The Syllogism: The Second Premise

Gays are legal parents

Unlike the first premise, this one is a fact.   There are children whose legal parents are same-sex couples.  Still it would be helpful to clarify a few things.

Shouldn't I modify the premise with "Some"?  Perhaps.  I will discuss this further in the conclusion.  In some states--again that modifier--all same-sex couples can become legal parents.  Just as we do not require opposite-sex married couples to have children, I would not require same-sex married couples to have children either.   Note that marriages are just as valid even if they end before the couple had any children.  Further, I believe marriage is also important for childless couples.  This does not conflict at all with the claim that marriage is important for parents.  The first three ways in which I claimed marriage is a benefit to children, the benefit was indirect having its direct effect on the couple  (keeping them together, allowing them to put family interests first, assisting them in other ways).  This does not mean the indirect benefit is unimportant or even less important.  Perhaps my view can best be summed up this way.  It is more important for couples having children to be married, than for married couples to have children. 

Should a child be able to have two legal parents of the same sex?  While, I believe the answer is yes (and even some of the fiercest SSM opponents have said some of the protections same-sex parents seek are provided by adoption), the more important point thing is that children do.  Here is Connecticut's law specifically allowing for this case.  I'm focusing on Connecticut as that is where I live. A few things I want to point out. 

Despite the preamble finding that "the best interests of a child are promoted when a child has as many persons loving and caring for the child as possible," the law as I read it does not allow for more than two legal parents.  To my knowledge no child in the United States has more than two legal parents.  A judge in Canada was recently asked to grant such a petition, but he denied it.  One of the concerns he cited was the potential for greater conflict and confusion in custody and decision making.   Similarly, group marriage would lead to the sort of confusion and conflict marriage helps to reduce.  For more on the harms of polygamy see here.  This is getting a bit off topic, though.  For now let us simply note that groups are not and cannot be legal parents.

The law as I read it would seem to allow two people who are related to each by kinship other than marriage to also become legal parents.  I am not aware if this has ever been done.  If it has been done, I am certainly now aware of anybody in that situation seeking marriage.  An example that has been given is a mother and grandparent raising a child together.  In such a case I do not think the grandparent should adopt the child, although the law should recognize that grandparents (and other relatives) do sometimes share the responsibility of raising a child.  There are some key differences here that I think are relevant.  First of all,  the child is already related to the second caregiver.  Adoption is not necessary to establish a kinship relation, and could in fact interfere with the other kinship relations.  (Again see here for more on this).  Secondly I think the parent should be allowed to marry (or remarry) without having to go through divorce proceedings with the grandparent.  And should the mother marry and move out, I believe (unless there is a good reason otherwise) she should maintain custody of the child.  That is the court should not view both of them as legally equivalent parents.  That being said, suppose a child was adopted by two closely related unmarried individuals, should they be able to marry?  No.  This would be an exception, and I have given reasons why it should be an exception.  In particular I think there are specific ways in which the relation of the parents should (and do) operate under laws different than marriage.  If someone wished to make a similar excpetion for same-sex couples, they should explain why.  Which laws of marriage should not apply to them, and why? 

Finally I should note that the Connecticut law makes a point of saying it does nothing to change the laws of marriage.  So is this a case of a state granting one benefit to same-sex couples and then having that inadvertantly help to lead to same-sex marriage?  Perhaps, and I worry that some individuals might seek to prevent other states from enabling second parent adoption  or joint adoption by same-sex couples because it will lead to same-sex marriage.  The quesiton I would ask such an individual is, are you opposing legal recognition of the parenting because it could lead to legal recognition of the marriage, or are you opposed to marriage becuase you feel same-sex couples should not be parents?  (Different individuals could have different answers).  If the former, then what is the independent harm of same-sex marriage?  If the latter, then you should judge the merits of allowing  same-sex couples to adopt, independently and not worry about whether it might lead to same-sex marriage.  Incidentally, the same sort of thought occurred to me in debates over whether sodomy should be legal.  Some argued that if it were legal that could weaken  the case against same-sex marriage (and I believe they are right).  Often times, though, their reason for opposing same-sex marriage was that sodomy was morally wrong. 

Comments

[lucia]

Hi Gabriel,
I have to admit.. I prefer your first syllogism...

The case for some:

The alternative to "one ought to do X" are:

"one ought not to do X" or
"one may do X or not, whichever pleases them".

My husband and I have no children. We are now planning our 20th anniversary. I hope the law will permit gays the same happy state will bein the near future.

Both syllogisms illustrate that, as the law stands, it bars a groups of people who clearly "ought" to marry from marrying.

I really don't think any amount of nitpicking can craft a syllogism based on the simple observation that parents, in any sense, should be married leads to the conclusion that gays should be barred from marrying.

[Galois]

And here I thought I was taking your advice by modifying/clarifying it. And you're right, one can nitpick to one's heart's content, but nothing leads to the conclusion that gays should be forbidden from marrying.

Mazel Tov on 20 years! My wife and I have been married less than two. We have no kids yet, and whether we decide to have kids or when is entirely our own business. We are no less married because of that. Nor is our marriage undermining the true meaning of marriage.

[lucia]

Ahh.. well.. Yours was correct to leading order. But it seemed clear from the questions others might require a solution good to second order.

I am trying to come up with a venue for posting unedited. Prior to editing for brevity, the post did include a sentence to indicate that I thought my own marriage was ok.

(Actually, editing for brevity, which I did was not a big problem. I compared what I finally sent, and I'd say, the post passed through a 'no-irony' filter.)

[Galois]

I like typepad. My wife got me a subscription for Chanukkah. I think the basic plan runs around $45 a year. Before that I kept a journal at livejournal which was free, but there were some things I didn't like about it stylewise and I think I get more readership through typepad.