Comments on: Marriage equality vs. gay equality http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2008/05/30/marriage-equality-vs-gay-equality/ A website for LGBT folks who support marriage as the union of husband and wife—and getting the gay leadership to return to more pressing LGBT issues for our community. Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:49:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: John Howard http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2008/05/30/marriage-equality-vs-gay-equality/#comment-174 John Howard Sat, 31 May 2008 22:24:39 +0000 http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/?p=26#comment-174 Hi David, What is needed is a distinction in rights for same-sex couples that is reflected in the difference between marriage and civil union. I think that as long as they explicitly do not give the couple the right to conceive together, then they cannot be said to be like marriage or giving the "rights of marriage" and so can be passed even in those 18 states you mention. (I'm not sure the exact language of those state's bans, but usually they only prohibit legal recognition that offers "the rights of marriage". So, what do you think of "conception rights" as a distinction? If we enacted a cloning law like the one in Missouri, then people would only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex, and same-sex couples would be prohibited from using various technologies to attempt to conceive children together. That should be recognized as a major distinction in rights based on the sex of the person one chooses to be with. There's lots of jurisprudence that establishes that marriages have a right to conceive children using their own gametes (Lawrence, most recently) but it wouldn't hurt for Congress to establish that no married couple may be prohibited from conceiving using their own genes. And also, Congress needs to get around to banning cloning, and the best way is by banning all forms of creating people that do not join an egg of a woman and a sperm of a man, like Missouri did. Next, Congress should say that it will recognize state Civil Unions that are defined as being exactly like marriage except not granting the right to conceive using the couple's own gametes for all federal purposes as if they were marriages. What do you think? It is the distinction you are looking for, and what the majority of the people want, even if they don't realize that conception rights has anything to do with it. I think it gets at the underlying reason why people freak out about gay marriage - they know that marriage implies a right to have children. See my website for information about the research going on to do same-sex conception. Thanks Hi David,

What is needed is a distinction in rights for same-sex couples that is reflected in the difference between marriage and civil union. I think that as long as they explicitly do not give the couple the right to conceive together, then they cannot be said to be like marriage or giving the “rights of marriage” and so can be passed even in those 18 states you mention. (I’m not sure the exact language of those state’s bans, but usually they only prohibit legal recognition that offers “the rights of marriage”.

So, what do you think of “conception rights” as a distinction? If we enacted a cloning law like the one in Missouri, then people would only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex, and same-sex couples would be prohibited from using various technologies to attempt to conceive children together. That should be recognized as a major distinction in rights based on the sex of the person one chooses to be with.

There’s lots of jurisprudence that establishes that marriages have a right to conceive children using their own gametes (Lawrence, most recently) but it wouldn’t hurt for Congress to establish that no married couple may be prohibited from conceiving using their own genes. And also, Congress needs to get around to banning cloning, and the best way is by banning all forms of creating people that do not join an egg of a woman and a sperm of a man, like Missouri did. Next, Congress should say that it will recognize state Civil Unions that are defined as being exactly like marriage except not granting the right to conceive using the couple’s own gametes for all federal purposes as if they were marriages.

What do you think? It is the distinction you are looking for, and what the majority of the people want, even if they don’t realize that conception rights has anything to do with it. I think it gets at the underlying reason why people freak out about gay marriage – they know that marriage implies a right to have children.

See my website for information about the research going on to do same-sex conception.

Thanks

]]>