The article discusses anti-cohabitation laws in seven states, and how they're affecting 1.6 million people. Specifically, the article addresses a family in Black Jack, Missouri, which I discussed here.
In Black Jack, the city council voted last Tuesday to overturn an ordinance that had kept at least one family with unmarried parents from getting a housing permit. The law had prohibited more than three people not related by "blood, marriage, or adoption" from living together to prevent crowding - not for moral reasons, the mayor has said.
The good folks of Black Jack appear to have done the decent, sensible thing, but it appears from the article that this issue isn't going to go away, and it's going to end up eventually being tied to the gay marriage debate.
Here's that thought I was chewing on: The linchpin of the whole anti-gay marriage argument is that heterosexual marriage is simply best for the kids. Something about that marriage license makes all the difference in the world.
As an example, another quote from the article:
"Our forefathers were wise, and such laws as the cohabitation law here in North Carolina are really important for holding up moral standards," says the Rev. Mark Creech, director of the Christian Action League. "Cohabitation simply imitates marriage, but without actually creating the internal, the emotional, the moral and the legal structure that protects couples."
Okay, that naturally begs the question, "If marriage is so great, why not let gay people marry so they can enjoy its benefits, too?" They don't want to answer that question.
But I digress. Anyway, the point is that the court opposition to gay marriage is based on the premise that heterosexual marriage is simply best for the kids. But if heterosexual UNmarried cohabitating couples seem to be raising kids just fine (they don't seem to be doing much worse) then it's difficult for that argument to hold water.
If Ms. Shelltrack and Mr. Loving, (the unmarried couple in Black Jack) had taken their case to court, they'd have probably said something like, "Our kids have all the benefits children of married couples have. They're not discriminated against for being bastards, if we separate they're entitled to parenting time with each of us and child support, there's nothing they're being deprived of that children of married couples have. So there's no good reason to require us to be married."
If the court in question applies logic and common sense, it should say, "Previous decisions have said that marriage is the best way to raise children. Since this doesn't necessarily appear to be the case anymore, there's no reason to discriminate against couples who don't fit the one-man/one-woman mold."
At that point, gay couples ought to be ready to barge into the courtroom and shout, "Eureka! We don't fit that mold, either! If the state can't discriminate against unmarried heterosexual couples, it can't discriminate against homosexual couples, either!"
In a perfect world, anyway. Or at least a fairly decent world.
No comments:
Post a Comment