Guest Blog: California’s Proposition 8 Affects Families
Michael and his husband reside in California with their 18-month old adopted son. They hope to adopt another child soon. Michael contributes pertinent information on adoption issues on several websites and groups.
Regardless of your political affiliation, there is no denying that this past November’s election was historic. For the first time in our nation’s history, we had the choice of voting for an African-American presidential candidate and a female vice-presidential candidate. Future will tell if we made the right decision – I shall refrain from inserting my political opinion here!
Yet, in California, we faced an equally historic and hotly debated issue. For the first time in our state’s history Californians were asked to vote on a proposition that would amend our constitution and define marriage between a man and a woman. The proponents of proposition 8 argued that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and thus it should remain that way. They insisted that marriage was a religious ceremony that dates back several centuries. The opposition argued that marriage was not about religion. Marriage, or the laws that protect those in a marriage, is a civil right, one that does not require a religious ceremony. In fact, many marriages are officiated not by a priest or religious figurehead, but by a justice of the peace. So who was right? Well, apparently 52% of the voting population decided that California’s constitution should be amended to reflect the new definition.
While California's Supreme Court evaluates the constitutionality of this amendment, I wonder if those who voted in favor of proposition 8 truly understood the impact such a proposition would have on families of same-sex couples. Granted, California’s domestic partnership laws protect same-sex couples, but not in the same way a marriage does. Marriage Equality USA lists the many differences between domestic partnerships and marriage on their “Get The Facts - Why Marriage” page. While many of the differences are practical (e.g., hospital visitation rights, employer benefits, spousal elder care, legal rights when a relationship ends) and financial (e.g., home ownership, laws protecting marital home from creditors, disability and social security benefits, IRS laws, home owner’s and insurance benefits), some of the differences affect children of same-sex couples. I think the most profound difference relates to our societies ability to build a "strong family and [raise] healthy children.” As Marriage Equality points out:
Public policies that aim to promote family stability and security typically are established without consideration for same-gender parents and their children, and they place these families at a disadvantage, as they do heterosexual unmarried parents, single parents, and extended-family caregivers."
Public policy designed to promote the family as the basic building block of society has at its core the protection of children's health and well-being. Children's wellbeing relies in large part on a complex blend of their own legal rights and the rights derived, under law, from their parents.
Children of same-gender parents often experience economic, legal, and familial insecurity as a result of the absence of legal recognition of their bonds to their nonbiological parents. Current public-policy trends, with notable exceptions, favor limiting or prohibiting the availability of civil marriage and limiting rights and protections to same-gender couples.”
If we truly strive to build strong families and raise healthy, happy children, then ask yourself this question. Why should same-sex marriage be illegal? After all, how do their marriages – or mine for that matter - affect yours?
To learn about Michael's adventures as a stay-at-home dad and keep updated on their journey toward expanding their family through adoption, please visit his blog.
- Avoid Adoption Scams - Don't Be Afraid to Adopt
- Choosing An Adoption Agency
- How Much Does a Domestic Adoption Cost?
- Adoption Readiness Assessment
- How to Adopt a Baby or Older Child for Free or Receive Reimbursement
- Is Adoption The right Choice For Your Family?
- How to adopt a domestic newborn Baby as fast as possible?
- Why Would Someone Use a Facilitator?
Trackback URL for this post:
- GuestBlogger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Insurance issue for the children of same gender parents
One concern I have is an insurance issue for the children of same gender parents. As an example, I have a friend who decided to have a child with her LTP using a sperm bank. My friend is the stay at home parent, she carried the child. Her partner is the working parent who has a good job with excellent benefits. Her partner cannot add her or the child to her insurance because they are not married. It was suggested that my friend sign off her parental rights to the child and allow her LTP to adopt the child. Then the child could be added to the insurance. Of course, if the relationship were to dissolve, my friend would have no legal rights to the child she carried. So in the meantime, one of the family members has great benefits, and the other two are on state Medicaid. Does this seem like it is in the child's best interest?
Great point...
Registered domestic partners, whether same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, have what I like to call not-so-equal-to-our-heterosexual-counterparts rights. Many of these rights don't exist outside California. Here is one example. When I left my job to become a SAHD, I was placed on my husband's benefits as a dependent. This "luxury" does not exist outside California, as you noted, except in states where domestic partnerships, civil unions or marriage allow it - note: states with such "relationship laws" differ state by state so what we may benefit from in California would not necessarily be the same in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage or domestic partnerships. Also, our marriage and domestic partnership is not recognized in a state that has no such "relationship laws."
As for our benefits, this "luxury" comes at a price. Since Federal Law does not recognize same-sex marriage, despite being legally married in California during the 4-month period it was legal, my husband has to pay taxes on any benefits I receive. If I were a female spouse, he would not have to pay taxes. Granted, I like the fact that we have become so "progressive" to allow insurance coverage, but is it really fair to tax those benefits?
Hi Cal
Porposition 8 is only a California proposition. One of the key arguments of those who disagreed with same sex marraige was the point that registered domestic partners in OUR state do enjoy all of those rights, thank you for pointing that out. It is not about Nebraska or Iowa, just California. To me, it seems kind of greedy to insist that you have a union that is sanctioned and has the rights, but so what, you want the label anyhow. Why shouldn't society have the right to specify what is a marriage? Why should that be dictated only by one group? Many states have laws dictating that people under a certain age cannot be married. These are still people, if the logic of the propositon 8 foes is applied, surely an 8 year old should have the right to marry. Society sets limits on many things, marraige is just one of those.
As a single father, I can appreciate the tax issue. My taxes would be lower if I could check 'Married' on the return. I do think it is not wrong for society to encourage procreation with a female mom and a male dad. That does not mean that same sex couples or single people cannot be excellent parents. Obviously we can do the job. Perhaps shooting for the moon may end up being a counter productive strategy. John
Outstanding blog. Thank
Outstanding blog. Thank you!!!!
Lisa S.
Thanks, Lisa!
And, thank you for checking out our personal blog.
Very interesting point!
Hi John,
You raise a very interesting point regarding gays and lesbians "equal" rights in California vs. other states. I will address that shortly.
First, however, I just need to understand why it is that whenever gays & lesbians fight for equal rights, opponents always throw in 8-year-old boys/girl, dogs and horses (believe me, I heard comments like this during the campaign from those who were protesting on street corners). This argument is just ludicrous. Proposition 8 was not about gays and lesbians seeking extra special marriage laws. We were seeking EQUAL protection under the law. I would NEVER advocate anyone, gay or straight, marrying a child or pet! Let's compare apples to apples...
Getting back to your comment regarding gays and lesbians being "greedy to insist that [we] have a union that is sanctioned and has the rights...[but] want the label anyhow." Well, therein lies the misconception. First, the rights of domestic partnership in California are NOT equal to that of marriage. One example I gave in my previous comment illustrated that gays and lesbians have to pay taxes on healthcare benefits that they receive for their domestic partners. This amounts to roughly $3500 to $5000 in extra taxes yearly. Is that equal to what you would pay for your female spouse? The answer is NO. You wouldn't have to pay anything. Furthermore, should anything happen to one of us (i.e., death), the other would have to pay taxes on what is inherited. Moreover, we would not benefit from receiving any Social Security benefits. Likewise, we would not be allowed to collect our parnter's pension should he die before retirement age. Male/female spouses don't have these worries. So...the laws are not quite equal.
I differ from many of my friends, gay and straight. Frankly, if marriage were a religious ceremony only, and was not governed by State and Federal Laws, I would not care. This is not the case, though. Marriage is more than a religious ceremony. It is a civil one that is governed by law. Therefore, why should my protection under the law be any different than yours? If domestic partnerships and civil unions (as they are called in a few states) provided EQUAL protection, then fine. This is not the case. Also, what happens if I were to move outside California. The laws that protect me here do NOT protect me in Iowa, Nebraska, or MANY other states in our great nation. God forbid I ever have to move to Pennsylvania, where my husband's family lives, because our protection under the law is not the same. We have to take all of these things into consideration. What happens to our children in those states should something happen to one of us? What happens to our property? You don't have to think about those things...
Overturning 8
Cal, no matter if 8 is overturned, it has no effect at all on the laws of any other state, the PA thing is a red herring. The issue will have to be settled in each state.
The 'we get to do what we want because its our right' does lead to the example of kids being able to marry. A more practical example? First cousins not being allowed to marry, these are adults, not all will have damaged children, yet society does not allow these adults to marry. By your standard, any adult can marry. 'If it feels good just do it' was a Bill Clinton thought, society is supposed to have structure that benifits society as a whole, and it is entirely possible that one segment will not like the limit, but that doesn't make it wrong. John
Interesting...
Hi John,
You keep coming back to adults marrying 8-year-old children. I don't understand this argument...frankly, I find this argument creepy. Now, you are throwing in cousins marrying cousins for good measure, which by the way is not illegal. In fact, the Catholic church abolished its ban on such marriages in the early 1900's.
In any case, I find it interesting that you keep coming back to this argument because it was not too long ago that opponents of interracial marriage used the same arguments. Much to their surprise, our society has not faltered because the ban on interracial marriages was abolished.
But I want to get back to the original question I posed in the blog. How does my marriage affect yours (if you were still married) or anyone else's? The truth: it doesn't...
Sorry Cal
I made an assumption. In most states it is illegal to marry your first cousin, didn't know that was OK in CA. That is a restricton on adults who want to marry.
I think the agrument that society has structure to benifit the majority of its memebers is a valid argument. It also means that someone who wants to elimintate structure is not necessarily virtuous just because they want to do so. Bra burning usually only results in a very bad smell and a big mess. Your argument about your marraige not affecting someone elses is also a valid point. Should marriage be reserved for a traditional couple, because that does promte procreation in the way usually most beneficial to society as a whole, or should the desires of a minority prevail to the percieved detriment of the majority?
Well...
I am glad to see that you said, "perceived detriment of the majority".
Should we protect a minority's desires (in this case, we are really talking about equal protection under the law) at the detriment of the majority? First, I don't believe that equal rights causes detriment to anyone. Secondly, the majority of Californians did not decide Prop 8...it was merely the majority of those who voted. There is a difference. More importantly, though, it is our duty as Americans to protect those who need protection. Our country's history is riddled with such activity. It wasn't that long ago that women were considered property of their husbands and had no voice when it came to voting. African-Americans were often treated worse than their slave-owner's cattle.
On a lighter note, you have to check out this video.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
John: as always, thanks for the discussion. Even though we differ on many issues, I do value your viewpoint.
52 %
Of the American voters voted for Barack Obama. Is the author of this post suggesting that is not a large enough majority of the popular vote for Barack to be sworn in as president? If the outcome is 52% and you are for it, the outcome is right. But if you were against it, take it to the courts?
Response to 52% comment
Please take another look at this blog and John's and my responses. Neither my blog nor our discussion has anything to do with the election of Barack Obama. We are discussing California's proposition 8 and the affect its approval will have on families.
Off topic - As a matter of record, when it comes to the presidential election, the winner is not decided by a simple majority of voters. The winner is decided by the candidate who receives greater than 270 electoral college votes. If you recall in the 2000 election, former vice-president Al Gore received a majority of the popular vote, but lost the election since George W. Bush received the required number of electoral votes. If my memory serves me correctly, the results of that election were contested due to voting irregularities and vote counting issues in the State of Florida. If it were up to me, I would propose that the candidate must win the popular vote alone to become president. So, in essence, I do not favor what you suggested in your comment.
52%
Your reply is completely at odds with what you posted from the start. The electoral vote is what got Obama elected, and 52% of the vote is what passed prop 8. Either you accept that the vote happened legally, all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, and the people's will has been demonstrated, or not. Obama was not my choice for president, but he was elected. Prop 8 passing may not be what you want, but it was passed through due process. Get over it. Starting blacklists to destroy people's livelihoods, claiming that black people are bigots for voting against prop 8, what complete self-centered, self-interest. The common good certainly doesn't seem to be on the gay agenda.
Respectful debates and discussions are healthy.
A quote from Faith's blog - "A Place for Everyone"
"All viewpoints on adoption are welcome at this site. All we ask is that you focus on the issues without being rude to another person on our site. Keep the focus on the issue, not on bashing another person, and you are welcome to disagree until the cows come home."
http://ouradopt.com/adoption-blog/oct-2008/faitha/place-everyone-adoption-under-one-roof
- FM
Huh? What?
FM I respect your views, and admire your wisdom. This time I will say that I think you are all wet. Not too long ago Faith had a post that turned into a discourse on abortion. I was the defender of the idea that babies are not for disposing of, there were several ladies commenting that were far more personal in their attacks on me than BA was on Cal. Not one of you steppped up and laid down the law. That was OK, I guess.
Now BA comes forward with thinking that is quite mainstream, that we agree to the rules in advance and don't crab and moan, and resort to all kinds of extracurricular activities if we don't prevail. Not radical, and not insulting. Was BA tired of the view that if we didn't win, it must have been unfair, I am too. I also voted for the other guy, but Obama won and there shouldn't be any argument about that. Prop 8 also won, and that too is per the rules. That is an attack on the idea that rules only apply if they work for us, not particularly on Cal, it needs to be OK to disagree with ideas. I think that Cal is always interesting, and I enjoy the give and take with him. His views are just as valid as mine.
There can't be two standards FM. Is the rule here that if you are pushing a non-liberal viewpoint, anything goes for the folks who disagree, but if you are putting forth the liberal view, disagreers had better be dainty and nice? John
My 2 Pennies
As the resident Republican, I don't see anyone pushing a non-liberal or liberal viewpoint. I see them sharing their opinion. And I am pretty sure that you and Faith see eye-to-eye on abortion.
Yes there were personal attacks on you. And there weren't acceptable. Unfortunately the first comment posted on that blog didn't make that clear. There was a follow up later in the thread that mentioned your name and said the attacks weren't appropriate. But it probably wasn't clear enough.
Fortunately you hung around and continue to comment. I like discussing things with you.
Everyone has different triggers because of their background. I didn't see a personal attack with BA's post, but a generic reaction against things that have/are happening in society. So it wasn't a reaction to Cal's blog.
But I get why FM posted the comment. She is reacting based on her knowledge of Cal. And honestly this is his first blog here. We want him to feel comfortable enough to express his opinion. When you posted your first blog, we worried about the same thing. We want you to feel comfortable enough to express your opinion.
John said: "Was BA tired of the view that if we didn't win, it must have been unfair, I am too. I also voted for the other guy, but Obama won and there shouldn't be any argument about that. Prop 8 also won, and that too is per the rules."
I understand this too. But I didn't see this being expressed by Cal. I re-read the blog. He is talking about the aftermath of a change. That is always worth talking about. If we don't understand the impact of change... how are we going to understand each other?
AngelaW
The ones that you love the most are usually the ones that hurt you the most. - Unknown
Response to BA
I get that you disagree with same-sex marriage. I can accept that; each person is entitled to their own viewpoint. However, attacking me personally just because my viewpoint is different from your is unnecessary.
As for you statement, "Get over it. Starting blacklists to destroy people's livelihoods, claiming that black people are bigots for voting against prop 8, what complete self-centered, self-interest. The common good certainly doesn't seem to be on the gay agenda." I am not sure where you got this from my blog or our discussion, but I believe you are reading more into the topic. No one here said anything about black people being bigots. I cannot speak for others on this board, but I have not started an alleged blacklist.
The topic of discussion was theimpact a ban on same-sex marriage has on same-sex couples with children. I would be happy to discuss this with you. Otherwise, I have no further comment.
Marriage is Civil Right
I mentioned that I am a Republican. And I honestly don't get why everyone doesn't see marriage is a civil right. If you look at the first colonies landed in the new world... The Purtains didn't allow church marriages. They saw it as a business transaction (ie civil and not religious). Marriage was (and is) about wealth preservation. And this wealth is used to raise the kiddos.
As a Republican, I think the government shouldn't mess in my life too much. There are things that I accept. I love drinking clean water and breathing clean air. I like roads.
And I think that aiding the growth and development of our next generation is good. I think we all need to take responsibility for the future generation. When I was single and without kids, I didn't have any problem with my taxes funding the local school system. I volunteered in an afterschool project to help tutor elementary students.
At this point.... I am going to let my freak flag fly. I don't understand why 2 homosexual men or 4 hetrosexual women aren't allowed into a legal contract (household, partnership, marriage.. whatever the label) that protects and benefits the household. Why is marriage seen as all about "the sex"? Frankly... banding together to raise children in whatever configuration should be supported.
Now I need to go find my asbestos panties because I feel sure someone is going to flame me. That is fine if the dialog doesn't drift into personal insults. I am a big girl and can take the heat.
AngelaW
The ones that you love the most are usually the ones that hurt you the most. - Unknown
Long live the asbestos panties!
Thanks for the comments, Angela.
When I was first approached to write this blog, I said, "no." I was approached a second time and asked to reconsider. While my reaction was to say, "no!" again, I reconsidered. My initial response was not based on fear of what y'all would say. After all, I have been around the block a few times, and even though I am all grown up I still have my asbestos underwear. (God forbid I say panties...who knows what comments that might conjure up!!! Joking here...)
I did not want to write on this topic because I knew how polarizing it was and I knew that no one would stay on topic. This topic was not meant to be a debate on what 52% of the voting population believes or what 48% of the voting population believes. The topic is not about what is better for the "great good," overturning Prop 8, or the presidential election of Barack Obama. This topic was meant, at minimum, to educate readers on how different the laws that protect heterosexual marriages are from same-sex domestic partnerships/civil unions. Despite what people think, gays and lesbians, single or in a couple, are raising children. Differences in the law affect these families regardless of whether they live in California, Ohio, Iowa or Connecticut.
I value each person's perspective, even though for the most part we did not stay on topic (except for Julia's and AngelaW's comments). Given the nature of this topic, I knew people would be passionate about their points of view. I hoped to see this type of interest. However, I was not surprised to see a thinly-veiled assault. Call it what you will, but to accuse/insinuate/imply that because I, the blogger who happens to be a gay man, am a bigot who is force-feeding a "gay agenda" that serves only my self interest, is not only wrong it is insulting.
So, again, I say that if you would like to engage in a discussion regarding the topic, bring it. I have my underwear on!
Angela: I am so glad that you brought up the purpose of marriage. God forbid that I suggest that this holy institution was founded for some other reason. Many argue that marriage was founded for the purpose of procreation. It was not. Marriage is not needed to procreate. Furthermore, if marriage were developed to sanctify procreation, couples who were infertile and those who are no longer of the child-bearing age would not be allowed to marry...again, if this argument were true. Marriage is a civil union that is governed by laws. Deciding who gets the protection and who doesn't is discrimination. Discrimination affects families.
It grows back
Cal, you are a good writer. Yes, it is controversial. Yes, folks will plap their gums up and down. I really don't read BAs comments and get a personal attack, just disagreement with an idea being floated (52%). Don't go away! We will survive being reindoctrinated, and you will survive evil antichange people. Hissing is OK, within limits. In the Army I was taught 'never get upset by an a__ chewing, because a__ grows back.' Keep coming back, we need your radical ideas and you need our stodgy thinking. John
I apologize for leaving you to stand alone
Hi Cal,
I am a lesbian living with my partner and internationally adopted daughter in the middle of the U.S. I was raised in Southern Cal. I contributed to the fight in Cal and I was so disappointed when ban was voted in.
I love to read how articulate you are in expressing the frustration of our community. I would have responded earlier, but life is busy when you are trying to shuttle your child to basketball practice, soccer academy and be the coach of her 7/8 year old soccer team. I am fortunate to live in a community where life is good and I have neighbors that respect my partner and I. Our life is more about being part of our community. I feel like I am representative of our community everyday in the burbs. I feel like we have to hold a higher standard and parent above the line, because of who we are.
This year I got a great gift. My partner got to legally adopt our daughter! Now this is not something that I can run advertising in the paper, as we don't know how long it will last. I would not want to ruin it for other families. We quietly engaged a lawyer, went across the state line and it happened. This was a big relief for me and my partner, as now if anything happens to me, I know our daughter will not be taken from her other "Mama" as she sometimes refers to us when the wrong mom answers.
We love our child and we definitely experience similar issues of other families. My daughter only sees two parents no different and cannot understand why her moms are not legally married. She sees us only with love and excitement that we get to be a family. We pray at mealtime and attend church.
On a final note, I too, am tired of seeing the legitmacy of my relationship questioned and compared to that of marrying a goat. I pay taxes, vote, obey the law, keep my home looking great and contribute to my community. I just wish I could have relationship recognition equal to that of "Civil Marriage."
CalDad - Keep on plugging and thank you for your voice!
I debated whether or not to say anything.
What is the purpose of marriage? I know that I would like to think my purpose in my marriage is more than procreation. To be honest, I can't procreate anymore. I am too old and no longer have a uterus. I know. Too much information. So does that give my husband the right to dissolve our marriage? Marriage isn't just about sex. Its about a relationship between two people. For me, its husband and wife. Its about a relationship between parent and child or children.
Who exactly defines a marriage? Is it God? Is it man? Is it law? I feel that the definition of marriage between man and woman is discriminating. It separates just as adoptee access does for adoptees. It discriminates on the basis of sexual preference as does the status of my birth. I try my hardest to look at people as humans. I do not judge on the basis of sex, sexual preference, skin tone, color of their eyes, the size of their bodies, and many other goofy things that people judge others on. Separate is not equal as proved in Brown vs. Board of Education.
I was lucky in the military as I served with a lesbian friend. She was a very very dear friend of mine. I did not fight in a war just for the heterosexuals in this country. I fought for all including the adoption industry and gays. Including gay/lesbians across this country. She fought too. Is she deserving of less than I receive in rights as an American citizen? No she doesn't. Would I want her denied the same rights that I have? No. I think what this battle is about is about equal treatment under the law. Adoptees just like gays do not want more rights but equal rights.
Thank you Amyadoptee - very
Thank you Amyadoptee - very insightful.