There’s a debate that addresses this at school today, which I shall attend. It is put on by the local chapter of the Federalist Society (the campus representative states that they are devoted to “honest & careful interpretation of the constitution” and are “never timid about debating”). Sometimes I feel like I’m surrounded by them (witness yesterday’s meeting of the local chapter of the ACLU; all of us were stunned that there even was one).
To prepare for the debate, I perused the Federalists’ website, where I found this, what I believe to be the most cogent argument against gay marriage yet:
[T]here is a stark biological fact to contend with: in homosexual families, by definition, only one parent, at most, will be biologically related to the child. In effect, gay families are either adoptive families or blended families. Adoptive families at least solve a major social problem: parentless children. But blended families bring children into the world who are destined to live without two biologically related parents. What will be the overall effect of that?A social science literature is now emerging that reveals the relative weakness and instability of heterosexual blended and step-parent families, compared to married couple families with shared biological children. The children in mixed families do no better than those in single parent families! Will homosexual blended families be equally unstable? Living with a biological father seems especially important, and children living with unrelated males do especially badly. Will that pattern extend to gay families? We don’t know. It’s a big social experiment.
And to that, I do not have a (well-formulated) response. I would certainly like to see evidence from these studies, however. Anyone else…?
I’m not sure that the response really addresses the heart of the issue:
The second concern is about blended families. If they’re a problem, however, the answer is not to ban gay marriage. Perhaps one answer is to prohibit or limit assisted reproduction, which is a “big social experiment” conducted overwhelmingly by heterosexuals. Banning gay marriage will not stop this practice, but it will deprive any resulting children of married parents.
This seems to me to say, “yeah, it’s a problem, so what”, rather than providing a solution or rebutting the evidence.
14 responses so far ↓
1 amelia // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:00 pm
i’m curious about the parameters of these studies of “blended” families. are we talking about families in which the children are newborns who are only biologically related to one parent? or families in which the children are older than infancy when their parent marries? that seems to me like it would make an enormous difference.
while i believe very strongly in the power of biology when it comes to parent-child bonding, i also believe very strongly in the power of nurturing to create that same bond. in other words, it seems that a lifelong history of two parents nurturing a child–regardless of their biological connection–must have something to do with parent-child bonding and, by extension, the health of the child and the family.
i think the response you quote (second quote) actually makes a very persuasive point. if the concern is that children in a family in which they are biologically related to only one parent get the short end of the stick, then banning gay marriage does not solve that problem. only controlling access to fertility treatments that result in “blended” families will solve that problem.
2 Elaine // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Not “Brady Bunch” fans, are they?
Seriously…how do they propose to eliminate blended families. No remarriage after divorce or death of a spouse? I don’t think that’ll fly. And how do they reconcile that with opinion from roughly the same demographic that single-parent families are inferior as well?
And the comment that “living with a biological father seems especially important”…I’d like to see their plan for making sure that biological dads never desert the family or, oh, die. Are they planning on limiting custody in divorces to the father?
Do these people live in the real world at all? I certainly can’t see much evidence that they do.
I realize that my comments might come across as flip to some, but I can’t approach the opinions expressed in that excerpt in any other way, as unrealistic as it seems to me. I just can’t seem to take anyone seriously (Amy Wax, in this case) who starts out their argument with the phrase “gay agenda”, as she does in the comments which include the excerpt.
3 sarah k. // Sep 11, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I was going to say the same thing as Amelia. The concept of “blended families” is so ambiguous in the quote. I can’t see how a child reared by both biological parents or two adoptive parents from birth would be that different, except where the child is aware of the adoption. But I imagine that if a gay couple split up, leaving one parent with the child, and that parent eventually found a new partner, that would equate to the same thing as the “blended families” they’re talking about. But that’s not what the debate is about, is it?
4 xJane // Sep 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm
So, post-debate, I have a better understanding of both positions (although not one that Elaine will like). The two participants were Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, pro Prop 8, and Dr. Doug NeJaime, con Prop 8. It’s difficult for me to think of “pro” and “con” in these ways, since “pro Prop 8″ is “anti gay marriage”, but for the remainder I shall use them:
Dr. Morse opened by saying that there are three issues at stake: (1) changing a legal definition changes it for everyone, (2) gay marriage is bad for children, and (3) gay marriage would enlarge the role of the state in private citizens’ lives.
Interestingly, she spoke in terms of keeping gay marriage from occurring rather than taking away rights already extant. Additionally, she didn’t mention Prop 8 until the end, couching most of her arguments in anti-gay-marriage language, rather than pro-Prop-8. She further noted that this is not a “wedge issue [but rather has found that] it is unifying […] of every faith tradition”. It was the only mention of religion in her opening statement, for which I commend her, but it did come up later.
Her argument regarding the change of definition was woven throughout her second argument:
In defense of her point (2), she said that currently, marriage is about children. Its primary function is to attach children to their fathers. This is its function “in every known society” (which can be easily refuted), and a change to this definition of marriage would disenfranchise men in marriages and particularly fathers. Same sex marriage makes the institution of marriage “adult-centered […and] gender neutral”, since it is the relationship of the adults to one another that becomes of supreme importance. She stated that it will necessarily detach children from their biological parents, since children cannot “arise naturally and organically” from a same-sex marriage. She maintained that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable and that the genetic connection between parent and child cannot be replaced with a legal connection.
Regarding the empowerment and expansion of the scope of the State, she reiterated that marriage “arises spontaneously in every known society” but that same sex marriage would be a pure creation of the state, which must then “coddle” it. She reminded us that adoption agencies have been shut down for their refusal to provide services to same sex couples, that children are learning about the validity of homosexuality in schools, and that wedding photographers and reception venues have found their discriminatory practices against homosexuals criminalized. Again, one is left to assume that this is bad. She reiterated replacement of the biological relationship between parents and children with a legal relationship. She argued that “California [does not] need another protected class”, which gay marriage would somehow create.
She ended with the statement that a vote for Prop 8 does not equal hatred of gays, but reminded us that every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents, that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable and that children need both in their lives, and that society needs to protect the interests of children since they cannot do so themselves.
Dr. NaJaime rebutted with a reminder that benefits to gay families to not harm or detract from the happiness of other families. He noted that there are about 780 000 same-sex couples in the country and 1m children being raised by them. He reminded us that marriage-like relationships already exist, and that the California Supreme Court’s ruling simply formalized these. He, too, noted three essential points: (1) a constitutional amendment to codify unequal treatment, (2) marriage and society, and (3) administrative issues.
Regarding the first point, he drew parallels to interracial marriage, noting that when CA first allowed it, they were not weighing in on the validity of interracial marriage but simply on the (state constitutional) right to marry to marry the person of one’s choice. Similarly, he argued, the recent court decision was simply affirmation of the rights guaranteed by the state constitution to marry the person of one’s choice. He addressed the issue of whether the court had the authority to address this, but I think that it is self-evident that they do: courts exist to interpret the law, so I won’t go into his arguments on that score. He reiterated that constitutionalization of discrimination is, “for multiple reasons” a bad idea, and noted that a constitution should protect, rather than abridge, rights.
To the second point, he indicated that marriage is a valuable social institution and the proof of this is that same sex couples want to be a part of it. He claimed that people in marriages were happier and that children of married couples were happier, and that same sex couples simply want the benefits (legal and otherwise) conferred by the institution.
To the third point, he indicated that right now, courts, family law attorneys and other administrative bodies are struggling with same sex couples and their rights and responsibilities. This would be easily cleared up with gay marriage: it is a template, if you will, for rights and responsibilities that will be mapped over to homosexual committed relationships. He notes that California is home to 90 000 same sex couples, and that 70 000 children are being raised by 30% of them. He notes that same sex couples have one employed and one “homemaker” in the same percentages as hetero couples. That they are forming independent financial units without the protections of marriage. He said that the law should recognize these and attach the rights and responsibilities of marriage to those relationships.
He ended by saying that preservation of rights is the issue.
Morse rebutted, saying that interracial marriage was not a valid parallel, since there are physical differences between genders, where there are not among races. She stated that homosexuals who are married are not married in the same way that heterosexuals are but are in a “stripped down version of marriage” since they do not take children into account but instead focus on adults. She stated that the benefits of marriage are based upon the “complementarity of genders” and that there is no evidence about whether or not that will map over into homosexual relationships.
She acknowledged that gay couples already have children but wanted to know if we really wanted to protect that right. “Do we really believe that there is a right to have a child? Is there a right to procreate?” She reiterated that children do not rise “organically” from homosexual relationships, but are instead “grafted onto” their union. “No one is entitled to have a child in that kind of sense.” She stated that it is an injustice to separate the child for its entire life from its parent.
She indicated that heterosexual marriage operates independent of the government. (But left it open as to whether or not homosexual marriage, or the “stripped down versions” we have today, does as well.)
NeJaime rebutted the differences among races were very much an issue at a time when interracial marriage was a divisive issue. He noted that there are differences between racial discrimination and gay discrimination, but that the argument is relevant nonetheless. He additionally cautioned looking back (to arguments against interracial marriage) with today’s values.
He argued that his definition of marriage does not devalue current marriage and does not rely on sex stereotypes—there are actual, biological differences, but that does not mean that roles in family and business are pre-determined. He argued that the definition of marriage has been constantly changing (and made a comment about women-as-property that I missed, but I linked it to the fact that marriage used to be essentially a sales transaction between the father-owner and the husband-owner of the woman in question).
Questioned the argument that there is a “natural law” of marriage and reminded us that the government is “still reaching into your home” when you get married as a heterosexual.
Reiterated his argument that courts are currently dealing with the question of what rights do quote-unquote-married gays have, and noted that simply calling it marriage would clean that up and decrease the extent to which the state needs to reach into those relationships to make determinations.
A Q&A session followed:
[Addressed to Dr. Morse] Divorce & remarriage already separate children from their biological parents, how is this different? Why are divorce and remarriage even allowed if it is so detrimental to children?
Dr. Morse responded that the fact that divorce creates such instability in children’s lives points to the fact that the biological bond is so important and that replacement with a step-parent is not an adequate replacement. She stopped just short of saying that she would like to do away with divorce, but seemed to allude to the fact that she would. Additionally noted that the divorced parent still has rights and responsibilities toward the child, and is still recognized as a parent. She asked if it should be something that we tolerate, actively encourage, or entitle that we should create children who will never have a relationship with one parent.
[Addressed to Dr. NeJaime] Define gender stereotypes: is it not true that women have higher estrogen levels, allowing them to bear children, be more caring, and produce milk? [awesome rumblings from the peanut gallery: there was much audience displeasure at the “be more caring” comment]
Dr. NeJamie indicated that the courts have indeed recognized “real differences”: the ability to be pregnant and breast feed, for example, but that this does not justify social differences: those are the stereotypes that have told women that they must have a particular role in society.
Dr. Morse then stepped in to state that “complementarity” does not rely on stereotypes and then asked Dr. NeJaime to define what gender is. Is it a list of behaviors or an integrated self? Are men and women interchangeable?*
Dr. NeJaime responded that men and women are interchangeable in the context of marriage and parenting.
[Addressed to Dr. Morris] Are you opposed to artificial insemination and adoption within heterosexual marriages?
Dr. Morris replied that adoption is a different argument, since it is a child-centered occupation: it exists to find parents for children, not children for parents, and then dismissed it as being irrelevant to the topic at hand. She stated that there was a difference between a single woman who wants artificial insemination, a woman in a heterosexual relationship who will rely on a third party’s sperm, and a lesbian couple. (The second option being tacitly understood to be the best, but it was not explained why.) She noted that this is more proof that “fathers will be marginalized from the family”.
[Open question] Do you think that, if we legislate Judeo-Christian issues, it will cause a backlash of violence and denigration of religious principles?
Dr. NeJaime responded that many religious groups are against Prop 8, so it is not necessarily true that this is a religious issue. He reminded us that the civil institution of marriage is different from the religious institution of marriage and that no religious group would be forced to do anything against their religion.
Dr. Morse then responded that, since the religious were already marginalized, it could not get much worse and that, since 90% of the country subscribes to Judeo-Christian tradition, “it is not much of an imposition” to codify it as law. She believes that this is “one of the most serious threats to religious liberty seen in the West in hundreds of years” and that religious groups are already being acted against for abiding by their religious traditions. She noted that this was a “huge impingement” upon religious liberty.
We ended with the creepiest Bible quote I can imagine in this context, read by the moderator:
*She previously noted that even homosexuals do not believe that they are, otherwise they would not be homosexuals.
More later, including an informative talk with Dr. NeJamie afterward. I must away to class.
5 xJane // Sep 11, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Regarding a response to the argument about “blended families”, I would argue that the majority of them are the result of a prior divorce (or otherwise traumatic loss of parent) and that much, if not most, of the emotional and social difficulties faced by children in those relationships could be traced back to that, rather than to the current “blended” status. I would like to see studies (since it is well documented that divorce is not good for children) that look at “blended” families that have not started with trauma. Perhaps they could start with the 1m children being raised by gay couples right now. (Anecdote that I know does not support this, as it is singular, rather than general:) I know that my husband’s two families have been a source of strength and stability for him in the aftermath of the loss of his original family unit.
I take exception to the idea that the single purpose of marriage is the production of (healthy and happy) children. Are infertile couples invalidly married? Couples who choose not to have children? (I know people who would argue yes.) Since I personally do not want children, I think it’s great that people out there do; I support them in that, regardless of their orientation (or means of producing children).
I am also profoundly distressed by the argument of “gender complementarity” and that children need one mother and one father in order to be whole people (my husband does great with two of each; or perhaps closer to one-and-a-half and two; I remember feeling like I had 6 mothers growing up and one lack of father…). There are many combinations of families and giving preeminence to just one kind (the Beaver kind) invalidates many people. Speaking as a cat-mother of two, I do not require legal proof that my family is indeed a family; but neither do I want the Beaver family to be declared to be the only “real” family. It takes away from more than just homosexual couples—it takes away from every couple who does not have children.
Dr. NeJamie had an interesting argument that “the debate has changed” and the gay-civil-marriage ship has sailed. There is no argument that we shouldn’t allow gays to be in committed relationships (or any relationships), as is often argued, since they already are. And it is interesting to reread some of the arguments made by Drs. Morse and Wax—many seem to be advocating a winding back of the clock, as it were, rather than an acknowledgement that times, they have changed, and looking forward in that regard.
When Dr. Morse argued that it is an injustice to separate the child for its entire life from its parent, I wondered what she might think of women who choose adoption rather than abortion or birth-and-keeping. Are they unjust to their children? Again, she seems to remove the agency from parents of all kinds. There seems to be a very strong assumption that men get married (and would leave their children if they weren’t) to women, who have their children and raise them while the men make money. And I find that assumption extremely problematic on many levels.
I also think that Dr. Morse’s true stripes came out during the Q&A when she nearly came out & said that she thought that divorce should be illegal.
Finally, I found it quite entertaining that she was so concerned with the rights of men and how they might disappear with gay marriage. I’m sorry, but I really don’t think that they’re a denigrated class.
6 Amber // Sep 11, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I’m sure someone covered this already, but heterosexual blended families, when they result from divorces, are a combination of people who have previously failed at relationships. There is no reason to believe that the blended one will be any healthier or more stable than the botched biological one. There are a lot more variables to control for than the biological relationship between parents and their children. So if this is, in fact, a cogent argument, it is absolutely not a convincing one.
7 xJane // Sep 11, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Amber: you are absolutely correct, there are other issues at stake with blended families post-divorce (even of just one half) that I really don’t think anyone can make broad statements about “the relative weakness and instability of heterosexual blended and step-parent families”.
There was another point that I wanted to make about divorce and the allegation that the instability caused is a result of a biological bond. First I’d like to see data from divorces involving adopted children, because I’m fairly certain that the attachment children and parents feel for one another is not merely biological but emotional. I can’t imagine that Dr. Morse would make the argument that adopted children are not at all affected by divorce, but this is the essential conclusion of her argument that divorce hurts children because of a biological bond.
8 Elaine // Sep 12, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I haven’t got the patience right now (I just got off work) to go through and address your fine debate summary point-by-point, xJane. Not to mention that my doing that would bore everyone silly.
So, let me just say that there were a whole lot of assumptions made in that debate.
And, I have to wonder how heterosexual marriage “operates independent from the government”. Last I knew, it was the government that issues marriage licenses. Oh, and benefits from the fees collected. That isn’t “independent” at all, as far as I can see, since a lot of the benefits attached to the married state require the marriage license as proof that this legal bond is, well, legal.
9 xJane // Sep 12, 2008 at 4:21 pm
It would take you a while, but it would not bore me. I think it’s a great idea to share disputes with the opposite position (esp. now that we know what it is). I agree that het marriage is generally government-”coddled”, if you will, and that there are a great many assumptions (about what is “good” about what is “desired” by “everyone”…and I’m not trying to use scare quotes, but set off the terms that I feel require definition, since they seem to be assumed in a direction I would disagree with).
10 Craig // Sep 12, 2008 at 10:41 pm
My argument against the first point would be that I think there is a significant difference between a heterosexual family where one or both of the parents are divorced and remarried, and the children have grown up with different parents for at least part of their childhood, and gay parents where (albei)t only one parent is biological, but the children are raised the same as if that didn’t matter (for it doesn’t). I don’t see any difference in the way those types of gay families raise children from they way they would raise adopted children. No, I don’t think that the difference is the biology of the child, but rather then environment in which it is raised. To compare divorced, re-married heterosexual families with gay families that have children produced by surrogacy or sperm donation is unfair and really “apples and oranges”, to say the least. But at least it’s fruit either way
11 xJane // Sep 19, 2008 at 2:01 pm
New anti-Prop 8 ad out: love it!
via
12 Craig // Sep 19, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I’ve seen a lot of commercials against prop 8 lately on different blogs. Not living in California, I’m not seeing the whole picture. For those that do live there, what sorts of commercials is the other side putting out. What are their arguments against gay marriage?
13 xJane // Sep 20, 2008 at 9:03 am
I found a lot of Pro Prop 8 vids on YouTube. Many are just scare rhetoric (the fires this year were caused by gay marriage) some mix scare rhetoric with similar arguments as we discussed above (rainbow colored lighting will cause fires and children are entitled to a mother and a father). Some don’t make any argument (apparently, someone’s going to get hit by a bus if I don’t go to this concert), or make it obliquely (children are awesome! don’t let gays have them). Some appeal to celebrities (or, failing that, politicians) .
This one looked like the closest to an actual “commercial”, but I’m not sure if it really is:
14 Craig // Sep 20, 2008 at 9:28 am
Wow. Those videos are crazy. I was probably most surprised by the one with Newt Gingrich. If former Speaker of the House can’t fathom that it is exactly the courts role to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of the majority, then we are really in trouble. Will he also complain about Brown v. Board of Education? Because that’s the exact same thing.
I just don’t understand this willingness (choice) to be ignorant and stupid. You really have to be to accept any of the arguments against gay marriage as making any sense whatsoever.
Anyways, this topic just makes me crazy. I now think I understand a little of what it must have been like to be black in the 50s. The bigotry and hatred, that so many who oppose gay marriage feel, is just scary. What a sad life that is to be so full of hate for another human being’s love.
Leave a Comment