I guess I'm not following your argument how polygamy marriages would some how be easier for the government to handle than a 2-party gay marriage. It seems that all your arguments against gay marriages equally apply to second straight marriages; i.e. where two divorced straight couples remarry bringing along children. I'd need a specific example. Here's one. A man adopts a child from Romania -- all legal. Later, the man turns out to be gay and has a gay partner. I'm not sure where the original biological parents get involved. Here's a second scenario. A man and a woman have children. One of the parents die. The second parent later takes up a gay partner. Regardless of whether you believe that this is contradictory to "your" beliefs, how is this scenario different (or more messy) than had the surviving parent remarried straightly?
When referring to polygamy, I was merely stating that the legacy government revenue computer systems only have one field for "spouse's SSN" and would cost billions to overhaul for polygamy rules.
As we have seen in gay relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In a lesbian relationship, there’s not just the two women fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father’s rights take precedence over his ex-wife’s gay ex-partner’s rights? (Can you even follow that statement?) What if that father has been absent in his child’s life? What if the biological mother was the bread-winner, while her gay ex-partner stayed home and raised the kids? Does the gay ex-partner have any claim to the children she has been raising, even though they technically do not belong to her?
But the condition for "messiness" existed a priori regardless of whether marriage was involved or not. For example, let me rewrite your entire argument changing the gayness to straightness:
As we have seen in
gaystraight relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In alesbianstraight relationship, there’s not justthe two womena man and a woman fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father's rights take precedence over his ex-wife'sex-partner’sboyfriend's rights? (Can you even follow that statement?) What if that father has been absent in his child’s life? What if the biological mother was the bread-winner, while hergay ex-partnerex boyfriend stayed home and raised the kids? Does thethe gay ex-partnerex-boyfriend have any claim to the children she has been raising, even though they technically do not belong toherhim?
Isn't that just as messy? If you meant that the gay partners were married, then just assume that the boyfriend/girlfriend were married as well. It doesn't make it any less complicated. Some parties are legal guardians and some are not. Their marital status is irrelevant.
Custody disputes favor the mother, for the reason that she is the one who traditionally nurtures and cares for the children. Gender-wise, gay relationships create a complicated scenario that does not exist in other custody battles. In the example I gave, the gay biological mother was filling the role of provider (father), while her gay partner was filling the role of stay-at-home mom. Given the court precedent that sides with the person who nurtures the children (the female parent) who gets custody? What about the father? An even more complicated scenario involves adoption. What happens when two homosexual men adopt a child and then “divorce?” On what basis does the court weigh custody there?
These are cases that present uncharted difficulties to the court--difficulties not existing in any other disputes.
Things get even more complicated when one considers the disproportionately high number of partners a homosexual has. On average, the typical homosexual man has 100 - 500 partners. Shockingly, 28% take on a thousand or more partners. A child raised by married homosexuals can be expected to have a ridiculously high number of step-parents, many of whom might want custody or visitation rights.
No other demographic group can compare with such instability.
In case you think marriage would change that pattern of infidelity, look at the Netherlands, where same-marriage is legal. Studies reveal homosexual men stay married on average for 1.5 years. Only 1.5 years! While married, these men have an average of eight outside partners. “Commitment” among unmarried homosexual men actually fares better, at five years, yet these men assume several outside partners during their relationship.
Not only does this present difficulties for the courts, it puts an undesirable burden on children. A court looking after the best interest of the child should have to consider this kind of atmosphere as a negative--or at least less than ideal--environment for raising children.
A messy proposition, indeed.
By contrast, a polygamist custody dispute would obviously be simpler, since it involves only the biological parents. In this situation, the courts would follow precedent, which is that the biological mother has the upper hand. Likewise, incestuous and child marriages would be easier to resolve than same-sex marriages, because they would be centered on biological parental rights. This is fairly simple--unless they begin to involve members of the same sex. Then it gets complicated.
It seems that all your arguments against gay marriages equally apply to second straight marriages; i.e. where two divorced straight couples remarry bringing along children.
Not so. Unlike in gay relationships, the scenario you cite is rather clear-cut. The biological mother would be favored for custody, unless she is proven “unfit” to the court, in which case the biological father would be awarded custody.
I'd need a specific example. Here's one. A man adopts a child from Romania -- all legal. Later, the man turns out to be gay and has a gay partner. I'm not sure where the original biological parents get involved.
Tricky, isn’t it? And who gets the child when the gay men leave each other--which statistics say is inevitable?
Here's a second scenario. A man and a woman have children. One of the parents die. The second parent later takes up a gay partner. Regardless of whether you believe that this is contradictory to "your" beliefs, how is this scenario different (or more messy) than had the surviving parent remarried straightly?
Bringing a gay factor into it complicates what would otherwise be a more simple situation, legally. That’s a fact. In a typical case of a dead parent, obviously the living parent takes custody, unless he or she is challenged in court as unfit. Extended family is a second-tier option. Non-relatives are often third, or not even considered. However, when you add the gay factor to the mix, traditional case law is thrown out the window. Although non-related heterosexual partners are rarely awarded parental rights, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled in 1995 that non-biological gay ex-partners can be granted visitation rights. This week, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that non-biological gay “parents” can seek custody of their ex-partners’ children.
Given the 100 - 500 average partners a homosexual man has, the amount of ex-partners seeking parental rights over the same children will potentially number not a few.
When referring to polygamy, I was merely stating that the legacy government revenue computer systems only have one field for "spouse's SSN" and would cost billions to overhaul for polygamy rules.
Ah! So, you’re saying we can’t allow polygamist marriages because forms, paperwork, and computer systems don’t already accommodate them. In other words, the traditional understanding of marriage is so entrenched in society, it would be too expensive to change. Correct?
You equally apply this line of reasoning to all forms of marriage, right?
Consider for a moment the kinds of changes required to abolish thousands of years of understanding about human relations, all to accommodate same-sex marriage. ENORMOUS overhauls of forms, paperwork, and computer systems will be necessary to make marriage non-gender specific. I can’t even comprehend all the changes that would be needed to integrate same-sex marriage into the culture, government, legal apparatus, and the business world.
Not every form tidily asks for a “spouse.” In fact, when homosexuals attempted to marry in San Francisco, they ran into a slight hitch. The marriage certificate asked for the name of the husband and the name of the wife, along with the maiden name.
And that brings up another complication. What about surnames? Who takes on whose surname, and who keeps their maiden name?
When the child of lesbians is asked for his mother’s maiden name in order to get a bank account, what will he say? When the child of homosexual men is asked for his mother’s maiden name, what will he say?
How does the term “maiden name” apply to homosexual men? How does the term “wife” apply to homosexual men?
Of course, these terms can’t apply. The only answer will be to abolish their use. No more husband and wife. No more maiden names. Those words are now discriminatory. They imply that heterosexual unions are favored above homosexual unions.
We’ll have to revamp dictionaries, school textbooks, history books, record-keeping, genealogical forms, businesses--all to accommodate this revolution in marriage.
While we’re at it, we might as well add a few extra entries for plural spouses--which, ironically, some historical records already have provided, as in genealogy. Making this small allowance would be easier than revamping society to accommodate same-sex marriage. After all, it has existed before. Polygamy was practiced for roughly 40 years in our nation’s territorial history, and cohabitational forms of it continue to this day. Now that the courts have invented same-sex marriage, legalized polygamy is around the corner, with no protective barrier now against it.
It would be naïve to think marriage can simply be redefined overnight for gays, but not for any others! It’s also naïve to think that redefining marriage to allow same-sex couples is an easy, non-expensive task.
But the condition for "messiness" existed a priori regardless of whether marriage was involved or not.
Very true observation--with, however, an a posteriori proposition being more descriptive of my method below.
From experience, we can conclude that homosexual relationships are inherently messy legally, even without marriage.
Take the case in Colorado, for example. Two lesbians adopted a child from China. They broke up after eight years. One of the women retained full custody, while the other was denied all contact, even visitation rights. Ironically, the reason she was refused visitation rights is that she became a born-again Christian, and the judge decided that no person can have visitation rights who might teach the child negative things about the other parent’s lifestyle.
Then, there’s the case of the toddler with three legal parents. (Or is it four?) It seems a gay man impregnated a lesbian, with the contractual agreement they would share the child. After giving birth, the woman and her partner ran off with the child. The man sued for custody, and won--at least partially. He still has to share the child with the child’s “mothers.” No word yet on whether his partner gets to have a role.
Finally, there’s another complicated example that defies case law. In California, a woman’s fertilized egg was implanted in her lesbian partner. The partner had twins as a result. Upon the souring of the couple’s relationship, full custody of the twins was granted to the woman who birthed the twins, despite the fact that the other woman was the biological parent.
Such complex matters do not exist in other relationships, yet they are commonplace with homosexual ones. I conclude that homosexual relations are the most complicated of all. Do you still hold to the premise that marriages be outlawed if they are not simplistic?
For example, let me rewrite your entire argument changing the gayness to straightness:
I hope someone appreciates this statement.
As we have seen in gay straight relationships, however, child custody battles can be extremely complicated. In a lesbian straight relationship, there’s not just the two women a man and a woman fighting over custody, there’s also the father. Do the father's rights take precedence over his ex-wife's ex-partner’s boyfriend's rights?
Assuming the woman in your example was granted custody after her first divorce, she would retain custody after the second divorce or relationship. That is firmly established in case law--at least for heterosexuals.
Should her fitness be challenged in court, her first ex-husband would be first in line for custody, followed by extended family. Boyfriends are pretty low on the totem poll in custody battles. Ex-spouses not related to the children might fare slightly better, but just a notch.
By contrast, courts are beginning to give more favoritism to non-related gay partners than to non-related heterosexual partners. Gay-related custody battles therefore will not likely ever have a coherent rule to follow. They will be tedious affairs, decided case-by-case, without universal principle.
If you meant that the gay partners were married, then just assume that the boyfriend/girlfriend were married as well. It doesn't make it any less complicated. Some parties are legal guardians and some are not. Their marital status is irrelevant.
When it comes to homosexuals, yes, you are right. Their marital status is irrelevant.
(A response to your other comments is forthcoming at another time.)