I read this weekend the engaging, excellent new book by John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher, Debating Same-Sex Marriage. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the debate. (By the way, the Institute’s Center for Public Conversation will be hosting Gallagher and Corvino for a conversation about their new book on June 7. Stay tuned for more on that.)
One of the questions I take away from the Corvino/Gallagher exchange is the following.
If the state should recognize same-sex unions as marriages based on the principle of equality — that same-sex persons are entitled to all the rights and responsibilities of marriage — could people like myself who believe that it is unjust to deliberately conceive a motherless or fatherless child – could we still argue for that view without being labeled as bigots? Further, could I write a letter to the editor, or introduce a bill (if I’m a legislator), or otherise advocate in a public forum, to ban reproductive technologies that intentionally deprive children of their own mother and father? Or would such arguments and actions constitute “hate speech” and discrimination against gays and lesbians, because it deprives gays and lesbians of the opportunity to conceive and raise their own children — one of the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage?
Here is what Corvino says:
“The view that same-sex couples are unworthy of marriage is a wrongheaded one, which should, and will, be marginalized. But what about the view that children need mothers and fathers?… [W]ill people be stigmatized, and even branded as bigots, simply because they believe that children do best with their (own) biological mother and father? Honest answer: it depends. Specifically, it depends on how they frame their point. If they make their focus child welfare, they should be fine. Indeed, on certain points, they may find surprising allies. I too lament the fact that many men don’t take their responsibilities as fathers seriously. I’d like to see the divorce rate reduced, especially when children are involved. I recognize teen pregnancy as a real social problem, particularly in poor minority communities. If the focus is on getting everyone to take more responsibility when it comes to sex and procreation and childrearing, then sign me up. But that, sadly, has seldom been the focus. Instead, “the traditional view of marriage” has become code for “no gays allowed”…. If you don’t want your child-welfare convictions to get branded as discrimination, then you shouldn’t cloak them in a discriminatory message: no gays allowed.”
What do you all think? In a gay marriage world, can I argue that it is unjust to deliberately conceive a motherless or fatherless child, without discriminating against persons in same-sex unions? Or does it constitute “hate speech” and discrimination because it deprive gays and lesbians of the opportunity to conceive and raise their own children — one of the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage?
(By the way, I realize that this question is not necessarily germane to the question, “Should we recognize same-sex unions as marriages?” Regardless of any consequences, if it is just to enact gay marriage because they have a right to marry, the state should do it. If it is unjust because same-sex unions are distinct from opposite-sex unions, it should not. I’m interested in this post of working out the implications of legalizing gay marriage.)
Categories: Childbearing, Marriage, Reproductive Technologies, The Future of Parenthood
David, at least you finally made a stab at answering the question that has repeatedly been asked of you. But, of course, you wind up simply mouthing talking points about the history of marriage and the alleged (without using the word) deinstitutionalization of marriage.
I would respect you more if you simply said what I think you really feel: according to your Church, homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and therefore not worthy to be married. You believe that allowing homosexuals to marry will harm the institution of marriage now enjoyed as a fundamental right by convicts, prostitutes, child molesters, thieves, wife beaters, and anyone else willing to marry someone of the opposite sex who is not too closely related by blood and not already married to someone else.
I’m not Philip Cohen, but given what he said, especially in his follow-up comment, I suspect he meant “Children deserve to be raised by opposite-sex parents” is sexist and therefore bigoted, not “Children deserve to be raised by their biological parents.”
Since no one else seems inclined to defend him, I’ll say something else: when people say “Kids need moms and dads,” they are being decidedly ambiguous as to whether they mean the opposite-sex principle or the biological-parent principle. In fact, given that in the vast majority of contexts, we habitually refer to the actual people who parent a child as that child’s parents, if anything the opposite-sex version is the more natural reading of that statement–and it’s exactly how many opponents of same-sex adoption couch their position. Children deserve, they say, a mother and a father–so, not two mothers, and not two fathers. It’s not biological connection at stake there, it’s gender composition.
People who want to stress the importance of biological parentage should say that: “Kids need their biological parents.” That would make matters much clearer and avoid this unfortunate interpretative difficulty.
There should be no marital presumption for anyone. Fatherhood should be divorced from marriage for all time. Original birth records are medical records. The people named on them are suppose to be the offspring of the parents named on them. If they are not the offspring of the parents named on them, the record is false and inaccurate and should be corrected to reflect the identity of the person’s genetic parents (if known) or left blank (if not known).
The people named as parents on original birth records should either have to pass a maternity or paternity test before the record is certified or sign a sworn statement that they understand that birth records are of vital importance to public health in general and that any errors or misstatements of fact will be corrected and that if the person named on the birth record is ever determined not to be the offspring of one or both people named as parents, the record will be corrected to reflect the identity of the person who is the parent. They should have to sign stating that they understand that the rights and obligations of the genetic parents cannot be terminated except through a formal court approved adoption. No parental rights or obligations shall arise from the certification of a birth record that erroneously names as parents people who are not genetically related as parents to the child named on the birth record whether by mistake or by deliberate acts of deception.
In short their custody and parenthood depends upon the record being true and accurate so that their custody of another person’s offspring is only secure by going through the courts and adopting.
And make adoption legal for people regardless of sexual orientation and fix adoption so that the identity of the adopted person cannot be altered by the people adopting and the identity of the person giving the child up for adoption is known to the adopted person always and their original records are not concealed from them.
Right now there is no reason for people not to lie. Its like if the lie stands long enough it will be treated as true even if everyone knows its not. I know so many people, not just donor offspring and not just adopted either, that are told their mother’s fantasy trumps reality. Whoever she named as their father becomes their father regardless whether it was true or not. She can pretend they had no father when of course they do – her right to tell a lie trumps everyone else’s right to the truth.
The whole system needs to be overhauled and the focus on gay marriage is quite frankly a distraction from the real work that needs to be done to ensure that people’s identities are accurately recorded as the offspring of their genetic parents.
Children don’t deserve a mother and a father. That makes it sound like parenthood is something that someone assigns to people based on having met some predetermined criteria.
Minors deserve to be physically and financially supported by their parents and when that cannot for whatever reason happen, they deserve the benefit of a court approved adoption or court approved foster care to ensure that no money or goods were exchanged for them and to ensure that their genetic parents are aware they exist and consented to their placement.
David, thank you for the replies; I am understanding your position better now.
Sure, one “might” argue that having children is one of the fundamental rights and responsibilities of marriage. One might also argue that owning a pet unicorn is one of the fundamental rights and responsibilities of marriage. Both arguments would be objectively false, though.
Glad we could help, but really, it shouldn’t be about what we think. It isn’t a matter of opinion whether or not procreation is a right of marriage. It’s a matter of law.
I wouldn’t feel comfortable speculating on Philip Cohen’s motives or his interpretation of your meaning. However, see my above statements comparing your argument to “states’ rights” arguments. It’s possible that the argument that “kids need moms and dads” has been attached to the anti-equality movement for so long that the argument itself has become stigmatized.
David, I don’t think anyone is arguing that having and raising children isn’t *one* of the primary purposes of marriage, just that it isn’t the *only* purpose of marriage, nor is it the *primary* purpose for many marriages (with a growing number of couples considering it totally irrelevant to *their* marriage).
Look at it this way, one of the purposes of having a job is to bring in income. For people whose only possible source of income is from their own labor, it is unquestionably *the* primary purpose, foreshadowing all other purposes. But….it isn’t that way for everyone. Some people technically don’t “need” a job, as their spouse brings in enough income to make basic ends meet. Or they have an inheritance, or investment savings, or a pension. They may hold employment to provide a financial cushion for hard times, or for saving for a child or grandchild’s college tuition, or to buy a house. Maybe they hold employment because they find meaning and joy in what they do for a living, or a learning experience, or social satisfaction. Maybe they’re using one job as a stepping stone to the career they really want.
Regardless, we don’t restrict people from employment simply because we think they don’t “need” it, because the primary purpose of their job isn’t survival income.
As for out-of-wedlock births, you needn’t worry. Survey after survey of young people states that most of them still want to get married. They aren’t doing so because marriage is still associated with stability (both financial and otherwise). Greater stability would help many young people currently postponing marriage go ahead and do it. Marriage equality will also help, as young people turned off by the drumbeat of “tradition” and all the baggage that entails will have more examples of how a successful marriage doesn’t require tradition. Universal health care with birth control will also help; most out-of-wedlock births are unintentional.
I just want to say that I really like it when Karen writes and does not just link because I want to hear what YOU think and how YOU interpret the things you read. So it is alwas special when you write what is on your mind
I agree. A name is not nearly enough. Got to obligate people as parents of their own offspring. Hold their feet to the fire, do their job or go about giving the child up in an above board manner in court through adoption.
(but fix adoption secrecy problems too)
David L:
A polar question is a question to which the expected answer is “yes” or “no.”
Earlier, you asked:
It is theoretically possible for a person to argue that kids need a mom and a dad and not use that argument as justification to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. Your posts seem to acknowledge that this is theoretically possible, and most of the people commenting here agree: in the future, when SSM is legal, a person can, theoretically, argue about the importance of biological parents without being antigay.
At the same time, even though you acknowledge that this is theoretically possible, you also make it clear that this is not the case for you. Even though you acknowledge that, legally, marriage is does not imbue upon couples the right to donor conception, and you also acknowledge that there are nonfertile heterosexual couples whose right to marry you support, you continue to insist that “children need two biological parents” may still be sufficient justification to discriminate. When you talk about “mothers and fathers,” you are supporting either discrimination against gay couples or discrimination against individuals within couples on the basis of sex(gender).
So, I cannot imagine how you could be confused about why someone might say that your statements are bigoted. It may be that, hypothetically, someone could make the statements that you are making without supporting discrimination, but you have been very clear that when you, specifically, make those statements, you intend them as a way to justify and support discrimination.
Can you see how that is the case? You don’t get to have it both ways. When you say, in this discussion, that you see someone’s point, you are merely being hypothetical if you continue to support legal discrimination.
Further, I would contend that you are contributing to the future stigmatization of people who would want to make the argument that “children need a biological mother and a biological father,” because you are continuing to connect that argument to discrimination against gay and lesbian couples, without being able to articulate any genuine logical or rational connection between the two.
I invite you to reconsider your political and rhetorical stance on this issue.
If same-sex marriage supporters are too quick to play the “bigot” card, then the same-sex marriage opponents are too quick to play the “children” card. And they keep repeating the warm and fuzzy mantra, “children need a mother and a father!” not because it reflects the reality of the issue but rather because it sounds like an unassailable position: who can deny such a position?! But the truth is, denying marriage rights to same-sex couples does nothing to ensure that a child gets a mother and a father (biological or otherwise): gay couples can still raise children, as can single people.
It seems that latest tactic of the anti-same sex marriage crowd is to decry the “incivility” of the marriage equality supporters, whose frustration at seeing gay and lesbian couples treated like second-class citizens, arguably unconstitutionally, is exacerbated by non-sensical arguments like, “children need a mother and a father!”. What we’re seeing from the anti-gays is common propaganda tactics: for lack of a rational argument, rely on “feel good” rationales unrelated to the issue at hand.
[...] My new book Debating Same-Sex Marriage launches next week. Some early discussion up at Family Scholars. [...]
I have no idea what the bold face quote means. Can you please explain?
A society of victims
http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/victimhood.php
Given that Somerville’s predictions of all sorts of dire things that would happen were Canada to embrace same-sex marriage simply have not panned out, I wonder why anyone would pay any attention to what she wrote then. Canada has had same-sex marriage for almost ten years (in its largest provinces since 2003, nation-wide since 2005), and the sun still rises in the morning, straight people still get married, and violence remains far lower in Canada than in the U.S.