Question for those who are against gay rights

First, two comments in response to Bricker:

I fully grant that living wills and a variety of other documents will accomplish for a gay couple most of the mutual rights granted married couples by law. However, is it your wish to assert that permitting one individual to accomplish by complex legal processes what another individual may invoke by law by taking a single simple and inexpensive step constitutes “equal justice”?

Second, while Lawrence v. Texas sets a precedent which courts and legislatures ought to follow, there’s another thread here in which, sixty years after West Virginia School Board v. Barnette, the great state of Texas statutorily mandates the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance of its public schoolchildren. To envision a state and its courts prosecuting for sodomy and that case being upheld by “good Christian judges” like Roy Moore until state appeals have been exhausted (recalling that under present rules, only then can an appeal to the Federal system be taken), does not strike me as beyond the realm of reasonable possibility today.

The hypothetical case of the OP says that William was (presumably) begotten by Janet’s abusive husband, and makes no presuppositions about whether that man was involved with the child whatsoever, but does indicate that Janet and Alice raise William as their own, so my assumption is that he did not.

My wife’s sole child, given up for adoption before we re-met and married, was fathered by a man who beat her while she was pregnant. I will undoubtedly never meet the girl who would have been my only stepdaughter and the only child of either of our bodies (thanks to that beating causing polycystic ovaries). That he has any claim on that child thanks to his sperm having induced a pregnancy is something I vehemently refute.

On the other hand, I can refute your comment with the wisdom of a (then) five-year-old whom I’m proud to claim honorary grandparent status of. I’ve told this story before, but it bears repeating here. My boy Michael met and fell in love with a girl named Tami, who was then pregnant by a kid named Casey. In due course, she gave birth to Kyle, and Michael married her and they had three additional children. Michael was there for Kyle’s birth, and has always treated him as his own son. Kyle has always known that Casey was his father by blood but Michael was the man who has filled the father role for him. One day I was visiting them and sat down for coffee with Tami. Michael was tinkering with some gadget nearby, in eye- and earshot but not part of the conversation. Kyle was having a “sammich for 'unch” at the table with us. Since Tami and I both were concerned about Casey’s running wild, doing drugs, etc., the conversation turned to what she’d heard about his latest stupid exploit. And in responding to her, I said something like, “So, Casey – that’s your daddy, Kyle…” He interrupted me with an adult that said
without words “grownups can be so dumb,” and patiently explained to me, “No, he’s my father.” Pointing to Michael with a smile of pride, “That’s my daddy.”

Wisdom from the mouths of babes. Casey’s testes may have produced the gametes that gave Kyle half his genes, but the man who raised Kyle from birth was the person he acknowledged as his daddy, regardless of genetics.

Alice is William’s other mother. Kyle might have a minute’s problem wrapping his mind around the idea of two ladies getting married to each other – that family happens not to know any gay couples – but once he caught that idea, he’d explain that to me as patiently as he did about his daddy.

And he’d be right.

Cite, please.

Regards,
Shodan

Well, Chief Judge Roy Moore of Alabama used similar language in a custody application brought by a lesbian mother last year, stating that homosexuality is “an inherent evil,” amongst other things.

Did you not read my post, Shodan?

Lest it was unclear, I was deliberately, and somewhat tongue-in-cheekly, committing the fallacy of Style Over Substance by rejecting the OP’s conclusions due to a poorly crafted argument. That is what was meant when I said:

[/quote]
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.

[/quote]

However, as I also said, there were debatable points raised.

No, it does not constitute equal justice. I fully support a civil union alternative that would confer upon homosexual couples the same rights and privileges under law as given to married heterosexual couples, and availabe in much the same way as a marriage license is.

Bah, and, also, bah again.

The first bah is directed to the proposition that the cure for a state’s failure to recognize a right granted under law is to provide even more rights under law. I disagree with that premise. The cure is to assert your rights under the federal constitution. While perhaps an unfortunate sitatuon, this is the process by which rights become enshrined in the common consciousness.

The second bah is directed partly at you and partly at the OP. As i said, there are many problems of proof in the OP’s scenario; the mere admission that Janet and Alice were lesbian partners is insufficent to secure a conviction for sodomy; the “hospital bureaucrats” and the police would have no way of arresting and convicting Janet on the evidence adduced in the OP.

A touching story. But the reality is that, regardless of your vehement refusal, biological relationship is considered either presumptively or at least strongly when considering custody, absent adoption.

I agree with you: families are made by actions, not sperm donations. If I spent time relating the horrors I have seen parents subject their biological children to, you’d probably be unable to eat your next meal. But the fact remains that this is only peripherally a gay rights issue; as your own story indicates, it’s an issue that affects all children raised by parents other than their biological ones.

To Homebrew: right you are, and I withdraw my blanket assertion that Janet could have adopted William.

Of course, Janet could have moved to a state that permitted such adoptions.

But as I said above, I agree with legislation that would create unions that confer all the rights and privileges of marriage for gays. That would include removing the prohibition against same-sex adoptions in those states in which it exists.

I retain my distaste for the poor work on the OP’s part.

  • Rick

And speaking of “intemperate judicial language”, did you happen to read Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence?

And if she isn’t the custodial parent and takes the child across state lines to establish residency so she has standing to adopt in that state, the biological father gets to prosecute her for kidnapping. Wonderful solution there…

Why, yes, I did.

And?

Wait a moment – I thought it was a given in the OP that Janet was the custodial parent of William?

I certainly was proceding under that assumption:

If Janet was not the custodial parent of William, then the father has every right to complain, and, indeeed, to prosecute. One parent has no right to abscond with a child, absent a determination of custody.

  • Rick

You seemed incredulous towards Annie-Xmas’s post before. Why should you doubt other judges would use such language if you’ve read Scalia’s dissent (or Roy Moore’s decisions)?

The problem with saying that the laws of intestate succession don’t constitute equal justice because they favor straight marriages over gays, to my mind misses the point.

Leaving gays aside for the moment, most smart straights nowadays are loathe to rely on the statutes of intestate succession. “Avoiding probate” - that is to say, the avoiding the legal fees and court costs involved in having one’s estate probated through the statutes of intestate succession - is the watchword of numerous popular seminars and estate planning techniques. Similarly there have been many recent changes in statutes that allow people to pass property through “joint with right of survivorship” or “transfer at death” language and bypass the time and expense of the probate court entirely. Those techniques that are good enough for straights to avail themselves of are freely and currently available for gay couples too.

Everybody, gays and straights, can and should carefully get their legal affairs in order because nobody really wants to have to rely on the statutes and procedures of intestate succession. What I’m saying is that the statutes of intestate succession are a default mechanism that is to be avoided whenever possible, and that it is not a particularly big burden for everyone, gays and straights both, to do so.

So, zamboni, you’d answer the question–

“Should starving poor people be given food?”

–with–

*“That misses the point. They should have planted beans a year ago.” *

–Or am I missing your point?

Would you mind quoting from Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence the language you believe is on par with calling a litigant a “disturbed, incompetent slut?”

  • Rick

We aren’t just talking intestat succession and related stuff here.

If I buy two insurance policies, one providing quite adequately for Barb in the event of my untimely death, and one naming my boy Chris and his kids as beneficiaries to provide for the kids’ future so far as I can, North Carolina law mandates that I have Barb sign off her “dower rights” on that second policy.

She’s in town right now with a friend from church. If, God forbid, they have a major accident and she ends up in intensive care, I have the right as next of kin to visit her at my discretion – I can even orderher comatose body transported from that hospital where I believe her to be getting inadequate care to another where I believe she will get better care.

If we had had children, she has equal rights in them with me – their custody and care, etc.

In the absence of children, at my death everything I have is hers by right. No need for a will unless I want to make specific bequests to Chris, Michael, Jay, and their kids (which must aggregate less than 50% of my estate after excluding our primary residence).

There are something like 1,000 additional rights which we have in each other’s affairs.

And we obtained these rights in each other by paying $10 to the Watertown City Clerk in early April 1975 and then filing with her a copy of the marriage license she issued duly endorsed by ourselves and the Rev. Clyde Relyea that he had officiated at our wedding (actually Clyde did the filing).

Now, suppose two gay people wish to have the aforementioned rights. Well, they can pay an attorney several hundred dollars to prepare all the necessary paperwork – fortunately, HRC has put together a list of all the relevant rights and how to obrtain them.

Even assuming they miss nothing, some matters, such as adoption of the children of one partner by the other, may be against public policy. As will being able to file joint tax returns, with the higher per-couple exemption. It’s questionable whether this extra-legal relationship would constitute a valid deduction. It’s up to the individual business for which one partner works whether his/her partner is coverable under the lower-cost company health insurance. And on down the shopping list of “marital rights.”

And every single one of these legal documents can be challenged in court by the legal next of kin of either partner – who may be a parent who threw that person out – disowned him/her – for “being queer.” (Before you claim this as a far-out hypothtical, we have one member in good standing of this board for whom that was the complete truth.)

Nice “public policy,” huh?
Bricker, I submit that while a court of law would require proof of sodomy having actually been committed for a conviction, I could easily see a situation where its coming to the attention of the authorities that a couple were living together in a same-sex union would be presumptive evidence of their having committed the crime such that an arrest warrant might issue. And my point was that people who believe themselves to be “defending American morality from assault by people flaunting their immoral behavior” will not be stopped by what they consider “legal technicalities imposed by activist judges improperly making law.” In evidence of which I adduced the flagrant violation of Barnette by the legislature of the state of Texas.

Bah yourself.

“What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails.”

“Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery.”

" I turn now to the ground on which the Court squarely rests its holding: the contention that there is no rational basis for the law here under attack. This proposition is so out of accord with our jurisprudence–indeed, with the jurisprudence of any society we know–that it requires little discussion.

The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” Bowers, supra, at 196–the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity."

“Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to “homosexuals as a class,” that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis …”

"Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. "

“It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal…”

Way to take my comments out of context, lissener! To answer your question, I am in favor of feeding starving people. What that non-sequitor has to do with the alleged necessity of having gay marriages and it being discrimination againt gays not to allow them to marry, I have no idea.

and don’t forget–

Oh, wait, that was from Dred Scott, not Bowers.

Sorry, the opinions were so similar it threw me for a minute.

Homebrew - do you seriously contend that each and every quote you offered is on the same level as declaring that a litigant is a “disturbed, incompetent slut?”

All I can say is that we’ll have to agree to disagree. No quote of Scalia’s above comes close to the rude, conclusory, and dismissive tone of “disturbed, incompetent slut.” Scalia is simply offering opinions that you don’t agree with, using careful, judicial language. If the judge in Annie-Xmas’s case had said, “Her mental instability, ineffective parenting, and promiscuity…” I wouldn not have blinked – not because I accept the conclusion, but because that’s the sort of language that is typically found in a judicial opinion. There is perhaps not much semantic difference between “mental instability, ineffective parenting, and promiscuity” and “disturbed, incompetent slut,” but there is a world of difference in propriety.

With that distinction in mind, do you still contend that Scalia’s opinion, and the quotes from it you offer, falls into the same category as “disturbed, incompetent slut?”

  • Rick

You’d have an idea if you read Polycarp’s more carefully reasoned response.

Sorry, zam, but you lost me with the outrageous “Gay marriage isn’t necessary, only the awareness among gays to exercise the power and opportunities already available.”

Separate but equal, huh, zam?

Are you aware of any actual instance in which this has happened, or are you merely standing on a “it could happen” platform?

If the latter, I agree that it’s possible - but so highly unlikely that it really doesn’t merit serious discussion. There is a world of difference between imposing the Pledge in violation of case law, a brief albeit unconstitutional requirement, and locking someone in jail, even briefly, on the basis of evidence that fails, on its face, to establish evidence of a crime.

I’m willing to be convinced, but as of now, I simply don’t agree that the danger of having an arrest warrant issue on the mere evidence of living together in a same-sex union is a reasonable possibility.

  • Rick