California Voters: Yes on 3

Vote YES on Proposition 3!

If you’re a registered California voter, you might have received your Presidential Election ballot in the mail already.

If you’re not registered or not registered in your current location yet, you likely can still register for this election. Do so ASAP.

You should have multiple ways to vote in-person even if you don’t get a ballot in the mail or don’t want to use a mailed/mail-in ballot. You can also hand-deliver mail-in ballots.

Vote YES on Proposition 3 to advance the right to marry.

Here it is:

*****

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I

First—That Section 7.5 of Article I thereof is repealed.

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a

woman is valid or recognized in California.

Second—That Section 7.5 is added to Article I thereof,

to read:

SEC. 7.5. (a) The right to marry is a fundamental

right.

(b) This section is in furtherance of both of the

following:

(1) The inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to

pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy

guaranteed by Section 1.

(2) The rights to due process and equal protection

guaranteed by Section 7.

*****

Here’s the link to the official voter information with the official language of the Proposition (it’s a PDF) if you want to see for yourself:

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/prop3-text-proposed-laws.pdf

If you want to see the current “in the book” law as of this posting, here it is:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=I

While Proposition 3 isn’t written like the Marriage Equality Amendment this blog endorses, Proposition 3 can enable the same result with some court cases and some follow-up legislation. It removes “dead” language from the California state constitution that was determined to be a violation of the US Constitution and it adds language to the state constitution emphasizing that marriage is a right. It is wonderful that it is written in a way that doesn’t restrict that right; rights are for all.

Let’s advance EVERYONE’S freedom to marry.

Yes on 3 in California!

A Brother and Sister Add To Their Love

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Good Start by California Governor Gavin Newsom

We agree with California Governor Newsom...

People who have been convicted in California for engaging in consensual adult, sexual conduct, including consensual sexual activity between adults...are encouraged to submit a direct pardon application to Governor Newsom.

Nobody should have been arrested, let alone convicted, for sharing affection with other adults. Over the years, various states in the US have had laws criminalizing (and otherwise discriminating against) such relationships and sexuality, whether it was against unmarried sex, interracial relationships, LGBTQ people, polyamorous people, swingers, and other ethical nonmonogamists, consanguineous lovers, kinksters and fetishists, and others. Anyone convicted under these laws, or other laws used as excuses to punish such lovers, should be pardoned, whether they are still alive or not.

You can read more about what is going on California, and the work of, and persecution against the late Bayard Rustin, here.

This new clemency initiative will allow pardons for people like Rustin who were subjected to discriminatory arrest and prosecution for engaging in consensual conduct...

There are still laws on the books in California that need to be removed.

Governor Newsom, please work with the state legislature to repeal any laws still on the books in California discriminating against adults for sharing love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults. There are still people in California who can't marry their lovers, some of whom can't even live authentically because they face prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. Please, Governor Newsom, work to remove all laws against consensual adult relationships and criminal convictions related to current and past laws.

Repeal unjust laws.

Pardon the unjustly convicted.

Adopt a Marriage Equality Amendment.

Attention Outgoing State Governors

There are state Governors in the US who are rapidly approaching the end of their terms as Governor and will be leaving that office.

We are respectfully imploring you to use your executive powers to pardon any of your residents convicted of crimes due to having consensual (to be redundant) sex with an adult under anti-incest laws, whether they are currently in the justice system or not, even if they have since passed away,

Let's be clear. We're not talking about assault or child molestation. We're talking about sex between consenting adults (or between minors close in age to each other), still criminalized in your states. The laws should be changed, but since they haven't been yet, please have mercy on these people.

This plea is directed at the following Governors:

Matt Mead - Wyoming
Scott Walker - Wisconsin
Bill Haslam - Tennessee
Dennis Daugaard - South Dakota
Jerry Brown - California
John Hickenlooper - Colorado
Dannel Malloy - Connecticut
Rick Scott - Florida
Nathan Deal - Georgia
Butch Otter - Idaho
Bruce Rauner - Illinois
Jeff Colyer - Kansas
Paul LePage - Maine
Rick Snyder - Michigan
Mark Dayton - Minnesota
Brian Sandoval - Nevada
Susana Martinez - New Mexico
John Kasich - Ohio
Mary Fallin - Oklahoma

If we've missed an outgoing Governor, we apologize.


This plea is also directed at Governors of US territories: If you have the power to do so, pardon or at least commute the sentences of those listed as criminals due to consanguineous affections.

If you are the Governor or someone on the Governor's staff, or someone with access to the Governor, please act quickly to get this done. We know time is very limited.

There is no good reason these people should suffer any more for having had a physical relationship.

Let's stop wasting public resources on treating these people like they are a threat to anyone. If they were convicted of additional crimes relating to the investigation, their arrest, prosecution, etc., please consider pardoning them of those, too.

Do the kind, merciful, and just thing as you end your term as Governor. Get on the right side of history!

Please pardon!

The Family Values of Lifelong Love

There are scores of ongoing relationships I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied the freedom to be open about their love and are, by law, denied the freedom to marry and have that marriage treated equally under the law.
The family revealed in this two-part interview is a family that politicians and cultural critics (who prattle on about "family values" as an excuse to perpetrate bigotry when it comes to things like marriage) would no doubt hold up as a paragon of the ideal family and would point to them during a speech or use their picture on a website or in a mailer. And yet, they're denied their rights, and the same politicians trash families when arguing hypothetically.

The couple interviewed below in the first part of this interview are mature, articulate, intelligent professionals who're married in every way but under the law. However, they're not only denied their right to legally marry, they could be thrown in prison just for loving each other and must hide the truth from just about everyone in their life. They aren't hurting anyone; why should they have to hide their love and be denied their rights?

Their daughter, interviewed in the second part below, is bright and eloquent, and yet we constantly hear that her parents shouldn't even have given birth to her or her siblings.

Read the two-part interview below and focus on what this family has to say. They sound like the (above) average American nuclear family. Should these spouse be denied equal access to marriage or any other rights? Shouldn't their daughter and their other children be able to watch them file a marriage license?

Assumed names are used to protect this family from prejudiced discrimination.


*****


FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe yourselves.

Hellen: I am a marine biologist. We make good money and we recently bought a beautiful house in coastal California.

John: I work in IT as an engineer.

We Get Letters From Happy LTR Consanguinamorists

We are always happy to comments on this blog, but especially so when we hear from anyone who isn't free to speak up elsewhere. Anonymous left a comment here on our blog's all-time most popular entry and I wanted to highlight it so it won't go overlooked.

My sister (now age 59) and I (61) actually ended up together after she had an unexpected divorce and moved in with me.

Sometimes, people get together temporarily or permanently after a divorce or a death.

We had "experimented" together at a young age and stopped in the late teens.

Some kids do play doctor. Most who do end up never having any involvement with each other as adults. But some never stop "playing" and others do resume later.

When she moved in, I had just planned a vacation driving up the California coast and she came along. 

As we drove, we stopped at beaches along the highway and many were clothing optional and we "did as the Romans". It was at a nude beach just past Santa Cruz where we were watching a sunset when, on the spur of the moment, we kissed. That shock led to a very romantic interlude - that hasn't stopped even after 12 years.

Twelve years. How many marriages don't last long? And yet they can't get legally married. There's no good reason their love should be criminalized or denied equality. Doing the math, they were about 47 and 49 when that special vacation took place. Certainly, they were old enough to decide for themselves.

Something that amazes us both is that the passion between us has not faded as did in our marriages.

Other people in consanguinamorous relationships tend to report similar experiences. Why should they "settle" for someone else? Nobody should try to make them. Friends and family need to be supportive and we need to eliminate discriminatory laws.

I'm hoping Anonymous contacts us so we can find out more.

If you're in a "forbidden" relationship, have been in one, or know someone who has been, please share your experiences in the comments, or better yet, contact us to tell us about it.

Harvey Milk Day

May 22 is Harvey Milk Day. In California, the day was established in 2009 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Milk was a politician who became the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Milk served almost 11 months in office,  passing an important gay rights ordinance for the city. On November 27, 1978, Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Dan White, another city supervisor.

We don't make progress in the fight for civil rights without courageous and motivated people like Harvey Milk.

Coverage of Genetic Sexual Attraction Case

Ignorance abounds when it comes to Genetic Sexual Attraction, as evidenced by both many of the journalists writing about the Mistie Atkinson case and certainly the people commenting on the stories. Outlets all over the word have covered the story, most just reprinting versions of the same two or three articles. [I am bumping this up because a news outlet decided to print this story as if it just happened.]

Here it is at dailymail.co.uk. The headline?

Mom who made sex tape with son, 16, is jailed for four years... but says it was just a case of 'genetic attraction' after they were reunited after 15 years apart

That makes it sound like she was making a video to show others.

Mistie Rebecca Atkinson, 32, was sentenced to four years and eight months behind bars in Napa County Superior Court, California on Wednesday.

It came after she was found in a Ukiah, California motel room with the 16-year-old boy, who had recorded his mother giving him oral sex on his phone.

 So he recorded it.

Here's the coverage at nydailynews.com.

Here is it at newsone.com.

Here it is at ktvu.com.

Even a site called eastafricanmoviedatabase.com printed the article.

Seamus O'Riley blogged the NY Daily News article.

Here is one of the comments...

equinox displayed complete ignorance of GSA... 

When is a rose not a rose? Incest by any other name smells so sweet. Let's play innocence by semantics today! 

Must be nice to be so sure that nobody else could possibly experience something you haven't.

And there were several comments from people who said she must have intended to assault him from the start. After all, why else would a woman care about seeing the person to whom she gave birth? Ignorance abounds.

Here is the inquisitr.com coverage, and the kolotv.com coverage, and the bossip.com coverage, where she is called crazy. Finally, see this blog for the same sort of thing, where she os called "sicko."

This was most certainly not incest in the sociological sense. She was not the boy's guardian. She did not raise the boy. She should be treated no more harshly than any other 32 year-old woman who does the same things with a 16 year-old boy in the state of California. If anything, the sentences in GSA cases that don't involve violence should be more lenient and focus on counseling.

California Takes LGBTP-Friendly Step Forward

In a move that may help some LGBT parents, polyamorous parents, people who use reproductive technologies, divorced parents and stepparents, and others, California took a step forward by legislatively enacting a policy that will allow children more than two legal parents. You may recall that there was a court decision elsewhere that effectively did something similar to this legislation. A friend of FME first alerted me to this news, and I know other blogs have been covering it. Here's what was reported by Patrick McGreevy and Melanie Mason at latimes.com...

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Friday that will allow children in California to have more than two legal parents, a measure opposed by some conservative groups as an attack on the traditional family.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said he authored the measure to address the changes in family structure in California, including situations in which same-sex couples have a child with an opposite-sex biological parent.

The law will allow the courts to recognize three or more legal parents so that custody and financial responsibility can be shared by all those involved in raising a child, Leno said.

Awesome. California should keep evolving and adopt the polyamorous and polygamous freedom to marry ASAP. If a child has three legal parents, and they all want to enter into a marriage, why not?

SCOTUS Gives Victories on Marriage

The Supreme Court of the United States has given victories on marriage, although just about the weakest possible. They issued decisions on the federal DOMA, which denied equal treatment to same-gender marriages under federal law, and California's Proposition 8 (Prop H8). DOMA is dead! In the PropH8 case, they decided those defending the discrimination didn't have standing to defend it.

The basic gist is that progress was made, but the Court did not recognize that there is a right for an adult to marry any and all consenting adults, or even that a gay or lesbian person has a right to the limited same-gender freedom to marry.

So, congratulations to all who will now have their marriage treated equally under federal law & to Californians who will again have the  freedom to marry the person they love. But we must remember there are still many people in many states who are denied their right to marry the person or persons they love.

We will keep fighting to make sure all adults have relationship rights, including full marriage equality, sooner rather than later.

Down with H8 - Up With Marriage Equality For All

With so many people filing papers with the US Supreme Court to argue against DOMA and Prop H8, I wanted to bump up this old entry because it is still relevant...

Old Article on Possible GSA Criminal Case

I recently followed a link (can't remember who provided the link... bad blogger, bad blogger) to a news article from way back in the previous millennium (1999) of interest to this blog. It is by Scott Winokur and Tyche Hendricks at sfgate.com and reports from Antioch, California.

An Antioch woman and her 23-year-old son allegedly had an openly sexual relationship that produced a child and another pregnancy and have been charged with incest under a law that could put them in state prison for up to three years.

Three years in prison for having consensual sex with another adult?

Robert Kochly, assistant chief district attorney in Contra Costa County, said Saturday the woman, who is 43, and her son not only haven't denied their alleged relationship, but are defiant about it.

"It is a strange case. This mother and son have taken up as a married couple and she had siblings of his living in the home with her," Kochly said.

The pregnant woman, being held in lieu of $50,000 bail at the West County Justice Center in Richmond, is scheduled to appear in court this week.

Yes, jail a pregnant 43-year-old for the "crime" of having sex. Makes sense, right?

Prison Time in Genetic Sexual Attraction Case

Updating this earlier case, a mother experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction with her son has been sentenced to prison. Kerana Todorov reports for napavalleyregister.com...

Mistie Atkinson, 32, pleaded no contest Tuesday in Napa Superior Court to incest and other charges related to her teenage Napa son.

"Incest" should not be a crime. She wasn't even a guardian. What is a crime and what should have been the charge was statutory rape. He was under the age of consent in California. In other states with 16 as the age of consent, this shouldn't be a crime.

The woman convicted of incest with her 16-year-old biological son was sentenced Wednesday in Napa County Superior Court to more than four years in state prison.

Mistie Rebecca Atkinson, 32, of Lake County, received four years, eight months in state prison under a plea agreement reached in May. Atkinson pleaded no contest to incest, oral copulation, lewd contact with a minor and distribution of lewd material to a minor.

 I'm wondering how the boy is doing. Some his age would be very traumatized by this. Others, not so much. Still, age of consent laws are there and the line is drawn.

In a hand-written letter to the court, Atkinson pleaded for leniency, saying she never intended to become intimate with her biological son.

“I don’t feel like I should have the charge of incest because there is something called genetic attraction that is a very powerful (phenomenon) that happens to 50 (percent) of people becoming reunited with a long-lost relative,” she wrote in her letter to the judge.

Genetic Sexual Attraction should not excuse statutory rape. However, like I've written before, if she has never done anything like this before then there is little reason to believe she will prey on others.

In February, Ukiah police met with the boy’s grandmother and other relatives who alleged Atkinson was having an incestuous relationship with the son. The boy, who was described as “out of control” by police, was staying with a relative in Ukiah until he could be placed in a group home, according to court documents.

The father had sent the boy to Ukiah partly in an effort to separate him from his biological mother, authorities reported in Atkinson’s probation report.

The grandmother alleged the boy was sneaking out of his relative’s house to meet with Atkinson in spite of a restraining order barring the woman from contacting the boy, authorities said in the court filing.

If you do the math, she probably didn't have the best adolescence either. Sad. I hope all involved get their problems worked out, and if, as with an infamous schoolteacher, this boy ends up deciding as a man he wants to be with her, I hope the law will not interfere.

Deal, No Contest Plea in Possible GSA Case

Updating this story about an apparent case of Genetic Sexual Attraction, Kerana Todorov of napavalleyregister.com reports...

A woman charged with having sex with her teenage son pleaded no contest Tuesday to incest and other felonies in Napa County Superior Court.

Mistie Atkinson, 32, pleaded “no contest” to incest, oral copulation with someone under the age of 18, sending harmful matter and contact with a minor for sexual offense against her biological son, a Napa resident, between October and March.

The "harmful material" consisted of pics and videos. Just about every 16 year-old boy has been "harmed" by viewing such media. (I'm not excusing the production of such media when it includes minors.)
 

Under the plea deal, Atkinson may be sentenced to four years and eight months in state prison for the crimes against her son who lived with his father, according to court records. With time credit for good behavior, she may be out of prison in two years and four months.

 Would a man have been given the same deal?

The woman, who does not have custody of her son, had left the boy when he was 2 years old, court filings indicate.

Still nothing about whether or not the man who impregnated her when she was 15 or so was ever held criminally liable for doing so. If having sex with 16 year-old is criminal, then having sex with different 16 or 15 year-old has to be too, righ.

Again, I'd like to know if there is any indication that she is a predator in general, or if this is the only thing like this she has done, prompted by GSA.

It's Complicated: Apparent GSA Case in California

On this blog, we make a distinction between sex, which involves consenting participants, and abuse. We also call on journalists to give us enough information. Some news organizations err on the side of providing too little information so as to prevent abuse victims from being identified, so they won't name the alleged or convicted crime perpetrator's name or picture. Not so in this case, and I have to wonder if napavalleyregister.com would post the name and picture of a father accused of abusing his 16-year-old daughter? Check out this article by Kerana Todoro, "Authorities charge woman with incest."

Mistie Atkinson

A 32-year-old woman faces charges of incest and other allegations in Napa County Superior Court after she was arrested on suspicion of having sex with her 16-year-old biological son, according to court documents.

If this was sexual assault or statutory rape, charge her with those crimes. Instead...

She was charged on March 2 in Napa with incest, oral copulation of someone under the age of 18, contact with a minor for a sexual offense, and “sending harmful matter” to her biological son, according to the complaint.

The "harmful matter" it turns out, was images of her. Hardly harmful. "Incest" should not be a crime. Sexual assault, rape, or molestation should be, regardless of the relation of the perpetrator and the victim. as i've said before, I would support enhancements in sentencing for those crimes for guardians. She wasn't a guardian.

“Atkinson and the victim are aware they are biological mother and son,” police state in the complaint.

The way the article was written, with repeated references to their biological connection, made me wonder...

The father of the boy, who has full custody, has obtained a restraining order against Atkinson, court records show.

If she did not raise the boy, this could very well be a matter of Genetic Sexual Attraction. If the boy's father is his genetic father, then I have some questions. She is 32. That means she was pregnant with this biological son when she was 15 or so. How old is the biological father? I understand the age of consent in California is 18. While this blog argues against laws against adult consensual sex, I do not generally argue for changes to age of consent laws. Still, I have to wonder... why was it apparently OK (since he was given custody) for the father to have sex with a 15-year-old 16-17 years ago? One of the questions I have is to why she didn't have custody. Did she willingly give up custody? Were her rights taken away from her?


The article doesn't make it clear what the nature of the relationship between the mother and son, other than they have proof it is sexual. Did they have any contact while he was growing up?

There are16-year-old  boys who dream of this sort of thing, but that shouldn't matter. What matters is how the 16-year-old in this case feels. Under California law, he can't consent to (unmarried, anyway) sex with 32-year-old. As I said, I don't generally argue for changes to age of consent laws because the line has to be drawn somewhere. However, I don't think they should always be applied. Just as I do with cheating and GSA, I give special consideration here. Has she, as an adult, ever done this with any other 16-year-old? Is she likely to do this with anyone else? Is she generally law-abiding? Did she coerce him? (Some would say sending the images to a 16-year-old boy, with the raging hormones and all, would be coercion enough.)

Even if he pursued her, I do believe that it is the older person's responsibility to say "no" or "not yet." If he was 18, of if this was somewhere else where the age of consent is 16, I would say the law should not be involved in this at all. But he's 16 in California. The law needs to make sure they don't have a predator on their hands. If they don't. the law should go easy on her. Ten years down the line, they could be a happy a couple, for all we know now.

Baby Steps For Marriage Equality

There is much to celebrate with the news from yesterday that the federal appeals court confirmed Prop H8 is unconstitutional. The cloudy lining to this silver moment is that no gay or lesbian couples can get married in California again, as they could in 2008, just yet. Also, it is looking like this ruling will not directly bring the limited freedom to same-sex marriage to any other state unless the Supreme Court takes this case and takes it in an unlikely direction.

However, California and other states can still move forward towards full marriage equality in other ways, and perhaps President Obama will take some action, too. Also, the Supreme Court could get another case that could help.

From sfexaminer.com…

City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the earliest marriages could potentially begin again is 21 days after the decision, but he acknowledged it would be “very unlikely” the court would deny an extension of the stay.

“We’re going to wait and see what happens,” said Herrera, whose office took up the fight to defend same-sex marriage eight years ago.

“I have no doubt that the tide of history is on our side,” he said.

Sooner or later, we’re gong to have full marriage equality. Sooner is better.

Prop H8 Killed Again, But the Corpse Still Remains in the Way

The appeals court did the right thing in backing up Judge Walker as a professional and agreeing with his decision to use a little thing called the US Constitution to kill the infamous, hateful Prop H8 (California's Proposition 8.)

I'm a little late to the party, which saves me some work. Click through to one of our favorite blogs, Life as a Reader, for some good links.

It is good that the court did not throw Judge Walker under the bus, but I didn't think they would.

It would have been nice to immediately reinstate the limited same-sex freedom to marry that Prop H8 took away, but the court left that corpse in the way, pending appeals.

It would be great of the Supreme Court soon did a broad ruling granting full marriage equality; that an adult has the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. But I know court cases usually are more narrow, which is why the Loving vs. Virginia case only lifted the ban on interracial marriages when it came to monogamous, heterosexual, marriage.

Will Appeals Court Rule For Freedom to Marry?

There’s more than one question to be answered tomorrow morning when the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on Prop H8 (Proposition 8,) the infamous California ballot measure that rescinded the limited same-sex freedom to marry. The biggest question is whether or not the court will affirm the federal court ruling that Prop H8 was unconstitutional, and then whether or not they will do so in a way that will only apply to California, or if opponents of the same-sex freedom to marry will be able to appeal to the Supreme Court, and if so, whether same-sex weddings can resume immediately in California or not.

Whatever happens, I hope it moves us further to nationwide full marriage equality sooner rather than later, so that an adult is free to marry any consenting adults.

Polyamory in Davis, California

Justin Cox discussed nonmonogamy in general and polyamory specifically with some Davis, California-area therapists who facilitate a group dealing with those issues.

Jezzie: College is a really normal time to be dating around. We often have a humorous moment saying, “Polyamory is what used to be called dating.”

It’s pretty normal to be dating multiple people at the same time. Polyamory just emphasizes a set of values around that.

Many of the people who look down on polyamory have friends and grown children who are not monogamous. Isn't it better to be honest and ethical about it?

What’s the distinction between openly dating and identifying as Polyamorous?

Adam: The core difference is the identity part. Of people who are in relationships, the overwhelming majority will be monogamous and they’re going to be fine with that. One step up from that are people who think it’s an interesting idea, but probably too much trouble. One step up from there are people who are in a mostly monogamous relationship, but they have a little arrangement of some sort.

Only the tip of that pyramid says: “This is my identity. This is who I am and it’s important for me to have a community around this.” If you’re a couple and you sometimes have a threesome, you might not really need to have a support group.

Right. Some people are inherently polyamorous. Others don't need to be polyamorous, but can be happily in a poly relationship.

Is the number of people who identify as Polyamorous growing?

Adam: I think, tremendously.

Jezzie: The divorce rate of this generation -- with so many kids growing up watching their parents get divorced -- has really contributed to a cultural shift around the idea that maybe 50 years of marriage isn’t the best option for everybody. This (current generation) is the generation after divorce went up.

Clearly, monogamy doesn't work or everyone. People should be free to be polyamorous and have a polygamous marriage.

Adam: There’s a huge relief in just hearing that other people are struggling with this. A lot of information out there says “Yay, yay, go Poly. Everyone can do this; everyone should do this. It’s healthier. It’s more evolved.”

A lot of the work I do as a therapist is with people who say, “Something’s terribly wrong with this,” and they need somebody to tell them that it’s totally normal (to struggle).

People need to know this an option, and there's nothing wrong with being poly.

Census Data Shows Shift in California Families

This article begins with an example…

On a leafy drive in west Los Angeles, at a newly renovated home with cathedral ceilings and a backyard pool, 4-year-old Kate Eisenpresser-Davis' friends have been known to pose an intriguing question: "Why does Kate have three mommies?"

Lisa Eisenpresser, 44, and her partner, Angela Courtin, 38, share custody of Kate with Eisenpresser's ex-partner.

When asked to describe their life, Eisenpresser and Courtin respond with the same word: "Normal."

Yet Eisenpresser and Courtin can’t legally marry in California.

New census figures show that the percentage of Californians who live in "nuclear family" households — a married man and a woman raising their children — has dropped again over the last decade, to 23.4% of all households. That represents a 10% decline in 10 years, measured as a percentage of the state's households.

Those households, the Times analysis shows, are being supplanted by a striking spectrum of postmodern living arrangements: same-sex households, unmarried opposite-sex partners, married couples who have no children. Some forms of households that were rare just a generation ago are becoming common; the number of single-father households in California, for instance, grew by 36% between 2000 and 2010.

How many “single” people are actually part of a polyamorous or consanguinamorous relationship, especially one in which they are basically spouses and would marry if they could? There’s no way of pointing out on a census form, even if you wanted to, that you’re in a spousal relationship with your sister, brother, or some other close family member. I wonder how many “same-sex households, unmarried opposite-sex partners, married couples” are part of a polyamorous household?

The proportion of same-sex households rose by 25% between 2000 and 2010, increasing in every county in Southern California.

Analysts and many gay couples believe the actual number of gay households is not necessarily increasing that fast — but in a more welcoming world, the recognition of those households is.

This isn’t just happening in California. People can either bury their heads in the sand, or we can progress to full marriage equality so that everyone can get married if they want, thereby strengthening more families. Does everyone want to get married? Will everyone do best in a marriage? No, but everyone should have that choice so that they can get married if it is what they want and if it will help their lives.