|
|---|
|
October 2002
Who Wants A State Friendship Registry? One might think that liberals as well as conservatives would agree that state registries of friendships are a bad idea. When it comes to personal relationships, especially if they involve sex, even supporters of a regulated economy usually oppose state intervention. Yet many otherwise privacy-minded citizens favor opening an official registry of gay and lesbian friendships, called either "marriages" or "civil unions," backed by government incentives to sign up. Are they making a mistake? Perhaps some supporters of legal recognition of same-sex unions adhere to what has been called in jest the German attitude to freedom: "Whatever is not officially permitted by the State is forbidden." They may think that homosexuals are not free to form marriage-like relationships until the government gives them a certificate of approval. But this is surely false. Most states have decriminalized non-marital sexual relations between adults, or never enforce their prohibitions, so gays there are as free as anyone else to form long-lasting sexual friendships-and seal them with promises or vows-without government approval. Like other forms of friendship and like heterosexual marriage, permanent same-sex relationships can exist without state recognition of them. The argument for legal recognition of same-sex unions is not libertarian. It is an argument for state involvement in personal relationships. It is true that every modern state maintains a registry of certain heterosexual unions, i.e. of marriages. Does this mean that heterosexuals have some liberty that homosexuals lack? Perhaps, but only in the curious sense that heterosexuals are free to become less free-and are encouraged by the state to do so. For the most part, marriage-related legislation limits, rather than increases, individual freedom: If heterosexuals try to marry two others at once, they (unlike similarly situated homosexuals) may be sanctioned - to take just one obvious duty imposed by the state. Frankly, marriage law seems at first more like some hangover from an earlier moral paternalism than like an instrument of individual freedom-and is so regarded by many contemporary homosexual as well as heterosexual thinkers. Yet it makes no sense to think that liberal, secular states would aim to restrict freedom for the sake of an antiquated morality. Moreover, even if governments were somehow interested in preserving ancient, quasi-religious customs, why would they always stop at marriage? Why not officially encourage, certify, and reinforce other spiritually significant relationship events, such as the ordination of priests or the monastic vow of stability? But no modern state does these things. Why, then, do governments continue to register heterosexual marriages, if not for the sake of morals or religion? Everyone knows the answer: Sexual relationships between women and men may generate children, beings at once highly vulnerable and essential for the future of every human community. The good of those children as well as the common good thus require that that community do all it can to stabilize and salinger.such relationships. Lasting marriage receives public approbation and support primarily because it helps to produce human beings able to practice ordered liberty. Does this singling out of potentially fertile relationships imply disapprobation of infertile sorts of friendships? Not at all - no more than the singling out of binding contracts for legal enforcement implies disapproval of informal promise-making. The government is not trying to suppress the kinds of friendships and promises it does not aid. It just prefers, rightly, to leave us alone except where protection of the weak or the common good requires intervention. The public weal clearly does require special benefits for heterosexual marriage. Why would a couple be willing to accept public involvement (and, to a degree, control) in its most intimate concerns if it had no strong incentives to do so? Furthermore, being faithful and raising children necessarily involve many sacrifices. Since these sacrifices benefit the whole community in the end, it makes sense for the community to provide concrete rewards in the form of special tax, social security, and other legal benefits. This is especially true where one spouse - usually the woman, but sometimes the man - gives up much or all of a career for the sake of raising children. Such a parent voluntarily shares the vulnerability of his or her children by becoming a dependent. Justice, the good of the children, and the common good all demand that the community provide at least some financial protection for such self-sacrifice. It is these benefits, not freedom to form permanent relationships, which gays and lesbians obtain through official recognition of their unions. They get a cut of what really amount to state subsidies, as well as of the public approval that goes along with sacrificing for the good of others, in exchange for increased legal regulation of their property and liberty. They may be making a mistake as to their own best interests here. In any event, they certainly cannot claim a like community interest in their unions, for they are not, nor do they generate, vulnerable citizens in need of special protection. Unless: Are not gay and lesbian unions also potentially fertile, in that same-sex couples may jointly adopt children in some communities? Such an argument is at least on the right track in attempting to articulate a public interest in such unions. But it does not really work. Opposite-sex unions might jointly bear children at any moment, so there is a public interest in stabilizing them from their very beginning. Same-sex unions as unions are absolutely infertile, so there is no possible child-related reason why a community should care when they are formed or dissolved. It is true that a community might later decide to entrust same-sex partners with joint care and custody of a child, but then this event is the moment when their union needs to be stabilized. In other words, adoption by same-sex couples could be a good reason to recognize those unions, but only at the time of each adoption - not before. However, if the argument of this essay is right - that a liberal regime should not get into the relationship-certification business except to protect potential children - why would we permit marriage to last far beyond child-bearing age and even permit elderly persons and other infertile heterosexuals to marry? Letting marriage last a lifetime is easy to justify. Even adult children often need parental guidance and security in raising their own kids. Perhaps most important, a dependent, non-career spouse ought not be abandoned in an automatic dissolution at a certain age. As to making new marriages impossible for the elderly: Excluding those who are too old to have children from getting married would mean that men could marry and re-marry at a far more advanced age than women, something that might have quite disruptive effects on family life. Perhaps we could screen young people for infertility before letting them marry. But such screening would surely be a politically unacceptable invasion of our privacy. All that has been said so far amounts to an argument that there is no strong reason in favor of official certification of same-sex unions. Those proposing legal recognition have not met their burden of proof by showing that fairness or protection of the vulnerable or nurture of future citizens requires state intervention. But there are also great harms generated by such recognition. First of all, it is unjust to the community as a whole that the public purse be used to subsidize couples that do not, as couples, serve the common good. Those subsidies were set up to encourage and support unions that are in their nature able to generate children. It is not right to siphon these benefits off and pass them on to people to use merely for their private enjoyment. Furthermore, to reward some purely private relationships would be unjust to all remaining unsubsidized relationships. Why should couples be able to get married and not groups of three, four or fourteen? And why limit official unions to those based on sex? A monk's ties to his monastery might be strengthened by legally imposed duties. In fact, how could any sorts of friendship rightly remain unregistrable? (Recall how difficult it has sometimes been for landlords to exclude any sort of tenant group without being charged with discrimination.) David Chambers of the University of Michigan Law School, in an article favoring same-sex marriage, has written: "[W]e should respect the…claims made against the hegemony of the two-person unit…If the law of marriage can be seen as facilitating the opportunities of two people to live an emotional life that they find satisfying - rather than as imposing a view of proper relationships - the law ought to be able to achieve the same for units of more than two….By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more…and to units composed of two people of the same sex but who are bound by friendship alone." What would happen if we took Professor Chambers' advice and offered the same public benefits to every emotionally satisfying, long-term relationship? Would the direct and indirect costs rise so high that they could no longer be paid? I am thinking not only of economic costs, but also of the quality of civil society. Do we really want a State Friendship Registry? Even if the government used mainly positive incentives, rather than penalties, to support its scheme, would there not be too great an intrusion into private life? Would we not have lost too much freedom and flexibility in our personal relationships? Would we not have created an excessive bureaucracy? Surely the answer is "yes." Yet every omission from the official list would be rightly attacked as discriminatory as long as the purpose of registration were to subsidize private emotional satisfaction. If the way back to public support solely for heterosexual marriage were politically closed, I predict the state would decide just to get out of the registration business entirely. No relationships at all would be certified or subsidized. Children would not be abandoned - professional childcare would no doubt flourish - but the legal institution of marriage would disappear. - - Richard Stith, J.D. (Yale), Ph.D.
(Yale)
Letter from Mike Franco Tuesday's Primary proved to be a busy and educational experience for those of us who are new to the campaign trail. And during our 15-hour day working the precinct polls around Holyoke, we had an opportunity to learn more about my opponent for the 5th Hampden State Rep. race. What I found is that Michael Kane is a "nice guy" like so many people from his circles have been telling me over the course of several months. In fact, while working the polls my opponent and I crossed paths and exchanged pleasantries several times. He even offered me coffee and a sandwich from his campaign van at one of the precincts. A "nice guy" ok, I'll accept that notion. But, does being a nice guy necessarily translate to being an effective legislator and leader for our community? Allow me to share an anecdote. While working the Metcalf School, Precinct 3B poll, one of my volunteers asked one of Mike Kane's volunteers what some of his key issues are. My guy also asked what type of legislation my opponent has sponsored or initiated during his first term? His volunteer answered, generally, that our representative "pretty much" votes with the House Speaker on "all" the issues. Also intriguing to me are the comments from people who know my opponent's family, especially his father, "Fran." They have all been telling me that I can't win the election because he (the father) is so well liked and known. Well, the last time I checked, Mike and I were the only two candidates on the ballot for the seat in November's General Election; not our fathers, mothers, sisters or brothers. With regard to who Mike Franco is. I'm an Air Force Officer with more than 20 years service, a businessman with several degrees and a leader of a statewide non-profit organizations that advocates for men, fathers and their children. I have a proven record of developing chapters throughout the region without pay, and oftentimes at my own expense. So, in the next six weeks, you, the voters and citizen stakeholders of Holyoke will determine whether or not my opponent has been an effective representative for our Holyoke. Furthermore, I promise you, when elected, that I will "hit the ground running" and maximize the value you receive from your hard-earned tax dollars, which by the way, I will always work to roll back. - - Mike Franco
Gay/Straight Alliance I read your publication periodically to see what crusade you are wrapped up in that week. I came across your editorial on John Silber's decision to shut down the gay/straight alliance at the BU Academy school. I am in 100% agreement teenagers should not be encouraged to be sexually active. However, I don't see the promotion of sex as a purpose of the gay/straight alliance. I am a 26-year-old gay male, and I wish that organizations like this existed when I was in high school. I praise Gov. Weld and Gov. Cellucci for creating the safe schools program which includes a great deal of the funding that the gay/straight alliances receive. You reference your paper's favorite topic in the editorial, the so-called 'Fistgate' event that has nothing to do with gay/straight alliances. The purpose of these organizations is to provide kids, most of whom are scared and sheltered, a safe place to talk and just be themselves. I could go on forever and I don't expect to see this posted on your site and I would be happy to discuss it further with any of your staff as I used to work in the Cellucci and then Swift administration. Thank you for your time and I hope you will rethink your stance on the gay/straight alliances in our schools. - -Michael Motzkin Editor's Comment: We appreciate
your letter. But we cannot approve taking vulnerable
children, telling them they are probably homosexual
and then sending them off with older homosexual men
to learn what it's like to be a homosexual, which
by definition includes instruction in sex, just as
happened at Fistgate.
Open Letter to Senator Antonioni Dear Senator Antonioni: When you were sworn in as a new attorney, you took an oath to uphold the laws and Constitutions of the Commonwealth and of the United States. Likewise, when you were sworn in as a State Senator. You have repeatedly violated those oaths in recent times by subverting the Protection of Marriage Amendment process, by voting to abrogate the charitable deduction initiative , by voting to abrogate the Income Tax Rollback initiative, and by voting to gut the Clean Elections initiative, all supported by overwhelming majorities among your constituents whom you have regarded with utter contempt. We in your district desire "diversity" in the person of a new State Senator responsive to the clear wishes of his or her constituents. Toward that end I pledge to do anything I can to see to it that you have a viable opponent in the next election cycle. - -James F. Gettens
Mitt Romney Is Losing Fathers' Vote Dear Mr. Romney: The Fatherhood Coalition is an active statewide organization advocating for fathers' rights since 1993. We are concerned that your campaign has chosen to ignore issues of importance to our community, which should be of concern to all people who care about their society. The number one social problem facing this nation is the mammoth growth in the number of fatherless children. The safe road for politicians to address this, to this point, is as a need for "educating" recalcitrant fathers to become "responsible" fathers. As people who have faced incredible obstacles in our attempts to continue to be good, loving parents to our children, this attitude of politicians can be infuriating. If there are two populations of men who have no access to their children - those that want access and are being denied, and those that have no interest in their children - where should responsible government be focusing their actions to correct the problem? It should be clear to all that removing obstacles to fathers who want to parent their children is by every measure the more effective and superior approach if we are really serious about ending the blight of fatherless children. However, it is political correctness - and not common sense and reason - that determines how government has chosen to act. It is a mistake to assume that the core, isolated issue that needs correction is a gender-bias in custody determinations and a failure to enact strong 'shared-parenting' legislation. Much of the huge number of fatherless children is directly caused by seemingly unrelated policies, the most prominent of those being the domestic abuse/violence laws and policies in effect in the Commonwealth that essentially allow women to throw away the father of their children by simply claiming that she is "in fear" of domestic abuse, and obtaining what is known as a 209A abuse protection order. A 209A order obtained by a woman at the outset of a family breakup virtually guarantees that the father will be relegated to the status of non-custodial parent, a virtual visitor in his child's life, when the divorce is finalized. Several candidates for Governor, as well as your choice for Lieutenant Governor, have rung in on these issues, to some degree or other. On the bad side, when Kerry Healey describes herself as a criminologist and an expert on domestic violence, noncustodial fathers in this state shudder. We understand that means that Healey has been indoctrinated into the victim-feminist ideology of domestic violence, which has systematically censored the truth about what scientific research into the subject has revealed since research began in the late seventies. For fathers in this state, Healey is the kiss of death to your campaign. On the Democratic side, the candidates all link any discussion of unfairness in custody determinations and general discrimination against men in our Probate and Family Courts to domestic violence. Alone among the fray, Shannon O'Brien has dared to say anything positive with respect to shared parenting after divorce. What this means for your candidacy is that there is a wide open electorate waiting to be tapped by the candidate that speaks to their issues. There are a vast number of noncustodial fathers in Massachusetts, and to a man, they are at once very angry at what has happened to them and equally sad and motivated by their sadness at being kept out of the lives of their children. You may not have noticed, but while the candidates of the major parties have been sleeping, third-party candidates have been quick to recognize the seriousness of this issue, and the political capital that is waiting to be harvested. Following are statements by Shannon O'Brien, Carla Howell, and independent candidate for Governor, Attorney Barbara Johnson, a tireless advocate for justice and fairness in family law. Please read these statements carefully and, if you would like to engage in a dialog with the Fatherhood Coalition, contact me at your earliest convenience. I would greatly enjoy having the opportunity to present our concerns to you in person in the hope that you can add our issues to your campaign platform. - -Mark Charalambous, Shannon O'Brien Currently, only 6% of child custody cases in Massachusetts result in a shared parenting arrangement, as compared to 20% nationwide. Massachusetts ranks 46th in shared physical custody and 50th in visitation amount and enforcement. In addition, fifteen other states have passed some form of legislation that encourages shared parenting. Shannon believes that the best interests of the child must be the paramount concern when custody is determined by parents or the courts. A child's interests are best served when both parents are significantly involved in their children's upbringing, maintain frequent contact with their children and work together on a parenting plan. In that regard, Shannon supports the shared parenting concepts currently under review by the state Legislature. At times, the current system fails to adequately address the rights of parents and serve the best interests of the child. Shannon hopes that the proposed legislation will go a long way in improving the lives of families undergoing separation and divorce. Carla Howell We must get Big Government out of marriage and families. We must end the damage caused by Big Government meddling and restore the responsibility of individuals who choose to marry by:
Divorce terms and pre- and post-nuptial agreements A legal contract is one entered into willingly by both parties where each understands and agrees to every term in the contract. The contract does not change unless and until both parties agree to it. Marriage is, or should be, a legal contract where both parties know and agree to all terms of the contract including what will happen if the marriage ends, e.g., what rights and obligations regarding custody, visitation, child support, alimony and division of assets will be awarded to or expected of each parent. Limit of Parental Liability No divorced parent should be subject to obligations of support that are not required of parents of intact families, i.e., remove all obligations for support of adult children (18 and older) including college tuition unless it is a term of a pre- or post-nuptial agreement. Unproven accusations of abuse There must be no exceptions to the right of due process and a fair trial. In particular, it has become common practice in a divorce case for one party, typically the woman, to accuse the other, typically her soon-to-be ex-husband, of violence in order to get a restraining order against him where there is no prior history of violence, where there is no proof of violence or even a threat, and where no crime is ever charged. These illegitimate restraining orders are used to put him at a disadvantage and allow her to pressure him into conceding to her wishes such as denying him visitation rights. I support changes in the law so that no Abuse Prevention Order may be issued under Chapter 209A unless the defendant is notified in advance, in writing, of what specific conduct is the basis for the order, nor unless the judge makes written findings of what specific conduct constituted "abuse". No order shall issue unless the judge finds probable cause to charge the defendant with a crime. The Supreme Judicial Court has already said that misuse of the Abuse Prevention Statute can be grounds to deny custody to the parent who makes false charges. I would support legislation that would provide for specific penalties for divorcees and prospective divorcees who make false accusations. As Governor, I will take care in seeing to it that persons hostile to the rights of parents are not appointed to the judiciary. Barbara Johnson, Independent Family and Culture For decades, the number of children living in single parent homes, especially fatherless homes, has been increasing. The divorce rate has been increasing, and the number of children born to single mothers has been increasing. Barbara Johnson is a realist. While she cannot force parents, wed or unwed, to stay together, she proposes policies that encourage families to stay together. And for those families that do fall apart, either by divorce or separation, she proposes policies that will assure that the children, too, are not divorced or separated from either of their parents. Children must have continuing and uninterrupted contact with their mothers and fathers. Divorce and Fathers -- A Major Public Health Problem A major public health problem today is the serious effect of separation and divorce on fathers. This problem has arisen out of the culture and gender wars that have plagued Americans for several decades, but the real victims are the children, whose chances of being abused, abusers, battered, batterers, jailed or pregnant go up significantly when their parents separate. The state spends millions of dollars annually on services for women going through a separation or divorce, but nothing for men in the same situation, despite the following serious problems: Men going through separation or divorce are far more likely to experience acute health conditions, including infectious and parasitic diseases, respiratory illnesses, digestive illnesses, and severe injuries compared to those married, as well as higher levels of psychiatric disorders (depression), which can depress immune system function; Men are sometimes dangers to themselves and to their former partners at this time -- men are eight times more likely to kill themselves or their former partners than at other times; Men frequently lack parenting skills that they'll need to handle visitation or custody as a single parent; The state provides extensive support services specifically for women going through separation and divorce, and none for men, creating gender-based discrimination which IS in violation of state and federal laws. (This is analogous to laws that require colleges to spend equal amounts on women's sports as on men's sports.) For these public health and legal reasons, the state urgently needs programs to provide men with services to men going through a separation and divorce as follows: The legislature should allocate funds for services targeted to men equal to the funds for services targeted to women. These services should include legal services for poor and rich men alike. United Way and other agencies that provide funding for gender-specific agencies should be required to fund agencies that provide services for men and women equally, to avoid violating anti-discrimination laws. Funding from Bush's Proposal to Support Marriage should be allocated to these purposes, as well as to find ways to encourage married couples with children to save their marriages, rather than getting divorced. Massachusetts should adopt Shared Custody at the Divorce or Separation Gate to provide for the safety and well-being of children whose parents are separating or divorcing. Shared Custody This is the only way for a child to have equal access to his or her parents. This is the only way for a parent to
have equal access to his or her children. '209A' Restraining Orders As over 55,000 men learned in 2001, restraining orders pursuant to chapter 209A are the greatest impediment to liberty. Due process and equal protection are obsolete in the courts when 209A is the issue. False Reporting to the Police Mass. General Law c. 269, s. 13A, which makes false reporting to the police a crime, is never enforced. This selective enforcement of the law must be changed. Strict adherence and restitution must be effected. Children: A Reward, a Gift, or an Award? During a divorce, a child basically has a huge price on his or her head: The child is typically worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support to the parent getting custody. There's no question that parents love their children, and would want custody irrespective of the amount of child support, but the fact that such a huge amount of money comes with the child substantially distorts the child-custody problem. Even worse, the child-support issue generates bitterness and hatred between the parents that lasts for decades, and affects the children adversely. Child Support Guidelines These must be changed. They are unfair. They are, in Johnson's opinion, unconstitutional. Discounting the custodial parent's income, attribution of income that should not be attributed to the noncustodial parent, payment forced but visitation not enforced. The man becomes a wallet and often merely an occasional visitor in his child's life. Paternity Fraud This must be wiped out by statute. If a woman lies as to who is the father of the child, she should be charged criminally. That criminal statute must be drafted and passed. DNA testing is a must and it must be determinative of a man's child-support obligations. The court has taken the position that if the man has acted as if he were the father, then he must continue to support the child even after divorce or separation... so that the child is not hurt. Who is kidding whom? The child might need to know his or her biological parent for medical reasons. Does that mean that the child will know some adversity? Yes, it does. But adversity comes with life. No one promises each child a rose garden to live in for life. A little adversity early in life often builds character, and should not necessarily be looked upon as a "bad" thing. The child will overcome the bad news. And in the long run, knowing the truth will be best. Justice and fundamental fairness
and truth must be the overriding factor here. Most of the public is unaware of the numerous visitation centers located around the state because they shun publicity and the press does not seek them out ...despite the abundant evidence of substantial abuse. The original intent of visitation centers was to provide a location for supervised visitation of children by abusive parents. Visitation centers charge $100 per hour or more for a father to visit with his children. If the father cannot afford to pay the money, then he isn't permitted to visit his kids. Stories from men indicate that judges are requiring thousands of men to use visitation centers, even when the judge knows that the father is completely non-violent. Men have complained that they receive loathsome treatment at these centers. Attendance is demeaning and insulting. Workers treat every man as if he were a diddler or a batterer. A man cannot even wipe a strand of hair out of his child's eye. One man described them as follows: "There's no privacy. Every visit is supervised by a counselor from a battered woman's shelter. She writes down everything you say, and if you raise your voice, she writes down that you're violent. You can't hug your kids without her permission. If you say what she claims is the wrong thing, she reprimands you in front of your kids. They lecture you on parenting in front of the children. If you ever object, that's part of the validation that you're a violent person. If you tell your child to do something, she'll say to the child, 'You don't have to listen to him. You just have to listen to your mother.'" Unlike the case of Women's Shelters, all of the above is provable. Each man must sign a contract with a visitation center before he is even permitted to use the center. Barb would demand both publication of the boards of directors and ownership of these centers and a financial accounting to substantiate the multi-billion dollar industry which has grown up across the country, of which Massachusetts is still a part. Barb would require two changes
to visitation centers: |
 |
|---|
Copyright 2008 ©All Rights Reserved MassNews.com® 508-410-2087 |
|---|
