This year, the theme for St. Pete Pride is “family.” It’s a warm, fuzzy word that’s certainly front-and-center when it comes to advancing LGBT equality. But the meaning of “family” is changing, making the notion of exactly what we’re striving for elusive. And in the midst of that battle it’s easy to forget that families, as wonderful as they may be, come with their own unique set of issues.
Change for LGBT families is occurring all over the place. In Florida, several lower courts have declared the ban on gay adoption unconstitutional. Nationally, the Labor Department just revised their policies so that the families of gay government employees will receive equal treatment. President Obama also announced that hospitals must permit visitation by same-sex partners or risk federal funding.
But most of the activity in this area is focused on marriage rights. Five states and the District of Columbia have now legalized same-sex marriage. In Florida, confused voters swung the other direction, approving a constitutional ban on gay marriage two years ago. A similar ban in California is currently the subject of a high profile court challenge.
The attorney defending that ban argued that the primary focus of marriage is to “channel” the sexual behavior of heterosexuals into “stable marital unions.”
“The marital relationship is fundamental to the survival of the race,” said Charles Cooper. “Without the marital relationship, society would come to an end.”
But evidence is to the contrary. The percentage of married Americans has dropped each decade since the 1950s, and the number of unmarried-but-cohabiting partners has risen 1,000 percent over the last 40 years. In 2008, 41 percent of births were to unwed mothers.
“Social science tells us fundamentally that [marriage] is not working,” sociologist Curtis Bergstrand told Newsweek for their recent cover article on “The Case Against Marriage.”
Authors Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison June mused that, “When conservatives argue that same-sex couples are going to ‘destroy’ the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, we wonder: wait, didn’t we already do that?”
Access to legal marriage doesn’t mean we’ll do any better with our committed relationships. Whether a family is gay or straight, flaws are in full view. Words can sting, silence can be deafening, and indifference can feel like betrayal. The tighter the bonds, the more painful the break.
In my law practice I have drafted hundreds of agreements for same-sex couples seeking to clarify their financial, cohabitation and co-parenting arrangements. In most cases, I am touched by the caring equanimity the parties seek in these documents. Completed properly, they extinguish any festering doubt that is fueled by uncertainty.
But sometimes I see the flip side. In such cases, anger and insecurity outweigh notions of legal equality every time.
Martha and Mary Lou came to me seven years ago, when Martha was pregnant by anonymous artificial insemination with their son, Robbie. Their co-parenting documents were detailed, and at their request incorporated phrases like ‘beloved partner’ and ‘sacred bond.’ They sent me a baby picture, and then years later a photo with Robbie in a baseball uniform, but otherwise I lost contact until a few months ago.
Mary Lou called first, claiming Martha was bringing a third party into the home, had installed interior locks on doors in the house they own together, and placed cameras throughout the house to monitor and record Mary Lou’s interactions with Robbie.
Martha called a few weeks later, claiming that Mary Lou was stalking her at work and threatening her employment. Both requested a copy of the agreement we had drafted, which I mailed, explaining that I could represent neither because I had represented both earlier. Martha’s calculated response betrayed her fear.
“It doesn’t matter,” she said. “I’m the only legal parent Robbie has.”
It’s a trump card too many lesbian mothers play. For evidence, read some of the heartbreaking stories at We2HaveParentalRights.com, a website advocating same-sex parental rights.
“I haven’t seen my daughter or held her in five months,” writes one heartbroken non-biological mom. “Her birth mother has taken her from me and I do not know when I will see or hold her again.”
The selfish use of a prejudiced legal system makes this strategy doubly offensive. If Martha and Mary Lou had access to marriage or adoption seven years ago, they would no doubt have legalized their familial relationships and neither would have the upper hand now. The court system would work to ensure that, unless counterproductive, Robbie has a relationship with both his moms as he grows older.
As a result of the agreement, Mary Lou is in a stronger position. But she will likely have to convince a judge to gain custodial rights that would otherwise be presumed.
Concepts are clearly changing, but “family” remains a lynchpin of full equality because it is fundamental to connected happiness. Regardless of form, or legal foundation, they require maturity, flexibility and selflessness to fully succeed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.