I have often heard it said that Seattle is the lesbian capitol of the US, while San Francisco is the gay male capitol. I don’t really care whether someone is gay or lesbian, but I do care about what it means for straight guys like me. One thing about gay men is that they do not have any interest in women, so the more gay men the more women for us straight guys, which isn’t such a bad thing. Not so with lesbians. In fact, lesbians often have a great deal more interest in heterosexual relationships than gay men, and in the local family law system they are as thick as thieves. Their interest, however, does not usually extend to the preservation of heterosexual relationships, but rather to those things that result in their termination. But now that lesbian couples have moved toward the mainstream concept of marriage and parenting, they may find themselves on the wrong end of the custody laws and legal advantages many of them worked so hard to win on women’s behalf.
Perhaps it is not politically wise to bring up this issue, but I have seen Glenn Sacks support lesbian partners in custody cases, comparing the frequently brutal custody battles between lesbians to those men face. Indeed, if for no other reason than that gay marriage may cause lesbians to reassess their support for coercive process and biased custody decisions in family law, it may be a good thing. Evidence gathered from countries where gay marriage is legal suggests that lesbian couples have a higher divorce rate than heterosexuals and gay men, and studies suggest that domestic violence is at least as prevalent in lesbian relationships as heterosexual, and probably more so.
So here in Seattle, where lesbian power and numbers are higher than perhaps any other large municipality in the United States, it will be interesting to see what effect the normalization of lesbian relationships and parenting will have on family law in general. I imagine that the family law system in King County Superior Court will have a fractious influence on the lesbian community in the area if it continues to favor the biological mother at all costs over any other parties to the raising of children. If this turns out to be the case, it would probably be wise for men to avoid smirking and saying “you reap what you sow,” no matter how tempting that may be.
As difficult as it may be to lay aside old grudges, Glenn Sacks has the right idea, and taking the high road should involve keeping some perspective and working for the most just solution for all, as well as supporting the rights of children to have those who committed to raising them in the first place be there to guide them to adulthood.
2 responses so far ↓
1 novaseeker // May 27, 2009 at 7:02 am
I think it’s a good point that once this gets going, and more lesbians (who are generally entrenched in the women’s movement, as we know) are adversely impacted by the winner-take-all system of family law, some of them may be encouraged to join with those of us who seek change in this area.
From the few cases I am familiar with (one in Boston and another one here in Virginia), the birth mother gets pretty much the same deferential treatment as a heterosexual wife does. Again once these cases get to be more numerous, that will start to cause some rancor, I think — particularly when the birth mother moves to a state like Virginia, which doesn’t recognize out of state same-sex civil unions, to deny her ex-wife any and all custodial rights whatsoever (true story).
2 Justin // May 29, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I don’t think it is likely that lesbians will ever ally themselves with anything remotely good for fathers. Use your original logic: the more lesbian co-mothers there are, the less need and space for biological fathers. That is simply numerical fact.
Children need fathers, period, end of discussion, no compromise. Any weakening of that core principle is wandering down the path of defeat. Surely you see that?
Leave a Comment