6 Comments on “Same-Sex Marriage – The Killer Argument

  1. This gave me a really good laugh. My wife found it really funny! Although I’m not sure what that says about me. Perhaps I shouldn’t think about it too much …. :-)

  2. LOL! But seriously, you might want to look at this discussion thread: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005503.html

    I’ve cited Professor Leif Wenar’s seminal work entitled the nature of the claim: http://wenar.info/WenarQuaText1-12.pdf

    Claim-rights are predicated upon a system of norms in which persons in a particular capacity owe a duty towards those in another capacity.

    Highlights from this document:

    ‘The distinctive logic of kind-norm statements models what Michael Thompson calls natural-historical judgments, such as “the lion wants to roam free.” Such statements are based on an exemplar, and so can remain true even though they are not universal generalizations.’ “The lion hunts in packs” can be true even though Elsa, in captivity, never
    hunts. Similarly, “The citizen speaks out on matters of public moment” can be
    true even when many, even most, citizens speak out not at all. The attribution
    of the underlying desire (“The citizen wants to speak out…”) can be correct
    even when most individuals who are citizens evidence no such desire. A more
    accurate rendering would be: ‘the citizen has *reason to want* to speak out…’

    Much of the existing marriage jurisprudence represents a kind-norm.

    The exemplar is that spouses (qua spouses) have a reason to want *and* capacity to surrender genetic rights mutually as a basis for shared genetic rights in the future. On that basis, the State attributes the desire to surrender those rights as appropriate to the needs of society and accords them support through the status of marriage. This surrender is presumed by sexual union, once mutual consent is given in marriage.

    Family law is built on a structure of genetic rights that cascade from the font
    of the mutually surrendered rights of sexual union.

    This is not the same as saying that procreation is a requirement of marriage. Marriage is voided by a lack of consent and capacity to surrender genetic rights mutually. MCA 1973 sets out the basis for this. I would note that even an infertile couple can surrender genetic rights to each other in consummation. Their shared parental rights can be exercised in adoption.

    There are notable cases that show that this is not scaremongering. For instance, Gas vs. France decided by ECHR, where a mother was not allowed to surrender her parental rights to her civil partner, Ms. Dubois. In the Florida custody case, in which, after the break-up of a civil union, the birth mother was given custody, rather than the genetic mother show that a legal morass has developed. Genetic rights are being supplanted by so-called ‘best interest of the child’ protocols.

  3. This is the best explanation I’ve read of the (what ought to be so obvious that it shouldn’t need explaining) difference between marriage and a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex.  Only an overly intellectualised society like our own could get ourselves into this kind of ridiculous mess.

    I’m being a bit thick, though, because I don’t get the custody battle.  How could somebody be a birth mother, but not a genetic mother?  

    Also, If two men split up, does the child get returned to the surrogate mother?  If the men are Jewish, do they have to find a Jewish surrogate so that the child will be Jewish?  My head’s starting to spin.  Let’s start another thread on genetics and child custody!

  4. Thanks for the space to make this public.

    1. The genetic mother was the egg-donor who had the egg fertilized by a third-party sperm donor. Her civil partner, as the birth mother, carried the baby to full term.

    2. The Council of Europe has issued a draft recommendation to member states on the rights and legal status of children and parental responsibilities: http://eclj.org/PDF/Draft-recommendation-rights-legal-status-children-CDCJ-2011-15.pdf

    Note where recognising ‘the best interests of the child’ leads to Principle 7: The woman who gives birth to the child should be considered as the legal mother regardless of genetic connection. Also, note the differing presumptions of paternal affiliation, you simply have to be the partner at the time that the child was conceived.
    The woman who gives birth to the child should be considered as the legal mother regardless of genetic connection. Also, note the differing presumptions of paternal affiliation, you simply have to be the partner at the time that the child was conceived.

    The new French Prime Minister announced intentions to overhaul marriage and adoption laws that thwarted Ms. Gas’s intention to share parental responsibility for her IVF child with her civil partner.

  5. Just read this by a Catholic blogger.  It sums up the current situation brilliantly:

    “The gay marriage debate is no debate … entering into it now is less like having an argument and more like getting punched in the face by a Snorlax on crack.”

    LOL

    Here’s the rest of his musings: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/4-ways-the-gay-marriage-debate-has-been-rigged.html 

Leave a Reply to Philip Cole Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.