RECENT  POSTS:  » Miami-Dade Circuit judge rules state marriage ban unconstitutional; stays ruling » Video: With marriage equality, Texas could put in a pool at the Alamo » CWA ably demonstrates ludicrousness of American Christian right's persecution complex » Video: CBS News hosts '50 Years Later, Civil Rights;' includes marriage equality, obviously » Audio: White House? Nah. But in race for most anti-gay House member, Bachmann a strong contender » Brian Brown is the victim, y'all. How many times does he have to tell you? » Congrats, gay activists—Bryan Fischer has found new group for his weekly 'Nazi' branding » Maggie Gallagher: Sexual orientation is 'more akin to religion' than to race » NOM is totally popular (*in Ethiopia) » What constitutes 'absolute pure evil' in the eyes of Liberty University dean?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/09/2009

We wanna love and parent, they want to rule our genitals and constitutions. Who's selfish here?

by Jeremy Hooper

Jenny-TyreeOnly social conservatives like Focus on the Family's Jenny Tyree could directly liken same-sex unions (an undeniable increase in the marriage concept) to the concept of no fault divorce (a way to dissolve marital bonds) and still keep a straight face. And only social conservatives like Jenny Tyree would ever be brazen enough to position these same kinds of unions as kid-threatening and not feel absolutely horrible about the way that they have so cruelly, militantly undermined the reality of the Earth's (God given?) landscape::

Perhaps they audited the course, but Americans already had a front row seat for family policy change. The class was called “No-Fault” Divorce 101, and it was about making adults happier. Some thought that it would make children happier, too, but the reality is too many children suffering from fatherlessness, emotional stress and poverty.

[
HuffPo contributor Fred Silberberg] laments the financial complexities affecting the children in this case, but this situation is a result of the couple prioritizing their desire to parent above the needs of the children for both a mother and a father.

As Americans survey the battle over the definition of marriage they should consider that there will be–absolutely guaranteed there will be–far-reaching results and unintended consequences to redefining marriage beyond one-man, one-woman.

Silberberg and too many others are asking the wrong questions. As my friend Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse has said, “The question is not “what do adults want next, but what do children need now? What is justice for the child?”
“Unnoticed effects of DOMA” indeed [FOF 's Drive Thru blog]

And only social conservatives would be myopic enough to say things like this without even a shred of concern for the scores of gay parents, gay kids, supportive relatives, and assorted allies who see love's increase as a positive for this shared orb that we call Earth. And only they would say all of these kinds of things and then have the audacity to turn around and paint us as the crude, agenda-laden, immoral militants.

To paraphrase Jennifer "I sell gay-hostile party kits" Roback Morse: "Their question is not “what do certain kids of adults want next, but what does a fair, equal, faith-separated civil society need now? What is justice for the child who, by 'no fault' of his own, happened to have been born gay?

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

“'The question is not 'what do adults want next, but what do children need now? What is justice for the child?''”

I'm absolutely sickened when heterosexists say that the child has the right to choose what family to be raised in. Imagine if a racist decried interracial families raising white children, saying that blacks can't raise children satisfactorily. Where was those children's right to choose not to be raised in an interracial family? Social conservatives taking their own biases and projecting them onto all children, which is disgusting.

Besides, I'd rather have been raised by two mothers. Where was my justice?

Posted by: Harrison | Sep 9, 2009 12:34:12 PM

I am sick and tired of the right wing treating us as if we were children that need some lessons. The right wing has been brain washing their own children since the red scare and they have the nerve to talk about us? Idiots.

Posted by: Mykelb | Sep 9, 2009 3:20:32 PM

"... they should consider that there will be–absolutely guaranteed there will be–far-reaching results and unintended consequences ..."

The sentence that the editors cut out just prior to publication:

"I can't tell you what they are, because so far none of them have happened, but don't let that stop me from scaring the gay-friendly out of you."

or:

"But, mind you, this isn't a money-back guarantee. We're not that stupid! We need your money, and the only way you will ever get it back if by prying it out of our cold, dead fingers!! We're doin' this for our children's right to a trust-fund!"

or:

"But this in only a limited time guarantee... Time's up!"

Posted by: Dick Mills | Sep 9, 2009 3:30:42 PM

Don't you just love the "unintended consequences" scare tactic?

If the consequences are unintended, why should you assume that you're better at predicting them than anyone else? And if you know exactly what ALL the consequences are, then surely they're not unintended?

Posted by: TomATL | Sep 9, 2009 4:32:58 PM

These people are truly masters of taking everything out of context and turning anybody into a bigot to support their over inflated idea of being a majority. The sad part is that there are people out there who believe this propaganda.

Posted by: ChrisNH | Sep 9, 2009 6:21:04 PM

And the divorce rate in Massachusetts is....? Maybe MORE gay marriage is the answer to society's "problems".

Posted by: Eric | Sep 9, 2009 11:43:15 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails