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.)
Just because YOU can't figure it, doesn't mean the courts can't. I can guess by your previous posts that you have very little experience with the gay community. Most gay couples will not have children. Those who do, may have had them before they took on a partner. FEMALE does not imply NURTURER. There are heterosexual males that are more nurturing than heterosexual females. There are heterosexual males that are more feminine than heterosexual females. How do the courts decide in that case? They just do. I know personal examples where the courts gave custody to the father. Gay couples, regardless of sex, have feminine partners and masculine partners; i.e. two gay men will specialize on gender roles. It may be very hard for YOU, a heterosexual, to see the difference, but THEY have no problem with it. And judges can be gay too, so let gay judges figure it out. I don't really care. What's important here is that YOU stay out of their affairs.
On average, the typical homosexual man has 100 - 500 partners.
These people are probably not going to get married, anymore than a heterosexual man who has been playing the field will likely get married. This is America -- land of the individual. America is not supposed to invent laws that stereotype people based on what they consider to be part of their liberty. It doesn't matter what a typical homosexual does. For example, on average, the typical heterosexual man who gets married, gets divorced. What "they" do is no argument for what "he" or "she" may do. So let's drop with the stereotypes.
No other demographic group can compare with such instability.
I just did. Divorced adulterous people. And you find lots of them in the conservative party.
Netherlands... While married, these men have an average of eight outside partners.
Well maybe they had 10 times as many when they were single. If so, then this does "change that pattern of infidelity". More than 50 percent of all married women, at some point, cheat on their mates.
Not only does this present difficulties for the courts, it puts an undesirable burden on children.
You are arguing against being gay -- not being gay married. And you've already lost that battle. It is legal to be gay these days and for gays to adopt children. What you need to do is argue that if two gay partners with children later get married, then somehow the bad will increase more than the good. You have to argue that the children will then say, "Oh no. My parents are gay and that was tough enough. Now their getting married? I think I'm going to kill myself." NO. I think the children would prefer that their gay parents get married, for exactly the same reason that children of straight parents would prefer marriage.
And who gets the child when the gay men leave each other--which statistics say is inevitable?
Statistics say nothing about the individual. A fact about an individual implies information about the whole. The converse is not true. PROOF: 3 + 4 tells me something about the total. Now given the total is 100, this says nothing about any part. America is about INDIVIDUALS -- not GROUPS. People have the right to pursue their own happiness individually. I will bet top dollar that granting gay people the right to get married will make them far more happier than it will make you and all your friends unhappy. You will learn to accept it, just like you have learned to accept the fact that Freddy Mercury was gay.
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? 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.
I don't buy your argument that gay marriage is legally complicated. We do not pass out two different forms for males and females. They are generic and ask for your "spouse's" name. Even my marriage certificate was generic. But so what. If the out dated application mentions the words husband, wife, man, woman, etc. the the gay couples will choose how to fill out those forms. They have been referring to themselves in those terms for decades now. They've done all the work integrating their way into society. They are used to it, and forms can later be changed. But forms accepting 3 or more spouse names are a bit more tricky. I don't buy your argument that gay marriage is equally or more complicated form-wise than polygamy. But I could careless either way. It's not about me. It's about them. And I refuse to allow myself to hinder someone else's freedom when their freedom does not in anyway limit mine. That's just down right evil in the most pretentious-righteous way. Maybe one day you will think the same.
What about surnames?
What about them? Most of the times, they don't change their name. If they do, THEY decide, not you, and not the government. Hetero-married couples keep their names from time to time -- even with children.
How does the term “maiden name” apply to homosexual men? How does the term “wife” apply to homosexual men?
Let THEM decide how it applies. If you are too confused to figure it out, then don't expect to get invited to THEIR marriage. I think you will find that THEY (along with all their friends and family) have already figured it out. They have already integrated the traditional vocabulary into their system, just like we have gotten rid of terms like stewardess, seamstress, fireman, and policeman, but have allowed terms like nurse to apply to men. WE CAN ADAPT! And no one says that you have to. If you don't like their culture, then stay away. But expect to go to jail if you discriminate against them politically or economically.
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.
Of course they can. Again, you are making the mistake of applying those terms "collectively" to wholes, rather than parts. In the context of a married couple, you either know which terms apply to which person, or you don't and make an fool of yourself. When you see two people in the hospital, and one is a doctor and one is a nurse, you either know which one is the doctor, or you don't, at which point you ask, or go do something else. The government does not owe you a convenient labeling algorithm. Take a man named "William Smith". Do you call that person William, Will, Bill, or Mr. Smith. By your reasoning, we need to get rid of all names in the world because you can't instantly satisfy your need to box it all up out of context. The rest of us just ask Bill, or listen to what other people do, or wait to be properly introduced. If Bill is a customer at your cash register, you may interact with that person for 10 minutes and never even use his name. You might just interact with a gay married couple for years without ever knowing whether they are married or not. How long did it take you to figure out that the boys next door were a gay couple by the fact that they were wearing identical matching rings on their right hands? You learn.... or you don't. The government is not supposed to make laws that make you feel good about your philosophy, or complacent about your religion. It's not supposed to play favorites with respect to ideals. It is supposed to make sure that others cannot clobber you over the head for what you believe.
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.
It would be naive for you to think that it hasn't already been redefined for decades in ways that just don't affect you. And since it doesn't affect you, you should just opt out.
From experience, we can conclude that homosexual relationships are inherently messy legally, even without marriage.
From experience, over the last 10,000 years, we can conclude that 95 percent of the population are farmers. Times change. New experience makes a stronger argument than old experience. As long as you are not paying for the legal mess, what does it matter to you? They are only 5 percent of the population. Of them, if 10 percent decide to get married, that's still a small percentage.
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.
You'll find lots of equally messy cases that apply to straight couples, such as when one couple is on Visa visitation rights to America, gets married, gets divorced a year later, then has to be deported with their children remaining in the USA. Marriage is supposed to be something that an individual possesses, not something that a collective hive controls and manages. But if the government is going to go there anyway, however socialistic it seems, then they might as well start treating all their tax payers one equal terms.
When it comes to homosexuals, yes, you are right. Their marital status is irrelevant.
I say the same thing about divorced couples that remarry.
My question for you... How does gay marriage diminish your marriage (assuming you are married, and I don't even know if you are a man or woman)?