Stacey, thank you for putting your personal politics front and center in a "parenting" blog.

Let's be real - all the Maryland Court of Appeals did was rule that it's the job of the legislature to decide who can get married. You should actually read the opinion, not just a short summary of what a reporter thought it said.

The Court of Appeals didn't say that the state has to ban gay marriage. It didn't say that the legislature, dominated for decades by a single party, was right in defining marriage the way it did. It didn't tell the legislature that it CAN'T change the definition of marriage.

All the court did was say that it's within the legislature's purview to define "marriage" because the state does have a vested interest in the successful upbringing of its future citizens and voters.

If you're really that interested in this issue, then I suggest you take it where it truly belongs - in the Maryland General Assembly in the next regular session. I suspect there will be a number of bills addressing this issue, and the Court of Appeals has ruled that those bills can appropriately be addressed. I suggest that you get behind a bill you like and urge your legislator to support it - and get your friends to do likewise.

And in this state which has been completely controlled by a single party for over 40 years (less one 4-year Governor's term, when it was only "mostly controlled" by that party), one would think you might have a chance.

Given what's going on today, it might have been more appropriate for the topic of this blog to be the Jena 6 - how to teach your children the true meaning of symbols; how to teach them history - how to teach them the significance of nooses; of black students sitting under the "white tree", and of unequal justice. Teach them about the existence of racism, and what they can do about it.

Wow... great response m2j5c2!

homophobia is just as bad as racism. there is a place for this topic today.

What's with people talking about the Jena 6 in blogs not related to the Jena 6?

There's a place for discussion about the Jena 6 and it isn't here.

I will start off saying that I don't live in MD. So what MD does is probably none of my business. I agree that the courts may not be the place to enforce gay marriage. It is this statement that I find incredibly disturbing, "They said the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children." Even if this was a small part of the ruling (and I am sure the legal document goes on for pages and pages). The meaning is there and it is strong. Because it clearly states that children are better off in a heterosexual enviroment and that is only an opinion and not a fact. I also don't understand why you think it is OK to discuss racism but not homophobia. They are both prejudices and it is important to teach children about prejudice.

Posted by Stacey Garfinkle @ September 20, 2007; 7:30 AM ET

"Since when do you need a piece of paper to say you're a good parent?"

There are many issues that connect in this sentance, and they surpass the issue of gay marraige into the area of undocumented migrants, voter rights, and to a certain extent, the role of the state.

In French (and Spanish), roughly translated, people are said to be "without papers." The papers, in this case, are the proof of legal standing, whether that is recognition of marriage, or recognition of citizenship, the ability to work, or the ability to vote. People caught, for whatever reason, without papers are in a kind of legal black hole. The homosexual couples in question, the undocumented workers, the disenfranchized voters, all pose the same question: "How can it be that the government cannot recognize the reality of my life?"

The affect on parenting is profound. Civics can be hard to impart on a child when you have to explain to them why you are not voting. It is hard to raise a child to respect the law, when you have to fear it yourself. And regardless of how good parent you are it is hard to be a parent when your marraige does not have the rights tha come with legal recognition.

No, anonymous at 9:11 AM, they didn't say that. That's a quote from the article. And the article did not quote the justices on that. Stacey was a little disingenuous when she wrote that. She should have made it clear that she was merely quoting another Post article.

Anyway, Stacey, your logic is astoundingly simple-minded. At what point did the court rule that you needed a "piece of paper" to be a good parent? Nowhere, yet you have become indignant that the court said that.

On the other hand, though, there is some truth to the idea that marriage promotes the well being of children. Certainly, Stacey, with your ability to find all sorts of random studies out there, you should know that many, MANY studies have looked at the relationship between two-parent families and the kids' well being. (Frankly, I'm not sure that the marriage aspect is necessary as it may be that simply have two stable, permanent, "together" parents is all that's necessary for the best outcome for the kids.)

Either Eugene Robinson or Colbert King wrote a great column a couple years ago about the out-of-wedlock birth rate and single-parenting in the black community. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks is roughly 70% -- i.e. twice as high as among whites. The column was looking at crime rates among blacks and found that there were three things contributing to the higher rate of blacks committing crimes: education, income, and the out-of-wedlock birth rate. If you controlled for education and income alone, blacks still had a higher criminal rate than white. It wasn't until you controlled for the out-of-wedlock birth rate that the crime rate was the same as whites.

Of course, Stacey, you just go back to your little world where everything is perfect. Ignore all the suffering in the inner cities. Typical for you rich white suburban types to care nothing for blacks stuck in the crime-ridden inner cities.

I am a parent, and I am also married. I'd be curious to know what rights I have as a result of that marriage, since they are not readily apparent to me.

As far as I can tell, the only "right" my marriage provides me is the right to give my wife half of my future income, should she ever decide to run off with another man.

Bob, you also have the right to pay higher taxes -- i.e. the so-called marriage penalty. Isn't it great?

"I'd be curious to know what rights I have as a result of that marriage, since they are not readily apparent to me."

One that comes to mind is that if you are in a serious accident (God forbid) and in the hospital, your wife can come see you and make decisions with little to no arguements from the staff - and there was no added cost/work for you.

If you were in a same-sex relationship, your partner will NOT be able to do that without having a long legal document (cost and time) saying you can do that. And even with that, some staff will balk and you will have to fight to get in to see your "spouse".

That is just one right not afforded without marriage.

If you were in a same-sex relationship, your partner will NOT be able to do that without having a long legal document

Posted by: r6345 | September 20, 2007 09:41 AM

That sounds like a bit of an exaggeration. I found several free medical power of attorney forms online with 10 seconds of googling. I imagine this is the same "cost and time" that adult children need to go through to take care of aging parents, etc.

After 90 seconds of googling, it looks like you need one even to name your spouse, and the spouse is automatically disqualified if you are divorced.

Wild! But I fail to see this as an undue hardship upon gay couples. So get yourselves a medical power of attorney instead of a marriage license. For that, you don't even need to get a blood test.

What about the right to being treated equally...e.g. "equal protection under the laws." I believe I've read that somewhere before!!

For the court to suggest that "prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children" is ludicrous! Do ALL married heterosexuals have, or want children? Are children "Safer" with heterosexuals?

If the court looked into records from the Maryland Department of Social Services, they would discover that mere the fact a parent is straight has nothing to do whit the child's safety.

If the state has an "interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children" then why is no one introducing legislation to ban divorce?

"I'd be curious to know what rights I have as a result of that marriage, since they are not readily apparent to me."

Well, in some states, the right to adopt children.

"If the state has an "interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children" then why is no one introducing legislation to ban divorce?"

Because the two-faced politicians are legislating their religion but trying to disguise it.

Posted by Bob @ September 20, 2007 09:24 AM

"I am a parent, and I am also married. I'd be curious to know what rights I have as a result of that marriage, since they are not readily apparent to me."

Very good question. Since I'm rushed at the moment and I can't look up the statues in question, the following list from wikipedia is the best I can do:

-Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including: Social Security pension; veteran's pensions; indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care; right to burial in veterans' cemeteries; educational assistance and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees;
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers; additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease,
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty;
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits; renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse;
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances; payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death; making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts,

-Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service & continued commissary privileges; per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating; Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances); sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits

-Larger benefits under some programs if married, including: veteran's disability;
Supplemental Security Income; disability payments for federal employees; medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans; income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;

Joint and family-related rights: joint filing of bankruptcy permitted; joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records; family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison; next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims; custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce; domestic violence intervention; access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods; Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs; Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses; Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens; Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act; Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime; Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse; Court notice of probate proceedings; Domestic violence protection orders; Existing homestead lease continuation of rights; Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption; Funeral and bereavement leave;
Joint adoption and foster care; Joint tax filing; Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society; Legal status with stepchildren; Making spousal medical decisions; Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver; Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation; Right of survivorship of custodial trust;
Right to change surname upon marriage;
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement;
Right to inheritance of property; Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

The full article (which also includes the responsibilities in Marriage under the law) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

It's a pretty good read.

Wow, the formatting on that one did not come out so good. Apologies.

"Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act"

I want to know more about this one. :)

Posted by r6345 @ September 20, 2007 11:19 AM

"'Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act'

I want to know more about this one. :)"

Posted by: r6345 | September 20, 2007 11:19 AM

According to the link in the article:

"The Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Order, which implements the act, requires qualified handlers of fresh cut flowers and greens, with sales of $750,000 or more annually, to pay an assessment to the National PromoFlor Council. Handlers with sales to retailers, exempt handlers and consumers are required to pay an assessment totaling one half of one percent of their total monthly sales of fresh cut flowers and greens."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Cut_Flowers_and_Fresh_Cut_Greens_Promotion_and_Information_Act

There is no citation, however, and there is no explanation of how, if any, the benefit side of the equation works.

Wow, I'm sloppy this morning. The Anonymous poster at 11:27 AM was me.

"Wild! But I fail to see this as an undue hardship upon gay couples. So get yourselves a medical power of attorney instead of a marriage license. For that, you don't even need to get a blood test."

Bob,

None of the online legal forms, or those from a legal practitioner, would award me my partner's Federal pension. Only marriage would do so.

I think that gay couples should be able to marry. That said, I do see value in the state limiting adoption to married couples. Children do best in a two parent household. This is due to increased financial security and having two care givers invested in their well being. This is not to say that single parents cannot be terrific parents, often better parents than married couples, but when we are talking about adopitve children, many of whom have been in sub par (to say the least) circumstances, shouldn't we be seeking the very best circumstance for them. Do they deserve any less?

Bob, here is a link to the GAO report that lists all federal laws that have benefits or rights that are contingent on being married. There are approximately 1,100.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

I agree with you moxiemom- the reality is that gay people are adopting or having kids - there should be some official recognition of that - and that having two parents, whoever they are, is a good thing, and having them married (with all the rights spelled out up there) is a good thing.

This is my argument for gay marriages (even though, without it, I also think that gay people should be able to be married) - that children who are being raised by gay couples deserve the same rights as others being raised by a heterosexual couple - society is better off having the option of marriage than not having it.

However, I also think that there are so many kids out there waiting to be adopted that restricting adoption to married couples may not be the best thing - we can take all the loving people we can find.

Point taken altmom - I'm just leery of getting to a place where we say "well there are so many of them and so few people who are willing to take them" that we lower our standards especially for children who have been through the wringer and certainly deserve the highest standard. We certainly can't and don't want to control who is allowed to give birth to children (another topic for another day) but when we can control the home into which they are placed - shouldn't we seek the best of the best? Let me say again, that I'm not saying that a single parent can't be the best parent ever, but in most instances, a two parent household provides the greatest stability and financial sercurity for the children.

I agree that we shouldn't "lower standards" for placement of children who have already been through a great deal, but I think a stable, single-parent home IS a higher standard that frequently-changing foster homes.

As someone who is a member of the kink/kinky sex/authority transfer culture, I know that one of the biggest fears its members have is what happens if a divorce occurs or has occurred and the other parent decides to try and make them considered "unfit" due to their lifestyle/kinky sex preferences.

If you aren't part of the accepted norm, your status as a parent is highly questioned and can be put at risk far more easily than a "normal heterosexual."

One good piece of advice I've heard is that if you are concerned, then you should get yourself vetted as a foster parent. You don't actually have to take children in, but there will be solid proof that someone came in, evaluated you, and said you and your home was fit for children.

Not a fail-safe, and sad we have to do that when "normal heterosexuals" aren't given a second though, but that's how things are now.

Gee whiz - some of you folks should actually read the ruling before commenting. I grant you that it's 244 pages, double-spaced, when you include the dissents, and you actually have to follow a couple of links to find it, but really it's not that hard.

Here's what the relevant part of the Majority Opinion - the one that counts - actually says:

"Looking beyond the fact that any inquiry into the ability or willingness of a couple actually to bear a child during marriage would violate the fundamental right to marital privacy recognized in Griswold, 381
U.S. at 484-86, 493, 85 S. Ct. at 1681, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510,the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation. In such a situation, so long as the Legislature has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the marital unit, we may not "substitute [our] social and economic beliefs." " (pp. 105-106)

So the key points are:

1 - why are heterosexual couples who won't or can't have kids allowed to marry? Because the state can't ask them that; it would violate the couples' fundamental right to privacy in the marriage, as validated by the US Supreme Court decades ago.

2 - Why aren't heterosexual couples who haven't had kids after a defined period of time forced to divorce? Because they could (biologically) still have kids in the future, and asking them about that violates their rights to privacy.

3 - Yes, but same-sex couples or unmarried people could still have kids. True, but they can't (today) produce kids with the genetic material of BOTH members of the couple, which heterosexual couples can do. While that's certainly not a perfect justification, the legislature IS allowed to make such decisions and the court can't substitute it's social and economic beliefs for the legislature's judgment, no matter how much it wants to.

4 - Yes, but unmarried people can have kids. True, but then they don't get the economic and social benefits of marriage, now, do they?

Bottom line: it's the legislature's job.

Look, I'm not saying I disagree with all the people advocating on this blog for gay rights; I'm just saying that there's a forum to address this, and it's called the Maryland General Assembly.

(And the comment earlier about the Jena 6 has to do with the fact that TODAY is the day when all of the Jena 6-related protests are occurring, so it's somewhat topical.)

Seriously, m2j5c2, let it go. We understand that this wasn't the ruling. What we are discussing here is a quote, from The Washington Post, the is actually quite applicable to how many people think. There are quite a few people who think that only heterosexual people will make good parents or good living situations, and that only two-parent households are okay. We understand that this wasn't the ruling. Now let it go.

I agree that we shouldn't "lower standards" for placement of children who have already been through a great deal, but I think a stable, single-parent home IS a higher standard that frequently-changing foster homes.

Posted by: | September 20, 2007 01:54 PM

I agree with you as well. But shouldn't these children be entitled to something better than an ending that says "well at least this is better than that?" Nothing wrong with a stable, single-parent home, I just think that that should be the second choice and a two parent (gay or straight) stable home should be the primary and optimal goal.

Anon @ 3:03, look at the number of people on this blog alone who have posted the words in quotes "prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children" and attributed them to the court. That's not what the court ruled, at all, so I'm not sure that a lot of people "get it".

Discussing a phrase written by one Washington Post reporter, and then quoted by another Washington Post blogger, and attributing it to a court that never wrote it, is simply wrong, in my opinion.

And with that, I'm happy to let it go. Time for a beer!

This might come out wrong (very tired) ... but equal protection isn't always the best thing. Imagine 2 people coming to an adoption agency to apply for a newborn. #1 is a woman who has tried for a baby and struggled with infertility. #2 is a woman who doesn't want to deal with morning sickness or stretch marks, but wants a baby.

Most of us would probably want to tell #2 to go get bent and give the baby to #1. But if we take a colorblind, no-judging-on-lifestyles attitude, the applications would be equal in merit.

My point is, that sometimes when we refuse to make judgments about people, we refuse to have common sense.

I agree with you as well. But shouldn't these children be entitled to something better than an ending that says "well at least this is better than that?" Nothing wrong with a stable, single-parent home, I just think that that should be the second choice and a two parent (gay or straight) stable home should be the primary and optimal goal.

Posted by: Moxiemom | September 20, 2007 03:34 PM

Yes, that should be the primary goal, but at what cost? Say you have a 7 year old who had been in foster care most of her life, and there is a single person ready and willing to adopt her. Is it better for the child to stay in foster care for a few more years in the hopes that a couple (married or not) will come along and want to adopt her? And what if that never happens? By then you've probably lost the single person who wanted her.

Sure, if you have a bunch of prospective parents who want to adopt the same child, then couples should be given preference over single people. But that only happens with healthy newborns - older or special needs children don't have that "problem". If a single person wants to adopt a hard-to-place child, we should give them all the support we can.

Yes, John said what I was trying to say, much more clearly than I managed to articulate it.

I agree with you John. I just want to point out that it is a slippery slope for kids who have had some hard knocks. I'm a reasonable and practical person and wouldn't want kids to languish in foster care, but just because something is better than foster care does not mean it is good enough. I think we are basically on the same page, maybe just different paragraphs.

moxiemom, I think where we disagree is how much better a good single parent is than foster care. IMO, a good single parent is definitely "good enough", and much, much better than foster care.

Fair enough John.

fr Bob:

>...Wild! But I fail to see this as an undue hardship upon gay couples. So get yourselves a medical power of attorney instead of a marriage license. For that, you don't even need to get a blood test.

Grow UP and realize that all GLBT's want are EQUAL (not "special" as the rr is sooo fond of bleating about) rights and protection under the law as straights. We WANT and DESERVE the RIGHT to marry the consenting, unmarried adult of our choice (not farm animals), the RIGHT to not be fired, evicted, or suspended for being GLBT from jobs, homes, schools etc, the RIGHT to visit our partner in the hospital and make medical decisions for them without some "well-meaning 'family member'" demanding that we be excluded (and yes, it does happen, no matter if one has a piece of paper with them or not), the RIGHT to adopt children and raise them as a FAMILY, etc. It's simple. Any 1L (first year law student) would be happy to explain it to you.

I personally do not have a problem with gay/lesbian people or couples adopting children. I hate when people say that gays who want to marry are "destroying the institution of marriage" when nearly 50% of all marriages in the U.S. (which nearly all involve a man and a woman, since gay marriages are not legal all over the U.S.) end in divorce. What's killing marriage is a lack of committment, not the minority of gay people in the U.S. who have been able to get married. For the poster who said there are no legal benefits to marriage other than having to pay alimony to his wife if he gets divorced, here's a few benefits you forgot - many employers will not extend health insurance benefits to unmarried couples, and, a man or woman who who cohabitates with a partner, but who is not married to that person, cannot collect Social Security survivor benefits if their partner dies.

I was married in Canada, which allows gay marriage. I'm still waiting for my marriage to fall apart - and if it MUST, because of gay marriage being legal where mine was legalized and all, I certainly hope it does so in style.

I have to honestly say,Im so sick of people discriminating against homosexuals and trying to say they are unfit to be parents.I have seen that more harm done to children are not done by homosexuals,which would only mean anyone could harm children it just shows that anyone regardless their race,sexual orientation,religion,or anything else could cause harm to a child.If something were to happen to me what would happen to our children?I mean would my partner get my daughter or would the courts see to it that she cant have her because we are homosexuals?