil unions,” position is the equivalent of “I’m personally opposed to abortion but support your right to have one.” It is a cowardly subterfuge that should no longer fool anyone.
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the author of Love and Economics: It Takes a Family to Raise a Village, newly reissued in paperback.
NEW IDEA. I hope you don’t mind my entering this discussion. My opinion on this issue is based on my belief that God is real. And, since I believe God is real, and that the scriptures we have contain His words and will for us, then I have no choice but to do my best to follow that “instruction manual.” It is pretty clear to me from reading the bible that God loves all mankind, and that I am to love all mankind too. It is also clear to me from reading the bible that God created man and woman in the beginning (before man-made laws were created) and told them to create a family.
The man and woman were to leave their parents and cleave to each other. They were to be married, with the responsibility to take care of one another and their children. I believe that God doesn’t change. For me to be OK with changing God’s plan, I would have to hear it from Him. Until then, I feel obligated to defend the plan He set up. If there is one thing I have learned in my life, it’s that God’s plan is ALWAYS better than mine. I trust Him. I trust His plan for all of mankind. I believe that if people followed His plan, we would all be a much happier, healthier, society.
I realize that God doesn’t usually make it into this discussion. For some reason, that topic has become politically incorrect. But, even though there are myriad studies to “prove” that children do better when raised by a mother AND a father; and even though we are already seeing religious liberties dissolving as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage; and even though there are many studies that demonstrate that, historically, when traditional marriage dissolves, so does society . . . for me, I don’t see this as our decision to make.
I really do believe in God. And, I don’t just believe IN Him . . . I believe everything He has told me. I am happiest when I follow His directions. I plan to follow His directions on this too.
Chairm, I didn’t conflate anything. It was a direct quote.
Someone earlier claimed: “Officially there are about 100,000 kids in gay foster homes or who have been adopted by gay parents.”
Nope. Not even close.
Please cite your “official” source, because you probably have misread or misconstrued and it would help readers to go to your source.
I say that because your number is far higher than any reasonable estimate produced by foster care agencies anyplace in the country and because you have conflated kids in foster homes and kids who have been adopted.
That conflation is suspect but you might have drifted into it inadvertently. Many foster children are eventually adopted by their foster parents. But even at that your number is extravagant.
Pablo, you write:
“The difference resides in the nature of the participants of the relationship, not what they do together.”
This is interesting! So, besides their sex organs, what is the difference? Can you explain it? What are the qualities that all women possess that no man possesses?
Pablo, Sometimes this stuff just happens. You’ve got to let it go. You’re a picture straightener in a Human world where nothing is absolutely symmetrical.
Phil: when I said “involved in sexual activity” I just meant that the relationship is really intimate. I don’t want anyone, intentionally or otherwise, to confuse a gay relationship with the friendship between two men or two women. When the friendship between two men or two women becomes intimate, then it is said to be a gay relationship.
There is no way to compare the intimate relationship of a straight couple with the intimate relationship of a gay couple, because EVERYTHING is different, not just sex. In fact, the friendship of two men is completely different to the friendship of two women, and this two friendships are totally different to the friendship of a man and a woman. And none of these cases involve sex, just friendship.
The difference resides in the nature of the participants of the relationship, not what they do together.
You cannot build a complete set using two left sides or two right sides, you might be able to force one into the other, but it won’t be a set. You need one left and one right to have a “whole” set.
“there is no way in which the bonding of a man and a women, and I use the word “bond” to signify a union in the most intimate possible way, obviously involved in sexual activity, for the purpose of forming a family can be compared to anything involving a gay couple. “
So, what you’re saying is, homosexual intimate relationships are different because the sex is different, and even when the sex is comparable (say, oral sex), the sex is still different? So, in an act of oral sex, if the mouth belongs to a person with a vagina, it’s a different kind of sex?
Pablo Vera said: “I’ve seen to many kids really spoiled by love and caring alone, kids need a lot more. They need a stable, coherent and normal environment. They need limits and rules, they need discipline and many more.”
Gee, my kids are great.
Pablo Vera said: “We can evolve and develop far beyond whatever our ancestors might have seen as our future, but we cannot outgrow our humanity.”
We differ on what we think Humanity is. I think what we can hope to outgrow is our brute beginnings.
Pablo Vera said: “And where did I speak about morality? There is no accident in being born heterosexual, the accident is being born homosexual.”
That’s illogical. If one is an accident of birth then so is the other.
Pablo Vera said: “After reading all that you have written here, I rest my case, you are indeed living in a fantasy world, where humans have evolved to be above the laws of nature. And where whatever you want to be “normal”, is normal.”
Actually, Pablo, I think love is normal.
David said: “Pablo, the statement is absurd on it’s face. Love and caring is just about all kids need.”
I’ve seen to many kids really spoiled by love and caring alone, kids need a lot more. They need a stable, coherent and normal environment. They need limits and rules, they need discipline and many more.
David said: “What makes Humans special is that we have risen above the ‘Laws of Nature’. When it comes to Human consciousness ‘Laws of Nature’ don’t apply.”
We can evolve and develop far beyond whatever our ancestors might have seen as our future, but we cannot outgrow our humanity. We are what we are, no matter how evolved.
David said: “Pablo, are you wrapping yourself in the cloak of cut-rate morality? Are you assigning special meaning to the accident of being born heterosexual?”
And where did I speak about morality ? There is no accident in being born heterosexual, the accident is being born homosexual.
After reading all that you have written here, I rest my case, you are indeed living in a fantasy world, where humans have evolved to be above the laws of nature. And where whatever you want to be “normal”, is normal.
Jim said: “I place a high value in the bond, or vow or mystical union called marriage. In the context of marriage, thus understood, comes children and the responsibility of raising them. One can perhaps rightly criticize bad or failed marriages at will, but to substitute something else which I see as far worse ... well, that’s why I take the time”
Jim, who’s being pompous?
Jim said: “I recall somewhere you identified yourself as a Unitarian. Does the God that Unitarians believe in have the need of protection?”
The majority of Unitarians don’t believe in God. They simply follow their consciences.
Pablo Vera said: “There is no way a gay-parent’s household will ever compare to a straight-parent’s one, simply because the gay household lacks the complement that comes from having male and a female parents. There might be love and caring, but no complement.”
Pablo, the statement is absurd on it’s face. Love and caring is just about all kids need.
Pablo Vera said: “If you see this as false differences, then you are living in a fantasy world where laws of nature don’t apply.”
What makes Humans special is that we have risen above the ‘Laws of Nature’. When it comes to Human consciousness ‘Laws of Nature’ don’t apply.
Pablo Vera said: “But in the real world, a gay couple is nothing compared to a straight couple.”
Pablo, are you wrapping yourself in the cloak of cut-rate morality? Are you assigning special meaning to the accident of being born heterosexual?
Quote:
Witty writing, but utter rubbish. I can see a vibrant culture ahead with simple equality our theme, a very needed thing and an order of magnitude more cohesive. You are merely hoisting false differences into our humanity. One day our descendants will think it incredible that we paid so much attention to these things.
----
Excuse me, but even though men and women are equals in terms of dignity, equality stops there. We are completely different physical, psychological and emotionally speaking, but in such a way that men and women are perfect complements.
If you see this as false differences, then you are living in a fantasy world where laws of nature don’t apply.
But in the real world, a gay couple is nothing compared to a straight couple.
David wrote:
“Do you think your protecting God?”
Your question brings to mind C.S. Lewis’ essay on modern man placing God in the Dock. Thus we have the ever pathetic angry man demanding that God defend Himself.
I recall somewhere you identified yourself as a Unitarian. Does the God that Unitarians believe in have the need of protection?
“You can’t win this. You’ll have your shameful victories but in the end you will lose. As Victor Hugo said; ‘There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come’. After Millennia of brutalizing gay people their time has come.”
David, you’re being pompous here.
David wrote:
“Actually I don’t understand your motivation. Who do you know that’s threatened by gay rights? I believe you once said you didn’t have a dog in this fight. I do. I will fight tooth and nail to protect the gay people I love. Where does your intensity come from?”
Motivation and intensity … where does mine come from? I would have thought I’d given a clear indication of that in my last comment. Quoting myself again …
“I place a high value in the bond, or vow or mystical union called marriage. In the context of marriage, thus understood, comes children and the responsibility of raising them. One can perhaps rightly criticize bad or failed marriages at will, but to substitute something else which I see as far worse ... well, that’s why I take the time”
To expand on what I wrote above … From my inner self, my heart and soul as well as my mind, I know that there is a “natural” order to things and when that order is misrepresented or misused great pain results, either directly or indirectly, by intent or unintended, and that is what motivates me or gives intensity, as you say. Not intending to have you read between the lines; I believe that one is deluded to think that homosexuality is in any way part of the “natural” order.
Witty writing, but utter rubbish. I can see a vibrant culture ahead with simple equality our theme, a very needed thing and an order of magnitude more cohesive. You are merely hoisting false differences into our humanity. One day our descendants will think it incredible that we paid so much attention to these things.
Page 1 of 4 : 1 2 3 > Last »