Marriage is about rights of the children

[foreigncorrespondent]

IN AN extraordinary show of unity, more than 50 national leaders of Christian churches have endorsed a document on marriage as a legal institution that promotes and protects the identity of children and their internationally recognised right to know, to have access to and to be nurtured by both their mother and father.

<snip>

Revising the definition of marriage has been presented simply as a justice issue of non-inclusion. There has been little in the media about the fact that this would mean revising what marriage means, so that it would be about romance only and no longer focused on establishing a relationship in which children are nurtured by both their mother and father.

<snip>

A child's relationship to both mother and father is inherent to marriage. Children conceived by other means may find themselves with people in parental roles who are in a same-sex relationship, but such relationships are not the origin of the child. It is likely for children to be loved and nurtured in such a household, but however good that nurturing, it will not provide the biological link and security of identity and relationship that marriage naturally demands and confirms.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/marriage-is-about-rights-of-the-children-20110905-1ju4e.html#ixzz1X5bH1a6N

Can you believe this homophobic crap? After reading http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.phpaz=view_all&address=221x185151">this I believe marriage being about the rights of children isn't a fight any homophobe should be making right now!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Have you ever read state laws on marriage?

In many ways they are all about the children as well

[foreigncorrespondent]

4. Not really!

I have only ever read the federal laws pertaining to marriage for both here in Australia and the U.S.

[nosmokes]

5. Can you link to some, please?

I'd be curious to see exactly what you mean. thanks.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. CA Law is here

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=fam&codebody=&hits=20

Buried in it are also sorts of declarations and such. What it comes down to is that children are the primary state interest in marriage. Not so much the production of them but the providing for them. That in turn has lead to a Dept of Children Support Services and local county variants that are often unaccountable.

[Unvanguard]

11. It would be nice if you could be a little more specific.

Instead of pointing to the entire California family law code.

I don't think anyone would deny that children are major concerns of family law, or that the state has no interest in ensuring that children are provided for by their parents. But the law of marriage these days, especially in states like California that have made efforts to protect the parental status of unmarried cohabitants, doesn't have much to do with this interest.

[Unvanguard]

9. Duplicate. n/t

[Unvanguard]

10. State law about marriage is not particularly about children.

Parentage these days--since the demise of the legal category of illegitimacy--is largely regulated separately. There's the marital presumption of parentage, and many states restrict joint adoption to married couples, but the legal core of marriage is recognition of the domestic co-residence, economic interdependence, and familial tie of two people, with or without children. (And the parts of marriage law that do concern parentage flow from this.)

[Amimnoch]

2. Fine, I can accept this

I can go along.. However, if it is really going to be about the children:

* no marriage rights until any couple has at least one child. (after all, it's about the children)
* Extending rights to GLBT couples with children has to also be equally recognized (after all, it's about the children)
* No divorces allowed for any married couples with children under 21 years of age. (after all, it's about the children)
* Marital rights end as soon as the last child who hits 21 years of age. (after all, it's about the children)

If it's all about the children, then the law needs to be reworked to match that philosophy.

[foreigncorrespondent]

3. The way I see it...

... if it is all about the children, then they also need to recognize the rights of children in same sex households.

My ex's children consider me more of a parental figure to them, than their actual father, who walked out on them when her youngest was a baby!

[Gormy Cuss]

6. In the excerpted language, the implication is also no child should be adopted .

After all, there's no biological link to secure their identities.

[foreigncorrespondent]

13. Yes!!!!

All those adopted children (my mother included) should all be returned to their biological parents (who couldn't keep them, or never wanted them to begin with) so their identities are finally secured! ;)

[Warpy]

8. Yeah, they always drag out the BAY BEES when they have no legal or moral

leg to stand on. It's like the robins in spring, the rainbow after the storm, a natural phenomenon you can always count on happening.

They drag out the bay-bees because they mistakenly think gay people don't have biological children, can't have biological children, and that's the way to attack their civil rights.

Marriage, at its core, is the promotion of a non blood relative into first degree relative status. Children might be incidental to this but they're certainly not required, nor do they exist at the time of most marriages. While contract law will do a lot to cover property and offspring, it can't confer the basic human rights afforded a first degree relative, from visitation in a hospital ICU during illness to planning the funeral after death.

Anyone who dodges this very basic issue is just blowing right wing smoke.

[NMMNG]

12. Bullshit

There's nothing on a marriage license that requires, or even asks the parties if they're going to spawn. If it were all about the children there would be more effort to train people to be good parents. As of now there's essentially none. If you want to adopt a child you have to jump through millions of hoops. There are no requirements, other than functioning reproductive organs, if you want to have one via unprotected sex between a male and female.


If it were "all about the children" people would be assessed for fitness before they could have children. They'd be required to take and pass throughout training to ensure they could adequately raise a child. Society wouldn't wait until reports of abuse and neglect were made before scrutiny came on a family.

If it were "all about the children" people wouldn't seek dates and spouses they were personally and romantically compatible with. Selfish concerns like that would be verboten. They'd go to geneticists to determine who they'd produce the best children with.


But it's not "all about the children" and the anti-gays know that. That's just another one of the specious arguments they use to try to sound noble. They've failed once again.

[foreigncorrespondent]

14. I like that!

Train potential parents to become parents BEFORE they ever have children.

[NMMNG]

15. It makes sense really

People need education/training to drive, for their jobs, for countless other things. But something where they have a human life in their hands 24/7 for two decades--a life they can royally screw up and even end if they do something wrong--they are usually flying by the seat of their pants. That's pretty fucked up.


"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father. "

Tod, from the movie Parenthood

[foreigncorrespondent]

16. It does make perfect sense to me!

But you know the bigoted fuck heads, mate... dare we try and get them to do anything that suggests there is something wrong with them, there is hell to pay. But dare they suggest there is something wrong with us, they go hammer and nails to deny us.

It is a sad world!