Wednesday, March 27, 2013

The Rights of a Child

Oh, right.  Gay marriage.

So the first court case heard was about California.  Really the whole thing was the voters decision versus the state's interest.  And my guess is that the Supreme court will say since there is no constitutional guarantee, it is up to the discretion of the individual states.  Because if the court intervenes, it would limit the rights of voters and states.  The federal case....well, I'm up in the air about their decision.

The problem I see is that this isn't an issue about taxes or hospital rights.  Those are separate contracts.  If the woman who spoke about her heavy hit on inheritance tax had hired an attorney while her partner was sick, she could have avoided the problem.  Because you can give gifts to people, you can set up special trust funds, and you can have houses, cars, etc. deeded with both people's names on them.  You can even set up a power of attorney or living will.  My mother, for example, is on things that are my grandmother's. 

No, the problem is that marriage from the state's perspective is a contract between two persons to raise children and be responsible for their welfare.  As a justice said, the institution of marriage was not set-up to be against gays.  It's real value to the state is that people are held accountable to their families especially children.  Of course as technology has advanced we can now blood test people for paternity, but originally the marriage contract held men (and women) accountable.

It's in the state's interest to have this unique contract for the betterment of children and the future of society.  Divorce and single-parenting has devastating affects on children. This is backed up by research.

Well, what does this have to do with gay marriage?  Glad you asked.  Basically the court is being asked to decide if gay couples have a compelling interest to be regulated by the state for the well-being of children. 

This is problematic because gay couples cannot have children.

Wooo...hold on there...gay couples can have children.

Um, no, they can't.  Not has a couple.  Gay people have to have children with someone else.  This can be done through surrogacy, artificial insemination, or adoption.  Because every child from a biological prospective has one male parent and one female parent.  My husband tells me that they are working on creating children between lesbians, but that's a long way off and I'm sure will result in massive problems to the health of the children especially since they can only generate female children.  Point is, the couple themselves cannot have children.  You have to go outside the coupling in order to generate a child.

So?  Straight people do this all the time.

The difference is that the number of straight people who have biological children is a lot larger.  Because...and you're going to just love this...straight couples can have children with each other!  Oh, I know so mind blowing.  My husband and I have sex....and wait for it...we have children together.  If my husband were a girl, this couldn't happen.  Not ever.  I or my partner would have to make a baby with a man.  Maybe not have sex with him, but you know acquire the necessary part of him.

All snark aside...

What does this have to do with children.  Well if you talk to children who do not know their origins, you find a whole host of problems.  Adopted children can at the very least know information about their biological parents if it's necessary or when they become a certain age.  Children from donors don't typically know enough because a lot of donations are anonymous.  And in the case of male donations, men often submit multiple times.  So potentially men can have a lot of children out there which clouds the gene pool.  This is something that has to be addressed with straight couples too.

But more importantly is the social stuff.  While my husband was away, it became more apparent to me how important his role is.  He cannot be replaced by anyone.

My son is learning what it is to be male from his biological father, which is the primary same-sex role model for every child.  I cannot grow facial hair.  I can't pee standing up.  Having worked with young children raised by single moms, boys don't learn how to pee standing up very easily if they've never seen it before.  My son started doing it on his own because to him, it was normal for boys to pee standing up.  (now to actually get him to do that regularly would be nice)  It's important for boys to have a male role model in their life on a regular basis.

Men also operate differently then women do.  It's in our hormonal chemical make-up. 

There are so many compelling reasons why children need both biological parents around that I just can't see how the state has a compelling interest to change what has been a long-time established contract law.

This isn't about loving another person.  I've known many gay couples who have ceremonies.  I've known straight couples in committed relationships.  The difference is that to have a state-regulated marriage license issues means that you are agreeing to a contract to raise biological children.  It's akin to a liquor license being for the selling of alcohol.  You wouldn't change the nature of a liquor license to a drive's license.  It just doesn't make any sense.  If you want a love fest, by all means, go find someone to recognize it.  But what your asking for is the state to recognize a contract to raise children and I don't think that that is in the best interest of a child to ignore that child's biological parents.  Given that some state is recognizing three parents for a child, I'm not the only one.  We've just become so warped in society that we now think replacing a biological parent with someone else is okay.  Certainly in certain circumstances it can't be avoided.  But those should not be the norm.

Now you're probably thinking "well, by your logic, infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to enter into contracts either." 

Well, it isn't in the state's budget to force people into expensive tests, which could be wrong, to figure that out.  Also a marriage contract doesn't suddenly end upon menopause.  You don't suddenly stop raising your children because as a couple you are infertile.  Furthermore, those who marry a second time in their golden years, are rare.  Of all the grandparents in our family, only my husband's grandfather remarried.  That's one out of four.  He and his wife still, however, had parenting roles to their adult children.  You don't stop being a parent.  They both agreed to help each other out in their continuing parenting roles.

Notice religion isn't even mentioned here.  My whole argument is about marriage as a contract and the state's interest in that contract versus changing it to one of a more arbitrary nature.  If you ask me, unless the state has a compelling interest (in this case it does since our birth rates are abysmal), the state should not even regulate marriage because I don't think it should even be viewed as a contract in a legal sense.  But since I doubt that the state will end all legal marriage contracts, we have to think about the children who are the primary reason to have them in the first place. 

And this is why I can't support gay marriage legally or morally.


1 comment:

I love to read your thoughts. Thanks for sharing!