The epitome of debates regarding equality of rights among LGBT members is anchored more fundamentally on science, which is truly self-explanatory, than on religious advocacy. It is on the aspect of anatomy that laws of states across the globe are consonantly structured after, and for a just intention—to facilitate progeny.
Of course, through passage of time, laws are amended or repealed, as the case may be, to make laws more efficient and functional amidst the ever-evolving needs of the populace. Such is the recent happening when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples, allowing them to take their oath in a marriage ceremony.
In fact, the Supreme Court went further to declare same-sex marriage across America as a right so that when people speak of such sacred vows, there could be no more gender-specific labels to use.
But while that is so, the ruling does not give so much more than what it simply ruled, as there could be other legal issues that individuals entering in such institution may have to win over.
Such as, for example, an issue when a child enters the picture. Whose name shall appear on the child’s birth certificate to make a reference to his or her father or mother? It shall take a few more state or federal laws amending the format of vital records to accommodate a field indicating the appropriate role of a man and his partner, or a woman and hers.
The dissolution of marriage is another obstacle as regular divorce proceeding today is applicable only to married men and women. So, too, is the partition of properties between gay or lesbian couple — which is an integral section of divorce — because at the end of the day, the laws governing such procedure are gender-exclusive. And until the 2013 United States vs Windsor case, which treated the properties that passed during the existence of marriage between homosexuals as gifts, married homosexual couples resorted to costly civil lawsuits upon dissolution of their union.
Needless to say, it is not the Supreme Court or any Court for that matter that has the authority to enact laws. Unfortunately, our politicians from both the House of Representatives and the Senate have divisive views on this matter and it may take years for a pertinent bill to pass the required readings in both houses, taking into considerations the stance of Democrats and Republicans, before a bill can finally land on the desk of a President who reserves the right to veto it, unless the next President would be someone from the Democrat or a staunch supporter of the LGBT community.
In Molding A Child
Perhaps it is a child’s welfare that takes up an equal share in debates — arguing that rights regular married couples are already vested with be similarly afforded to LGBT — and for a weighty cause: the varied impact in a child growing up in a non-conventional family.
So many studies have already been published, astutely tackling both sides of the issue and so many more children raised in non-regular families turning out all right (a study suggested that children even fare better than regular peers) that the only thing left to be done is to recognize such existence as a matter of right across America and move on.
Then again, after the sun sets in the east, it is actually the children themselves who are on the front line battling bullies for having different set of parents. It is their emotions and opinion, both of which are vulnerable to influence, that are at stake. It is their personality and perception in life being groomed at home.
While sociologists and related professionals argue much with authority that being in a non-regular family does not have direct impact on children, none of them has ever delved into the indirect impact, also of equal importance given the fact that the environment—which basically starts at home — can shape up a child’s thinking.
Much of the child aspect in debates is only as good as the children remain to be as they are — children. After the formative years, how would they fare? When they reach adulthood, would they have grown the same way had they been raised in regular families, or even better?
The problem is, most participants of debates on this matter are adults. Of course, it is heartless to expect much from children who are in the formative years – which a study suggests begin from birth to 12 years and may extend up to 18 years for some aspects of social and emotional development – to form personal opinion on this view without bias or pressure. Even our laws set the age of majority at 18, except in Alabama, which is at 19; Nebraska, which is also at 19 or upon marriage, and Mississippi, at 21.
At best, it is safe to say that until then, studies centered on the social and emotional impact of children raised in non-conventional families remain to be dubious.
(The views and opinions in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Morning News USA.)