Connect with us

Gay Couples Don’t Need Marriage Because They Never Have Children By Accident

Published

on

America’s Right-Wing’s Ridiculous Anti-Marriage Equality Arguments

I’ve been working to try to understand the recent arguments America’s Right Wing has been trying to make against marriage equality. If you have been following the reports from Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal trial that will determine the constitutionality of Proposition 8, or have read, “Gay People Cannot Be Allowed To Marry Because Straight People Cannot Be Trusted?,” my piece detailing the, dare I say, “ridiculous” arguments America’s Right Wing is using against same-sex marriage, you’ll know what I’m talking about. But even well before Prop 8, America’s conservatives have been actively involved in maintaining second-class citizenship for gay and lesbian Americans.

Whether you have or you haven’t been following along, let me share with you (even more of) the reasons why I say America’s Right Wing’s anti-marriage equality arguments are, indeed, ridiculous.

Gay Couples Don’t Need Marriage Because They Never Have Children By Accident is part three in our week-long series, America’s Right-Wing’s Ridiculous Anti-Marriage Equality Arguments. Come back tomorrow for part four.

Part Three: Gay Couples Don’t Need Marriage Because They Never Have Children By Accident

America’s Right Wing has proven it is inherently and even biologically opposed to any idea that wasn’t conceived hundreds of years ago. And they have proven that any gain made by any person or group must result, to their way of thinking, in a loss to someone else, namely, them. In short, as we’ve made clear in this series, to America’s Right Wing, life is a zero-sum game.

For example, let’s look at the newest brand in America’s Right Wing. The “Tea Party,” (also thought of as the militant arm of the GOP,) we have learned, is primarily a bunch of middle-aged, middle class, employed white men afraid of losing their standing and status. They hate that the world is changing, and they see the idea of Christianist, Caucasian males becoming a minority as too much for them to accept. America is, according to them, a “Christian nation.” Again, as they see their “stock” going down, and they see the rise of a more liberal/progressive America, one already with a black president, they are out of control, consumed with fear and anger.

So, the concept of “homosexuals” having the same status and rights as themselves, given all they think they have “lost,” is beyond comprehension — or acceptability.

To America’s Right Wing, the idea that a same-sex couple could be allowed to marry and raise children goes just too far. That two parents are available to love and bring up a child, especially an adopted child, is not a rational concept for them. The needs and benefits to the child are unimportant. They would rather make up science to try to come up with a reason against it.

But real science exists that shows that same-sex parents are just as good as (in fact, some say, better, but we can at least accept diversity is a good thing, no?) than their opposite-sex parenting peers.

As I mentioned yesterday in, ““Values” vs. Science: America’s Right-Wing’s Ridiculous Anti-Marriage Equality Arguments,”

“[T]wo long-term studies recently published found just the opposite. In fact, one of them, a twenty-five year-long and vigorously peer-reviewed study published in the journal Pediatrics, found that adopted children raised by lesbian parents are better-adjusted and do better in school than their opposite-parented peers.”

Add to this the fact that we now have, “a study of gay dads that finds they are more likely than straight ones to focus on parenting over career, at least when their children are young.”

Additionally, as Dana Rudolph (above) also writes,

“During closing arguments for the Prop 8 trial in California, defense attorney Charles Cooper said:

“I really think the state’s main concern or certainly among the state’s main concerns in regulating marriage, in seeking to channel naturally procreative sexual conduct into stable and enduring unions is to minimize what I would call irresponsible procreation. It’s not a good term, but I can’t think of a more serviceable one.

“And that is procreation that is—that isn’t bound by the kinds of obligations and social norms that the marital relationship is, and that often leads to children being raised by one parent or the other or sometimes neither parent. That is a phenomenon that is uniquely centered on naturally procreative sexual relationships between men and women. It is not a phenomenon that the state has to be concerned about with respect to same-sex couples. For a same sex couple to procreate it by definition has to be responsible. It can’t be by accident. That’s the key point.”

“Same-sex parents are by definition responsible. Straight from the mouth of a Prop 8 defender. Wonder if that tidbit will come up in any of the cases challenging bans on adoption by gay men, lesbians, or “unmarried couples” (and for “unmarried couples,” read “gay men and lesbians but we have to phrase it this way or it might be seen as discriminatory”).”

Besides, who ever said that if “gay marriage” is not legalized, we will stop adopting children? Of course we’re going to continue to adopt — or conceive –  children. Many of us want to create families, just as our straight counterparts do. So the idea that arguments against same-sex marriage should have anything to do with raising children is absurd. They are two separate issues.

As I wrote in “Gay People Cannot Be Allowed To Marry Because Straight People Cannot Be Trusted?,”

“The anti-marriage equality folks seem to be saying that if gay people are allowed to marry, children will no longer be raised by their biological parents. As if, somehow, once married, we were going to steal them.”

I promise you, we’re not. Straight couples will continue to, as Charles Cooper, the Prop 8 attorney arguing against same-sex marriage, warned in his closing arguments, “procreate irresponsibly.” And they will continue to give up these children for adoption. And same-sex and opposite-sex couples will continue to offer these children loving homes. Legalizing same-sex marriage will stop none of this, but it will, possibly, lower the rate of divorce.

But most importantly, this “zero-sum” argument, that we can choose families headed by same-sex couples, or not, is beyond the hypothetical — and the absurd. It assumes that if same-sex marriage is not legalized, that there will be no families headed by same-sex parents. Conversely, it assumes that if same-sex marriage is legalized, opposite-sex couples will stop getting married and stop having children. It’s a ridiculously fallacious argument, and it’s the typical argument that conservatives always seem to make, because they see the world as a zero-sum game.

The bottom line is that many same-sex couples will continue to live as married couples, with or without legal recognition. And many of us will continue to form and raise loving families, with or without the “blessing” of the state, or the church.

(image: kevindooley)

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

COMMENTARY

McCarthy Sat for an Interview With Trump Jr. – One Bragged About an ‘Illegal’ Act, One Wished His Dad Would ‘Show Some’ Love

Published

on

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), sat down for a freewheeling hour-long interview with Donald Trump Jr., the son of the one-term twice-impeached ex-president currently under multiple criminal investigations including for absconding with hundreds of classified intelligence documents.

McCarthy, who had to battle his own Republican caucus 15 times before finally being granted the Speaker’s gavel, is now tied even more to Donald Trump. Trump reportedly was “working the phones,” making calls to House Republicans for days – and even hours before the final vote – strong-arming them to support the weakened McCarthy.

In one segment of the interview, McCarthy tells Trump Jr., “you know what? I’ve been around you guys privately. It is a real family that has real love for one another. And really, it stems of what [Donald Trump] did as a father.”

READ MORE: Watch: Nancy Pelosi Says ‘I Have Absolutely No Intention of Seeing the Deadly Assault on My Husband’s Life’

Don Jr., a bit choked up, comes out and says point-blank he wishes his father would “show some of that” love.

“I appreciate that, ya know, I want him to show some of that.”

Just before those remarks, McCarthy, again praising Donald Trump, says he’s a great father and grandfather, claims none of the ex-president’s children are “into drugs,” “have problems,” or “laptops” – presumably a dig at Hunter Biden and his father, President Joe Biden.

“I’ve watched him too, the pride he has [in] his children – and this is what I’ll say to you: Look, raising a family is not easy. You know – you’re a great father. But they don’t see him as a grandfather – I see your kids walk up.”

READ MORE: ‘Deliberately Deceived the Nation’: Legal Experts Stunned by ‘Jaw-Dropping’ Report on How Barr and Durham Protected Trump

“But you know what? You think of your life, okay? He was successful,” McCarthy continued, praising the disgraced ex-president. “He comes from a successful life. I’ve watched all you kids, as brothers and sisters love one another. You’re not into drugs. You don’t have problems. You don’t have laptops. You don’t have these other things,” McCarthy claimed.

Trump Jr. interjected, saying, “According to the press I’m really into drugs.”

Also in that interview, McCarthy admitted to “flipping cars” (buying for one price, quickly selling at a higher price) when he was in college, only to say it was illegal.

“I didn’t have the athletics to get a scholarship. I went to junior college, which was a great school,” McCarthy says. “But while I’m going there, I meet this guy that owns a liquor store but has a car dealer license – I’ll let you figure out how I met him,”

“But one day I say, ‘I’ll give you 100 bucks if you take me to L.A.,’ because L.A. has these car auctions – you got to be a dealer to get in there.”

READ MORE: ‘X-Rated’: Christian Nationalist Mastriano Promises Bill to Ban Public Drag Shows After High School’s ‘Queer Prom’

“So I started going down there, I start flipping cars, to pay my way through college. I find out later it’s illegal but I don’t know why I do it, I’ve been an entrepreneur, right?”

Don Jr. again interjects, telling the camera, “By the way, just just so you understand. We may have to cut this. Nancy Pelosi is gonna try to figure out how to impeach you for doing something like that.”

Trump Jr. also criticized most members of Congress who he said don’t have the same “hustle” as he does. He claimed his father made him work minimum wage jobs and he worked “for tips,” which both agreed was important.

“Like, no one’s ever had to make payroll. No one’s gonna sign the front of a check as opposed to the back,” Trump Jr. complains.

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Continue Reading

BREAKING NEWS

DOJ Signals It Is Conducting a Criminal Investigation of George Santos

Published

on

The U.S. Dept. of Justice Friday signaled it is conducting a criminal investigation of U.S. Rep. George Santos‘ campaign finances when it asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to pause its probe into the embattled New York freshman GOP lawmaker.

“The request is the clearest sign to date of an active criminal investigation examining the congressman’s campaign finances,” The Washington Post reports.

But NBC News goes one step further.

“Federal prosecutors in New York have opened an investigation into Rep.-elect George Santos, two law enforcement sources confirmed Thursday,” NBC states. “The probe by federal prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York is at least the second investigation into Santos.”

READ MORE: Another Santos Financial Concern: GOP Lawmaker Claims Campaign Paid WinRed Triple the Fees It Should Have

“The two sources confirmed that prosecutors are examining Santos’ finances, including potential irregularities involving financial disclosures and loans he made to his campaign as he was running for Congress,” NBC adds.

The Santos campaign this week, according to The Daily Beast, amended FEC filings that originally claimed about $625,000 in “personal” loans from the candidate’s personal funds were actually not from the candidates personal funds. Santos has since refused to state where the money came from.

DOJ also asked the FEC for any “relevant documents” for the Santos’ campaign, The Post noted.

READ MORE: Watch: Santos Responds to Report He Joked About Hitler, ‘The Jews’ and Black People

“Separately, the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday interviewed two people about Santos’s role in Harbor City Capital, an investment firm that was forced to shut down in 2021 after the SEC accused it of operating a ‘classic Ponzi scheme,'” according to The Post’s reporting.

Continue Reading

News

Watch: Nancy Pelosi Says ‘I Have Absolutely No Intention of Seeing the Deadly Assault on My Husband’s Life’

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) the former Speaker of the House, told reporters she has no intention of watching just-released video of the almost fatal, brutal attack on her 82-year old husband, allegedly by a hammer-wielding, far-right conspiracy theory promoting extremist.

DePape had “posted antisemitic screeds and entries defending former President Donald Trump and Ye, the rapper formally known as Kayne West who recently made antisemitic comments,” CBS News reported one day after the attack.

Earlier Friday, before the video had been released by a judge’s order, Rep. Pelosi said did not know if she would watch the video.

Later, Friday afternoon, Pelosi said she would not.

READ MORE: Pelosi Attack Video Release Leads to Criticism of Musk, Right Wingers Who ‘Trafficked in Homophobic Conspiracy Nonsense’

“As you know, today there was a release of some information. I have not heard the 911 call. I have not heard the confession. I have not seen the break-in, and I have absolutely no intention of seeing the deadly assault on my husband’s life.”

Prosecutors have described the attack as “near-fatal.”

She also thanked “people for all of their prayers,” and for “asking about the progress my husband is making, and he is making progress, but it will take more time.”

Apparently choking up, she added that she would not be making any more statements about this case as it proceeds, except again to thank people and inform them of Paul’s progress.”

Watch below or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.