I have a simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post. But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.
The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can adopt .
The people: Kathy is a 29 year old divorced woman with two year old twins- a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany . After the birth of the children, the husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. Jack, over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support
Kathy has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures, and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However, public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to embrace her feelings, be who she really is, and come out as a Lesbian.
Soon after her divorce, Kathy meets Angela, a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months Angela moves in with Kathy in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly as a result of the divorce settlement. In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved witgh them
A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well. They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. Kathy is killed in an auto accident. Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman. They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tempid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.
The next step is for CPS is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but Kathy had not been close with any of them some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.
Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of Kathy . Compounding the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from Angela and sent off to live with people who they don't know, and away from their friends and school. And of course Angela is fearful of loosing the children.
To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that Angela be given custody but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care. Remember, Angela has no rights!!
Now one might say that children have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between Angela and the children . But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the rest of their lives.
Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Kathy and Angela could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent.
So now, my question is : Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No and why
Yes and No
ProgressivePatriot
Anyone can get married as a spiritual and/or religious practice that govt can neither establish or prohibit,
by the First Amendment.
If a state doesn't pass LGBT friendly marriage laws by consent of their citizens,
then either "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships"
can be passed to accommodate all partnerships equally
even if the citizens don't all agree on "marriage beliefs."
In general, PP, this case you post shows
WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER RELY ON GOVT TO DECIDE RIGHTS AND BENEFITS,
ESPECIALLY NOT ON COURTS AND JUDGES WHERE BELIEFS ARE RELATIVE
Due to conflicting beliefs, which cannot be regulated or mandated by govt,
people do NOT agree on laws on marriage, benefits and related social issues,
Since we KNOW there are conflicts in beliefs, this is why it may be better
to set up Benefits and terms of marriage by Party, to manage collectively
for Members of the same beliefs. And keep the government's authority reserved for just NEUTRAL financial and legal partnerships, which do not specify social relationships.
(Again, "civil unions and domestic partnerships" could be agreed upon as neutral,
while keeping terms of "marriage" and "social benefits" separate by party membership
to prevent people from imposing or infringing on each other's conflicting beliefs.)
The govt could then enforce agreed contracts on
guardianship, custody, estates, medical directives, and other legal arrangements
while remaining VOID of references to marriage or social beliefs where people don't agree.
Your story is exactly why you would want to keep govt out of social relationships,
so enforcing basic contracts remains objective and neutral, not biased by beliefs!
The govt should NEVER be abused to dictate or decide people's social lives and personal decisions!
So organize marriages and benefits collectively through one's own choice of
churches, parties or other organizations where members agree on the same
policies and terms. Don't do this through "govt" which has to represent
ALL OTHER PEOPLE OF ALL OTHER BELIEFS.
If you TRULY want to defend your own beliefs and rights to free exercise of them,
that's why people manage their own membership programs through churches
and other private organizations, including parties. So you retain full say and control
WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BY GOVT, SINCE THESE ARE YOUR BELIEFS.
So YES the couple has inalienable free exercise of religion, beliefs and creed
including the right to marry as a practice and expression by that freedom.
And the best way to DEFEND free exercise of religion and beliefs
is not to compromise it by handing it over to government to regulate for you!
