Lately we've been discussing marriage equality, the purpose of marriage, benefits of marriage, and the role of the state in marriage. We also discussed the role of the state in deciding the purpose of marriage. Gut reaction, of course, is to say that the state has no role in deciding that purpose one way or the other. Yet the state (actually, I wonder if I should capitalize "state." There's the state of the United States, and then the state of Michigan after all. Hmmmph), via elected officials represents what we the citizens want. Or rather, what the majority of citizens within certain districts want. Regardless, the point is that the state isn't necessarily some monolithic behemoth wading ponderously to and fro, crushing all hapless bystanders beneath its gargantuan weight, but rather a constantly shifting mosaic of the ideas, wants, needs, and morals of a disparate citizenry. Something to keep in mind as I go forward with this little sermon.
As we talked about the role of the state (or the role of 'us' if you're one of those optimistic civic-minded people) in marriage/"friendships with benefits"/whatever, the class seemed to settle on something that bothered me. Rather than agreeing to the historical interests of the state in marriage- namely the transition of property rights from generation to generation, securing alliances, advancing micro economic units that contribute to the well-being of the state, etc, the concept of "care giving," specifically of children seemed to reach an acceptable consensus. While that bothers me for a number of reasons, the primary reason is this: By establishing a primacy of care giving, you establish a legal conflict between children and parents (regardless of what kind of parents -straight, gay, communal, whatever). Essentially what we've done is state that "what's best" for the child(ren) may trump what's best for the parents. On the face of it, that seems grand, but then you delve into who determines "what's best."
A possible objection occurred to me when I considered studies like this http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications_states/files/0086.pdf , and how they're used in political messaging.
Oh, and no, I'm not good with computers or the whole 'blogging' thing, so y'all will just have to suck it up.
To save you some trouble, the gist is this: "these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological1 parents who have low-conflict relationships." The authors then go on to state that their research has been cited in pushing certain political agendas (e.g. encouraging marriage and discouraging divorce), even though the policy-makers doing so tend to ignore the "low-conflict" part of the statement.
The reason I bring that up is simple. In a one on one conversation, I was told that I was "going off on a random tangent," "smart people don't vote for policies" like I suggested could (theoretically) happen, and that "studies have proven" that preventing people from divorcing is counter-productive. It didn't occur to them that I was bringing up things that have already been done.
And that brings to me the larger point of my blog post. Many of you are still very young, and yet seem remarkably certain about what shall and shall not come to pass. Considering we're in a class about contemporary issues in U.S. Politics, you might want to start thinking about all the various bizarre things that happen in collective decision making, and start being just a little less certain about the ways of the Universe.
Here endeth the Lesson.
It's funny that the authors simply overlook the non-conflict part of successful child rearing. I assume that they don't delve into it because conflict within a relationship should be addressed on a case to case basis.
ReplyDeleteThere is a myth about the family and the home, that the home is a shield from the evils and dangers of an outside world- it is a place of love and care, where you are no longer in harm's way than how you are out in the cold, lonely world. When in fact, the opposite is true. Where do you think we get the term domestic violence? The home is the place where a woman is most likely to be either assaulted or killed (by her own spouse). So even though social scientists (self-proclaimed most of the time) want to claim that the family unit is good for children, it's not always as cracked up as it's meant to be.