Public Policy Continued

(Part Five of a Six-Part Series)

by Justin VanLeeuwen

Read Part One    Read Part Two     Read Part Three     Read Part Four      Read Part Six

In this second post on the purported public policy arguments against allowing marriage between same-sex couples, I will deal mainly with the idea of family, though I’ll touch on a few other topics as well. As I proceed, I’d like to start by making a few observations. First, when making any comparisons between heterosexuals and homosexuals, particularly in the context of family and parenting, we must keep in mind that same-sex couples do not compete on a level playing field. The advantages and supports offered to heterosexual couples to ensure that their families succeed are not merely unavailable to same-sex couples but are actively denied them. Gay, lesbian, and transgender families labor under a burden of prejudice and legal disability about which most heterosexual families can remain blissfully unaware. Thus when compared, the fact that same-sex families fare as well as differing-sex couples (as is borne out by the literature), stands not only as a testament to the reality of what are indistinguishable family groups but also as a testament to the human spirit’s capacity to flourish in spite of antagonism. Second, in previous posts I dealt with some of the similarities in arguments against marriages of interracial couples and those of same-sex couples, and I will reference some further similarities in this post. These juxtapositions do, I’m sure, raise immediate objections from many readers and understandably so: today, we as a society “can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve[d] only to oppress” (Lawrence v. Texas), and it is only natural for people to feel repulsed by any comparison that places them in such company. I do not wish to scare or threaten you into changing your position with hints of the word racism; indeed, fear of a label or the censure of society cannot constitute a valid motivation for any decision (as a gay man who grew up in a religiously disapproving environment, I should know). However, I think the comparisons I have already made, combined with a few more in this post, clearly reveal that the cases for discrimination in marriage based on race and sex and sexual orientation bear an unmistakable kinship in rationale. And whether opponents counter with the simple assertion that the same logic may fail in one case and yet prevail in another (i.e. they were wrong, but we are right), they must do so comfortable in the knowledge that the arguments are nevertheless the same.

Opponents of marriage equality regularly make the claim that same-sex parents (or, as I would prefer to refer to them, parents) are at best less than ideal and at worst, detrimental to children. In the cases I have read, they submit this argument largely by asserting the necessity of parents of both genders¹ who also have a biological connection to the children.² I could not begin to survey all the studies on same sex parenting in a blog post. That being the case, I will rely on the expert testimony offered when the point has arisen in court. Such testimony has continually pointed out two common trends: studies that suggest that differing-sex parents surpass same-sex parents do not actually compare the families about which they draw their conclusions, whereas studies that do compare stable families of same-sex and differing-sex parents show that both provide equally healthy environments for children. In reference to the former, such studies juxtapose married, differing-sex families with single-parent homes or homes of divorced and remarried parents.³ The Regnerus Study that received so much attention recently and was touted by the Family Research Council is a prime example. First of all, Mark Regnerus himself does not even claim that his study deals with same-sex families as most of its supporters insist. Rather it studies “the adult children of parents who have, or have had, same-sex relationships.” Regnerus adds that “in hindsight, I wish I would have been even more vigilant than I was in making sure readers always understood this.”⁴ To clarify what he means, of the 248 children that this study categorized as being raised by same-sex families, only 2 actually had two same-sex parents as a family unit from birth. The remaining 246 children either had one closeted gay parent as part of a heterosexual family unit (the parent may have later come out at some point resulting in the end of the marriage) or a gay parent who would raise the child post-divorce as a single parent while pursuing relationships as most single parents do. To be fair to the issue, more researchis needed on both sides to prove the point definitively, and as gay families are allowed to make the attempt, such studies will become increasingly practicable where they were not so in the past twenty-five years when gay people hid from public view and hardly dreamed of having families.

A real difference does exist between same- and differing-sex families which I hinted at in the opening paragraph, though it is not inherent to the relationship: social pressure. The same has been true of interracial couples, particularly in the past 40 years, but that remains true today. Referring to a Dr. Albert I. Gordon and his book, Intermarriage: Interfaith, Interracial, Interethnic, the defense in Loving stated how “children of intermarried parents” were as often called the “victims . . . and . . . the martyrs of intermarried parents.” In the words of Green v. State of Alabama,

these homes, in which the virtues are most cultivated and happiness most abounds, are the true officinae gentium–the nurseries of the States. Who can estimate the evil of introducing into their most intimate relations, elements so heterogeneous that they must naturally cause discord, shame, disruption of family circles and estrangement of kindred? While with [the family’s] interior administration, the State should interfere but little, it is obviously of the highest public concern that it should, by general laws adapted to the state of things around them, guard [families] against disturbances from without.

Here the court in question is addressing marriages between interracial couples, and though the language is far less forgiving, it encompasses a truth that finds more palatable expression in the State’s oral arguments in Loving v. Virginia:

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried families.

And in the eyes of the state, the existence of these societally manufactured pressures somehow constituted an argument against interracial marriages rather than an argument to change society. At least when prompted to identify the source for these “pressures and problems” the state answered honestly. The same is true of same-sex families today. Life is harder for parents and children of a same-sex household because bigotry and insensitivity surround us every day. The kids will get mocked at school, and the couple may be isolated by the parents of the other children. Some people may not allow their children to play with another child who has gay parents. But such mistreatment towards same-sex families does not vindicate the arguments against us any more than it did against the families of interracial couples. I have already referenced the argument regarding procreation, but I thought I would revisit it briefly. As with the issue above, interracial couples face it as well. In Scott v. Georgia (1869) the court somehow determined that “our daily observation shows us that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate, and that they are inferior in physical development and strength to the full-blood of either races.” Part of that assertion is carried to the extreme in State of Missouri v. Jackson (1883): “It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the issue of a black man and a white woman, and a white man and a black woman, intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny.” This last wild claim of sterility at face value merely represents another example of the selective application of procreation as a criterion for validating relationships, and even though heterosexual, interracial couples can actually produce their own biological children while gay and lesbian couples of any racial makeup cannot do so together (which is not the same thing as being sterile), that issue is ultimately irrelevant. I can easily answer it with Justice Antonin Scalia’s response to his own question of what justifies the denial of marriage rights to gay couples: “Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry” Lawrence v. Texas, dissenting.

Ultimately when faced with the question of family, I prefer to respond by saying that prospective adoptive children do not face a dichotomy of a straight family or a gay family. They face the stark reality of a family or no family at all. Even if same-sex families did prove to be less than ideal for children, they would still be better than nothing. And if you can then only oppose allowing gay couples to raise children on the fear that those kids may grow up believing same-sex relationships to be natural and right, the Public Religion Research Institute indicates that as it is, 44% of evangelical young people support marriage equality. That being the case, gay families raising their own children would seem the least of your concerns. In my post last week I referred to Paul Cameron’s drivel on the “medical consequences” of homosexuality. Probably the most popular claim in that vein would be that AIDS exists solely to punish LGBT+ people for our sin against God and nature. However, this belief comes from the very narrow and erroneous perspective of the disease’s history in the United States (driven by ideological intent),⁵ but in fact the virus originated in Africa where it was and always has been a disease of the general populace, spread mostly by heterosexuals, not by virtue of it being a heterosexual disease but merely because most people are heterosexual. Even in America the demographics of AIDS indicate that sexual orientation is not the most significant factor in AIDS transmissions. Being a member of a minority, particularly being African American, greatly increases the likelihood of contracting the virus — 50% of new victims of AIDS in America today will be African American (70% of new infections among youth and 67% of new infections among women).⁶ And I know the argument is old and tired, but I could not touch this topic without pointing out that if AIDS truly represented some divine judgment, then it comes accompanied by a great deal of divine oversight as Lesbians are by far the least likely of any group, not only to contract AIDS, but to contract any sexually transmitted disease. While I’m on the topic of health, one of the more infamous myths lodged in popular opinion is the idea that LGBT+ people die young. We have our aforementioned friend, Paul Cameron, to thank for this. He single handedly concocted this nuisance with a study he performed in which he compared obituaries in gay publications with obituaries in local newspapers. Roundly condemned and discredited as methodologically unsound, this study has continued to crop up often in a redundant, self-reinforcing way.⁷ Probably the best way I can think of to summarily deal with Paul Cameron’s many erroneous claims is to demonstrate in the words of a couple courts how unreliable he is. According to the court in Baker v. Wade, a Texas case from the 1980s in which Paul Cameron testified on the issues of homosexuality, the court said in response to claims of fraud that “there has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron, the supposed ‘expert’ for District Attorney Hill.”⁸⁹

If I took the time, I could run through a laundry list of extreme assertions such as the claims that we bear responsibility for any and every natural and unnatural disaster: Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 in part on “the gays and the lesbians”; John Hagee blaming us for Katrina; John McTernan holding us responsible both for Hurricane Isaac and now for Sandy; sadly, these examples are all too familiar. Whether it is worse or not quite as bad, I cannot say, but Scott Lively¹⁰ makes the argument in his Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party that gay men provided the impetus for the Nazi party and intensified its brutality when in reality gay men were targeted for arrest and execution in the concentration camps, and the few known gay men in the Nazi party were killed execution-style during the Night of the Long Knives.¹¹ I wish I could pass people like Scott Lively off as hacks whose ludicrous ideas cause laughter, not harm, but he, among others, participated in a conference at Kampala, Uganda that instigated the campaign for that country’s now infamous bill that seeks to install the death penalty for any individual twice convicted of same-sex relations. As I conclude this section, I’d like to observe that every single issue I have raised remains completely tangential to the question of marriage equality. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that even convicted felons cannot be denied or even restricted in exercising their right to marry (Turner v. Safley, 1987). What then could any of these red herrings have to do with whether LGBT+ people may be denied their right to marry? Much worse than distractions, these lies slander the names of respectable men and women who live their lives no differently than you.

Read Part Four   Read Part Six

Tweet

¹ “We acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is optimal for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies . . . . The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.” Varnum v. Brien, 2009.

² “Blankenhorn emphasized the importance of biological parents, relying on studies comparing children raised by married, biological parents with children raised by single parents, unmarried mothers, step families and cohabiting parents.” However, his position “is not supported by the evidence on which he relied because the evidence does not, and does not claim to, compare biological to non-biological parents.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010.

³ Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent. When proponents challenged Lamb with studies purporting to show that married parents provide the ideal child-rearing environment, Lamb countered that studies on child-rearing typically compare married opposite-sex parents to single parents or step-families and have no bearing on families headed by same-sex couples. Lamb testified that the relevant comparison is between families headed by same-sex couples and families headed by opposite-sex couples and that studies comparing these two family types show conclusively that having parents of different genders is irrelevant to child outcomes.

⁴ Quoted from an interview in Christianity Today.

⁵ “The European cases described above seemed to confirm fully the initial American conception of a disease limited to homosexuals. In fact, there was a sort of self-confirming circularity at work, since homosexuality was from the start regarded as an essential diagnostic criterion. Thus, for example, in the case of a woman who died in Copenhagen in December 1977 and whose clinical picture corresponded to that of the gay Americans, no one dared make the connection until 1983–that is, until well after the publication of American observations on heterosexual patients. The Danish patient exhibited neither lesbianism, drug addiction, nor any history of American travel. But she had worked as a surgeon in central Africa. Her case, having first been excluded by definition, actually went on to bolster quite another interpretation of the origin of AIDS.” Grmek, Mirko D. History of AIDS: Emergence and Origin of a Modern Pandemic. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1990. 23.

⁶ Referencing Endgame: AIDS in Black America.

⁷ William Bennet, an author and public figure championing traditional moral, social values, cited Cameron’s statistic in a 1997 appearance on ABC This Week, and backed it up by citing Cameron and another book. However, he failed to realize his second source also cited Cameron’s study.

⁸ The state, for whom Cameron testified, had actually claimed that the experts for the opposition had committed some form of fraud, and they supported their claims only with “two affidavits, both by Dr. Paul Cameron. Even then, Dr. Cameron did not directly accuse Drs. Simon and Marmor with fraud; instead, he merely expressed opinions contrary to theirs. To seriously contend that a difference in ‘expert’ opinions constitutes fraud and misrepresentation is ridiculous.”

⁹The court stated in more detail later on that:

This Court reaffirms its findings that Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmor were very credible witnesses and that their qualifications were impeccable. In contrast, Dr. Paul Cameron–the basis of the claim that Drs. Simon and Marmor committed fraud in their testimony–has himself made misrepresentations to this Court. For example:

(i) his sworn statement that “homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population” is a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies–which, as is obvious to anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and non-college heterosexuals);

(ii) his sworn statement that “homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals” is based upon the same distorted data and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.)

¹⁰ The Daily Show satirizes Scott Lively with great wit in this clip. ¹¹ Evans, Richard J. The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin, 2005. 529-535.