Engagement

[pecunium]

Over 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.

Comments

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I tried reading this earlier, but gave up on Dave long before he got to that point. I'm sure it's my loss that I don't read the rampaging nuts, but I have other things to do.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

With no net at the house, it was something I'd pulled up for later. That, and a high tolerance for people being doltish, is how I got through it.

Made my comment, and washed my hands., save to post about it here, because it ties into the last post, about how Prop 8 managed to pass.

[redbird]

It might not work in this case, but for approaching a lot of people, I would start by asking whether they also think that laws against race discrimination are a bad idea because such things should be worked out privately between employers and workers, landlords and tenants), and note that even before the Civil Rights acts, black Americans had the right to live together, not be thrown in jail for being black, and could get a religious blessing. And yes, that analogy is deliberate, because there is more to the gay rights movement than marriage: there are significant differences between the organized lynchings that are a shameful part of our history, and either anti-gay violence and the racist violence that exists today, but both are attacks on, sometimes murders of, people for being who they are, even though being who they are is not illegal.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Wow. Thank you for answering him.

[elf]

The key line in his rants (I didn't read them all; my head's too blurry for atheist dogma at this point):

gays should have the same rights as anyone else in terms of hospital visits, inheritance, etc.

It's that "etc." that people aren't willing to discuss. Setting aside that the CA legal system does not provide equal rights for same-sex and opp-sex life partnerships--the people who think "gays should have the same rights but a different word" need to be pushed into articulating those rights. Not just "hospital visits and shared sick leave and inheritance and... whatever."

That "whatever" contains a whopping package of social acceptance that is offered to marriages but not "civil unions" any more than it's offered to "business partnerships." And it contains a pack of *federal* recognitions not available to gays... ask them if they think gays should be allowed to receive their partner's 401(k) but not their partner's social security (and if yes, why they think fed money is somehow different from state money).

Whenever someone says "it's okay if gays have the same rights, except for the word"--ask them what rights those are. And don't let it stop with "and so on."

How about, "the right to decide, in junior high school, that you've found your lifelong sweetheart--and bond with that person at the age of 16, if both sets of parents think you're really devoted to each other?" (If they are horrified at the idea of 13-year-olds deciding to be married ASAP, ask why they're not trying to repeal that aspect of family law.)

Or, "the right to bear a child within a union, and have your partner automatically be the legal other parent of that child?" (This is law for married couples. I have no idea how they apply this to lesbian married couples; it may not have come up yet. It'll certainly cause some twitchy lawyers.)

The social issues are slipperier. The law can't (and shouldn't) mandate social acceptance. But legal equality begets social acceptance, or it can, and laws are supposed to create an environment that fosters tolerance and equal treatment.

Nobody ever heard of "staying virgin until your domestic partnership ceremony night." (In part, because there's no such thing as a DP ceremony... solemnization is not required.) Especially since domestic partners are required to already be living together.

The more I look at the differences between weddings & domestic partnerships, the more DPs look like business arrangements based on the concept of marriage. They lack certain core elements that are used to indicate that marriage is a contract between the couple and the state, not just between two individuals.

Make them talk about the "etc." Bring up what isn't available now (although some of it could be, with a few more legal shifts), and things like the right not to have to explain to the Catholic nurses, in the middle of a crisis, that you really do have the legal right to visit your partner in the hospital; the right to not have to argue with a landlord about the fact that your DP is not a roommate he can forbid or throw you out over; the right to not be expected to carry around paperwork that proves you have access to your rights.

Make them think about the rights married people can take for granted--the ones that aren't codified, but go with the common understanding of the word "marriage," that are not common for the words "domestic partnership."

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Yup, some/many people seem to have bought into the (propaganda) idea that Prop. 8 is about defining and protecting "marriage" -- both the word and the Institution. This reminds me of the way the long-ago Prop. 13 was sold as "protecting senior citizens on limited incomes from excessive increases in the tax on their home". It did that, actually, and I benefit from it even today, but it also, as time went on, benefited (increasingly enormously) Corporate property-owners, and seriously screwed-up the state's tax intake, much to the detriment of the vast majority of the citizens. I haven't been shown any reason, other than bigotry and the imposition of religion-based concepts, to support Prop. 8. It seems to me to be a classic case of the "tyranny of the majority" that's a constant danger in a democratic form of government, and something good Constitutions are designed to avert.

[sharon-masters.livejournal.com]

This is the problems with religion in America the moment it becomes activist.
There is no *reason*, only belief--- and they use whatever they believe, no matter how flawed, biased, prejudiced, wrong, stupid or misleading, as the basis of decision making.
After all.... that's the whole point of "faith", isn't it?

So we have to spend a lot of time explaining facts that they don't have in evidence and never WILL have in evidence because fundamentally at their core, they don't WANT those facts to interfere with their belief in their deity.
http://crackle.com/c/HDNA/Mr_Deity_and_the_Messages/2064981#ml=o%3d7%26fk%3dMr%2520Deity%26fx%3d

So we can't reason with them.... they have turned their back on using their smarts. They follow whatever sounds best to continue to support their fictions.
We pretty much have to go with sheer numbers until the centrist church leaders start denouncing the edge jobs.

[(Anonymous)]

> Or, "the right to bear a child within a union, and have your partner automatically be the legal other parent of that child?"
> (This is law for married couples. I have no idea how they apply this to lesbian married couples; it may not have come up yet.

Oh this is an old problem actually. Its the reason that second parent adoption is such an issue. And is a big part of why gay adoption *IS* a big deal.

Marriage is a vehicle to get both parents names on a birth certificate. Without that, the other parent must go through an adoption procedure to have legal rights of parenthood with that child. The need for those rights is (or should be) fairly clear so I'll skip that bit.

So what happens to this couple when they travel through a state which does NOT recognize gay or second parent adoptions? (Yes, this is true, just like DOMA)

Are they now both parents of their child? How about if the recognized parent gets sick or in an accident in that state? Is the child an orphan? Can that child be taken away from the surviving parent?

I'm not certain if this has happened or has gone to court yet. But I do know there are parents of children who are reluctant to travel for this reason. And when they do, they plan their routes very carefully to avoid having to find out.


I have similar issues with my CA marriage (if I still have that marriage). Would I be able to visit and make medical decisions for my spouse outside of our state? Its not entirely clear. Same thing with domestic partnership and civil union. It should also be pointed out that there are known cases where holders of medical power of attorney have also been denied so even if someone goes to the trouble of getting that paperwork done ($$) and carrying it everywhere, it still may not help.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Marriage is a vehicle to get both parents names on a birth certificate. Without that, the other parent must go through an adoption procedure to have legal rights of parenthood with that child.

This depends on the jurisdiction. In Calif. an unmarried woman is asked who the father is, should she declare one he is so named on the birth certificate and has to actually contest paternity to be removed.

[(Anonymous)]

That implies there's a father. Or a mother.

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.)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

In those circumstances, even with the parents being married, the non-biologic parent isn't going to end up on the birth certificate, not without other changes to the law.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not certain thats the case any longer. I'd have to check with NCLR to get a definitive answer and Google's not hitting a definitive statement in my quick check.

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.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, here's one thats a bit more definitive
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.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Sure, but they have to get it done as an exception (married couples are automatically both listed).

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.

[(Anonymous)]

I think we're each missing some fine point of one another.

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.