With that move I think DADT is officially, really dead.
Categories: Marriage
| « From Mexico: ‘Instead of Divorce, Short Term Marriage’ | USA Today: ‘Some couples pull back from brink of divorce’ » |
Just Released!
The State of Our Unions 2011
Recently Released!
One Parent or Five
A Global Look at Today's New Intentional Families
Recently Released!
Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition
The Baggage Adult Children of Divorce Carry
Margaret McCarthy, National Catholic Register, 5/18/2012
Are Dads the New Moms?
Susan Gregory Thomas, Wall Street Journal, 5/11/2012
Marriage strong among college educated, but 'retreat from marriage' under way among others
Lois M. Collins, Deseret News, 5/11/2012
Best recession insurance: Marriage
Janice Shaw Crouse, The Washington Times, 5/3/2012
Times change wills, yet many Americans don't have one
Christine Dugas, USA Today, 4/27/2012
Both Parties Disappoint
Elizabeth Marquardt, New York Times "Room for Debate" blog, 4/24/2012
Thoughts on Mercy and Suicide
Amy Ziettlow, The Huffington Post, 4/23/2012
Cohabitating: Questioning the decision to move in before marriage
Maura Judkis, The Washington Post, 4/17/2012
Should Couples Live Together Before Marriage?
Lily Altavena and Katherine Schulten, New York Times, 4/17/2012
Sperm banks breed dysfunction
Alexandra Kukulka, The Columbia Chronicle, 4/16/2012
More news »
Recent Comments
- Darel: La Lubu, contradicting statistical data with a personal vignette is not exactly a strong mode of argumentation.
- Barry Deutsch: If you mean that sometimes married couples separate and go on to date other people — I’m...
- Karen Clark: BUT that being said I personally know of many many exemplary examples of this ideal that never make the...
- Karen: I understand…it makes me feel sad and old as well at the ripe old age of 46. Even the...
- Matthew: Maybe you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the tabloids. What is it that you object to in the...
Dear commenters, before you ask, I did not support don’t ask don’t tell.
Nor do I think it’s a good idea to redefine marriage.
But mostly, the swiftness of going from DADT to chaplains performing gay weddings on base is what gets my attention here. Interesting times.
So you support gay soldiers being allowed to die to protect your liberty, but you don’t support them having equal rights. I see.
I respect gay soldiers very much for serving our country. I don’t think it’s wise to redefine marriage such that law and culture are left unable to affirm that knowing and being known by their own mothers and fathers matters to children.
However, among policy makers my view is likely to become a minority. So the challenge for those of us who believe children need to know and be known by their mother and father will be how to engage that idea in an increasingly post-legal same sex marriage world.
Redefining marriage “such that law and culture are left unable to affirm that knowing and being known by their own mothers and fathers matters to children” has almost nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Most children of same-sex parents have not been produced through artificial means.
Do you think that not allowing same-sex marriage will reduce the number of children who do not know who their mothers and fathers are? Not bloody likely. People who use art to have children will do so whether they are able to marry their partners or not–not allowing them to marry only makes their children vulnerable. Nice family values you practice.
I’m curious, since you are a family scholar, what you think is the ideal situation (with regard to relationships) for gay adult Americans.
I’m asking for your personal opinion. Clearly, you have expressed opinions about what you believe is ideal for adult heterosexuals, and for children. What do you believe gay adult Americans _ought_ to strive for?
Elizabeth,
I have three sons. The oldest will be 30 in a few months. All three have served, at some point, since 9/11.
Two in combat. And I’m not talking about being in a combat zone. They have been in battle, been shot at and witnessed fellow soldiers getting killed or blown up by IED’s.
When the issue of repealing DADT came up, I asked their opinion. It was not an issue for them. If a guy does his job and gets along, doesn’t cause problems or drama? No one cares about his “other” life. Anecdotal, but there it is.
My personal opinion, however, is that the repeal of DADT was never about gay soldiers. It was just another attempt to undermine the DOMA. And this move by the pentagon is evidence of that.
Anna. My goodness.
I do have some thoughts in response to what other commenters said/asked….but for now, it’s late Friday night and I’m a bit fuzzy and… Let’s just think about what Anna said.
What Anna said is nonsense–I rather doubt that the Pentagon is part of some vast homintern conspiracy.
But so is what you said. The number of gay couples who use artificial reproductive technology is miniscule in comparison to heterosexual couples who use art. Are you in favor of eliminating opposite-sex marriage in order to make sure “that law and culture are[not] left unable to affirm that knowing and being known by their own mothers and fathers matters to children.” That would make as much sense.
I interpret the reliance on yet another absurd reason to oppose same-sex marriage as a sign of desperation.
Have you filed for divorce yet? I thought that the advent of same-sex marriage in New York would destroy the opposite-sex marriages there?
You haven’t reported on it yet but a study that compares the divorce rate of married couples to the dissolution rate of civil unions in the UK shows that married couples have divorced at more than twice the rate than people in civil unions have dissolved their unions. I suppose you will soon be claiming that the high divorce rate in the UK is *caused* by civil unions.
Ted, “pente” is Greek for 5. I suppose you are going to tell me that is a coincidence or the result of the historic influence of Greek mathematicians on geometry? I arch my eyebrow at that.
Not a conspiracy, Ted. Just politics.
Military installations are federal property so the federal DOMA should apply.
The DOJ and now the DOD are behaving as if the federal DOMA is no longer the law.
That’s not really accurate, because military chaplains also perform baptisms and other types of ceremonies that are not recognized by the federal government. DOMA was never intended to interfere with religious ceremonies, Anna.
If they were acting like DOMA didn’t exist, they’d grant benefits to married same-sex couples. Letting chaplains follows their faith in terms of the dignity of all soldiers doesn’t rub up against DOMA, but benefits would.
Anna, the new policy has nothing to do with DOMA. Until DOMA is repealed or nullified by a court, the federal government will not recognize any same-sex marriage. The new policy announced by the Pentagon simply allows Chaplains, at their discretion, to participate (or refuse to participate) in ceremonies on base or off base.
All kinds of ceremonies are permitted on military bases, and all sorts of events, including booksignings by right-wing politicians like Sarah Palin most recently and concerts by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, for example, occur on military bases. The Department of Defense does not endorse these events. Neither does the Department of Defense endorse weddings, whether they are opposite-sex or same-sex.
You can rest assured that gay servicemembers are still discriminated against–receiving far fewer benefits than their straight counterparts for doing the same work. That should make you feel very good.
Ted:
Why not ask your question the other way?
“Do you think that allowing same-sex marriage will increase the number of children who do not know who their mothers and fathers are?”
Bloody likely, imho.
Inasmuch as people who want to have children are not required to be married, there is no reason to believe that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any effect on the number of children who do not know who their mothers and fathers are.
But if one’s great concern is the number of children who do not know (or are deceived as to) who their biological parents are, one should be concerned about heterosexual couples. After all, many more heterosexual couples use art than homosexual couples. And in the case of homosexual couples, it is pretty clear that their social parents are not both the biological parents, so one can raise the question of whether they know their biological parents. However, in the case of opposite-sex couples, the presumption is that their social parents are their biological parents. That presumption makes possible all sorts of deception and even fraud.
Were my concern about whether children know who their biological parents are, I would be intent on making sure that the art industry keep good records and share them with children whoever their social parents are.
But there is such a disconnect between the problem (making certain that children know their origins) and Elizabeth’s solution (preventing same-sex couples from marrying) that I can only conclude that the whole concern is simply a ruse. I wish Elizabeth would just tell us the real reason she is opposed to same-sex marriage.
I see your point, but view it differently:
As you say, If same-sex couples want to have and raise children, they will, often quite regardless of whether or not they are allowed to marry.
But should we encourage that choice? Should we slap the state seal-of-approval on it and call it Marriage? No, I think most of us would rather not encourage that choice, even if we don’t actively discourage it.
Marty, a marriage license is not a moral stamp of approval.
I can think of a couple scenarios in which a couple would get a marriage license despite the fact that most of us would want to discourage that choice.
Elizabeth, having lost the battle against SSM I think the next step is to lobby for laws that recognize any known, identifiable genetic parent as a parent.
The “sperm donor” law practiced in most states that identify the husband of a married woman as parent, should be amended to specify that it refers only to case where the actual parent is unidentifiable.
No one would have thought to apply that law to heterosexual couples since heterosexual infertile men are unlikely to ask their buddy to kindly impregnate their wife for them, please. But since lesbians are likely to do so, and are increasingly attempting to apply that law for themselves it makes sense.
If this happens, you will see an initial increase in sperm donors and less turning to buddies, but the tide will turn as ART becomes more regulated. And those who do decide to turn to buddies will do so with the understanding of the buddy’s role as dad.
Elizabeth, I’m not surprised to see the repeal of DADT followed fairly quickly by a decision to allow military chaplains to perform marriages for same-sex couples. The article suggests that this policy review had been initiated prior to the repeal of DADT. The article doesn’t say how the review came about, but I would not be surprised to learn that the request came from military chaplains who wanted to be able to perform such ceremonies.
@ Peter,
the battle is done (for me as a New Yorker anyway) but I can’t help responding to your post.
Certainly there are heterosexual couples who should not be encouraged to marry. However, adding criteria and creating barriers to marriage for heterosexual couples will decrease the marriage rate overall for everyone, and will increase the rate of children born outside of marriage.
This consideration is not relevant for same sex couples. This is one way that same sex couples and heterosexual couples are differently situated and should therefore be differently identified.
ki sarita, we’re heading off topic, but I’d like to address your response.
Were a father of young children to decide to divorce his wife and marry the woman with whom he’d been having an affair, he would face no obstacles in getting that marriage license. Thanks to Zablocki v. Redhail, the state can’t withhold a marriage license even if our hypothetical father were to be in arrears with regard to child support payments.
I repeat my position that the state issues marriage licenses, not moral approval.
Nor does the Department of Defense endorse same-sex marriage when it allows chaplains to perform private, religious ceremonies.
Peter:
I’d love to stay and argue that it is just that. It establishes a bare minimum standard, equally available to all, without respect for race, religion, or even sexual orientation.
But I’ll save that for another day.
Elizabeth, I’m still curious about how you would respond to my question from Friday:
As a family scholar, what you think is the ideal situation (with regard to relationships) for gay adult Americans?
You clearly have opinions about what gay Americans should _not_ do (for example: get legally married). So what is your personal opinion about what gay Americans ought to do?
ki sarita, with all due respect, this statement is hogwash. Unless you have actual data about the relative rates of heterosexual men seeking sperm from a third party and lesbian couples seeking sperm from a third party, this is just wild speculation. You’re not taking into consideration the fact that heterosexual men significantly outnumber lesbians.
Consider, too, that a heterosexual man is many times more likely to beget a child outside of marriage than a lesbian, and a heterosexual woman has a much greater chance of lying to her partner about who got her pregnant.
Ki sarita said:
Huh? Lots of friends of heterosexual men impregnate their wives for them. And usually, the cuckolded husband doesn’t even have to ask.
Good point Ted. But you know what? We as a society condemn that. we call it adultery. are you advocating the same condemnation of sperm donation?
@ Phil, I’m not sure why you find the statistics relevant but you are actually mistaken, if you look at the data provided by sperm banks you’ll find that heterosexual couples are far outnumbered by single women and lesbians.
Ki sarita said:
I am not advocating condemnation of anything, but I am suggesting that a lot of people who are so obsessed with biological connections–especially those who think that the only “real” parents are biological parents–should be prepared for a lot of nasty surprises were all children, for example, subjected to dna tests. I suspect that a lot of people who think they are the fathers of their children might be surprised to find out that they are not. To say nothing of all those who know that they are not the fathers of their children but pretend to be so.
We need to repeal the law that says the husband is always the father of his wife’s child, because it is not necessarily true.
We need to repeal the law that says a man who voluntarily declares his paternity with the mothers consent is the father, because it is not necessarily true.
The law that says a positive paternity test identifies the father needs to remain because it is always true.
We need to write “not yet identified” on the father line of birth records unless and until one that passes a paternity test can be found.
Don’t name non biologically related men as fathers just because the real father can’t be identified! What if the real dad is away at war? That stupid quasi marital law has cost so many people their real fathers and then everyone whines at them that their real father is their step father because he raised them. What a load of crap. Name the real deal or name nobody. Then sperm donors would have to be named and give the child up for step parent adoption. The married couple would get what they wanted without the elaborate charade. Lesbian couples would get what they want too if we fixed the laws that prevent singles from adopting and if they were married because who cares if 2 guys or girls get married I don’t care then the law would work for married couples too regardless of what orientation they were.
We need to stop making conditions where its acceptable to lie about who the father or mother of a child is. If you want to be recorded as the mother or father prove that you are or adopt from someone who can,
ki sarita wrote:
So your point is that you don’t care whether the children of same-sex couples are born out of wedlock but you do care whether the children of opposite-sex couples are born out of wedlock?
Am I right to understand that your animus against same-sex couples extends to their children as well?
I find it very curious that so much concern is expressed on this site about the harm that comes to children from being both out-of-wedlock, but that concern suddenly evaporates when it comes to the children of same-sex parents.
So, there’s really no downside then.
sorry ted, but I don’t see the connection between your response, to what I wrote. explain?
ok, upon rereading your post I see that we are talking past eachother due to different premises.
it is my opinion that all “children of same sex couples” are by definition born out of wedlock. Same sex couples can not reproduce, which means that one of them reproduced with an outside party.
You, along with most of the gay marriage supportive community, begin with the premise that the actual biological parent is inconsequential.
it is my opinion that all “children of same sex couples” are by definition born out of wedlock. Same sex couples can not reproduce, which means that one of them reproduced with an outside party.
I’m curious why you think this. Do you live in a state that prohibits adoption by same-sex couples? (which is—correct me if I’m wrong—the go-to solution for gay and lesbian people who want children. ART is the preferred choice for heterosexual couples when one of the people is infertile.)
Also (and I’ve said this before), one cannot underestimate the number of gay and lesbian people who were pressured into trying to live as heterosexuals, including getting married and having children. Most of the gay and lesbian people I know had their children this way—via their attempt to conform to heterosexuality. Do these children become “born out of wedlock” when their biological parents get divorced?
Serious question now; not a “gotcha”: which child is better off—a child with two committed same-sex parents (married or no, since most states don’t allow same-sex marriage), or….my child?
And again….are children a requirement of marriage? Should they be? Should we discourage marriage between people with no intention or ability to have children? (not talking legally—just socially.) In other words, should there be such a strong conflation between marriage and children that it is unthinkable to have one without the other? Should couples with no intention or ability to have children with one another be encouraged to cohabit instead?
ki sarita, I don’t what is unclear about my post. La Luba added more information. Let me put it this way: the owners of this site and many of the posters here are always extolling the advantages of children having parents who are married. If that is so, why do you want to deny the children of same-sex parents of having the same advantages? Do you dislike them as much as you do their parents and want them to be similarly disadvantaged?
Or, should we encourage them to do something else?
Elizabeth, since it’s no longer Friday night, and you’ve posted many blog posts since last week, is it reasonable to infer that you have chosen not to answer the question I posed earlier: in your opinion, what is the ideal situation for gay adult Americans, with regard to their relationships? In your opinion, what ought they strive for?
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I believe that one reason that anti-SSM advocates are frequently labeled “bigots” is because they present the lives of a group of people (say, gay adults) as a problem without ever presenting solutions for those people.
In other words, your silence speaks volumes, Elizabeth.
Or, should we encourage them to do something else?
Point taken. I was starting with the assumption that most people (regardless of sexual orientation) prefer to have long-term, intimate, sexual relationships if they have the choice and ability to do so. That society can influence whether those people formalize those relationships via marriage or not—but that regardless, people are going to continue to opt for those relationships. It’s going to be a hard sell to folks to relinquish life partnerships simply because they don’t want or can’t have children.
Some of the regular bloggers here are silent on their thoughts about what LGBT folks should do with regards to relationships. Others insist that they aren’t singling out LGBT people, but that even heterosexuals should refrain from sexual activity until marriage—that celibacy should be the life path of all unmarried people (the difference being that heterosexuals can leave the life of celibacy upon marriage, whereas LGBT people should presumably remain celibate for life). Can’t recall any conversations about masturbation here, but I do recall links and citations here from other writers who are very much opposed to even masturbation (for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation).
Marriage does not equal children. I live in a city of over 120,000 people; only 20% of the households here have at least one child under the age of eighteen living in the household (which includes freshmen living at college who keep a home mailing address). But over 55% of the population is married. Like a lot of rust-belt cities, we have a higher population of older folks than the national average. Not a whole lot higher, though. Average age of people here is still under 40. Again, like a lot of rust-belt cities, a significant proportion of the married folk are married for the second (or third) time—but only had children during their first (or second) marriages (or, had children from a previous unmarried relationship). Typically, people over the age of 30 here do not seek to have children when they marry, as they’ve typically had all the children they want in their twenties.
So, what is really meant by “redefining” marriage? All other human institutions evolve, as does (and has) marriage. Why the attempt to create a static condition for marriage? Mind you, I’m not necessarily opposed to that; I just think its contradictory to one of the oft-stated goals of this blog which is to get more people to marry. Can’t have it both ways—if marriage remains static, it will become an anachronism and disappear.
Agreed. But it wasn’t really until this year, reading the writings of certain social conservative thinkers, that I realized there is a subset of writers who, for all intents and purposes, think of marriage and sex as the same thing. They believe that sex should only occur within marriage, so much so that choosing a marriage partner equals choosing a sex partner. When you read the “What is Marriage” article by Robert George and company, it makes much more sense when you realize he’s not saying that penis-in-vagina sex is a requirement for marriage; rather, he basically believes that marriage is penis-in-vagina sex. The marriage exists only because of the sex and the sex ought only exist within the context of marriage.
it makes much more sense when you realize he’s not saying that penis-in-vagina sex is a requirement for marriage; rather, he basically believes that marriage is penis-in-vagina sex.
I don’t know…he went to great pains to carve out exceptions for heterosexuals. So, even when he said things like this: On the other hand, same‐sex partnerships, whatever their moral status, cannot be marriages because they lack any essential orientation to children…, he pointedly followed up with Any act of organic bodily union can seal a marriage, whether or not it causes conception….It does not matter, then, if spouses do not intend to have children or believe that they cannot. (or presumably, use either permanent or temporary measures of birth control—though he is opposed to birth control, he does not support banning marriage for heterosexuals who insist on using it).
I really think that though these conservative opponents of same-sex marriage have a worldview that is radically different from the average heterosexual person, it isn’t their goal to get more heterosexual people to share this particular worldview and abide by its practices. They spend almost no outreach effort to the heterosexual masses, choosing instead to lobby against the public tide of increasing equality for LGBT people. That says something to me.
Hey Ted I want to prefface my question to you by saying that I am from San Francisco a die hard democrat in favor of gay marriage – I am thoroughly immersed in my own non-traditional child rearing household…
I just bristle when you say:
“I find it very curious that so much concern is expressed on this site about the harm that comes to children from being both out-of-wedlock, but that concern suddenly evaporates when it comes to the children of same-sex parents.”
A same sex couple cannot reproduce. It’s impossible for them to have children any other way than as individuals with members of the opposite sex. If there are two women in a couple raising a child, one of them is a mother and the other, is a step mother if they are married or the Mom’s girlfriend if They are not.
Being married to a person should not automatically make a person the legal parent of their spouses child. Marital presumption should be repealed altogether so that nobody gets to lie and pretend they can just erase and replace the people who created the child. If the people that created the child just gave the kid up for adoption the non-bio people would not get to pretend the bio parent never existed but they’d still get to raise the kid and have all the legal authority that comes with being an adoptive parent leaving the bio parent with no authority at all.
Its not ok for married people straight or gay to take over for a bio parent without giving the child the benefit of a biologically accurate birth record and a court approved adoption. The laws that allow for that behavior discriminate against children conceived by Art as if they were less human and somehow less deserving of the same legal protection other children have.
Sorry Ted, that was more of a tirade than a question….Excuse me. Here is a question for you: If you were offered a trade-off – federally mandated acceptance of gay marriage in every state in the union from tomorrow forward in exchange for federal clarification that parents named on an original birth certificate must be maternally and paternally related and the marital presumption would no longer be valid – birth certificates would be corrected to remove names of people not genetically related as parents….would you take the deal or pass on it?
Its absolutely equal for everyone
Phil: if they are heterosexual then yes because their marriage supports a norm of reproductive intercourse taking place within a marriage. If they are not heterosexual than neutral, their loved ones should encourage them to do what is best for their own happiness but it really has no societal implications and so is no one’s business.
Ted: We’re disagreeing on what constitutes a parent, here.
LaLubu: I support joint adoption by same sex couples in a legally recognized relationship, although I have my reservations about adoption in general. I apologize for the oversight. But from his follow up comment, I do think that Ted and I were talking about the same situation. With regard to children born from previous heterosexual marriages I don’t think that is the issue here as classifying them as children of the new partner isn’t on the table. At least not yet, hope it doesn’t get there.
Marilyn: Your initiative would involve massive government intrusion via mandatory DNA testing for everyone, something that I believe would not be considered remotely acceptable in a democratic state. Basically show me how you can equalize two institutions that are unequal with regard to reproduction, without stripping others of their rights.
@ Ted, to continue- in my view (not scholarly researched I admit) the primary benefit of marriage is the opportunity for relationship with both parents, therefore I would say even if the parents eventually divorce it’s better that if they had no relationship at all such as in the case of a sperm donor. Perhaps Elizabeth disagrees with me on this. By parent, I mean biological parent, which you may not agree.
Secondary is to ease the burden of the parent in caring for the child, which of course affects the child’s welfare as well. This is equal to same sex couples.
Marilynn and ki sarita: neither of you addressed the question I posed, and I conclude that neither of you give a fig about the children of same-sex couples. It is curious for Marilynn to insist that gay and lesbian couples have not children! And you live in San Francisco! Surely you know that most children living with gay and lesbian parents are either from previous heterosexual relationships or from adoption. Are you going to invalidate adoptions because you dislike the parents? Are you going to take away the biological children of gay parents because you disapprove of them? You (at least ki sarita) is certainly willing to deprive the children of same-sex parents of the protection they would receive by having their parents married, to say nothing of all the putative advantages that are ballyhooed on this site as stemming from being raised by married couples. Just admit it: your animus against gay couples is so broad that it extends to their (mostly heterosexual) children.
Marilynn, the question you post regarding a “trade-off” re birth certificates and federal recognition of same-sex marriage assumes a false equivalency. DOMA is unconstitutional and will soon be declared so. It is a discriminatory law. It has nothing to do with birth certificates. Nada.
As it turns out, I have mixed feelings about birth certificates and the marital presumption of paternity. On the one hand, having a birth certificate naming the adoptive parents of adopted children is useful. In the case of adoption, at least in my state, these birth certificates are amended birth certificates, with the original certificate kept under seal. The original is not destroyed, and is available to authorized people, including the child himself or herself when he or she reaches a certain age. That makes sense to me.
In general, I think that birth certificates should honestly reflect maternity and paternity. However, we all know that in many births, the father’s name as entered on birth certificates is not necessarily true.
The presumption of paternity is simply a way to identify someone to serve as a child’s parent without verifying paternity or raising the question of the mother’s fidelity. Perhaps that should be changed. I would suspect a lot of resistance from heterosexuals were a requirement for a paternity test be imposed on them. But I would have no objection.
In any case, what is entered on birth certificates has very little to do with same-sex marriage.
ki sarita writes:
Exactly what rights are you concerned about? The right of heterosexuals to lie about whether one has fathered a child?
You seem to want to police the paternity and maternity of the children of gay couples, but suddenly think that (presumed) heterosexual couples have a right to lie about the paternity of a child allegedly conceived by them. Talk about a double standard!
You are all in favor of government intervention in people’s private affairs except when it comes to heterosexual couples.
Ted; it takes no policing to determine that two women could not have reproduced a child together. This is a basic biological fact that people seem to forget when it conflicts with their political agenda.
Ted please read before you rant.
I explicitly stated that I support joint adoption by gay couples in a legally recognized union, (whatever its name).
Nowhere did I suggest that children be taken away from a fit biological parent, gay or or straight. Quite the opposite. The essence of my proposal is to insist that a biological father, if known, is a full legal father, whether straight or gay, and no matter what method he used to conceived.
Regarding children born to gay persons in the framework of a previous heterosexual relationship, I don’t see how they are relevant to the discussion, unless you are suggesting that the gay new partner should replace the biological parent?????
(I speculate that as it becomes easier and easier for a gay parent to claim parenthood to a partners children, insemination by sperm donor will become much more popular amongst gay couples and adoption will decrease. if only because Insemination is quick and simple and adoption is a long arduous process.)