Fact: As explained before, the issuing of marriage
licenses has nothing to do with "protecting society". Again, when
societies yearn for protective licenses, they generally require training
as a prerequisite for licensing. And even if marriage licenses were
intended as promotional paperwork toward increased stable unions, it
would be illogical for government not to want more unions, rather than
fewer.
And if we’re to believe that ultimately all of
this licensing is to maximize the number of children successfully born
and raised, then, my friends, we have a situation. Two free-loving
90-year-old heterosexual newlyweds who sleep around, and who live on
opposite coasts, and who have never raised any children - and don't even
like children - are just as married as Tom and Jane Smith on Main
Street - according to law. On these grounds it would be illogical to
suggest that same-sex unions should be less legal than a sadly short
Kardashian marriage.
In North Carolina, the marriage
license is a public document, issued in accordance with the public
interest in legal and financial matters. As a promotional tool, some
would say it’s ‘typical poor government quality”: a promotional plan
which consists of a $50 fee, a prosaic application form, and a dry civil
servant. No flashy photos or zippy graphics. No catchy tagline:
"Marriage - The Best Social Unit Possible"TM. Why doesn't the government
get an ad agency to really make this marriage thing sexy?
But
a better illustration of the fact that a government license does not
necessarily mean government endorsement comes from the NC Values
Coalition website itself, on which these ‘myths’ are listed. The
disclaimer explaining the Coalition’s 501 (c) (4) license specifies this
helpful information: “The license is not an endorsement by the State.”
Concerning
the "best social unit" for children, I again reference the
recommendations of the leading child welfare agencies in the country.
Echoing these, Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld has reviewed the
largest sample of children of same-sex couples ever studied: the 2010
census. Rosenfeld concluded "Children being raised by same-sex couples
have the same educational achievement as children raised by married
heterosexual couples. The census data show that having parents who are
the same gender is not in itself any disadvantage to children. Parents’
income and education are the biggest indicators of a child’s success.
Family structure is a minor determinant." Addressing the issue of gay
adoption, Rosenfeld concludes there's a very real advantage to children
in being taken out of state care, and into the care of any family.”
But
again, there is no prerequisite of even an interest in children before
receiving the marriage license from the dry civil servant. Even if
same-sex households were shown to be disadvantageous to children,
denying legal recognition of unions based on that is at best arbitrary.
If future child outcomes are criteria for licensing unions, then the
science tells us that the poverty, smoking, alcoholism, and low
educational achievement of the betrothed will need to be considered.
The
conflicting ‘moralities’ in this argument that the amendment will
protect us from familial chaos and harmed children can be illustrated by
one extremely troubling 1998 custody case in North Carolina. In the
Supreme Court case known as Pulliam v. Smith, Carol Pulliam left the
home and the two young boys she parented with Fred Smith to live with
another man in Kansas. Pulliam gave up custody of her two sons. When
Smith began a relationship with a man, who joined in parenting the boys,
Pulliam sued for full custody of the children. The court ruled against
the father, citing evidence that though he was an excellent, caring
father, he was engaging in same-sex intimacy behind closed doors. The
mother’s case was supported by the Family Research Council of North
Carolina, which used aggressive anti-gay arguments against Smith.
Because of the obvious double-standard in which we’d have seen a very
different outcome had Smith’s partner been female, the case is seen now
as purely discriminatory against Smith because he is gay, and counter to
our society’s interest in what’s best for children. In other words,
arbitrary moral arguments were allowed to redefine what’s best for
children.
North Carolina’s 1866 law legalizing ex-slave
marriages further shows the organizational and clerical nature of
marriage licenses over any presumed promotional nature. Once informed of
the law, tens of thousands of North Carolina freedmen couples reported
their existing marriages to county courts. Nationally, registries of
freedmen marriages were used primarily to resolve future questions of
inheritance, and to settle claims against the federal government,
especially those concerning deceased black soldiers.
--
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/dem/
http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/ny_19980730_nc-supreme-court-takes-custody-from-gay-father
http://www.northcarolinafamilylawnews.com/2010/09/01/homosexuality-and-child-custody-in-north-carolina/
No comments:
Post a Comment