Here's another gay-marriage compromise proposal. David Blankenhorn and I proposed one last weekend, and I'm heartened by the broad discussion it has engendered. I'm even more heartened by the emergence of a second, quite different, approach.
The authors, Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis, propose creating a federal civil-union status that would be open to all couples who can't legally marry-including couples, such as sisters, who can't legally have a sexual relationship. That way, the government would continue to formally recognize only one kind of sexual union, man-woman marriage. In exchange, "revisionists" (gay-marriage supporters) would agree to live with the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that the federal government will recognize only man-woman couples as marriage.
So we'd go from today's world, where one side demands full marriage rights and the other side rejects even minimal recognition of gay couples, to a world where same-sex couples got federal civil unions-which they'd have to share with a few nuns and aging sisters-but gays agreed not to ask for more from Washington. States, presumably, could continue to tussle over gay marriage, but the federal debate would be over.
There's much to think about here, but one practical question strikes me as a likely show-stopper: How could any agreement not to pursue changes in DOMA bind future activists and politicians? A gentlemen's agreement wouldn't be enforceable, and a constitutional amendment would be both difficult as a political matter and unacceptable to SSM advocates, who will see it as writing inequality into the Constitution-the nuclear option, from our point of view.
That's just a first-blush reaction, though. I think the most important thing about Anderson-Girgis is its willingness to reach out and try to do something for same-sex couples, as well as something to mitigate the culture wars. It should be welcomed by SSM advocates as a good-faith gesture, and it deserves to be broadly and respectfully discussed. And it's another sign that maybe, just maybe, the ice is beginning to thaw around the frozen gay-marriage debate.
43 Comments for “Another Marriage Compromise Emerges”
posted by BobN on
Oh, yes, nothing will mitigate the culture wars more than legalizing incest.
Just as with “marriage-lite” leading to more straight couples eschewing marriage, the right continues to lube the slippery slope it supposedly abhors.
posted by BobN on
I don’t know why half-baked, poorly presented, inconsistency-laden “ideas” deserve to be broadly and respectfully discussed.
Their idea is odd and, like yours, skillfully avoids the rather obvious pitfalls. This would be open to two sisters, or two brothers, or two nuns, or two male friends, or two female friends, and a brother and sister, but NOT to a male friend with a female friend. Ack! Why not? Because, well, they could get married!! But what if they’re not sexually involved? Doesn’t matter. The parts fit! Or could!
So, right there, you run smack into a constitutional roadblock.
Also, they authors don’t mention whether one could be in a marriage AND in a CU at the same time. I wonder why. Surely, one can imagine a married woman having a dependent sister. One of my aunts lived with her sister and brother-in-law for years. Which relationship gets the recognition? Which takes precedence? Does a sister have to divorce her sister to marry? What about quadruplets? Do they have to pair off? Why not one unit?
The “plan” is so full of holes as to be laughable. The only thing is accomplishes is to diminish gay relationships. And it doesn’t even do that very well.
posted by Alanmt on
I respect it as a goodwill gesture, but your proposal was much better. The problem with this proposal is its refusal to recognize that gay relationships are fundamentally the same as straight relationships in the broad sense of romantic love and sexual attraction. To my mind, this is dehumanizing in the same way (albeit to a lesser degree) as arguments comparing same-sex relationships to human-pet relationships or human-robot relationships. I don’t care of people think that the way I physically express my love with my husband is “icky”, but I expect them to acknowledge the real nature of our relationship.
posted by esurience on
Unlike the compromise suggested by Mr. Rauch, this one isn’t a step forward, it’s a step back.
This isn’t doing anything for same-sex couples. It’s lumping them into the same category as incestuous or platonic relationships. And I’m sure someone will suggest man-on-dog civil unions too. This would be codifying into law some of the deplorable rhetoric religious right types use to denigrate gay relationships. Not every gesture is a “good-faith” one, and this certainly isn’t.
Sometimes people reach out just to slap you in the face, and that’s what this “compromise” is.
posted by jim on
why does there need to be a “compromise”? should black men “compromise” to be 3/5 of a white man’s vote, or women of any shade “compromise” to have no voice? why can’t we have EQUAL rights, period? if marriage is a religious institution, then give everyone civil unions, as is done in England, I believe, and keep the church out of it. in fact, how about we keep the church out of all things? this “compromise” is bigoted nonsense.
posted by TS on
This compromise also awakens the radical critique of marriage. Why should the government specially reward/prize domestic pairing or coupling? The way I see it, people who live closely enough together that they can share indoor spaces and household goods already recieve a huge economic boon (one rent, one copy of the coffee maker, one set of silverware, maybe even one computer, etc). Why is the government handing them more? To try to encourage the behavior of pair cohabitation. Why value this? It cuts down on waste. But if the government wants to encourage cohabitation to cut waste, they’d increase the tax break for each successive member of the household, not reward two and cancel (or even penalize) for more. I can’t think of another objective reason.
I think there should be no governmental benefits associated with marriage or 2-person civil unions. All the state really needs to do in family life is provide for child welfare and allow people to legally entrust each other in a variety of ways. The process of signing those documents should be extremely streamlined, but the court shouldn’t infer that people are married, and therefore can sign for each other, be protected from testifying against each other, etc. [Actually, that last one is pretty problematic.]
I know this will weaken the institution of marriage. And I know there are a lot of traditionalists here who oppose that. I tend to agree in that marriage is a several thousand year practice which surely has some continuing value today. But the government setting up a window and a package of benefits for traditionally pair-bonded couples a) only leads to sticky wickets like the gay marriage one and b) is unfair to those who want to lead their lives in alternative, potentially equally valuable ways.
So what we really need isn’t policy adjustment but culture adjustment. People have to again learn to think of someone other than themselves, to maintain relationships, to trust other people, to fall in love, and to have some regard for commitment, responsibility, and permanence, perhaps even in the eventual absence of love.
posted by Rob on
Another half-baked idea that goes into the reject pile. It seriously debases same-sex relationships to the level of friendships and blood relations. It’s time to end the culture war, not by compromising, but by viciously slaughtering the other side (figuratively of course). We’re winning this war, so let’s finish the job our predecessors started.
posted by yarrrr on
This is stupid…
The best compromise is…
1. Constitutional amendment granting domestic partnerships everywhere for just same-sex couples
2. Constitutional amendment defining marriage as male-female everywhere
3. Some reasonable religious conscious clauses… it’s stupid to force a religious person to go to a gay wedding to take photographs or to implant embroyos for IVF… etc..
Federalism won’t work on this… people may change on male-female marriage but almost everything could be gotten if that is given up…
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I’m happy to discuss this and other proposals, but I find quite peculiar the idea that marriage-equality advocates should suddenly be eager to compromise.
Jon Rauch wrote: “How could any agreement not to pursue changes in DOMA bind future activists and politicians?”
Good question. There is simply no way that any such agreement would bind anyone other than those who sign it. Such a compromise will not be agreed to by the vast majority of SSM advocates.
As to mitigating the culture wars, pardon me, but they were started by the radical religious right, not by us (unless one considers gay people asserting our God-given equality to be an act of war), and we are gradually winning that war. Why should we agree to conditions laid down by the losing side?
I am for continue to work for full marriage equality. Before that will come the repeal of DOMA–maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but eventually. There is no good reason why gay people should accept anything less than Equal Justice Under Law, as is carved above the entrance of the U.S. Supreme Court.
posted by Fitz on
TS (writes)
“This compromise also awakens the radical critique of marriage. Why should the government specially reward/prize domestic pairing or coupling? The way I see it, people who live closely enough together that they can share indoor spaces and household goods already recieve a huge economic boon (one rent, one copy of the coffee maker, one set of silverware, maybe even one computer, etc). Why is the government handing them more? To try to encourage the behavior of pair cohabitation. Why value this? It cuts down on waste. But if the government wants to encourage cohabitation to cut waste, they’d increase the tax break for each successive member of the household, not reward two and cancel (or even penalize) for more. I can’t think of another objective reason.
How about the Government recognize only those ?pairings? that, as a class, are members of the class capable of reproduction. Since offspring is always limited naturally to this class?the government is just in recognizing this, and only this class for the distribution of benefits.
And they could call it ?marriage?.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz wrote: “Since offspring is always limited naturally to this class?the government is just in recognizing this, and only this class for the distribution of benefits.”
Fitz, many people (including Jon Rauch in his book Gay Marriage) have discussed the multiple reasons why government recognition of civil marriage constitutes a public good. Reproduction is only one of them. Others include the social and economic stability afforded by marriage, and the lower risk of medicals costs to the public due to the availability of the spouse as caregiver.
As to the statement by TS that multiple-partner unions would be even more economical–perhaps, but it is not clear that unions of 3 or more persons would have the same degree of stability. In any case, what I and most other marriage equality advocates are working for is not all possible changes to marriage, but only one: the inclusion of same-sex couples with all other rules of marriage remaining unchanged. Many opponents of marriage equality act as if making any change requires making all possible changes, but that is absurd. The legal institution of marriage has changed before, such as with women being treated as equal partners, without widespread panic over the idea that any change whatsoever requires all conceivable changes. Gay people just want to be able to marry on the same basis as our straight brothers and sisters, and nothing and no one is harmed by that. As for other changes, let those who favor them do the organizing and advocacy for that and see how they fare. But any such efforts are a separate matter.
posted by Fitz on
Richard J. Rosendall |
What advocates of the traditional family recognize is that most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairing can reproduce. Even a crude rule utilitarianism achieves the realization that the common good is best promoted through careful line drawing. Indeed, morally or civilly the law is about line drawing.
While in no way wishing to indicate the humanity of gay men & women, these traditional marriage advocates understand that society thrives best under clear standards that a related to life as lived in the main. We also understand that by mounting such a direct philosophical/legal attack on marriages most core constitutive element (its male/female nature with its link to responsible procreation) ? same-sex ?marriage? calls the entire purpose of the institution into question.
It is not lost on us that marriage is in a deep state of decline and further erosions of its basic meaning will only lead to a further entrenchment of these pernicious trends. Nor is it lost on us that even ?conservative? advocates of same-sex ?marriage? must realize that they inhabit a larger ideological milieu that characterizes marriage as inherently archaic & patriarchal. This milieu is both culturally and politically powerful, and philosophically cannot accept concepts everything from sexual restraint, to monogamy, to family formation in gender or number.
In short we would find in naive to believe that the tail will wag the dog. That same-sex marriage is more; or can be more, than yet another attack and degradation of the basic concepts of family formation & responsible sexuality.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Fitz, did you really think it was necessary to point out to us that gay people are a small minority? I’m pretty sure we all knew that. Given our small numbers, how can treating us equally under the law (I am not talking about religious marriage–government cannot touch that) threaten the vast majority? If heterosexual marriages are threatened by anything, it is adultery and divorce–which have nothing to do with same-sex couples. This isn’t a game of Jenga where we’re pulling out support beams one by one. There is nothing about civil marriage equality that takes anything away from anyone or does any harm to anyone. My commitment to my partner, and his to me–those are inherently positive things. Until you grasp that simple point, you are not grasping what is at issue here. One of the most bizarre things about this whole debate is the determination of some people to believe that gay couples somehow want to destroy the very institution that we are so eager to join. Why do you believe this about us? How is that groundless suspicion remotely respectful? I love my country. I love my hometown. I love my nephews and nieces. I love little Sam, the son of the gay couple whose wedding I wrote and officiated at 15 years ago. I love my partner Patrick. How does any of this sound revolutionary? Like it or not, gay people exist. We may be only about 3 to 5 percent of the population, but being a minority does not remove our birthright to equal protection of the law. This is basic stuff that you seem to be missing. Please stop saying no no no and try listening receptively to your gay fellow citizens.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
One of the most bizarre things about this whole debate is the determination of some people to believe that gay couples somehow want to destroy the very institution that we are so eager to join. Why do you believe this about us?
Because, Richard, you and your fellow gay leftists make the fact abundantly clear.
Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people ? whatever their sexual and gender identities ? do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage.
Or this one.
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.
Or this one:
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, ?Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.?
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: ?I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn?t mean anything.?
Or this one.
It’s almost impossible for two people to be all things to each other sexually, and the expectation that two people can or should be all things to each other sexually — that they should never find another person attractive or act on that attraction — does a great deal of harm. Human beings didn’t evolve to be monogamous, and everything from divorce rates to recent impeachment proceedings prove, I think, that the expectation of lifelong monogamy places an incredible strain on a marriage.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, I am not sure why you find it so enjoyable to repeatedly call me a leftist–a charge which is well refuted by my record as a writer. In the present case, I addressed the Beyond Marriage leftists in a piece titled “?Beyond Marriage? ? to Nowhere” which IGF republished in August 2006. It was a scathing take-down of that manifesto. How gracious it would be of you, after you bother to read my article, to acknowledge that my actual, on-the-record position is the opposite of what you pretend.
Of course there are leftists who take irresponsible positions–positions, BTW, which are opposed by most of the gay rank-and-file. One of the reasons IGF was created many years ago was to provide a forum for alternate views. Really, ND30, I would not have more than 50 pieces on IGF if I were a leftist. You really are about as wrong as can be about this, but somehow I doubt that you will simply admit it. But more pseudo-clever insults will not erase the evidence.
The best way to respond to the “Beyond Marriage” advocates is to grant civil marriage equality as soon as possible. The more gay couples are forced into alternative legal arrangements because we are shut out of marriage, the more marriage risks losing its special institutional standing. I don’t much care about “polyamorous” relationships because I don’t think they will ever be more than a fringe phenomenon. Raising a panic over 3-way marriages is like panicking over flag burning–where is the evidence that this is a widespread problem?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Oh, and ND30, your example of the “men are pigs” phonomenon is a reminder of how widespread adultery is. That’s all the more reason to encourage the civilizing and stabilizing influence of the legal commitment of civil marriage. Few people say that straight people should not be allowed to marry because adultery is so common. Indeed, if the prevalence of adultery is to be the standard, then only lesbians should be allowed to marry. And I don’t recall agreeing to let Eric Erbelding and Michael Peck speak for me.
posted by Fitz on
?Fitz, did you really think it was necessary to point out to us that gay people are a small minority? I’m pretty sure we all knew that. Given our small numbers, how can treating us equally under the law (I am not talking about religious marriage–government cannot touch that) threaten the vast majority??
Quite simply because it is a direct philosophical/legal attack on a foundational social institution. Social institutions ARE ideas. That?s all they essentially are, an idea supported in law and culture. While homosexual?s numbers may be small, the institution they are trying to redefine effects everyone. Ideas have consequences, and something as omnipresent and central to peoples lives as marriage is certain to have a wide-ranging impact; especially over time.
?This isn’t a game of Jenga where we’re pulling out support beams one by one. There is nothing about civil marriage equality that takes anything away from anyone or does any harm to anyone. My commitment to my partner, and his to me–those are inherently positive things. Until you grasp that simple point, you are not grasping what is at issue here. One of the most bizarre things about this whole debate is the determination of some people to believe that gay couples somehow want to destroy the very institution that we are so eager to join.?
Bit it is very much like a game of Jenga Richard. As a matter of historical fact marriage has not been simply called an ?institution?: but is commonly referred to as a ?foundational social institution?. Another typical moniker is to call marriage the bedrock of civilization?. These are but two common examples of our language and legal precedent acknowledging the importance of traditional marriage to society.
Scholars familiar with the debate categorize the two competing views of marriage as the traditional ?conjugal model? of marriage versus what is referred two as ?the pure relationship theory? While the conjugal model incorporates the relationship theory the opposite is not the case. Same-sex ?marriage? must negate the ?conjugal model? as a core concept of the institution.
That is it reduces the public meaning of marriage into just a romantic pairing. As a matter of law the responsible reproductive aspects of marriage as well as the gender complementariness is forever lost as a constitutionally permissible public purpose. Indeed these genuine and important understandings have been deemed (somehow?) bigoted and outside respectful discourse.
Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can conceive children. Your standard explicitly states that a child?s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage, that any combination of adult is sufficient. It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not. Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads ? ?If it?s everything it?s nothing?. We can?t defend what we can?t define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage. The effect is to say that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable.
That is; it reduces the public meaning of marriage into just a romantic pairing. As a matter of law the responsible reproductive aspects of marriage as well as the opposite sex complimentary facets inherent in marriage MUST be ignored as legal & social realities. This replaces marriage as a public institution with marriage as a mere publicly sanction affirmation of feeling.
It is this individualized and personalized concept of marriage that has done so much damage to marriage in our culture. It does this by making the locust of the idea of marriage wholly dependent on the feeling of the individuals who are in it. Rather than the greater public importance of responsible procreation, providing children with their Mothers & Fathers, and bridging the sexual device between men & woman.
P.S. As far as your personal plea that you as an individual don?t wish to ?destroy? marriage ? I take you at your word. North Dallas forty however does a fine job of illustrating my point about the ?tale not wagging the dog?. I think if you take a look at the wider cultural left that is indispensable to your movement you will acknowledge the profound indifference and indeed hostility toward traditional marriage as well as lifelong monogamy in almost any form.
After all my law school?s family law department was made up of three self described feminist lesbian polyamoryists who help traditional marriage in high contempt.
posted by Fitz on
Richard J. Rosendall |
?Fitz, did you really think it was necessary to point out to us that gay people are a small minority? I’m pretty sure we all knew that. Given our small numbers, how can treating us equally under the law (I am not talking about religious marriage–government cannot touch that) threaten the vast majority??
Quite simply because it is a direct philosophical/legal attack on a foundational social institution. Social institutions ARE ideas. That?s all they essentially are, an idea supported in law and culture. While homosexual?s numbers may be small, the institution they are trying to redefine effects everyone. Ideas have consequences, and something as omnipresent and central to peoples lives as marriage is certain to have a wide-ranging impact; especially over time.
?This isn’t a game of Jenga where we’re pulling out support beams one by one. There is nothing about civil marriage equality that takes anything away from anyone or does any harm to anyone. My commitment to my partner, and his to me–those are inherently positive things. Until you grasp that simple point, you are not grasping what is at issue here. One of the most bizarre things about this whole debate is the determination of some people to believe that gay couples somehow want to destroy the very institution that we are so eager to join.?
Bit it is very much like a game of Jenga Richard. As a matter of historical fact marriage has not been simply called an ?institution?: but is commonly referred to as a ?foundational social institution?. Another typical moniker is to call marriage the bedrock of civilization?. These are but two common examples of our language and legal precedent acknowledging the importance of traditional marriage to society.
Scholars familiar with the debate categorize the two competing views of marriage as the traditional ?conjugal model? of marriage versus what is referred two as ?the pure relationship theory? While the conjugal model incorporates the relationship theory the opposite is not the case. Same-sex ?marriage? must negate the ?conjugal model? as a core concept of the institution.
That is it reduces the public meaning of marriage into just a romantic pairing. As a matter of law the responsible reproductive aspects of marriage as well as the gender complementariness is forever lost as a constitutionally permissible public purpose. Indeed these genuine and important understandings have been deemed (somehow?) bigoted and outside respectful discourse.
Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can conceive children. Your standard explicitly states that a child?s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage, that any combination of adult is sufficient. It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not. Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads ? ?If it?s everything it?s nothing?. We can?t defend what we can?t define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage. The effect is to say that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable.
That is; it reduces the public meaning of marriage into just a romantic pairing. As a matter of law the responsible reproductive aspects of marriage as well as the opposite sex complimentary facets inherent in marriage MUST be ignored as legal & social realities. This replaces marriage as a public institution with marriage as a mere publicly sanction affirmation of feeling.
It is this individualized and personalized concept of marriage that has done so much damage to marriage in our culture. It does this by making the locust of the idea of marriage wholly dependent on the feeling of the individuals who are in it. Rather than the greater public importance of responsible procreation, providing children with their Mothers & Fathers, and bridging the sexual device between men & woman.
P.S. As far as your personal plea that you as an individual don?t wish to ?destroy? marriage ? I take you at your word. North Dallas forty however does a fine job of illustrating my point about the ?tale not wagging the dog?. I think if you take a look at the wider cultural left that is indispensable to your movement you will acknowledge the profound indifference and indeed hostility toward traditional marriage as well as lifelong monogamy in almost any form.
After all my law school?s family law department was made up of three self described feminist lesbian polyamoryists who help traditional marriage in high contempt.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm…
Passing a federal law granting civil unions makes the Defense of Marriage Act less important.
There are things about the Defense of Marriage Act I don’t like, but the idea that states don’t have to recognize marriages of other states has never been a dealbreaker for me. I’d actually like the idea if as BobN pointed out it didn’t legalize incest.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It was a scathing take-down of that manifesto. How gracious it would be of you, after you bother to read my article, to acknowledge that my actual, on-the-record position is the opposite of what you pretend.
Actually, Richard, this is what you stated.
At over 3000 words, the document is far too radical, fails to focus on LGBT rights, is abysmally ill-timed, plays into the hands of the anti-gay right and reflects the old penchant of the gay left for building strategic bridges to nowhere.
Your primary concern had nothing to do with whether or not what was being pushed therein was wrong; it had everything to do with bad timing and public relations. Sort of like how NAMBLA was never a problem for you and the rest of the ILGA until it resulted in your public humiliation.
Oh, and ND30, your example of the “men are pigs” phonomenon is a reminder of how widespread adultery is. That’s all the more reason to encourage the civilizing and stabilizing influence of the legal commitment of civil marriage.
Obviously, Richard, you missed this part in the citation.
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck
You insist that the legal commitment of marriage will stop gays from being promiscuous, but obviously, their being married did nothing to stop them.
Few people say that straight people should not be allowed to marry because adultery is so common.
Actually, Richard, adultery is far less common among heterosexuals than gay leftists like yourself who are engaging in apologetics for the promiscuity of your fellow liberal gays would like it to be. That’s because heterosexual society tends not to look kindly upon men who cheat and claim that it’s OK because monogamy is “too hard” or “men are pigs” — quite unlike the gay community, which openly supports both. Adultery is the exception among heterosexuals; it is the expectation among gays.
posted by Sugar Rush on
We already know the rational answer to the over-arching question of whether gay people are the equal of straight people; they are. We’ve clearly understood this for many decades now.
The referenced articles propose compromises on the issue of gay marriage based on what is popular at the expense of what is rational. Popular opinion can be irrational, as has been all too well demonstrated in the popularity of racial segregation in the first half of the 20th century. Singling out gay people for adverse selective treatment, as in denying them marriage parity, may be popular but it is not rational, and no tortured compromise will make it rational.
Giving in to irrational fears and beliefs only creates bad public policy, no matter how popular those irrational fears and beliefs are. By no means do any irrational ideas deserve “to be broadly and respectfully discussed”.
Fitz wrote “[i]That is; it reduces the public meaning of marriage into just a romantic pairing. As a matter of law the responsible reproductive aspects of marriage as well as the opposite sex complimentary facets inherent in marriage MUST be ignored as legal & social realities. This replaces marriage as a public institution with marriage as a mere publicly sanction affirmation of feeling.
It is this individualized and personalized concept of marriage that has done so much damage to marriage in our culture. It does this by making the locust of the idea of marriage wholly dependent on the feeling of the individuals who are in it. Rather than the greater public importance of responsible procreation, providing children with their Mothers & Fathers, and bridging the sexual device between men & woman.[/i]”
I think you’re creating a straw man here. Civil marriage in the US does not require a couple to have children or even address the issue of having children in any way. Civil marriage and reproduction have nothing to do with one another; there are no “responsible reproductive aspects of marriage”. Elderly couples, for example, are not denied the right to marry simply because they can not reproduce. This is hardly a new development in US jurisprudence. You’re claiming a meaning for marriage that it has never had in the US.
posted by TS on
Fitz, you strike me as, well, not gay. I’m not going to ask what are you doing here. Obviously you’re just interested in this topic and want to talk about it. But your approach strikes me as odd. I wouldn’t go to rural China and ask why nobody’s serving me a pizza, criticize the local legal and economic institutions, ridicule the music for “having no beat,” and demand that people not speak Chinese when I wanted to hear what they were saying. You’re in enemy territory pal. You don’t have to change your mind, obviously, not bare you required to censor yourself (free speech and all). But your idea that marriage is all about procreation and your high-minded yet circular theory that marriage is unchanging because it’s important because it’s stable because it’s important because it’s sacred because it’s steady because it’s inherent because it’s marriage isn’t especially likely to do well here.
That, and people have yet to explain to me why marriage is so great or important. To me this is just a case of pointless overcategorization. God didn’t come down and say “ok, here’s marriage” and then people said “oh look, marriage! let’s get married.” The concept of marraige came into existence to describe a pattern of human behavior that was already there.
I think a lot of conservatives are worried that society is collapsing because of choice shock. They see us becoming self-indulgent little brats who don’t want to bear the responsibilities of caring for a spouse and raising children, but “do our own thing” all the time. They’re right. I sort of think Western civilization may be finished. I say whatever, it was awesome while it lasted. But they, sillily, seem to think we can somehow change the patterns of human behavior by reiterating yesterday’s semantic categories. No, they say, two men can’t get married, the definition of married is between a man and a woman! Or no, you can’t have a polyamorous marriage or whatever. That’s not going to “save” marriage.
People are behaving differently now. A lot of relationship and family life patterns have been changing recently. Nowadays, some guys do it with guys. Some of them are completely parted with their traditional sensibilities by realizing this and just go crazy, others maintain the ideal of monogamy. These aren’t theories or principles, they’re merely observations. I don’t care whether the category system catches up or not. I’m a lot more interested in the patterns of behavior that actually exist in the real world, what it means about human nature, and how it will work itself out in the future.
posted by John D on
Interesting comments, TS. It’s struck me that it’s not actually fair to describe opponents to same-sex marriage as conservative. Oh, they may consider themselves conservatives and talk a good conservative line, but when it comes to same-sex marriage, they’re not conservative.
They’re a group of people who pay lip service to limited government and yet want to pass laws that would benefit no one. They claim to be for individual choice and responsibility yet they want to deny a very important choice to people.
When asked what the compelling justification to this, they point to society as a whole. Or, to put it in other terms, they are privileging the concerns of the State over those of the People. Oh, wait, that’s communist.
In the same-sex marriage debate, we have bad-faith supposed conservatives offering a communist rationale against same-sex marriage. Me, I can no longer believe their claims of limited government and individual freedom.
The true conservative should be for same-sex marriage, unlike this bunch of commies who pretend to be right wing. I’m a left-winger and I’m less convinced of the sense in ceding that much power to the State.
posted by Fitz on
I think you’re creating a straw man here. Civil marriage in the US does not require a couple to have children or even address the issue of having children in any way. Civil marriage and reproduction have nothing to do with one another; there are no “responsible reproductive aspects of marriage”. Elderly couples, for example, are not denied the right to marry simply because they can not reproduce. This is hardly a new development in US jurisprudence. You’re claiming a meaning for marriage that it has never had in the US.
Far from being a ?straw man? the irrefutable fertility argument is grounded in elemental biology.
. ?Civil marriage in the US does not require a couple to have children or even address the issue of having children in any way?
False – and almost hopelessly naive and intentionally obtuse. Its like saying because we don?t jail out-of-wedlock mothers, or because we allow for divorce: marriage has nothing to do with responsible procreation or permanence & fidelity.
?Civil marriage and reproduction have nothing to do with one another; there are no “responsible reproductive aspects of marriage”.
The inextricable link between responsible reproduction and marriage is represented all throughout (and is indeed indispensable in understanding) marriage laws in the United States. It is revealed in everything from the requirement of consummation in marriage, to the paternal expectation of married husbands & child protection.
Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.? Therefore same sex ?marriage? necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.
From the Washington State Supreme Court Decision
Indeed the entirety of Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage both implicitly and explicitly understands marriage as both sexed and inextricably linked to procreation. When reading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: try and understand what the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Judge Graffeo noted?.
2 – Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)
posted by TS on
“The inextricable link between responsible reproduction and marriage is represented all throughout (and is indeed indispensable in understanding) marriage laws in the United States. It is revealed in everything from the requirement of consummation in marriage, to the paternal expectation of married husbands & child protection.
Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.? Therefore same sex ?marriage? necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.”
Fitz, you’re quoting these laws and court decisions as though they’re worth the paper they’re written on. These dumb old dead white lawmen are making, in the same scholarly language, the same circular argument you are. Marriage is important because it’s the unit of procreation because procreation’s important because the law links procreation and marriage because marriage is special because it’s sacred and it’s all inherent.
Why do we need a special class of legal relationships called marriages? Why should the state care whether two people are doing the nookie or merely living together? Or how many people they’re sleeping with at a time? Or whether child-raising is in their future or not? The state should just be making a wide variety of legal relationships available to people who might want them. Tax breaks for marrried couples are unnecessary, cohabitating people already get a big financial boost.
Do you have an argument that progresses from some simple premises such as “men and women can procreate together” and “without procreation, civilization will go extinct” all the way to “there needs to be a legal category called marriage where men and women are in a special legal relationship because they might potentially procreate”? I think the intermediate steps are going to end up being highly fallacious.
Keep in mind that I’m not after religious marriage. Religious institutions will always be welcome to perform whatever ceremonies they like however they want.
posted by Sugar Rush on
Fitz wrote “The inextricable link between responsible reproduction and marriage is represented all throughout (and is indeed indispensable in understanding) marriage laws in the United States. It is revealed in everything from the requirement of consummation in marriage, to the paternal expectation of married husbands & child protection.”
There is not now nor has there ever been (that I can find) any statutory requirement in the US that requires married couples to reproduce, nor is there even any requirement that couples seeking to marry must make any sort of declaration that they intend to reproduce. While marriage and reproduction may be linked, one does not require the other. The link is not inextricable but rather is coincidental. People can reproduce without marriage, and (heterosexual) people can marry without having children or even having any intention of reproducing. Legal issues regarding child support and child custody exist apart from marriage, since, of course, a marriage in not necessary in order to have children.
It is true that some courts have asserted that there is a “traditional” link between marriage and reproduction. But any such link is NOT statutory, and it certainly is not practical -we don’t need marriage in order to reproduce. The courts are flirting with a false dichotomy, if not outright asserting one. Neither the courts nor any one else can ever find a true dichotomy when it comes to marriage and reproduction.
The dissenting opinion in the New York Court of Appeals case of “Hernandez v. Robles” did an excellent job of addressing these issues:
“But while encouraging opposite-sex
couples to marry before they have children is certainly a
legitimate interest of the State, the exclusion of gay men and
lesbians from marriage in no way furthers this interest. There
are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone.
Nor does this exclusion rationally further the State’s
legitimate interest in encouraging heterosexual married couples
to procreate. Plainly, the ability or desire to procreate is not
a prerequisite for marriage. The elderly are permitted to marry,
and many same-sex couples do indeed have children. Thus, the
statutory classification here–which prohibits only same-sex
couples, and no one else, from marrying–is so grossly
underinclusive and overinclusive as to make the asserted
rationale in promoting procreation “impossible to credit” (Romer,
517 US at 635). Indeed, even the Lawrence dissenters observed
that “encouragement of procreation” could not “possibly” be a
justification for denying marriage to gay and lesbian couples,
“since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry” (539 US
at 605 [Scalia, J., dissenting]; see also Lapides v Lapides, 254
NY 73, 80 [1930] [“inability to bear children” does not justify
an annulment under the Domestic Relations Law]).”
“In holding that prison inmates have a fundamental right
to marry–even though they cannot procreate–the Supreme Court
has made it clear that procreation is not the sine qua non of
marriage. “Many important attributes of marriage remain . . .
after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison
life . . . . [I]nmate marriages, like others, are expressions of
emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an
important and significant aspect of the marital relationship”
(Turner, 482 US at 95-96). Nor is there any conceivable rational
basis for allowing prison inmates to marry, but not homosexuals.
It is, of course, no answer that inmates could potentially
procreate once they are released–that is, once they are no
longer prisoners–since, as non-prisoners, they would then
undeniably have a right to marry even in the absence of Turner.
Marriage is about much more than producing children,
yet same-sex couples are excluded from the entire spectrum of
protections that come with civil marriage–purportedly to
encourage other people to procreate. Indeed, the protections
that the State gives to couples who do marry–such as the right
to own property as a unit or to make medical decisions for each
other–are focused largely on the adult relationship, rather than
on the couple’s possible role as parents. Nor does the plurality
even attempt to explain how offering only heterosexuals the
right to visit a sick loved one in the hospital, for example,
conceivably furthers the State’s interest in encouraging
opposite-sex couples to have children, or indeed how excluding
same-sex couples from each of the specific legal benefits of
civil marriage–even apart from the totality of marriage
itself–does not independently violate plaintiffs’ rights to
equal protection of the laws. The breadth of protections that
the marriage laws make unavailable to gays and lesbians is “so
far removed” from the State’s asserted goal of promoting
procreation that the justification is, again, “impossible to
credit” (Romer, 517 US at 635).”
And in regards to the issue of “tradition”:
“That civil marriage has traditionally excluded same-sex
couples–i.e., that the “historic and cultural understanding of
marriage” has been between a man and a woman–cannot in itself
provide a rational basis for the challenged exclusion. To say
that discrimination is “traditional” is to say only that the
discrimination has existed for a long time. A classification,
however, cannot be maintained merely “for its own sake” (Romer,
517 US at 635). Instead, the classification (here, the exclusion
of gay men and lesbians from civil marriage) must advance a state
interest that is separate from the classification itself (see
Romer, 517 US at 633, 635). Because the “tradition” of excluding
gay men and lesbians from civil marriage is no different from the
classification itself, the exclusion cannot be justified on the
basis of “history.” Indeed, the justification of “tradition”
does not explain the classification; it merely repeats it.
Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination–no matter
how entrenched–does not make the discrimination constitutional
(see also Goodridge, 440 Mass at 332 n 23, 798 NE2d at 962 n 23
[“it is circular reasoning, not analysis, to maintain that
marriage must remain a heterosexual institution because that is
what it historically has been”]).”
posted by Patrick on
Fitz you asshat, you’ve been SMOKED by Sugar Rush. ND30 for every negative example you cite regarding gays there are 100 examples of heteros doing the same thing (or worse), give it a rest.
posted by John Howard on
Fitz, same-sex couples can reproduce, Kaguya the Fatherless Mouse proved that it is possible. The question is, should we allow same-sex couples to attempt to reproduce? When we allow infertile and elderly couples to marry, we are allowing them to attempt to reproduce. We should not allow same-sex couples to attempt to reproduce.
Richard, same-sex couples could have all the other protections and benefits and rights of marriage in the form of state Civil Unions that are defined as “marriage minus conception rights”, but same-sex couples should not have the right to attempt to create a child together, using their own gametes, as a married man and woman have. We should not equate my right to have children with a woman with my right to have children with a man. One is a natural right, a “basic civil right of man”, as SCOTUS said in Skinner and Loving, and the other is totally unethical and unnecessary.
posted by TS on
Woah John Howard. Where’d that come from?
posted by Fitz on
#1. I was originally addresing my comments to Richard J. Rosendall. He seems a principled advocate of a distinct point of view.
#2. T.S. (writes)
“Why do we need a special class of legal relationships called marriages? Why should the state care whether two people are doing the nookie or merely living together? Or how many people they’re sleeping with at a time? Or whether child-raising is in their future or not? The state should just be making a wide variety of legal relationships available to people who might want them. Tax breaks for marrried couples are unnecessary, cohabitating people already get a big financial boost.
Indeed You sem to be reinforcing mine and North Dallas Thirty’s Point. At the same time you are undermining Rosenthall, Carpenter’s, And Rauch’s “conservative case” premise.
You reinforce why male/female marriage should be exclusively prilvelaged in such Reductio ad absurdum logic – Illustrated
It?s fair to say that the ?discrimination? argument against same-sex ?marriage?, when carried to its logical conclusion ? leads one to ask? ? ?Why should couples of any kind receive special treatment from the government??
Should the single and non-coupled be discriminated against because they remain single?
Nicky Grist from the Alternatives to marriage Project argues so eloquently in her rebuttal to the NYT op-ed:
?So you see? Even the Advocate, the nations premiere gay right magazine realizes that marriage discrimination is a Reductio ad absurdum. That in order to be fair NO ONE should be privileged, coupled or not, male & female, gay or straight, or not.
This reasoning is just as fair and consistant as the reasoning that underlines same-sex ?marriage?.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
John Howard writes, “We should not allow same-sex couples to attempt to reproduce.”
Why? What’s it to you? I, however, do not wish to reproduce, I just want to marry my partner. And I am too old at this point to consider adopting.
“Richard, same-sex couples could have all the other protections and benefits and rights of marriage in the form of state Civil Unions”
Then why do most marriage-equality opponents vehemently oppose civil unions as well? They routinely lie about it during initiative campaigns, but by their actions they make it clear that they oppose ANY legal protections for same-sex couples.
“We should not equate my right to have children with a woman with my right to have children with a man. One is a natural right, a ‘basic civil right of man’, as SCOTUS said in Skinner and Loving, and the other is totally unethical and unnecessary.”
This is an assertion, not an argument. As I have said, the marriage I am seeking has nothing to do with reproduction, and your insisting a hundred times that reproduction is inherent to mmarriage does not make it so. Saying that an elderly or infertile couple that is allowed to marry is being encouraged to try to reproduce is nonsense. They cannot reproduce, period. it baffles me that so many SSM opponents refuse to be honest about this, and wrap themselves in a lot of BS to cover it.
What in the world is unethical about a gay couple that wants to have a child (whether by artificial insemination or adoption)? Just your saying so? Your position amounts to a unilateral declaration that couples like Patrick and me have no right to exist. But we do exist, and we are going to exist. Sooner or later, we will overcome enough people’s denial, or they will die off, and we will have our birthright of equality under the law. And absolutelly no one will be hurt in the slightest.
posted by John Howard on
Richard, I’m not talking about adoption and sperm donation, which have nothing to do with marriage, I’m talking about the right to conceive children together, with the couple’s own genes, which is the inherent essential meaning of marraige. The reason I oppose same-sex conception is because it is a form of genetic engineering, and the reeason I oppose genetic engineering is because I care about things like equality, justice, liberty, and rights. Allowing labs to start genetically engineering people would threaten all of those things and be a huge waste of resources that should be spent on care for existing people. It may seem paradoxical, but to preserve the right of all people to procreate with their own genes with the partner of their choice, we have to prohibit people from attempting to do it any other way.
The reason marriage-equality opponents oppose Civil Unions is because (as you’ve no doubt heard them say) they are “marriage in all but name” and “stepping stones to marriage” that are just one no-brainer court decision away from being called marriages. Most marriage-equality opponents do NOT oppose benefits and protections for same-sex couples, they just want to preserve marriage, which my compromise proposal does, in a principled and permanent way. It gives the maximum amount of marriage to same-sex couples that can be given while preserving the most essential and religiously meaningful and miraculous aspects of marriage for a man and a woman. So really, the only reason to oppose my compromise is if you think same-sex couples should be allowed to attempt to procreate, right now, today, or if you really really don’t want committed same-sex couples to get any benefits, even with marriage protected in principle, both of which are extreme positions held by very very few people.
posted by TS on
ad absurdam? doesn’t seem absurd to me. I know what I’m saying, and until someone can convince me I’m not correct, I don’t care whose argument I undermine.
posted by John Howard on
TS, there needs to be a legal category of people that are allowed to procreate together. It isn’t just people who can procreate together, as siblings are perfectly capable of procreating together but we don’t allow them to. Marriage is supposed to give protections and obligations and responsibilities to couples that have consented to procreating with each other, using each other’s genes, provided the state also approves of the procreating together. Where procreation together is prohibited, couples may not marry. That is true everywhere throughout history and should remain true. Same sex couples should be prohibited from attempting to procreate, just like siblings are.
posted by TS on
Whaaat? What’s that you said? “using each other’s genes, provided the state also approves of the procreating together,” I think it was? Really?
Here comes another one of my apparently “ad absurdam” arguments. I am extremely opposed to answering all ethical dilemmas with “it smells funny, ban it.” Particularly when it comes to bioethics. That’s why I’m not going to INSTANTLY JUMP DOWN YOUR THROAT for even SUGGESTING that the state should be acting as gene police. Instead, I’m going to try to be reasonable, saying I don’t think the state should be applying any ill-concieved blanket policies to people’s reproductive rights. Stupid, artificial categories and regulations not only will fail to solve problems but also create many more. Culture and an ideal of personal responsibility are what should be constraining people’s choices in regard to procreation. We should keep strong cultural proclivities against pregnancy as a result of incest or by parents who are addicted to drugs or otherwise unfit. These cause real harm. But, just as cultural proclivities against interracial marriage were dropped some 50 years ago, I am in support of the right to procreation and child-rearing, by any safe and ethical means, on the part of gay parents.
posted by John Howard on
So, you are going to reject the compromise that would give thousands of same-sex couples federal recognition and the security of full Civil Unions that are exactly like marriage except for not allowing the couple to procreate, because you want to choose the right, today, to attempt same-sex procreation? That’s a totally ridiculous choice.
Society needs to have a long and careful conversation about whether we should preserve natural conception or allow people to be created from engineered genes. During that time, we should not allow any reckless labs to jump the gun and start creating people through ridiculously unethical and totally unnecessary freakish experiments. But also during that time, we should have federally recognized Civil Unions for the couples that have no use for those ridiculous experiments. And if, after that conversation, we decide that same-sex conception is safe and ethical and should be allowed, then we would change the civil unions to marriages because same-sex couples would have the equal right to procreate together. But of course I feel that would be a very bad decision, and I would argue that society should instead choose to keep same-sex procreation and genetic engineering prohibited so that natural conception rights are preserved, and Civil Unions would continue as Civil Unions without conception rights. But the point is, right now, the compromise would be a huge benefit for same-sex couples, who might never be able to procreate together even if we spend billions of dollars on research and development of same-sex conception. So your choice is stupid and harmful to real couples that need protections, not conception rights. But thank you for stating your position for the record, and illustrating what the real demands of marriage equality really are. Most people don’t realize that your ultimate demand is for genetic engineering and lab-created and designed people and stripping conception rights from marriage.
posted by TS on
My whole point (perhaps clearer in my first post) is that I don’t especially care. I am neither for or against this or any other marriage compromise. I defer to the importance of traditional sensibilities about marriage and family life, but I also doubt them and seek to encourage others to examine the traditional ways critically.
“Most people don’t realize that your ultimate demand is for genetic engineering and lab-created and designed people and stripping conception rights from marriage.”
This is nuts. I consider my opinions on bioethics coincidental in relation to my opinions on gay rights. Why, to you, are they so thoroughly entangled? It doesn’t make any sense.
posted by John Howard on
Why are they entangled? How can they not be entangled when people are saying that same-sex couples should have equal rights to a man and a woman? And in particular, when they are insisting on marriage rights, which have been universally understood throughout history to specifically give the couple the right to conceive children together?
I don’t consider “gay rights” to be entangled with conception rights, because I don’t consider same-sex marriage to be essential for “gay rights”. In fact, I consider gay marriage to be at odds with “gay rights”, which to me mean the right not to be gay and not marry and not procreate with someone. Shoving same-sex procreation “rights” on to gay people seems to me to be shoving heterosexual norms on to people who have no desire for them, who are perfectly fine with existing ways to have a family if they want a family (though that desire itself seems to me to be anti-gay) and would be fine with Civil Unions for the security and protections of their relationship if they want that (though again, bringing that sort of social monagomous pressure on to people seems anti-gay to me, but people should have the option to be as anti-gay or as gay as they want to be). But I’m kind of old-school about gay rights, I see gay rights as the right to be wildly free, love everyone, and live long happy socially exciting lives without burdens of children or spouses, and not the right to conceive children with someone of the same-sex. Everyone should have that right with someone of the other sex, and gay people shouldn’t be told they only have a right to use labs to create genetically engineered children for them. I’d like to untangle conception rights from gay rights, and that means reminding everyone that it is conception rights we are discussing when we are discussing marriage. If we decide to allow same-sex conception, we should allow same-sex marriage, and vice versa. It should continue to be the same question, as it always has been, like in Loving when the question was allowing interracial couples to mix their genes (miscegenate). We shouldn’t make those separate questions, because marriage needs to continue to protect conception rights, we should not allow any state to prohibit a married couple from using their own genes to conceive, or pressure them into using substitute or engineered gametes. It should remain a right for a marriage to conceive children using their own genes. That’s even more important than prohibiting genetic engineering and same-sex conception, because those things might never be done anyhow. But marriages are already being pressured into using donor gametes, and people already feel like they do not have a right (or that it would not be right, which is the same thing) to conceive children using their own genes, which is a source of depression and angst and even anger and hate.
posted by John Howard on
Correction, I meant: “In fact, I consider gay marriage to be at odds with “gay rights”, which to me mean the right
notto be gay and not marry and not procreate with someone.”posted by TS on
“marriage rights, which have been universally understood throughout history to specifically give the couple the right to conceive children together”
Here’s another alarming statement. The right? The right to concieve a child together is bestowed by marriage? The quickest way to challenge this is an example.
I have the “right” to free speech (with certain exceptions). If I say something in the course of properly exercising this right, I can’t be sued or prosecuted for my action.
I don’t have any “right” to shoot you (with certain exceptions). If I shoot you and it’s a criminal act, I can and probably should be prosecuted.
So, getting married bestows the “right” to procreate…? So, tell me, when an out-of-wedlock mother gives birth, do we prosecute, sue, or merely take the child away until such a time as she sees fit to marry the father? What if her two children are from different fathers? I guess she has to decide which one she likes better.
posted by John Howard on
In this country we haven’t punished illegitimate births for a long time, because it punished the innocent child to do so. In some countries they still stone unwed pregnant women and fornicators and adulterers, which is of course barbaric by our standards but illustrates what marriage traditionally means – it allows the couple to conceive together and forbids unmarried couples from doing it. Even here we still hold adultery as wrong and sometimes take it into account in divorce settlements, even if we don’t punish anyone or forbid unmarried couples from doing it anymore.
But your objection misses the point anyhow: Yes, we allow unmarried sex now, but doing so did not change the rights of marriage to have children together. Tell me if you’ve ever heard of a married couple being punished for conceiving a child? Of course not, it is always allowed. (OK, in China the have the odious one-child policy, which is a terrible insult to human rights, but at least they allow all marriages to have one! Not even there are any marriages prohibited from having any children together.) And what I am saying is that a same-sex couple (and their lab) should be punished if they even attempt to conceive even one child together, just like siblings would be punished if they were attempt it, or a father with his adult daughter. Do you see how that would be incompatible with marriage? It would mean, for the first time in human history, a marriage did not protect the couple’s right to conceive children together. It would equate every person’s right to have children naturally with their right to use modified genes to have children with someone of the same sex, which means the end of the right to use our own genes. It is a radical change to marriage to say that it does not protect the right to conceive together using the couples own genes. Why do that to all marriages when same-sex conception is not even possible yet and might never be possible, and when my Compromise could get equal protections to same-sex couples in all 50 states by the end of the month?
posted by TS on
“And what I am saying is that a same-sex couple (and their lab) should be punished if they even attempt to conceive even one child together,”
WHAT! Why?
I think it should be considered extremely unethical and moderately criminal for scientists to play biological games with human life. There is no safe and ethical way, at present, for human same sex gametes to make a zygote. Any goal-oriented attempt would be cruel, villanous idle experimentation.
It’s the cruel, villainous idle experimentation that is wrong, NOT the intent of a same sex couple to concieve a child. If a lesbian couple want a child, it isn’t wrong for them to want one or even to try to have one somehow. It is only wrong for them to resort to unethical scientific hijinx. Research that may eventually lead to safe, ethical same sex conception must proceed with extreme caution. Perhaps that effort will be successful one day.
posted by John Howard on
Well, the mere desire to have a child together does not become an attempt to have a child together until there is a possibility that a child would be conceived together. It’s like Attempted Murder: it is a crime only when the person actually does something that could be interpreted as possibly leading to killing someone. If I want to murder someone, and attempt it by touching them with a feather, I don’t think I’d be arrested for attempted murder, even though I was hoping it would kill them. It has to be a real attempt, but once it becomes a real attempt, it is certainly criminal and I should be punished. Similarly, it wouldn’t be a crime for a same-sex couple to want to have children together, but it should be a major crime, with jail and a huge million dollar fine, for anyone to actually attempt something that might result in a child being created from anything other than a man and a woman’s sperm and egg.