Posts Tagged ‘civil rights’

That’s right, I said it. And I stand by it.

Ok, maybe not all LGBT couples. But definitely some.

Yesterday’s post about marriage left a few things open. Such as how to handle a family situation when there are children involved.

Articles such as these showcase how, in my opinion, many LGBT couples are incredibly selfish in regard to children.

One prominent example of such a challenge is the long-running case of Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins, who had a civil union and a child in Vermont. Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia after the couple broke up and tried to get Virginia to deny rights to Jenkins on the grounds that Virginia did not recognize their civil union. After a series of lower court battles, the Virginia and Vermont Supreme Courts upheld Vermont’s jurisdiction and Jenkins’ parental rights. Miller appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in November 2010 refused to hear the case.

Same-sex parents’ rights: It’s not Hollywood, it’s war

LGBT couples, listen to me: It’s bad enough when straight couples string their children through custody disputes. No child should have to go through this. Parent’s should NEVER use their children as means of hurting the other party after the break up.
However, at least straights have the option of claiming that they hadn’t intended to have children, it just happened. I do not believe that lessens their responsibilities, but I do believe LGBT couples have an even greater responsibility.
LGBT couples have to plan to have their children. By then throwing your children through custody disputes such as these you are doing a two things (well, really more than two, but for the sake of this post we’ll only focus on two):

  1. Taking advantage of anti-gay legislature. Rather than pushing for equality, you are profiting off of our inequality. And hurting the chances others will gain equality. You can’t get married in one state then move to another to invalidate it. You can not, I repeat can NOT, have it both ways.
  2. You are victimizing your child. Your child already has it difficult being raised by gay parents. No one can claim it won’t be difficult when they have to explain to their friends why they have two mommy’s. Do you really want to rip them away from everyone they know and love, including their second mommy? What kind of message does that send to your child?

I am sure everyone has seen the video of Zach Wahls speaking on how amazing it was to be raised by two mothers. It is true that two homosexual parents are just as good, if not better, than two heterosexual parents. But his parents did not split up and drag him through a viscous custody dispute where we try to strip away the rights from each other that we have worked so hard to build.

Sometimes there is legitimate reason to dispute custody. Sometimes the other party truly is an unfit parent. But let’s start actually focusing on the interest of the child rather than our own petty power plays. And if you’re going to plan a child, you had better plan to stay together. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and deal with the bullshit for your child’s sake. It’s part of being a parent. You give up yourself for them. Yall planned on it, yall knew what yall were getting into, yall had better do everything yall can to not screw your child up.


A lot of my friends are amazed when they learn that I do not actually support gay marriage. After all, I’m gay, shouldn’t I support equal rights for gays?

Well, in short, I do. After all, I don’t support straight marriage either. At least not government-sanctioned marriage.

Marriage is a contract between the couple and their deity/ies.  Marriage is until death, and violation of the marriage (divorce) is to break a contract with their deity.  Sanctified, Holy Matrimony.  And, as we all know, the the founding fathers intended church and state to be separate.

So yeah, in all honesty, this whole gay marriage debate really shouldn’t be happening. The government has no reason to be declaring who can and who cannot get married, nor issuing any marriages.

What that leaves for the government is a civil, domestic partnership. Or perhaps a domestic co-op. Any time a group of individuals come together in an attempt to act as one household, whether this group be husband and wife, or a gay couple, lesbian couple, or even two or more individuals who are in no way romantically affiliated with one another but still live together and function cohesively, they should be allowed certain allowances in the legal system. With provisions for what to do in case the household dissolves or if it is known in advance it is only a temporary situation.

((Post in reply to this blog post by robynsheppard))