A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

I have a simple question for those who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is detrimental to children - which will come at the end of this post. But first allow me to present a senerio that is quite common.

The setting: A time and place where same sex marriage is not possible and only married couples can adopt .

The people: Kathy is a 29 year old divorced woman with two year old twins- a boy named Brandon and a girl named Britany . After the birth of the children, the husband , Jack, became abusive and angry which resulted in Kathy filing for divorce. Jack, over the last year and a half has had minimal contact with the children by his choice, and has had to be hauled into court several time for not paying child support.

Kathy has always felt that she was more attracted to women than men but has supppressed those feelings because of taboos and social pressures, and wanting to avoid disapproval of friends and family . However, public opinion and social norms are changing and she is ready to embrace her feelings, be who she really is, and come out as a Lesbian.

Soon after her divorce, Kathy meets Angela, a Lesbian and they hit it off. The children like her and she is crazy about them. Within 6 months Angela moves in with Kathy in the home that Kathy owns exclusivly as a result of the divorce settlement. In time, it becomes clear that the children are bonding with Angela and she is very involved with them.

A few years go by, the children are now in school and doing well. They are clearly well adjusted and have many friends. Then the unthinkable happens. Kathy is killed in an auto accident. Social Services at the hospital notifies Child Protective Services (CPS) that there are children living with an unrelated person who is not their legal guardian and investigates. The first thing that they do is to contact the father who has moved some distance away and is with another woman. They find out that the woman does not want kids and the father's interest is tepid at best. They consider charging him with abandonment but determine that placing the children with him might be putting them at risk of abuse or neglect because of the attiudes of the father and his girlfriend.

The next step is for CPS is to explore relatives on both sided of the family who might be able and willing to take the children but Kathy had not been close with any of them some austricized her for living with a woman. None are interested in taking in the children.

Meanwhile, Angela and the children are understanably devistated by the loss of Kathy . Compounding the grief is childrens fear that they will be taken away from Angela and sent off to live with people who they don't know, and away from their friends and school. And of course Angela is fearful of loosing the children.

To be sure CPS could reccomend to the court that Angela be given custody but there is no guarantee that they will, or that the court would follow that reccomendation. And, if a relitive later came forward and asked to be considered as the guardian, or if the father objected, Angela could loose custody at any time. It is also plausable that CPS would reccomend placement into foster care. Remember, Angela has no rights!!

Now children do have rights, and these children are old enough- now 7- so express their wishes. However, that does not mean that their rights and wishes will be respected by the legal system and the adults who have power over them. The court might order a best interest analysis which would include a lengthy process of evaluating the degree of bonding between Angela and the children . But even if resolved in their favor, they will have already suffered unnecessary trauma and will bear those scars for the rest of their lives.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if Kathy and Angela could have been married so that Angela could adopt the children as a second parent. ( Although it might be necessary to terminate the parental rights of the father first- which should not be hard given his indiference and negligence. He might even relinquish those rights vountarily and thus be off the hook for child support)

So now, my question is : Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED? Yes or No, and why

 

"Can anyone say that the best interest of Brandon and Britany were served in a system where Kathy and Angela COULD NOT GET MARRIED?"

Yes or No, and why ?

The best interests and continued well being of the children would best be served by allowing their parents to marry.
Allowing the children testimony in arbitration would also be helpful.
When society feels it knows what is best and assumes sovereignty over people's affairs it is oftentimes detrimental rather than meritorious.

 

Are you suggesting that only conservatives ever do such a thing (my bold)?

 

Anyone claiming two women should not marry and raise a family is wrong.
Their political leaning matters not a jot.

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

If Kathy married a man, it wouldn't change anything. A step father is not given parental rights over the biological father. The Biological parent would be the assumed legal guardian upon the death of the mother. He could give custody to...either...a woman partner of his ex, or male spouse. Forcing a man or woman to give their own child up for adoption is a long court case and not realistic. I don't see how Kathy and Angela being married would have mattered in this situation.

 

Right, It would not automatically bestow parental rights on Angel. But it would be a step in the right direction. As I suggested, the father- being disinterested and wanted to get out of paying child support might voluntarily give up his parental rights. CPS, or Angela, could also file a complaint for guardianship based on his negligence and the fact that the children are bonded to Angela and therefor adoption by her is in their best interest. But in this case, their not being married precludes all of that. Angela and Kath being married would have benefited the children if Kathy had lived as well.

 

The problem with your scenario is that it would all equally apply if Kathy and Angela were just roommates who moved in together to save on expenses. The kids bonding to Angela would be just as likely, so should Angela have any rights to the kids as merely a non romantic roommate?

 

all 3 of them? XD

they really dont matter anymore

 

funny!

meantime, in Australia, something like 40% voted against it. that's almost half the population.

 

Voted against what ?

 

I don't understand the point of this. The people that oppose same-sex marriage are allowed to. They simply aren't allowed to stop two people of the same sex from being married.

This is over it's done with as of 2015. I don't presume to know peoples reasons frankly I don't care why they oppose it they can sit somewhere and oppose it all they feel like.

If the wall regarding marriage were to change I would say abolish government interference. It should be handled privately.

 

Same sex marriage.

 

So 60% voted for Same sex marriage ?

 

yes. which means 40% didn't. considerably more than 'a few'

 

So a majority voted for same sex marriage, something you seem not to like as you pointed out the 40% against, rather not surprised at that.

 

yes, obviously. the point is that someone (you?) said those opposed amounted to 'a few'. 40% of a population is not 'a few', it's almost half.

 

I could not point it out as I had no clue how people in Australia voted on same sex marriage.
I do know 60 % is a majority.

 

Yes, it's a majority.

The interesting thing is that many people were shocked that there was 40% resistance. They had just assumed everyone was on the same page. Some folk don't get out much

 

Yeah,
There was a time that people objected to Interracial marriage, marriages between people of different religions etc.....

Lots of people objecting to things they need not object to.

 

They don't see it that way, though (the objectors, I mean). They see race as involuntary, and so should therefore be exempt from discrimination etc, but they see sexuality as 'choice', therefore open to criticism/objection.

 

Orientation has yet to be proven as a choice so it is mere speculation.

Religion however is complete 100% a choice. That's why you ignored it in your quote.

 

(my bold) it's also mere speculation that it's not a choice, obviously. so each side of the argument is correct until proven otherwise.

religion is 100% voluntary, absolutely. why would you imagine I'd avoid saying that? I'm openly atheist, FFS

 

If you had a clue, you would know that being married wouldn't have made any difference. You cant adopt kids who already have a mother and father.

 

I cannot speak for DoctorWho, but I agree with the statement, and it works for all sides of the political spectrum. Whether it is conservatives trying to determine how people should conduct the relationships, or liberals trying to determine how people should conduct their finances. And there of course so many other possible example.