Strollerderby : same-sex marriage

Making More Marriages Versus "Making Marriage Matter Less"

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:00:00 GMT

A recent report tells us that half of all new babies born in Scotland last year were born to unmarried parents. And those statistics are indicative of a growing trend in many places of families that do not meet the imaginary norm of two opposite-sex married parents and their biological children.

Oddly enough, this lesbian mom thought first of all those Scottish babies when I heard all the good news about legal marriage expanding in the past two weeks. My partner and I can now have our Canadian marriage recognized in Sweden, Iowa and Vermont and depending on the U.S. Congress's response to the city's decision, the District of Columbia. Add these to a growing list that includes Spain, Belgium, Massachusetts, New York and of course, Canada.

Marriage is indeed a handy thing for us to have. It protects us in the event of death or accident, making sure we can care for each other in extremity and inherit from each other easily. It protects the children that come into our family while we are married, making sure we are both recognized as their parents, and thus responsible for them. But marriage isn't the only way to obtain those kinds of benefits. And same-sex marriage does nothing at all for children born to unmarried parents, whatever their gender configuration.

There are many reasons families other than the Leave it to Beaver model need recognition, care and protection from the government, but even exclusively focusing on children's needs quickly alerts us to the many ways in which marriage is not the answer to these needs.

No, a child with a de facto, but nonlegal parent can't be covered by that parent's employer-based health insurance. But even when that de facto parent becomes a legal one by caveat of a marriage to the first parent or through second-parent adoption (when available) the child will remain uninsured if that parent has no coverage herself, as many don't.

Marriage allows its members to visit each other in the hospital in emergencies, but same-sex marriage doesn't help the mother and father, unmarried to each other in such emergencies.

Marriage means any child born into the family of a married couple is automatically the legal child of both. This doesn't help live-in, unmarried partners of any sex who raise each other's children.

Marriage offers special rights to an ever decreasing percentage of the population and the children born to that group. But rather than expanding who can obtain these special rights, the government should be designing family law to protect all families in their ever-increasing variety.

Some great suggestions for doing that, based on models from countries that do it better, as well as her own brilliant legal thinking, can be found in Nancy Polikoff's book, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage. Polikoff's central idea is that we should strive to make marriage "matter less" to the well being of families, allowing it without discrimination, but only as a personal, spiritual and symbolic ritual that is not required to protect and defend families and their dependents (whether those dependents are children or dependent adults).

Universal health coverage, court arbitration for non-martial family break ups, parenting rights for all of a child's acting parents, and other reforms would go much further and protect many more people than merely extending marriage rights and privileges. Furthermore, same-sex marriage, under Polikoff's plans would cease to be a cultural or political dividing force. Why? Because families could get what they needed without "marriage" leaving marriage itself to be defined in whatever way legally toothless groups wanted to define it. If a certain church wanted to restrict marriage to women and men, it could (as all churches can now, by the way) and if another wanted to marry groups of more than two people in a spiritually meaningful ritual, it could do that as well. But access or lack of it to any of these ceremonies would have no impact on the rights of any given family.

Polikoff's ideas are simple, common sense ones and I am glad to see them in print. I hope I'll see them in law someday. I hope it more than I hope for gay marriage, however convenient that would be for my particular family.

Mother and Daughter Parted by Court after Lesbian Break Up

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:15:00 GMT

In a sad story that's been back-and-forth in the Maryland courts for three years, a lesbian mom has been denied visitation with her child after the girl's other mother changed her mind about their post-break up arrangements. A brief summary of the story here misleadingly describes the second mom as someone who "helped raise" the child.

And here's where I go into my standard lecture about marriage really being all about divorce. Because when things go well in a same-sex headed family, folks may miss tax breaks, opportunities to insure each other and experience many other headaches, but it's when things fall apart through death or break up that tragedies happen. And most often, these tragedies happen to children.

"Helped raise" is a real misnomer in this case, because the child was adopted from India. As with pretty much all countries that "send" adoptive children to the United States, India forbids same-sex parents to adopt. Therefore when a same-sex couple adopts internationally, one partner must do the adopting as a single parent while the other sits in the closet, appearing on the homestudy paperwork--if at all--as a roommate; going to visit or collect the child as a "sister" or "friend."

If the child is not--or more often cannot be--second-parent adopted by the silent partner back in the States, the child is stuck forever with one legal parent and one "de facto" parent, whom a court may or may not choose to recognize in an emergency.

Thus it is that same-sex parents lose their children to the legal parent's parents after a death; to the legal parent after a break up.

The fact is that most same-sex parents in the United States do not have access to means to both become legal parents. The law is inconsistent, most often depending on the kindness of any given judge on any given day in court, and same-sex parenting is, at times, outright forbidden by law.

Currently Maryland, in which this sad case has been unfolding offers second-parent adoption to a same-sex partner somewhat commonly in some jurisdictions, but not so commonly in others. (It is a case of each judge's discretion.) I am unclear on whether these women had access to second-parent adoption when they got their daughter ten years ago. But regardless, 10 years of parenting makes a parent, not the luck of the draw regarding who had the best profile to try a single-parent adoption when the couple decided to become moms.

And the one who really loses here, is, of course, their daughter. Somewhere there's a ten-year old girl who's just been told by a judge that her mom is not her mom, and that her relationship to her mom will not be protected by responsible, unbiased adults.

Put yourself in that child's shoes and tell me same-sex marriage is a bad idea.

Brangelina Won't Marry Until the Gays Can

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:02:00 GMT

In an interview with W magazine, Brad Pitt discussed his strong support of same-sex marriage. Having given the anti-Proposition 8 campaign $100,000 last summer, Pitt explained to W that

"People who are against gay marriage do not understand the very freedoms that they themselves are enjoying. What if someone said, ‘Sorry, no Christianity here? No Judaism. Certainly no Mormons.’ No one would stand for that, and I wouldn’t allow anyone to say that either. I’d fight them in the same way.”

Pitt claims he and partner Angelina Jolie refuse to marry until the right to do so is afforded everyone.

Who should know better than the unmarried parents of six kids the hassle of not being married? While money--which both of them have in truckloads, of course--can provide a lot of familial security, the basic rights of both parents are not protected without marriage. Even Pitt's biological children are his only if Jolie says so and allows him onto the birth certificate. If the couple were married, any children born to Jolie would be Pitt's legal children. Same-sex couples usually must adopt each other's biological or adopted children to become both legal parents. And sometimes that option isn't even available. Pitt and Jolie have a unique understanding of this, having been through second-parent adoptions for their children who were born in places that don't allow unmarried couples to adopt together (as most U.S. jurisdictions do not, if that couple is two members of the same sex).

Brangelina are hardly ordinary folk. Like I said, their money can fill a lot of the cracks legal difficulties cause for us mortals. But I appreciate them putting their power behind the cause of standing up for those without the privilege of wealth--or the privilege to marry.

Image: wmagazine.com

Breaking News: CA Supreme Court Will Hear Prop. 8 Challenges

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:40:00 GMT

In case your post-election elation is starting to wear off, here's some good news in the fight for constitutional protections. The California Supreme Court agreed today to hear the case against Proposition 8 brought by the ACLU, the City of San Francisco, and gay rights organizations. This is the same court that unwittingly brought about the Prop. 8 firestorm after they ruled that banning gay marriage violates both the fundamental right to marry and the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

The lawsuits against Prop. 8 hinge on two main arguments, namely (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) that "the measure exceeds the legal scope of a ballot initiative by allowing a majority to restrict a minority group's rights, and that it violates the constitutional separation of powers by limiting judicial authority."

The court's decision to review challenges to Prop. 8 is great news, but the fight is far from over. The court also ruled that same-sex marriages will remain illegal until it has considered the constitutionality of Prop. 8. And if it does find the measure to be constitutionally sound, the court will have to decide whether to apply Prop. 8 retroactively, nullifying the 18,000 marriages that took place between the court's legalization of same-sex marriage and the passage of Prop. 8. We'll keep you posted.

Photo: Los Angeles Times

Prop. 8 Protests Spawn Hope and Great Photos

Mom Kicked out of PTA for Prop. 8 Stance

Same-Sex Marriage: "A Tiny, Symbolic, Semantic Grain of Happiness"

Shannon LC Cate — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:24:00 GMT

For those of you who missed it, here's Keith Olberman of MSNBC on the passage of Proposition 8, overturning the right to same-sex marriage in California:

Olberman makes some excellent points, but the one quibble I have with him is the notion that marriage is merely a semantic point when other legal options--like civil unions--exist. If it isn't called "marriage" an enormous loophole is created, allowing legislatures to come in and rewrite rights and privileges for "married" people only. We have to have one word for one set of rights and responsibilities.

Strollerderby Playdate: Feminist Mormon Housewives

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:30:00 GMT

I have a confession. I really like Mormons. I can't help it, most of them are just really nice people. And if you know the history of the LDS in the United States, you know they have been--historically--some of the most oppressed people in the country. They were fired on by federal troops and basically chased West to territory no one else wanted. They were polygamists (I know, I know, the LDS Church has a strong official stance against polygamy now) and were hated and condemned for their non-mainstream sexuality and "lifestyle choices." This makes me feel they are queer kin, in an odd way.

I am not now and have never been a Mormon myself, but I have had several LDS friends over the years. I always have a big disconnect when confronted by the face-to-face super niceness of Mormon individuals in spite of the institutional nastiness of the official church's positions on thing I care very much about. Imagine my delight at finding the Feminist Mormon Housewives, a group blog by, well, a bunch of feminist Mormon housewives. Lately, they've been on about the election, of course. Most of them were big Obama supporters and they had some dissident things to say about the big LDS push to pass Proposition 8 in California. (As does, Mormons for Marriage, an unrelated, but also terrific site.)

Even if the Mormons have been historically oppressed in the United States, they sure as heck are not the underdogs anymore. In fact, they are a huge, monied, powerful organization with a strong top-down organizational style which yes indeed, contributed mightily to Proposition 8's passing. It's good to know that there are women in this church who are not only thinking, but speaking for themselves in eloquent and intelligent ways rather than toeing a party--or religious--line.

Hey White Queers, Don't Get All Sarah Palin, Now

Adoption Ban Passes; Fails to Eliminate Queers and their Spawn from the Earth

Separation of Church and State=Same-Sex Marriage

Hey White Queers: Don't Get All Sarah Palin, Now

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:30:00 GMT

Talk around the media is that the passing of anti-gay ballot measures last Tuesday in California, Arizona, Florida and Arkansas can be blamed on/attributed to high minority turnout due to Barack Obama heading the ballot.

Wait just a minute.

Proposition 8 passed by the skin of its teeth last week, while a similar measure passed with more than a 60% margin in the last election--you know, the one without the record-breaking minority turnout. Even if 70% of Black voters voted for Proposition 8, that's a slim number, given the fact that minorities are a minority--in California, Blacks make up 6% of the population. But after Bush's re-election brought about a bushel of "ban gay marriage" results in several states, no one blamed the white people.

But the media loves to play this race-baiting game as much as Sarah Palin,--if in more measured tones. They are looking for a gimicky way to talk about Obama's election in terms of race and "oh the irony! civil rights denied by Black people at the apex of their own triumph over oppression!" is a catchy and clever-sounding headline, as long as you don't think about it too deeply.

But we can't be neatly divided into The Blacks versus The Gays, however much easier that makes it on a harried copywriter with an election analysis deadline. One big reason? Psst, come closer, closer...there are black gays!

And their churches don't all hate them anymore than white churches all hate white gays. In fact, as with predominately white Christian denominations, predominately Black ones have a range of opinions on the question of sexuality and a good number of theologians, ethicists and biblical scholars who fully support glbt people and their full inclusion in society and the Church. A cursory mental survey of my own friends brought none to mind who are A) Black, Latino, Asian or another racial minority and B) opposed to same-sex marriage. And yes, that's more than one person, yo.

Here's another dirty little fact. A minority of white voters voted for Barack Obama. Don't believe me because every white person you know is an Obamanic? Look at CNN's exit polls. Read it and weep: 43% of whites voted for Obama. And if you remove the 18-29 demographic, it's about 41%. Does this mean white voters are racist? Of course not. It means that we need to start looking for a new way to think about race and its meaning in the United States. We need to stop stereotyping and knee-jerking and get to know each other.

In the first few months of an Obama presidency, we are going to see nuts creep out of the woodwork in record numbers. There is a good chance that some will use this presidency to harden, and even recruit for, their racist agenda. Those of us whose visions of change and hope and expanded notions of citizenship won the day last week need to pull together. If you are feeling let down by the anti-gay ballot measures and looking for someone to blame, blame racism. A lack of interest in the concerns of queers of color has long been a problem in large queer organizations in the United States. A complimentary lack of knowledge about the struggles of all racial minorities, gay or straight, has handicapped those organizations. Let this defeat be a lesson to those who want to expand the freedom of this country to work together, learn about each other and start breaking down walls built of everything from fear to mere convenience. If Barack Obama can shatter a glass ceiling like the presidency, it's the least we can do to help him bring the rest of the building down.

Arkansas Adoption Ban Passes, Fails to Eliminate Queers and their Spawn from the Earth

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:01:00 GMT

The saddest thing about the anti-gay ballot initiatives that passed Tuesday in California (banning same-sex marriage), Florida (banning even same-sex civil partnerships) and Arkansas (banning foster care and adoption by unmarried couples ie: same-sex couples) is the effect they have on the children of same-sex parents.

I don't think my partner and I would feel much need for legal marriage if we didn't have children. If we didn't have children, I'd be working full-time for my own benefits and wouldn't need hers. I'd have my own retirement security, probably be able to make the house payments if anything happened to her.

But we have two children and being able to both be their legal parents is critical to their well-being. As adoption attorney, Jennifer Fairfax points out in this article from US News and World Report,

"Adoption gives the child two legal parents, two people who have to support the child, two people that the child can inherit from. If the parent dies, the child can get security from either."

Considering the high value social conservatives place on stay-at-home parents, one would think that helping families support a stay-at-home parent by making sure that either parent can provide health benefits and other legal protections to the family's children would be a priority, leading to support for same-sex adoption and/or marriage.

My partner and I are lucky. We were able to adopt in one of a handful of jurisdictions that have strong court precedents for granting same-sex co-adoptions, though this jurisdiction does not have a law protecting these adoptions specifically. As such, either of us can give our children what straight parents take for granted. Our children can rely on the fact that if anything happens to one of us, their lives will not be further disrupted by legal questions about the status of their surviving parent.

Marriage would grant these rights automatically, as married couples always have the right to petition to adopt together and a married woman who gives birth can automatically name her legal spouse the child's other parent--regardless of whether or not the second parent is biologically related to the child. Marriage would also save us between $50,000 and $100,000 in taxes and other "fees" associated with cobbling together legal protections for our family over the years of raising our children. College fund, anyone?

When people oppose same-sex adoption, what they oppose is an idea that falls short of their ideal of two married, opposite-sex parents. But the plain truth of fact is that millions of children do not live in these kinds of families already. Banning their actual family structures from legal recognition and protection does not help those children magically attain the two-opposite-sex-parents ideal, even if you want to believe (against the word of authorities like the American Academy of Pediatrics) that ideal really is best.

What opponents of same-sex marriage and/or adoption do not understand is that these arguments are not theoretical. Banning various people from various institutional protections will not make those people go away. In fact, the "gayby" boom continues boomingly on unchecked. Every young queer high school or college student I talk to these days simply assumes that she or he will someday be a parent. It is not just a double-standard for adults gay rights opposition upholds, but a double-standard for increasing numbers of children (at least 90% of whom, for the record, will grow up to be heterosexual). When you deny me the right to marry or the right to adopt with my partner, you deny my children the same security yours take for granted. You may not like it, but my children are here now and they aren't going anywhere. Don't they deserve the same protection as their playmates?

Image note: Which child deserves the protection of two legal, married parents?

Separation of Church and State=Same Sex Marriage

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:00:00 GMT

Finally! Someone from a religious perspective is talking sense about gay marriage. (And it's in the newspaper.) Joseph Conn, spokesperson for Americans United for the Separation on Church and State told the San Jose Mercury news:

"At its heart, the marriage issue is a church-state issue...In effect, you have several of the large faith groups trying to impose their viewpoint on marriage on the whole state. That's really what's going on with this referendum."

Precisely. Civil marriage is a legal status granted by the state. It has nothing to do with religious marriage which is granted or not by religious traditions in a wide variety of ways. Hence many same-sex couples have received blessings on their unions from their religious communities but lack any civil rights based on legal marriage. Hence, same-sex couples in states that marry them have those civil rights and may or may not have received any kind of blessing from a religious entity.

I have long-believed that the confusion people have about the difference between what a religious entity does in marrying and what the state does in marrying is the crux of the disagreement about "gay marriage." Churches will never have to marry same-sex couples if doing so offends their beliefs. Think about it. No church has to marry anybody now if doing so offends their beliefs. Most Roman Catholic churches won't marry non-Catholics unless they convert and/or the non-Catholic member of a couple promises to allow any children to be raised Catholic. Orthodox Jewish rabbis often have similar policies. Various churches I have attended had requirements to marry that included church-based premarital counseling, church membership of a year or longer and even a history of contributing money to the church.

In spite of these rules, the Roman Catholic Church is not lobbying to outlaw marriage for non-Catholics. But that's the level of absurdity to which religious opposition to same-sex marriage falls.

In this country, we have something called freedom of religion. That means we are free to practice or not practice any religion we choose. It also means we are free from the government making laws based on the beliefs of any particular religion and enforcing them upon everyone.

And this married, Christian, lesbian mom says thank God for that.

Related Posts by this Writer:

Proposition 8 Propaganda

First Graders Surprise Lesbian Teacher at Wedding

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part One, Marriage

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part Two, Adoption

Image: http://mwood919.blogspot.com/

How Low Will They Go?

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:02:00 GMT

It was bad enough when they used their own kids to promote intolerance, but this one comes right from the department of dirty tricks:

Remember the happy-happy-joy-joy photos of the first grade teacher's wedding at San Francisco city hall? Now those pictures--including the students who came to wish her well--have been used in a new ad promoting Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative to criminalize same-sex marriage.

Parents are outraged that their children's images are being used this way. All parents were informed of the wedding trip in advance and given the opportunity to decline. Two children's parents did decline and their children remained at the school for regular instruction. But Proposition 8 supporters are claiming public schools will "teach" same-sex marriage against parents' wills if same-sex marriage remains legal in California.

Ironically then, the children present for the wedding had parents who support same-sex marriage and those parents don't want their children used to promote something they don't believe in. Said one mom:

"You can't use children's images in political statements like this. No one asked us to use our children. No one talked to us about this. And I feel like my children are being manipulated."

So the people who claim children will be taught something against the wills of parents are using children against the wills of parents.

That's a terrific message for all our children: when you don't get your way, toss your so-called values to the wind.

Related Posts by this Writer:

Proposition 8 Propaganda

First Graders Surprise Lesbian Teacher at Wedding

Goin' to Connecticut, Gonna Get Married

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part One, Marriage

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part Two, Adoption

image: sfgate.com

Proposition 8 Propaganda

Shannon LC Cate — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:25:00 GMT

Ambivalent thanks to Mombian for bring this one to our attention. Some back-alley, fly-by-night television advertisers have made a cringe, gag, shudder-worthy Yes on Proposition 8 spot. As a refresher for those of you who don't live in California, Proposition 8 is the ballot initiative to de-legalize recently legalized same-sex marriage. And they say we indoctrinate our children in unnatural acts. Just how natural is this?

Related Posts by this Writer:

First Graders Surprise Lesbian Teacher at San Francisco Wedding

Goin' to Connecticut, Gonna Get Married

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part One, Marriage

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part Two, Adoption

Sarah Palin is not a Lesbian

LGBT Magnet Schools Help or Hurt?

image: zazzle.com

First Graders Surprise Lesbian Teacher at San Francisco Wedding

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:30:00 GMT

When a class offirst-graders surprised their devoted teacher by showering her with rose petals after her city hall wedding, that anti-gay marriage crew in California turned it into political fodder. Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative in California that would ban such weddings in the future. But though the group called this field trip "indoctrination" it was optional and two children were kept at school when their parents did not consent.

Interim school director, Liz Jaroslow called the wedding a "teachable moment" and said the issue was important enough to her to put her job on the line.

For a sweet video of the occasion, hop over to the SFGate.

Related Posts by this Writer:

Goin' to Connecticut, Gonna Get Married

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part One, Marriage

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part Two, Adoption

Sarah Palin is not a Lesbian

LGBT Magnet Schools Help or Hurt?

Image: sfgate.com

California Mamas and Mamas (and Papas and Papas) Are Gettting Married!

Erin White — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:15:00 GMT

Dry those tears you're shedding over Jodie and Cydney!

Hollywood might be losing a golden lesbian couple, but the state of California is gaining a place in the history books with today's State Supreme Court decision to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage.

YEEEEHAAAA!

Nearly 4 years ago to the day, it was my home state that was ruling on same-sex marriage. A few months later my partner and I were legally married in our living room. And a few months after that, my partner's name was typed onto our daughter's birth certificate right below mine.

I believed it then and I really believe it now: A victory for same-sex marriage is a victory for children. Everyone's children.

As one little boy I know said when his Massachusetts moms told him they were going to get married: "Hooray! Now we all get to go on a cruise!"

Washington Initiative Requires Married Couples to Have Kids

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:01:00 GMT

In Washington state, an initiative filed by supporters of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years or else have their marriages annulled. Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a group that was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment. All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

The initiative is in response to claims by right-wingers that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation. Supporters of the initiative feel that if same-sex couples can be barred from marriage because they cannot have biological children together, then all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.

Supporters need more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot. And I kinda hope they do it.

New Initiative Says Couples Must Have Kids or Else!

Karen Murphy — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:10:00 GMT

Irony in politics? I like it! A group favoring same-sex marriage in Washingon State has proposed an initiative requiring that heterosexual couples must procreate within three years of marriage or face having their marriage annulled. Under the measure marriage could be between men and women only, and couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license. All other marriages would be deemed "unrecognized", and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

The idea behind the initiative would be that the state supreme will strike down the initiatives as unconstitutional, weakening the basis for the same-sex marriage ban upheld by that court last summer, thereby paving the way for a successful appeal. I'm absolutely giddy with excitement over the humor and absurdity of this initiative, which should prove at the very least to "be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."