Bush-League Contradictions
Children do better with married parents says the data trotted out by the republi-nannies behind the $1.5 billion dollar marriage promotion budget -- but we still aren't going to let gay parents marry. Here's how Gabriel Damast, the 13-year-old child of two moms, felt about his parents' marriage, according to a New York Times story by Patricia Leigh Brown:
"It was so cool," said Gabriel, 13, who served as the ringbearer, after standing in line overnight with his parents. "I always accepted that `Yeah, they're my moms,' but they were actually getting married. I felt thick inside with happiness. Just thick."
Here's how it worked for Max Blachman, 13:
"Before it was, `Oh, your parents are just partners,' " said Max Blachman, the 13-year-old son of lesbian parents in Berkeley. "Now, they're spouses. So it's a bigger way of thinking about them."
Here's how it worked for Alex Morris, 11:
Speaking of his mothers' marriage, Alex said: "It is something I always wanted. I've always been around people saying, `Oh, my parents anniversary is this week.' It's always been the sight of two parents, married, with rings. And knowing I'd probably never experience it ever."That changed in the City Hall rotunda as his mothers exchanged vows. "The atmosphere was just springing with life," Alex recalled. "I just couldn't hold myself in. It was oh my god oh my god oh my god. I felt so happy I wanted to scream."
It's unfortunate that our fundamentalist-in-chief was told by his religion that gay sex was wrong, but how, exactly, does that make the needs of Gabriel, Max, and Alex different from those of any other children?
We don't judge parenthood by how it makes children feel at the time, we judge it by how children and their families (in turn) do over a lifetime. The NYT also reports that seventy percent of violent criminals were raised in homes without fathers, which seems more to the point when asking what's best for children. As with the photos of happy gay couples at the altar which are turning up everywhere, it seems people have confused soulcraft with the composition of Kodak moments. It's amazing that this generation thinks so little of their distinctive sexual identities as to discount their importance to children.
Crid at March 20, 2004 5:43 PM
If you read (now-NYU) professor Judith Stacey's work, you'll see that gay parents are excellent parents, and their kids identify as gay at the same rate as the rest of the population. In fact, you could say, from the studies I've read, that gay parents make MUCH BETTER parents than heterosexual parents as a whole -- probably because there are few accidental children of gay parents -- they really have a hard haul in having kids (of course)...so they really, really have to want them and be committed to raising them. Moreover, the notion that kids of gay parents don't have role models from both sexes is ridiculous. How many kids live on a farm isolated from television and all society?
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2004 11:13 PM
It ain't being gay that make parents better (if it were, you'd yank kids from their het parent's arms at birth): ALL adopted kids (from early life, viewed as an average) do better, because they're wanted.
I'd presume you want to lower the bar for gay adoption... I've always assumed that was what the gay marriage tussle was about, even though it's never discussed. So you appear to be chewing your own tail. As gays can adopt more whimsically, their excellence will diminish.
>> the notion that kids of gay parents
>> don't have role models from both sexes
>> is ridiculous.
OK, but I never said otherwise. "Role models" is one of those hideous little concepts from the pop psychology of the Valium-drenched '70s. Like it's kissin' cousin "quality time," it tries to reduce a vast array of chaotic and complicated events into a handy pocket tool.
Why do you think femininity means so little to children? Has it meant so little to you, or to the men in your life? Has masculinity impressed you so little that you casually discard it? These are *MOJO* forces. I think kids deserve to have each and both in their homes, working on their behalf.
Meanhile, anyone who lets television socialize their kids deserves what happens.
Crid at March 21, 2004 11:10 AM
I wonder what kind of families 70 percent of non-violent criminals came from.
A.Ho at March 21, 2004 5:58 PM
Lowering the bar for gay adoption? I thought Amy's point was that these children experienced the joy of attending their parents legal unions. I admit that I skimmed it but I don't recall any mention of adoption. Did I miss something?
Sheryl at March 21, 2004 9:11 PM
Just curious. . . which study does the NYT cite as its source? Did those father-free households from which 70% of violent criminals hail contain two parents, or were they mostly (or all) households headed by single women? Comparing single-mother households with two-parent households isn't very meaningful.
For a fair study of the effects of the parents' genders on a child's ultimate outcome, you'd have to study two-parent households headed by mixed-sex couples with two-parent households headed by same-sex couples. And, of course, control for variables like income, race, education, and longevity of the parents' relationship. Plus have a large enough sample size for decent statistical power. Do any such studies exist?
Accipeter at March 21, 2004 11:14 PM
Nice point Accipeter.
A.Ho at March 22, 2004 11:58 PM
Crid -- The 70s were drenched in quaaludes and black beauties, not Valium. And the music was great. -- Lena
Lena at March 23, 2004 2:48 PM
The music was as great as the sociology was loathsome.
Crid at March 23, 2004 6:03 PM