I am responding here to the Margaret Somerville's report against same-sex marriage, which can be found at http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf. I felt that the issues she raises are worthy of discussion within the LGBTQ community (in particular child welfare, new reproductive technologies, and the sense of biological identity), but her attacking same-sex marriage is misplaced.
-
Margaret Somerville believes that the institution of marriage must be held up to symbolize the respect of the transmission of life. Marriage is inherently procreative, and must be maintained as such in order to sustain a well ordered and just society. As same-sex couples are unable to naturally procreate, including them in the institution of marriage would damage that symbol. (Heterosexual couples unable or unwilling to procreate can still get married without damaging that symbol, as the symbol of marriage is seen in general, and not in individual cases. Furthermore, it would be unethical to mandate procreation for married couples (and a serious breach in privacy to test for infertility before allowing a couple to be married). In her report, Somerville writes, "... marriage institutionalizes and symbolizes for society the inherently procreative relationship. It cannot do that if it is changed to include same-sex couples." I believe, however, that Somerville's views on procreation are too narrow. She speaks only of biological procreation, and not the way a child is brought up and influenced in a family to which they have no biological connection (i.e., in the case of adoption). This also has a very large part in the person that results, and the institution of marriage should recognize this. Therefore, if it is acceptable for same-sex couples to adopt, perhaps they should be allowed (even encouraged) to marry in order to maintain as much as possible a family structure conducive to optimal 'procreation' (used more broadly). This involves the nature vs. nurture argument. Somerville believes that we children have a very strong biological connection to there parents and therefore should have the right to be raised by their biological parents. I am more of a developmental systems theorist in this regard, believing that nature and nurture cannot be so simplistically divided. Instead, there exists an intricate intertwining of biological and environmental forces that ultimately create who we are. I do believe that non-biological parents can make excellent parents, and I think Somerville's evidence to the contrary is lacking.
Margaret Somerville addresses the argument about bringing children into families with same-sex parents, recognizing it as a strong argument in favor of same-sex marriage. She replies in this way:
"The join reproductive incapacity of a same-sex couple must not be addressed through reproductive technologies . . . a child has a right not to be created from the genetic patrimony of two men or two women, or by cloning, or from multiple genetic parents. Therefore, same-sex relationships should not be included within an institution that symbolizes an inherently procreative relationship".
There are definitely issues to be addressed concerning biotechnology and new reproductive technologies. However, I don't think that preventing same-sex marriage addresses these concerns at all. There is no legal requirement that some be married or even 'partnered' in order to have a child (biologically, or using reproductive technologies). An unmarried heterosexual couple may have children, and a single person may have a child biologically or through artificial insemination. I do not see what there is to stop or slow the use of certain reproductive technologies by preventing same-sex marriage. I fail to see how a same-sex couple would decide not to have a child only because they were not able to marry (but instead were recognized as a civil union). If biotechnology and new reproductive technologies are a problem (and I certainly believe there are issues to be discussed in this area), it makes more sense to go after those directly then by trying to uphold marriage as a symbol that may or may not be held by the majority of the population. (I personally had not seen the symbol of marriage strongly associated with the birth and upbringing of (strictly) biological offspring, but instead associate it with relationship commitment).
"Bringing children into a same-sex relationship should not be seen within the norm, but rather, as an exception to it . . . I believe that a child needs a mother and a father, and if possible unless there are good reasons to the contrary, preferably its own biological mother and father as its raising parents. (Adopted children's search for their birth parents and current moves to give children born through reproductive technologies . . . show a deep human need to know our biological family origins.) Recognizing same-sex marriage would make bringing children into a same-sex relationship part of the norm, rather than the exception".
This, however, depends on: (1) the marrying same-sex couple believing that marriage is a institution primarily for procreation, (2) believing that a broader definition of procreation (to include nurture elements) would not satisfy this criteria (even with one biological parent), (3) we cannot adequately facilitate this "deep human need to know our biological family origins", (4) these are in fact deep human needs and not socialized needs or more general human curiosity, and (5) our present social structure concerning marriage is inherently right and would be damaged by same-sex marriage. I feel that Somerville touches on these but is far from adequately supporting them.
Somerville continues by placing the burden of proof on those that wish to conduct this 'social experiment' of same-sex marriage, given the potential effects on a vary vulnerable population (children). Again, continuing this far depends on assumptions of marriage, human nature, the effects of same-sex marriage, and others that I still question. With this said, I wonder about the study that she carried out that supposedly said that children of same-sex couples had some significant psychological problems. In the Macleans magazine (http://www.macleans.ca/culture/people/article.jsp?content=20060701_130175_130175), she mentioned a possible bias in the study, stating "I might be getting a biased sample because these guys are sort of lobbying me". This is a serious problem that has to be dealt with before her claims can be taken more seriously, especially considering that her conclusions are contrary to the conclusions of nearly all other studies looking at children of same-sex couples. Somerville attributes this discrepancy to the age group that was studied. Apparently kids from 10-14 appear to be well-adjusted, though those from 20-25 are not (in general). I have found studies looking at teenagers up to the age of 18 that have concluded that they are these children of same-sex couples are as well adjusted as the children of heterosexual couples (see for example http://indorgs.virginia.edu/uvapride/view_news.php?newsID=257). I find it difficult to believe that in the next 2-6 years, these people would developer debilitating or at least annoying psychological problems. Given these studies and the official position of the APA on the psychological state of children raised by same-sex couples (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html), it seems that the burden of proof is actually on Somerville. The sample of her study and the way it which it took into consideration social factors (are the children living in a homophobic environment outside the home, for example) would need to be made explicit before I could consider her claim further.
Somerville's notions of marriage as an institution in our society primarily for the purpose of reproducing and raising children, and our need for this institution and the protections it provides, is not something that I can take prima facie. Our society evolves, our culture evolves, and things change -- this is inevitable. Marriage has been around for a long time, but it has evolved over time and has different meanings from culture to culture. (While we seem to be moving to a more monocultural planet, there have existed societies in the past that had very different conceptions of gender -- and all social responsibilities were based on gender (not sex)) (read the 'cultural' section in Joan Roughgarden's "Evolution's Rainbow" for more on this).
I don't think we need a strong institution of marriage to properly take care of kids; what we do need are clear laws to protect children from various situations (including, perhaps, being born as the result of biotechnology). When Somerville says things such as, "they feel that the people who've brought them into the world in this way were only thinking of their needs, their desires, what would make them happy. They didn't think about how the kid would feel", she needs to speak further about how exactly this situation is unique to same-sex couples wishing to raise children. And speaking of such selfishness, I might propose that we should always opt for adoption over biological reproduction given the number of children in this world that do need a strong and loving family. And to encourage adoption, and promote a strong institution of marriage for children, same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. When they adopt, we would no doubt want the same protections afforded that child as one that exists in a heterosexual, traditional family with biological children. These points argue in favor of a redefinition (legally) of parenthood to instead those that have raised the child. (With this said, I still feel issues with adoption and the identity of biological parents should be addressed, but these issues are by no means unique to same-sex couples.)
Somerville's views seem clouded by a strong belief that children are significantly worse off when they are not raised by their biological parents. Her claims seem to indicate something very natural (innate) about this, while I believe that such things have a lot more to do with environment. Alternative family structures do work, and it should be up to the family to decide what is best for the child (within a certain carefully set legal limits). Somerville, genuinely and justifiably concerned with the welfare of children in light of new reproductive technologies and biological identities should focus on seeking legislation in these areas directly. I believe preventing same-sex marriage would fail to address these issues at all (and result in the continued treatment of non-heteronormative individuals as second class citizens).
