Sunday, 24 November 2013

Why Same-Sex Marriage Is Like Opening Pandora's Box by André Jenkins

André Jenkins

I oppose same-sex marriage.
Unlike the vast majority of cases against same sex marriage I am not going to use arguments of procreation, or compare same-sex parenting to heterosexual parenting. I will use neither religious arguments, nor natural law arguments, nor arguments based on preference.
Rather this case, which is a secular case, made by a secular writer, emphasizes overlooked aspects of the empirical costs of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Some of the overlooked aspects include the ways in which same sex marriage expands the marital institution to include gender identity, transgender individuals, transsexual individuals, bisexual individuals who want a same-sex marriage, and how these new dimensions will impact the marriage institution.
The marriage institution will be impacted not because same-sex couples can’t procreate within their union, but rather quite the opposite: the fact that there are many same-sex couples raising children will change family law within the marriage institution.

How Transgender, Transsexual, and Bisexual Identities will Impact the Marriage Institution

The legalization of same-sex marriage opens the door for the final blow to sex distinctions within marriage and within society. The combination of the legalization of SSM (same-sex marriage), the legal acknowledgement of transgender identity, transsexual transitions, bisexual individuals, and reverse transsexual transitions, has created new dimensions to the marriage institution that will now include not only heterosexual, but also homosexual, bisexual, transsexual and transgendered individuals.

Individuals who were once husbands in a marriage can now become wives, and wives can now become husbands either with or without a sex-change operation “within” a marriage.
A male can become a female, and a female can become a male, a boy can be a girl, a girl can be a boy, a mother can now become a father with or without a sex-change operation “within” a marriage, a grandfather can now become a grandmother or a grandmother a grandfather, an uncle can become an aunt, and an aunt can become an uncle.

Darren Rosenblum, a gay man who identifies himself as a “mother” writes in his paper "Unsex Mothering: Toward a New Culture of Parenting":
"In the actual act of parenting, biology plays no necessary role. Unsexed mothering is relational, not biological, and it is an act, not a fixed identity. While biological elements may undoubtedly further that relationship, one need not engage in these functions in order to mother a child. A male parent could say to others, “I am the child’s mother.”
In his debate against Dennis Prager, Perez Hilton echoes a similar thought process. He argues that males and females are only different in relation to their body parts, but overall males and females can accomplish the same things."

In other words males and females, in principle, are not pre-disposed to having certain essential and unique qualities different from one another that make them better suited as mother or father. Hilton stated:

"I believe that men and women are the same… I believe that I am the same as my sister…We may havdifferent body parts, but we're...[we] make equal contributions to society." [Typically he confuses sameness with equality.]

Dennis Prager responded to Perez by stating:
"Perez, I actually respect your intellectual honesty here. See, a lot of people I debate on this acknowledge that men and women are profoundly different. Perez thinks that we are, except for body parts, identical. If you believe that, then it doesn't matter what gender you marry." [Haha! No need then for same sex marriage!]

In her paper “When Children Are Better Off Fatherless,” Michele Weldon argues that children don’t even need male fathers. In support of her case she quotes Joseph Pleck’s (of the University of Illinois) book “Fathers in Cultural Context,” in which Pleck writes: “The notion that fathering is essential to children’s social and personality development seems to be a uniquely American preoccupation. Current research actually provides little support for … this popular conception of paternal essentiality.”

Even in same-sex parenting research, biology is downplayed. Professor Douglas Allen notes in his assessment of same-sex parenting studies:
"One element of feminist theory that crops up within this literature is the irrelevance of biology — a major theoretical competitor to feminist theories of the family. The importance of gender over sex has already been mentioned. Males can make good parents if they parent “like a female.” Another area is in the role of “social mother,” the mother not biologically related to the child. Goldberg et al. (2008) claim that by the time a child is 3.5 years old, children are indifferent between the biological and social mother. Based on a biased sample of 30 couples and some very soft questions they conclude: “These women demonstrate the power of “social motherhood” in creating maternal connections that transcend biological relatedness over time" (432).

The Iowa Supreme Court also echoed that a parent’s sex doesn’t matter when they concluded:
"The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else." In Varnum v Brien Supreme Court of Iowa, No. 07–1499, Filed 3 April 2009 (54 fn. 26).

From the above quotes it is reasonable to conclude that if one is to accept same-sex marriage, one must also accept the premise that male and females and all of the manifestations that traditionally derive from male and female distinctions (man, woman, mother, father, husband, wife, boy, girl etc.) are not biologically binding. 

I provide additional support for this contention with the following examples of transsexual and transgender individuals who transitioned “within” their marriages and still maintained their marriage.

One example is the case of Jonni and Angela Pettit in Pacifica, CA.

Angela used to be David but underwent sex-reassignment surgery. He decided he wanted to live as a woman, and Jonni still wanted to stay married to David even after his SRS operation. Here we see the transition not just from a male to female, but from a husband to a wife, and from a heterosexual marriage to a same-sex marriage.

In an article entitled “A Mom Becomes A Man, And A Family Sticks Together,” Les, who was born a female and married to her husband, felt like a man inside and wanted to transition into a man.
After she told her husband Scot about how she was feeling, Scot was surprised at first but was supportive of the transition and wanted to stay married. Scot and Les had 2 daughters before Les’s transition. In this case we not only see the transition from a female to a male, but also the transition of a wife to a co-husband, a mom to a dad, a heterosexual marriage to a same-sex marriage.

Laura Lang tells the story of Alyson Meiselman who was born Alan and transitioned “within” his marriage:
"Alyson Meiselman, born Alan Meiselman, started taking hormone treatments last year and now dresses in women's clothing. Her driver's license, her birth certificate, and all her other important documents say she's a woman. In the next few months, she'll take a trip to Canada, where a doctor will perform gender-reassignment surgery--completing her transition. It's a big change, but Meiselman and her family like to say that nothing else, really, about their lives in North Potomac, Md., is different. She remains spouse and "Dad" to her wife and three kids. She's also continuing a family law practice in Montgomery County, despite snubs from colleagues and a judicial bench that's hardly greeted her with open arms. In this case we see the transition from male to female, but there is a curveball in this case in that there is no transition from dad to mom. The children still see their now female parent as “dad."

The example of Thomas Beatie is actually a transgender case due to the fact that Thomas never fully transitioned into a male and he still became pregnant even though his “gender identity” was legally changed. Before his marriage Thomas (who was and still is a female) had undergone a double mastectomy, and had taken testosterone since 1997: 
He changed all his legal paperwork to reflect his transition from female to male, but he retained his female reproductive organs and bore three children during his marriage to Nancy; he had stopped taking testosterone around 2006 in order become pregnant, as Nancy had had a hysterectomy. In late March a judge in Arizona ruled that Beatie and his wife, Nancy Roberts Beatie, could not be granted a divorce because they could not be considered legally married. Maricopa County Family Court judge Douglas Gerlach said there was insufficient evidence that Beatie was male when the couple married in Hawaii in 2003, although Hawaii considered them a legally married, opposite-sex couple; they moved to Arizona in 2010. Beatie is appealing the ruling, saying it fails to recognize his gender identity, that he wants his children to know their parents were legally married, and that he fears complications if he wants to marry again.
 [He fears complications?  Oh my God, what a mess!]

The added dimension of transgender identity to the marriage institution was specifically emphasized when New Zealand legalized same-sex marriage. Elizabeth Mcdonald writes:
"The legislation, does not just provide that same-sex couples may marry. Section 5 of the act amended the interpretation section of the Marriage Act 1955 to read: "marriage means the union of two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity" (emphasis added). This definition is significant as it allows the marriage of any two people, without the need for either person to define themselves as either the same or different sex as their partner, or to be legally recognized as either male or female. The definition therefore will allow a transgender man (someone born with a female body who has a male gender identify) to legally marry a cisgender woman (someone born with a female body and a female gender identify) without having to first establish his legal sex. It allows a person who identifies as intersex (a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive anatomy that does not seem to fit with the typical biological definitions of female or male) and whose birth certificate records their sex as indeterminate to marry any other person."

In Italy, a Bolognese couple, Alessandro and Alessandra Bernaroli, had their marriage dissolved by the State against their will when the “former” husband and now co-wife, Alessandro, changed sex and became Alessandra. The local marriage registry took note of her name change and automatically dissolved their marriage because it was a same-sex marriage.

Darren Rosenblum writes: “We now know, based on social science, theory, and practice that the identities of 'male' and 'female' are not irrevocably attached to biosex. Men can become women and women can become men. Furthermore, gender itself shifts; 'women' can be 'masculine' and 'men' can be feminine.”

If what Rosenblum writes is true, then many questions need to be posed. For it seems that supporting the seemingly modest demands of the LGBT movement -- such as same-sex marriage--necessitates accepting a whole host of existential changes that were neither presented to the public in good faith, nor scrutinized closely for their potential collateral damage.

SSM is both a battering ram and a bridge.

Since the institution of marriage has a high status and recognition in society, the legalization of same-sex marriage acts as both a battering ram and a bridge to open the door for the annihilation of existing sex distinctions and gender distinctions, as well as the manifestations of an entirely new sexual system.

There are many manifestations throughout society that have risen to the surface as a result of blurring the lines of sex distinctions and the entrance of transgender identity. (Keep in mind that a transgender person has not physically or will not physically change their body, but still identifies as the opposite sex, whereas transsexuals have changed their bodies to the opposite sex.)

Examples of this can be seen most clearly in Massachusetts (the first state to legalize SSM), Canada (the second country to legalize SSM), and California (the most populous state to legalize gay marriage).
Lindsey Tanner reports that there is an increase of children in Massachusetts who are undergoing sex transitions:
His report (Dr. Norman Spack) details a fourfold increase in patients at the Boston hospital. His Gender Management Service clinic, which opened at the hospital in 2007, averages about 19 patients each year, compared with about four per year treated for gender issues at the hospital in the late 1990s. 
The report details 97 girls and boys treated between 1998 and 2010; the youngest was 4 years old. Kids that young and their families get psychological counseling and are monitored until the first signs of puberty emerge, usually around age 11 or 12.

The Huffington Post has a page full of examples of the increase in people “coming out of the closet” as transgendered.
In the UK, same-sex marriage has also been legalized. The country is also seeing a growing trend in transgendered children: The number of children wanting a sex change in 2012 saw an increase of 50 per cent compared to the previous year. According to The Royal College of Psychiatrists people are coming forward at a younger age as the internet fuels increasing knowledge and acceptance of transgender people. Campaigners have called for more routine use of puberty-delaying drugs for children who feel from a young age that they are in the wrong body.

Massachusetts has also made it legal for transgender children who “psychologically” identify as the opposite “gender” to use the restrooms, locker-rooms, changing rooms, and participate on sports teams of individuals’ of the opposite “sex.” Here we see the confusion between “sex” and “gender.” Massachusetts public schools (junior high and high schools) also have transgender workshops promoting the transgender lifestyle. Many more examples of the annihilation of sexual distinction in Massachusetts are thoroughly documented by Mass Resistance pages such as this one and this one.

In Canada, Bill C-279 will soon be legalized which lets transgendered individuals use private female spaces such as restrooms, locker-rooms, communal showers, etc.  In California, where same-sex marriage has also been legalized, The California State Assembly passed a bill mandating that schools permit transgender identified individuals to participate on athletic teams and use locker-rooms of the “gender” they identify with regardless if they are of the opposite “sex.” The bill’s author was a gay activist by the name of Tom Ammiano.

In her article entitled “Shape-Shifters are Changing America” Fay Voshell describes the above trans accommodations by making the following points:

"Mostly unbeknownst to most of us mortals, a modern day shape-shifter can become the opposite of the sex he or she was born as, transforming into a man or woman in an instant. It doesn't matter if the biological assignment given at birth remains. Proclamation of one's sexual identity is enough. One's gender can be established by fiat. Even children may change sex just by proclamation, as the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary School guidelines affirm, stating that even if a child physiologically resembles a boy in every respect, but decides to be a girl, his new identity is to be acknowledged as the "real" one. The modern-day equivalent of the gods visiting unsuspecting women unawares in areas where they thought they were safe from male predators just might be the ladies' public bathroom, now open in an ever increasing number of states to any man who self-identifies as a woman. The 6'4" hairy guy who just came into the women's bathroom to relieve himself is not at all what he appears to be. No; no! He is a sort of god in disguise. He has by mere will transformed himself into a woman. Move along, lady. There's nothing to see -- or fear. Don't believe your lying eyes."

All of the above example are manifestations of what happens when a country’s central institution is desexed and the individuals within such an institution can morph back and forth between sex, gender, mother and father, husband and wife, boy and girl, male and female, heterosexual marriage and same sex marriage.

Deeper Implications

The following questions have been summoned by feminist writer Elizabeth Hungerford:

"The maxim “trans women are women” is a false equivalency that means at least three things. First, it means that being raised as girl from birth is not an important or relevant aspect of being a “woman” because one can be a woman without these formative experiences. Second, it means that having a female body is not an important or relevant aspect of being a “woman” because one can be a woman without being female bodied. And third, it means that to be a “woman” simply reflects an individual’s desired relation to the social category “woman;” rather than serving as shorthand for the physical and cumulative experiential realities specific to female-born (and certain intersex) people around the globe.
To be a “woman” is to have been assigned the girl/woman social position at birth;[YES Abaolutely right] subjective identification with that social position is irrelevant and varies wildly. Reducing the experience of womanhood to a subjectively defined “inner knowledge” that is “inclusive” of anyone who claims to have such inner womanly knowledge erases the lived realities and material constraints placed on women and girls from birth– regardless of whether women enjoy being “women” or not, and regardless of whether they “identify” with other women or not."

Hungerford’s argument that to be a woman is in part, to have the social experiences that women face every day due to their biology that males don’t have, is strengthened by a transsexual individual that was once a male but is now a female when asked, “How differently are you treated now that you are a woman from when you were considered male?" Here was the answer:

"Wow, there’s a whole book in answer to this question, I think the first thing that was noticeable was that overnight people stopped automatically assuming that I was right about stuff, my factual advice was treated as suspect, whereas emotional advice was taken more seriously. People also seemed to not be able to tell when I was joking as quickly, there was an expectation that I would be serious, that any sarcasm, or pretending not to get something for comic effect was me actually not getting things. The pressures to behave were changed, before I transitioned I was very skinny and I remember my mum telling me that I needed to bulk up because “what if you were on a bus and a woman got on with a baby, you’d need to be able to help her with her pram, what sort of a man wouldn’t be strong enough to do that?” as soon as I transitioned it was suddenly not an issue.”

Another feminist writer by the name of GallusMag takes her readers down the dark road that denying “sex” distinctions leads to when she writes:
"But they (transgender women) do more than deny female reality and make kooky claims: They are using the political capital of Lesbians and Gays to pass laws enforcing their male-centric female-phobic sexist views. “Gender Identity Protections” are laws that eliminate sex-based protections for females.
Examples of such protected areas are: bathrooms, hospital bed assignments, prisons, locker rooms, sports competitions, statistical data collection, Title IX endowments, women’s health resources, statistics and research endowment, sex-based crime statistics, support groups, rape crisis centers, communal showers, children’s sleepover camps, women’s shelters, and women’s colleges.
One of the tropes Transjacktivists use to promote and legalize their desire to eliminate female spaces is to assert that males with GID are speshul snowflakes or claim that males wouldn’t adopt transgenderism in order to prey on women. Or that males who are arrested repeatedly for getting off on watching women perform intimate activities (in places they assume they are free from males) wouldn’t go through the trouble of putting on a wig that makes those same activities legal. Whut??? Are you out of your mind? Why wouldn’t a guy who risks arrest repeatedly to invade women’s space comply with measures which make his activities legal?? It’s considerably less inconvenient to put on a skirt and some lippy than to be arrested and processed, make bail, go before a judge, etc. etc. "

Transjacktivists claim that arrest statistics for peeping and perving don’t show a sharp increase in states where men are allowed in women’s spaces. Of course they don’t. Making a formerly illegal behavior legal seldom results in more arrests for (now legal) behavior. Duh! The truth is that guys do this all the time. And they’ll do whatever it takes to perv on females.

Here are some of the things they’ll do to get into female spaces: Hide cameras and microphones in female spaces. Crawl through ventilation ducts to view female spaces. Install double mirrors to view female spaces. Drill holes in walls to peep at women’s spaces. Place cameras in shopping bags next to females wearing skirts. Risking arrest –and repeat arrest- sneaking into women’s restrooms. Dress up as and try to pass as female. Claim they are female. Try to pass laws permitting men who claim they are female to legally enter spaces where females do not want men. Try to pass laws that state that females don’t actually exist. Force law enforcement and media outlets to report male crimes against women as woman-on-woman crime, if the male is diagnosed with GID.

So what does all of this have to do with same-sex marriage? Thus far I have demonstrated that in order to accept the premise that same-sex marriage should be legalized, one will have accept that there are no inherent differences (besides mere body-parts) between males and females. One must presume that they don’t have different natures, or thought processes, or behavioral patterns.

If one thinks that there are no inherent differences between males/females then, one also must accept that it doesn’t matter for a child to have a biological male and biological female as parents, just any two loving, responsible people with parenting skills will do.

Thus since there are no distinctions between males and females, then a man can become a woman, a woman can become a man, a mother can become a father, a husband can become a wife, an uncle can become an aunt, a grandmother can become a grandfather. More importantly, a child doesn’t need a male parent or a female parent in particular because both sexes don’t offer anything unique and essential to the child “in principle”. Both sexes are interchangeable.  Thus if nothing is different then what is the difference if a non-op or a pre-op male uses a female restroom, locker room, or rape shelter; or is included on a woman’s athletics team?

Biology on Trial in Same-Sex Custody Cases

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if there is no legal primacy given to a responsible, biological parent in three way, gay and lesbian custody battles? For example in Australia when “a sperm-donor/hands-on dad has his parental rights terminated in favor of those of a lesbian mother with no biological relationship to the child"?

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a gay sperm donor (to a lesbian couple) who played an active role in his child’s life, doesn’t get acknowledged by law as a parent and therefore cannot see his child because the lesbian couple moved far away?

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a sperm donor decides not to pay child support to a lesbian parent in the event that the lesbian and her partner broke up and when no doctor was involved in the insemination process (which would have discounted the sperm donor as a parent)?

If nothing is different, then what is the difference if a bisexual woman who had a child through IVF in her lesbian relationship, broke up with her lesbian partner, started a romantic relationship with the original sperm donor, attempted with the sperm donor to get full parental rights of the child, and the sperm donor doesn’t get parental rights, but the non-biological ex-lesbian partner of the bisexual gets parental rights instead?

If nothing is different, then what is the difference when a man who was once married to his wife for 20 years, comes to the conclusion that he is gay, gets divorced from his wife with whom he had a 12-year-old son, and his ex-wife tries to deny him overnight visitation because his cohabitating partner is gay and she thinks that her 12-year-old boy will have a difficult time understanding his father’s sudden switch of sexual orientation and cohabitation with a same-sex partner?  Is it in the child’s best interest for his father with a recent drug-addicted past to keep him overnight when he cohabits with a same-sex partner, especially when the child is accustomed to seeing his father with his mother?

Moreover, if Arkansas was a state that legalized same-sex marriage and the father was married to his same-sex partner, would this be an issue? What are the negative impacts on the institution of marriage from cases like this? Most importantly, even if Arkansas legalized same-sex marriage, and this particular situation wouldn’t be an issue, the question remains: “is it in the best interest of the child who has known his father as being in a heterosexual relationship with his mother, to stay overnight in the context of his married father’s house?"
I ask this question assuming that the father’s companion is a harmless person, but yet at the same time emphasizing the child and the child’s understanding of the situation.

Bizarre situations like this which are unique to (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, unions) will continue to arise in the court systems.
Some courts have tried to tap dance around these issues by making three or more legal and equal parents, such as in Pennsylvania, Florida, and California.

Three or more equal, legal parents is something that is "in principle" a homosexual circumstance due to the fact that gays and lesbians "always" need a 3rd party and sometimes even 4 parties to have a child. The bill signed by Governor Jerry Brown of California was a reflection of a circumstance that arises when things go bad between homosexual couples that have children.

 Family law will change for all due to the inclusion of three or more equal parents, especially in the circumstance of gay divorce since their union "in principle" required a third party.

"In principle," hetero and homosexual families are not situated the same.

Guro Hansen Helskog made an insightful statement when he claimed that “Parents used to have lots of children - now children have lots of parents.” Indeed, as families in Western countries have less children more laws are being put into action that give a child more than two parents.  Family scholar Elizabeth Marquardt addressed the 3 or more parent laws by stating:
Supporters of the rulings argue that if two parents are good for children, aren’t three better? True, some three-parent petitions are brought by adults who appear deeply committed to the child in question. In the Ontario case, the two women and the father all seem devoted to the boy. But in Pennsylvania, the sperm donor, whom the children called 'Papa,' was ordered to pay child support over his objections, and the lesbian co-mothers have already ended their relationship.
What is the harm if other American courts follow Pennsylvania’s example? For one thing, three-parent situations typically involve a couple and a third person living separately, meaning the child will get shuffled between homes, and this raises problems […] Conflicts will undoubtedly arise when three parents confront the sticky, conflict-ridden reality of child-raising, often leading to a nasty, three-way custody battle. Even if they part amicably, they may still want to live in three different homes. In that case, how many homes should children travel between to satisfy the parenting needs of many adults? Finally, why should courts stop at assigning children only three parents? Some situations involve a couple who wants the child, the sperm donor, the egg donor and the gestational surrogate who carries the pregnancy. If we allow three legal parents, why not five?

Family scholar Jane Adolphe addresses the 3 or more parents laws by noting: "If two parents are better than one, then shouldn’t three be better than two? 'Legal parent' becomes an umbrella notion for various subsets of parents, all stakeholders with no preference for one individual or set: natural/biological parents; adoptive parents, step parents, grandparents; social parents; psychological parents; intentional parents, gestational parent, sperm donor parent, egg donor parent and so forth. With the redefinition of marriage and the separation between biology and bond, the trend toward multiple parents is legitimized.Adoption laws, previously an exception to the natural family and natural parenthood, now become a discrete set of rules unmoored from their foundation. This translates into the rejection of the general principles that biology and relationship ought to be in the same two persons and that a child ought to have one set of parents. The end result is that natural or biological parents become just one of many stakeholders in a child’s life based on the idea that it takes a village to raise a child. This is a marked departure from the principle that primary care rests with the natural family (including the extended family) which assistance and support from others based on the principle of subsidiarity (eg religious, Communities, neighbors, friends, and State). These dramatic changes are driven by a rhetoric of adult rights, spearheaded by the needs of same-sex couples, without any serious discussion about whether this is good for children."

Why is this so? How is this so? As previously noted, the adoption system has been developed as an exception to the natural family. The underlying assumption is that biological parents are more likely to better care for their own children. Therefore, before adoption is possible, parental consent is required and the prospective new parents must meet requisite standards of fitness. Since, it is better for children to be raised in stable, two parent, married families, preference has been given to placing children in this environment.

Lawyer Nancy Polikoff explains the new multiple parent law:
"This statutory authorization, however, is most likely to impact heterosexuals, given how much divorce and remarriage there is. The provision will mean that if both the custodial and the noncustodial parent agree, then the custodial parent's new husband will be able to adopt the child without terminating the rights of the noncustodial parent. I have been advocating such a possibility for years, but this is the first law explicitly sanctioning such arrangements. The divorce rate of second marriages is at least as high as that of first marriages, which means that down the road we will be looking at multiple-parent custody and visitation arrangements on a regular basis."

The central problem is not that same-sex couples cannot reproduce!
On the contrary, the central problem is that they can. It's how they reproduce that poses such a lethal threat. Social harm is inherent to the way same-sex (as well as bisexual, transgendered and transsexual couples) “raise” children in their households.
The central problem has nothing to do with whether or not same-sex couples are good parents or not, but rather the fact that the architecture of the family institution of marriage and divorce has been designed, tailored, and developed over 200 years in the U.S. specifically for children in the context of heterosexual, monogamous relationships.

Regardless if one thinks marriage is no longer about children, the fact still remains that the family institution of marriage is designed and still primarily functions as a safety-net to protect children. The architecture of the institution of marriage and family law isn’t designed or tailored for issues that arise in same-sex couple’s households and divorces, or for the new dimensions of bisexual, transsexual, and transgender households that raise children and their divorces.
The present architecture for the institution of marriage is designed in the framework of heterosexual, monogamous, static gender identities, static sex identities, static sexual orientations, not homosexual orientations, or bisexual orientations, transgender identities, transsexual identities, or for situations in which three or more parents are used to create a child “in principle.”
Such a law (three or more equal, legal parents) defeats the purpose of monogamy and there isn’t really any reason why there cannot be group marriage or polyamorous marriage especially since bisexuality is being nationally recognized.

So how will the inclusion of same-sex couples into the family institution of marriage hurt heterosexual marriages and divorces?
Professor Douglas Allen answers that question by making the following points:

"Once legal decisions on these issues are made, the question is, what impact will they have on the elephant in the room: the vast majority of heterosexual marriages? After all, all three relationships (heterosexual, gay, lesbian) will be regulated by the same law. If we return to the theory that marriage is an efficient institution designed around the needs of heterosexual couples, then only one conclusion follows: To the extent marriage is changed to accommodate the demands of same-sex couples, these changes will hurt heterosexual marriages. To the extent changes are not made, same-sex couples will find marriage laws unsatisfactory and inefficient for their needs. As a practical matter, it seems unlikely that same-sex couples would be ignored by the courts, and courts will recognize the different types of families along the spectrum of cases. Once the constraint of a definition of marriage based on biology is removed, these changes will occur with little notice, and minimal immediate effect. Issues will come up, courts will struggle with how to manage them, the common law will evolve, but the sun will still rise the next day. But the bottom line is that these new common laws will apply to heterosexual couples covered under the same family law, and over time the loopholes and areas of poor fit will be exploited by husbands or wives seeking to better themselves at the expense of other members of the family. The value of marriage as an institution will fall, fewer people will marry, more will seek private methods to protect themselves from ex post marriage exploitation, and the final result will be lower fertility rates and more children raised in single-parent homes. It is this feedback that presents the fundamental danger to heterosexual marriage."

No comments:

Post a Comment