Won't somebody think of the CHILDRENZ!?!???!1!

A favourite scare-tactic among anti-gay activists is the idea that gay rights are detrimental to children. For example, when dissing gay marriage, they often argue that children to better "when raised by a mother and father." This is a sneaky trick, since the research that this is based on actually compared two-parent vs. one-parent families.* That's not the same thing as saying that being raised by both biological parents is better than being raised by same-sex parents (or remarried parents or adoptive parents for that matter--but anti-gay activists never seem to consider those...).

This information should be considered by Mainers who will be asked to approve or REJECT Proposition 1 this November, barring gays and lesbians from marrying in that state.

In a much-appreciated memo today, the Maine chapter of the American Academy of Pediatricians urged voters to reject the ban. Cuz, you know, that's what would ACTUALLY be good for the children of Maine. From the press release:

"As pediatricians, we see how supportive parents -- whether gay or straight -- positively impact the development of children. That is why we oppose the referendum that would rescind the law that allows same sex couples to marry."

*Please note that there are also studies that suggest that single-parents can do just as well raising children.

Sinead's Hand

This is a fantastic PSA from Ireland that is particularly poignant given the vote that will be taking place soon in Maine. It shows just how demeaning it is for gays and lesbians to have to grovel for the basic right to have their relationships recognized.

Maine's gay marriage law is being put up to a public vote this fall because of the workings of anti-gay activists who simply couldn't accept that the Maine legislature passed the law fair and square. If you live in Maine, or know anyone who does, spread the message: NO ON 1!



Hat tip to Sandwalk--a fantastic Canadian science blogger based out of Toronto.

Two-faced AND incompetent + utterly transparent

In an effort to stem the tide of upset in the LGBT community after his Department of Justice denigrated them in a defense of DOMA (see my previous post), Obama today signed a memo that will allow the same-sex partners of federal employees to receive some of the benefits that heterosexual spouses receive.

...The condescension is so patronising it boils my blood. For the following reasons:

1. Same-sex partners and their children will not receive Health Care benefits, which is one of the most devastating aspects of marriage discrimination.
2. These benefits will only apply to Federal employees, i.e. very few people.
3. The only reason the LGBT community is being offered even this *scrap* of dignity is so that they won't make a fuss at the Democratic National Convention's big fund-raiser on June 25th.

LGBT's were thrilled at the prospect of a President who would treat them with dignity. ...Looks like their elation was premature.

For any Americans who might read this: I think you should tell Obama and the entire DNC--loudly--that your cash won't go to support "leaders" who have done nothing to stand up for your rights or dignity.

PS Another thing that just occurred to me is that this happened with the stroke of a pen. It was a ship-shod quick response to try to quell the LGBT community...and as such, it could have been done MONTHS ago. Obama has been sitting on this for 5 months, and is only now putting pen to paper.

So, once again to my American friends: If Obama's been able to grant you these rights (however limited they may be), what else is he holding back? What else can you pry out of the Democrats' terrified little paws? I suggest you yell, write, call, email, protest, and above all let them know you won't give them one pink penny until you get the civil rights you deserve! *HUG*

Ummm....WHAT?

I seriously don't know what to say about this.

Under normal circumstances I'd say "too little, too late." But this is just so...shocking. I mean, can you think of anyone more Conservative than Dick Cheney? He's second only to Steven Colbert in being a parody of conservatism. And yet here he is, supporting marriage equality. It's like hearing a vegan say "You know what? Eating venison is no big deal..."

Whatever. If it can help convince a few more people that gay marriage isn't the end of the world, I'm all for it. :)

Yay, Nevada!

It's not quite marriage equality, but it's the next best thing.

The State legislature and senate of Nevada have overridden their governor to pass a domestic partnerships bill. For those not familiar with these types of things, domestic partnerships (or civil unions) are legal contracts that can be entered into by same-sex or opposite-sex couples. They confer varying degrees of legal rights upon the two parties, depending on the state law. I believe the Nevada bill bestows all the legal rights of marriage, just not the name. This truly is a huge win for Nevada's same-sex couples, as voters outlawed gay marriage years ago.

Nevada's LGBT's and allies should not stop there, though. It's become more and more clear over the years that domestic partnerships and civil unions aren't as good as marriage, probably largely due to the fact that they are not recognized federally. Upwards and onwards, American neighbours!

On the catholic church

This is an open response to a family friend of mine, who posted this comment on my Facebook page:

I just had a heated conversation with my husband about how warped the catholic church is. He maintains that if the church has said sorry it's enough...my question is when will the church mean it?

Comments on my response are welcomed by anyone.
------------------------------------------------------

Carole,

I was raised as a Catholic, but was lucky enough to attend a very progressive Church. Also, as you know, my parents are very open-minded people. I enjoyed being part of my Church growing up, and I believe that my experiences there helped me learn how to be a better person. Even since I stopped believing in god, I still have a very strong emotional attachment to the Church in which I was raised. That attachment, however, no longer extends to the Catholic church as an institution, for reasons I will now elaborate on.

The lessons that I learned in Church while growing up included going out of your way to help others, spending more time with your family, the vacuity of being judgmental, and the power of forgiveness. Humility, love, compassion.

While these ideals might be the stated aims of the Catholic Church, they are certainly not values that I see displayed regularly.

Instead, I hear about institutionalised cover-ups to protect child-assaulting priests from being prosecuted. I hear about the Vatican protesting against a UN resolution to denounce violence against homosexuals. I hear their continued misogynist refusal to allow women to hold positions of authority.

It has become clear to me that the Catholic Church, as an institution, is more concerned with promoting adherence to it's own dogma than it is with the relief of human suffering. It is more concerned with maintaining power than with maintaining integrity. It has consistently failed to uphold the dignity of human existence, and for that I can no longer associate myself with it.

Take for example, the recent case of a 9-year-old Brazilian girl who became pregnant with twins after being repeatedly sexually assaulted by her step-father. After determining that, due to her young age and low weight, the girl's life would be put in danger if the girl took the pregnancy to term, two doctors medically ended her pregnancy. Despite the medical necessity of the abortion, the Brazilian Chruch excommunicated the two doctors and the girl's mother--but not the step-father, who is also accused of sexually abusing the girl's 14-year-old handicapped sister.

Another brazen example of the Church's indifference to the human condition lies with it's stubborn refusal to condone the distribution of condoms in Africa to stem the spread of AIDS, the world's leading cause of death by infectious disease. This is despite the fact that condom use has been shown to decrease the transmission of HIV, and that abstinence-only programs have been shown to be ineffective.*

And then, of course, there's the Church's outdated, dehumanizing view on gay relationships. It never ceases to amaze me how they can take a few (highly interpretable) passages from the Bible and use them to denigrate healthy, loving relationships. One would think that with all the claims they make about promoting love and companionship, they wouldn't make such a fuss about two men's relationship being recognized by the government.

Nonetheless, the Chuch's massive resistance to gay marriage is second-only in fervor to its opposition to abortion. However, it is not alone in its denial of gay people's humanity. Pat Robertson recently said that legalizing gay marriage will result in the legalization of pedophilia and bestiality (one wonders how children or animals, who can't give legal consent, would sign a marriage contract). James Dobson, of Focus on the Family fame, recently said that a bill in the US House that would basically make gay-bashing a hate crime would also give protections to pedophiles and necrophiliacs (because the bill does not explicitly define "sexual orientation"). This is a lie, and Dobson knows it becuase he's a psychologist. "Sexual orientation" includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality; pedophilia and necrophilia are defined as "paraphilias."

Rick Warren, one of the most popular evangelical leaders in the US and head of an enourmous mega-church, also equated gay relationships to pedophilia and incest (though apparently he later apologised). He then went on to lie about his support for Proposition 8 (which took gay marriage away from Californians) on national TV, despite video proof of the contrary.

It seems like the people who say the worst things about gay people are actually the religious devout. Religious instituions are the major impediment to respect for gay people. Historically, they have also been the source of major resistance to almost every progressive social advancement in the past few centuries (women's rights, abolition of slavery, interracial marriage, etc.).

Lest my message be misconstrued at this point, let me say that I don't think all religious people are homophobes. Nor are all Catholics cold-hearted. What I'm trying to prove with the above anecdotes are the following:

1. While claiming to be on higher moral ground than the rest of us, religious people and their leaders often take positions that are completely inhumane and often detrimental to their fellow man. This includes countless recent examples of outright lies being spread to keep gay people from gaining equal protection and rights under the law.

2. While I have no problem with people choosing to live by whatever personal beliefs they choose, I do not believe that they have a right to force their religious beliefs on others. By denying gay people the right to marry or to be protected from discrimination without any secular reasoning, that's exactly what they are doing.

3. Perhaps my biggest disappointment is with "moderate" religious people, who claim that the outspoken homophobes "don't speak for them." News flash: the homophobes are speaking loud enough for everyone, but the voice of opposition from moderates is not being heard. It sounds an awful lot more like silent consent.

I haven't heard of any recent apology from the Catholic Church, but even if I did, it would take a lot more than that to make up for the hurt they've caused gay people everywhere (not to mention other minorities and women). I'll start listening to them again once they show that they're more concerned with helping their fellow man than getting their own way.


*Clarification: the best type of education is one that includes information on both abstinence and safer-sex practices, not necessarily just one or the other.

Update (11/05/09): The Catholic Bishop of Maine has just issued a statement in response to the Maine legislature's legalization of gay marriage. The good Bishop claims that gay marriage is "dangerous." However, I'm starting to think that maybe the Catholic Church is dangerous:

[In Maine] 63 priests and other diocese employees had been accused of sexual abuse over the previous 75 years

An Illustration

For all those who wonder why marriage is important to LGBT couples. My favourite part:

Ten, even five years ago, people in my situation in Massachusetts would have faced prejudicial treatment in some of these interactions--in addition to having to deal with protracted legal issues because of being denied the right to be married--simply because marriage equality was an unknown, often feared, and that fear was exploited by our opponents for political gain. Coming of age in a time when AIDS felled so many so quickly, I was aware of far too many horrible, heart-wrenching stories in which the surviving partner was completely shut out and cast aside by next of kin. Now, we are legally next of kin. For all the wonderful things that marriage equality does for the living, it maintains our dignity in death.

A Response

I found a blog post arguing against same-sex marriage here, and I commented thusly:
1. While this slippery slope argument raises a common fear among same-sex marriage opponents, I have to agree with Robinson; legalizing same-sex marriage does not automatically legalize polygamous relationships. If polygamists would like to have their relationships recognized under the law, they will have to argue it on it's own merits. Insinuating that polygamy will be legalized because of legalized same-sex marriage is a red herring. It merely distracts from the topic at hand, which is whether same-sex relationships should be recognized by the state. Polygamy is not the same thing.
2. Even people who are known to be infertile would never be discouraged from marrying. It's fallacious to suggest that our society is actually that intent on having every marriage produce children.
Furthermore, your claim that the government only recognizes marriage in order to provide incentive for creating the types of families they want misses the point entirely. The fact is, same-sex couples have families already. They have kids and/or other dependents, and it's in the state's interest to help those families be as stable and healthy as possible by providing legal recognition for their relationships and even tax breaks to ease the raising of children.
And if a single mother and her sister are working together to provide the best possible environment for her child, why shouldn't they have a civil marriage? Having their relationship is recognized by the law doesn't require that they have sex. If the legal aspects of their lives are no different than those of a heterosexual couple, why shouldn't they gain the same legal status and benefits?
3. Once again, same-sex couples already have children, and so it's in the state's interest to provide them with the same benefits that are provided to families headed by opposite-sex couples.
Also, same-sex couples can adopt, and more and more scientific studies are showing that children raised by homosexual couples are just as well off as their heterosexually-raised counterparts. By providing legal recognition to same-sex couples, the state would be providing more opportunities to find loving and supportive families for the state's orphans.
4. One of the biggest problems facing couples with civil unions is that their relationship is often not recognized for what it is. It takes merely a Google search to find stories of loving partners turned away at the hospital because they didn't have their official documents, while their partner lapses into a coma. Or couples harassed at airport security for proof of their relationship with their adopted kids. Civil unions don't cut it; "marriage" is the only term most people understand.
And I do think you make a valid point: the law does normalize our lives. Just as Loving vs. Virginia helped to normalize multi-ethnic marriages, and Laurence v. Texas helped to normalize gay sex, legal same-sex marriage will help to show people that LGBT people can partake in unions that are just as loving and healthy as those of their heterosexual counterparts.
-Chris

PS Schools these days teach kids that marriages of different ethnic backgrounds or different religious backgrounds are ok. Books like "And Tango Makes Three" do the same thing, only for homosexual marriages. Of course, that doesn't prevent you from teaching your kids that homosexual marriages are immoral anymore than it would prevent you from teaching them that Muslim, Jewish, Buddist, or Civil marriages are immoral. The schools teach kids to accept everyone for who they are, but you can still teach them to look down on different types of relationships when they get home.

Lemme know what you think.

On Prop8

So the fight against Prop8 continues, not only through grassroots protests, but also in the courts. 6 couples are filing suit in Cali, claiming that Prop8 is invalid, because it denies a fundamental right to only a particular group of citizens. Apparently, a whole pile of law experts (SERIOUSLY respected people) have filed "friend of the court" briefs stating their agreement that Prop8 is invalid (or at the very least would have had to be approved through a different process).

And this is why I finally understand what the Chief Justice George was saying about his ruling last May. While it was huge that the court ruled in favour of allowing gay marriage, and established marriage as a fundamental right, it also deemed queers to be a suspect class (and, thus, a group that can be identified and discriminated against). I think that will have an important sway on the decision about Prop8's validity; if gays aren't recognized as an actual class of people, they can't be discriminated against under Cali's Equal Protection clause.

Gay Parenting

*Cracks knuckles* Time to get back at this bad boy.
So the break from school was delightful. Full of friends, family, BF, and BF's friends and family. Not much rest but very much fun. But that's neither hardly gay, and not medical at all, so let's get to the good stuff!

A talk that I went to today reminded me of one of my favourite (or least favourite, depending on how you look at it) topics: gay parenting. It's my fave/least fave because there are SO many dreadful misconceptions about gay parenting, but it is a great feeling to set the record straight. Shall we? Let's shall. :)

So, since gay marriage is such a hot topic, some really bright fella (is it "fellette" if it's a woman?) decided to actually, you know, take a look at gay parents to see if they're actually blood-thirsty, neglectful, abusive, Cinderella's-stepmother-like nincompoops, as many anti-gay marriage activists would have us think.

Turns out, that idea is completely false.

Who could've guessed? ;)

Indeed, it seems that lesbian couples are actually slightly better at parenting than heterosexual couples. Isn't that just FABULOUS? ;) Apparently more research has been done on lesbian couples raising children than gay male couples, but from what I've heard they don't seem significantly worse off than lesbians or heterosexual couples.

In fact, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and pretty much everyone who knows a gay person agree that gay couples are just as good at parenting as straight couples.

That's why public policies, like the constitutional amendment banning adoption by unmarried couples (i.e. gay couples) in Arkansas (they couldn't even get married if they wished to), make me so upset. It's not based on any sort of sound reasoning at all. And worse still, it deprives orphaned children of finding stable families to live with long-term.

The frosting on the cake with this case, though, is that single people are still allowed to adopt. Cuz, you know, one person raising a kid on their own is fine--but if their partner moves in (adding additional financial and emotional support) then it's no longer a household fit for a child.

LOVE the logic. ;)

Dig deeper...

Here is a perfect example of how the assumption that correlation implies causation breeds mischief in our society:

"...while a majority of non-white voters backed a ban on gay marriage, the key finding in the new survey was that voters' position on Prop. 8 was determined more by their level of education and income than their race or ethnicity, said PPIC president Mark Baldassare. Among Californians with a high school diploma or less, 69 percent voted for Prop. 8. Among college graduates, 57 percent voted against it."

It has been widely touted that the black vote passed Prop8 in California, and that has sadly lead to a lot of tension between the LGBT community and the black community. The results of this poll show, as should have always been obvious, that rather than focusing their ire on black people, LGBT's should focus on eliminating poverty and ignorance, which sadly plague many minority populations.

This also demonstrates the need to always dig deeper when confronted with data.

Thanks to towleroad.com