krossen@bbncca.ARPA (Ken Rossen) (03/08/86)
I suppose that most of you, like me, aren't watching television in the
morning (which seems to be when the Donahue program airs in most areas),
but my wife (Karen) watches it from time to time. It was apparently a very
interesting show on Wednesday, especially in light of recent comments about
the term "breeding public" in net.motss. Details that follow are
second-hand and therefore sketchy, but if anyone's interested I can post
excerpts from the transcript which I will probably send for (I am always
interested in ideas on redefinition of the family unit).
The guests were members of a San Francisco household consisting of two gay
men, a gay woman and their 4-year-old daughter, Veronica. The adults are
all old friends who have been living together for some time. The two men
are lovers.
The three of them are "married" -- they had a wedding ceremony at which
they were all united. Because there are two members of the opposite sex
among them, the marriage was legally acceptable, although only between two
of them; they refused to divulge on the program which of the men has his
name on the marriage certificate, maintaining that it's of no consequence
as far as they're concerned.
The woman doesn't currently have a lover. She says that if she has one in
the future she recognizes it will be difficult to integrate her into the
household, and that she would choose her current family over the
relationship if it ever came to that.
Veronica is the (biological) daughter of the woman and one of the men. She
was conceived when all three of them went to bed together. The woman had
intercourse with both of the men, in order to avoid the question, "who is
Veronica's father?" They have agreed to perform blood tests when Veronica
is older if Veronica brings the question up herself, but they have clearly
agreed among themselves that it is a non-issue.
One of the men has a high-tech-type career. The other man works as a
free-lance graphic artist, and the woman is a free-lance writer.
Apparently this three-income arrangement allows them to live rather well,
and the nature of their jobs makes Veronica a very fortunate child who has
TWO parents at home most of the time.
Veronica has three sets of grandparents, all of whom are apparently just
delighted with her. The unexpected pleasure at having grandchildren
despite their own children's homosexuality apparently outweighs any
apprehension about the living arrangement (I don't know if there was any in
the first place). The three parents have considered having another child,
but only after about 3 more years.
Because Veronica has parents of both sexes, and because her parents are
married (and perhaps also in part because they live in San Fancisco), the
family receives less attention than it might if Veronica just had two
same-sex parents (although going on Donahue isn't exactly low-key).
Surprisingly, the Donahue studio audience (usually enough to depress me
over the general intellectual level of spuds) reacted quite positively to
the group. Karen reports that a psychologist, who appeared the be on hand
to take issue with any bible-thumpers in the audience who might protest,
sat silent most of the hour. An unusual audience, or just people's
instinctive reaction because, well, Veronica DOES have a mommy and a daddy,
like "normal" children even if she does have an extra daddy? After all,
the appeared to be a content, well-adjusted, loving family on all counts.
My reaction was that these people must have iron emotional constitution ...
this after being told about the wedding pictures that were shown on the
program. The two men met through a mutual friend who was a lover of one of
them. Even after the first couple broke up and the fellow started going
out with his ex-lover's friend, the deposed lover was the best man at the
wedding. Either a remarkable lack of bad feeling or very good at hiding
it.
The other thing I was wondering was who might have performed the ceremony.
Since Unitarian Universalists are the only "mainstream" body to have
recognized same-sex marriages (that's right, isn't it?), perhaps it was a
Unitarian minister.
Comments? Did anyone else see the program?
--
"That's the way we spell New Hampshire."
Ken Rossen ...!{ihnp4,harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!krossen
____or____ krossen@ccp.bbn.com -or- krossen@bbnccp.arpadyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (03/08/86)
I like stories like these because they show graphically how inadequate labels are past a certain point, and also how a label of self-identification like "gay" really doesn't say beans about how you should live your life. It's a statement of belonging; of saying, "I have something deeply in common with these people", but the limits on your behavior are self- imposed, and need not and should not necessarily follow the "party line". More power to these people, I say. >My reaction was that these people must have iron emotional constitution ... >this after being told about the wedding pictures that were shown on the >program. The two men met through a mutual friend who was a lover of one of >them. Even after the first couple broke up and the fellow started going >out with his ex-lover's friend, the deposed lover was the best man at the >wedding. Either a remarkable lack of bad feeling or very good at hiding it. In my experience, when gay male relationships break up, the split is more likely to be without acrimony than the typical married couple. I know lots of couples who have separated yet still remain on amiable terms. I don't think this is solely because an institution like marriage holds mismatched people together for long enough that when the split arrives, the relationship is irreparably damaged, because I see this same disinclination to remain friends between unmarried men and women who were formely lovers. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU {bbncca,bbnccv,harvard}!spdcc!dyer