Just Another Family

Our boys’ school, for each child, has what they call a family spotlight. About every other week there is a day where one child brings a poster telling about themselves and their family and brings in family guests to meet their class. Last week was the spotlight for both our boys (though they are in separate classes).

I’m left feeling a bit foolish. I just posted on this last month, but yet again I found myself tensing up. What questions are the kids going to ask about our family? How do we answer them in a way that is honest and absolutely doesn’t make it seem to our boys we are downplaying the strength, form, love and solidity of our family, without stepping on the religious toes of some of the other parents who may be LDS?

I should have learned by now. There were no tough questions, no awkward pauses. The kids already know; their families have apparently already processed the issue with them. All I heard was one kid asked another if I was Brian’s Dad or Papa.

I thought I’d have something to work out and blog about, but there’s happily not much :-)

The questions we did get were along the lines of “Um, what’s your favorite toy?” and “I used to be Brian’s girlfriend but he won’t be my boyfriend anymore.” That last one was from the same girl I mentioned in this post. Once again, little girl, that’s not even a question.

Anyway, they both did a great job with their presentations:

We were all very proud. Rob and I are also more than grateful for the network of support that came with us (as well as the support of the dog and parakeet...).

Afterwards they had a playdate with about 6 of their friends. We took them all bowling. Yes, it is quite stupid to put that many kindergarteners in the vicinity of heavy, fast moving masses, but we got away with only a couple pinched fingers and one hurt toe for the fun.


I’m not sure if their technique is allowed in the rules of bowling but the kids were picking up strikes right and left:

Amazing huh? (Forgive the blocked out faces; best not post pictures of friend’s kids.)

Okay, don’t blame me that I’m about to type now well past an appropriate stopping point; Java said she likes it when I ramble :-)

Thinking on it, you know what is probably really scary, what keeps our detractors here in Utah up at night (fully clothed in pajamas, in separate beds with extra-firm mattresses, just like June and Ward Cleaver)?

Our family spotlight was just another family spotlight. We came and went. Our kid’s poster will hang up in that classroom for a couple weeks, and kids will just pass by it as casually as they did with any other. There is no issue with us taking a bunch of kids bowling. There is no meeting we need to have with teachers or parents. Heck, one teacher pulled my mom aside and went on again about how she wished all her students had the sort of family support we’ve given our boys (she also told us, to my great relief, that there hasn’t been a single issue related to our family that she’s heard from the children or parents).

No, what our detractors probably fear most is the joyous humdrum of it all. They have so much invested in a faith that our family will do poorly, be controversial, and that our kids with suffer (even if it has to be at the hands of their kids, with “love” and in faith of course; it’s not hate, never hate… :-)). They have put near all their eggs, all their reasons for denying our home equal rights and responsibilities under the law in one basket, in their mantra that our kids need not us, but some mom and a dad, that they need the “ideal family.” But that is all wrong for my family and for our children; I see it personally every day, from the time I prepare breakfast to my last hug goodnight.

No, what we hear now as blessed silence, to the ears of our detractors, is the raucous sound of their rickety worldview in mid collapse.

Children Need a Mom and a Dad

To be plain about it, our children do not have a mother. For that, many argue our family shouldn’t be.

As our boys well understand, there is, of course, a woman who carried them, and took care of them for the months before their birth. I love her like a sister, the children know her, and know our deep gratitude. We have a special name for her, but a ‘mother,’ to us, is a woman who parents you, who is emotionally tied to you, and, while many will want to say that, of course, our children have a mother, focusing on the biology, we reserve that word for those women who do the work of parenting. The reason should be more than evident to any adopted child, or any child, really, who takes the time to wonder what’s important in their relationship with their parents.

The detractors of our families are not stupid, though. Most people are raised by heterosexual couples and feel strongly for their parents. Our opponents apply a slight trick of vocabulary and emotion and this argument becomes one of the most effective they have. I’d bet even a lot of folks reading this, when they read that first sentence, cringed somewhere inside, and some even became morally incensed, for their reflexive extrapolation of their familial feelings into our home. I’ve got no problem with such reflex, as long as it doesn't end there. Heck, I love my mom too, and am sure my life’s quality would have been greatly diminished without her.

But it’s not just a mom, a woman I love, right? I love my mom. I love my particular parents. When you think on it beyond the superficial, it’s clear what we love about our parents is not their anatomy, or genes, not the ‘M’ or ‘F’ on their birth certificates. We love the people they are, their parenting. We’ve a whole tomb of loving history to back up our strong feelings about ‘mom’ and ‘dad,’ beginning even before our memory, in places where baby books can only testify. We love every patched scrape, every late night they worked for us or paced in an emergency room. We love every encouragement to go beyond ourselves, every hug, smile, and lesson imparted. Though no child cares from what anatomical shape all those experiences come, the words ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ still become infused with wonderful feelings by the association.

Our detractors, as low as it strikes me, try to turn those emotions into a weapon, to imply something that is false about our family. The implication being that only moms mother and only dads father, and so our children are only half parented, missing half all those many experiences. The implication is, for example, that when our boys fall down and scrape a knee that we both, both being their 1950’s stereotype of a father, turn to their teary faces and tell them to stop bawling; be a man.

I think, though, most modern humans would admit they parent for their child’s needs, aiming to make them moral, healthy, and happy individuals. Most fathers mother, at times, and most mothers father, when needed. Being a parent of twins, a necessity to parent in a way unique to each child is even more striking. I know my one son responds best to a gentle touch; the other is more rough and tumble. If treated with the same parenting stereotype of mothering or fathering I’d be doing both a disservice. So when they’re hurt, we comfort them, and when they’re crying in forced drama, we encourage them to get back on the horse. Our parenting, just as it is in any other home, is a balance of the notions behind mothering and fathering, though never perfect (but if you think you do a perfect job as a parent, you're doing it wrong ;-)).

I’m reminded here of my Aunt Beanie, a very old woman who’s lost that part of the mind that would censor her younger self. After about 6 months of our children’s lives, she complained to my mom that, if anything, we “mother them too much.” She felt we kept them too close, and didn’t insist enough they “soothe themselves.” That was how they mothered in her generation. By today’s standards she’d be a very masculine parent. Heck, many of the kids back then, in the golden age of “the family,” were raised by their siblings, particularly here in Utah. I just find it funny that the only criticism of our parenting we’ve received from those who actually know us is that we mother too much :-).

It’s also bit comical that the folks who’ll deride gay men as unfit to be parents for their inability to do the traditional jobs of mothers are the same people who’ll complain about gay men being too feminine. One of the best things about being gay is being let go from those artificial gender rules. You can more easily do what you're innately best at, regardless of what's traditionally in your gender, and this carries over into our homes. Some lesbian moms can teach their kids how to through a curve ball better than any man, and some gay men make better cookies than the most domestic matriarch. We are lucky to have this freedom to more easily do what we're best at for our family, even if at the price of some alienation.

Personally, we have one of the best homemakers I’ve known, my Rob. In all, I have to conclude that it’s not really our actions of parenting, or our children's happiness about which our opponents are concerned; it’s about maintaining their stereotypes and superstitions about what it means to be gay, or a man, or a woman.

On this topic, it’s typically also stated that our children suffer from merely having little influence or example from adult females, and thus they won’t know how to build a family. In a way, with Rob as a stay at home parent and with our great involvement of extended family, it seems to me we’ve a better example of a traditional family than most around here. Furthermore, it's not like our family is a no-estrogen zone. Our kids spend much of their day with their female teachers and friends, almost every day they see their grandparents, and there’s an aunt or niece at our home almost as often . In short I’d say they’ve more access to examples of diversity in human sex, race, and family types than most kids in Utah. We’ve been sure of that

It’s not like they’ll hit puberty and have no idea how to treat or court a woman, or have no close female they could, if they felt it necessary for any reason, turn to for personal advice. Nevertheless, as a guy who’s been chaste and kept a strong union for well over a decade, I don’t feel abnormally unqualified to teach my children about what it means to court, love, cherish, and respect either a man or a woman, towards whichever their orientation may point. I know I learned much from my parents that’s been applied to our home (I also know most of those who use this argument offer their gay children far worse than no example, without a moral flinch).

And hey, as a bonus, the woman who marries one of our boys will get a man who knows work, at home and in the office, can be shared. Unlike some of the men in our family, they’ll know it is actually possible for a man to do his fair part with the cooking and laundry :-).

Finally here, a typical gay marriage opponent will resort to a variant of something like: “So you’re saying that mothers are disposable then?!!” Yes, that’s what I’m saying… Let’s get rid of mothers. My kids don’t have a sister either; so I advocate getting rid of them too, right? Sheesh! Does this mean the Catholics I’ve encountered using this argument by logical extension believe non-catholic parents are disposable as well?

To be clear, no one is saying that mothers or fathers are disposable; quite the contrary. I’ve never met a gay man or woman who’s had anything bad to say about mothers or fathers in general, or the institute of traditional marriage. It is simply politically effective for our opponents to use such hysterics, again playing on the emotions behind ‘mom’ and ‘dad.’ Ironic, though, that it is these same people who are arguing that either Rob or I should have been replaced to make their idea of ideal. It’s as though, to protect “the children,” they’re willing to ignore the reality of their attachments and needs of our children. No, the same strong emotions that make this argument effective for some are present in our home too, and deserve respect as well. Parents are vital, indispensable, and it’s tragic when they’re lost. But every child needs their particular family, the people bound to them emotionally and obligated to them as parents. No one else will do for my children; no one else will do for your children.

Romney’s Faith in America

I know that many here probably like Romney, a lot (some, considering the gay + LDS thing, may even love him ;-)). I caught his speech yesterday, though, and am motivated to blog on the matter. Though I know it was meant for very conservative early primary voters, I was expecting something else, and was quite surprised at the content.

Here’s a link to the text of the speech, “Faith in America.”

“And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.”

Let me get the Romney-gay rights stuff out of the way first… :-)

I’m all for cutting government spending, getting off oil, and supporting families. I just wish he meant what he said. We may see if he does on spending and oil, but that last bit is clear code. Sure, “the family,” as defined by Romney took a hit when women gained the power to more easily leave their husbands. But divorce rates have been steadily declining for over 2 decades; teen pregnancy has been on the decline for a while as well. In fact, no one I know is attacking the family, or man-woman marriage; most everyone thinks such is amongst the most precious institutions of human life.

It should be clear to all that he is referring to his record of attacking our families, those headed by gays and lesbians, not defending from any breakdown. I’m sure the writer of the speech was counting on that to be clear to the religious right. The two topics are already tied on the Romney site.

I don’t think I’ll ever get over the brazen use of such Orwellian doublespeak. Defending “the family” means attacking families. Those who are "anti-marriage," are advocating marriage. Protecting “the children” means keeping children’s parents from legal responsibilities, and making them pay more in taxes, health insurance, and encouraging them to use welfare and put the kids in daycare (1, 2). Really? People are buying this, or do they really deep down know it’s a poor sound bite of an excuse to treat people in a way you’d not want to be treated?

Romney's excuse is the standard “Ideal Family” argument. I went over that in great detail in these posts. In the end it’s that he thinks it’s best for our children to have different parents (never mind that we could say that of more than half of all kids ;-); no one has an “ideal” home). While children do need mothering and fathering, he argues they need a mother and a father and hopes prejudice will assume the rest: that men don’t, say, nurture and women don’t push. It’s a cheap trick of vocabulary meant to tug on the emotions most of us associate with mom and dad, despite the fact that those emotions, along with mothering, and fathering all go on in the homes of gays and lesbians.

But even if Romney is right here, and the government’s position should be that our children should have different parents, it still makes no sense. It’s somehow better for our “deprived” children if the people raising them are not legally responsible to each other, and are encouraged to place them in daycare and so on? Wouldn’t legal marriage make Romney’s bad situation for them better? Isn’t that why “pro-family” folks decry out-of-wedlock births, because marriage stabilizes a child’s home? Or is it just a façade of an argument, meant to hide the sort of intolerance the man holds, and yet is also hoping to quell in others with this speech?

“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

When I heard this, along with the bit that the Constitution was meant for religious people, I was surprised. This is, after all, supposed to be a speech about religious tolerance. I know many atheists, my dad for one, and they are amongst the most principled individuals you could meet. They are so because they value morality, no hope for reward or fear of punishment, no means to absolve themselves of past sins either. If asked who would be the least risk to do harm with his freedom, the man who does right because he loves right, or the man who does so under want of reward, I think most would take the first man any day. Nevertheless, Romney apparently thinks differently and this comes off as a threat to both atheists and agnostics. Consider how you’d react if your President stated that, for your religious ideas, you can’t be trusted to sustain freedom, or that the constitution wasn’t meant for you.

Still, I bet there’ll be little fuss over this in his party, and it will help him in the primaries. Though, in the US there are about 3 to 5 times more nontheists than LDS, almost 75% of republicans say they’re less likely to vote for an atheist and only 28% are less likely to vote for a Mormon (link). How’s that for a religious test?

I suppose, such shouldn’t be a surprise. Minorities, once they begin to take a place in the majority, often show the same low tolerance they once experienced. I don’t mean to say this is the case for the LDS as a whole; it happens in parts of the gay community too.

“Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.”

More code, but hey, I know I’m absolutely exhausted by such people too, Mr. I’d be “better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy” in the 90's :-).

“They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

Thank goodness such bogymen don’t exist, then, or at least that such folks are so small in number that I’ve never encountered one. They are so bad that the mere idea of them gets the troupes to the polls, right? Everyone I know, though, is just fine with public displays of faith and acknowledgements of Gods. The problem comes when you ask your neighbor to pay for your religion, when you ask a Baptist to, say, pay for a granite statue of the Buddha in the public square.

Here in Utah we just had a fight over a Ten Commandments monument a while back, and the government eventually won the right to keep it on public land, and that’s fine by me. We paid only for the land, and I’m a sucker for monuments. But then the local Summums came in and wanted their monument of the Seven Aphorisms in the same area, and guess who fought of that? They were fueled by religious intolerance, but not from the dreaded secularist war machine.

“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders - in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.”

It is best to acknowledge what or who created you, be you Christian, Hindu, or even Atheist. But for the record, as far as I can tell, the founders didn’t put statements of faith on our currency (more irony, God on Mammon :-)), nor did they put it in our pledge. All that was added later.

I'd watch it on the Founders. I mean, have you ever read the derogatory things Thomas Paine wrote about the Bible in the Age or Reason? Heck, Thomas Jefferson took the bible and removed all the supernatural events and republished it. He also wrote:

“That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible.”

Believed? Possible? Can you imagine if Romney rewrote the Bible, or said that instead of what he said yesterday?

If you don’t get elected, Romney, it may be some comfort that Jefferson would more likely be burned in effigy over a pile of Paine’s books on the campus of Bob Jones University than be reelected these days. That’s religious tolerance today; our 3rd President would probably not get a tenth of either party’s vote.

“I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty”

That makes two of us.

Okay, it’s nice to get that off my chest. I hope I wasn’t too inflammatory, but please, this was a speech on religious tolerance, right?!

Eh, at least I know I’m manlier than Mitt. ;-)

And hey, once I find the candidate that meets my requirements, you can all pick on him or her (not an endorsement of Hillary) too. Don't hold your breath.

Parenting for Base Pairs

After going over the tests we had to pass to become parents, a study came to mind, of course :-) (1). It looked at only heterosexual couples. 41 procreated by ivf (in vitro fertilization), 45 by AI (artificial insemination), 55 by adoption, and 43 by normal procreation.

Not only did they find that non-biological parents parented up to the standards of biological parents, they found that the quality of parenting in such families was higher than average. When observed and questioned with standardized tests, the parents were found to be more affectionate and more involved in their children’s lives. They concluded: "Findings suggest that genetic ties are less important for family functioning than a strong desire for parenthood", and "the quality of parenting in families where mother and father had gone through great lengths to become parents was superior to that shown by mothers and fathers who had achieved parenthood in the usual way".

Now, this may strike many as common sense. But, once, when I mentioned this study, I was told, in a hysterical font ;-), “So what are you saying? We should take children from their biological parents and give them to more motivated parents?!” This was a person promoting the “Ideal Family” argument against gay unions (as gone over in too much detail here, here, and here). His argument was that parents parent best for biological children and that’s why he believed a man and woman with their biological children is the ideal family. By showing him evidence that biology wasn’t the key to parenting, he wrongly assumed I meant to do to others what he meant to do to us. Fortunately, I'm not as keen on legally harming other's families as “non-ideal” as he was ;-).

This study absolutely does not show a biological connection to a child somehow makes a parent a worse parent. That would be a highly ridiculous conclusion. What this does show though is that there is not a detectable deficiency in the parenting of non-biological parents. Furthermore, it shows there are positive effects in all the trials a couple must go through if they need help becoming parents.

The reason for these results should be clear. With each additional test, more and more high risk couples are weeded out in the process that otherwise would do so if in fertile unions. Taking out those with a criminal record alone helps a lot, I’m sure, but add on everything else. The teenager who has a one night stand and ends up surprised to be a daddy, for example, has far worse odds of doing it well.

Now, of course, most fertile couples have the capacity to past all these tests, and they are every bit as ideal ;-). Even those who could not pass may be among the most skilled parents, and children who were not planned may be among the most fortunate in family. I’d simply not want government involved in family through something like a procreation license; that would not only be unethical by my measure but it would be government self destruction. Nevertheless, when you need help, and/or there’s a child in another’s custody, already there and looking for a home, you will and should be judged. Those individuals who come to your aid have rights too and they will reasonably have requirements, an effect of which is shown in the above mentioned research.

Simply, the nature of human parenting is not that focused on genetics, and thank goodness we’re not all slaves to Darwin. If you’re a biological parent, think about it. If you discovered tomorrow you’re child was somehow not genetically “yours”, would it lessen your love one bit? If I can extrapolate from our experience, for near all parents--adoptive, traditional, gay, straight, whatever--when you see the person who you know will be your child for the very first time, none of that is on your mind. You, in fact, feel you became their parent even before they took in their first breath, before you ever knew they existed. That was your purpose all along and it was tied to that particular person; genetics or no.

What is on your mind is your future with that individual, your responsibility to them, the pure joy of being a parent, and the choice you’re making to be bound to that particular child. Even if a child is your biological offspring, you’ll not be forced into being dad, papa, mom, or mama by the most important meanings of those words. You only get such titles if you earn them, work for them, and you must choose to either take on that enormous task, or to simply be a stranger who may have donated genetic material and maybe a monthly check of support.

It’s the person who deeply wants a particular child, and has invested their life into having and raising that child with their health and happiness above his own, it’s that person who will be more likely to parent them best; that person is the ideal parent for that child. There are no other parents who can be brought to tears in gratitude by the wonderings of their little minds. No one else remotely knows them in the same detail. No one else comforted, cajoled, taught, fed, dressed, rocked, and ran them to the emergency room (as I did yesterday! No worries; just a trip resulting in a split chin and, eventually, as I assured Alan, a cool scar he can show his friends).

Plainly, while there is biology needed to form and gestate a fetus, there is no substitute for the personal choice to become a child’s parent. And there is no privilege greater in our lives than having that ability to make that choice, regardless of biology, regardless of orientation.

Reference:
1. S. Golombok, R. Cook, A. Bish, C. Murray, Child Development, Families Created by the New Reproductive Technologies: Quality of Parenting and Social and Emotional Development of the Children, 66, 285-298 (1995).

The Ideal Argument (Part 3)

This is last in a 3 part series (and it’s long because I’m sick of this and don’t want to split it again :-)). I’ve basically followed, in the last two posts (here and here), how this argument typically progresses. But my main problems with it come with the often unspoken assumptions behind the ideal family argument.

1. Marriage as a Benefits Package: Often marriage law in the ideal argument is looked at and posed as some sort of government incentive, like it were some big brightly wrapped present. This is greatly wrong, and it promotes an unrealistic view of matrimony in the minds of youth. There are rights and responsibilities, and sometimes they are the same thing for different beholders.

Marriage law can be downright harsh and punitive (though not enough ;-)). Many people, people with children, do not get married, because what I see as rights when applied to the man and the family I already love, to them, appear to be burdens. Giving their partner rights to their income, taking on responsibility for their debts, and being legally tied to them actually discourages them from marriage. I’m sure we all know such couples. They are likely to not care much about the other fraction of the law either. If you don’t care enough to want to be financially responsible for and bound to another, hospital visitation and rights to make funeral arrangements may not be high on your lists either. Finally, with most families being two income families nowadays, what were there as more direct benefits for such folks are now largely irrelevant.

This gets to the heart of the causality in the ideal argument. You have to be in love with a person (or otherwise coerced or bribed into a loveless union) to see the marriage law of this culture as something desirable, otherwise it would be a horrible burden. In this chicken and egg scenario, I think it’s clear marriages came first, it’s a natural human state, and then legal marriage came in response to the way citizens live for their bonding (and divorce law came for the other part of some human nature, sadly). And, while it’s true the law has been used to reflect the coercive powers of society in, for example, restricting legal marriage by race or status, once the private marriages happened, the law has inevitably stepped up and reformed.

Simply, the “benefits” don’t cause people to marry; the private marriage makes the public marriage into a benefit, not the other way around. The law doesn’t cause people to make these lifelong connections and family--as I can clearly attest, people do that anyway :-).

2. Marriage Law as a Means to Keep Families Together: In the same vein as #1, the argument is made that the law is there to keep families together. This does work, in large part. But, again, if the familial love is not there, then the law can easily become a motivation to separate. If you’re the breadwinner, it’s true you’ll have to pay, and that may discourage you from cutting ties with a person you don’t want in your home. But if you’re not the breadwinner, divorce law, a part of marriage law, gives a motivation to split from a loveless marriage that can be great. Let the ex-wives of Donald Trump explain the economics, and, one would assume, their relief ;-).

3. The Mechanism: The assumption is made that these laws encourage the ideal family. As I wrote above, I think it’s mainly and far more clearly the families, composed of individuals who go and vote and participate in government, that encourage these laws to accommodate their marriages, but, assuming it’s true, what is the mechanism and is it really desirable? I can see a bit of sway to get a man to marry who he’d rather not because he could, say, get her on his insurance, but is that really the mechanism we want in play for marriage? To me this seems like an area where coercion is dangerous to families; their decisions should be, as much as possible, their decisions regarding family, not insurance premiums.

Is the hope that marriage law, as is, encourages gay men to marry women for these benefits? If so, I think or hope, even those gay men who have done so would think such legal gains are poor reasons to choose a particular partner. Faith and love? Fine, but money... Regardless, it’s the most conservative anti-gay-marriage states that have the highest percentage of gays having children. That’s either because the children are from heterosexual marriages entered into for coercion then ended, or gay couples in these states are somehow more compelled to adopt or use fertility treatments. Either way, the expressed interest isn’t being served by such mechanisms of “encouragement”. The evidence shows it’s a downright failure.

4. Evidence That brings me to another problem with this argument in general. I’ve gone over much evidence as to the fact that the state sees interest in 100% childless marriage, in marriages it insists be infertile and raise no children (here, here, and here). It’s there and no counter evidence is given as to show the claimed overriding state’s interest in this argument isn’t just an effective tool of debate. I’ve also shown data that demonstrate no noticeable effect of legal gay unions on the jurisdictions where they’ve been implemented (here and here). In fact, if a claim can be made from the numbers, it’d be that the health of heterosexual marriages improved after gays got such legal standing. I’ve also given many bits of evidence as to the benefits legal marriage for gays would give to society (here, here, and here), as well as the inarguable benefit it would have for the percentage of the population of adults and children in same-sex headed households (here). Such often gets overlooked or brushed off, though we are, without fail, told it’s our duty to produce it.

The burden of proof, though, is not decided by the greatest threat made by one side as to what would happen if the other wins. If I said, for example, we can’t give business licenses to left-handed people because, if we do, our economy will collapse. I can’t use the direness of that presumed threat to push the burden of argument away from myself and onto my southpaw friend. I’d have work to do as well.

To me, the burden of proof is in both camps. Legally, in fact, to discriminate on a person’s anatomy, particularly in a way that clearly harms them, one must demonstrate a “compelling interest” for the state, and thus this argument exists. Gays shouldn’t have to show the benefits, to themselves or others, though they easily can and do. They don’t need to even explain why they’d be so foolish as to be legally chained to another ;-); they just have to counter the other lawyer’s evidence of “compelling interest.”

5. A Myriad of Compelling Interests: I went over this here, but, simply and again, the State is interested in many aspects of law around marriage. It’s no accident infertile couples are allowed in. The state saves money, it arbitrates potentially costly disputes, it promoted the health benefits of fidelity, and it promotes self-reliance and bonds of family between two groups, and more, and even when no children can come of it. Merely the egalitarian act of giving equal rights regardless of anatomy has value to the state. Simply to call this ideal family the interest here is misleading.

6. The Heart of “Ideal”: It is argued the "ideal family" for “children” is their biological mother and father. This is obviously not true for many children. We are talking about individual people, the only things that feel and think, not abstractions, mothers, fathers, and children. “Children”, the group, has no feelings thoughts or rights and to assume it does will harm children, the individuals. The more ideal situation for individuals is that they are raised by the people who they have bonded to and have bonded to them, the people who have taken responsibility for them, the people who love them, the people who parent them. For many, the ideal situation is not their biological parents, who again are individuals, some of them pretty crummy.

Here, the ideal for our children is R and me. As with most all families, no one can take our place and do better for our children; neither of us is irrelevant or unimportant or able to be replaced. Even replacing one of us with the best parent in the world would be a detriment, as they do not know what we know; they are not psychologically bound to them and do not love them like we do. Even by the cold perspective of the state, we are the ideal in which the state has a stake here.

But, again, lets pretend the data shows a detriment to children of gay couples, on average. I’ve resisted pointing them out as I’d hate for another to be put under the same unfair scrutiny, but as long as my position against enforcing the so-called “ideal” is clear... For the divorce rate in the research I’ve seen, even if half right, I’m sure one could just as easily claim it’s not “ideal” for children to be raised in families where one parent is gay and the other isn’t. But I’m equally sure my friend L and his wife, for example, are the ideal parents for their children; there’s absolutely no one I’d rather the state encourage to be there. There are simply many “non-ideals.” I could show on average detriments for children in parents who: had prior marriages, have general anxiety disorder, are deaf, mixed race couples, have been raped, and I could go on and on. But each individual in these groups are most often, honestly, the ideal parents for their children, by far.

By the way you look at and the time at which you apply the word “ideal” (before or after conception or adoption), there are either zero ideal families or many. Only by using the first application of the word with gay couples, the definition of the Ideal FamilyTM no one meets, this argument has been effective. But, for the rest of the population, those far from the politics and religion surrounding gays, we know the second application is the most honest.

7. The Attack on Marriage and Family The argument eats at itself. The state is interested in the successful rearing of children. Marriage law increases that success. Therefore we deny marriage law to couples with children? The children of gays and lesbians, regardless of how anyone feels about their parents, benefit just as much by having their parents bound by law. The state benefits just as much, by not having to catch parents and children with welfare upon a tragedy.

In many ways the borders of marriage moved to include gay couples as much as gay couples changed to fit the new territory. Gays changed; society changed. Many gay-headed families do now better represent the intent of marriage law than the average married heterosexual. To ignore the commitment, dedication, love and obligation for the person’s anatomy, from my perspective, is the real insult and threat to the institution of marriage. To downplay what matters in the everyday workings of marriage for anatomy, and to make divorce simple, and the familial bonds legally invisible for couples who make these connections, couples with children every bit important as any other, is a threat to the spirit of marriage. Simply, society undermines its own idea of family by turning a blind eye to it’s best aspects where they are found.
_______________

In the end, all this reminds me of Kierkegaard’s refrain: “the crowd is untruth.” It is deceptive to look at the state as an individual, or talk about what’s ideal for “children” as what’s ideal for my children is not ideal for yours. Similarly, individuals make these legal decisions for other individuals, and can’t morally hide behind “the state”. When a citizen goes to the polls and votes to take from his neighbor’s family what his neighbor gives to him, he’s betrayed the social contract, the golden rule, and to blame it on “the state” strikes me as a copout. It’s this sort of sense of entitlement over neighbors, and ability to harm them behind such cover that, to my mind, threatens a state’s survival. It’s infectious.

But I’m no saint either :-). I do a lot of work with my local government to get equal voice, representation, and services for many other groups, but, sure, on this topic, I’m upfront concerned about my family, and the family of those I know. Nevertheless, I know things can’t stay the way they are. We have to find a solution. A couple decades ago, our families were so few and we were still reeling from the unhealthy effects of the national closet. We were in no position or state of health for such discrimination to matter very much. But now, more and more, gay couples are coupling up for life, building homes, having children right along with the rest. We’ve moved into the reasons for marriage and it will inevitably be addressed. But how? I don’t know.

(Personally, I’m hoping for Nessiage; you can keep your precious "marriage" :-))

The Ideal Argument (Part 2)

This post is a continuation of the last (here), looking at the argument that marriage is for the production of children in “ideal families”. No worries, it will be over in a matter of days :-).

2. Purposeful inclusion of infertile couples in legal marriage: It’s argued that the infertile straight couples are put into the marriageable category, for certain reasons, that supposedly do not apply to gay couples. The reasons:

a) Infertile heterosexual couples may still adopt. Here, the first “ideal” of children being raised by their biological parents, is actually put aside for a second “ideal”, that children be raised by married opposite sex couples, not their biological parents (though it can’t really be called an “ideal” anymore, right? But opposition will still often use the word here).

i) This exception gets in the way of the “ideal” in the same way it’s argued gay marriage would. Purposeful recognition of infertile marriages makes favoring the ideal of the original argument similarly “impossible” by taking biological parents out of the equation. But most people do actually understand that the “ideal” for many children is far from their biological parents, and for the state to blindly follow biology would harm many people and its interests. Similarly, many children’s ideal parents are not their biological parents or parents with different sexual anatomy, but their parents--the people who love, take responsibility for, live with, and sacrifice for them--and no one else. If the state would be amiss for promoting its ideal in one instance as it ignores genetics, why is it not amiss in the other instance by ignoring anatomy for the children who’s ideal parents are neither their biological parents nor some set of strangers who just happen to have different sexual anatomy?

ii) In adoption the point is to find the best solution available for the child, which does include avoiding protracted periods in temporary care. Even if one concedes that gay couples are, on average, inherently worse situations for children (a finding that’s not in any reputable data, though touted as gospel truth), there will still always be gay couples who can do better than the average adoption-eligible straight couple. I can show other groups involving traits that show a clear, on average, deficiency in the children they raise in the data (more deleterious than what’s even claimed by anti-gay rights folks to be found in our children), but no one in their right mind would bar everyone sharing that trait from marriage or adoption when judging individuals. They can see enough to know that would hurt the children even more, in such instances, away from the passions of gay politics. No, adoptions must be done on a case-by-case basis, and by applying averages to individuals based on anatomy is prejudice that threatens finding the best option for the child. For this reason, if the ideal is truly hoped to be promoted for these individual children, it will often include gay couples.

iii) Again, if this honestly is the reason, there are very easy ways to rule out infertile couples who also cannot adopt, and who the state would certainly not want to promote for adoption. Can any evidence be presented to show this is the state’s interest in infertile marriages then? Most of the law seems to support the opposite. For instance, even a couple with a record of child sexual abuse is allowed to marry with no attempts to stop them. Incarcerated people even have this right. All that is public record that could be used, but it doesn’t even need to be anything scandalous. Again, age is checked as part of the process already, and no adoption agency will be handing a child over to a couple celebrating their 60th anniversary. Also, again, medical tests are already done. What about an infertile couple including a person dying of cancer in a matter of months? Talk about “ideal” for children and the state taking a financial hit, and yet the state shows no interest in its marriage laws.

b) Fear of authoritarianism. This is a variation I’ve not seen much (probably because most the folks I argue with have no problems with, and in fact long for totalitarianism :-)). But Silus, is using it here. To paraphrase: The state hopes to avoid being authoritarian, as authoritarian states tend to fail, but it aims to promote its interests. The state thus chooses tools with the greatest influence and smallest footprint (the difference between influence and footprint?). In child rearing, “heterosexual marriage only” is one such tool to get that by which the state benefits. Infertile couples are thus included to keep the government from collapse (right?).

i) The state has many interests in marriage. While good child rearing may be arguably the largest concern (one that still argues for marriage rights for gays in about a third of the gay-headed homes in Utah, and growing quickly), there are many others and I think the evidence shows the state knows this. We recognize marriages knowing they are both infertile (sometimes insisting on it) and that we’d not want the couple to raise any children either, because the classification benefits everyone. I’ve listed a number of the benefits (here, here, and here), but, plainly, the state saves resources and social conflict when it treats couples as couples; it only pays in a very limited number of marriages that do apply both to straight and gay couples (e.g. a 80-year-old who marries on his death bed to a wealthy 30-year-old limits the tax dollars the state would normally take).

ii) What makes a footprint too big in meeting the state’s goal, especially compared to the footprints already there? If this argument is to be used I think an explanation as to why it’s okay to step on my family, but not on others who don’t meet the “ideal”, particularly those marriages that do far less in producing and raising healthy children than gay couples.

iii) I think it’s also fair to ask, if this is the case, what reason is there to believe government stability would be threatened by, say, a constitutional amendment to keep convicted felons from marriage? Or even keeping old women from marriage?

iv) Isn’t much of this “small footprint” addressable by the “simplicity” argument in the last post? That could be what is meant by “footprint”.

v) Alternatively “footprint” could be the number of lives altered. Even here the number of infertile couples, the last time I check the stats, was at about the same percentage of gays in the population. I can’t find the numbers but I’d bet the percentages of marriages occurring with a couple in their 70’s is quite small too, not to mention marriages with felons (or between cousins :-)). And the numbers affected for the sexual anatomy restriction is only going to grow, and that includes a host of non-gay grandparents, cousins, aunts, and so on, in the group negatively affected by the status quo too.

vi) Really, by most definitions, the current state of law here is authoritative and dehumanizing, and unstable. This argument can be more of an argument to have an even smaller footprint and change the law rather than keep it. For one example, can you imagine making it constitutionally legal to boot families from their homes because of any other inborn trait? Even if, as things stand now in Utah (though not elsewhere), no one actively looks to enforce that law, it’s still there and can you imagine what it’s like to be a parent under such threat? It just takes one grumpy neighbor to get the law to make you move because one of you is not the right sex, or at least traumatize your family through a legal battle for your home. That’s one of my larger fears, aside from the other concerns I’ve listed, here, and the minor insults, like the frustrating necessity to actually lie and mark “single” on my taxes, after 14 years together, over a decade of matrimony, and two children.

But most gay couples we know have it much worse. Some families are brought to using welfare and food stamps because their provider (or main provider) has been killed (sometimes even in military service) and their sex allows them and their children no claim to what a different sexed person would inarguably deserve. There are families here who have half their children covered on their health insurance and the others uncoverable; they take state support, as they are technically the children of an unwed, jobless, stay-at-home parent. Can anyone say that’s not dehumanizing treatment by the state? It’s not authoritarian to keep these rights and responsibilities from families because the M or F on a birth document isn’t right? Those same families, if something tragic happens, can relatively easily have children removed from parent and siblings. When the claim is that such is no big deal, or that this is just about some feel good “me too” PCness, or the retort is a dressed up “stop hitting yourself”, I don’t know what to say. These are real people, finding stable relationships and building families, as was inevitable the first day a gay kid came out and his parents lovingly sighed an “Okay.” They are following one of the most common, intrinsic, and important pursuits of pure and selfless human happiness they’ll ever have. To legally and constitutionally hobble them and their children for someone’s sex should be troubling; it should feel authoritarian. At least it shouldn’t be trivialize.

Simply, if we want people to care about society, give their family a stake in it and make the forceful extraction of funds from them fair. The whole “equal rights is no big deal, when it has to do with a person’s sex” argument should be distasteful. It should seem socially dangerous. In a decade or so, when most people know one of our families, have gone to school with our children, have been our neighbors, and so on, I don’t think things will look so forgivable, and the proposed compelling interest here won’t look so compelling, and the other compelling interests of marriage will be remembered. As the troubles that accumulate for not having such marriages recognized get noticed by more people in their personal lives and in the actual real-world price tag for the state, I’m betting this restriction will start to look more intolerably authoritarian to the average person. But I could be wrong ;-).

c) Tying up fertile humans. This is a relatively minor angle, but some may go on to say infertile heterosexual couples are included in order to keep from spreading STDs or the fertile half from impregnating an unmarried person. Quickly: i) The same applies to gay couples (one can be bi you know ;-), and STDs are spread by both sorts of sex). ii) We can still test both for fertility. iii) This goes against part of the original goal, again, by encouraging fertile people to keep from producing children in marriage and only promoting the option for them of divorce or producing children not to be raised by biological parents, if they want children.

d) Economic ideal: Marriage law, as is, is argued to have been created to deal with straight couples only; it’s ideally suited for them but not gay couples who’d need a whole other set of economic rules. Differing economics is the reason infertile heterosexuals are included in the group, but gays are not.

i) To me this argument only shows what the person doesn’t know about the lives of gay people. It’s kind of funny; of all my straight friends with children… lets see… under a third have stay-at-home parents while over two thirds of our gay friends with children do. The straight couples have two incomes and the kids in daycare in a matter of months after birth, but the gay couples have stay-at-home parents and single incomes. Nationally over 60% of children are in day care, indicating most families now do not meet the ecconomic aims of marriage. In this way many gay couples actually meet the traditional reasons behind the economics of marriage law (e.g. a claim to a breadwinner’s income, health benefits, social security, and so on) far better than a significant number of straight couples nowadays who have two income families and are less economically interdependent.
________________

That all said, I think a lot of this is argument about fertile and infertile folks is for not. I think infertile and life-long childless couples are included because their inclusion meets many of the goals of marriage and the state, if not one of the main goals. I think we benefit by their inclusion, and that it’d be immoral to exclude them, even though I don’t think the state would fail if they were excluded. I think there are problems with the premises of the ideal family argument, not only in the explanation of the observations of what the law currently is and what most opponents of gay marriage actually promote outside of this issue. I’ll get to that in my next, and, one might hope, last :-) post on this topic.