Dear Friend and Reader,
As I watched highlights of the vp debates on YouTube, I was struck with sadness after hearing Biden and Palin’s exchange on the topic of gay marriage.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ZYWY3UnNk[/youtube]
Neither of them has any interest in full legal equality for same-sex couples. I knew their policies already, but to hear it stated so firmly: “no,” made me feel quite worthless and undeserving. I wasn’t alive for the debates over Loving v. Virginia, which legalized marriage between different ethnicities, but I’d imagine I know how they feel.
I’m not particularly interested in marriage myself, it’s more the fact that everyone around me — from Britney Spears and Keven Federline to my close college buddy who works as a dominatrix and recently hooked up with a much older guy who doesn’t wake up until six in the evening — has the right to get hitched and I don’t.
Why are they allowed into this “sanctimonious” institution when measly old me, in the same, mostly-stable partnership for three years, sits around the family table with all these other couples (who are straight), and babysits for her siblings’ children, but is stuck in a group with Ellen Degeneres and her lovely wife (only in the state of California) Portia, with no right to “make it honest” in any nationally-recognized sense?
This brings me to the children part.
It’s simple to nod your head in agreement when a politician talks about the right to visit your partner in the hospital, or about rights to a home after a partner, who’s the technical owner, dies without a solid will. But, when children get into the mix, things get complicated because, as any parent can testify, once kids get involved it’s not about the adults anymore.
 |
|
Gay adoption rights in North America.
|
In the United States, with the exception of about six states, same-sex couples can’t adopt children. In fact, there are a few states that have legislated to make it completely illegal. To put this in the context of your neighbors next door (tell your partner you were right — they’re not sisters), if Sue and Carol have been living together for 15 years, and Sue decides to carry a baby, Carol has no right to that child: even though she woke up in the middle of the night for feedings and changings, rushed the baby to the emergency room when she fell during recess and needed stitches, and spent hours putting together the race-car bed they purchased from Ikea. (The instructions seemed simple enough at the time…)
This time, it’s not Sue and Carol involved in a custody battle, it’s Barbara Maniaci and her acrimonious ex- Michelle Kulstad. The couple lived together for 10 years in Montana, and raised two children (now five and nine) in a home Barbara owned. Barbara adopted them as a single parent. It’s unclear whether Michelle ever tried to adopt the kids, but in Montana, there is no law placing it squarely as legal or illegal to do so.
Barbara and Michelle split up in 2006, and Michelle stayed in the house. Barbara left with the children, and now lives with a man. Michelle sued for joint custody, on the grounds that she had an active parenting role and that it was in the best interest of the children to maintain that relationship. Earlier this week, the judge ruled in Michelle’s favor. On Thursday, Barbara filed an appeal for sole custody with the state Supreme Court. Her lawyer’s argument: “Kulstad has no legal or biological ties to the children and say the judge ruled in her favor simply because ‘the two women lived together for a period of time’.”
Barbara, “as the ‘legally adoptive’ parent claimed that Kulstad had no custodial rights to their children, that she should not be granted visitation rights, and that she was a ‘legal stranger’ to the children,” according to Q Salt Lake.
Montana, as of yet, has made no decisions in favor, or against, gay marriage, partnership rights, adoption, co-adoption, etc. This case between Barbara Maniaci and Michelle Kulstad will force them to make a decision regarding parental rights for same-sex couples: one of the most contentious issues when it comes to gay rights.
As an example, the Republic of Ireland is currently ironing out the details on a Civil Partnership Act, which grants basically all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples, except for parenting.
I don’t know why people fear same-sex couples raising children: when it comes to “safety,” for example, there are, minimally, an equal amount of straight and gay sexual abusers, if not more heterosexuals. And, when you’ve just about got a snowball’s chance in hell at being raised by two parents these days, you’re pretty lucky to get them in any loving partnership as a twosome.
But finally, and most importantly, we’re not going anywhere. Legislating against same-sex couples is only hurting the children. We won’t stop adopting, or raising kids from previously failed partnerships or creating supportive loving homes.
We’re not any better than anyone else: all I’m saying is we’re not any worse. So, for god’s sake, stop treating us like lepers in the legal system. We just want the same rights as the rest of the country.
Best of luck to Montana’s Supreme Court,
Neo-conservative PalinMavrickBushCo isn’t going to give Alternative Marriage anything but thumbs down and liberals can’t “afford” to be open minded on every topic even if they felt inclined.
Truer question: When are we going to acknowledge that marriage in the eyes of the law, which controls this union – is not a romantic partnership?
What we call marriage is a financial (and socio/political) arrangement and needs to be treated as such. When we put down the romance novels and reconsider what the legal union is really all about then government (aka We The People) will look at marriage through different eyes.
Romantic, spiritual or religious unions should be given appropriate consideration for what they are……and naturally I would choose to give financial perference to somone/s to whom I am emotionally close. Maybe.
I’m confused, so the district court in Montana affirmed the rights of children to a relationship between both of their same sex parents…
And one of the mothers wants to completely cut the other one off, vindictively? And a ruling in her favor could force gay parenting and rights to be legally non existent in Montana???
Where are the gay rights lobbyists? Where are the community organizers? Straight moms and dads have the luxury of being wackadoodle crazy with custody issues and their spouses (don’t get me started), but gay moms and dads don’t. They are not EQUAL in the eyes of the courts. Period.
Until that equality happens then there needs to be a concerted effort from the community to reach out to the grieved and vengeful parents to be bigger than they are and have some common sense…STOP when the courts reach a fair and equitable decision.
You know right wing America doesn’t even have to have a Rovian master plan to take out gay rights – they don’t have to get some straight woman actress to pose as a gay woman adopt some kids, leave her lover, go back to the arms of a man and then sue for custody without any provision for her ex to see the kids – NOPE…this isn’t some evil scheme. The gay rights implosion is happening by its own hands. That’s what I call queer.
Presidential candidates who take a stand against gay marriage are pandering to the conservative crowd. The issue has nothing to do with the president’s job, except as they choose a Supreme Court justice — and it’s an unlikely basis for a nomination. You can be sure that PalinBushCo will choose a prospective judicial nominee more closely based on the right to choose an abortion. Anyone politically against abortion will be against gay marriage. Anyone more socially liberal and pro-choice will very likely favor gay marriage.
So the issue is a nonissue on the presidential level. It is what’s called a state’s rights issue — something not covered by or defined by the Constitution. Until it reaches the Supreme Court, it is no business of the federal government except that the government itself is bound by the 14th amendment to provide EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, and we need to know that and understand that. The states are also bound to follow the Equal Protection principle from the 14th amendment. (I don’t know the bass of Loving v. Virginia, I will put that question to Steve Bergstein, who writes our civil rights blog.)
The issue on the federal level is a red herring, designed to aggravate or activate Christians. The larger issue is: who supports the right of individuals to choose anything, pursuant to their constitutional rights?
PS, http://planetwaves.net/main.html