The authors of the amicus brief write (page 36):
“The amici in support of DOMA and Proposition 8 cite studies purporting to show the superiority of biological parents over adoptive parents, see Brief for Social Science Professors at 14 n.6 (citing Brent Miller et al., Comparisons of Adopted and Non-Adopted Adolescents in a Large, Nationally Representative Sample, 71 Child Development 1458 (2000)), and a publication by an advocacy organization purporting to show problems for children conceived by donor sperm, see Brief for Coalition for the Protection of Marriage as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner–Hollingsworth at 23, No. 12-144, and Respondent–BLAG, No. 12-307 (U.S. Jan. 29, 2013) (citing Institute for American Values (Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval D. Glenn, & Karen Clark, co-investigators), My Daddy’s Name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation (2010)). As with the rest of their studies, these studies do not examine same-sex parents or their children. It is hard to see the relevance of these citations to the issue of marriage rights for same-sex couples given that both adoption and assisted reproduction are widely used by heterosexual couples, as reflected in the very sources cited in support of DOMA and Proposition 8.” [hyperlink and italics added]
While our study “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” does not have clear implications one way or another regarding same-sex marriage, it is not true that the study does “not examine same-sex parents or their children.” The My Daddy’s Name is Donor study does reveal how persons conceived via sperm donation to lesbian couples are both similar to and different than others conceived via sperm donation. While those conceived via sperm donation to lesbian couples reported faring a little better overall compared to their peers conceived via sperm donation to heterosexual parents or single mothers, they were nevertheless similar to most donor conceived persons in faring worse overall compared to those raised by their biological or adoptive parents. On average, the loss of their father in their daily lives seems to matter to children, no matter whether it happens via sperm donation or another course such as divorce, relinquishment, or abandonment.
To see the executive summary of My Daddy’s Name is Donor, see here. The summary sections on persons conceived via sperm donation to lesbian mothers are on pages 9-11.
Categories: Fatherhood, My Daddy's Name is Donor, Reproductive Technologies, The Future of Parenthood
As I have said in other places, multiple times, I do support adoption and second-parent adoption access by gay and lesbian couples. Based on what I have seen in our study and observed in life, I think donor conception is a bad idea for anybody to undertake, gay or straight, single or married. Also, the ASA brief refers to our publication My Daddy’s Name is Donor as by an advocacy organization. Since its publication in 2010, the study has been reported in a law journal and by two academic presses.
Just out of interest do you approve of how the other side used your research? Olsen et. al. seems to be responding to someone else’s citation of your work. Did they cite it properly?
As I read the excerpt, the ASA brief is just making the same point that you are making in the first comment in this thread: the IAV study concerns problems with donor conception itself, when engaged in by anyone in any family structure, rather than problems with same-sex parenting specifically.
I can’t imagine that the government is going to support raising children outside of wedlock, regardless of who’s parenting them. If we truly hate gay people so much that we’d put children in jeopardy needlessly, then we need to stop touting this country as any kind of a moral leader in the world.
Kevin
“I can’t imagine that the government is going to support raising children outside of wedlock, regardless of who’s parenting them. If we truly hate gay people so much that we’d put children in jeopardy needlessly, then we need to stop touting this country as any kind of a moral leader in the world.”
What if a man is raising children with his brother because his wife tragically passed away? Would you suggest the brothers should be able to ‘marry’ because they are raising children together?
I wish it could go without saying that homosexuality has nothing to do with having and raising children, and; accordingly, making this issue about homosexuality makes no sense at all. The fact that I cannot is worrisome.
DR8, a man and his brother are already related and don’t need marriage to form a kinship relationship. But if two brothers want to get married, I’m fine with that. Not the answer you want though, is it?
Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality has anything to do with marriage and parenting. But mountains research show that children are much better off when raised by married parents. If the US made any sense anymore, we would be insisting that gay parents get married, not fighting to stop them from doing so. But common sense and morality aren’t what they used to be, and the well-being of kids doesn’t count for much these days.
Kevin
Any answer can be worked with. You could have either said no, and exposed your inconsistent (and frankly, unjustly discriminatory) idea of marriage, or said yes and exposed that your idea of marriage, is by any sense of the word, not marriage at all. Such is the dilemma for anyone who tries to have an understanding of marriage that goes beyond a man and a woman. Either you take the side of the worst kind of bigot or the side that marriage is not really anything in particular at all.
You are quite correct that homosexuality has nothing at all with having and raising children. However, heterosexual behavior has everything to do with both having and raising children (and accordingly, marriage and parenting). Maybe you have not had ‘the talk’ with your parents yet, so my apologies to them for letting the secret out, the act of a man and woman coming together sexually generates new life. In other words, they make a baby together. Its pretty wild I know. Anyway, now that the secret is out, I hope you better understand what is unique about the an enduring union of a man and woman. That this kind of relationship alone can both generate new life (make babies) and provide those children with the love and care of their parents…not replacement parents. These relationships are what marriage is. Our idea and understanding of marriage have been built around them. Marriage and parenting have everything to do with these relationships, and nothing to do with any other kind of relationship such as one between siblings, friends, and yes, even homosexual partners.
Maybe you have not had ‘the talk’ with your parents yet, so my apologies to them for letting the secret out, the act of a man and woman coming together sexually generates new life.
You might want to go back for the advanced version of that talk; there are many ways for a man and woman to ‘come together’ that does not result in new life, and men and women who cannot create new life together still ‘come together’ for other reasons.
(And as an aside, I really think this site needs a Civility Policy Drinking Game. Whenever the mods blow by a violation made by someone with whose political views they are in agreement….)
mythago
Yes, some men and women happen to suffer from infertility, which happens to be a disability. Others even use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. So what? What relevance do those have to the issue at hand? Neither changes the fact that only relationships between a man and woman directly lead to children and associated family life.
Dr84,
Thanks for bringing some good sense to this discussion. It’s a pity these sorts of things need repeating, but they do.
Elizabeth is right when she mentions it is a ‘bad idea.’ It should be outlawed but the law hasn’t caught up with the science yet.
Here’s what Judge Elaine Adair wrote in the Olivia Pratten case (although it’s now being appealed): “I conclude, based on the whole of the evidence, that assisted reproduction using an anonymous gamete donor is harmful to the child, and it is not in the best interests of donor offspring,” wrote Adair.
It is immoral to deny a child to know the identity of their mom or dad especially when there’s no legal recourse.
@D84 says “Neither changes the fact that only relationships between a man and woman directly lead to children and associated family life.”
Exactly. That’s why marriage is about procreation IN PRINCIPLE. The reason why infertile couples are permitted to marry is because the state cannot legally mandate fertility tests.
See Standhardt v Arizona(“government inquiry into a couples procreation plans or requiring sterility tests before issuing a marriage license would raise serious constitutional questions”)
“The reason why infertile couples are permitted to marry is because the state cannot legally mandate fertility tests.”
This statement is absurd. Infertile couples are allowed to marry if they are different-sexed. There is no effort to prevent them from marrying, such as encouraging self-selection out of marriage for infertile couples, or preventing known infertile couples (based on the age of the wife) from marrying. Fertility or infertility have never been relevant, because marriage is about adults, not procreation.
There is no need to perform fertility tests on infertile couples, in the event we decide marriage is to be redefined to be about procreation. If your marriage doesn’t produce a child within three years, the marriage is dissolved. And it’s easy enough to post signs in marriage license bureaus requesting that infertile couples refrain from marriage. Many couples will happily obey state advice to not get married. People just need to know the rules and I trust them to follow those rules.
People who want to get married can request a fertility certificate from potential suitors, to avoid a future dissolved marriage for lack of progeny. Post-menopausal women can politely be notified by their doctors that they are no longer eligible to marry.
So there’s lots of ways to create a “marriage for procreation” society, if that’s what we want to do.
“It is immoral to deny a child to know the identity of their mom or dad especially when there’s no legal recourse.”
I would happily deny a child the identity of a parent who had sexually abused him or her, or who had an extreme negative reputation. I’m sure there are other reasons to do this, too. There is no moral absolute obligation to inform a child who his parents are.
No, because marriage approves and allows them to create MORE children together, it approves of them becoming parents together. We shouldn’t approve of two brothers or a brother and sister becoming parents together.
But, if we do want to give them a way to commit to each other and have the other benefits of marriage, without approving of them creating more babies together, we can define Civil Unions that way.
No, there is nothing wrong with infertile couples marrying, no reason to not want them to marry, indeed we want them to marry, even if they are infertile. Everyone has a right to marry someone eligible, regardless of their ability to procreate, and they are approved and allowed to procreate and become parents together.
@Manny – No, I didn’t say there was something ‘wrong’ with infertile couples marrying but, rather, why the law permits them as in the evidence I supplied from Standhardt v Arizona. The state cannot inquire about their infertility due to doctor-patient confidentiality and privacy laws.
Furthermore, many couples don’t know they are infertile until after they marry. Or, some couples thought they were infertile but were wrong and had an unexpected pregnancy. Please see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4403012/abstract
Hence, marriage acts as a ‘safety net’ for unintended pregnancies due to perceived infertility.
Or see page 1056 regarding infertile couples
http://students.law.drake.edu/lawReview/docs/lrVol58-allen.pdf
This argument only makes sense if you are working backwards to get to your desired outcome. It isn’t as if, in designing U.S. marriage law, people said “Darn, if only we could allow only procreative couples to marry, since procreation is the only reason for marriage! But alas, we cannot inquire into such private matters, so we’ll let the poor souls marry anyway.” That never happened. Marriages with children are treated as exactly the same as marriage without children. They are not some exception to a rule, because the rule you’re describing does not exist.
zztstenglish, can you acknowledge that marriage has certain benefits to society aside from managing procreation?
Hector
You are welcome. Some of the comments around here absolutely astonish me. Why are people in doing studies and having conversations in regards to how good particular types of relationships, that have nothing to do with children, are for raising children? More so, why are they always centered around homosexuality? There are all kinds of other human relationships, organizations, and associations that also have nothing to do with children. None of these are a topic of discussion like homosexual relationships are even though there is every bit as much reason to make them so.
In regards to fertility, again, why does this issue matter? Homosexual couples are neither fertile nor infertile together. That is simply not even an aspect of those type of relationships. More so, if anyone were to try to equate homosexual couples with those who do experience infertility together they would have to conclude that homosexuality is a type of disability. Given that fully able humans are fertile, and if one is not fertile they are less than fully able (hence disabled). Does anyone want to go there???
Also, the difference between couples who are fertile and those who are not is in the results of their behavior. They do all the same things together. The difference between opposite sex couples and same sex couples is in what they do, not merely the results.
Two men or two women together have never either gotten pregnant, had to either try to stop themselves from getting pregnant, or been either heartbroken or relieved to find out they cannot get pregnant together. This is not a trivial issue, the possibility of one’s relationship generating new life is a big deal, it is a big dynamic that informs and affects the relationship. It is a dynamic completely missing in all ways in relationships between people of the same sex. Yet, couples who are infertile together or even trying to not have a baby, in some way, have to deal with it. This isn’t just some minor detail that comes up once in awhile for men and women. Its built into the foundations of relationships between men and women. Same sex relationships are on another foundation altogether. What I am saying here is sadly difficult to describe in words, but easy to understand with experience. For those with (opposite sex) significant others, consider the difference in these area between you and your SO and you and one of your close friends (of the same sex). The thought of your relationship with your friend leading to a new life has probably never even come up, it would not even make sense for it to do so. That same thought is almost certainly inescapable with your SO.
DR84 writes: “Why are people in doing studies and having conversations in regards to how good particular types of relationships, that have nothing to do with children, are for raising children? More so, why are they always centered around homosexuality?”
Uh, have you not been reading the news? The ASA brief is submitted in support of the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case currently before the Supreme Court. The brief counters the contention by the proponents of Proposition 8 that same-sex couples are not good parents; in particular, they counter the fraudulent study by Mark Regnerus that was financed by the Witherspoon Foundation.
It is those who want to deny equal rights to homosexuals who have focused on the question of whether homosexuals make good parents.
I agree that the question is fatuous and irrelevant. Good parenting skills is not a criterion for marriage. No heterosexual to my knowledge has ever been denied a marriage license on the grounds that they would make bad parents.
@zztstenglish, you brought this up before, and again, ‘raises serious constitutional questions’ does not mean ‘the government is not allowed to do that’. It is also the case that how a government limits infertile couples’ marriages is going to affect the constitutionality; requiring all women to submit to a pelvic exam before marriage would certainly be found out of bounds, but what about requiring couples to affirm they were not impotent (as pointed out in Baehr v Lewin, Hawaii used to do this), barring marriage for persons older than a certain age, or even simply making a marriage voidable for infertility, the same way it is voidable for consanguinity or age?
Cherry-picking cases that you feel support your position and ignoring those that don’t is not a convincing argument.
@zzstenglish, you still seem to think there is some burden put on society by infertile couples marrying. That Drake paper says “because these relationships, by definition, produce no children, they generate no social inclusion benefits.” – That’s actually pretty offensive and wrong, there are many benefits to people marrying even if they will not have children, and not just because it’s a “safety net” in case they were wrong about being infertile or not wanting children and have children anyway. The social benefits are promoting the norm of marriage, increasing stability or society, helping other people know when people are committed to someone else, and mainly it’s a benefit that everyone is allowed to marry even if they don’t want children or can’t have children. Perhaps not having children doesn’t benefit society as much as a loving couple sacrificing their own desires to bring the next generation into existence and raising them, but perhaps it’s not as bad for society as pressure for everyone to have children, driving IVF and pressuring people into becoming parents, or as bad for society as a couple that can’t provide proper care for their children having children. My point is fertility and procreating children is not the highest good or the only purpose of marriage, and we don’t need to justify including infertile or childless couples by not being able to intrude on their privacy, the reason we include them is because everyone has a right to marry if they are eligible.
That paper goes on to mention incestuous couples that aren’t eligible for marriage, but is strangely mild about them: “Although these unions can produce children, the chance of genetic disorders increases, and the increased chance of a coerced union lowers the social inclusion benefits.” Lowers the social inclusion benefits? How about brings them down to zero? I think the author is putting too much weight on fertility. He even says that the inclusion costs to society due to “negative feedback” of incest “are likely moderate.” Moderate? Sorry but allowing fathers to marry their daughters would have a very high negative feedback cost, no matter how monogamous and fertile the couple is.
The argument I think we should make in response to the infertility argument is that fertility has nothing to do with marriage rights, because all that matters is that the couple is approved and allowed to procreate. Certain types of relationships (not individual people) are not allowed to procreate and society does not approve of them procreating or having sex. Merely being approved and allowed to have sex and procreate is enough to make marriage fully meaningful and significant, though it’s true that having children and raising them is even more meaningful and complete, but it is wrong to denigrate childless marriages as not fully meaningful and complete.
People do not have a right and should not be allowed or approved to procreate with someone of the same sex because no matter how it is done (3PR, genetic engineering, sex with random stranger) it is unethical and we should not allow it. We don’t have to let same-sex couples marry just because we let them make babies by those methods, because there is no right to make babies by those methods and people are in the process of trying to prohibit 3PR and it might be prohibited someday, so we shouldn’t put the state approval of same-sex couples making babies when it is not something we should approve of. It’s “bad news” as Elizabeth says, even if it is currently legal, and we should not approve of it and make it harder or impossible to ban by declaring same-sex couples procreation rights equal to a married man and woman’s procreation rights. Everyone has a right to procreate with someone of the other sex, no one has a right to procreate as the other sex or procreate with the same sex.
“Hence, marriage acts as a ‘safety net’ for unintended pregnancies due to perceived infertility.”
Not a very good safety net, since it is completely voluntary, and easily ended. And what is the safety net saving us from? Family law requires anyone who creates a child to care for that child, regardless of marital status. So how is marriage a safety net?
If the government wanted marriage to be about procreation, it would inform that public in that regard: public service announcements, signs posted at at marriage license bureaus, etc. There seems to be no such communication from the government on this issue. That seems odds to me.
Consider all the public service messaging regarding smoking. The government hasn’t outlawed it, or tested people for whether they smoke or not but it’s clear to me that the government opposes smoking, as a health risk. If we’re going to make marriage about procreation, we better start telling people, and the government, which issues the marriage licenses, is a good place to start.
there are many benefits to people marrying even if they will not have children, and not just because it’s a “safety net” in case they were wrong about being infertile or not wanting children and have children anyway.
Exactly.
@Hector, I’m curious as to why you look down on such couples, given that there can be many reasons (from genetics to mental health to a desire to provide a home to already-born children) that a married couple might choose not to have biological children together.
@Hector, I understand we’re talking about couples who don’t have children and have decided not to have more; but you seem to be making the assumption that any couple choosing not to have children is doing to because it interferes with a self-centered, jet-setting lifestyle.
Hector, I often find myself wondering what you get out of being so judgmental of other peoples’ choices when their decisions will have absolutely zero effect either on your own moral compass OR your life.
Regardless of whether you feel that an individual’s decision not to parent is based on “selfish” reasons or not, isn’t it a good thing for children that — in the case of the intentionally non-parenting — they are not being born into families where the parents would resent their presence?
The notion that becoming a parent will somehow make the parents into better people has always seemed to me a very dangerous gamble — one that places the well-being of children on the line. Why would we, as a society, want to encourage that?
@Manny – I’m not sure why you think I believe an infertile couple marrying would be ‘some burden to society’ when I never said or implied that.
You also wrote “procreating children is not the highest good or the only purpose of marriage.” Again, there’s a misunderstanding because I never said procreating is the ‘only purpose of marriage.’ People marry for all sorts of reasons (love, religion, financial, etc.) but that’s your PERSONAL reason for marriage not the STATE’S reasons. The reason why I talk about procreation and child-rearing is because that’s why the government took an interest in marriage to begin with. And there’s abundant evidence to support that because the Supreme Court has, in fact, linked marriage and procreation
@anna says “their decisions will have absolutely zero effect either on your own moral compass OR your life.” Not true. If gay marriage is legalized, they’ll be awarded marriage benefits which comes my taxes. Hence, it does effect others. In fact, one person has argued taxes will go up as a result. I’d give you the link but you take offense to that for some reason.
zztstenglish,
To clarify, I don’t find providing links per se rude (in fact, I appreciate it when people link/cite sources). What I find unhelpful is when you (or others) throw up links with very brief commentary and seem to assume the person you are conversing with both has the time to immediately read and digest what is on the other end of the link, and that they will be able to discern what YOUR takeaway from the source was, without you actually talking about it. I just finished assessing student projects for National History Day and a recurring problem with their websites was that they threw up a bunch of primary source documents and didn’t explain to the reader why we should care — what meaning did the student take away from this document? what was the key idea? how did it relate to their overall argument? When you put up a link and a line or two that basically says “thus my argument is proved!” I find what I am lacking is your thoughts and analysis, backed up by the links/evidence, which are essential to the true exchange of ideas. I want your thoughts, not the thoughts of others.
To directly address your concern about tax money, I will repeat the observation I’ve made previously and ask you to explain your thinking on this matter:
If we were to take for granted, for the moment, your assertion that a) the state’s primary (or only) interest in marriage is the provision care for dependent children, and b) that each additional marriage in the United States increases the economic burden of the populace as a whole, how do these two factors lead to your conclusion that same-sex couples should be discriminated against when it comes to legal access to marriage?
Would it not be more sensible (and economically efficient!) to simply re-define legal marriage as the state of being into which all new parents enter into upon the birth and/or adoption of their child, and exit when the child becomes economically self-sufficient?
(This, in fact, is in part already a function of the tax code as families with dependent children get credits/deductions that those of us who are non-parents, though married, do not get.)
And if you truly think non-parenting-yet-legally-recognized married couples are a drain on the state, why are you confining your animosity to same-sex couples only? Why is it OUR relationships that must bear the burden of your fiscal concern, not ALL couples who are non-parents?
The equal-protection clause of the constitution doesn’t stipulate “unless it’s fiscally inadvisable, in which case you can discriminate all you want!” If you are truly concerned about marriage-based entitlements, why are you limiting your concern to the issue of same-sex couples’ access to marriage only?
“And there’s abundant evidence to support that because the Supreme Court has, in fact, linked marriage and procreation”
That may be so but they haven’t done it in such a way that excludes other facets or forms of marriage. This concept seems to be particularly difficult for anti-gay marriage people: that marriage can, in fact, have a number of purposes or manifestations; that there is not a single purpose that precludes all others. And a purpose is irrelevant anyway, because getting a marriage license is about meeting eligibility requirements, not a commitment to some purpose. If you meet the eligibility requirements, the government doesn’t care what your reason to get married is. It doesn’t ask why you want to get married; that’s how I know.
There is a Supreme Court ruling that a murderer incarcerated for life and with no opportunity for physical contact with a wife cannot be denied the right to marry. Ergo, if a husband and wife cannot possibly procreate (lack of fertility, no access to each other’s genetic material, etc.), they still have a constitutional right to get married, according to the US Supreme Court.
While I suspect certain members of the Supreme Court are already crafting their dissents, based on a “procreation only” rationale, such a rationale doesn’t square very well with SCOTUS precedent.
@Anna – Nope, because you were saying before I ‘declare victory’ when I never said that. You seem to make a lot of assumptions like when you say I’m “confining [my] animosity to same-sex couples.” I don’t hate gays. Who cares what gays are doing behind closed doors unless there’s abuse. I’m not challenging your love life. I’m challenging why you want state recognition of your relationship. Nonetheless, we’re getting off topic so I’ll refrain from commenting about this point further.
Next, you always raise so many points that it’s cumbersome to read. Please stick to the most salient points.
“discriminated against it when it comes to legal access to marriage”
Homosexuals are not being denied access to marriage. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us. One rule has been applied to all. Nor is sexual orientation a suspect class. Furthermore, gays are the ones trying to delink marriage and procreation which destroys the intent of the institution to begin with. Hence, my focus towards them. Not to mention they cannot come up with a compelling reason.
Lastly, re-defining marriage to include all new parents would also include polygamous or incestuous parents? Is that what you’re suggesting?
In the many cases that have been filed challenging DOMA, including the Windsor case, which will be reviewed by the Supreme Court, the defenders of DOMA have indeed used “protecting the fisc” as a rationale for the law. In every case, the judges at both the district and appellate levels have laughed that rationale out of court.
In the amici briefs filed on behalf of almost 200 corporations, including Apple, Morgan Stanley, Amazon, etc., they have complained that forcing them to treat their same-sex married employees and their opposite-sex married employees differently has amounted to a tax on them, increasing their cost of offering benefits. The amicus brief filed by 14 states, including the nine states that permit same-sex marriage, plus California, New Mexico, Delaware, Hawaii, and Illinois, those states complain that have to maintain two sets of books and to discriminate against the same-sex married spouses in their states costs them money.
So I suspect that the question of tax money is going to play out quite differently at the Supreme Court than zzstenglish thinks it will. At the very least, Edith Windsor is going to get back the $358,000 in taxes she paid when her wife died. More likely, the Court is going to issue a decision striking down DOMA on the grounds that it violates both equal protection and due process.
“Furthermore, gays are the ones trying to delink marriage and procreation….”
But that is demonstrably untrue. Why keep repeating it? Legal pre-marital sex, birth control and abortion “delinked” marriage and procreation, if they were ever linked in the first place. Straight couples, the ones who use birth control and get abortions and have pre-marital sex that can result in a baby, delinked marriage and procreation. Infertile couples getting married delinks procreation and marriage.
You do not need to be married in order to procreate, and you need not procreate in order to get, or stay, married. The government, you know, those people who hand out the marriage licenses, invite you to both use birth control and if that didn’t work or wasn’t used, have an abortion, even when you’re married!
ObamaCare specifically wants birth control included in mandatory health care programs, as I suspect most women do, and I totally support that.
This is 2013, not 1713, by the way. But I know you’ll be back and repeat that marriage and procreation are linked and somehow exclude gay couples from getting married, or something.
“On average, the loss of their father in their daily lives seems to matter to children, no matter whether it happens via sperm donation or another course such as divorce, relinquishment, or abandonment.”
I completely understand this thinking “on average” – and understand why social science is applied in legal contexts. Courts and sociologists should be scientific. But there are situations where even one clearly spoken “no” should be a sufficient call for a society to reflect on a practice. The rub is defining the practice, the social question. In this brief the social question is same sex marriage. But what Elizabeth is referring to is the contested idea “the loss of their father.” Who gets to use the word “father” and who does not is what is at stake; but the law should not be the decider of that question (IMHO).
The person (here the donor conceived and/or adoptee) is the one who should be able to decide language and meanings of this kind. For courts, legislatures, parents, interested parties, friends of parents, big pharma, etc. and so on, to take control of the meanings of words like “father”, “mother” and sibling – and controlling what can possibly be known about who they refer to is not right for public policy and practice.
“Homosexuals are not being denied access to marriage. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us. One rule has been applied to all.”
But see, homosexuals form same-sex couples, not different-sex couples.
So limiting marriage to different-sex couples only excludes same-sex couples. That’s the problem, because other than gender composition of the couple, both kinds of couples are the same, or legalistically, “similarly situated.”
Despite how anti-gay marriage supporters argue, different-sex marriage remains legal, even when same-sex marriage is legalized. It is not an either/or choice. But what if it were? What if we outlawed different-sex marriage, legalizing only same-sex marriage. Would you still argue that everyone has the right to marry?
@JayJay – “$358,000″ Yep, more lost tax revenue to the government. Thanks for supporting my point.
And those benefits are actually being jeopardized (IE: US v Windsor) which was predicted in this paper on page 352.
(“Congress would either have to repeal all benefits for marriage or engage in a major overhaul of the tax code. Failure to do so would mean inconsistency and years of uncertainty litigating marriage benefit issues”)
Hence, this effects heterosexual couples to no fault of their own. Thanks again for supporting my point.
“….it is not true that the study does “not examine same-sex parents or their children.” The My Daddy’s Name is Donor study does reveal how persons conceived via sperm donation to lesbian couples are both similar to and different than others conceived via sperm donation.”
But the study doesn’t relate to same-sex marriage, which is a wholly separate thing from same-sex parenting. If the state wants to consider the value, pros and cons of same-sex parenting, that is quite different from considering the value, pros and cons of same-sex marriage.
Donor conception or any kind of conception or parenting issue, is unrelated to legal same-sex marriage.
You’re right, ‘english: we should ban different-sex couples from marrying, and let only same-sex couples marry. It would save the government a ton of money on lost revenue!
zztstenglish,
I was referring specifically to your animosity regarding same-sex couples getting married, a reference to your stated opposition to allowing same-sex couples to marry because you resist what you expect to be the economic burden of ending discrimination. You are correct that I am not in a position to assess your beliefs or feelings regarding my personal relationships, and my point about animosity wasn’t about that — I apologize for not being clearer about that in my previous comment.
You are right that I raise a lot of issues in my comment; this is a complex topic with a lot of inter-related issues that are often difficult to dis-entangle from one another.
The problem with this argument is that people who have formed same-sex relationships don’t just have the option of marrying an other-sexed person. Even if they’re bisexual in their attractions, it is this person they have formed a relationship with, not a person of another sex. If they identify as gay or lesbian, it is meaningless to say they “can marry anyone of the opposite sex just like [straight people]” as if this is a viable option for most people with homosexual attractions. Setting aside the disservice this does to the (presumably straight) partner, whose husband or wife is not sexually interested in them, it is a profound dismissal of the depth of the queer person’s same-sex relationships.
If our mutual love and support for one another is not, for you, a “compelling reason” to give social recognition to our consensual relationships, I’m not going to try and persuade you otherwise. However, fundamental rights (such as marriage) don’t require a “compelling reason” to be protected, rather they need a compelling reason to be impeded.
You say that sexual orientation is “not a suspect class” as if it were that simple; in fact, two U.S. Circuit Courts (Northern California and Nebraska) have held that sexual orientation is a suspect class, and in 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd circuit, held sexual orientation to be a “quasi-suspect” class. These classifications are evolving categories, and a case is there to be made that sexual orientation meets the qualifications for that classification.
What I am suggesting is that if what you think is that legal marriage should be defined first and foremost by one’s status as a parent (and thus your main argument for excluding same-sex couples), one option would be to reform our federal entitlements so that any fiscal entitlements went just to people with dependent children — voila, your main argument against same-sex unions (the fiscal burden) would be solved.
If your references to children born within polygamous or incestuous unions is meant to shock or offend me, it’s failed because I’d argue that children deserve financial support regardless of the form of their family (over which they have no control).
Mark,
I agree that the law can’t dictate how people use language, though the functioning of the law requires set meanings to terms for consistency. The word “father,” for example, may have a specific legal definition, but one that is different in commonly understood usage.
The meanings of the words “father,” “mother,” and “sibling,” if those meanings are in flux, are determined by the strong arm of common usage, both inside and outside of a family, and not by the donor-conceived, adoptees, or anyone else. No one has that kind of control over the language (nor, IMO, should they).
Ralph, “The meanings of the words “father,” “mother,” and “sibling,” if those meanings are in flux, are determined by the strong arm of common usage, both inside and outside of a family, and not by the donor-conceived, adoptees, or anyone else. No one has that kind of control over the language (nor, IMO, should they).”
Well, the strong arm of common usage is what I mean! That usage, however is getting “strong armed” by donor conception and adoption practices.
Manny: “[...]there are many benefits to people marrying even if they will not have children, and not just because it’s a “safety net” in case they were wrong about being infertile or not wanting children and have children anyway. The social benefits are promoting the norm of marriage, increasing stability or society, helping other people know when people are committed to someone else, and mainly it’s a benefit that everyone is allowed to marry even if they don’t want children or can’t have children. Perhaps not having children doesn’t benefit society as much as a loving couple sacrificing their own desires to bring the next generation into existence and raising them, but perhaps it’s not as bad for society as pressure for everyone to have children”
Surprisingly, I agree with Manny on this (there’s a first!), but the bit I added emphasis to – do people honestly believe that that only applies to male-female couples? That’s the reason I think we’ve seen this sudden resurgence in the idea that fertility is a prerequisite for marriage – because there needs to be a reason to exclude same-sex or same-gender couples from marriage. Otherwise, are you going to deny couples marriage rights for the means of showing commitment, stability, and support for each other? On what grounds?
Homosexuals are not being denied access to marriage. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us.
Someone who relies so heavily on case law ought to know better than to make the “but EVERYBODY gets discrimination!” argument, which was soundly rejected in Loving v Virginia. In fact, if this is really your argument, you are taking a weaker stance than in the Prop 8 fight, because you are conceding that the marriage laws draw a gender-based classification – and unlike sexual orientation, at the federal level, gender-based distinctions require heightened scrutiny.
@Anna – Again, you ASSUME that my inquiry was meant to shock or offend you. It was a question…that’s all. Anyway, I find it utterly hypocritical on your part to make the suggestion to give it to all families because earlier, you argued marriage benefits had nothing to do with children but, rather, for an ‘unemployed spouse,’ etc. By the way, do you have proof denial of marriage benefits harms children? If not, it might explain why incestuous and polygamous families get by just fine without them.
Next, I should clarify what I said regarding a suspect class. Sorry, I meant by the Supreme Court.
“viable option for most people with homosexual attractions” No, the reason why I said that is because you are not being denied access to marriage. Don’t say you are being denied when it is simply not true. Being gay doesn’t entitle you to marriage anymore than being promiscuous entitles you to polygamous marriage. There’s nothing written into law about your sexual desires.
“If our mutual love and support for one another…” Again, I don’t care about your love and support because it’s none of my business. You’ve adopted the mentality of “I’m in love; therefore, I deserve state recognition and benefits.” Sorry, but that’s not a compelling reason because the state does not regulate love.
No, the reason why I said that is because you are not being denied access to marriage.
Oh, where have we heard that argument before…
That’s from Loving v. Virginia, of course, in which the State of Virginia argued that since both blacks and whites were equally prohibited from interracial marriage, there was no “discrimination” – whites had to marry people of their own race just like blacks did.
The absurd arguments prosecuted by Black in the BYU law journal are hilarious and an example of the increasing desperation of the opponents of ssm. At least Paul Clement (in DOMA) and Charles Cooper (in the Prop 8 case) are trying to pretend that they have a real argument instead of the nonsense that Black spouts. I rather suspect that none of these arguments will prevail. I do worry that the Supreme Court might decide that the proponents of Prop 8 and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group lack standing and therefore will dismiss both cases without the sweeping decisions they should make. IF they do that, same-sex marriages will resume in California and Edith Windsor will get her money back and DOMA will be unconstitutional in the second circuit. I suspect that the DOJ will simply decide that they can stop enforcing DOMA entirely on the basis of the Second Circuit’s ruling, but it would be better for a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court. In any case, however the Court rules, it will have no resemblance to the absurd arguments that may sound good in Utah but has been rejected over and over again at the district and appellate levels.
@myth – And the Loving Court was the same court that rejected gay marriage in Baker v Nelson only 5 years later.
Matt N., a very acute observation. One that ties in nicely to the fact that many married persons today want to limit fertility for most of their married lives. In fact, too much fertility (large families) is seen as being irresponsible by many persons today of whatever stripe. Heterosexual marriage is less and less about fertility, and much more about commitment, stability and support.
@JayJay – Oh, so you’re saying Black is wrong, huh? How so? Some of the information he gets is directly from the US Treasury. The fact remains is the tax code is designed to promote people to marry and have children as he clearly illustrates. You think the government subsidizes marriages for fun? What’s the logical reasoning behind it? Can you answer with evidence please?
@Teresa and @Matt both write “commitment, stability and support”
All of which can be achieved without state recongition. Feel free to have a private ceremony to your exchange vows.