RSS

Tag Archives: Equal Marriage

Outing DOMA

27 Mar

constitution
Everything I know about the law I’ve gleaned from a handful of undergraduate classes, To Kill A Mockingbird, In Cold Blood & every version (including the British) of Law & Order. In other words; I know very very little. But why should that get in the way? As the Supreme Court is considering equal marriage it occurs to me to question why? Why are we pinning our hopes on the Supremes?

The Supreme Court is rarely at the forefront (or even midway) in changing our nation’s narrative. There are few decisions (that come to mind) made that the populace had not already thoroughly considered. So why then is it the Supreme Court we look to to settle this matter once and for all? What would happen if the body that decided (in 1996) that marriage was only legal for couples of opposite genders did a do-over? Before the signing (by President Clinton) and the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) there were no gender specifications in regards to legal marriage.

What would prevent President Clinton from launching an enormous mea culpa campaign? He is an incredibly influential man who no doubt has favors to call in. What would prevent him from lobbying congresspeople and senators to overturn what he created? The benefits of clearing his conscience notwithstanding, it would be an efficient method of eradicating the illegality of equal marriage.

Would the Supreme Court (or any court) even need to be examining the legality of any marriage had DOMA not been signed into law? Does anyone want to put their basic civil liberties in the hands of nine appointed people? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for elected officials to make those decisions for their constituents? If the polls are even remotely accurate it would seem that the majority of Americans support equal marriage. The (seemingly) vocal minority is similar to most vocal minorities who value their personal beliefs/views more than the public good. It is in the best interest of the public to have the people we’ve elected represent us.

“I think there’s just one kind of folks. Folks.”
― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

 
2 Comments

Posted by on March 27, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

People Let Me Tell You ‘Bout Children Of ‘Single Parents’

19 Jul

Periodically a new study is published about the affects of single parenting on children. The results (either pursued or emphasized) are pretty much tied to the times. Studies today often highlight the economic hardship and handicap of single parenting. When pop-psychology was king (I’m okay, you’re okay, anyone?) the happiness of the child and later social adjustment were measured. The common thread in most of these studies is; “How does the child fare later on?” Very few studies, whether looking to support the researcher’s thoughts on money and happiness or not, ever looked beyond a headcount. It is rare to see a study that takes into consideration (or has any interest in) what the actual parenting situation is for the child.

“Child of a single parent” can have multiple meanings, among them are; 1) the parent could be recently widowed and the child was raised by two parents at some point or 2) the parent might be divorced and there is a non-custodial parent very much involved in the child’s life. There are studies that might even “overlook” the fact that non-married people (of the same gender or not) are raising a child together, and consider the child to be of a single parent. Certainly many researchers reporting on the permanent scarring and emotional handicap of parents’ divorcing never discuss remarriage. “A child of divorce” could easily be raised by two parents in the home if there is a remarriage. The actual details of a child’s upbringing and parentage seem too complex for these studies. A cynic would deduce that these studies exist to reinforce a researchers’ interest in making people feel badly about their life. A less cynical person would theorize that these broad generalizations are useful to someone somewhere.

There is a recent trend of people intentionally parenting alone. Tragedy has not befallen them nor has abandonment. These people, for various reasons have pursued single parenthood. Within this category alone, are variations that might boggle the average social researcher. These single parents may be men or women of any and every socio-economic background and age. They may have adopted babies or hard to place children. They may have become pregnant (more than once) with a partner they did not marry. They may have orchestrated a pregnancy (either genetically related or not) with medical assistance. Clearly there are more meaningful factors in these child’s future outcomes than how many adults are in the home. Should the biological child of a single 16 year old parent be seen as “starting from the same place” as the adopted child of a 50 year old? Maybe.

As a culture we’ve progressed in how we define ‘family.’ At the same time marriage is becoming more inclusive it is also becoming less relevant for others. Remarriage, blended families, birth parents, and donor parents are all in the mix now. Is there a way to talk about children of single parents in any meaningful way? Is it even meaningful to try? I think we’d all agree that the more caring, consistent and attentive adults in a child’s life the better. Most of us would also agree that a child who grows up in a home with an emphasis on education will do better in school. Money will always matter, and a child whose families’ financial life is precarious will probably not do as well as one raised in a financially stable home. What more do we need to know?

 
5 Comments

Posted by on July 19, 2012 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Pious Doth Protest Too Much

14 May

There’s an awful lot of talk about equal marriage being incompatible with religious beliefs.  The president has even been speaking with religious leaders to alleviate their (and his) fears.  I’m not entirely sure I buy it.

I believe that people have found comfort in defending their stance with their religious convictions.  I mean who would argue with someone’s religious convictions or even suggest that religion, by its definition, is a way to exclude people who are not like us?  Not I.  But does anyone, even the most pious of Americans, believe that legal civil rights have anything to do with religion?  I can’t begin to understand how.  I’ve heard people claim a fear that their religious institution will be “forced” to perform marriages.  How?  They are not forced to perform marriages now.  I can’t walk into a religious institution with a willing heterosexual accomplice and force clergy to perform a marriage ceremony.  Religious institutions, again by their very definition, are allowed to exclude whomever they please.  (If you don’t believe me, just try getting married in a conservative synagogue without paperwork verifying your worthiness.  Even then it will be up to the discretion of the rabbi whether to cue the chuppah.)  So no one is going to be forced to do anything.

Then does just the idea that people are doing something that you believe your religion does not celebrate send a person ’round the bend?  Maybe.  People are entitled to interpret their religious doctrine anyway they please.  Whether I think intolerance has never been the teaching of any religion is immaterial.  But ya know what?  It turns out that church and state are in fact separate. There are several religions that ban pork from the human diet.  Yet the U.S.D.A. gives legitimacy to pork producers, manufacturers and distributors.  What would help anyone feeling that the United States government is on the verge of offending his or her religious sensibilities is to cease from seeing marriage as a religious rite, and see it as a civil right and legal construct.

Consider that in many religions the birth of a child is celebrated in a house of worship.  Not all babies are welcomed into that house of worship.  They must be of proper lineage and deemed worthy.  Yet, our government issues all babies birth certificates.  Why?  Because we have chosen, as a people, to have a government that ensures basic rights and freedoms of every citizen.  It all starts with the birth certificate.  Having a birth certificate is not a ticket to the alter/bihma it is a ticket to; social security, public education, voting and, with any luck, a marriage license.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on May 14, 2012 in Cultural Critique, Marriage/Wedding

 

Tags: , , , , ,

I Got You Babe

18 Feb

Women have been having babies on their own since the dawn of time.  (Having them, not making them.)  It’s not really anybody’s business, least of all mine.  But that would never stand in the way of me wondering why there’s been such a surge in the incidents lately.  I wondered for awhile if celebrity single motherhood had seeped into mainstream culture.  I also wondered if science had spawned the later-in-life-oh-I-should-probably-get-one-of-those upswing.  But both of those trends speak to a kind of intent on the part of the woman that does not necessarily jive with the recent statistics.

Most of the babies had outside of marriage are being born to women under 30 without a college degree.  About 40% of the babies in this country are born to single women.  That’s a lot of babies.  The popular theory is that marriage is seen as a luxury item, a step up if you will.  If the baby’s father is not in a position to be a solid marriage partner, the woman parents alone.  Logical on the face of it, no?

But what does it mean to be having sex with a man (at least once) who you find unsuitable?  One young woman refers to having to buy her boyfriend’s cigarettes for him, such is the degree of his uselessness.  It would be one thing if this smoking man had been a one time indiscretion, but this is a man she sees fit to seriously date.  Why?  The explanations could be plentiful and varied, but none leave me confident as to her future.  Now we add to the mix a baby, an expensive all-consuming baby.  Born to a mother who is not formally educated and may not have marketable job skills.  You see where this is going, no?

Marriage, like it or not, provides protection, both for the spouses and the children.  While states in our nation are waging a fight for equal marriage, there are locations in which heterosexuals have lost interest in the institution. How do we explain a vocal percentage of the gay and lesbian community rallying for something a large swath of the working class has eschewed?  And why are the single parent births so high within the working class?

There is no data to suggest (or dispute) that these women under 30 are living with their baby’s father in a lifelong committed relationships.  One assumes that these women are raising their child alone.  If marriage occurs at some time in the future, it won’t be viewed as a path to anything (such as parenthood) but as an end point.  Generations ago, middle class women went off to college in hopes of obtaining an M.R.S., and working class women hoped for a ring to wear at their high school graduation.  Getting married was the mark of adulthood (for men and women) of all classes.  Something has happened and now having a baby is that mark.  A generation raised on instant gratification can’t be the reason.  It’s far more fun to be a bride than to be a young single mother.  Economics doesn’t explain much either, as it is far more expensive for a mother and father to live separately than together.  Certainly it’s not a morality issue, as people from all classes dabble in an around the edges of their own morality.  It couldn’t be a perceived lack of educational opportunities, as there never have been so many remote ways to obtain a degree.

Turning this issue around and around, I am still left pondering the woman in a relationship with a man who does not have the wherewithal to purchase his own cigarettes.  Somewhere in there lies the answer.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 18, 2012 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , ,

School Scandal’s Sexist Subtext

17 Dec

It is a national pastime to second guess the handling of situations we couldn’t possibly imagine.  In that vain, I find myself asking, if the child (allegedly) being violated (in a university locker room shower) had been a girl, would this story have a different ending?

Would an adult, regardless of professional status or age, hesitate even for a moment before dragging a girl child to safety?  Would anyone, anywhere, doubt for a moment that the child was in serious jeopardy and needed rescue?  But substitute a boy child and our impulses become a bit more restrained.  Our sexist view of sex knows no age limits.  Our reaction to an adult male authority figure having sex with an adolescent girl is that of revulsion.  We wouldn’t dream of nudging and winking as we do when hearing about a teenage boy having sex with his female teacher.  Somewhere down deep we feel that boys, once physically able, are always delighted to have the opportunity to have sex.  Girls, however need to be protected.

I do wonder (indulging hindsight) what would have happened if a young female staffer had come across the boy (allegedly) being violated.  Would a woman had seen two males being sexual, or would she have seen a child being attacked?  Would a woman have gathered up the boy while screaming rabidly at the perpetrator?  This is of course is a gross generalization of gender proclivities, but it does feel accurate.

I’m going out on a limb and suggesting that despite political strides (equal marriage) and representation in popular culture, as a country we are woefully uncomfortable with homosexuality.  (The fact that men incorporate (simulated) lesbian intimacies into their heterosexual fantasies is not proof of enlightenment but of viewing women sexuality existing only to please men.)  Despite the fact that adults having sexual contact with children, has nothing to do with being attracted to members of the same gender and everything to do with a sexual attraction to children, it is conceivable that the shower violation was interpreted as homosexual.  I find it repugnant to consider that anyone would view a child being accosted as a sexual act, period, but I can’t help come to this conclusion after playing the hindsight game.  I fervently hope I am wrong.

Perhaps if any good can come of this scandal, it is a reexamining of childhood and our (adult) role in children’s lives.  All adults have a moral obligation to protect children.  In the extreme, we concur.  Most of us would drag a child out of the path of oncoming traffic.  Danger really is not always that black and white however.  If we are confused about what we are witnessing, ask questions.  Asking a child if they are okay will almost always tell you what you need to know.  Even if you are not certain about anyone’s age of consent, a simple “Whoa, what are you guys doing?” will yield information.  Silence really is complicity.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 17, 2011 in Childhood, Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , ,

← Older posts
Newer posts →