So Get Busy Pro-Creating Or Shut Up

[Gary Sisco]

My daily post from Andrew Sullivan's site:

MARRIAGE AND PROCREATION: Kudos to the Family Research Council for intellectual honesty. Here's a frank argument by one Allan Carson, conceding what is now obvious: it is very hard to hold the line against civil marriage for gay couples on the grounds that they cannot procreate. The reason is that civil marriage is available to any straight couple, regardless of their willingness or ability to have chidren. And this national consensus is now decades old:
It is now clear that the "right of privacy," conceived by the Supreme Court nearly four decades ago, is the enemy of both marriage and procreation separately, and is especially hostile when they are united. It is also clear that we lost the key battles in defense of this union decades ago, long before anyone even imagined same-sex marriage. And we lost these battles over questions that--to be honest--relatively few of us are really prepared to reopen. How many are ready to argue for the recriminalization of contraception?
Well, yes. The basic problem for the anti-gay marriage forces is that they are upholding a marital standard for gays that no one any longer upholds for straights. And this obvious inequality - recognized even by Scalia, for example - cannot withstand judicial scrutiny under any reasonable standard of equal treatment under the law. Thats why I think it's hyperbole to describe the Massachusetts court of judicial "activism." The argument of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was that gays couldn't marry because they couldn't procreate. Once it was obvious that this standard did not apply to heterosexuals, the court had no choice but to strike down the inequality. It was not a radical decision at all. It was an inescapable one. And that's why even a conservative court like Alaska's upheld it. And that's why you really do have to amend a state constitution to prevent its guarantees of equality from being applied to gay citizens.

SO PROCREATE: The social right's intellectually honest option, then, is obvious. And Carlson deserves praise for airing it. In order to prevent gays from marrying, the state must deny non-procreative straight couples from having the full rights of civil marriage. Maybe these non-reproducers can have civil unions until they reproduce. Maybe they can get married, but have their licenses revoked after five years if no babies are forthcoming. Carlson has another suggestion:
Perhaps we should restrict some of the legal and welfare benefits of civil marriage solely to those married during their time of natural, procreative potential: for women, below the age of 45 or so (for men, in the Age of Viagra, the line would admittedly be harder to draw).
That works too. And when you see the issue this way, you can see why the current effort to focus only on excluding gay citizens is so unfair. If non-procreative, companionate marriage is the civil norm, then you simply don't have a case against gay couples having marriage licenses. And if you keep this standard for straights, while forcing gays alone to bear the burden of your battle against four decades of marital evolution, then you are being deeply, deeply unfair. So which is it? A new standard? Or equality now?
*****************************

Good arguments. I've never accepted marriage as anything but a property relationship (at any time in history, including the present), but a good argument nonetheless. And of course plenty of gays *have* children already.

A minor quibble. The Supremes didn't invent a right to privacy. That's one of the great propaganda successes of all time, but untrue nevertheless (as is almost always the case). The right to privacy, if nowhere else, is implied by the logic of the Fourth Amendment and parts of both the First (what, pray, but privacy is at issue in the right to freely associate?) and the Fifth, so far as that goes. Why would the state be constitutionally denied the power to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures of one's "person or papers" but not of one's most intimate decisions about that "person" in the form of deciding what will voluntarily happen with one's own body. What is the Fourth Amendment about if it does not at least logically imply that there are in fact private matters that are strictly of the personal realm where the state has no place and ought to have no powers to dictate? Hell, far's that goes, I'll show them my "papers" without a warrant if they want to see them. But keep your fucking laws off my body or what to do with it or not to do with it.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Here's the problem with Sullivan and many gay advocates: they think logic will overcome all.

At it's heart, marriage is a financial arrangement, a civil contract. Now if love is involved that's cool, but love's merely icing on the cake.

But logic has nothing to do with this issue. It's simply prejudice against homosexuality pure and simple. I tried explaining this to a friend of mine and she almost accused me of homophobia. She was looking at the issue from a logical viewpoint. How could same-sex marriage destroy the institution of marriage? It had nothing to do with the institution, it was all about homophobic disgust with homosexual acts.

It would be interesting to investigate all the arguments offered up against interracial marriage. How many would match those used in the same-sex argument? They had a protest here in D.C. against same-sex marriage. The Post covered it and on the front page they had a photo of an interracial couple from Michigan who were taking part.

I damn near shit myself. It wasn't that long ago that if that same couple was right across the Potomac the brother probably would've been lynched and his old lady beat the hell up.

Is that the definition of irony?

Americans crack me up when it comes to sexuality. We're damn near a stone-age tribe. They poll Americans and we're damn near the most religious people on the planet.

But we've got a billion dollar porn industry.

Watch late-night TV? Lot's of phone sex-ads. Oh, and there's my homeboy Ron Jeremy selling "male enhancement products".

[james harrigan]

Darryl, you are 100% on the money. The irony of an interracial couple protesting same-sex marriage is indeed acute.

But the collpase of the taboo on interracial marriage is what makes me hopeful about the prospects for gay marriage. Most folks are pretty sentimental, and the increasing public visibility of happy commited homo couples is going to gradually break down the resistance to them. I'm sure lots of people privately still abhor interracial marriage, but it is not publically acceptable to oppose it, and laws against it have been repealed or not enforced. I predict the same thing will happen within my lifetime for gay marriage.

[Gary Sisco]

James, I agree with you that it's unstoppable, now. I have no problem with it, if people want to get married. Go ahead. Who am I to say? I don't believe in the institution, myself, though I might be forced by practical circumstances one of these days (social security for the survivor, probate, and etc).

One of the strange ironies of VT's civil union law is that same-sex couples who used to have partner's benefits at work, lost them with passage of the civil union law. The logic being of course that there was no legal obstacle in their way any longer. So some lesbian friends of ours (old school, like myself, who had no interest in the institution, traditional or same sex, but who've been together a million years) were forced by the economics to get C.U.'d, even though they weren't at all up in arms about the issue.

Nor was I. My personal position is that the state should just be out of the marriage picture altogether. No public benefits or penalties should flow from it. You want to get married, go to a church and get married. You can't find one that performs the ceremony for same-sex reasons or whatever reasons, look for another that does.

I can't see any reason why marriage should require a license when having children doesn't. What, we need the state's official stamp of approval for our personal choice of partner, but any two fools can have as many children as they like. What's up with that?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Gary,

The last thing anyone should want is having to get a religion's permission to marry. That's what you're asking for when you say "find a church". Your marraige would have to abide by the rules of that church. Also, the church would them be responsible for the dividing up of property, who gets the children, alimony, child support, etc. That's sort of the beginning of the end of sepration of state and church. So the state, as a legal arbiter would have to have some role in the institution of marriage.

Ideally the state would operate outside of the prejudices of the church. Suppose you're a Catholic, "consumated" the marraige in the eyes of the church and you want to get a divorce?

Plus, as an athiest, the last thing I'd want in the world is to have a church decide whether I can get married (if I believe in the institution).

It's interesting how the Europeans are dealing with this issue. First off, the number of marraiges are dropping. And I was reading about one country with allows civil unions among gays and it wasn't even legislated. Civil unions already existed and gays just started applying for them. No one thought to say no.

In otherwords, many European countries have been able to separate the institution of marriage from religion and gender. And their societies haven't fallen apart.

Man those cats are so far ahead of us on certain social issues it's scary.

[tippy]

I might rather they banter than "multiply and replenish."

[patricia]

[QUOTE=Gary Sisco]
*****************************

Good arguments. I've never accepted marriage as anything but a property relationship (at any time in history, including the present), but a good argument nonetheless. And of course plenty of gays *have* children already.

QUOTE]

Gary, ultimately, legally speaking, as anyone who has ever gone through a divorce knows, marriage is for the most part about property and parental rights.
Although it's true that you can divorce your spouse, if he or she refuses to consummate the marriage, the most important issues have to do with money and property. Whether or not you have, or intend to have children is not the reason that marriages fail or succeed. You will not be refused the right to marry, if you are heterosexul, should you not intend to have children.

In short, as a reason for not granting equal rights to marry to gays, not being able to procreate is ridiculous.

[GoodSpeak]

Gay marriage?

No problem here....but I will tell you it is a biological deadend.

[patricia]

No more than is a marriage between heterosexuals who choose not to have children together. Should second marriages, between heterosexuals, who have children from their first marriages be disallowed, because they decide not to have more children together??
Marriage is, as far as I'm concerned, not primarily about having children, but joining two lives, making the partnership of greater value than the two individuals. Children, optional. That description would include two gay people with the same goal, IMO.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by patricia

No more than is a marriage between heterosexuals who choose not to have children together. Should second marriages, between heterosexuals, who have children from their first marriages be disallowed, because they decide not to have more children together??
Marriage is, as far as I'm concerned, not primarily about having children, but joining two lives, making the partnership of greater value than the two individuals. Children, optional. That description would include two gay people with the same goal, IMO.

Wha-?


This would be comparable to suggesting orange trees choose not to grow apples.


You are aware, of course, that same sex unions HAVE no pro-creative choice.





Right empathy, wrong argument.

[patricia]

You misunderstand me. I mean that the purpose of lifetime partnership, or marriage, is to join two people as a couple, facing their futures together. The addition of children is optional. Whether their childlessness is a choice, as it would be in a heterosexual union, or a biological necessity, as in a homosexual one, should have no bearing on their commitment to each other as a couple. Of course, it is possible for a gay couple to opt to have children in their family, either by artificial insemination, or adoption. But, the ability to have children is not a prerequisite to a marriage being legitimate, or childless heterosexual couple's marriages would be, legally, shams, which of course they are not.

[Gary Sisco]

Going back to prehistory, marriage has always been primarily a property relationship (anyone remember dowries? why do you think they did that?). Hell, it wasn't til well into modern times that British women were even allowed to own anything themselves, including money. Whatever they had on marriage became the husband's.

Darryl -- I hear ya about churches. I didn't say in my position that anyone was *required* to get married. My position is that gubmint should have no part in such personal matters at all and if people *want* a ceremony of some sort, they can go to whatever church they prefer, or they can create their own, or whatever. But prejudice can only arise in these situations if the gubmint is involved, by making legal benefits or sanctions flow from the personal choice of two people to marry. So, take the gubmint out of the picture. Voila. End of discrimination.

Ditto if people want to have children. Go ahead. But no gubmint penalties or benefits. Having children is a private matter. If you want 'em, have 'em.

**************

Far's the property etc goes, that's what contracts are for. No one is forbidden to make contracts -- and a "legal" civil marriage is a form of contract itself, so let's not get awful sentimental about these things. Ditto with medical issues. That's what powers of attorney, living wills, etc., are for. No one, homo- or heterosexual is forbidden from entering into such contracts.

So, that's my position. If people of whatever variety want to marry, go ahead. But there's no need for it to be a legal thing approved or disapproved by the state, anymore than one's choice of sexual partner or behavior should be (with consent).

If people think marriage is a religious thing, a ceremony in a church is a ceremony in a church. Why does that have to be sanctioned by the state? Baptism isn't. A bar mitzfah isn't. A confirmation isn't. So why should this one ceremony of marriage be?

The historical fact is that marriage precedes the state as an institution by many thousands of years. State involvement in such things is a very recent development. So shitcan it. Ain't nothing "traditional" about it.

End of controversy.

[QUOTE=Gary Sisco]Going back to prehistory, marriage has always been primarily a property relationship
.

Ditto if people want to have children. Go ahead. But no gubmint penalties or benefits. Having children is a private matter. If you want 'em, have 'em.]

Au contraire, my new sophist friend. Property rights flow from a society's vital interest in self-perpetuation. Marriage is about children. All the tortuous logic you can summon will not supplant that fundamental and profound fact. Anyone entering a marriage without the potential for procreation is perverting the purpose of that institution. A society that sanctions such a union is self-destructive by definition.

"End of controversy" (don't I wish)

[patricia]

The link between marriage and the children produced by that marriage is also, traditionally a link to inheritance of property. Children within the confines of a marriage were presumed to be the product of the married couple. That is still the assumption today.
The institution of marriage was also an attempt by men, who usually were the ones concerned with property rights, to assure that children his wife carried were his and thus entitled to inherit. Unless the paternity of children a wife produced was disputed, they were presumed to be legitimate.
Children produced outside the marriage had no rights, even if they were also, biologically his.
It is true that being "barron" was grounds for dissolution of a marriage, so from that standpoint, there does seem to be some evidence, at least in the past, that if a marriage did not produce children, it was not considered a viable partnership and thus could be dissolved. I haven't heard, recently, of a marriage in which not being capable of producing children was grounds for divorce. Back in the fifties, the Shah of Iran, divorced his wife, Soraya, because she was barron. Of course, that was obviously about succession. "Irreconcilable differences" is usually what is given as grounds when regular people are involved.

[Gary Sisco]

Why then did people in tribal societies give over several goats and some horses to the woman's father as a marriage offer?

What is the main argument in marriages that break up?

What is the purpose of marriage if the two people in question have no desire or plans to have children?

What is the purpose of marriage if the two people in question cannot have children? (I've been vasectomized for many years, for example. What would the purpose of marriage be for me?)

Who here has actually studied the origins of this institution, or the various ways in which it has been viewed in different societies and through history?

Why, when one gets the boot, is it referred to, even in modern society, as "having my shit tossed out in the street" or something like?

(In Sioux society, all a woman had to do to divorce was to put the man's stuff outside. End of marriage. Please note that it's the guy's *stuff* not the kids. All a man had to do was move out. This is nothing at all unusual in tribal societies, and for nearly the whole of human history and all of prehistory, people in all parts of the world lived in tribal societies. Yes, Euros included.)

What is alimony?

What is the purpose of "prenuptial agreements"?

Why are married people sans children taxed differently than single people sans children?

Why, in the absense of other instructions in a will, for example, does everything owned by one married partner automatically pass to the other on death, bypassing probate courts and etc.? Why is this not the case with "single" people who live together sans state license?

Etc.

[patricia]

In short, it's all about money, property rights and succession.
It's certainly possible to arrange for a person to assure that their partner inherits and also possible to declare, legally, that one's children are legally theirs, for the purposes of inheritance, but it involves a lot of bobbing and weaving with lawyers, when marriage simplifies the money and property aspect as well as the paternity of any children from the relationship.

Interestingly, my late mother often said that there was no purpose for marriage as an institution, save for the stability of children which came from a relationship. Everything else can be handled by the legal system and I guess so can acknowledging children as belonging to the couple.

Marriage seems to most people to be a public declaration of their commitment to another person, so it seems to me that, as such, should be available to same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples.

[Gary Sisco]

But if it's a public declaration of commitment that a couple wishes to make in front of family and friends, why does that require a license from the state? Why can't they just make their declaration and be done with it? What does the state have to do with making a declaration of commitment in the presence of family and friends (and god, if one accepts such ideas)? Making a public declaration of other things requires no license, so why the commitment of a couple to each other?

And why does property pass automatically to the other if married (unless other arrangements have been specifically arranged in the form of contract/will/etc)?

Clearly, in the view of the society, each partner in a state sanctioned marriage is ipso facto viewed as the rightful owner of the other's property, and vice versa, therefore there is no reason for the state to enter the question of property via probate court.

Why is this not the case for un-state sanctioned couples if marriage is not a property relation? The couples live together, they may very well have children together, they may have been together (easily) for as long or longer than state-sanctioned couples, they may have acquired property both separately and together and in exactly the same way as any state-sanctioned couple has. Where does the difference lie so that the one is treated one way and the other another?

If Bronwyn were (Jah forbid) to die today, our affairs would be in probate for (very likely) years to come, simply because we're not "married" (even though we've been together as a couple for longer than I was with both of my ex-wives, combined). If we got a license from the state to, er, incorporate our coupleness, probate would not even come into the picture at all. There'd be no question as to ownership of property. This can only make logical sense if marriage is viewed as a property relationship, where each of the state-sanctioned people that make up the couple is viewed as a co-owner of property. There is no need to question the passage of property to an owner. He or she is already an owner in the eyes of the law.

But only because of the marriage license.

'Round and 'round they go, dismissing the elephant in the middle of the room.
Patty, your mother explained it quite simply to you years ago. It is in society's (government's) enlightened self-interest to sanction marriage for the protection of children. Property rights and romantic notions follow. The horse leads the cart.

[patricia]

For the most part, I agree. But with one provisio. Inheritance rights are first, then the legitimacy of any children produced within the marriage. The second is a part of the first. The government should be mostly concerned with who is entitled to what, not why the partnership was entered into, or which sex the partners are.

[Monte Smith]

Gary, I know you are not a party man but I have always liked your candidate Ralph Nader's dismissal of gay marriage, abortion, and similar matters as "bedroom issues" unworthy of elevation to debate in our republican politics. And I also know that if one side is obsessed about the issue, then the other side is, too, and soon all sides are. And I know we don't inhabit a simple republic.

So I'll fuck off and you needn't respond.

[Gary Sisco]

I happen to agree, Monte. These sorts of personal issues should not be in the public realm at all, one way or another. In fact, it was my outrage that they had become so that made me a gay liberation supporter, de rigeur. Interfering that far into people's personal lives is totalitarian in the real sense of the world (total state -- nothing is beyond its purview or diktat).

I've always said, Fuck who you want, and anyone who doesn't like it, fuck them, too. Amazing creeps have crawled out from under their stones and been allowed to hijack the public sphere in this country. It's time to drive them back under their rocks and back into the slime from which they emerged.

Fuck their book and their god.

[Gary Sisco]

PS -- He's not my candidate (or wasn't). He was *a* candidate, who was candid and honest enough in answering questions to get my vote, even if I didn't agree with him over many things. I do agree with him over just as many. But it was his candidness and the clear knowledge that he was actually speaking his own mind that got my vote. He was the only one out there, with access to real media on a national level, who spoke his own thoughts.

Basic everyday honesty goes a long way with me these days. It's a very rare thing. Not only in politics.

I've always said, Fuck who you want, and anyone who doesn't like it, fuck them, too. Amazing creeps have crawled out from under their stones and been allowed to hijack the public sphere in this country. It's time to drive them back under their rocks and back into the slime from which they emerged.

Fuck their book and their god.[/QUOTE]

Citizen Cisco,

Would you care to identify these particular individuals and/or groups? And do you suppose you could do so in a more temperate and respectful fashion? I'm also interested in knowing Ralph Nader's standing in this controversy. I believe he's never been married or had children.

Your new fellow truth-seeker,
The Groper

[tippy]

I know gay couples with children and my strongest feeling with regard to this issue is that it is very much in these children's interest to sanction the real partnership of their acting parents.

Originally Posted by patricia

For the most part, I agree. But with one provisio. Inheritance rights are first, then the legitimacy of any children produced within the marriage. The second is a part of the first. The government should be mostly concerned with who is entitled to what, not why the partnership was entered into, or which sex the partners are.

You're still confused. Societally sanctioned marriage grants legitimacy to the issue thereof, by definition. Inheritance rights follow for the protection of the children, who usually survive both parents. Many exceptions to the norm, including barrenness, disputed parentage, premature death of one or more parent(s), adoption, divorce, gay civil unions, and others only present legal complications. They do not nullify the social necessity of the venerable institution.

Originally Posted by tippy

I know gay couples with children and my strongest feeling with regard to this issue is that it is very much in these children's interest to sanction the real partnership of their acting parents.

I don't know your friends, but I know one thing for certain: The children in their custody are not the issue of their union. Presumably one or both of the couple(s) acquired custody by legal means, but proceeding from extraordinary circumstances and encumbering the legal interests of ex-spouses, artificial inseminators, sperm "donors", surrogate mothers, etc. Therefore, the gay partners do not enjoy coequal rights and responsibilities, further clouding the children's future in the event of a split. In the meantime, the children suffer by the absence of one parent as a gender role model, abetting future maladjustment. Love will not conquer all, as we've seen to our everlasting sorrow. It does not recognize society's vital interest in self-perpetuation to encourage such extraordinary sexual relationships (including divorce). They should be allowed but not sanctioned.

[tippy]

Natural parents don't necessarily make the best gender role models. Procreation, while an achievement, is not a select achievement and does not define parental devotion. A role model can be anyone with a social connection to the child. Your ideal does not reflect the reality and variety of the American family, many of which are single-parent run anyway. Many children suffer the absence of one parent. Even in marriage a father can be typically absent and/or emotionally detached (as can a mother). (One might consider too whether we steer boys away from processing their emotions early in life.) So while I think gender role models are culturally relevant, one is not guaranteed functional exposure even in a marriage. As well, same sex marriage does not preclude suitable representations of both genders. Gay families ultimately, communities both close-knit and diverse, reach across sexual orientation. Gays have had to gather champions. Traditionalists think things are okay as is. The theory looks neat and tidy but a million miles from what is necessary or real.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

But if it's a public declaration of commitment that a couple wishes to make in front of family and friends, why does that require a license from the state? Why can't they just make their declaration and be done with it? What does the state have to do with making a declaration of commitment in the presence of family and friends (and god, if one accepts such ideas)? Making a public declaration of other things requires no license, so why the commitment of a couple to each other?

Gary, these are essentially the first things I thought of when the issue first surfaced nationally last February (and I think I've stated them here a few times). It's one of those exasperating issues where, imho, people are arguing in a totally wrong context: whether or not states should sanction gay marriages. The State should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage one way or another; it shouldn't sanction them or not sanction them. Simply sign a legal document, tendered by either a religious organization that chooses to do so or an insurance company, a legally binding contract and be done with it. I've said before that way too many people look to government in a deeply religious way, as others do to temples--this is one more example.

Sullivan, I think, argues from this position, but all too few advocates of gay marriage do likewise.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by The Groper

You're still confused. Societally sanctioned marriage grants legitimacy to the issue thereof, by definition. Inheritance rights follow for the protection of the children, who usually survive both parents. Many exceptions to the norm, including barrenness, disputed parentage, premature death of one or more parent(s), adoption, divorce, gay civil unions, and others only present legal complications. They do not nullify the social necessity of the venerable institution.

I don't disagree that the ideal has always been the conventional mother/father/children family. But, the ideal is not always the reality.
My own philosophy has always been that once children are brought into the matrimonial mix, the parents are committed to raising those children to maturity. They in effect stop being together by only their feeling for each other as a couple and take up the responsibilty of being parents, the most important assignment they will ever take on.
However, that said, just being a heterosexual couple who have produced children does not guarantee that anyone will be excellent, or even adequate parents. There are thousands of examples of absolutely terrible parents, who are heterosexual. So, the raising of children with a sense of themselves and their place in society seems to hinge not so much on their parents' sexual orientation as it does on the values of those who raise them, who are their role models.
I believe that the adults who raise us provide the blueprint for how a "normal" family functions as a unit and that we use that as the model for our own families, later on.
Commitment and a genuine intent to function as a family unit, passing on positive values and problem-solving abilties to any children involved supersedes the sexual orientation of the adults in the family unit, IMO.

Some years ago, Margaret Mead, a prominent anthropologist, put forward an idea of what amounted to two-tier marriage.
What she proposed was that those who wished to marry would first agree to an easily dissolved partnership, with no children to be conceived, pending the second tier, which would be permanent, in which children would be a part. Her opinion was that when children are a part of the agreement, in order to assure stability of the family, the second tier would be impossible to dissolve. The reasons that she gave were that children represent the future and that they should be raised in a stable home, with parents who had already worked out the kinks that may have become evident in the first tier partnership. If that theory were put into practice, at the very least, people would actually think about the huge commitment they were contemplating, having children, before they became parents, with responsibilities for one or more extra people.
I tend to agree with her theory.

[Noj]

I think there is a fear that gay parenting will cause homosexuality as if it were an acquired trait. I happen to think gays are gay by nature, not by choice. Some gay dude at my work confirmed this, saying he knew he was homosexual from the get-go and had crushes on boys when he was five. I find it difficult to believe that he's lying and just chose to reject women. I didn't choose to find women attractive, and I couldn't choose not to.