Gay Military Service

It's fair to say that gays have served in the military for thousands of years. Prior to WWII, being gay was considered to be a psychopathology. This was a hold over from late nineteenth century psychiatric conjectures. How exactly to classify this disorder was always a question; it didn't really fit into any of the major classifications.

The fear was that a person in the military with this condition, like other serious disorders, was likely to have a mental breakdown under the stress of combat, thus rendering him ineffective as a soldier, sailor, marine or airman.

Over seven million men served in WWII. Local draft boards across the nation made many of these selections. If they could, they would rather pick single men or, if married, those without children. With scarce resources, the single fellow who might act a bit queer seemed better than the guy with a family. As long as he didn't show up at the induction center wearing a dress, he was processed into the service like anyone else.

This bending of the rules was something few chose to notice. Who cared what the fellow might otherwise be like as long as he could get your leg to stop bleeding? After the war, people finally admitted that gays served, and in disproportionate numbers. Single men got called up first we recall. Some got to wondering, where were the military psychiatric wards full of gays with the mental breakdowns predicted? Well, there weren't any. Gays proudly served their country as well and as honorably as anyone.

Still, prejudice prevailed, then Korea happened. "You seem a bit odd, my boy, but you say you want to go to Pusan, Inchon or pork chop hill? Well, then, step right this way and sign these papers. We'll get you there right away." We recall Jamie Farr's portrayal of Klinger on M*A*S*H. Even wearing a dress didn't get him a section 8 discharge. No one is turned away when the job is important.

Prejudice again, then came Vietnam. I flew RF-4C reconnaissance missions into hostile territory from Udorn AB, Thailand. Sortie requirements came to us each day from MAC-V, Saigon. Were any of the crew members gay? Don't know. Don't care. If someone will fly at 2,000 feet down the shipping piers along Haiphong harbor at night with 12 million candle power flash cartridges lighting his path every 1.2 seconds, and wings straight and level so the cameras remain pointed at that 150 x 150 foot patch on the ground that is the target, and anti-aircraft fire lighting the sky as the red tracers arc ever closer, then let him go do it. Who would send a capable airman like this home leaving more slots to fill in for the rest of us? We'd be the "crazy" ones in that case not him.

Now we find the latest Pew poll shows those in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military lead those who are opposed by nearly a 2-1 margin. HR 1059, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would replace "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, picked up a few more sponsors this past week bringing the total to 110.

Let's get our policy in line with the reality of gay service and support the passage of this legislation.

Letter to: Tenn Rep Debra Maggart

As a resident of Tennessee, I couldn't neglect responding to a statement made by one of our representatives as reported by Jim Johnson at his Straight not Narrow blog. Towit:

Rep. Debra Maggart,

This statement purported to be yours in an e-mail to Sara Dykstra is flying around the Internet:

“I am not convinced that just because our foster children desperately need loving homes that we should just place them in homes that are available when research also shows that most homosexual couples have numerous emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues that may not be healthy for children.”

As a fellow Tennessean, I'm embarrassed by the uproar this misinformed statement about gays is making around the blogs and Internet news sites. True, studies from decades ago found that gay teens had more problems than other teens, but knowing how vulnerable teens are and the social stigma gay youngsters had to face then, this should not be surprising. To over generalize these outdated studies as if they apply to all gays today, which they don't, and then turn around and apply these teen results to gay couples in their thirties, who are settled in and well adjusted by the time they arrive at the adoption agency, is a total misunderstanding of the available research which finds that gays make equally good parents and are especially well qualified to handle hard to place children. After all, they know what it means to be different.

The just released report (March, 2006) by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute is a must read for anyone on your committee. They recommend that lesbians and gays be actively recruited to become adoptive parents, not turned away due to the prejudices and ignorance of some.

A friend of mine who also served as a pilot in the Air Force during the Vietnam era is gay. Obviously, there were no "emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues" that kept him from serving when his country called. He deserves to be respected for his service, not treated like a pariah right here at home.

There are no "emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues" that would keep gays from being good parents either. Can we tell gays they are "fit" to risk their lives for our country, but not "fit" to parent a child? Surely they deserve the respect of the State of Tennessee and our thanks for their willingness to take on the awesome responsibility of becoming an adoptive parent. Please review your position regarding gay adoption and consider treating gays with the same respect every Tennessean deserves.

Sincerely,
William J. Ware

Update The Nashville newspaper The Tennessean has an article about the brouhaha.
BTW Rep Maggart's e-mail address is: rep.debra.young.maggart@legislature.state.tn.us

Religious Leaders Condemn Anti-Gay Amendment

Here's some good news on the religious front for gay marriage supporters as reported in the St. Paul, Minnesota Pioneer Press:

At least 1,000 people rallied at the state Capitol Thursday in opposition to a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Like a rally in support of the amendment earlier this week, the event was organized largely through religious institutions and the speakers were almost all clergy members.

"I'm here out of my faith," said the Rev. Tim Tennant-Jayne, an ordained United Methodist minister. He was one of at least 60 clergy members at the Capitol. Religious people against the amendment, he said, "haven't been as loudly a part of this. Conservative viewpoints have been very loud."

Shrill is more like it. Ignorance results in fear. The reaction to fear is anger, which provides strong motivation for action, no matter how misguided. Politicians and preachers who play to the prejudices of people they intentionally misinform are a disgrace. The religious right is neither.

Sister Rita McDonald, a Roman Catholic nun, said she came to the Capitol because she feels the proposed amendment, which bans gay marriage, is unfair, mean and ignorant.

"I think the churches are too quiet and careful," she said.

The recent Pew Research poll of those who "strongly oppose" legalizing gay marriage found Catholics at 19%, which is near the 18% for mainline Protestant churches. Both are below the 28% for the nation overall.

From the podium in the Capitol rotunda, clergy said the amendment is un-Christian and unloving.

I agree. Hatefulness is not a part of Christ's teaching. Dividing us over our differences is the devil's work, that's for certain.

The Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde of St. John the Baptist Episcopalian Church in Minneapolis said unemployment, homelessness and lack of access to health care do far more damage to the institution of marriage than any same-sex union would.

This reflects what Leonard Pitts, Jr. said in my previous post.

More main line Christians like these who follow Christ's "love thy neighbor" commandment need to speak out on these matters. This is a good start.

Pitts Opines on Quoting the Bible Selectively

Leonard Pitts Jr., a columnist for The Miami Herald, opines about an incident at Miami Sunset Senior High. After describing the incident, he observes:

My biggest frustration lies elsewhere. Put simply, I’ve had it up to here with the moral hypocrisy and intellectual constipation of Bible literalists.

My, my. It sounds like he's miffed. After a few paragraphs about that, he mentions how religionists seem to fixate on one or two hot button issues and continues:

Meantime, people are ignorant in Appalachia, strung out in Miami, starving in Niger, sex slaves in India, mass murdered in Darfur. Where is the Christian outrage about that?

Just once, I’d like to read a headline that said a Christian group was boycotting to feed the hungry. Or marching to house the homeless. Or pushing Congress to provide the poor with health care worthy of the name.

Instead, they fixate on keeping the gay in their place. Which makes me question their priorities. And their compassion. And their faith.

The piece is titled "Thou shalt not quote the Bible selectively" and is also reprinted here.

Donaldson Institute Promotes Gay Adoption

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute is a well respected authority on adoption issues which has provided unbiased research in this area for decades before the issue of gay adoptions came to the fore. It reports the consensus figure that 119,000 children are in the foster care system who are candidates for adoption and about 20,000 of these are being matched with potential adoptive parents.

As the Donaldson Institute summary states:

It is a mantra of political rhetoric, a guiding principle of professional policy and practice, and an explicit goal of our nation's laws and practices: Every child deserves to live in a permanent, loving home. Yet tens of thousands of boys and girls remain mired in the foster care system, unable to return to their original families and without realistic prospects of being adopted.

The summary continues:

At the same time, agencies and attorneys report the number of gay and lesbian adults expressing an interest in adopting these children is growing. This reality raises hopes among many child welfare professionals and policy-makers, who see a new pool of prospective parents for children who need them. But it also generates controversy and criticism among others, who are concerned about the consequences of permitting adoption into families headed by gay or lesbian parents.

Among its principle findings, the report concludes:

Against a backdrop of increasing public acceptance, social science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.

Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes.

The full report can be found here (pdf file).

Highly Qualified Single Mothers

While newspaper reports of studies like to simplify things by reporting only the average differences found, data samples are better described by looking at both the mean or average, and the standard deviation or variability among all those who make up the samples.

These two statistics are represented as a normal distribution, the familiar bell shaped curve.

If we look at the green curve in the illustration and take this to be the distribution of children with two parents, then imagine an identical curve offset a smidgeon to the left, this being the distribution of children with one parent. The separation would be two points, the difference that family structure makes when all other factors are held equal. The areas under each curve represent 100% of each sample. Due to the wide variation in the children sampled, we see there is a large area of overlap in the distributions represented by these two curves. Thus we find that while 52% of the children in two parent families do better than the average child in a one parent family, we also find that leaves 48% who do worse. Conversely, while 52% of children in one parent families do worse than the average child in a two parent family, there are also the 48% who do better.

The large variations due to the differences in family income, education, health care availability, drug abuse and criminal records, ethnic and community factors within each sample are far more important than the two percent difference in the averages between the two groups.

When we look at the women in the NY Times articles we find women who are well able to afford the services described. These are not single mothers as a result of a tussle in the back seat of a car. If we look at one, for example, who is at the 95th percentile of all single parents, this means her child will do better than 95% of other children in the one parent category. When we plot this 95th percentile line on the one parent graph, then look at the position it falls on the two parent graph, we find that this child will also do better than 91% of the children being raised in two parent families.

No matter what else we say, this child is highly likely to end up in the top 10% of his or her class. In fact, all the children of mothers described in the NY Times stories are likely to do well above the average for children as a whole. The fact that the children of the average single mother are twice as likely to end up in prison has no bearing on the results we would expect from the well educated, high income women represented in these NY Times articles.

Foster care and adoption agencies look at the totality of the qualifications of those they select. They don't arbitrarily exclude anyone who doesn't fit the mom and pop mold, which is well down on the list in importance. They choose parents who will best serve the interests of the child. In the same way, we should look at the overall qualifications of the women in the NY Times articles and, if anything, encourage these women to have more children, not less. Having a child in the top 10% of the class is not a problem that needs to be fixed.

APA Monitor: "The kids are all right"

The December, 2005 APA Monitor has an article The kids are all right about children with gay and lesbian parents. Highlights:

Families such as the James-Hermanns and the challenges they face are becoming increasingly common in the United States. The 2000 U.S. census estimated that 163,879 households with children were headed by same-sex couples. That number is likely to be much larger today, says Charlotte Patterson, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.
"More people are choosing to start families in the context of a gay or lesbian identity," she says...

But while gay- and lesbian-headed families face a slate of challenges that more traditional families avoid–from legal hassles and homophobia to everyday tasks, such as figuring out how to fill out school forms–research shows that the children with gay or lesbian parents do as well as children with heterosexual parents. Having a gay or lesbian parent doesn't affect a child's social adjustment, school success or sexual orientation, say researchers.
"Sexual orientation has nothing to do with good parenting," notes Armand Cerbone, PhD, who reviewed research on gay and lesbian parenting as chair of APA's Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships.

Challenging assumptions

Unfortunately, many people are not aware of the three decades of research showing that children of gay or lesbian parents are just as mentally healthy as children with heterosexual parents, notes Cerbone. One such study ... compares a group of 44 teenagers with same-sex couples as parents with an equal number of teenagers with opposite-sex couples as parents.

"There were very few group differences between the kids who had been brought up by same- or opposite-sex parents," says Patterson... One group difference that Patterson was surprised to find: Children of gay and lesbian parents reported closer ties with their schools and classmates. However, says Patterson, the difference was small and needs to be studied further.

Patterson's study debunks the myth that children of gay or lesbian parents have trouble developing romantic relationships due to a missing father- or mother-figure–a concern that judges making custody rulings have cited. Equal numbers of teenagers from each group reported that they had been in a romantic relationship in the previous 18 months. Participants from the two groups did not differ in grade point average, symptoms of depression or self-esteem.

On a less pleasant note:

In fact, an as-yet-unpublished study by Nanette Gartrell, MD, found that by age 10, about half of children with lesbian mothers have been targeted for homophobic teasing by their peers. Those children tended to report more psychological distress than those untouched by homophobia...

So, gay marriage would reduce psychological trauma for gays and their children by making homophobia less acceptable.

Researchers, too, can ameliorate the challenges such families face by continuing to dispel myths about lesbian and gay parents and by educating the public about their findings, notes Cerbone.

We all have our crosses to bear it would seem.

The Effect of "Silenced" Genes on Pregnancy

The New York Times has an article, Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy, describing the work of Dr. David Haig.

The article states:

This strategy takes advantage of the fact that most of the genes we carry come in pairs. We inherit one copy from our mother and one from our father. In most cases, these pairs of genes behave identically. But in the past 15 years, scientists have identified more than 70 pairs of genes in which the copy from one parent never makes a protein. In some cases, a parent's gene is silenced only in one organ.
Scientists do not fully understand this process, known as genomic imprinting. They suspect that it is made possible by chemical handles called methyl groups that are attached to units of DNA. Some handles may turn off genes in sperm and egg cells. The genes then remain shut off after a sperm fertilizes an egg.

The article goes on to say that the failure of proper imprinting can result in problems in fetal development and can lead to disorders discovered in the child later.

This imprinting or pattern of gene methylation is what I referred to here:

Reproductive cloning is not yet feasible. Gametes which come together during normal fertilization have nearly all their sets of genes turned on. This provides the embryo the potential to produce all the body's structures and functions. The exception to this is that one pattern of genes is turned off (methylated) in the egg and a different pattern of genes is methylated in those in the sperm. When these two gametes with complimentary patterns combine, the likelihood of having a healthy full term baby is increased.

When a skin cell, for example, has to be demethylated to return it to a poly-potential state for potential cloning, this indiscriminate process would remove the male and female methylation patterns as well, resulting in all kinds of potential difficulties in the developing fetus which cannot be ethically tolerated.

The same would apply to same sex procreation. No matter how one tried to produce two gametes, at least one would not have the male or female methylation pattern required for success.

In either case, producing an embryo with the same methylation patterns as occur in the natural fertilization process is way beyond our current understanding or abilities.

This is why I suggest that SSP is not going to happen any time soon.

Carl Zimmer, the author of this article, has more information and examples that would not fit into the article at his blog post.

Relatives as Role Models

Discussing the Catholic Church and gay adoption at Family Scholar's Blog, George complains that gay and lesbian couple's prevent a child from having both a female and a male role model. I explain:

George,

A family isn’t a cocoon where a child has two parents and perhaps a sibling or two. Plenty of other relatives are part of a child’s life. For example, my Aunt Olive and Uncle Willard had no children of their own, but enjoyed having me over to visit for the weekend. Uncle Willard loved taking us to the stock car races. We would have dinner at the Garden State Diner afterward then head to the Newark airport where we would go to the observation deck on the roof of the terminal and watch the planes take-off and land for a while. Perhaps this inspired me to go to the Air Force Academy and become a pilot myself later.

All these relatives can be role models for the children and can provide them with examples of heterosexual male and female behavior even when the child’s parents are a gay or lesbian couple. This is why marriage is as important for gays as it is for straight couples. It brings together two sets of in-laws providing the child with a much larger family.

So it is not gay parents who are denying their children the benefits of having family members of both sexes, as much as it is those who oppose gay marriage which would provide children with the two sets of relatives who would add joy to their lives the same way my Aunt Olive and Uncle Willard did for me.

Step-Families v Single Parent Families

I mentioned this before concerning studies with single parents and gay parents in my post In Life, All Other Child Rearing Factors are Not Equal. Let me reframe this in terms of step parents vs single parents and see if this helps.

When we study outcomes that depend on many variables and wish to look at only one variable such as family structure, we isolate that variable by artificially making "all other factors equal." These factors, like income, education, etc. are those that I have mentioned before. Each study lists the variables they chose to "control" for.

So if the only variable we wish to study is the difference it makes for children to be raise by step families vs single parent families, researchers attempt to make all other factors equal.

Say we choose from the pool of available subjects a random sub-set of forty children who are being raised in step families. Then we would need to find a sub-set of forty children being raised by single parents who matched the step-families in every other important way. They must have the same average household income, the same average education, the same average age and the same per cent who own a home in the suburbs, etc.

For example, if we have a step family where both parents earn $30,000/yr, can we match this family with one where the single parent makes $30,000/yr also? No! We have to find a family where the single parent makes $60,000/yr so the total household income in these matching families will be the same.

When we step back afterward and look at the group of single parents we have chosen, we find that in order to match the step-families, we had to chose a sub-set of single parents whose qualities are well above the average for all single parents in general.

When these studies find no significant difference between these carefully matched groups, does that mean that a child in an average step-family is no better off than a child in an average single parent family? No, of course not. Only when the researchers selected out a group of higher income, better educated, house in the suburbs single parents to make "all other factors equal" did they find no differences between the two groups. Do you think the typical single parent makes $60,000/yr?

If instead, we select a completely random set of children in step-families and compare these with a completely random set of children in single parent families, no matching at all (or look at the census data), the children in two parent families are overwhelmingly better off than the children in one parent families because, in the real world, all other things are not equal.

Is it better for children to have two parents instead of just one as the AAP statement contends? You betcha!

Groups who Eschew "Reparative Therapy"

At the FSB again.

On Lawn,

Here's the test for sexual orientation that researchers in clinical psychology (and others) use when they are conducting studies in this area. Physiological Test.

Except for a few subjects who are too anxious to respond, it works every time.

Interestingly enough, Harvard has a standing offer for anyone claiming to be ex-gay to come and take the test to prove that they are no longer gay. So far, no one has taken them up on the offer.

Here's a partial list of the groups who have provided guidelines for their members regarding sexual orientation:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Counseling Association
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Health Association
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association

The main premise is to allow youngsters to discover and grow into the person that they are. The sections on reparative therapy and transformational ministries (like Brian Mahieu talks about in his STL Post Dispatch letter) are well worth reviewing.

As you see, suggesting a person can change hsr orientation is considered rude, crude and uncalled for as my daughter, Tambre, would say. Are these groups "legitimate" enough for you?

Closing "Reparative Therapy" Programs

FSB again (see two prior posts).

On Lawn said, “I’ve rarely seen such animus towards one segment of society marrying another as I’ve seen here in arguing that gays that get married are living a sham (as in they don’t really love their spouses) and calling them, as you did, hollow shells of individuals.”

I have no animus against persons who make the mistake of marrying someone they don’t love, only against those who willfully encourage them to do so knowing the harm that it does to the individual, the spouse and any children they have.

I will gladly acknowledge that “love” is manifest in many ways. I loved my grandmother and my sixth grade teacher, Miss Bolte, but that doesn’t mean I would want to marry either one. If a mixed orientation married couple came to me saying they wanted to stay together, I would do my best to help them achieve that goal.

As the NY Times article Silverside linked to points out, “Gay and bisexual men continue to marry for complex reasons, many impelled not only by discrimination, but also by wishful thinking, the layered ambiguities of sexual love and authentic affection.”

“Sexual love,” “authentic affection,” add any and all variations of the theme that you wish. It is my contention that it is far better to find all these types of love in the one person one chooses to marry.

If some gays are impelled to enter into the disaster of mixed orientation marriages due to discrimination, then we need to eliminate this discrimination by acknowledging that the love that two gays have for each other is as valid as any other and allow their marriage to be honored and respected like yours or like mine.

If some gays marry persons of the opposite sex due to “wishful thinking,” the idea that their sexual orientation might change if they just work hard enough at pretending they’re straight, then we need to make it clear that this change is not possible. Those who play to the insecurities of vulnerable youngsters or the fears of discrimination (or damnation) that their concerned parents have by saying, “Change is possible, just enter your child in our six weeks pre-homosexual reorientation defaggafication program and we’ll straighten him out! (That’ll be $6,000 please.)” need to be called out for the charlatans that they are. Considering the great harm these people do (see previous comment), the sooner these groups can be sued out of existance, the better.

The Tennessee Health Department as shut down a portion of Love in Action’s “treatment” center in Memphis, so we are making at least some progress in this area.

The Harm in Pretending to be Straight

Still at FSB (see prior post).

OL got in a tizzy when I misunderstood what he meant by "Gays don't have children..." Of course, OL misrepresents what others say all the time so as to present them in the most unflattering way. Was this an accident on my part. Only the shadow knows. On to my next comment:

On Lawn said, “Gays can get married, [I know, just like Negroes could get married, as long as it was to someone of the same race.] unless one believes a homosexual as incapable of loving, honoring and cherishing a person of the opposite sex.”

It’s not what one “believes,” it’s the overwhelming scientific research that has developed over the last 50+ years. Sexual orientation is an innate trait which cannot be changed. Trying to change one’s orientation has harmful effects, some severe. A 2002 survey of 202 persons who attempted these ex-gay treatments found nearly 90% had been harmed by the process. As people come to realize that change is not possible, they become depressed, suicidal or engage in other self-destructive behaviors. Are you not aware that one of the co-founders of Exodus committed suicide when he realized his best efforts to change were fruitless?

Then it falls on legitimate counselors to put these shattered lives back together. At the group I worked with in Chattanooga, we would try to forecast how long we expected therapy to take (for planning purposes) based on each client’s intake information. When a victim of “conversion” therapy arrived, we would take the time they spent there and multiply by a factor of two. So if someone spent a year being “cured” of their homosexuality, we would estimated that it would take two years to restore them to psychological health.

Because of the documented harm that is done, proposing to help someone change their sexual orientation is unethical professionally and morally reprehensible as well.

It’s never in the interest of clients to encourage them to pretend they are something they are not.

"Reparative Therapy" is Harmful

Still at FSB (see prior post).

OL got in a tizzy when I misunderstood what he meant by "Gays don't have children..." Of course, OL misrepresents what others say all the time so as to present them in the most unflattering way. Was this an accident on my part. Only the shadow knows. On to my next comment:

On Lawn said, “Gays can get married, [I know, just like Negroes could get married, as long as it was to someone of the same race.] unless one believes a homosexual as incapable of loving, honoring and cherishing a person of the opposite sex.”

It’s not what one “believes,” it’s the overwhelming scientific research that has developed over the last 50+ years. Sexual orientation is an innate trait which cannot be changed. Trying to change one’s orientation has harmful effects, some severe. A 2002 survey of 202 persons who attempted these ex-gay treatments found nearly 90% had been harmed by the process. As people come to realize that change is not possible, they become depressed, suicidal or engage in other self-destructive behaviors. Are you not aware that one of the co-founders of Exodus committed suicide when he realized his best efforts to change were fruitless?

Then it falls on legitimate counselors to put these shattered lives back together. At the group I worked with in Chattanooga, we would try to forecast how long we expected therapy to take (for planning purposes) based on each client’s intake information. When a victim of “conversion” therapy arrived, we would take the time they spent there and multiply by a factor of two. So if someone spent a year being “cured” of their homosexuality, we would estimated that it would take two years to restore them to psychological health.

Because of the documented harm that is done, proposing to help someone change their sexual orientation is unethical professionally and morally reprehensible as well.

It’s never in the interest of clients to encourage them to pretend they are something they are not.

Respect for Our Children Whose Parents are Gay

We're at it again over at Family Scholar's Blog.

On Lawn said, “Gays don’t have children,…”

This assertion is not only insulting and hateful of gays, but also to the over 4,000,000 children (as of 2000) who have at least one gay parent, and the 416,000 children (2000 census) who are being raised by same sex couples. Do you think these children like to be told that their fathers and mothers aren’t really parents because they happen to be gay? Of course not.

Instead, these children deserve to have their parents respected for what they do, not who they are, just like their friends’ parents are: for working hard for a living, for being boy scout and church leaders, and for all the other activities they engage in (like shoveling the neighbor’s driveway) that make them valued members of the community.

These kids don’t deserve to have their parents talked about based on opinions that come straight from a nationally recognized anti-gay hate group, or have malicious lies told about their parents based on bogus research by the discredited Paul Cameron and his ilk, both of which you have done.

You say you are for children’s rights, but apparently not if the children have parents who are gay. Instead you insist that these children do not deserve to have parents who are married like the parents of their friends at school.

We have laws to ensure that gay children are treated fairly in school. We need laws that treat gay parents fairly as well, by providing them with the same rights and privileges of marriage for themselves and their children that the rest of us have. That’s the way to respect the rights of all children.

Marriage is about Successfully Raising Children

While I was typing up this comment:

The state has an interest in promoting the successful raising of children. If procreation mattered, state marriage laws would treat adoptive parents and their children differently than the way it treats biological parents and their children. But it does not. In fact it goes out of its way to treat both the same. As far as the state is concerned, it makes no difference where these children came from in the first place.

Since the state marriage laws treat adoptive parents and their children and biological parents and their children equally, it must treat same sex parents and their children equally as well.

I see Jesurgislac beat me with this post:

It’s interesting, isn’t it, how certain the opponents of civil marriage for same-sex couples are that the one thing marriage is not about is bringing up children together.

Many same-sex couples do have children: by adoption, by AID, or by previous marriages. None of these methods of having children are unique to same-sex couples - many mixed-sex couples have children the same way. No opposition to same-sex couples on the grounds that “they can’t have children” can be taken seriously unless the opposition is consistent in also opposing mixed-sex couples from marrying if they have children by adoption, by AID, or by previous marriages.

If it is intrinsically a good thing for children that their parents should be married, then same-sex couples must be allowed to marry because of the children: if it is intrinsically a good thing for society that it’s a cultural norm for parents to be married, then same-sex couples must be allowed to marry because otherwise, they disrupt the cultural norm as an unmarried couple with children.

If, on the other hand, the children don’t matter a whit, and it’s only the “sex integration” and “procreation” that matter - bringing a man and a woman together to conceive children - then there is actually no point to long-term mixed-sex marriage no more than there is to same-sex marriage.

It’s a problem, isn’t it. To most people, support bringing up children as a couple would be considered one of the most important aspects of marriage. But opponents of marriage for same-sex couples have got to oppose this idea and claim that the only thing that matters is the conception of legitimate children biologically related to both parents (F.Rottle’s “responsible procreation”) as important to marriage.

(The “sex integration” argument is perfectly circular, and not worth responding to: it amounts to saying “The state supports bringing a man and a woman together in marriage and that’s why the only state-sanctioned form of marriage ought to be mixed-sex.”)

It was so good, I stole it. Shame on me!

Christian Exodus, the Constitution Party, Roy Moore, Oh My!

In checking out Ex-gay Watch, I found this interesting note about Christian Exodus

I was recently told of a group calling themselves Christian Exodus and reading over their mission evoked this old memory [about building a space ship to the moon when David was 8 years old]. They aren't headed for the moon, however, but to South Carolina. Essentially, they believe the Union (United States) has been going downhill since and including the Abraham Lincoln administration. They seem to have little use for any amendments past number 10 and don't see any hope that anyone can do much to make what they consider positive change in our Federal Government. Their answer is to pack up and move to SC where they will slowly take over the local politics and secede from the Union in 2016.

Dominionism and the Constitution Party were also mentioned which prompted me to post this comment:

Roy Moore, of Ten Commandments fame, is running for governor of (where else) Alabama. He shares many views of the Constitution Party which attempted to recruit him to run for president in 2004.

Example from Southern Poverty Law Center:

In 2002, Moore wrote a lengthy concurrence in a custody case involving a lesbian mother. After describing homosexuality as "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature," Moore asserted that "[t]he State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit [homosexual] conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle."

Since Lester "Mad Ax" Maddox was elected Governor of Georgia after closing his restaurant rather than serve Blacks in the sixties (he sold ax handles at the door instead), the idea that Roy Moore might be elected is not so far fetched.

Politicians getting elected based on hatred of Blacks in the 1960's. Now politicians seeking votes based on the hatred of Gays. In the South, at least, some things never change.