UPDATED: A comment was left on this post that takes on George Will's anti-gay bias head on and underscores the harm being done to the children of gay parents due to the prohibition against same sex marriage. Here is part of the comment that deserves to be highlighted:
What do George Will, Cal Thomas and Pat Buchanan have in common? The fact that they are so-called conservative columnists and pundits is obvious. But they also share an open bigotry - based on their Medieval religious beliefs - against gays and gay equality under the civil laws. The only difference now is that Will is trying to mask his anti-gay bigotry in a column in the Washington Post by pretending that gay marriage should be opposed because "guidance from social science is as yet impossible." (Thomas and Buchanan don't even bother trying to hide the basis of their bigotry.) Like many of the religious extremists who are grappling for justifications for their opposition to marriage equality other than pure religious based animus, Will is acting as if granting marriage rights to same sex couples will somehow change heterosexual marriages and/or that we don't have enough clinical data to justify it. Here's a sampling of Will's double speak:
It seems that he has not read the policy statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsing marriage for same-sex couples in 2006. After their exhaustive review of the published science, these nationally recognized child health experts affirmed that children’s outcomes were comparable in two-parent homes regardless of parental gender, and endorsed same-sex civil marriage to benefit the children by providing them with federal and local financial security. Children have a right to know and be cared for by their parents. The frequent assertion that children have a right to a mother and a father is as incorrect as saying that they have a right to rich or good-looking parents.
Does Mr. Will know that the National Association of Social Workers endorsed marriage equality in 2004? The American Sociological Association reviewed all the published scientific data on same-sex marriage effects on children, and filed an Amicus Brief asserting that “there is no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed, the greater stability offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents may be an asset for child well-being.” The Child Welfare League of America and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry both issued policy statements stating that gays and lesbians have equal parenting skills in 2006.
This raises one unaddressed aspect of Mr. Will’s support for restricting marriage: Gays, like straights can and do have children from prior relations, by adoption, or from assisted reproductive technology. The current status is harmful to today’s and tomorrow’s children in same-sex parented families by limiting them from having two legal parents, limiting their recognition in cases of disability or death of the non-biological parent, and telling them that their families do not count and are less valued. Just because gay folk cannot have children by accident, as heterosexuals often do, is not a reason to emotionally, socially, financially, and legally continue to harm and disadvantage these children.
What do George Will, Cal Thomas and Pat Buchanan have in common? The fact that they are so-called conservative columnists and pundits is obvious. But they also share an open bigotry - based on their Medieval religious beliefs - against gays and gay equality under the civil laws. The only difference now is that Will is trying to mask his anti-gay bigotry in a column in the Washington Post by pretending that gay marriage should be opposed because "guidance from social science is as yet impossible." (Thomas and Buchanan don't even bother trying to hide the basis of their bigotry.) Like many of the religious extremists who are grappling for justifications for their opposition to marriage equality other than pure religious based animus, Will is acting as if granting marriage rights to same sex couples will somehow change heterosexual marriages and/or that we don't have enough clinical data to justify it. Here's a sampling of Will's double speak:
[R]esearch about, for example, the stability of same-sex marriages or child-rearing by same-sex couples is “radically inconclusive” because these are recent phenomena and they provide a small sample from which to conclude that these innovations will be benign.
Today “there neither are nor could possibly be any scientifically valid studies from which to predict the effects of a family structure that is so new and so rare.” Hence there can be no “scientific basis for constitutionalizing same-sex marriage.”
In addition endeavoring to mask the religious belief roots of his own prejudice and bigotry, Will is intentionally ignoring obvious facts: (1) gays and gay relationships have existed throughout recorded history; (2) same sex couples have in the past, now at present and in the future will be parenting children and denying marriage rights will not change this reality; (3) millions of children will never be raised in homes headed by a stable heterosexual couples, and this reality will not change; (4) since gay marriage first emerged in Massachusetts divorce rates both in Massachusetts and nationwide are down.
Given these objective reality truths, Will's opposition to marriage equality only serves to deprive same sex couples and their children of rights, stability and often financial security that heterosexual couples unthinkingly take for granted.Will's reason makes about as much sense as the rantings of the radical anti-abortion crowd that worships fetuses up until the time they are born and yet vote for GOP demagogues who seek to slash programs for poor children and who would leave millions of children without health care coverage. The hypocrisy is palpable.
Let's be clear the real basis on Will's anti-gay marriage agenda rests on one thing: his clinging to a few passages on the Bible authored by those utterly ignorant of modern knowledge on sexual orientation, biology, medicine and virtually every other form of modern knowledge. Will knows that admitting this truth destroys his credibility with a majority of Americans. Hence the ruse that a denial of equal protection under the Constitution is justified because of a supposed lack of clinical data. Two comments on Will's column summed things up well:
Sound reasoning, Bubba Will. I suppose we better go back and get us some social science evidence for how black folk integrate into society before we allow that to go too far as well, right, Bubba?
The argument that we can't allow gay marriage because we haven't allowed it long enough to get any solid data points is too ridiculous to engage in.
2 comments:
There are data from European countries where same-sex marriage is not so new, but, like gun violence data, these folks reject any application to the different ("exceptional") species "American."
It seems that he has not read the policy statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsing marriage for same-sex couples in 2006. After their exhaustive review of the published science, these nationally recognized child health experts affirmed that children’s outcomes were comparable in two-parent homes regardless of parental gender, and endorsed same-sex civil marriage to benefit the children by providing them with federal and local financial security. Children have a right to know and be cared for by their parents. The frequent assertion that children have a right to a mother and a father is as incorrect as saying that they have a right to rich or good-looking parents.
Does Mr. Will know that the National Association of Social Workers endorsed marriage equality in 2004? The American Sociological Association reviewed all the published scientific data on same-sex marriage effects on children, and filed an Amicus Brief asserting that “there is no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed, the greater stability offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents may be an asset for child well-being.” The Child Welfare League of America and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry both issued policy statements stating that gays and lesbians have equal parenting skills in 2006.
This raises one unaddressed aspect of Mr. Will’s support for restricting marriage: Gays, like straights can and do have children from prior relations, by adoption, or from assisted reproductive technology. The current status is harmful to today’s and tomorrow’s children in same-sex parented families by limiting them from having two legal parents, limiting their recognition in cases of disability or death of the non-biological parent, and telling them that their families do not count and are less valued. Just because gay folk cannot have children by accident, as heterosexuals often do, is not a reason to emotionally, socially, financially, and legally continue to harm and disadvantage these children.
Mr. Will worries about the unknown stability of same sex marriage. There are thousands of same-sex couples who have already been living together for decades, raising children without any legal protections, covering child healthcare costs without insurance or insuring their families health at a higher cost, paying taxes without spousal benefits, retiring or becoming disabled with single-person MediCare payments, paying 55% inheritance taxes that are exempt to marrieds. Surely some of these couples may need to divorce. But it will not likely achieve the 50% rate that already once-divorced Mr. Will’s team has established.
Finally, limiting “new and rare family structures” might be appealing to Mr. Will, who accepts the status quo, but why stop there? We could improve society by his thinking. There is ample existing social science data confirming that the low socio-economic status families have children that are less likely to complete their education, more likely to later depend on social supports, and have higher probabilities of incarceration. If restricting marriage in Mr. Will’s view is good, then should we not establish more laws that will further restrict those American citizens from marrying and having children discriminating now by financial status? It is easy to predict that such a measure would result in fewer children being raised in the projects, joining gangs, dropping out, and becoming criminals. But the answer to that is a loud “no”. Americans are permitted to marry and to have children even if they are Republicans, felons, impoverished, or have a low-IQ. Marriage is a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has said seven times in seven cases so far. We might not like the outcomes of the marriages of certain groups, but they have the right to pursue their happiness, regardless. Limiting marriage based on Mr. Will’s beliefs amounts to no less than social engineering.
Post a Comment