Anti-American Values
You know that yesterday there was a kind of "Values Voters debate" among Republican presidential candidates. Well, it wasn't a debate, really, it was kind of a ... I don't know what you call that, everybody took turns getting up on the soap box. And also, none of the real Republican candidates dared to show up.
But this is incredible. They opened with a choir singing something that sounded like "God Bless America." Except it wasn't "God Bless America." They changed the words, so it was against America.
The crowd went wild, they loved it. This is what we're up against, people who think America needs to be punished.
Here's what they're saying:
Just unbelievable. Fred Phelps and his God Hates Fags congregation would be right at home there.
Postscript: I started wondering where this song came from. Maybe it's something they've been singing in their churches and stuff all along, and I just never heard of it. So I googled the name, and got 1,490 hits -- all different sites, where bright and original people came up with that same line. Look:
OK, that's enough cutting-and-pasting, but there are a ton more. I saw at least two books titled that, lots of forums and bulletin boards discussing the subject.
It turns out, this isn't just some freaked-out gospel group that stopped taking their meds and pole-vaulted over the outer boundaries of the realm of good taste. This is a core concept for these people: they are praying for bad things to happen to America.
But this is incredible. They opened with a choir singing something that sounded like "God Bless America." Except it wasn't "God Bless America." They changed the words, so it was against America.
The crowd went wild, they loved it. This is what we're up against, people who think America needs to be punished.
Here's what they're saying:
Why should God bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back
On everything that made her what she is.
Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sin and heal our land
The courts ruled prayer out of our schools
In June of ‘62
Told the children “you are your own God now
So you can make the rules”
O say can you see what that choice
Has cost us to this day
America, one nation under God, has gone astray
Why should god bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything
That made her what she is
Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sins and heal our land
In ‘73 the Courts said we
Could take the unborn lives
The choice is yours don’t worry now
It’s not a wrong, it’s your right
But just because they made it law
Does not change God’s command
The most that we can hope for is
God’s mercy on our land
Why should God bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything
That made her what she is
Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sins and heal our land
Just unbelievable. Fred Phelps and his God Hates Fags congregation would be right at home there.
Postscript: I started wondering where this song came from. Maybe it's something they've been singing in their churches and stuff all along, and I just never heard of it. So I googled the name, and got 1,490 hits -- all different sites, where bright and original people came up with that same line. Look:
- Why Should God Bless America?
- Why Should God Bless America?
- Why Should God Bless America?
- Why Should God Bless America?
- Why Should God Bless America?
OK, that's enough cutting-and-pasting, but there are a ton more. I saw at least two books titled that, lots of forums and bulletin boards discussing the subject.
It turns out, this isn't just some freaked-out gospel group that stopped taking their meds and pole-vaulted over the outer boundaries of the realm of good taste. This is a core concept for these people: they are praying for bad things to happen to America.
posted by JimK at 8:01 PM
25 Comments:
Values voters rake the GOP over the coals
Last night in Fort Lauderdale, the religious wing of the Republican Party hosted a Values Voters Debate, but none of the top-tier Republicans came. Why did Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain dodge a chance to speak to the base?
The answers can be given in the form of questions, which were posed by the debate organizers to the empty podiums of the candidates who did not show. As Joseph Farah, the editor of WorldNetDaily, explained at the beginning of the three-hour program, "When you run for president, you can run but you can't hide."
Question for Rudy Giuliani, asked by a teenage girl with an apparent speech impediment:
"Eighteen years ago, an abortionist was hired to kill me, but he failed. Nuns came and rescued me and took me to the hospital, where I stayed for two months. My heroic parents then adopted me. Mayor Giuliani, your position on abortion would have left me dead. Now that you see me, Mayor Giuliani, do you honestly believe that an abortionist had a right to kill me?"
Question for Mitt Romney, asked by Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth About Homosexuality:
"Governor Romney, you are running as a pro-life and pro-marriage candidate, but you have a history of being strongly pro-abortion on demand and pro-homosexual. You supported Roe v. Wade and said abortion should be, quote, 'safe and legal.' In 2002, you opposed a state constitutional amendment that would have stopped homosexual so-called marriage in Massachusetts. You said homosexuals should be allowed in the Boy Scouts of America and, as governor, you officially celebrated 'Gay-Straight Youth Pride Day,' whatever that is. You sat on Marriott's board of directors for ten years, while it profited off the sale of hardcore pornographic videos to its guests. My question is: why should voters trust you after you spent so much of your career aggressively promoting anti-life and anti-family positions? I understand a change of heart, but a change of position on life, marriage, gun control, pornography and immigration, all preceding your run for president?"
Question for Fred Thompson, asked by Mat Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel:
"While you were Senator, you opposed the federal marriage amendment, but recently you stated that you would support a marriage amendment that would prevent judges from imposing same sex marriage, so long as it would not prohibit state legislatures from adopting same sex marriage. This reasoning is like saying that you favor a constitutional amendment that prohibits judges from imposing slavery so long as the state legislatures were free to do so. Does not your position fundamentally misunderstand the universal importance of marriage in the same way my latter example about slavery indicates a misunderstanding of human dignity?"
Question for John McCain, asked by Janet Folger, president of Faith2Action:
"Senator McCain, I know that you were invited because your office called several times to say, "Stop the phone calls. We've shut down the campaign. We can't make outgoing calls, there's so many coming in," encouraging us to come to the debate, which I just want to remind you that all those calls are all those voters. Just a little reminder. But my question to you, Senator McCain, is this: I was troubled by the lawsuit that you and other members of Congress filed against Wisconsin Right to Life for airing radio and television ads to encourage the public to lobby their Senators to oppose the filibuster of the judicial candidates. While, thankfully, Wisconsin Right to Life won the lawsuit, was it really your goal to gag and prevent groups from being involved in the legislative process during the 'no free speech zones,' 60 days before a general election and 30 days prior to a primary election, as your campaign finance reform law required?"
The empty podiums did not respond.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/09/18/values_voters/index.html
"This is a core concept for these people: they are praying for bad things to happen to America."
A quote demonstrating the sheer hatredness of the bigotry emanating from this wacky group of fanatics called TTF.
Here Jim is good enough to reprint the lyrics of a song asking God to forgive America and heal the land. Does anyone see anyone praying for something bad to happen to America? To believe false things about a group of people you hate is bigotry. To state this false view is dangerous bigotry.
One might reasonably wonder where this is headed.
Jim writes,
But this is incredible. They opened with a choir singing something that sounded like "God Bless America." Except it wasn't "God Bless America." They changed the words, so it was against America.
Such an interpretation only holds up if one hews to a secular extremist weltanshuanng.
The crowd went wild, they loved it. This is what we're up against, people who think America needs to be punished.
Please be specific and state exactly where they say that America needs to be punished.
It turns out, this isn't just some freaked-out gospel group that stopped taking their meds and pole-vaulted over the outer boundaries of the realm of good taste. This is a core concept for these people: they are praying for bad things to happen to America.
Jim, such an interpretation as you give this expression of religious sentiment is (and I use my words carefully here) perverse.
Just as MoveOn.org was (and remains even more so today) a reaction to the endless prosecutions and persecutions of Bill Clinton, the Religious Right is a reaction to the political and legal culture that has been pushing (since the early 60's, only accelerating in the 70', 80's and 90's)this country in an extreme secular direction.
"Anti-American Values" Jim? This entry more than any shows just how out of touch with mainstream America you and TTF really are.
Goodness, I was wondering what had put Jim on edge and then I found this in my email basket (from the Family Research Council),
In a significant victory for marriage, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled today that the state's ban on same-sex unions does not violate constitutional rights. By a vote of 4-3, the court upheld the state's right to refuse marriage licenses to homosexual couples based on the state's 1973 statutory definition of marriage. In the majority opinion, Justice Glenn Harrell wrote that Maryland has a vested interest in protecting heterosexual marriage to "[foster] procreation and [encourage] the traditional family structure." Unlike New Jersey's high court--which commandeered the legislature and forced it to recognize same-sex unions--these justices left the issue to the democratic process in a rare showing of judicial restraint. The suit proves just how powerful state laws on marriage can be.
Wow, 4 to 3...just goes to show the difference one justice can make.
That's a fun little news item, Orin. Thanks for posting it.
Maryland joins the big leagues and agrees with the New York and California judiciaries that the state has an interest in protecting marriage.
I knew we'd make it.
I knew we'd make it.
Yeah boy, there's nothing quite like punishing the kids for the sins of the fathers. Now kids being raised by same-sex parents will be denied the same rights as kids being raised by opposite-sex parents.
A dark day for some kids is a dark day for all kids, while the Johns and Orins do a celebratory dance. Revel in the hate you have for the parents and savor the consequences your hate brings to their children.
I agree Anon, and so does at least one of the Judges:
From Judge Irma Raker's dissenting opinion
“This disparate treatment of committed same-sex couples, exhibited in a multitude of Maryland laws discussed supra, directly disadvantages the children of same-sex couples, and there is no rational basis to allow such disadvantages when the State’s proffered interest is to promote a stable environment for procreation and child rearing. Each child raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple in Maryland needs and is entitled to the same legal protections as a child of married parents.”
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/44a06.pdf
Anon writes,
Yeah boy, there's nothing quite like punishing the kids for the sins of the fathers. Now kids being raised by same-sex parents will be denied the same rights as kids being raised by opposite-sex parents.
This is what differentiates conservatives from liberals; conservatives are concerned with the needs of the many, liberals with the needs of a few. Besides, most of us in this debate know that children are merely being trotted out as a sympathy ploy to distract from what is being attempted: the radical redefinition of marriage. Think of it as a sort of variation on a shell game...
A dark day for some kids is a dark day for all kids,
Wow, where did you get that line from?...a bumper sticker?
To the contrary, defending first and then strengthening marriage makes it a brighter day for all children, including those from gay and lesbian households (since they too are indirect beneficiary's of a more stable society). While the social science research is inconclusive on same-sex parenting (and by inconclusive I mean studies that hold up under scrutiny), the research on children raised in intact, married father and mother households is not only overwhelming, but conclusive as well.
while the Johns and Orins do a celebratory dance.
Having been a mentor to a 10 year old boy from a single-parent household, and witnessing first hand the pain, grief, confusion, and heartache it caused (not to mention the educational disadvantages and poverty that come along with all of that) I am proud whenever and wherever marriage can be strengthened because I know that the BIG winner in all of this are the children. Don't they deserve the best?
Revel in the hate you have for the parents and savor the consequences your hate brings to their children.
Save it...give me a room of 100 voters, evenly divided between liberal, conservative and middle of the road folks, allow me to explain how same-sex "marriage" is yet another weakening of the institution of marriage, and how this adversely affects our children, and I believe I could get a veto-proof majority (i.e. 66 votes). Moreover, armed with a better understanding of what marriage *IS* and *IS NOT*, this majority would be less likely to be moved be your name calling.
Aunt Bea writes,
I agree Anon, and so does at least one of the Judges:
How come I am not surprised?
From Judge Irma Raker's dissenting opinion
“This disparate treatment of committed same-sex couples, exhibited in a multitude of Maryland laws discussed supra, directly disadvantages the children of same-sex couples, and there is no rational basis to allow such disadvantages
If there were not a rational and compelling State interest then this would matter; alas, there is a compelling State interest (among them keeping marriage from being redefined yet again by polygamists, since once the gender element is eliminated, on what basis could it be limited to just two people?...think Warren Jeffs here; they and the ACLU certainly are).
when the State’s proffered interest is to promote a stable environment for procreation and child rearing. Each child raised in a household headed by a same-sex couple in Maryland needs and is entitled to the same legal protections as a child of married parents.”
Yes, each child is entitled...to a father and a mother. That there are some adults that want to live differently is just fine(we do live after all in a tolerant society)...they just should not trot out their children as Trojan horses to further the deconstruction of marriage.
In order to be married by law one must have a marriage LICENSE, and such presupposes that some will and others will not qualify, depending upon their circumstance.
"Now kids being raised by same-sex parents will be denied the same rights as kids being raised by opposite-sex parents."
How about some specificity here? What rights? Is there some problem here that couldn't be solved without perverting the institution of marriage? Is there any problem at all?
the BIG winner in all of this are the children. Don't they deserve the best?
Yes Orin, they do. Don't all children deserve the best, no matter the orientation of those raising them? If not, why not?
You're probably not surprised, Orin, because you read the decision was 4 to 3, meaning three judges agree that this decision is wrong and because I've long advocated my support for equal rights for all couples who wish to marry right here on this blog.
One specific example of a right kids of same sex couples are denied is that non-biological parents are not allowed to make medical decisions for kids they are raising, even in an emergency. This is often not true for non-biological parents of kids of heterosexual couples. My kids have had too many (one is too many) ER visits over the years and never once was I or my husband asked if we were the biological parent in order to be able to give permission for various procedures.
Once again, Orin, you toss your favorite distraction. We're talking about COUPLES and the kids they raise, no matter how much you wants to change the subject.
And now you have tossed a new red herring, the marriage license. For most couples, the only qualifying test is the ability to pay the fee to obtain marriage licenses. Marriage rules vary from state to state but tell us Orin, what "tests" do you think opposite sex couples should have to pass or which "circumstances" must they meet in order to qualify for a marriage license?
Aunt Bea writes,
(quoting myself)
the BIG winner in all of this are the children. Don't they deserve the best?
Yes Orin, they do. Don't all children deserve the best, no matter the orientation of those raising them? If not, why not?
Sorry Bea, social science research has been done extensively on this question and the answer keeps coming back that children do best in a home with a biological father and mother that are married.
Keep in mind here that there are at least two subsets of homosexual parents: one, those that were parents to these children in a heterosexual relationship; and two, homosexuals that barren though they may be, will defy the laws of Nature and one way of another have children.
Also keep in mind that we are talking about at best a fraction of the 5% that do happen to be homosexual.
You're probably not surprised, Orin, because you read the decision was 4 to 3, meaning three judges agree that this decision is wrong and because I've long advocated my support for equal rights for all couples who wish to marry right here on this blog.
Yes, it does distress me that highly intelligent people can be foolish, but I try to always differentiate between intelligence and wisdom. It is wise for an overwhelming majority of children to have a social institution defended and strengthened that has so clearly been shown to serve their best interest, not the egos of a few adults (in comparison).
One specific example of a right kids of same sex couples are denied is that non-biological parents are not allowed to make medical decisions for kids they are raising, even in an emergency.
Ever heard of durable power of attorney? There are ways by legal statute to correct this, and they don't involve deconstructing marriage.
This is often not true for non-biological parents of kids of heterosexual couples. My kids have had too many (one is too many) ER visits over the years and never once was I or my husband asked if we were the biological parent in order to be able to give permission for various procedures.
Another thought here: hard cases make bad law, i.e. the law is not designed to cover every situation. The law is designed to cover and govern the life that most of us live...
Once again, Orin, you toss your favorite distraction. We're talking about COUPLES and the kids they raise, no matter how much you wants to change the subject.
"Distraction"??? It is not a "distraction" (as you like to call it); it will be the next hurdle for those eager to deconstruct marriage. Furthermore, there will be no rational basis for denying polygamists the same right as homosexuals. Since I realize I am in all likelihood on the losing end of this issue, I know I will see this happen.
And now you have tossed a new red herring, the marriage license. For most couples, the only qualifying test is the ability to pay the fee to obtain marriage licenses. Marriage rules vary from state to state but tell us Orin, what "tests" do you think opposite sex couples should have to pass or which "circumstances" must they meet in order to qualify for a marriage license?
I am so glad you asked...goodness, where would I start? Well, for starters I would make it clear to applicants that if they choose to divorce and they have children, that the State (except in cases of abuse) will make it more difficult to divorce. The opposite of that is if they have no children, I would make it as easy as filling out a credit app at Sears. This distinction alone makes clear to all what social science research has so clearly shown: the deleterious effects of divorce/separation on children. Second, couple wanting to get married would have to take a course offered by the State or the church they attend (with standards set by the State for course content) that would sober up those deeply in love to the realities of married life, the responsibilities as well
as the rights.
I know, I know...sigh...such ideas will remain just that, ideas and have no chance of becoming the social norm because much like Cartman, we do whatever we want. I do think it is a pity that children too often take it in the teeth due to the willfulness of "adults" (yes, heterosexuals have ironically done the most damage to marriage).
Orin quoted "In a significant victory for marriage, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled today that the state's ban on same-sex unions does not violate constitutional rights.".
That wasn't a victory for marriage, it was a defeat. Fewer people having the suppport and benefits of marriage is the worst thing that could happen.
Orin continued "By a vote of 4-3, the court upheld the state's right to refuse marriage licenses to homosexual couples based on the state's 1973 statutory definition of marriage."
This is discriminatory, its just like the laws against interracial marriage. If a man has the right to marry a woman a woman deserves the same right he has to marry a woman. Anything else is sex discrimination. The judges based their decision on the same faulty reasoning that was used to uphold the laws against interracial marriage, they claimed that because the restriction applies to men and women that it is non discriminatory. The law against interracial marriage also applied equally to both races, but we all know it was discriminatory, its the same with the laws banning gay marriage.
Orin continued "In the majority opinion, Justice Glenn Harrell wrote that Maryland has a vested interest in protecting heterosexual marriage to "[foster] procreation and [encourage] the traditional family structure.".".
This is not a "protection" of marriage, there is no one trying to stop any heterosexual marriages and hence no need of "protection". Allowing gays to marry does not in anyway inhibit the ability of society to use marriage to foster and encourage procreation and heterosexual marriages - to suggest otherwise is a bald faced lie.
Orin said "This is what differentiates conservatives from liberals; conservatives are concerned with the needs of the many, liberals with the needs of a few.".
Quite the opposite orin. Liberal morality is based on the pillers of fairness and no one being harmed. Conservative morality is based on those concepts but also "in-group loyalty" and the preservation of hierarchy. Liberals are concerned with the the needs of all, whereas conservatives are only concerned with the "us" in "us" versus "them".
Contrary to your lie that liberals are only concerned with the rights of the few liberals want EVERYONE to have the right to marry the one person they love most, conservatives like you want to restrict that right to only those you see as members of your group.
Orin said "most of us in this debate know that children are merely being trotted out as a sympathy ploy to distract from what is being attempted: the radical redefinition of marriage. Think of it as a sort of variation on a shell game..."
One third of gay couples have children, only a heartless hater would say those children are a "ploy". The only one trotting out a ploy is you and your ploy of crying about the supposed slippery slope to polygamy when in fact that's not been an issue in any jurisidiction that's implemented same sex unions. A change to marriage that results in the vast majority of marriages being identical to what they were before is not by any stretch of imagination a "radical" redefinition. Your hyperbole is yet another dishonest ploy. Look at Canada and Masachusetts, other than for those gay couples that married, marriage and society are exactly the same as they were before this slight change. The sky isn't falling no matter how you foolishly insist it will.
Orin said "defending first and then strengthening marriage makes it a brighter day for all children, including those from gay and lesbian households (since they too are indirect beneficiary's of a more stable society).".
Preventing gays from marrying in no way enhances or protects any heterosexual's marriage. Instead it weakens the families that are headed by gays and incrementally weakens society. If marriage is good for heterosexuals then it is good for gays and this is good for society.
Orin said "While the social science research is inconclusive on same-sex parenting (and by inconclusive I mean studies that hold up under scrutiny), the research on children raised in intact, married father and mother households is not only overwhelming, but conclusive as well.".
What a preposterous lie. Dozens and dozens of studies have shown that children of gays do just as well, if not better, than children of heterosexuals. Only some of the religious who base their logic on making decisions prior to considering evidence disput this. Every major mental and physical health organization agrees that children of gays do just as well. There is no social science research that contradicts that. As is a typical lie for the religious right you bring up social science research that compares "intact, married father and mother households" with single parents, not with gay or lesbian parents - stop the lies Orin.
From the APA "In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
Just a few of such studies follow:
"The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]
Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative
Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983) "Homosexual Parents,"
by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]
Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of
Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley,
San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]
Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or
Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)
Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian
Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)
Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10
Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)
Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual
and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551
(1983)
Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother
Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)
Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or
Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)
Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo
Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior
167 (1986)
Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and
Family Review 177 (1989)
Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual
Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts
International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)
Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay &
Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)
Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional Mothers'
Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44
Psychological Report 880 (1979)
Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric
Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)
Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social
Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133
(1991)
Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and
Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling & Development 504 (1986)
Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing Experience:
Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing Scholarship 137 (1989)
Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian
Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)
"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A Proposal for
Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review 1021 (1984) Harris &
Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality 101 (1985-1986)
Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality in Child
Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of the American Academy
of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody: A Constitutional
Challenge That Can No Longer Be Denied," 12 San Diego Law Review 799 (1975)
"Sexual Orientation and the Law" by the Editors of the Harvard Law Review
(Harvard University Press, 1989)
Green, G. Dorsey, & Bozett, Frederick W., "Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers," in
Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed. by Gonsiorek &
Weinrich (Sage Publications, 1991)
Lewin, E., "Lesbianism and Motherhood: Implications for Child Custody," 40 Human
Organization 6-14 (1981)
Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of
Southern Maine, 1992)
You can find many additional citations in this bibliography:
"Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: Annotated Bibliography of Legal and
Psychological Materials," by Donna J. Hitchens and Ann G. Thomas, editors [San
Francisco Lesbian Rights Project]
These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians
and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity,
social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional
problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence,
ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences have
been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior,
fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal,
Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian
& Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992])
The same article goes on to note that a very few differences HAVE beenreported by some
researchers: One study found children raised by heterosexual mothers had a HIGHER rate of
psychiatric disorders and psychiatric referrals than those raised by lesbians. Another study
found that those raised by heterosexuals were more domineering and more often engaged in power
struggles. Other studies found that children of lesbian parents showed greater tolerance for
diversity and that daughters of lesbians chose to play with opposite sex partners more often
than daughters of heterosexual mothers.
Orin said "I am proud whenever and wherever marriage can be strengthened because I know that the BIG winner in all of this are the children. Don't they deserve the best?"
That's a lie Orin. If you were truly concerned for children and thought that strong marriages were good for them you'd support the children of gay couples right to marry. You don't care about children as you dismisss such children as a "ploy", you are merely trying to hide your bigotry behind disingenous "concern" for children. Once again I offer you a challenge you are too dishonest to take - explain how preventing a gay couple from marrying benefits anyone particular heterosexuals marriage and children or admit this is not the case.
Orin said "give me a room of 100 voters, evenly divided between liberal, conservative and middle of the road folks, allow me to explain how same-sex "marriage" is yet another weakening of the institution of marriage, and how this adversely affects our children, and I believe I could get a veto-proof majority (i.e. 66 votes). Moreover, armed with a better understanding of what marriage *IS* and *IS NOT*, this majority would be less likely to be moved be your name calling.".
LOL, what a joke! Like you those people would not be motivated by what is "best" for marriage, but by their hatred of gays. Talking about what is "best" for marriage is a facade you feel you need to cover up what is rapidly becoming socially unacceptable, the demonization and oppression of gays. You've claimed you can do it, Orin, so put up or shut up - tell us step by step cause and effect how the marriage or non-marriage of any gay couple hurts/helps any specific heterosexuals' marriag or children. You can't do it because it simply doesn't
Orin said "Yes, each child is entitled...to a father and a mother. That there are some adults that want to live differently is just fine(we do live after all in a tolerant society)...they just should not trot out their children as Trojan horses to further the deconstruction of marriage.".
Trojan horses?! How callously you dismisss the children of gays because once again as a conservative people don't matter to you if they aren't part of your in-group. And children are entitled to two fathers or two mothers just as much as they are entitled to a father and a mother - you don't get to decide for them.
You can't have it both ways, you can't say that marriage is an important benefit to the children of heterosexuals, but not to the children of gays. Once again it is clear you don't really care about children, they are disposable to you. Once again, come up with a rational step by step cause and effect explanation as to how any gay marriage "deconstructs" your marriage or admit that that is not the truth.
Orin said "In order to be married by law one must have a marriage LICENSE, and such presupposes that some will and others will not qualify, depending upon their circumstance.".
What highlights the hypocrisy of the facade that you hide behind is that that marriage licence and is "qualifications" allow murderers, theives, child molestors and drug dealers to marry and you have no complaint about that or concern about "what's good for the children". Its only when loving gay couples want to marry that you complain - spare us your disingenous rationalizations for your hatred, just admit reality - you hate gays and want to oppress them.
Aunt Bea said "One specific example of a right kids of same sex couples are denied is that non-biological parents are not allowed to make medical decisions for kids they are raising, even in an emergency."
Orin replied "Ever heard of durable power of attorney? There are ways by legal statute to correct this, and they don't involve deconstructing marriage.".
How hypocritical of you Orin, if you truly believed that was as good as marriage you'd be advocating that its good enough for heterosexuals as well and that they don't need marriage either. Fact is that if you believe marriage is the best for the children of heterosexuals you can't escape the fact that it must be also the best for the children of gays as well. But of course the children of people who aren't a part of your "in-group" don't matter, they're "ploys" and "trojan horses", right?!
Bitter experience has shown gay couples that such extra-legal arragements are no substitutes for marriage, they get ignored by a society that places value in a marriage license first and foremost or overridden. by anti-gay marriage ammendments as the "incidents" of marriage. In the saddest of cases when one of a gay couple dies the survivor has been forced from the home they lived in despite wills and the like that have been challenged by anti-gay family members. There is no substitution for marriage.
Orin said "Another thought here: hard cases make bad law, i.e. the law is not designed to cover every situation. The law is designed to cover and govern the life that most of us live...".
That's fine when its not possible for the law to cover every case and every person. BUT when it can then there is no excuse for it not to. And the law most certainly can allow for the marriage of every couple that wants to marry the one person they love most and it had best do so for the good of society. You need a good reason to exclude some from the rights benefits and obligations of marriage and you have none. You are completely incapable of backing up any of your nebulous claims that that its good for society to prevent gays from marrying. In not one case can you explain exactly how allowing a gay couple to marry in any way shape or form hurts your marriage or children or prevents you from promoting all the procreation and heterosexual marriages you want - you have nothing but baseless fearmongering that undeniably does hurt a minority of the population and as such incrementally hurts society as a whole.
Orin said "there will be no rational basis for denying polygamists the same right as homosexuals. Since I realize I am in all likelihood on the losing end of this issue, I know I will see this happen.".
Oh get off it Orin. There has been same sex unions in many jusidictions for decades and there is no push for polygamy. The rational basis for opposing polygamy is that with a 50% divorce rate it is obviously hard enough to make a relationship work with two people in it let alone with three or more. We've seen the results of polygamy in mormon communities, incest, underage "marriage", the exploitation of women, the loss of a generation of young men due to a shortage of wives and the eviction of them from the communities they grew up in. Every man that takes an extra wife deprives another man of a marriage partner altogether - that's why polygamy doesn't work and is and will always remain an abheration. Your assertion that you "will see polygamy happen" is yet another obvious untruth in the tub of lies you promote to oppress those your conservative mentality sees as the "them" in "us" versus "them". Thats the difference between liberals and conservatives, we want everyone to have the same rights, you want to maintain the hierarchy of privilege that has you at the top lording it over the people you hate.
"Every man that takes an extra wife deprives another man of a marriage partner altogether - that's why polygamy doesn't work and is and will always remain an abheration."
If the definition of marriage were changed, then every man that takes a man deprives a woman of an already depleted pooled of available men for marriage partnering - that's why a gay version of "marriage" doesn't work and is and will always remain an abheration.
Oh, I know what you're thinking: the surplus women could just start promiscuous lesbian gangs but the loser is society when fewer children are born.
Orin,
So infertile couples, as well, are "defying the laws of Nature"? What century are you living in, may I ask?
And "trotting out the kids . . ." I happen to know some of those children, and you should be ashamed of yourself for that comment.
"oops they did it again" said "every man that takes a man deprives a woman of an already depleted pooled of available men for marriage partnering".
Gay men aren't interested in women in the first place so a man taking a man doesn't deprive any woman of a man.
Dana, you can see Orin's double standards, gays are "defying the laws of nature" (and that's obviously a no-no) while infertile couples "denying the laws of nature", well that's a good thing. Just like its critical for the children of heterosexuals to have married parents, but the thought of marriage similarly being critical for the children of gays is a "trojan horse" - what an outrageous hypocrite.
First Orin said, Besides, most of us in this debate know that children are merely being trotted out as a sympathy ploy to distract from what is being attempted: the radical redefinition of marriage. Think of it as a sort of variation on a shell game...
Then, in full shell game-playing mode, Orin trotted out a single child: Having been a mentor to a 10 year old boy from a single-parent household, and witnessing first hand the pain, grief, confusion, and heartache it caused (not to mention the educational disadvantages and poverty that come along with all of that) I am proud whenever and wherever marriage can be strengthened because I know that the BIG winner in all of this are the children. Don't they deserve the best?
And then, in the same comment after "trotting out" the 10 year old boy he mentored, Orin added That there are some adults that want to live differently is just fine(we do live after all in a tolerant society)...they just should not trot out their children as Trojan horses.
Right, Orin. We get it. Kids are the "big winners of marriage" but kids raised by same sex couples are "Trojan horses" and should not be "trotted out." Sorry Orin, but you haven't demonstrated any "wisdom" in these statements IMHO...you've demonstrated hypocrisy.
Incidentally, the kid you mentored was being raised by a SINGLE PARENT, not a same sex couple so you'll have to tell us what that kid has to do with the topic at hand: kids raised by same sex couples. Kids raised by a single parent, like the kid you mentored, do not share the same experiences as kids raised by same sex couples.
The use of stats comparing single parents to two parents when discussing same sex parents is ONE example of a typical feint by anti-gay activists. Such extrapolatation is invalid. Even David Popenoe, author of "Life Without Fathers," one of the right's favorite books on the need for fathers in childrens' lives said:
"Throughout the world, gender-differentiated parenting occurs naturally in most father-mother families. And certainly, let us not forget, the factors of communion and agency are extremely difficult for either a man or a woman alone [emphasis added by the author] to combine effectively.
Gender-differentiated parenting is of such importance that in childrearing by homosexual couples, either gay or lesbian, one partner commonly fills the male-instrumental role while the other fills the female-expressive role. Unfortunately, we do not yet have good data about the child outcomes of these same sex arrangements. Not enough such couples have been studied, and there has not been enough follow-up time to see results."
Randi is correct that appropriate research has been done and she has thoughtfully provided (thank you, Randi) numerous studies that actually did compare kids raised in two parent homes, headed by either opposite sex couples or same sex couples. Those studies found school performance, psychosocial adjustment, gender identity and many other outcome measures to be very similar whether the couples raising the children were same sex or opposite sex.
Keep in mind here that there are at least two subsets of homosexual parents: one, those that were parents to these children in a heterosexual relationship; and two, homosexuals that barren though they may be, will defy the laws of Nature and one way of another have children.
You are kidding, aren't you? You should keep in mind that there are at least two subsets of heterosexual parents; those who are able to produce children; and "those that barren they may be, will defy the laws of [their] Nature and one way o[r] another have children."
Google "fertility treatments" (you know where doctors, not Nature, help couples reproduce) and you'll find nearly 4 million hits. Then Google "adoption" and you'll find another 120 million hits. They both seem rather popular options for people to become parents.
Orin wishes that couple[s] wanting to get married would have to take a course offered by the State or the church they attend (with standards set by the State for course content) that would sober up those deeply in love to the realities of married life, the responsibilities as well
as the rights.
The curriculum for that course is going to get real tricky when religious doctrines and State laws conflict. For example, is getting your kid medical care a "responsibility" for parents? Will Christian Scientists be forced to take their kids to the doctor when they're sick or will the state allow them to let their kids die of easily treatable diseases like Type I diabetes?
Andrea- not anon
Um, I guess separation of church and state is unwanted? Margaret Atwood knew what she was talking about in The Handmaid's Tale. And of course, God should only bless those who are right wing evangelicals- because their religion is correct. I know the nutty anon thought that way- and Orin shows his true colors again.
"And of course, God should only bless those who are right wing evangelicals- because their religion is correct."
I think the song that Jim was originally distorting mentioned two things that the writers believe America did to displease God. First, condoning the murder of unborn children. Second, illegalizing a general acknowledgement of the Creator in public school.
I don't see any endorsement of any "right-wing" religion or any particular religion at all. Just common sense stuff that would appeal to broad range of people.
Quest of the pest, it is not illegal to acknowledge your fictional creator in public school. Students are free to do so at any time they like. What is illegal is to require that students do so.
And quest of the pest, suggesting "god" should bless the U.S. is an endorsement of religion.
"Quest of the pest, it is not illegal to acknowledge your fictional creator in public school. Students are free to do so at any time they like. What is illegal is to require that students do so."
Unfortunately, you're wrong. Faculty and staff are not permitted to the living Creator in a public school. It make no difference if they require anyone else to.
"suggesting "god" should bless the U.S. is an endorsement of religion"
So what? Citizen groups, like this values voter convention that troubled Jim so much, are allowed to do this. Remember, you're talking to Americans. We have a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Post a Comment
<< Home