In 2002 Richard Lo was understandably scared—his partner Patrick Callaghan was suffering from hereditary polycystic kidney disease and had been waiting for over a year for a kidney donation that provided a match suitable for transplant. Patrick’s mother and two of his brothers had died from the disease, and it was not clear if the donation would come in time.
In most states and in most countries, the partner of a dying gay, lesbian or bisexual person has no legal right to be with their loved one as a spouse would. Even so, a significant segment of people that oppose equal rights for lesbian and gay people that I’ve spoken with while lobbying at the Iowa General Assembly in the past few years and also at the U.S. Congress seem to sincerely deplore the thought of any two people who care deeply for one another being kept apart during times of great personal catastrophe. While I find it reassuring to know that the people who strive to deprive gay and lesbian people of equal protection and rights under the law carry with them some modicum of respect for these long-term relationships, one wouldn’t need to imagine a world where they could be separated by an unenlightened hospital or hospice staff if it weren’t for the lack of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples.
So often the arguments heard in and around the debates over same-sex marriage focus solely on two individuals, but a family is, often, so much more. Lesbian and gay couples have been raising children for decades—the State of Iowa actually began the active recruitment of same-sex couples to become foster parents in the late 1970s. Studies endorsed by the American Psychological Association and developmental specialists have indicated that children raised by same-sex couples grow to be as healthy as their counterparts reared by heterosexuals—some of those same studies have also shown some indications that those children raised by same-sex couples may even be less likely to engage in violent behaviors.
During Cornell’s Student Symposium in 2002 I presented a paper in which I argued that the lack of this legal recognition put children in great jeopardy. While many employers do offer health benefits to the domestic partners of employees—many do not. Say, for instance, that a child is legally adopted by only one father and the other father has the sole gainful employment perhaps due to a series of lay-offs. Now also assume that the father with gainful employment works for Snapple and does not receive domestic partnership benefits. It is possible that as a result of this exclusionary corporate behavior that the child of the two men is left without some or all of the elements of healthcare that she might need.
Some clever social conservatives might say that I’ve just made part of the case for denying lesbian and gay citizens the right to raise children. Really though, what I think I’ve done is mention just two situations in a tremendously long list that illustrates why the equality of same-sex and heterosexual couples is a necessary component of contemporary American society.
I haven’t forgotten about Richard and Patrick, the couple concern about Patrick’s failing kidney. It is often compared to winning a very chance lottery, but in this instance Richard was able to donate one of his healthy kidneys in order to save his loved one Patrick.
It really does astound me that social conservatives, in a country with a 50% divorce rate, are willing to make any argument that protecting marriage from interlopers such as Richard and Patrick will do anything at all aside from deny two people the protections that they deserve.
by Addy Free, Opinions Editor
The Cornellian vol. 125, issue 2
I've been told that this isn't a particularly strong arguement and I'd agree. I wasn't really going for strength, just interest, but I appreciate the commentary.
Beyond that though, it really isn't one of my best columns.
Posted by: Addy | Oct 11, 2004 at 11:42 AM