Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Protecting Marriage to Protect Children

Normally I don't post this kind of thing on the boards. I'm just not a fan of political arguments. However I thought this one was interesting because of who had written it.


Elisabeth
PS Let me know if I'm getting people in trouble by posting it in it's entirety. I wasn't sure how to do a link at the host site.


Commentary: Protecting Marriage to Protect Children
by David Blankenhorn

Note: This column first appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Sept. 19,
2008.

I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those
positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.

Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love
relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part,
because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the
intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all
opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace
this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the
California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage,
and I've come to a different conclusion.

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its
features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In
all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of
parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not
primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to
receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to
have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next
generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core
dimensions of parenthood — biological, social and legal — into one
pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man
and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love
and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child
born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the
child and to each other.

These days, because of the gay marriage debate, one can be sent to bed
without supper for saying such things. But until very recently, almost
no one denied this core fact about marriage. Summing up the
cross-cultural evidence, the anthropologist Helen Fisher in 1992 put it
simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce." The philosopher
and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of
conventional sexual morality, was only repeating the obvious a few
decades earlier when he concluded that "it is through children
alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to
be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

Marriage is society's most pro-child institution. In 2002 — just
moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so — a team of
researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported
that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the
family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two
biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development,
what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who
together made the child, who love the child and love each other.

For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make
it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought
them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the
world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights
of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last
time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of
internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning
children, who are typically society's most voiceless and vulnerable
group. Or have I now said something I shouldn't?

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his
birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover,
losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least
most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an
unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of
sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and
the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone,
including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one
another about what our society owes its children is crucially important
in the debate over initiatives like California's Proposition 8, which
would reinstate marriage's customary man-woman form. Do you think that
every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for
those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you
suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you
imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per
child is best? Do you think that "two" is a better answer
than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the
case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite
willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course,
are rarely consulted.

The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many
cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus
good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the
child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these
two good things conflict?

Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal
dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my
heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her,
I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to
strengthen the only human institution — marriage — that is
specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our
children.

Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex
couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in
those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate
homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for
all of us the very thing — the gift, the birthright — that is
marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. That's a
change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.

David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for
American Values and the author of The Future of Marriage.

The opposing argument doesn't make much sense to me. How exactly are heterosexual marriages harmed by the fact that homosexual couples respect the institution of marriage?

I really can't agree with this article. Sure, in the past, an unmarried mother was unthinkable, looked at with scorn, and punished by society that in many ways. But in today's society, marriage is not for the primary benefit of having children. Yes, the social stigma still exists, but in many places it's so slight that it almost makes no difference.

Another point that I really can't agree with. After all, there are many children without parents, adopted and unadopted, who are also "denied their birthright". The majority are born to parents who didn't want them or couldn't keep them, the rest are orphans who will never get to meet their parents. Sure, some are adopted by loving parents, but there are many that spend their lives bounced around between orphanages and foster homes, never having a stable home and two loving parents.

Now, the difference I see between the two types of marriages with children, is that the homosexual couple has to go through steps to have kids. It's thought-planned, and (usually) both parents really want the kids. Heterosexual marriages (or non-marriages, as mentioned above) are not always so. There are parents who didn't want kids to begin with but stick with it, and later resent it. There are the parents who have "accidents" who love their kids, but aren't really prepared emotionally. Who can say that which upbringing is really better overall?

I agree with both Karen and Marcus.

I'm heterosexual and happily married. I cannot see any way at all that my marriage is threatened by same-sex marriage - and I know people who are married to their same-sex partner (here in Canada, where same-sex marriage is legal and now accepted as quite normal) and their relationships are stable, unremarkable and happier than many heterosexual marriages I know. I work with one half of a lesbian couple who have just had a baby, and they're incredibly happy and the baby's being showered with every bit as much love as the children of heterosexual relationships I see around me.

As Karen says, anyway, aren't children supposed to be better off with two parents, not one? I thought that was the argument of the social conservatives over the past 20 years or so.


Wendy

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were committed, loving partners for over 50 years, yet were denied the right to marry until California legalized gay weddings. But the right to marry is available to any heterosexual couple who drive to Las Vegas and pay $55 for a license, regardless of how drunk they might be. It is discriminatory to deny marriage rights to GLBT partners, just as it used to be wrong to deny those rights to interracial couples.

Proponents of Prop 8 are using all sorts of scare tactics and justifications for their cause, but Prop 8 is not about children. Children are not necessarily the reason for, or end result, for all marriages. Should my marriage be invalidated because I had a miscarriage? Should my friend's marriage be invalid because she's unable to bear children? Should my other friend be prevented from marrying her fiance since they've both agreed in advance that they don't want to have any kids? Of course not.

It is not my place to impose my sense of morality on someone else. What takes place in someone else's marriage is not my concern. But everyone is responsible for protecting the American dream - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Voting No on Prop 8 will allow everyone to have equal access to that dream.

I agree with the other replies in this thread.

The thing that bothers me most about the article is that the writer seems to have completely overlooked the fact that not every straight biological parent is fit to be a parent. I've seen countless examples of married and unmarried straight couples and single parents that prove to be quite a hazard for their children.

He's also completely forgotten that there are many other ways for a child to be "be denied his
birthright to both parents who made him." How is being adopted by a straight couple any different than being adopted by a gay or lesbian couple in this respect?

I happen to know a woman who was adopted and raised by a lesbian couple, and she's absolutely one of the most well-adjusted people I know. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to some people, but it furthers my own belief that as long as a child is in a loving, safe environment, it doesn't matter what race, religion, or gender their parent(s) happen to be.

I disagree with the article also. I know of a very loving homosexual couple who were raising one partner's biological child when that partner became ill with cancer. Because they could not marry, the other partner lives in constant fear that he will lose the child after his partner's death.

How does that protect the child ?

I find this article confusing, because, while the author claims to be a liberal democrat, the organization for which he works is about as right as they come. It's fine by me if he's on the right, but why pretend otherwise.

Also, I would like to see some more data on why he feels marriage is primarily a legal agreement for reproduction. That may have been the case when the institution was first proposed, but that hardly seems the case now. Most people I know see marriage as a way to concretize their relationship in the eyes of those they love--regardless of whether they plan on having children some day.

Not to mention, the idea of marriage in this context seems to ignore the high divorce rate in this country. If marriages are entered into "for the children" why are people then divorcing since, presumably, they realise this is harmful to these same children?

I find it hard to buy an argument that seeks to take down homosexual marriage when it has so many questionable claims regarding heterosexual marriage in the first place.

I noticed that the replies are unanimous in rejection of this article (and an implied acceptance of same-sex marriage).

Marcus asks how heterosexual marraige is harmed by acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Karen compares a child born to a heterosexual couple with one adopted by a homosexual couple, and asks who can say which upbringing is really better overall.

Wendy asks if children are not better off being raised by a homosexual couple than by a single parent.

Capes asks for more data on why marriage should be defined as a legal agreement for reproduction in this day and age of divorce and childless couples.

Wendy, Groobie, Cape Fetish, and Allie all give anecdotal evidence of happy, well-adjusted same-sex unions.

To all of the above I offer the same set of questions:

1. Do you believe society has the right to define and regulate marriage? For example, in our society a person cannot marry (a) a minor*, (b) a sibling, parent, or other close relative, (c) a person who is already legally married, and (d) a person of the same sex. Do you believe our society has no right to place any of these restrictions on marriage, or do you simply believe that restriction d is unfair and unjust?

2. If you believe that society has the right to place restrictions on marriage (such as a, b, and c, above), what should the criteria be? How should society determine which restrictions to apply?

3. Are your questions retorical? If opponents of same-sex marriage could provide honest and valid answers to your questions above, and to any other questions you might have regarding the affects of same-sex marriage on society as a whole and children in particular, would you rethink your acceptance of same-sex marriage?


* - with some exceptions, such as the age of the minor, and parental permission. Still, our society has defined the exceptions it will allow.

Well, it seems to me, Vicki that there can hardly be comparisons between the examples you suggest.

In the case of the minor, there are sound reasons for the restriction as they are judged not to be emotionally, physically and mentally mature enough to cope with marriage. They are children, not adults.

In the case of the sibling, parent etc there are considered to be undesirable genetic reasons why marriage is not a good idea.

And in the case of someone who is already married - I assume you're talking about societies which consider themselves to be based on monogamy. In which case there would seem to be sound reasons why marrying several people at once would be a bad thing.

I don't see any connection whatsoever with any of the above to the situation of men/women who want to embark on a same-sex marriage.

They are adults and can therefore, presumably, be trusted to speak for and decide for themselves. There are no genetic barriers to them being in love, having a sexual relationship or marrying. And the relationship would be a monogamous one, therefore falling just as ably into the current legal framework of our society as a hetrosexual marriage.

Would these honest and valid answers be fact? Or simply opinion? Even biased opinion? It seems to me that they could hardly be anything but the latter. Even the question has bias as it seems to imply that the only effects a same-sex marriage could possibly have on society or children would be wholly negative. And by further implication that any 'evidence' which suggests there might be positive effects would not be honest and valid. So as evidence, it would seem to me to be greatly flawed at the outset, even before it was presented.

And if you're suggesting that 'evidence' could be presented by those opposed to same-sex marriage of examples where such marriage has harmed society as a whole or children, then my response would have to be "And...?"

Those who aren't opposed could equally provide examples of dozens, hundreds, thousands of cases where the same was true of hetrosexual marriage.

This week, the UK has been in an orgy of hand-wringing and self-examination after the death of Baby P, who was sadistically tortured by his mother, stepfather and their male lodger. Would you - could you with any degree of logic - suggest that he would have been any more at risk had his parents been homosexual?

Homosexuals are individuals. As such their experiences of marriage and of raising children will cover the full range from good to bad and all things in between, just like their hetrosexual counterparts.

So I can't see that this evidence you suggest might be out there would prove anything either way.

LabRat

Just to state what I think here. Marriage, in my opinion, must be an institution between two consenting adults whose mental faculties allow them to understand what it means to commit to and be responsible for a relationship. They must not be siblings, parent/child, grandparent/grandchild or any other very close blood relation. And... hmmmm, I guess that covers it.

Ann

Labrat,

I'm not quite sure what connects the first three restrictions on marriage, either. The only connection seems to be that society has decided these types of unions would be bad ideas, each for a different reason.

As far as the validity or honesty of arguments which claim the existence of sound reasons why society might consider same-sex marriage a bad idea, may I suggest you seem to be engaging in a logical fallacy known as the "straw man". By presenting my (supposed) arguments for me, and then knocking them down, you do me an injustice.

I know that your position is based on what you truly believe to be a tolerant, charitable, and loving attitude towards all members of society. I also know that proponents of same-sex marriage do not, as a rule, assume the same about their opponents. Rather, we are assumed to be intolerant, uncharitable, and, yes, even hateful. Thus, our arguments are dismissed as "biased" before they have even been presented. How sad.

To be honest, I'm still waiting to see an argument against same-sex marriage that is not based on child-rearing (which we have already discussed in this thread) or religious values, or tradition. I sympathise with your point that some supporters of same-sex marriage (and I'll say 'some' rather than a more blanket reference) leap to the conclusion that opponents come from a position of intolerance rather than listening to the arguments. But what are the grounds for opposition?

Religious opinions are certainly offered as a reason. I would ask, in response to that, why society should govern based on the religious principles of one group within that society? There are religious groupings still opposed to divorce, for example. Most religions and denominations oppose abortion. Both of these are available, within certain restrictions, in just about all democratic societies.

Tradition... well, I don't think I really need to address that, do I? Society changes, what we deem to be acceptable as a nation changes. Racial equality, universal suffrage, the ending of child labour: once time or another all of these and more were opposed on arguments of tradition.

So, instead of asking us why we favour same-sex marriage (and you've expressed our position very nicely), can I ask why you oppose it?


Wendy

I don't plan to get involved in this particular debate, but I did want to respond to this statement that Vicki made:
Vicki, you're expressing dismay in the way that you feel that opponents of same-sex marriage are often viewed by the proponents. That they are stereotyped as all being "......". And I can't deny that there are some people who probably do feel that way. But by your using the phrase "as a rule", you appear to be lumping most proponents into the same category. In other words, you're stereotyping that side in a similar fashion to what you feel they do.

But unfair as it is, people stereotype those who hold opposing viewpoints all the time. Although we've been able to hold a number of very fair and rational discussions on these boards, it's happened here too.

If you automatically expect bias "as a rule" from proponents of the same-sex issue, then aren't you stereotyping them, assuming that most - if not all - of those "on the other side" are thinking negative things about you. If you assume the worst from most of the members of one side; and if they assume the worst from most of the members of your side, where's the difference?

Kathy

Kathy,

As a rule, I have found my generalization to be true. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that ALL the proponents of same-sex marriage that I have spoken with have come right out and told me that they hold this view. They do not have any qualms about announcing quite publicly that they consider opposition to same-sex marriage to be an indication of bigotry, bias, and intolerance. And believe me, I have spoken with many, many proponents of same-sex marriage. I have also seen this view expressed on blogs, message boards, etc., as well as written on signs at pro-same-sex marriage rallys and the like.

However, if you or others on this message board do not share this negative (and, quite frankly, false) opinion of opponents of same-sex marriage, I am delighted to hear that.

That was, in fact, the purpose of my third question. To determine it those supporting same-sex marriage were open to an honest discussion of the pros and cons, or if they had pre-determined that any argument by the opposition would be summararily dismissed as biased and invalid.

Vicki, to be honest, I had trouble making sense of your third question. That's why I posted what I did, asking you what your opposition is based on.

There are valid, research-based and scientifically-proven reasons not to allow siblings to marry, for example. There are also very good and objective reasons not to allow minors under a certain age to marry. I have not seen any scientific or objective arguments against same-sex marriage. Seriously, the only arguments I have seen in opposition to same-sex marriage are arguments which appear to be based on values which are not shared by the whole of the community in which we live.

Now, if what you're saying is that supporters of same-sex marriage reject those values-based arguments, then, yes, we do. Because we don't share those particular values, or don't share them to the same extent. I'll be honest and tell you that this reminds me of old debates on equality for women and the civil rights movement.

Now, you're automatically assuming that we're going to ignore any arguments you make and accuse you of intolerance. Well, I haven't seen anyone do that yet, so - with Kathy - I'm just a little bit offended at your assumption I've already offered you an opportunity to explain your opposition - and I really am interested. I'd like to know. I'm certainly not going to say that you might convince me - I doubt that very much, just as I doubt that I could convince you. But do at least do supporters of same-sex marriage the courtesy of believing that we'll listen to what you have to say and that we'll agree to differ with respect if we do disagree.


Wendy

I'm not going to weigh in on the topic itself, but I've seen what Vicki's talking about.

I think part of it is that the most vocal supporters are *generally* [not all, but all I've ever seen] the... more vehement supporters. The same is true of just about any cause. The most vehement/vocal/radical supporters [or opposition] *tend* to think that of those that are on the other side and can't [or don't] engage in reasoned debate but resort to name-calling etc.

The 'normal' folk are more likely to be like Labby, Wendy and Kathy and the rest on the boards, IMO. [Not that Labby, Wendy, Kathy or anyone else around is actually *normal*. /runs for cover ] Most of them are calm, reasoned people who can - and do - participate in rallies, but aren't the 'agree or die' radical types. The 'agree or die' radical types are the one who tend to get on the news and in everyone else's faces while Labby, Wendy, Kathy, etc will engage in a reasoned debate but aren't going to get in your face about it no matter what the original topic of conversation [you know, where you start talking about the weather in line at the grocery store and ten minutes later are listening to a tirade about *fill in the blank topic*].

That's my impression of the people you're talking about, Vicki. You've met, read, etc the radicals, not the everyday supporters.

The same is true of radical pro-lifers, radical pro-abortioners [as opposed to pro-choicers, though I've met a few really radical of those folks [not folcs]], radical pro/anti-anything [hunting, gun ownership, legalizing drugs, adoption/foster care by gay couples [which my husband, who is anti to disinterested in the gay marriage thing, fully supports due to his work with kids in foster care], etc], not just those on either side of the gay marriage debate.

Does that make sense?
Carol

I can only speak for myself, so please don't take this as a blanket statement. I want to explain why I'm opposed to "gay marriage". I use quotes because, to me, the word "marriage" is the issue here.

To me, marriage is a holy sacrament between a man, a woman and God. I was raised ultra-conservative and, while I've certainly overcome most of the "thou shalt nots" of my early years, marriage is still sacred to me.

If equal rights for all is our end goal, can we call it something else? A civil union. Or a domestic partnership. Or something, anything, else. I have no issues whatsoever with any intelligent and well-adjusted person of any color, creed, race or sexual orientation having the right to inherit their life partner's property, or take on their legal responsibilities or adopt children or any of the other rights that a married couple can assume.

Is it asking so much to reserve the word "marriage" for one man/one woman?

Sorry for not coming back. Frankly, since I don't hang out on the off topic boards I forgot that I started this thread.

First, the danger to marriage in general is that when a definition includes everything than it suddenly means nothing.

Second the reason you hear most about childrearing is because, frankly, most people who want to preserve the definition of marriage that has been observed for a couple thousand years don't care about anyone's sex life but their own. Speaking for me personally, I could care less about homosexuality but I realize how precious each child is.

Everyone who has ever had a mama and a daddy know that women and men parent in a vastly different manner. Both of these parenting styles are important in the development of a child.

As for the case of abuse from heterosexual couples, I will admit that marriage is already fouled up. There are abusers who should not have access to children. Also the divorce rate isn't what it should be. But the fact that marriage is already broken isn't an excuse to try social experiments.

I have to say that I wonder why people want to fight for something they don't want to participate in. If someone is desperate to marry, then they probably would have taken the opportunity to marry when it was offered. Yet only there was only about 1 in 4 same-sex couples married in California when given the opportunity to. In Connecticut civil unions, which offer the same benefits as marriage except for the name, have been legal for years. Yet only 1 in 5 of same sex couples have chosen a civil union.

So if it isn't about sex and it isn't about benefits (if it was about benefits more people would have signed up), then I wonder what it is about?


Elisabeth

Wendy, I am at a loss here. Did I misunderstand what Labrat meant when she said the following?:

It seems fairly straighforward to me. I am unlikely to have actual facts to back me up. Indeed, my perceived bias is so great as to render me incapable of forming even a so-called "informed opinion". No, any answer I might present could hardly be more than biased opinion.

My bias is go great, apparently, that my arguments can be declared flawed and invalid, even before they are presented.

So, yes, just as has happened in the past, I was met with allegations of bias and my arguments were declared invalid before they are even presented. I responded to this by saying that I understand that proponents of same-sex marriage have good intentions, and I am saddened that the same courtesy is not extended to me.

For which I am now reprimanded, and told to please do supporters of same-sex marriage the courtesy of assuming they will listen to me.