Moral Absolutism and why Sexual Behavior is Irrelevant to Marriage - A Rebuttal
I came across an editorial posted by a blogger at a site called Conservative Colloquialism entitled "Flawed Premises of the Homosexual Agenda" that I feel the need to respond to. The basis of his argument is that because gay and lesbian individuals choose their sexual behaviors, discrimination in marriage on the basis of sexual orientation is justifiable:
It is crucial to establish that people freely choose to engage in sexual relations, that human beings are not mere animals that cannot control themselves. In this way, one makes a fundamental distinction between a person’s freely chosen behavior and a person’s urges, feelings, desires, and attractions. Surely, a woman would not say that human beings are unable to control their sexual desires. To say such a thing is to give license to the rapist, the supreme violator of sexual morality. If the homosexual cannot control his or her own sexual urges, neither can the rapist or the pedophile. So if all sexual acts are freely chosen, then all homosexual behavior is freely chosen.
I guess the left would argue, more or less explicitly, that anal and oral sex with someone of the same sex are necessary for “individual self-fulfillment,” for reasons of “authenticity.” But this kind of talk merely turns the individual ego into the arbiter of morality, thus destroying any notion of morality. For what is morality if not independent of individual egos and wills?
This excerpt is edited. Full article here.
I believe that there is some confusion here about why marriage equality is important. It is not about equating “urges, feelings, desires, and attractions” with some universal tenant of morality, but recognizing the basic right of an individual to choose his or her own destiny. This is the fundamental basis of liberty, the ideal upon which our Constitution is founded.
Like Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage, the struggle for marriage equality focuses less on individual same-sex relationships and more on a general provision of liberty: one's freedom to join in a loving union with the person of their choosing.
It is not about being “unable to control your sexual urges,” but rather the fact that there is no valid reason to expect that people should have to. Rapists, as this person cited, are not prosecuted for their sexual urges or 'immorality', but for their acts of violence. Pedophiles are shunned not for their desire, but for the tangible harm inflicted on children. Morality is simply not a relevant issue. Even more bizarre, neither rapists nor pedophiles are restricted from marriage on the basis of their 'urges', yet this person justifies denying the institution to same-sex couples for theirs.
Simply, marriage is not rooted merely in sexual acts, but in a loving partnership between two people. Sex is neither a prerequisite nor a disqualifier for marriage. Though an individual may temper his or her sexual desires, they cannot control feelings of love toward another human being. To expect that of a same-sex couple is as cruel as it was when it was expected of an interracial couple. That someone disagrees with their choice of partner is not a valid justification to deny them their right to choose.
The feud here is not in differing definitions of morality, but in the fallacious belief that a relationship must be 'moral' to earn state civil recognition. Such an argument is a distracting red herring. If this author wishes to deny the benefits of a civil, legal marriage to same-sex couples, there must be a civil, legal reason to do so. Arguments about sexual morality are irrelevant to the discussion.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Resources for Parents Dealing with Anti-Gay Bullying
Today is the 13th annual National Day of Silence, a project of GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) to bring attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. Today would also have been the 12th birthday of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, a boy who committed suicide last week after endless anti-gay bullying and threats. In honor of both the Day of Silence and young Carl, I would like to compile a list of resources for parents who are dealing with anti-gay bullying in schools. These resources are relevant both to same-sex parents whose children are bullied for their parents' sexuality, as well as straight parents of LGBTQ children.
- Blogger Sanjay Chandra at Mom Logic published a terrific piece today featuring interviews with bullying experts who shared some of their ideas for helping manage the problem. My favorite tip came from Ross Ellis, director of Love Our Children USA about developing a "buddy system":
It's a fact that bullies rarely strike groups — they just don't have the guts. If your child is being harassed, make sure he or she walks around school with a friend, or is within earshot of a teacher. If someone does start bullying your kid, have them look the bully in the eye and say, "I don't like your teasing. Stop it right now." Then they should walk away and report the incident. If the bully pushes, teach your kid not to hit back. Bullies want a reaction, so if the victim reciprocates, the problem will worsen.
- Becoming involved in your child's school is a great way to create relationships with teachers and administrators if you later need to rely on their aid to handle a bullying problem. It will also allow you to connect with other parents with whom you can team up to combat bullying. Sometimes exposure is all parents and students need to understand that gay people are just as average and normal as they are. Robin McClure of About.com lists 12 ways you can Connect With Kids By Volunteering At School/Daycare.
- Encourage your son or daughter to participate in their school's Gay Straight Alliance. If their school does not have one, blogger Ellen Friedrichs walks you through the steps to start one. The sense of belonging and normalcy a GSA provides helps to stabilize a student's situation, and gives them a safe space to share openly with peers and receive support.
- Support groups are important for adults too, and meeting locations for gay and lesbian parents exist across the country. Gay parent magazine has a list of gay parent support groups listed state-by-state for you to attend. If you are having difficulty finding one in your area, a local gay and lesbian nonprofit or LGBT community center may be able to help.
- The Massachusetts Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth has put together a guide to bullying prevention that is useful for both parents and educators. See what your child's school's policy on anti-gay harassment is and if you feel that they are not equipped to deal with bullying, provide them with this resource.
- While I believe that an environment of diverse backgrounds and opinions is vital to building ones character, sometimes homeschooling is an appropriate solution for students who are in at-risk situations as a result of anti-gay bullying. It is not a solution that works for everyone, but it may be appropriate for your situation.
- The Lesbian and Gay Parenting Handbook is an excellent resource for LGBT parents as well. The author, April Martin, is a lesbian parent and psychologist who provides her own knowledge and experience, as well as the advice of several dozen same-sex parents that she has interviewed. The information is invaluable and comprehensive and comes highly recommended.
Do you know of another great resource of same-sex parents or parents of LGBTQ children? Share it in the comments section.
Have a question, comment, or response? 1 person does.Washington Expands Domestic Partnerships, Offers Almost-Marriage
The Washington legislature has passed SB 5688, a bill expanding the state's domestic partnership law to include all the rights of marriage. While Washington has had a domestic partnership registry since 2006, the rights afforded to same-sex couples were limited to inherence and hospital visitation. The new bill, which passed 30-18 in the state Senate and 62-35 in the House, expands the law to include:
Any privilege, immunity, right, benefit, or responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was a spouse.
Washington joins California, Oregon, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Washington D.C. in offering expanded domestic partnership or civil union recognitions to same-sex couples. It is the only one of the three west coast states not to have a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Have a question, comment, or response? 2 people do.Why Losing the Proposition 8 Challenge in California Might Be a Good Thing
Many legal organizations that champion LGBT rights are more focused on the cause than the individual. At Family Fairness, we pride ourselves on putting the needs of the individual above the cause. This because while the cause will be won in time, we believe an individual client deserves a committed, focused advocate now. I understand that losing the Proposition 8 challenge in California would be bad news to the many same-sex couples currently residing in the state. We certainly do not hope that any loving, committed couple would have their marriage overturned. But solely for the purposes of this post, I would like to pull back a bit and look at the greater picture of the fight for marriage equality, and explore why losing the court battle may be a good thing for the cause as a whole.
Following Massachusetts's 2003 ruling in favor of marriage inclusion, the charges of "activist court" were levied en masse. California's ruling in 2008 refueled these accusations, and those who opposed marriage inclusion took up the mantle of 'Democracy Defenders' and claimed that courts should never overrule the will of the people. Ads characterizing the pro-gay movement as arrogant and pushing their agenda through an elitist, democracy-hating court system were effective with California voters, who voted on narrow margins shortly after the ruling to re-restrict marriage.
The current court battle to overturn Proposition 8 led, again, to these claims of anti-democratic rule with corrupt "activist courts" imposing their will on a dissenting majority. The "will of the people" expressed through a vote, they argued, should never be overruled.
Connecticut and Iowa faced their own similar attacks, and the self-proclaimed 'marriage defenders' continued to be highly critical of the same-sex marriage movement and its use of the court system to promote equality. Opponents characterized the movement as a scary juggernaut intent on assimilating the country state-by-state. They were now casting themselves as the real victims, whose freedoms were being taken away by a panel of unelected dictators who cared more for minority interests than the majority voice. Despite the courts historically being the protectors of liberty, they successfully portrayed them as undemocratic and anti-American for acting in this role. People continued to scoff at the elitists who were "legislating from the bench".
However, these sails began to lose wind as soon as Vermont's legislature passed a bill in favor of marriage equality. At once, the criticisms were robbed of credibility; accusing Vermont of "legislating from the legislature" simply did not have the same dismissive ring to it. Same-sex marriage could not longer be labeled an undemocratic endeavor when a supermajority of 70% of a state's elected officials approved it. And then, partly because the number of states offering marriage inclusion quadrupled in the span of only a few months, and partly because the victories were no longer confined to the courts, many 'marriage defenders' began to give up and admit defeat. The arguments they had used to win so many times suddenly no longer seemed as poignant. The tide had started to turn.
But we cannot rest on the momentum of victory for long. The Proposition 8 court battle will likely reinvigorate the anti-marriage crowd regardless of the outcome. If we win the case, it may again give strength to the claims of "activist courts" that has previously energized voters to repeal marriage rights and enact discriminatory constitutional amendments. If the courts are seen "invalidating the will of the people" once again, the 'marriage defenders' will have incentive to continue to use it as ammunition against our cause. And as the newest ad from the National Organization for Marriage shows, our opponents have not yet stopped stooping to fear and misinformation to make their case.
If we are to fight the portrayal of the "storm" of same-sex marriage as a juggernaut bred by elitists to feed on the the helpless masses, the battle cannot return to the courts. If we lose the Proposition 8 challenge, the issue will go to the voters in 2010. Opinion polls are already showing that voters who originally approved of Proposition 8 now believe they were misled. And if history is to be a guide, we can only conclude that the number of people supporting same-sex marriage will increase with time. At present, California is probably the state most able to win inclusive marriage by vote. If by 2010 we have states that have enacted equality through the court system, through the legislature, and through a direct vote, the arguments that marriage inclusion is contrary to the will of the people will be successfully refuted.
In the end, our cause will be better furthered by a winning vote than by a winning court case, and California is the most likely place for this to happen in the near future.
While I do not mean to suggest that I hope to lose the challenge of Proposition 8, I do not believe that outcome would be a bad thing. To the contrary, I think our cause may be helped by returning the issue to increasingly gay-friendly voters in 2010. And while we may all have to again endure months of million dollar campaigns of ads, winning voter-approved equality may be the final stake in the heart of the slowly dying 'marriage defender' beast.
Have a question, comment, or response? 6 people do.Why Second Parent Adoptions are Vital: How Same-Sex Couples Can Lose Their Kids
As same-sex couples win more legal rights and recognitions, it is important to remember that there are still many gaps in the law. Occasionally these gaps create legal battles that end with one or both partners losing rights they assumed they had. A New York case — Debra H. v. Janice R., ___ N.Y.S.2d ___, 2009 WL 943772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1 Dept. Apr. 9, 2009) — highlights this fact particularly well.
Two months prior to the birth of their child, Debra and Janice registered a domestic partnership in their home state of New York. A month later, the pair also entered into a civil union in Vermont. But two and a half years after the birth, the two women split up. Debra petitioned the court for custodial and visitation rights over the objections of her partner Janice, the child's birth mother. On October 9, 2008, the New York trial court found in favor of Debra, finding that she stood in loco parentis to the child. This means that although Debra was neither the child's biological mother nor an adoptive parent, the court was convinced that she acted sufficiently like a parent and deserved legal recognition.
However, on April 9, 2009, a New York appellate court reversed this decision and refused Debra any parental rights to the child she helped raise for two and a half years.
In the case of heterosexual married couples, a child born during the marriage is considered to be the biological child of both the husband and wife — even if there is evidence showing that the child is not biologically related to the husband. This same presumption does not apply to couples in a domestic partnership or civil union. Married same-sex couples should receive the same benefit of this parental presumption, though there has also not yet been a case on those facts. As a result, there is some legal uncertainty in this area. However, even without the force of this presumption, acting in loco parentis as Debra had done is typically sufficient to receive legal recognition.
The court's decision is based on a 1991 New York case — Matter of Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651 (N.Y. 1991) — which found that "a party who is neither the biological nor the adoptive parent of a child lacks standing to seek custody or visitation rights." While most states recognize that certain facts may make this automatic denial of standing unjust, New York still follows this rule. As a result, Debra is unable to receive legal rights including custody and visitation with her child.
The entire situation could have been avoided had Debra entered into a second parent adoption. Adopting your partner's child is an important step for gay and lesbian couples to take regardless of your state's position on marriage or civil unions. This area of law is particularly confusing for couples given that states have different rules about how to treat our relationships. Even more confusing is that within the same state, similarly situated same-sex and opposite-sex couples will be treated differently. One should never assume that their relationship will have the same legal footing as their heterosexual friends'.
Same-sex couples should consult with an attorney to ensure that all of their expected rights will be respected, especially if there is a child involved. Uncertainty in this area may never result in a problem, but discovering your lack of legal standing during a tremulous time can make an unpleasant situation even worse.
Have a question, comment, or response? 2 people do.Colorado Approves ‘Marriage Lite’: Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act
Colorado governor Bill Ritter has signed House Bill 1260, the Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act, a bill allowing same-sex couples to obtain some of the legal rights of marriage. Though the Act falls short of a few of the rights married couples or those in a civil union would receive, it provides many important legal recognitions, including inheritance, the ability to make medical decisions, and hospital visitation rights.
The Act goes into effect on July 1, 2009 and permits two unmarried adults to designate each other as beneficiaries through a single form. Previously, many of the rights under the Act were available contractually through such legal documents as wills and powers of attorney, but these rights are now available without the additional cost of a lawyer. The Act has also added several rights not previously available under Colorado law, such as the ability to file a wrongful death lawsuit on a partner's behalf.
The Colorado state legislature previously failed to approve of civil unions for same-sex partners in 2006, the same year voters passed a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
The full list of rights provided by the Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act entitles couples to:
- Certain financial protections regarding ownership of real
and personal property- Be a proxy decision-maker or a surrogate decision-maker to make other medical decisions for the other designated beneficiary
- Be a conservator or guardian for the other designated beneficiary
- Be treated as a beneficiary under the other designated beneficiary's benefits for life insurance
- Be treated as a dependent under the other designated beneficiary's benefits for health insurance if the designated beneficiary's employer elects to provide coverage to designated beneficiaries
- Have the right to visit the other designated beneficiary in the hospital or in a nursing home
- Inherit through intestate succession upon the death of the other designated beneficiary
- Have standing to sue for wrongful death of the other designated beneficiary
- Act as an agent to make, revoke, or object to anatomical gifts involving the other designated beneficiary
- Direct the disposition of the other designated beneficiary's last remains
You can view the full text of the act here [pdf].
Have a question, comment, or response? 2 people do.