Adoption is the direct way that society creates the sort of protections for the child-parent relationship that Heidi has sought.

Marital status does not automatically confer adoption on a child even where the mother marries a potential step-father, for example. The child’s father must either relinquish or lose his parental status (or dies) and that occurs in dire circumstances or tragedy. Only after that occurs can the child be adopted even in the case of this prospective step-father.

So, if marriage does not do this for the husband-wife union, why would Heidi imagine that SSM would do it for a scenario that lacks either a husband or a wife?

How would SSM extend protections that are not more directly extended via adoption? And why would it depend on a sexualized relationship between the adults? If it does not, then, how would Heidi, with all her anecdotal prowess, distinguish the relationship type she has in mind (apparently comprised of both the all-male and the all-female sexualized scenarios) from parenting and caretaking that is neither sexualized nor marital?

Hi Heidi,

I’m not sure if you’re still checking the comments on this week-old post, but I finally am finding time to reply. First let me thank you for sharing your story of your adopted daughter. I certainly agree that she is better off with you than with her biological parents. I still think that in general, in the average case, children are better off with their biological mother and father, than with two same-sex parents — because I believe that children ideally need a mom and a dad, and while two moms can both be great moms, neither of them can be a great dad.

However, I also recognize as an obvious fact that not every both-biological-parents situation is better than every same-sex-parents situation, as your case illustrates extremely well!

Paul H, I appreciate your respectful tone very much.

Thanks, and I appreciate yours too.

I had previously asked you:

In what specific way(s) would government recognition of same-sex “marriage” provide protections to children of same-sex couples, that those children do not already have?

Thank you for your answer, part of which follows:

I think that off the top of my head, my first response is that there is a protective factor for a child when his or her parents are married that is intangible. The fact of the marriage itself helps to secure the bond between the parents and therefore, while it does not ensure that the parents will remain together, it does strengthen the likelihood. A ton of studies have come out that show that cohabitation is not equivalent to marriage when it comes to stable long-term relationships.

I agree with all of this. So if you truly believe that two women can get married to each other, then what is stopping you from getting married? My wife and I were married when we took our vows in a church, in the presence of God, our pastor, our friends, and our families. Yes, we registered our marriage with the state, partly because we were legally required to do so. But if one day we found out that there had been some mix-up with the paperwork, and that our marriage had never been recorded with the state, that wouldn’t cause us to doubt that we were truly married all these years. So couldn’t you get married (as you see marriage), either in a church or in some other appropriate setting, even if the state doesn’t recognize it?

Oh, one more is that the child is not further stigmatized at school by peers who do have married parents, because the child knows that his or her parents are married too.

I hate to be blunt, but isn’t it likely that a child would be stigmatized much more by having two moms or two dads (even if the state says that they are married to each other), than by having unmarried parents? I’m not saying that it is right for a child to be stigmatized in that way (I don’t think it is), but just pointing out that that is likely to be true.

To answer your questions, I don’t think that recognizing marriage equality will immediately put an end to the hatred and discrimination faced by LGBT persons.

On that we agree.

However, if you look back at the historical record of government-sanctioned discrimination in this country, you will notice a pattern–fundamental change of people’s hearts and minds did not occur until after the laws changed. People’s attitudes about slavery didn’t fundamentally change until it became illegal. People’s attitudes about women’s suffrage didn’t change until after the 19th Amendment was passed. People’s attitudes about segregation didn’t change until after Brown v. Board of Ed. and the passage of the Civil Rights Act. People’s attitudes about women’s participation in sports didn’t change until Title 9 was passed.

There may be some truth to what you say, however I don’t think that what you say is entirely true for most or all of these examples. Based on what I know of some of these examples, a trend was present for some time even before legal changes were made. For example, if attitudes on womens’ suffrage didn’t change until after suffrage was granted by a constitutional amendment, then how did the amendment pass? Were 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures that out of touch with their (male) constituents? Surely there must have already been some significant sentiment in favor of womens’ suffrage?

As for a wedding ceremony between my partner and I, yes, we have thought and talked about it, and at one point we were planning for it. But in spite of the fact that our spiritual commitment is there, and in spite of the fact that our family and friends would support us, there is something that does not feel authentic because it is not legal and enforceable where we live. It would be like dress rehearsal for the real thing, I think. I am married to her in my heart, and I will remain faithful and committed to her until I draw my last breath.

Thanks for sharing this, and this actually answers my question earlier in this comment.

I find this viewpoint interesting. Obviously your ideas on what makes a true marriage are very much at odds with mine, and not just on the question of what combination(s) of sexes can make a true marriage.

Take my state for example; I live in Illinois. I assume that maybe you have some idea of how horribly corrupt the state government is here? My feeling is, why on earth do I need a certificate from the corrupt Illinois government to validate the lifetime commitment that my wife and I have made to each other? No certificate (or lack of a certificate) from a fallible, corrupt government can make our marriage any more or less real. And if we give the state all the power to declare that we are married, then are we not at the mercy of the state if it should decide to declare that we are no longer married? Why give the state that power over our relationship, our commitment, our shared life together?

I understand that you may still disagree, but I’m just explaining where I’m coming from.

However, the lack of legal benefits and protections are very real to us, and we face them regularly.

I hear you, and this goes back to Dr. Morse’s argument as to what are the public reasons for recognizing and promoting marriage, which I’m sure you are familiar with.

Also, it may be worth pointing out that the law penalizes marriage in a number of ways as well — such as the so-called “marriage penalty” in the federal income tax code that returns in 2010, or the fact that some welfare benefits are easier to get as a single parent than as a married couple, even with the same income.

SSMers imagine themselves to be altruisitcally fighting for rights but they show no comprehension of balancing rights, goods, and interests. In instances like this, they come off like the middle sister in the Bracy Bunch who would stomp her feet and moan complainingly: “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!”

I think the pro-gay bigotry is pretty loud during these anti-rally protests.

If you do not have a grasp on the actual disagreement, then, you won’t formulate an actual argument that tackles that disagreement. Instead you want to make this about the hetero-homo dichotomy which is about all you hang you hat on. Not constitutional analysis. Not marriage. Not parenting. Not even justice for children. You hang your hat on identity politics and have an immature view of society, as per your many comments here — including all of your unverifiable anecdotes and your penchant for hyper-personalization at every opportunity.

Put plainly, even your stories about the little girl do not add-up to a good reason to abolish the man-woman basis of marriage. Rather your stories point to the need to strengthen the influence of the core meaning of this foundational social institution.

“My observation is that some in the GLBT community simply want to shout down and hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with them. [...] As for the arguments, I would argue that the burden of proof is on the other side, that given the nearly universal consensus gentium across space and time until very recently on the definition of marriage, the GBLT community needs to explain why marriage must be redefined precisely to their liking, but not to the liking of, say, Moslems or to the liking of those who believe that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Right on, Leo.

SSMers like Heidi have repeatedly said that marriage and raising children are seperate issues. Now she’d try to insist on a decisive link.

There has not been a vote by the People. In fact, SSMers made it their highest strategy to prevent such a vote from ever occuring.

Six years after the ridiculous Goodridge opinion was written, and lawmakers have not written SSM into the law. The judges are not empowered to write statutory law; nor is the executive branch. And the Legislators have not voted and passed an law to merge SSM with marriage in Massachusetts.

Yes, we can learn from the six years in which the SSM campaign has attacked marriage, attacked marriage defenders, attacked our form of self-government, attacked the constitution, attacked liberty, attacked and attacked and attacked.

You want to claim a majority? Then you clearly give credence to the significance of majority support for such a change in marriage law. Yet in recent surveys support for the man-woman basis of marriage has increased in the state; and, given that such surveys have usually underestimated actual support on actual votes on marriage, even a result closer to 50-50 strongly suggests that the pro-marriage side is underestimated by about 10%.

Among SSMers hypocrisy abounds.

As far as taking my kids to a “politically-charged” event: if I was going to go and counter-protest at somebody else’s rally, then yes, I would leave my kids at home. But if I had an opportunity to go to a rally and listen to speakers on family-based topics, then I would take my family with me, so my children could hear about my values and see that other people share them.

My partner and I have been taking care of this child since she was 3 days old. Don’t you dare tell me that this child is better off with her biological parents. And don’t you dare tell me that we are not the parents of this little girl. WE have done the job from the very beginning and WE have formed the primary attachment. In fact, she has taken to calling us both “Mommy” or “Mama” without any prompting whatsoever from us. She is not yet two years old, and she has seen children’s television with mommies in it and assumes that we must be her mommies because we are the ones who are there acting as mommies. She is the happiest, brightest, most beautiful child that I have ever known other than my own biological daughter and I know for a fact that she never would have had the opportunity to be this happy little girl if she was being raised by her biological parents. Your ideology may sound good in theory to you, but my partner and I are on the ground floor cleaning up the messes left by the failures of heterosexual biological parents, as are hundreds of thousands of other LGBT PARENTS with children.

Paul H, I appreciate your respectful tone very much. I think that off the top of my head, my first response is that there is a protective factor for a child when his or her parents are married that is intangible. The fact of the marriage itself helps to secure the bond between the parents and therefore, while it does not ensure that the parents will remain together, it does strengthen the likelihood. A ton of studies have come out that show that cohabitation is not equivalent to marriage when it comes to stable long-term relationships. Additionally, should the couple find themselves at the sad point of divorce, there is also a ready-made legal system in place for dealing with issues related to the split of the family and to the provisions for the child. That is just off the top of my head, but I will give it some more thought. Oh, one more is that the child is not further stigmatized at school by peers who do have married parents, because the child knows that his or her parents are married too.

And our children are denied the protective factor of the marriage of their parents.

In what specific way(s) would government recognition of same-sex “marriage” provide protections to children of same-sex couples, that those children do not already have?

Let’s take a lesbian couple for example. Suppose that these two women go to a church or other institution and have a wedding ceremony, and after that, they have no doubt that they are truly married. They expect their friends and family to consider them to be married as well. Then at some point one of them bears a child via artificial insemination. The couple then takes legal steps to have the other woman legally adopt the child, so that both women are legal parents to the child. (Note that I’m not recommending any of this, but just laying out a hypothetical scenario.)

In this scenario, what specific protections is the child lacking, that would be granted if the government officially recognized the womens’ relationship as a marriage?

This is an honest question. There may be a good answer to this question that I haven’t considered.

To answer your questions, I don’t think that recognizing marriage equality will immediately put an end to the hatred and discrimination faced by LGBT persons. However, if you look back at the historical record of government-sanctioned discrimination in this country, you will notice a pattern–fundamental change of people’s hearts and minds did not occur until after the laws changed. People’s attitudes about slavery didn’t fundamentally change until it became illegal. People’s attitudes about women’s suffrage didn’t change until after the 19th Amendment was passed. People’s attitudes about segregation didn’t change until after Brown v. Board of Ed. and the passage of the Civil Rights Act. People’s attitudes about women’s participation in sports didn’t change until Title 9 was passed.

In other words, changes in the laws affect people. Take Massachusetts as an example. Prior to the Goodridge decision, a majority was opposed to same-sex marriage. Now, a majority favors it. And that is only in a mere 6 years. Why do you suppose that is? I would suggest that people realized that, for the most part, it didn’t affect them one bit! They saw and shared in the happiness of their neighbors, friends, co-workers, family members, and they realized that the sky did not fall. So, in my opinion, until the law changes and LGBT persons are entitled under the law to the same status, protections, and benefits as heterosexuals and the law does not sanction discrimination against us, then and only then, will the hearts and minds of people change to see that we are equal human beings and deserve to be treated as such.

As for a wedding ceremony between my partner and I, yes, we have thought and talked about it, and at one point we were planning for it. But in spite of the fact that our spiritual commitment is there, and in spite of the fact that our family and friends would support us, there is something that does not feel authentic because it is not legal and enforceable where we live. It would be like dress rehearsal for the real thing, I think. I am married to her in my heart, and I will remain faithful and committed to her until I draw my last breath. However, the lack of legal benefits and protections are very real to us, and we face them regularly. We have already spent thousands of dollars in legal fees trying to cobble together protective documents that would be unnecessary if we were married. I am taxed on the portion of my salary that goes toward her health insurance costs. We will be significantly taxed if one of us predeceases the other. We will never be able to collect the other’s Social Security benefits even though each of us pays into the system just like heterosexuals do. We cannot file our taxes jointly, although we own a home together and other joint property. And on, and on, and on…1138 legal benefits to which we are denied access to be exact. And it is patently unfair.

But most of all you still need to explain why she should be given any less credibility or shown any less regard as a person because of who she is or who she is married to.

We’re supposed to try to be gracious toward our adversaries around here, but at a certain point that’s like trying to be gentile while you fight off muggers. The hypocrisy of your comments is nauseating…

1.) the numbers weren’t as high as either side is saying
2.) some of the SSM supporters were too belligerent, and shame on those individuals for it
3.) Brian Brown probably did do this and shame on him for it

Heather Curly from Queer Action Rhode Island shared the following anecdote about Brian Brown:
“After NOM’s rally was over, the state trooper came over to tell us that we should begin clearing our people out. Brian Brown was right behind him to confront us, egging the state trooper on, and saying very condescending things like ‘he’s right, you don’t belong here.’ And then a great thing happened. The state trooper turned around and told him that ‘if he approached our side again he would have to leave or be arrested’ – that he needed to clear his side out too. He got very irritated by that, I could tell.”

4.) Speaking in tongues strengthens no one’s platform.

I personally wouldn’t have taken children, regardless of which side I was supporting (first off, this topic probably bores children to death, and crying children aren’t effective for any protest) So I’m willing to say it was just bad planning on Mrs. Wolfgangs part. But, passing off a friend and wife of a speaker at this protest as a random mother with young children is disingenuous on this
blogs part.