Beyond same sex marriage

OK, I have to admit that the word marriage means whatever society wants it to mean, but including polygamous societies, it has always meant the union of men and women.  The case of the sheik pointed by JohnC is clear: “a union of one or more women in submission to a man”.  The women are not united in between themselves, no, they are united to a man.  And the southerner case also states “man and woman”.  In fact, every single instance of marriage in human history, refers to the union of man and woman (one to one or one to many).

And why is that ?, simply because we were created this way.  It is in our nature.  And the “title of marriage” is not a thing that can be given or not, it is simply a fact of life.  When men and women unite for the purpose of procreation and they commit to this union, then they are married.  No one has given them the title of marriage.  And if the laws in their society permit polygamy, then husband or wife are allowed to take on a second wife or husband and perform a second marriage.  But again, it is men and women.

If two men or two women unite and they commit to their union and even though they might love each other deeply, this union lacks one fundamental attribute: “diversity”, this union cannot produce offspring.

So, since the union of men and women and the union of same sex partners are fundamentally different, they cannot be called the same.  And because the union of men and women has been called marriage since the beginning of human history the other one cannot be called marriage.

VERY important point, Pablo Vera, about the rights of children. 
For the record: I am the mother of an adult son and daughter and the grandmother of 3 boys.  My husband and I went through rigrous interviews in Sydney with the Department of Youth and Community Services before we adopted two Right-to-Life infants at 3 weeks and 5 weeks of age respectively: first in New Zealand and then in Australia.  We were asked whether we would like a third child, but we declined because we had too many other cultural commitments and could not manage more.
Also for the record: Whether we call it ‘marriage’ or ‘airplane’ is not MERELY a matter of semantics.  In the beginning was the Word.  Except in polygamous societies, the word ‘marriage’ has ALWAYS, until very recently, meant ‘the intended permanent earthly union of a man and a woman’. Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty, in Through the Looking Glass, argued that he could make a word mean whatever he wanted it to mean.  He has many descendants, unfortunately not fictional.

“My point here is that people tend to speak about the ‘rights’ of the partners, or the rights of pregnant women; but almost no one speak about the rights of children that are to be adopted, or for that matter, to be born.”

Actually, many supporters of same-sex marriage are extremely interested in the rights of the children.  For starters, many same-sex couples already have children.  Denying same-sex partners the legal rights of marriage actually exposes their children to needless hardship.  Should one of the partners die, that partner’s estate may be taxed, causing financial distress on the remaining partner and the child.  Children may be denied visitation rights to the parents that they love.

Denying the title of marriage to same-sex partners, when it is freely given to opposite sex partners, serves to stigmatize the child’s family.  Perhaps it feels self-satisfying for opponents of same-sex sex marriage to make an ideological statement, but it is a selfish act because it hurts real people and real families in the process.

And then there’s the implicit assumption being made that having opposite-sex parents is universally superior to opposite-sex families.  There’s simply nothing to back this up except ideology.  Plenty of hetero couples are failures - witness the current 50%-plus divorce rate for new marriages.  Should we always prefer placing children into a substandard hetero-led family if a healthy same-sex couple is available?  Perhaps you think so - but I don’t.

“The word ‘marriage’ has been used to describe the union of one man with one woman.  If someone wants to call the union of two men or two women “marriage” also, then why not call it “airplane” instead.  Well, we cannot, because an airplane is an airplane and a marriage is what it is, the union of one man and one woman.”

The fact is that “marriage” has historically meant what societies wanted it to mean.  For you, marriage means the union of one man and one woman.  Good for you.  But your opinion does not make it universal by fiat.

Ask a white southerner a hundred years ago, and he would insist that, as God as his witness, marriage is eternally defined as “the union of one white man and one white woman, or the union of one Negro man and one Negro woman.”

Go back before the Civil War, and that same white southerner would have said that marriage is “the union of one white man and one white woman.” And you would ask, well, what about between black slaves?  And he’d tell you, “Negroes can’t get married.  They’re slaves.”

Travel to Saudi Arabia, and ask a local shiek what marriage is defined as.  He’d tell you, “a union of one or more women in submission to a man.” You respond, “But Pablo Vera says it’s only between one man and one woman, and so you’re not really married.” And the shiek would tell you, “My wives and I don’t care what Pablo thinks.”

The word “marriage” has been used to describe the union of one man with one woman.  If someone wants to call the union of two men or two women “marriage” also, then why not call it “airplane” instead.  Well, we cannot, because an airplane is an airplane and a marriage is what it is, the union of one man and one woman.

Now, if two people of the same sex want to unite in a “marriage-like” way, so be it.  I think they are free to do whatever they want.  But that union is NOT a “marriage”, they are NOT married.

Anyway, all this is just semantics.  If the courts around the world want to give rights to the partners of this same sex unions, go ahead.  If they want to call it a “marriage”, so be it.  This is all irrelevant ...

... the really important issues arise when this partners want to adopt, because the rights at risk are not the ones of the partners, but the rights of the adoptee to have a father and mother.

One might argue about “single-parent” adoption, or the case in which one of the parents die, but lets not go into that.

My point here is that people tend to speak about the “rights” of the partners, or the rights of pregnant women; but almost no one speak about the rights of children that are to be adopted, or for that matter, to be born.

We should focus on the rights of children.

Thanks to complexity, I want to comment on 3 matters not discussed earlier.
FIRST: To blame feminism for radical sexual attitudinal change is unjust and misleading.  Male gays have been lobbying globally for marriage ‘rights’. 
Edith Stein, St Benedicta of the Cross, a brilliant university teacher, was a feminist! 
There are MANY versions of feminism, EVEN in university depts.  One reasonable definition, championed by JPII, holds that women have a vital role to play in the family and in society more broady.  This role STILL needs to be much better understood in egalitarian, not sexist, terms.
SECOND: There are many Jews and Christians who favour civil unions that give ‘domestic partners’ civil rights unrelated to progeny.  Many are AGAINST the STATE taking over in progeny matters EXCEPT in adoption cases involving rigorous checks on parental (traditionally, married couple) suitability.  They regard State action as dangerously Orwellian.  Jennifer Morse enumerates scary dangers. 
THREE: The many heterosexual unbelievers who defend same-sex ‘marriage’ often reject the idea that differences between men and women foster the soundest child-rearing practice.  Some also resist discussion of moral issues extending beyond the realm of law--as if Sophocles’ Antigone had never been written. 
In an honourable Western literary tradition spanning centuries, the State is NEVER seen as the rightful arbiter of moral issues affecting the conduct of husbands and wives, parents and children, and siblings.  On classical literary terrain students are instructed about mind and heart working together to preserve truth, goodness, and beauty.

Phil

“For that to be true, there would have to be some meaningful difference in the way that two women who adopt a child that is not biologically related, and a male-female couple who adopt a child that is not biologically related to them, are not biologically related to the child.”

The situation of adoption by opposite sex couples or same-sex couples doesn’t alter the facts and law of kinship. Indeed they reinforce it.

Before a child is available for adoption both biological parents need to surrender their parental rights to that Child or the State has to declare those rights rendered for an applicable just reason. This is the right of both the biological parent to know and be known by his & her child as well as the right of the child to know and be known by his or her parents.

As you can see adoption does not disqualify the previous right of the parent and child to know and be known by their parents.

JRM “scenario” is accurate. What has now changed in California is the legal right of the child & her parents to know and be known by the child.

Now instead of a right that the child and parents have against the State, it is the State that holds the authority of against both the child & parent as to legal parentage.

“The B is a NEW legal rejection of biological kinship between natural parent & child.”

For that to be true, there would have to be some meaningful difference in the way that two women who adopt a child that is not biologically related, and a male-female couple who adopt a child that is not biologically related to them, are not biologically related to the child. 

There isn’t.  This isn’t rocket science, it’s a truism: two women who aren’t related to a child aren’t related to that child.  A man and woman who aren’t related to a child aren’t related to that child.  The existence of a Y chromosome doesn’t somehow insert a little DNA into the kid...the biological kinship in both cases is exactly the same.

So, the California Supreme Court decision changes nothing, when it comes to the requirement for a married couple to be biologically connected to their child. 

Jennifer R. Morse used the following phrase: “Marriage will become a gender-neutral creation of the state, which actively detaches children from at least one of their parents.”

“Actively detaches?” If we are talking about women who want to give up their children for adoption, that is status quo.  The Supreme Court decision has no impact on that.  Women who want to give up their children for adoption, for any reason, could do so before the decision, and they can do so now.  Nothing has changed. 

If we are talking about women who don’t want to give up their children for adoption, then it’s clear that Morse is claiming that babies will be ripped from their biological mothers against their wills.  Is that an accurate interpretation of her words?  If not, then what on Earth is she talking about?  What is the scenario she’s trying to describe, and how does it differ from a scenario which could occur two weeks ago?

Phil

“What’s point B? How do we get from the current same-sex marriage decision, which doesn’t affect straight couples in any meaningful way, to having babies ripped from their biological mothers against their wills and entrusted to evil heathens?  What’s the connection, Jennifer R. Morse?”

JRM never made any comment like what you (falsely) portray above.

To answer your question as if it was serious…

The B is a NEW legal rejection of biological kinship between natural parent & child. Canada was required to change the definition of parenthood from natural parent to “legal” parent.

You say in “any meaningful way” you are moving from the macro discussion to a micro example. What has changed (the B) is every couple’s legal right to their children. It is no longer a right held against the State, but rather the State itself assigning the right to parent a given child.

Jim,

I appreciate your concerns about adoption by same-sex couples leaving a bad taste in your mouth, but I think you’re improperly confusing your moral and/or visceral opposition to homosexual parentage with legal obstacles. 

The term “parent” only requires both a mother and a father in terms of biological parents.  That has always been true and will always be true.  But the term “parent” is widely used for non-biological legal custodians, whether adoptive or informally through step-parenting.  Society has come to view this usage as fully legitimate, to the point where the rights of biological parents are frequently foreclosed in favor of non-biological “parents”.  Many children view their non-biological “parents” as more legitimately a part of their lives than their biological parents.

I also take issue with your suggestion that adoption is somehow an “extreme exception” in the law.  Considering the myriads of legal and procedural hurdles posed in front of persons who wish to adopt, it is remarkable that there are still as many as 125,000 adoptions per year in the United States.  And opponents of abortion advocate making adoption a far more viable option for prospective parents than it currently is.

Having said this, there are many same-sex couples that don’t need to adopt a child from unknown parents.  Many partners in same-sex couples have had children from their previous heterosexual relationships, and thus are already parents by any definition.

In short, your concern over the redefinition of the term “parent” is well-taken.  But you’re several generations too late - the term has already gone through a revolution as society has come to recognize the non-traditional family arrangements that had previously been ignored or suppressed.

It seems that your dire predictions are missing the connection between point A and point C.

For example, you write, “Marriage will become a gender-neutral creation of the state, which actively detaches children from at least one of their parents.”

So, point A: Gay marriage is legal.  Gay couples can get married. And straight couples are not affected, at all.

Point C:  The state rips children from their parents and gives them to other people.  Since the state already does this any time a heterosexual couple gets a divorce, it’s hard to see how this is not status quo...so, if the new Supreme Court decision changes something here, then...how are we to interpret this?  The state takes kids away from their parents capriciously?  The state kidnaps children?  What’s going on here?

And where’s the link? What’s point B? How do we get from the current same-sex marriage decision, which doesn’t affect straight couples in any meaningful way, to having babies ripped from their biological mothers against their wills and entrusted to evil heathens?  What’s the connection, Jennifer R. Morse?

It is hoped that each of us longs for the well being of children, whether we are the biological parents or we choose to adopt.  Both of these are heroic actions. 

JohnC, It has always left a bad taste in my mouth when the extreme exception (redundance some would say), adoption by same sex “parents”, is taken as a case to establish a new rule.  Parent defines a mother and/or father, not two mothers or two fathers.  Does that put too fine an edge on things?

“Parentage will not flow automatically from the marital union, but will have to be assigned by the state.”

Actually, there is a long-standing and widely-practiced precedent for this state of affairs.  It’s called adoption.  There are millions of opposite-sex marriages in which neither “parent” is actually the biological parent of the child.  Their status as parents flow solely from statute.  The law need not and does not make any distinction between the male adoptive parent and the female adoptive parent.  It follows that there is no legal reason why the rules would need to be changed to accomodate same-sex couples.

There’s also a neutral word for “mother” and “father” in the case of same-sex parents.  It’s called “parent”.  No need for any abstract “progenitor” terminology here.

Since everything above is already applicable to heterosexual couples, why is it a “redefinition” of marriage to extend the same to homosexual couples?

The level of identification with being a man or woman is a strong social force. To try and eliminate it or ignore it when it comes to something as elemental as family formation is/has been a losing bet for society.

Men will continue to flee the androgen-zed conception of marriage. They want to be needed as Fathers & Husbands; not as partners in a generic “relationship”.

The path to same-sex “marriage” was established when the feminist departments in our universities were established. As long as they remain any conversation that dose not conform to there genderless orthodoxy cannot be allowed to flower within our intellectuals.

If this cadre of gender egalitarians could ignore 42% illegitimacy rates overall & 70% illegitimacy rates among African American’s - they will have no trouble ignoring whatever social consequences come with the ultimate expression of androgyny in law. 

Like so many African Americans who are fighting for the very survival of our people. It was the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. who said “all we can ultimately ask for is strong families & healthy communities”

It is the hedonism of whites & their sexual revolution that cut the legs out from under the black community just at the time they were gaining equality. It is the twisted logic of gender radicals that has kept the issue from being addressed forthrightly.

A brilliant and concise assessment of “civil union” non-compromise compromise.

The solution is provision for designated beneficiaries which has long-existed and is well-utilized throughout the country. It is unapologetically NOT the equivalent of marriage and is not designed to be a merger of non-marriage with marriage, as would SSM or Civil Union, along the lines in California.

The core of the social institution of marriage is, as JRM has described: “society’s most reliable method of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to each other.”

It is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) contingency for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole that is recognize (and NOT owned) by governmental authority.

And, as JRM has correctly observed, the merger of non-marriage with marriage via Civil Union is not a slippery slope argument but rather the edge of the cliff that some would have the rest of society leap over, or be pushed over, eventually.