thank you for this letter. i understand your friends position, but i think it is more important to protect a child's right to a mom and a dad.
gender matters in parenting. reserving the term "marriage" for a male and female couple is one way government can encourage this situation for children.
again, i'm sorry for any pain this may cause your friend, but children's welfare is more important to me.
here are some other links:
regarding the "separate but equal" position:
http://prop8discussion.wordpress...rate-but-equal/
what the american college of pediatricians says about same-gender parenting:
http://prop8discussion.wordpress...-pediatricians/
about marriage and culture:
http://prop8discussion.wordpress...-pediatricians/
adressing some general myths:
http://gr8prop8deb8.blogspot.com...position-
8.html
children have a right to a mom and dad 1 (what france decided):
http://prop8discussion.wordpress...nd-a-dad-merci/
children have a right to a mom and a dad 2 (the studies on same-gender parenting)
http://prop8discussion.wordpress...nd-a-dad-day-2/
this is not to say that same-gender parents can't be awesome. but it cannot be denied that to moms or two dads cannot equal a mom and a dad. i want to live in a society that fosters this environment for children (and values it).
http://prop8discussion.wordpress...nd-a-dad-day-7/
also, marriage in the netherlands:
http://
article.nationalreview.co...NjYzkzYjg=#more
okay sorry for the millions of links. but they might be useful for a more balanced discussion
Dear Neighbor,
We love our gay and lesbian friends, family, colleagues and acquaintances. We honor them as children of God. We defend their right to live as they choose. We believe it is right that their domestic partnerships should be granted every legal protection that married couples enjoy. California law provides for this (1).
We also believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Marriage is not about love, although that is nice. Marriage is not a civil right. (The constitution is silent on the matter probably because the founders and framers could not have conceived of marriage between other than a man and woman.) Marriage is the legal, communal and spiritual bonding of a man and woman to each other and to their children. Marriage is fundamentally about the right of children to have a mother and father. Children are the only ones without a voice in this debate. Now we know that there are committed gay and lesbian partners who are wonderful parents. They love their children and their children love them. But surely one can agree that all things being equal a child benefits most from the balance offered by a mother and a father. Social science research supports this view (2). Traditional marriage which provides the framework for this should continue to be the social norm.
Legalizing gay marriage will impact how and what is taught to our children in the public schools. One could debate whether that is good or bad or right or wrong, but for the opposition to suggest that it won’t change what is taught in schools is dishonest. Here is the truth. If school districts teach sex education, and 96% do, then they must by law teach about marriage. This is from the California Department of Education’s (CDE) website (3). This is the law. In Massachusetts where same sex marriage has been legal for a few years it has been taught. Please read what the very groups who are now telling us that it will have no impact on what is taught in California argued in court in Massachusetts (4).
We have a few other reasons for supporting Proposition 8. Most have to do with Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. In Massachusetts, for example, Mitt Romney was roundly criticized when he suggested that children need a mother and a father. His statement was condemned as being divisive by the Boston Globe.
By framing this debate as one of equal rights and equality it seems to us that the opposition is trying to stifle debate. Bigotry was and is ugly. The civil rights movement taught us that you can’t talk to a bigot. We are not bigots and haters and we don’t like the label. We have good friends who disagree with us about same sex marriage. We have had spirited and respectful discussions without name calling and without rancor. We don’t think less of them for their position on this issue, nor, we believe, do they think less of us for ours. We can disagree, but still love and respect each other.
We wish all people everywhere joy and happiness.
Megan Monahan
(1) 297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. From California Family Code.
(2) Research clearly demonstrates that children growing up with two continuously married parents are less likely than other children to experience a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and social problems, not only during childhood, but also in adulthood. Although it is not possible to demonstrate that family structure is the cause of these differences, studies that have used a variety of sophisticated statistical methods, including controls for genetic factors, suggest that this is the case. This distinction is even stronger if we focus on children growing up with two happily married biological parents. www.futureofchildren.org Vol.15/No.2/Fall 2005
(3) California Education Code (EC) 51933 specifies that school districts are not required to provide comprehensive sexual health education, but if they choose to do so, they shall comply with all of the requirements listed below.
…Instruction shall encourage communication between students and their families and shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.
(4) "These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters," said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. "On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California , they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools."
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
"In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents." [p 5]
"Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students' formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction." [p 3]
(Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
"Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children's book…King and King." [p 9]
"This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief." [p 18]
"First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…Second, in contravention of the axiom that 'the classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas'' [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students." [pp 22-23]
(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 130817
. This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/0, including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California , as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
Lee,
The American College of Pediatricians is a political body of right-wing pediatricians - not a legitimate medical organization. They oppose reproductive rights, adoption rights for gays and lesbians, and support abstinence-only education. They might even think that the world is 6,000 years old and created by a super-hero, but I might be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Anyway, the idea that their opinions are, in any way, based on scientific and medical research is, at best erroneous - and at worst, a damned lie.
The rest of your website is nothing more than the same homophobic rhetoric spewed by the religious right for decades. But I encourage people to read those links just to see how ignorant Prop 8 supporters can be.
Anyone with even a half-mind for fairness and equality should Vote NO ON PROP 8.
WTF!?!
PROP 8 Supporters are bigots and Homophobic - and, apparently, spam the hell out of anyone who disagrees with them.
Support Equal Rights! VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
Support Equal Rights! VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
Support Equal Rights! VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
Support Equal Rights! VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
Support Equal Rights! VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
Support Equal Rights! VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
Support Equal Rights! VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
Support Equal Rights! VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
Support Equal Rights! VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
This "study" that the jesusgoats linked... is just a critique of the numerous studies showing that same-sex parents are just fine. Do these guys even understand how evidence affects positions? Offering scientifically trivial critiques of the evidence against one's position does not count as evidence for one's position.
WTF!!! NO ON 8!!Jeeze, this is why I didn't really mean it when I said that I wouldn't go online.
paul: there aren't any studies that show the effect of children growing up in families with same-gender parents.
they are comparing single-parent families to single-parent lesbian families.
how can we make decisions based on this evidence?
belle: i'm impressed with your tolerance and open disposition for conversation. wow.
Lee, your freedom of speech (which is protected against governmental abridgment, does not compel my substantive engagement. I could have deleted your comment, as this is my blog, but I left it up, which is as far as I'm going in furtherance in this "conversation," which will be unlikely to change either of our minds. If your arguments had been worthy of substantive engagement, I might have responded, but this is as far as I'm willing to go. No, I don't suppose I'm that open to single-sided "conversations" in which the opponent reverts to traditionalist arguments supporting outdated gender constructs and bad moral reasoning using spurious statistics.
Lee, even if everything you say about the nonexistence of good studies on gay parents is true, that still doesn't establish the claim that you made earlier, viz., "it cannot be denied that to moms or two dads cannot equal a mom and a dad." For that, you would need overwhelming evidence that gay parents are bad, not just the absence of evidence that gay parents are good.
(Leaving aside the point that there are many, many, bad straight parents, as well as heterosexual parenting models that aren't "a mom and a dad," like single parenting, none of which we outlaw. And also that there's no necessary relationship between marriage and breeding. Oh, fuck it. Belle is right. There's no point in this discussion.)
Lee:
I think my new favorite thing is people who whine about their intolerance not being tolerated. I just hope you feel a fraction of what members of the LGBT community feel when crap like Prop 8 shows up on the ballot.
But do feel free to attempt to cloak your homophobia into whatever pseudo-intellectual argument you want. Just know that no one is buying your bullshit. Bigotry is bigotry. You're an embarrassment to the state and to the country.
Come back, and I'll tell you how I really feel.
There are some inaccuracies with the facts in your posts, but I will point out just one due to time constraints.
If Prop 8 passes, marriages performed in other states will not be recognized in California.
In addition, even if Prop 8 fails, California same sex marriages will not be automatically recognized in other states due to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA").
Furthermore, the success or failure of Prop 8, will have no impact on federal tax issues, social security benefits, etc. due to DOMA, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996.
The open letter was written by a non-lawyer friend. I did not want to tread on her toes, but perhaps I should have clarified that point. Then again, that's another reason why I hate the DOMA. see also, though I really wish I could link to his "Dumb and DOMA" article.
I wonder...
Would those who contend that marriage is not a civil right be opposed to a ban on all marriages? If so, on what grounds?
I don't know how I would have voted on 8 had I been in Calif. I favor gay marriage in general, and I want my lesbian sister to have as much state support for her partnership as I have for my hetero partnership. I think the choice to bring this to pass in Calif through court decision was a damn fool thing to do, and we have seen that it has come back to bite its supporters in the ass. It would have been far smarter to grind it out in the legislature, year after year, until it got enough public support to win.
The continuing ruction over Roe v Wade is really a useful example, I think - had abortion been the subject of state-by-state pitched battles in the legislatures, I think our situation today would not be worse (I favor abortion on demand) - it would be available in some states, women could travel to get it from the states where it was still banned, and abortion-on-demand victories would be seen as legitimate by both sides.
Pyrrhus said "One more such victory and I am lost"
I'm not going to get into the details about whether some such study is right-wing or left-wing, but I will say that there are no good studies regarding children in gay households.
Almost all are deficient and usually are geared towards the pro-gay POV. For example, studies will often utilize a very low sample rate and will often use the most favorable elements (white, college educated lesbians, for example.)
The studies are flawed and gays do have an agenda in seeking that they be flawed. If you were a lesbian parent and you know that the study might be used to harm in some way, isn't it possible that you would put the best possible face on when the researchers do their report? The straight parent(s) who may be in the dark about what exactly the study is designed for may not put on as much of a show than the lesbian/gays. They may not think at all that the study is designed to take away some benefit or element of marriage. They might very well think it has to do with merely a particular way of raising children. The lesbian or gay will generally feel that it has something to do with their sexuality. So, there will be bias, which is why there needs to be studies with very large samples to counter this bias.
But, there probably won't be. The gays will be too defensive, perhaps rightly so.
Because of this, there is no real good evidence to say that gay parents and their children are equally as well off as their counterparts.
But, let's say that it isn’t.
Let us say that on average children of gays or gay couples themselves are slightly worse than their counterparts. I think it might very much be in the best interest of gays to accept that this difference occurs and still argue that gay marriage ought to occur.
I do not think race is on the level of sexuality, but if there was an indication stating that black marriages were worse than white marriages, an argument can still be made that black marriages ought to be validated, as they already are.
And so it is that if gay marriages/couples and children (the whole shebang) are slightly worse or even slightly different, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the gay marriages ought not to be validated, either.
It just may very well be that the arguments themselves might change to those that deal with the truth.
In the end, though, claiming that there are no differences is largely an untestable thesis. Those who make it, even if they are earnest in their belief, are simply asking others to make a leap of faith, which is often rather difficult considering that the gay family dynamic (which is very, very small population-wise) has only been with us for a few decades, while the natural family (man, woman, child) and heterosexual marriage as we know it has been with us for millennia. So, it's not unreasonable for people, in general to have skepticism.
Honestly dealing with that skepticism and dealing with the concerns about the aftermath of what gay marriage might mean instead of arguing that nothing will change and relying upon the idea that gays are no different, which is ridiculous on its face, will likely not win the argument.
I'm writing this today because I never ever hear anything about this. Nobody wants to mention it and they avoid it like the plague because its a religious thing. Well I'm sick to death of it and I'm expressing one of the only rights I have in this country. Hell, I can't even be in love and marry the one I'm in love with!!! But I can give my opinion so here goes..........
I'm wondering if anything is in the works anywhere in this country that would remove the tax exempt status of any church who uses its tax free dollars for political advertising purposes? I just don't believe that the churches should have a political voice when they are exempt from paying taxes. The people of the church should, but not the churches themselves.
I've lived many years in the south and am now happy to be living in a more tolerant state in the country but I cannot begin to tell you the political messages I see all over the tv each election sponsored by churches and their tax free dollars.
One election year the leader of the State of Oklahoma Baptist Ministries had a two hour television program in which he told people that if they voted for a certain candidate that they were going to go to hell and they supported killing babies because the candidate supported gay rights and abortion. Are you kidding me?? Who is for killing babies?? C'mon raise your hands?? That's what I thought. NOBODY is!!!
First of all I don't believe he and his churches should be using tax exempt dollars for their political agenda. And secondly I feel his church should be fined and lose its tax exempt status for this. If the churches want to participate financially to political agendas then they should foot the bill and pay taxes just like everyone else starting with property taxes for the land that their 500,000 square foot mega churches sit on.
Hopefully someone somewhere is working on something to address a churches tax exempt status or to fine them in such cases. Until then; in my opinion not much is going to change. They will keep the rest of the population down just as they have for 100 years in the south and this country will remain stagnant on such issues. Progress in this country will stay just as it is in Oklahoma, 50 years behind every other state in the country.
Oh, Oklahoma did finally pass a lottery that would help support the schools after about 8 tries on the ballot . It took that many tries because the churches kept telling everyone to vote against it. At the same time my neighbors kid brought home a note from school asking parents to donate paper because the schools couldn't afford to make copies for all of the kids in class. Shouldn't the churches be supporting the communities that support them instead??? They might have lost some of that tax free tithe and offering money I guess.
*Sigh* I suppose they need that money to pay for attorney fees when they defend a preacher who has molested little kids! That's a whole different story for a later date but, I will say this. If you or I molested a child?? Just ask yourself where we'd be? Assigned to a different church in another state??? Ahem no, we'd be in PRISON!!!
Separation of church and state you say?? Yes that's the first thing out of their mouths when dealing with one of their criminal child molesters. If that's what you really want then stay out of state and federal politics!! Instead, pony up some cash for your parishioners schools and children!!
Hell, some churches even support initiatives to ban same sex couples from adopting children. Children that are born to heterosexual crack addict mothers that nobody else is adopting. Children that are born with AIDS that nobody else wants to take care of. Tons of special needs kids that the majority of society seems to just want to throw away!!! If this isn't true, then why are there so many of them still sitting in foster care and everywhere else waiting for a loving family??? Isn't it better for the child to have loving and caring parents (gay or straight), then to have no parents at all?? I'm sorry but I just don't understand this.
Thank you for listening.
Commenting by HaloScan
