Good news

[selenite0]

A bit of progress on getting legal status for "nontraditional" families--a lesbian couple has both been listed as parents on the birth certificate of their baby.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/03/13/news4-lesbians.htm

It may look like a small step, but according to this conservative (who hates the idea) this means recognizing three parent families and eventually fully legalizing polyamorous marriages.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz031203.asp

Sounds good to me!

Comments

[tygerr.livejournal.com]

I think Kurtz is talking about a different case than the lesbians on the birth certificate. I got the impression that the first article was about a couple in NJ, with no mention of a man's name on the certificate. Mr. Kurtz was talking about a case in London Ontario (a much more liberal part of the world than most of the US) (hmm...Disastrr Grrl has lived there--I wonder if it's anyone she knows?) which was trying to establish three legal parents. But yes, Mr. Kurtz's emphasis certainly was on the perceived similarities/connections between the two cases.

I was rather bemused by Mr. Kurtz's (for lack of a better word) "reasoning". I'm going to play *strictly* with his arguments here, and will try to avoid going anyplace that would even reveal my position/opinion to anyone who didn't already know it. I'm not going to address the truth, falsehood, or substantiation of *any* of his statements. I'm just going to stipulate that all his assertions are true, and compare them to his conclusions. This is strictly a logic game. Here we go!

Once parental responsibilities are parceled out to more than two people - even to someone living outside the household - it becomes that much easier for any one parent to shirk his or her responsibilities.

And this differs from the current situation of divorce and remarriage HOW, exactly? (I don't actually view this as a flaw in his logic. But if we're to apply his reasoning in this case, it seems fitting to apply it to children of divorce--expecially children of divorce and remarriage. In which case I have to conclude that we're already *there*, and thus this bit of his argument is pointless. (Okay, this is cheating in the "logic game" rules I set up. I've added the factoid that we already *have* a substantial number of three--or more--parent families already kicking around society.)

group marriage is inherently unstable in a Western cultural context

Okay, let's stipulate that this is true. (Logic game, remember?) One is tempted, given those last 5 words, to presume that Mr. Kurtz concedes that it *is* stable in some other cultural context. Perhaps one in which "group marriage" (of whatever form exists in said other culture) is culturally valued rather than culturally attacked? But regardless, the referenced instability is apparently one of Mr. Kurtz's objections to polygamy and he seems to regard this as a compelling reason to give polygamy special legal barriers to make sure it does not come about.

Monogamous marriage cannot function if it is just one of many social arrangement. Marriage as an institution depends for its successful functioning upon the support and encouragement that the ethos of monogamy receives from society as a whole.

Hmm. *That* looks to me an awful lot like Mr. Kurtz is claiming that monogamy is inherently unstable in an unsupportive cultural context. Which sounds strangely familiar. I'm *sure* I've seen a statement remarkably like that *somewhere* else, if only I could remember *where*.... Well, regardless. He seems to be claiming that this instability is a compelling reason to give monogamy special legal protections in order to make sure it works.

I don't *think* I'm misrepresenting anything he's said. Have I?

So. Let's summarize, here.

Polygamy, on the one hand, is inherently unstable in an unsupportive cultural context and thus clearly must be illegal.

Monogamy, on the other hand, is inherently unstable in an unsupportive cultural context and thus clearly must be provided with special legal protections.

These two statements, set next to each other like that, seem to *me* at least to be grossly offensive to *both* polygamists and monogamists.

Am I missing something here?

Yep

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Oh, the Kurtz guy is clearly a bigot. I saw a reference to his article on a blog-post discussing the NJ case.

What I like about it is if even the conservatives see legalizing polygamy as an inevitable consequence of those court decisions it's probably pretty likely to happen. Kurtz thinks it's a bad thing. You and I think he's full of it.

The good news is it looks like we're going to get a chance to show he's full of it in the real world (well, sometime in the next generation).

Three-parent families

[(Anonymous)]

I am currently one of two fathers in a three-parent family. Not the divorce/remarried type of family, but the type where all three of us are together and we all live together and share family responsibilities. So far, my experience is that our family situation works REALLY well, we are all (especially our son) very happy together, and most of our friends are very supportive. That's all, I just thought I would put in my two-cents worth...