The following text below is a transcript of a talk given by Dr Jennifer Roback Morse Ph.D gave in the last week of June 2011, in the US.
Mrs Roback Morse highlighted the likely negative consequences should same sex marriage become law. Dr Roback Morse stresses the issue is not one of allowing same sex marriage but rather it is about REDEFINING Marriage.
You will read of how same sex marriage has created more problems than it solved.
In the text below, I have made a few slight changes or additions, to give this view some Australian currency.
A birth certificate records the biological truth. There has already been an attempt in the US to change a minors passport from a Mother and Father to Parent A and Parent B.
The attempted change was presented to the people as being more realistic because it is taking into account of the fact that we have all these unconventional families.
This is where the law is heading.
Marriage is “something” and the government is considering changing what that “something” is.
Instead of Marriage as being between a man and a woman that is ordered toward procreation and the good of the child and the good of spouses, Marriage will become the union of any two spouses and it will not be able to be the same kind of thing once it has been redefined.
If Marriage is redefined, it will not be possible to have a same sex marriage here and an opposite sex marriage there. There will be a new law that is going to affect everyone. Everyone will be playing by the new rules.
What will happen if we redefine marriage to allow two males to marry or two females to marry each other?
Negative Consequence 1
Marriage will become the kind of thing that detaches or separates children from at least one of their parents.
Same sex couples obviously no not procreate naturally and there has been a lot of talk designed to get you to forget that point, designed to obscure that fact.
Often you will hear people say “Well look, same sex couples are having kids already so we should let their parents get married so that they can have all the legal protections of parenthood.”
Well there are a couple of things wrong with that.
Elton John and his boyfriend, in no meaningful sense, had a baby. They did not have a baby. What they did was acquire legal custody of a child.
That is what happened.
The question is now, “Do we think this is a good idea?”
It is a different thing than a man and a woman procreating naturally.
What Elton john and his boyfriend had to do, was to find an egg donor and find a gestational mother to bring the child to term for them. Interestingly enough, if the egg donor and the gestational mother had been the same person, what would we have been talking about?
We would have been talking about an adoption. We would have been talking about a woman having a baby and giving her baby to Elton John and his boyfriend, one of whom is the biological father.
What would be happening is a mother giving her over her baby and full custody to this same sex couple.
It is very hard for a mother to give up her own baby so that is why there was this separation of the egg donor to the child carrier. There are also protections for women who place their baby up for adoption and those protections don’t exactly apply to surrogate mothers and egg donors.
What you need to see is that it is the same sex union that allows the fiction to take place that two members of the same sex couple are in fact the parents of the child. The opposite sex parents have somehow been ushered off the stage. Another example would be where the father of the child of a lesbian couple has been taken from the picture. It is their civil union that has made the lesbian couple parents of the child.
Their union, instead of being a union that attaches a child to both biological parents, is instead the vehicle for detaching the child from one of their biological parents.
It undermines the principle that a child is entitled to a relationship with both biological parents.
How is this situation different from adoption?
Adoption is a child centred social institution. Adoption exists to give children the parents they need. It does not exist to give adults the kids they want.
That is the difference.
Adoption is carried when something untoward has happened to someone. A child for some reason cannot be taken care of by their biological parents and we have a backup plan. Obviously the best solution is always if the child can be raised by their own mother and father.
What happens to a child in such a situation and how society responds to it, is different in kind to a situation where adults have decided to manufacture a child where they know the child will be detached from one of their biological parents. This decision is one of the life long plans that is being made by one of the child’s parents.
This point has nothing to do with same sex marriage per se, it is to do with the proper act of sexual reproduction. Because of the advances in IVF, we have stumbled into a whole ethical minefield, without ever thinking through what we have been doing.
This reminds me of the frog in the pot of cold water on the stove where the heat has slowly been turned up. The frog has not noticed the apparent small changes until it is too late.
This is a good opportunity to reconsider what we have been doing and see whether we want to continue down that path or whether we should pull in the reins a little bit here and retract our steps.