Photo: NOM attacks gay-headed families and our book-headed children

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

11/29/2012

by Jeremy Hooper

To highlight some new skewed "research" put out by three religious, conservative-minded professors (one teaches at Ave Maria University, has spoken extensively about marrying faith with instruction, and signed on to a letter lashing out against President Obama; one teaches at the Mormon Brigham Young University; one is Canadian Professor Douglas W. Allen, a regular name in conservative media circles who routinely knocks LGBT families and who serves on the board of advisers for the National Organization For Marriage's own Ruth Institute), the National Organization For Marriage is using this graphic:

My first thought: It's astounding to see NOM dropping its pretense about limiting its scope to just marriage. NOM now routinely attacks LGBT-headed families in general, glomming on to any biased research the organization can find to say that we gay folk damage our children. It's remarkably obtuse for an organization and fight that we know must disprove animus if it wants to win (particularly in court).

My second thought: I'd be quite proud to have a precocious kid who has not one but two books in her immediate presence. It looks to me like she was busily studying when someone came along with a camera. She's so darn into the one book that she can't even put it down. Instead, she just raises it up above her head for q hick photo op, soon to return to the text once the shutterbug leaves her the hell alone. This before she moves onto the second tome, fulfilling her mind while her less scholastic peers are watching the Kardashians open a new boutique. Such an overachiever, this child of lesbians!

My third thought: Some might say that the children of professional anti-LGBT discriminators could themselves face some mental baggage that hinders progress. I hope not, since none of our children signed up for the fight or even political viewpoints of their parents. But as the fight goes on and the profile raises, I can see how a parent who paid for my new tennis shoes by banning my friend Joe's gay parents might breed a child who grows into some deep, philosophical questions about his or her guardians' views on what is right, wrong, fair, and American. Again, I'm not wishing it on anyone. But it wouldn't surprise me.