Question for those who are against gay rights

Great Debates
1

I have a question for those who are against the legalization of gay marriage and homosexual sodomy. Specifically, what do you make of how the laws play out in the following scenario:

Suppose there’s a bisexual woman named Janet. She flees an abusive husband while pregnant, and meets a woman named Alice shortly after divorcing him. Janet and Alice fall in love, and have a “wedding ceremony” to declare their lifelong (and, for what it’s worth, monogamous) commitment to each other. Together, they raise Janet’s son, William.

Twelve years later, Janet is brutally beaten by a gang of homophobes, and is put into intensive care. In her delirium she calls out for Alice, but Janet’s family disapproves of their relationship, and bars Alice from visiting her in the hospital. Since Janet and Alice are not legally married, there’s nothing Alice can do.

When Alice pleads with the hospital, the bureaucrats at the hospital realize that they’ve got a couple of filthy sodomites on their hands, and call the police. The cops arrest Alice, who is ultimately convicted and sent to jail. Janet is chained to her hospital bed in order to prevent her escape, but eventually dies in the hospital.

Alice is forbidden to go to the funeral by Janet’s family. Again, Alice has no recourse, since in the eyes of the law she’s not Janet’s wife, but is instead just a sodomite hussy who hung out with her for a few years.

What happens to William? Alice tries to get legal custody of the child she raised for the last 12 years, the son she raised from birth. But since she’s not the child’s biological parent, and is, moreover, a lesbian, the judge considers the case to be a no-brainer and gives custody of William to Janet’s family. Janet never sees William again.

So, is this well and good? Did the legal authorities act properly in this scenario?

2

Does anyone here really think Gays should not have rights?
They are people… Right?

3

I’m not against gay rights, but I don’t see that your OP points to any problems with prohibiting gay marriage.

If the law allows a person to restrict a who can visit a person simply because that person is their child, then the problem isn’t in the prohibition of marriage. If I’m in the hospital and I want someone to visit me, and that person wants to visit me, then I have a right to have that person visit me, regardless of our sexual or matrimonial status.

If the parents wish to have a ceremony memoralizing Janet’s life and not invite Alice, they have the right to do so, regardless of whether Alice was married to Janet. And Alice has the right to have a ceremony memoralizing Janet’s life and not invite Janet’s parents, regardless of whether Alice was married to Janet. I don’t see what you think marriage has to do with this.

Huh? If Alice and Janet had been married, would you expect the judge to give preference to William’s step-parent over his biological parent?

4

And who gets to have a wake with Janet laid out in a casket? Or, to be blunt, who gets the corpse? Who gets to bury Janet? Without gay marriage, then Alice can’t be there to see Janet one last time, or to see her buried, because Janet’s family has robbed her of that right, even though Alice is, as far as she and Janet were concerned, just as much a part of her family as her parents and siblings.

If Alice were male and legally maried to Janet, then being at her funeral could not be denied of him by Janet’s family.

I would imagine so. It would be better for the child than to be forced to live with someone they don’t even know.

5

All right, marriage is supposed to fix everything? According to your scenario Janet was married–did that fix everything?

Hetersexual couples, even legally married ones, have the same issues. What about Janet’s ex, the child’s father. Did he relinquish the child? I know legally married heterosexuals who have spent $$$ in lawyers’ fees and invested significant emotional angst dealing with similar issues.

Estate planning, advance directives, wills, trusts. Of course these all can and have been subverted by survivors.

I’m not against gay rights or gay marriage. I just don’t see it as a palliative for folks whose families are dead set against their choices. Whether it’s legal or not is not going to matter to that kind of family.

6

I’d hope that a judge would give custody to whomever he thought would be the best parent. Just because you share genetic material with someone, that doesn’t mean you’re fit, by any stretch of the imagination, to take care of that person.

7

Not to judge, but you made some incredible statements in your OP post. ou did not mention what year this story took place? If you said 1933, 1943, or even 1973 I would of went along. But this is now 2003, so let’s get a grip.

First, that old “a gang of homophobes” garbage. Not, Janet was hit by a car, not Janet was shot, not Janet had a stroke, it is Janet getting “brutally beaten” by a GANG of homophobes. You also mention her getting beat on by her abusive (I am surprised you did not mention him being a homophobe, an alcoholic, or a Christian). I feel maybe, that you might be a gay person who is prejuduce against straight people.

Looking at google, there are many gangs in the USA, Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, Hell’s Angels, Aryan Brotherhood etc. Can’t find the homophobe gang. I think they had some turf on Castro Street in the 1960s, but the Lavender Gang threw them out.

Second, the hospital cannot deny anyone that an adult patient wants to see. Her family could not stop this. The hospital only could bar someone entry to a room, if that person was drunk, had a communicable disease, or was abusive (like the husband or the homophobes). It is also illegal to chain a person to a bed, unless they are a threat to themselves or society. There was no threat involved.

Third, homosexuality is accepted in society. No one is going to jail for homosexuality in 2003. Gay love, sodomy etc., has been legalized by the Supreme Court. To ask someone if they are gay violates privacy acts which are punishable by law.

Fourth, a funeral is not usually a invitation only gig, unless you were a celebrity or a famous person (like Bob Hope). Alice can go to the funeral, what, is Janet’s family going to round up and hire the homophobe gang to guard the casket and be on the lookout for lesbians or abusive husbands? People do not attend funerals because they are uncomfortable with the situation, either the dead was a close friend, or in this story, the other family and friends of the dead don’t like you. There is no funeral “guest list”.

The child is usually always better off with his blood reletives. Now, if these people were really “committed” to each other, could not the partner adopt the child? Especially since the abusive husband is out of the picture? I don’t know. If I was a judge, and the choice was between a non-blood reletive lesbian and an abusive heterosexual, I would seek a third option.

8

Janet should be able to will her corpse to whoever she wants. If she can’t, that would be another example of a problem with the law separate from gay marriage.

Sure it could. Anyone can hold a funeral for anyone else and refuse to invite anyone they want. I could hold a guneral for Bob Hope and refuse to invite anyone other than my friends. I could even hold a funeral for George Bush (although the Secret Service may start taking more of an interest in me afterwards).

Can you cite a case in which, all else being equal, a step-parent was given preference?
Best interests of the child only go so far. It would be in the best interests of most children to be adopted by Bill Gates; that doesn’t mean he can adopt any child he wants regardless of the parents’ wishes.

9

I’m told that one of the things which led to civil unions for homosexuals in Vermont was a situation in which not only did the family of a man not allow his partner of many (25?) years to attend his funeral, but they would not tell him where he was buried. When the latter gentleman tried to learn where his partner was buried, he was told he had no legal standing, therefore no right to know that information. In short, he wasn’t allowed to visit his spouse’s grave.

I’m not sure how this is separate from gay marriage. As I understand things, under current laws, marriage creates a legal standing for two people, most notably making them each others’ next of kin. The only other way I know of to voluntarily make someone your next of kin is to adopt them.

CJ

10

A shocker, I know, but gay people still get beaten up for being gay. Get a grip? Sheesh.

And your bit about no organized gangs being characterized as homophobes is just purely idiotic. “Gang” in this case seems pretty clearly intended as a group, not some specific, well-known group.

11

This is what my lesbian sister went through years ago. She had lived with a woman for 12 years and they had raised four daughters (one my sisters, three the partners). When the partner got sick, my sister was not allowed into the hospital or at the funeral. Furthermore, while she and her partner had bought a house together and started a business together AND she was the sole beneficiary in her will, the children’s fathers contested the will and got all the inheritance.

The thing that really set the judge off was blood tests proved that one of the women’s daughters was not fathered by either of the two men contesting the will (her still-legal husband and ex-boyfriend). He claimed she was obviously a “disturbed, incompetent slut.” And the women’s biological children got nothing.

12

I just don’t get why anyone could care less if two adults of the same gender get married.

I don’t see how it “undermines” marriage or how it affects them in any way.

I mean what is the big deal? We have palimony for heterosexuals, we have divorced heteros, several-times married heteros, living “in sin”(!) heteros - few people jump up and down about this. None of this is conventional “marriage.”

13

First, let me congratulate the OP on carefully constructing a neutral question, without any attempts to sway the reader argumentum ad misercordiam. Sheesh!

In any event, my sarcasm aside, it goes without saying that the OP commits the fallacy of argumentum ad misercordiam. But peeling away that fallacy, there remains the germ of a debatable proposition.

However, I’m not aware of any state that does not permit people to execute “living wills” and power-of-attorney concerning medical decisions. It’s true that the law confers rights onto spouses without necessarily requiring the execution of such documents, but it’s also true that under today’s law, with no changes required, any person may designate any other person to fulfill these roles, without fear that family may override it.

That neatly disposes of all the problems raised in the OP save two: if Janet is jailed for being a “sodomite,” she obviously cannot exercise her rights effectively under a power of attorney or living will. And the custody of William remains at issue.

Unfortunately, I fail to see how a conviction of Janet for being a “sodomite” would be had. There are many problems of proof associated with the scenario the OP describes, but to save time I will simply point out that Lawrence v. Texas would seem to protect Janet from any convictions at all - so I would ask the OP how, SPECIFICALLY, in light of Lawrence v. Texas, he envisions any sort of conviction for Janet.

Finally, we have the custody issue. It seems to me that this problem would exist even in a heterosexual couple, married, when the child is not a child of the union but of only one of the parents. In other words, if Janet were John, and Alice and John were married, with William the product of Alice’s first marriage, John has no right to custody either. So I fail to see how this is an issue of gay rights. While it may be a sad state of affairs, it’s a sad state faced equally by straight and gay couples.

Of course, after they married, John could have adopted William, giving him legal custody and avoiding the situation.

So, too, could Janet have adopted William.

I used to think I was in favor of gay rights, until I read this ridiculous attempt at framing a debate. Now I see that I’m in favor of the status quo, since it appears to answer all the objections raised in the OP.

Sheesh, redux.

  • Rick
14

It’s unfortunate the OP included so much inflammatory material to draw attention away from the main point.

THe rights lacking in the scenario should be available to all people; to use an extreme case to make a point makes your point look weak.

15

Annie-Xmas, was there anything during the course of her 12 year relationship that stopped your lesbian sister from sigining a document called a “power of attorney for health care”? Had she signed such a document, which a typically available at hospitals and doctor’s offices, as well as from lawyers, she could have freely named her lesbian lover as the person vested with the power to make her health care decisions for her if she was incapable of doing so. Part of the power would include the power to be in the hospital room, of course. Gay marriage isn’t necessary, only the awareness among gays to exercise the power and opportunities already available.

16

That seems rather… intemperate judicial language. When and where was this?

17

Probably not, if such a document was available back then. It might have been poor planning. But the will contested legally and successfully by a husband who had never done anything for his child. The husband and the boyfriend split the estate, leaving my sister and her children with nothing.

I’m all for gay marriage as a result.

18

The unfortunate fact remains, zamboni, that in any court of law, any gray area would be judged in favor of a male-female couple, and against a same-sex couple. Same-sex unions carry the implied approval of the community; gay marriages carry the implied disapproval. So in any situation where there are difficulties, the results will likely be different.

19

Both of these comments are correct, but they illustrate that the law provides a “one-stop” fix of all these legal issues for heterosexual couples, but does not provide it for homosexual couples.

An opposite-sex couple gets married, and automatically gets all of these adjustments made to their legal status, without having to think about every single issue.

A same-sex couple has to have a checklist of all the situations in their life where they want to have the same legal standing as a married couple and execute private legal documents to achieve it. That will cost money, to pay for the lawyer’s advice and drafting. As well, as Annie-Xmas points out, private legal arrangements can be contested and set aside, unlike say the inheritance provisions of an Intestacy Act which automatically provide that a married spouse is entitled to a share of the deceased’s estate.

So, even if there are alternative ways to achieve the legal standing, it’s still the case that without same-sex marriage or civil unions, the law confers a benefit/recognition on marriage between heteros that it denies to same-sex couples.

20

Not true in many states.
From the HRC

Live outside those states? Tough luck. And in the latter 16 mentioned, there is still not affirmative legislation or case law, so rights are shaky. Florida, in particular, BANS such adoptions. In fact that state bans adoption by gay people entirely, even for kids without any parents. As long as judges like Alabama’s Moore stay on the bench, rights in the 16 states mentioned and the remaining states are at risk.

In 2002 Moore ruled that a lesbian mother was an unfit parent and homosexuality is “abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature.” He (and the Alabama nine-judge panel in the custody dispute) awarded custody to the kids’ father despite his history of being abusive. Why? Because he is heterosexual.