Margaret Somerville: Wrong to protest, though the reasons ar

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally published on June 20, 2006

On June 19, 2006, ethicist Margaret Somerville was given an honorary doctorate at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada. Gay rights activists and academics alike showed their disapproval. There was no shouting or violence, but certainly Ms. Somerville and the presenters were made to feel uncomfortable by the actions of many present. The protest was in response to Ms. Somerville’s opposition to same-sex marriage and artificial insemination for lesbians.

I believe that this was the wrong place and time to protest. Ms Somerville was being honoured for a lifetime of work having nothing to do with the issue being protested. Opposition to her opinions on these matters is better left to another forum, and it does the gay community no credit to treat a well-respected and thoughtful individual in such a fashion.

Still, her opinions on same-sex marriage do need to be challenged. Somerville has condemned same-sex marriage and artificial insemination for lesbians, but insists she is not against gay people. I believe her to be genuine and honest about this. She supports same-sex civil unions, and has said so repeatedly. But she does not support "marriage" for same-sex couples.

“I am pro-gay rights, but I am also pro-children's rights, and same-sex marriage is one of the very few areas where those rights are in conflict," she said. "A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize same-sex marriage."

It is that last statement with which I most disagree. I believe strongly that marriage, parenting and reproductive technologies are separate issues, and should be argued separately. Conflating them can only confuse each issue, sometimes to the point of absurdity. <em>Of course </em>marriage and reproduction are extremely closely related. But children can and do happen without marriage, and marriage can and does happen without children -- often happily in both cases. Marriages terminate, and life goes on. Parents remarry, and step-parents are accepted as rightful parents, even though not biologically related to a child.

And sometimes, when nature has contrived against children, couples (and individuals) turn to reproductive technology or adoption for help. Or when couples (or individuals) are not ready for parenthood, they may turn to contraception, abortion or adoption for help.

Artificial Insemination & Reproductive Technology

If artificial insemination is wrong for a lesbian couple (because, as Somerville insists, a child has the right to its own biological parents), then it is equally wrong for the straight couple using donated sperm. Similarly, surrogate motherhood and implantation of a donor egg are equally suspect. Donated gametes cannot confer biological parenthood, even on a heterosexual couple. Therefore, Somerville’s argument should more properly be made against these reproductive technologies, not against the gender of the hopeful parents.

Adoption

Adoption is a problematic issue. Here is a time when we can choose whether parents are fit, much as we do at the pound, not allowing animals to be adopted by those deemed not able to care for them properly. Still, many unadopted animals are put down, and we wouldn’t want to do that to children. But the fact is many children don’t ever get adopted. I didn’t.

I wonder, though, if we mightn’t at least agree that adoption by the same-sex partner of a biological parent wouldn’t at least be an acceptable option (assuming the other biological parent has relinquished any claim, of course), and far superior option to turning the child over to the state. If nothing else, the child is better protected in the event of the loss of the natural parent.

Whether to ever allow a same-sex couple to adopt an unrelated child is a matter for Parliament and possibly the courts to decide. (I include the courts because there might be a case for describing this as a rights issue.) Still, we must not doubt that adoption is a separate issue from same-sex marriage, and to conflate the two issues is to confuse both.

Same-Sex Marriage

The real issue in the debate, and especially in the protest at Ryerson, is same-sex marriage, which is set to become an issue again in the fall, as Parliament holds a free vote on whether to re-open the issue. Ms. Somerville maintains that she is opposed only because children have the right to their biological parents. While this is a reasonable thing to be desired, one has to wonder at the connection.

To prevent a gay couple from marrying will not give a child a mother, father or both. I have a partner of 12 years. We have not married for the simple reason that it does not seem to have any meaning for us. But should we decide to do so, preventing it will not somehow cause any child on the planet to suddenly acquire a mother or a father.

Neither will marrying a gay couple take a parent away from any child. No one can convince me that if I marry my partner of 12 years, some child somewhere will be deprived of a parent as a consequence. I do not accept that my marriage will have any impact whatever on the decision of another couple, unknown to me, to marry, to have children, to do neither or to do both. I have never seen the slightest shred of evidence for such a supposition.

In the case of a gay person who is already a parent, there is of course an issue. But since no one can marry who is already married, we must assume that if this parent is seeking to marry a same-sex partner, they are already either single or divorced. Therefore, whatever the event that deprived the child of one parent has already happened, and cannot be blamed on the hoped-for marriage.

The Real Issue

If the objective is to ensure that children have both parents throughout their formative years, then the real answers are to make procreation outside of marriage, and divorce while having dependent children, illegal. These we are manifestly unwilling to do. No doubt we recognize that forcing people who cannot reconcile to stay together “for the sake of the kids” might be more dangerous than allowing them to separate.

It almost seems as if Somerville and those who support her arguments prefer instead to support families by denying family to the 2% of the population least likely to have any impact whatever.

[MacAgy]

I do no of a few same sex couples who have children.
These children are quite happy and live a normal life style ( not the biased version of normal )
but the version of being raised by a happy couple regardles of their sex.
If the health or safety of the child is not in danger then the State & Church should not become involved

[Baruch]

I agree with MacAgy. BTW - the unconventionalness of same sex marriage, or artificial insemination by hetero or gay ... are not bioethics violations in my opinion. I have strong bioethical principles. The cloning of whole human beings, and the chimerization between species at any biological level (recently in Britain, at the genetic level, between humans and sheep) ... is something I most strongly oppose. The ethical objections of Somerville do not rise to that level.

Shalom

[evangelicalhumanist]

The ethical objections of Somerville do not rise to that level

Margaret Somerville is really quite a well-respected ethicist in Canada (and many of her opinions have earned my respect, too). She has gay friends, and over the course of many years has been a supporter of gay issues.

But for some reason that I can't quite fathom (as my remarks show), Ms. Somerville was galvanized by the gay marriage issue into taking a very firm stand against it, and her stand has been rooted in "the rights of children."

Now, I am a firm believer that, while marriage often results in children, there is no necessary equivalance between them. Many people marry who can't or won't have children. That would include adults long past the urge to raise new families. What shall we say about such cases? Are they "aberrations?" I don't think so. I think what drives people to marriage is quite a separate thing from what drives people to become parents. They are often conflated (for reasons that are obvious even to me ), but are not yet the same thing.

And I think Ms. Somerville makes a pretty grave mistake in supposing that just because children deserve a two-parent (mother/father) family unit, that there is anything that can guarantee such a thing. It doesn't take death or divorce to result in a single-parent family, and it can very easily be the natural child of one parent who becomes the adopted child of the partner in a same-sex relationship. Would Somerville, or any of us, think it better to remove that child from it's natural parent, place it in the custody of the state or of strangers, in order to prevent that?

I am, I confess, somewhat perplexed by Somerville's objections, which to my mind she has never adequately explained.

[Baruch]

I pretty much agree. Let me make a hypothesis. She is a neo-liberal. Neo-liberals like neo-conservatives ... are fascist utopians. I would guess that her objection is tangential to the gay issue ... she would try to force all families into her procrustean mold, of a manly father and a womanly mother at the head ... for the psychological benefit of the child. Like all neos of either stripe, they believe that the end justifies the means. Since a gay marriage, could lead to children being necessarily raised outside her ideal. I doubt it has anything to do with the difference between the motivation for marriage vs the motivation for parenting. My opposition to neos of all kinds, is why I am opposed to both the Republicans and Democrats in my own country. Only mavericks or independents interest me. I already disbelieve that McCain is a maverick, there are yet opportunities for Obama to also disprove he is a maverick.

Shalom

[evangelicalhumanist]

Neo-liberals like neo-conservatives ... are fascist utopians.

I can't help but wonder where that leaves me, and why I have developed the attitudes that I have. I'm no Procrustes, not interested in fitting anyone to the bed I happen to own. And when my own doesn't fit anymore, I'll get a new one.

I won't "tolerate" everything, and that includes what I perceive to be harmful religious doctrines. What I view as harmful is, or course, entirely unique to me, but I do draw the line there. The law need not, in my view, tolerate the refusal by parents for a needed blood transfusion for their child, and should step in without respect to the parents' faith. I'm on less sure ground when the parents refuse for themselves, because, as you point out in another post, their own death (however freely they chose it) must still have impacts on others -- including their orphaned children.

But I am, at the same time, hugely pluralist in my views. So long as no harm is done, not only can I tolerate, but I can revel in people's differences. Joseph and I are among the most active in all of Toronto's cultural activities, visiting not just cultural but religious venues frequently. This year alone, we've been in multiple churches (Protestant and Catholic) an old and rather tawdry (but historic) synagogue, two mosques, a hindu temple and a Tibetan Buddhist shrine. We visit these to expand our understanding, and we quite enjoy the process. I enjoy the artworks, the food, the theatre, the perspectives, the music.

I know people who are single parents, due to divorce or to the simple choice made to have a child, but not to marry. I leave people to their own devices in such situations, and while I remain dedicated to my friends, I find I have nothing to say (unless asked) about their life choices.

To some extent, I'm even willing to countenance some cultures' ideas about arranged marriages and the like. After all, I have seen all too many marriages start with the greatest of promise (and some unkeepable promises) fall apart, and I know some people in arranged marriages for whom it's working very well. I draw the line, however, when a son or daughter makes a categorical refusal to marry someone chosen for them. It is one thing for them to agree (even under some cultural pressure) without my being able to understand how they could do so, but it is an entirely different thing to force someone into a situation into which they are unwilling to go.

[Baruch]

Well we were both slapped at the wrong end by the doctor who delivered us Leftists say we are too tall and cut off our feet, Rightists say we are too short and put us on the rack to make us taller (Guantanamo). Extremists both. But neither of us is an extremist. The question is rather why, do so many people around us, entertain and even implement extreme ideas. I think it is lack of compassion ... extremists are never compassionate ... like the parents you site, who won't allow a blood transfusion because of a theological quibble. Another reason why we are both different ... we are both outsiders in our respective societies ... which is not a bad thing, given the hell that societies get up to.

Shalom