It Refuses to Go Both Ways
7:45 AM Edit This 14 Comments »
Someone sent me this article yesterday. And I don't know what infuriates me more. The article itself, or the idea that someone thinks it's a good idea for me to read this. I know that most people don't click on links, so I'll post the most offensive part here.
The Court seems to understand this, for it gently and subtly elides the key issue of marriage law when it goes on to say: “Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children . . . just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.” But wait a minute: How in the world does a same-sex couple obtain a child that is “theirs?”
This is precisely the way in which same-sex couples differ from opposite-sex couples. No child is born from a homosexual union. A child born to one of them has another parent who has been quietly escorted into the lab or the backdoor, to make the conception possible. That person is quickly escorted right back out the door, before he can claim any parental rights, or the child can claim any relational rights. Some of us believe that these two people, the child and the opposite-sex parent, require and deserve some protection. But the Court of Iowa does not think them even worth mentioning.
The social purpose of marriage has always been to attach mothers and fathers to their children, and to each other. This universal social purpose does not even make it onto the Iowa Court’s short list. The reason should be obvious: opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to that purpose of marriage. If the Court found that attaching children to their parents and parents to one another is a purpose of marriage, they would be unable to sustain their claim that man woman marriage violates the principle of equal protection under the law.
I don't even know where to start. First of all, to even read the article with a half-way open mind, I have to buy the idea that the purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and each other. All I can picture here is bondage and chains. It presupposes that a couple desiring to get married will have children and that if they don't, then the marriage is essentially purposeless. It assumes that the mother and/or father are capable of caring for the child, that the child will be protected by that parent, not needing protection FROM them.
And by saying that a same sex couple will never have a child that is fully "theirs?" My God. What does that say about adoption? About loving parents who fully adopt a child into their family and treat them as if they were biological? That makes every adoption a sham. Even adoption by heterosexual couples. You can't have the argument go both ways. You simply cannot.
And what does that say about a single, childless woman like myself? I am a second class citizen should I never take part in this great social structure which rules the world? The fact that someone thought I would find this article interesting and was surprised at my response? I'm truly coming out of my self-imposed shell.
The Court seems to understand this, for it gently and subtly elides the key issue of marriage law when it goes on to say: “Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children . . . just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.” But wait a minute: How in the world does a same-sex couple obtain a child that is “theirs?”
This is precisely the way in which same-sex couples differ from opposite-sex couples. No child is born from a homosexual union. A child born to one of them has another parent who has been quietly escorted into the lab or the backdoor, to make the conception possible. That person is quickly escorted right back out the door, before he can claim any parental rights, or the child can claim any relational rights. Some of us believe that these two people, the child and the opposite-sex parent, require and deserve some protection. But the Court of Iowa does not think them even worth mentioning.
The social purpose of marriage has always been to attach mothers and fathers to their children, and to each other. This universal social purpose does not even make it onto the Iowa Court’s short list. The reason should be obvious: opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to that purpose of marriage. If the Court found that attaching children to their parents and parents to one another is a purpose of marriage, they would be unable to sustain their claim that man woman marriage violates the principle of equal protection under the law.
I don't even know where to start. First of all, to even read the article with a half-way open mind, I have to buy the idea that the purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and each other. All I can picture here is bondage and chains. It presupposes that a couple desiring to get married will have children and that if they don't, then the marriage is essentially purposeless. It assumes that the mother and/or father are capable of caring for the child, that the child will be protected by that parent, not needing protection FROM them.
And by saying that a same sex couple will never have a child that is fully "theirs?" My God. What does that say about adoption? About loving parents who fully adopt a child into their family and treat them as if they were biological? That makes every adoption a sham. Even adoption by heterosexual couples. You can't have the argument go both ways. You simply cannot.
And what does that say about a single, childless woman like myself? I am a second class citizen should I never take part in this great social structure which rules the world? The fact that someone thought I would find this article interesting and was surprised at my response? I'm truly coming out of my self-imposed shell.
14 comments:
Actually, to attach a child to a mother and father, all that has to happen is for the cild to be born. Nothing else is required. Certainly not marriage.
Just ask all those "baby daddies" out there.
I've heard that argument before and it irritates me for all the reasons you stated. Ridiculous.
The hell??!!
As I was reading, the same thought of "What about adopted children?" popped into my head.
On top of that, everyone doesn't desire to procreate anyway!
When people pull illogical arguments like this out of their asses, it's because they really don't have any solid reason for their opinion.
As you and others have noted, what about people who choose not to have children, families who adopt, people who want to have children but can't, etc. There is so much wrong with the article and the point of view that it puts forth that I can't help but think that people who really believe this are idiots.
I object to the purpose of marriage part. Marrying for love or for children is such a new concept. Marriage, originally, was purely an exchange of property. And that property included the women.
Also, I had my son out of wedlock. I guess I'll just leave him on the street corner and see what happens. Because, you know, I'm not married or anything.
I almost vomited when I read the part about the sperm donor being escorted out of the child's life. My brother? A sperm donor. For two lovely women (his friends). My brother? The father of his child? Will play an active role in her life. As do the rest of us. No escorting anywhere. That article is full of flaws, as is likely the author.
I'm fond our how that website, "Public Discourse," has no option for public discourse whatsoever. No comments, no bulletin board, nothing.
And the articles reflect that insularity. What is the proof that "the essential purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another?" Oh, they offer none. Does marriage actually do that at all? Nope. Child support laws do to some extent, but those laws operate independent of marriage.
The divorce rate in the US is close to 50%. It's higher among those who will read "Public Discourse" and buy into it without question: conservatives and born-again Christians. It's lower among agnostics and atheists. With divorce rates so high among heterosexuals, what exactly does marriage accomplish for them or their children? Meanwhile, 50-60% of men and 45-55% of women have extramarital affairs. So, how, exactly, does marriage attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another?
How does marriage even affect children in any way? Does it provide them with some stability, with all that divorce and infidelity? If so, how? According to the DEA, 2,077 children were present during meth lab raids in 2002, the last year for which we have statistics. Of those children, 26 were injured during the raids and two were killed. Whether their parents were married or not, what did the traditional institution of marriage do for any of these kids? If their parents were not married, would marriage have made any difference whatsoever in any of their lives? Meanwhile, about half of the kids who survived the raids were taken into protective custody to begin a long trek through state-run childcare. If one of those kids is lucky enough to be adopted by a couple of any gender who loves them, will that child not be "theirs?" That's how same-sex marriages might benefit these kids: it would remove the barrier to adoption. But, according to this article, their meth-making biological parents "require and deserve some protection." And note that, according to the article, the "protection" these biological parents "deserve" transcends marriage and has absolutely nothing to do with it. So, again, how does marriage "attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another?"
This article would be laughable if droves of sheeple didn't actually believe this hateful hypocrisy. As for someone sending it to you, Kate, you are now our spy.
Surprised at your response? What did they expect? Accolades and flowers? Let 'er rip, my friend. It's really quite freeing.
I guess I'm old fashioned, but I never will change my mind that a bio daddy has responsibilities to his child- emotionally attached or not.
wow, that article is infuriating.
But, they seem to be basing their conjectures on making the case that the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation, and since homosexual couples apparently can't procreate, they should not be allowed to marry.
Now, if that is the spirit, then any heterosexual marriage where the couple has no intentions to have kids (a valid choice, if you ask me) should be illegal too. Correct? Shouldn't these... people... be making that argument too? I'd love to see them trying that...
I am sorry this argument is so ridiculous that AARRRGGHHHH
WTF is wrong with people? Who would send you that??
I agree with you on all counts. That is just beyond the lines.
Huh. So I guess that couples who are experiencing infertility should divorce, since their marriage is pointless if they are unable to create a child, no matter how hard they try.
Actually, there are people in the world who believe that - who believe that if a couple can't conceive they weren't intended to marry.
Probably same same #@*&#&$*@^ idiots who run that website.
Hrrrmmmph.
How TF did someone think you would agree with this???
I guess it just proves we really don't know people through the internet... yikes.
You should only be allowed to have an opinion on gay marriage if you've never been divorced.
My brother (who lives in California and is an ignorant ass) didn't think that was very funny.
Luckily, the Gay Pride Parade is here this weekend and I'm taking both dogs. Though I doubt they'll tolerate rainbow wigs however.
Post a Comment