Marriage and Civil Partnerships: what is the ideal situation?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

That's a nice theory. The problem is, in practice, it doesn't work.

Now I'm not so naive as to think that allowing SSM will put an end to the kinds of abuses described in that blog post. What I do think, is that SSM will make it a little bit harder for those who would deny SS couples their civil rights to persuade themselves that they're behaving reasonably, and a lot harder for them to persuade a court that they behaved lawfully.

And my point was that this problem is not limited to same-sex couples.

Giving them marriage to try and resolve an unrelated problem (namely, that people with power of attorney are denied hospital visitation) is not the right answer.

The right answer is to address the underlying problems. Caregivers are apparently denied visitation at hospitals. People who have legal papers stating that they share an inheritance are later denied such inheritances. etc... This has nothing to do with same-sex couples, per se. It has to do with a flaw in how we handle such things.

Lots to unpick here. Lets start with the Appeal to nature. First, there isn't a lot natural about modern medically assisted birth. Second, there are plenty of OS couples, who for various reasons can't conceive or bring to term their own child without the same kinds of medical intervention that SS couples need. You wouldn't deny them the opportunity to marry. Neither would you deny it to OS couples who don't wish to have children of their own. Or who can't.

You would, however, deny marriage to SS couples who already have children, either through adoption or from a previous relationship. How are they're "needs" served by denying their de facto parents the opportunity to marry?

Finally, I note that your claim that children need both a father and a mother is a bare assertion. Do you have any evidence that the needs of children brought up in SS households are better served than those brought up in OS households?

The evidence that a child needs both a father and a mother is overwhelming in the family science literature.

The evidence that those needs are served just as well in a SS household is still unsettled. There is evidence both ways. For example, the recent study by Mark Regnerus using a random sample of grown children self-reporting on their experiences growing up and the outcomes they have experienced puts the question to many other studies using small self-selected groups of activist parents reporting on their children reporting the opposite effects.

Regarding your question about whether denying one parent of a child "marriage" to a same-sex partner serves that child's needs or not, again the answer is more complicated than one might expect. One has to factor in how the change in marriage scheme from an opposite-gender institution to an institution blind to gender will, overall, affect children. Will such a change, and the justifications used to bring it about, ultimately lead to polygamy, for example? Is that good for children? Are a child's needs served by two mothers, as well without a father figure? Will such a change actually improve the marriage culture in our country, thus persuading more people to marry and have children, stay together, and raise their children? Or will it result in less children being raised by their biological parents?

I don't know the answers to these questions. But there is something similar I do know about. After nearly fifty years of experience with "no-fault" divorce laws, we now know that they have had a devastating effect on the marriage culture in this country, and on children in particular. Initially people looked on these types of laws as a good thing. They free people trapped in abusive relationships. If you aren't happy with your marriage, you have an escape route without having to deal with a judge who won't believe your story. And while those things may be true, it is also true that people report they are less happy with the change, among many other serious side-effects. On the whole, it is not the trapped who take advantage of these laws, but those who think (wrongly) they will find greater happiness out of their marriage.

We only know these things after having tried the experiment. The trouble is, we can't undo it. Even though we know it is bad for us as a society. Even though we know it is terrible for children. We are selfish and won't overturn these laws. In fact, New York just recently became the 50th state to pass no-fault divorce laws.

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

P.S. I'm not so sure I made the fallacy of an appeal to nature. I did claim that it is the nature of children to need a father and a mother. I did not claim that this made any political decision good or bad. For example, from a purely cost effective point-of-view, one might argue that we as a society should give special rewards to men who stick with one woman, because such men are more likely to raise their children and such children are significantly less likely to be criminals. Not that that is my argument, per se. Just that I don't think I said something was good merely because it was natural (nor vice versa). I'll let you decide whether, and why, it would be good to meet the natural needs of children for a father and a mother.

[Zeta-Flux]

To put the last point of my post another way:

It is natural for a newborn to need its mothers milk. That doesn't mean, a priori, it is good for a mother to feed her baby in public. We as a society have decided that it is good to meet this need, even over the qualms of others in respect to modesty.

Similarly, one of the reasons marriage was invented in the first place was to deal with the needs of children. Societies decided that it is good to meet those natural needs. Not because of their naturality, but because of the benefit of meeting those needs.

[LaurV]

This is an "evolutionary" thing, and wherever it is going, we can't stop it.

Read Alvin Tofler's books (here especially the "third wave", which is the second book in the trilogy/tetralogy by now -- how the families developed during the ages, in agrarian society, where a family included few generations, to have enough workforce to work the land, in modern industrial society, where a typical family was mother, father and 1-2 children, because the mother and father have to work, and there was nobody to take care of the children, -- you see, this is evolution, the best adapted will survive -- and how the families will evolve in the future, based on different social interests -- he was writing about the family of the 21st century, families as groups "living together or not, and based on social and professional affinities", like homosexual families, "mathematician families" -why not??- etc,... he was writing this things 60 year ago, when even thinking to them was a blasphemy!!).

Up to now, he was right in all his "forecasts". What a pity he does not give trading advices
He interviewed hundreds and thousands of people (yes, you read right!) to write those books, this is science, not fortunetelling.

The family is a strange and variate animal. As for all animals, the best will adapt and survive.

(for the record, I am "traditionalist", and straight)

[wblipp]

What's the difference between marriage and civil partnership in the Netherlands? In the US, where this is a matter of state law, they usually have the same legal rights.

It only makes sense to have both if there is some difference. Pace proposes an interesting difference in legal rights - I don't see this addressed elsewhere.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by wblipp

What's the difference between marriage and civil partnership in the Netherlands? In the US, where this is a matter of state law, they usually have the same legal rights.

It only makes sense to have both if there is some difference. Pace proposes an interesting difference in legal rights - I don't see this addressed elsewhere.

The legal rights differ on a couple of technicalities in The Netherlands:

• Children born to a married opposite sex couple automatically have both married partners as parents. For a child born to a woman married to another woman, there is a strong movement in progress towards automatically naming the woman's wife as co-mother, but this is not completed yet as far as I'm aware. For civil partnerships, there is no automatic parenthood of the child's biological mother's partner, and this applies both to same sex and opposite sex partnerships.

• Divorce of a married couple can only take place through a court (though there is also a separate status of "separation" which still leaves the couple married). For civil partnerships, the divorce can be arranged without court involvement.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by wblipp

..... In the US, where this is a matter of state law, they usually have the same legal rights......

While this may generally be true at the state level, the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) specifically excludes same sex couples from certain benefits, even if the couple is legally married in some state. These include spousal Social Security, Federal pensions, and certain parts of the tax code.

In a sense, then, it could be argued that there is no difference for same sex couples between marriage and civil union at the Federal level. Neither is recognized for the purposes mentioned above, and possibly others.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by wblipp

What's the difference between marriage and civil partnership in the Netherlands? In the US, where this is a matter of state law, they usually have the same legal rights.

It only makes sense to have both if there is some difference. Pace proposes an interesting difference in legal rights - I don't see this addressed elsewhere.

I consider it a matter of clear terminology.
These days most people refer to their better half as their "partner".
If you don't know them, you are left asking yourself
Are they:
A) married?
B) civilly partnered? (clumsy expression)
C) what gender is the partner?

If it has any relevance to me, I tend to invite clarification, and get banned for my pains

D

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by davieddy

I consider it a matter of clear terminology.
These days most people refer to their better half as their "partner".
If you don't know them, you are left asking yourself
Are they:
A) married?
B) civilly partnered? (clumsy expression)
C) what gender is the partner?

If it has any relevance to me, I tend to invite clarification, and get banned for my pains

D

Yes, I think "partner" will catch on. It has done here - the word is the same in Dutch - since registered partnerships (1998) and marriage for all couples (2001) were introduced. Yes, you are left asking yourself those questions which were not needed with the sexist and heterosexist old "hubbie" or "trouble and strife", but so what? Ask them if you are interested. People won't take offence: they will more likely be pleased that you take an interest in them.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

"hubbie" or "trouble and strife"

Apologies in advance, Brian, but which one is you?

x

[Nick]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Apologies in advance, Brian, but which one is you?

x

Hands off - he's mine!

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by Nick

Hands off - he's mine!

Shall we just settle for a "menage a trois"?