Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans' Definitions of Family

8. Changing Counts, Counting Change: Toward a More Inclusive Definition of Family

201 Chapter 8 Changing Counts, Counting Change: Toward a More Inclusive Definition of Family F amily counts. Few would dispute this statement. Family is assigned a great many responsibilities and in turn is afforded a great number of benefits. It has a profound influence on our lives. But “family” counts too. How “family” is defined determines which living arrangements are expected to perform these responsibilities, which are granted these benefits, and upon which social legitimacy is conferred. Definitions of family—and especially whether same-sex couples should be seen as family—currently lie at the heart of passionate scholarly and public controversy and debate. Whether same-sex couples are counted in or out of this definition, we argue, is a crucial touchstone for understanding family more generally and accordingly is intertwined with views regarding a host of family issues—among them, the relative influence of parenting versus genetic inheritance, gender and parenting, and marital naming practices. Yet we have known little about the boundaries that Americans erect between family and nonfamily—that is, which living arrangements they include as family and which ones they do not. The unique and comprehensive approach taken in this book, however, narrows this gap by explicitly canvassing Americans’ views on the definition of family. In this closing chapter, we revisit the key patterns and themes that emerged from our interviews and discuss what these patterns may indicate about family in American society now and into the future. Despite their disagreements regarding whether same-sex couples should be seen as family and accorded, by extension, marital and other familial rights, “pro-family” and gay rights activists do agree about the centrality of the question of same-sex couples for our understanding of family. The conservative commentator Maggie Gallagher, for example, 202    Counted Out observes that “gay marriage is not some sideline issue, it is the marriage debate” (Gallagher 2003). Since the very first interviews we conducted in 2003, there have been remarkable changes surrounding the debate about same-sex couples and their actual legal status. These changes have not followed a predictably linear path. Rather, they have swung back and forth so much that they have triggered everything from unbridled optimism to devastating despair among both advocates of the extension of family rights to same-sex couples and critics apprehensive about the possible loss of “traditional” families. We have seen gains—or losses, in the view of certain “pro-family” groups—in the rapidly shifting legal and political landscape where the rights of same-sex couples have been advanced. Among these gains are courtinitiated legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut , Iowa, and, for a short period of time, California; legislatively approved same-sex marriage in Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington, D.C., and, temporarily, Maine; a publicly supported vote (Referendum 71) in Washington State in favor of expansion of domestic partnership rights and protections for same-sex couples, as well as for senior heterosexual couples1; and, at the time of the writing of this chapter, attempts by political leaders to at least tread softly toward extension of some familial rights to same-sex couples (for example, President Barrack Obama’s executive order granting hospital visitation rights to same-sex couples) or sometimes to more boldly follow the lead of these states’ leads. At the same time, we have experienced losses—or gains according to traditional “pro-family” groups. Some sharply divided courts, including those with fairly liberal traditions (such as New York’s), declined to overturn the long-standing prohibition against same-sex marriage in their states. Often these courts justify their ruling by deferring to the legislature and the will of the people. More than twenty states— representing a cross-section of this nation and wide divergence in political views and geographical locations—have put forth ballot initiatives to outlaw same-sex marriage. Some political commentators contend that this flurry of initiatives played a nontrivial role in the 2004 presidential election and increased support for Republican candidates in state elections: in fact, some pundits maintain that the ballot initiatives in swing states (such as Ohio) were a cynical ploy to secure George W. Bush’s reelection. All but one effort passed—many of them decisively . And in Arizona, the one exception, the success was short-lived: voters opposed Proposition 107 (“protection of marriage”) in 2006, but in 2008 they cast ballots in favor of Proposition 102, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man [18.218.48.62...