Engagement
Nov. 9th, 2008 12:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumOver at the Atheist Ethicist a discussion of the meaning of words was started, by looking at the idea that Prop 8 was about defending the meaning of the word marriage. I'm not sure the conceit works, because the argument (flawed as I think it to be) wasn't about defending the definition, but the idea of marriage.
This isn't really important to the story.
In the course of it someone said something foolish (that the Church never threatened to kill people who challenged the Earth-centric view of the universe... which is techically true... heretics were turned over to the civil authorities, who would do with them as they saw fit. This is also neither here, nor there, to the story).
Someone else made a nasty barb about home schooling.
Enter, "Physicist Dave", who took grave offense, as he is home schooling his children (who are doing better than all those other children; why they'd give the kids in Lake Woebegone a solid drubbing, no matter how above average all of them are).
Dave is, you see a "traditional values" atheist (and hater of public education). He also voted for Prop 8, which is important to this story. It is, in fact, the point of this story.
Reading Dave's defense of his position is painful. Painful as working a loose tooth, or dried scab, is painful, because, as he tries to justify his action he exposes more and more of his fears, and bigotries, and lack of understanding (his grasp of evolution seems to be a tad flawed; he seems to have, at least, traces of the idea of "direction"). He think Calif. Judges are "activist", Prop 8 will force religious intolerance, that lawsuits over discrimination; had it passed, would be bad (such things ought to be worked out in private, between landlords and tenants, employers and workers), and homosexuals already have the right to live together; and not be thrown in jail for having sex.
They can even get a religious blessing.
So actually treating them as equal isn't such a big deal.
This, I think, is the problem we, who oppose 8, and all its ilk, have to face. It's what we have to devise a means to fight.
This isn't really important to the story.
In the course of it someone said something foolish (that the Church never threatened to kill people who challenged the Earth-centric view of the universe... which is techically true... heretics were turned over to the civil authorities, who would do with them as they saw fit. This is also neither here, nor there, to the story).
Someone else made a nasty barb about home schooling.
Enter, "Physicist Dave", who took grave offense, as he is home schooling his children (who are doing better than all those other children; why they'd give the kids in Lake Woebegone a solid drubbing, no matter how above average all of them are).
Dave is, you see a "traditional values" atheist (and hater of public education). He also voted for Prop 8, which is important to this story. It is, in fact, the point of this story.
Reading Dave's defense of his position is painful. Painful as working a loose tooth, or dried scab, is painful, because, as he tries to justify his action he exposes more and more of his fears, and bigotries, and lack of understanding (his grasp of evolution seems to be a tad flawed; he seems to have, at least, traces of the idea of "direction"). He think Calif. Judges are "activist", Prop 8 will force religious intolerance, that lawsuits over discrimination; had it passed, would be bad (such things ought to be worked out in private, between landlords and tenants, employers and workers), and homosexuals already have the right to live together; and not be thrown in jail for having sex.
They can even get a religious blessing.
So actually treating them as equal isn't such a big deal.
This, I think, is the problem we, who oppose 8, and all its ilk, have to face. It's what we have to devise a means to fight.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-11 06:50 pm (UTC)In CA, its not unusual to have 2 fathers, or 2 mothers. Its becoming less rare in other areas as well.
(Without marriage rights, in these cases, the other parent generally must go through an adoption procedure to have parental rights.)
no subject
Date: 2008-11-11 10:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-12 12:19 am (UTC)But I did turn up a NOLO excerpt thats fairly recent (June 2008) which states:
Domestic partner adoption is like a stepparent adoption in that the registered domestic partner of a legal or biological parent may adopt that parent’s child. Even though registered domestic partners can both be included in a child’s birth certificate if the child is born during the partnership, adoptions are still recommended. Domestic partner registration is available only to same-sex couples in California, so heterosexual partners must either marry to take advantage of stepparent adoption rules or complete a second parent adoption, described below.
So I'd wonder if AB205 did indeed change that law and if the (brief) marriage statutes did as well. (Clearly a June 2008 date is likely to omit the marriage ruling.)
And if a second parent adoption is used, both parents (including nonbiological) can get their name on the birth certificate. That law is much easier to find info on.
Most likely the laws vary widely by state on these things. I'm referring to CA only.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-12 12:28 am (UTC)http://www.waldlaw.net/pdf/adoptions_essential.pdf
State laws often provide that children born into legally recognized
same-sex unions – whether domestic partnerships, civil unions, or marriages – will
be treated as the children of both members of the couple. Because of these progressive state
laws, lesbian couples giving birth in California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont –
and the list keeps growing – can get original birth certificates showing both partners’ names
instead of only the name of the birth mother.
One thing I have noticed in the Prop 8 discussions, is that individual views of what the laws actually are vary widely and often do not reflect the state of current actual law. Which would seem to demonstrate the need to get that information more widely distributed. Its not good that even the allies I've talked with dont fully grasp it all. (And I doubt I've got a thorough understanding either.)
The rapid pace of change doesnt help when googling for info either. One of my earlier hits was the same author as above, in a 2004 paper talking about the same issues; with much different statements due to the differing law at the time.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-12 01:11 am (UTC)I shudder to think about the problem for a male couple which arranges to have a child. Unlike Canada we don't allow three names on the certificate, so the mother probably has to cede parental rights to get both men's names on the certificate.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-12 02:57 am (UTC)The word original in the excerpt I quoted implies to me that no second parent adoption or termination of rights is necessary.
Given your example, I suspect perhaps the devil is in the details...
Sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogate mothers do not, I believe, have parental rights. So while it does take a bit of effort, it is indeed quite possible to have a child without a legal mother. At birth. But the egg donor and the surrogate must not be the same person. Taken to an extreme, it would also be possible to not have a father as well. But I'm not sure if anyone's taken it that far nor how the legalities work out in that case.
I'll take a risk that perhaps we're each thinking of different ways the child came into being and the legal technicalities that apply in those situations.