|
|
|
||||||||
|
** Below is an excerpt from a book I wrote in 1997-8 titled, "Crashing the Capitol: A Political Primer"; the author retains all rights.
Chapter Six: "Family"
Any marriage between persons of the same gender is null and void from the beginning.
- South Dakota House Bill 1184, 1995
All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process.
- Virginia State Code, struck in Loving v. Virginia, 1967
Originally, the purpose of this chapter was to cover only same-sex marriage. This chapter was originally intended to examine that single issue in its present-day, highly litigated context, defining the symbolic, as well as legal, significance of a possible court ruling allowing gay people to marry. Gay-parent adoption, custody, and other family issues were to comprise the following chapter. However, the various articles, books, court cases, and reports resourced to prepare those two chapters invariably revealed, time and again, that many of the legal and moral issues that surround same-sex marriage and other family issues (like adoption and custody) are very closely connected.
Simply put, many of the arguments used to deny gay people equal consideration in adoption and custody proceedings are not unlike those used to denigrate the concept of same-sex marriage. In what is by far the most important court battle for same-sex marriage to date, Baehr v. Miike, the defense contended that denying gays and lesbians the right to legally marry furthered a “compelling state interest.” The main argument to support the claim:
“That the State has a compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of children and other persons…It is the State of Hawaii’s position that, all things being equal, it is best for a child that it be raised in a single home by its parents, or at least by a married male and female…The State has a compelling interest in promoting the optimal development of children…”1
Essentially, defendant Lawrence H. Miike, in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Health for the state of Hawaii, argued that gays and lesbians were, by reason of their homosexuality, unfit to raise children and therefore should not be allowed to marry. Yes, literally millions of gay people are already raising children in America, and millions more children are being raised by these gay parents, but that was the central theme of Miike’s case against same-sex marriage.
Likewise, gay parents in custody cases are most often attacked on the claim that their relationships and homelives are less stable than those of their heterosexual ex-spouses. Such an assertion is impossible to prove. Sadly, as many same-sex parents keep an extraordinarily low profile to avoid losing their children, such an assertion is even tougher to disprove. But one thing is certain: legally-recognized marriage and the innumerable practical and financial benefits it affords couples – as well as their children – contributes an extraordinary amount of stability to relationships and family life. So, it is a “catch-22” predicament: we cannot marry because we are unfit parents, and we are unfit parents because we cannot marry and, consequently, are deemed unable to provide children with stable homes and upbringings.
Our inability to marry also assures that our long-term relationships are not officially documented, leaving us bereft of statistical data with which to demonstrate the longevity of our unions. If records existed to indicate the average length and success rate of bona fide gay and lesbian partnerships (i.e., partnerships in which both parties have entered into the equivalent economic, legal, custodial, and domestic arrangements of marriage), America might very well find that same-sex “marriages” are no less cherished and enduring than those between opposite-gender partners.
After all, some of the most ardent supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act and so-called “traditional family values” – including conservative celebrities like Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Rush Limbaugh, and Bob Barr* (original sponsor of DOMA) – are currently in their second (Gingrich and Dole) or third (Limbaugh and Barr*) marriages. On average, one of every two marriages in this country end in divorce, lasting an average of only 6.9 years.1.5 If these are the “family values” that legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act is protecting, then America desperately needs a new approach. After all, any real “defense of marriage” must begin by addressing the obvious infirmities of heterosexual marriage, not arbitrarily blocking access from people who happen to love others with the same genitalia.
Yet, in defiance of the laws that snub our lifelong commitments and threaten our rights to raise our children, many of us are pursuing and sustaining relationships with life partners and successfully raising children in happy, loving homes. This has become more apparent in recent years as a growing number of gay and lesbian couples have entered the courts to defend their families. Each couple, parent, or family that enters the courts brings more public awareness to gay family issues. As these stories leak into the mainstream press, the myth of the “lonely, deviant gay lifestyle” is splintered to reveal the underlying reality: like many Americans, gay and lesbian people have families, lifetime relationships, happy, well-adjusted kids, and stable homelives. They work hard, have mortgages, and struggle to raise decent kids with good values. Like straight people, their relationships are based on love, trust, respect, and a mutual understanding of what makes a good home.
Marriage
Why Should We Care?
To most gay people, the answer to that question is not immediately obvious. Many consider marriage a heterosexual institution; the theory is that attempting to secure the right to marry – “just like straight people can” – is nothing more than a ploy to “heterosexualize” the customs and conventions unique to gay and lesbian people. Like Asians, Jews, and other cultural and ethnic minorities, many of us are proud of our shared values and reluctant to identify “too closely” with the majority for fear of forsaking our own heritage and traditions. Some suggest that, rather than working tirelessly for society’s “permission” to marry eachother, we should be campaigning for a new type of recognition for our unions; the “domestic partnership” alternative is often proposed in the course of these arguments.
The marriage issue can no longer be viewed in this way. It is not about heritage or customs or pride; it has nothing to do with adopting a “straight” institution as our own. Marriage is about two individuals choosing to form an intimate and lasting bond; but this bond is not only emotional. It is – and is necessarily – physical, economical, lawful, public, and custodial. And even the most expansive domestic partnership policies do not come close to providing gay people with the legal protections and benefits conferred upon a couple the moment they are pronounced “husband and wife.”
To add insult to injury, domestic partnership policies often require that the partners meet more stringent conditions to qualify than opposite-sex couples must to be married! Examples of these conditions include having to sharing a residence to qualify, stating an intention to remain together indefinitely, and an arbitrary “waiting period” – sometimes an entire year – to establish the legitimacy of the partnership before the couple is eligible for benefits. But the real shortcoming of domestic partnership arrangements is that they offer few of the legal safeguards that marriage immediately and inexpensively provides.
A real-life example of the need for these safeguards is the story of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson. The two met in the late 1970s and, in time, fell in love. Unable to legally marry, they chose to symbolize their union with a commitment ceremony; they exchanged rings and named each other insurance beneficiaries. The two shared a residence in St. Cloud, Minnesota, several hundred miles from Sharon’s parents; like many gay and lesbian people at that time, Sharon did not disclose the nature of her relationship to her parents. The couple lived happily, quietly, and far removed from an organized “gay community.”
Four years into their relationship, the life they had built together was turned upside down. On November 13, 1983, a drunk driver collided with Sharon Kowalski’s car, leaving her brain-damaged and paralyzed. Karen, a physical education professor as well as Sharon’s partner of four years, sought to be awarded custody of Sharon to care for her in their own home. Kowalski’s parents opposed the lesbian relationship and vied for guardianship themselves. They won, moved Sharon to a facility three hundred miles away and barred Karen from all visitation.
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Chapter 6, continued ...
|
||||||||||
| page created with Easy Designer |