There shouldn't be only one definition of family. There are and have been many kinds of families throughout history. In historical perspective, the nuclear family is the aberation, created by the industrial revolution. Humans naturally create families in infinite varieties as suits their needs. Government need not define or regulate it. For parenting, an extended, multiple spouse family would be far better than the nuclear family, and it could have varying degrees of contractual commitment and divisions of labor, giving biological parents a reprieve from the 24/7 drudgery of parenthood while providing a diverse, loving and supportive environment for children. And if an adult had to leave the relationship the detrimental effect on children would be minimized. It takes us back to the more natural, tribal family.

The Defense of Marriage Act was religion intruding into the secular and civil law and has placed our rights in danger. Marriage should be an exclusively religious institution, not part of civil law. Defining marriage in civil law is a violation of separation of religion and state. However, the state should recognize and regulate civil relationships in regard to property and parenting. Marriage should no longer be recognized in law nor should there be joint taxation, deductions or penalties for partners. Individuals should be taxed individually.

Evangelist Sheldon's Focus on the Family organization teaches that gay marriage would weaken the institution of marriage, but they can't say how. Their argument is disingenuous. How can supporting any kind of marriage undermine the institution and family? It can't. Either Sheldon is ignorant or lying for political gain.

How many people really want children? There's an enormous social pressure that we're indoctrinated from birth that people should marry and have children. Is this wise? Not all people are capable of good parenting nor should everyone marry. Most people marry because they want companionship to prevent loneliness and/or have regular access to sex. There are many options for a good life without needing to partner and raise children. Some people would serve society better by putting their energies into careers rather than marriage and parenting. For others, it is a disaster waiting to happen, and whose effects are further reaching than just the immediate family. This expectation fosters overpopulation, child and spouse abuse.

Society has an incentive to control parenting. It shouldn't be the sole decision of two parents. Parents are bringing into the world a child that has all the rights of any person and parents have no right to interfere with their child's rights. They have a double responsibility to protect the child's rights because the child is incapable of exercising all its rights. But most parents regularly violate their children's rights by indoctrinating them in unprovable beliefs and overtly harsh punishments. This is where society should be a responsible meta-parent, guaranteeing that children are exposed to all the diversity that makes up the society, and that children are not abused. Parents must serve in loco parentis to the larger society.

Abortion is too complex an issue for criminal law. I agree with conservatives that abortion shouldn't be used for birth control beccause that seems extremely irresponsible. Birth control should be before the act, not afterward. But if a fetus can't survive on its own, I can't perceive it as fully human. All fetuses are parasites, feeding on the mother. The responsibility of motherhood demands that women have a right to terminate pregnancies. Here is an area where men should not have a right of control. For all of human prehistory and most of historical existence women have had ways of controlling birth and aborting or even killing the newborn out of sight of men. These were part of women's mysteries where men must not tread, but ultimately they were for the health and long-term survival of the tribe. There is wisdom in this.

Contents