Kellie Powell (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} wednesdayview) wrote,@ 2006-03-28 16:48:00 |
|
Won't somebody think of the children?
Helen Lovejoy, a character on the long-running animated satire "The Simpson's," had the right idea. Whenever someone disagrees with your agenda, just loudly claim (or wail) that your opponents are endangering children.
You find a statue of Michelangelo's David offensive? It's harmful to children! You want to prohibit alcohol? Pretend to be concerned about children drinking! Want to use immigrants as a scapegoat for all of society's ills? Of course you do! Anyone who opposes you is practically a child murderer!
And, as the group Catholic Charities of Boston has now taught us, you can even use a fake concern for children to implement measures that harm children.
Catholic Charities of Boston announced earlier this month that it will stop placing children in adoptive homes after a century of doing so, saying it no longer wants to have to consider gay couples as parents, which it must do under Massachusetts law.
In Massachusetts, there are discrimination laws that force adoption agencies to look at all possible parents — a proposition the group says goes against their beliefs. The Vatican has long held that gay adoption is "gravely immoral."
Novelist Brent Hartinger wrote this terse response: "Words fail me. Can the Catholic Church really be this petty?"
Apparently, yes. Apparently, this group - with the full support of the Vatican - would rather see the 119,000 children still waiting to be adopted in this country remain in group facilities than allow two men or two women to raise a child together. They feel gay parents are so immoral and dangerous that 119,000 children would be better off with no parents at all.
Do they have any reason to believe this? Do they have any evidence? There are no studies - in fact, there is no data - to support the claim that children raised by married gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents.
In fact, the latest report from the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute says that it strongly supports the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt, and urges that remaining obstacles be removed.
"Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes," the report says. "Adoption agencies should energetically recruit gays and lesbians."
I'm sure the hardcore conservatives will just blame "the gay agenda" for the fact that there is no scientific support for conservatives' claims. I couldn't even find one story of a child who suffered abuse or neglect at the hands of gay parents. (Interestingly enough, I did find several antecdotes - and a really right-on comic - supporting a proposed Ohio ban on Republican adoption.)
Virtually every serious child welfare entity, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Psychological Association, recognize that gay parents are as capable - and as loving - as heterosexual ones.
Yet, in spite of all the evidence, 16 states - including Alaska, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee - are now considering laws or constitutional amendments banning gay adoption.
What reasons do legislators give for passing such punitive, spiteful, and anti-child measures? They claim that homosexuals are immoral. They claim that same-sex households are "unstable." They even claim that a family is not a real family unless there are two parents: one husband, one wife (which would mean that roughly 2/3 of all American families, including my own, are not "real" families).
There is no evidence to support any of these claims. Which leads me to believe that the people who oppose gay adoption have never talked to a single child who was raised by a gay person or couple. If they did, they would have to realize how wrong they are.
I'm not the only one who thinks this. Journalist Dahlia Lithwick wrote in a recent article, "To defend the current adoption and custody regimes, then, you need to subordinate the practical and emotional interests of these children to the moral preferences of lawmakers. That is precisely what family law prohibits."
And it is precisely what Helen Lovejoy would insist upon.
www.dailyvidette.com
Helen Lovejoy, a character on the long-running animated satire "The Simpson's," had the right idea. Whenever someone disagrees with your agenda, just loudly claim (or wail) that your opponents are endangering children.
You find a statue of Michelangelo's David offensive? It's harmful to children! You want to prohibit alcohol? Pretend to be concerned about children drinking! Want to use immigrants as a scapegoat for all of society's ills? Of course you do! Anyone who opposes you is practically a child murderer!
And, as the group Catholic Charities of Boston has now taught us, you can even use a fake concern for children to implement measures that harm children.
Catholic Charities of Boston announced earlier this month that it will stop placing children in adoptive homes after a century of doing so, saying it no longer wants to have to consider gay couples as parents, which it must do under Massachusetts law.
In Massachusetts, there are discrimination laws that force adoption agencies to look at all possible parents — a proposition the group says goes against their beliefs. The Vatican has long held that gay adoption is "gravely immoral."
Novelist Brent Hartinger wrote this terse response: "Words fail me. Can the Catholic Church really be this petty?"
Apparently, yes. Apparently, this group - with the full support of the Vatican - would rather see the 119,000 children still waiting to be adopted in this country remain in group facilities than allow two men or two women to raise a child together. They feel gay parents are so immoral and dangerous that 119,000 children would be better off with no parents at all.
Do they have any reason to believe this? Do they have any evidence? There are no studies - in fact, there is no data - to support the claim that children raised by married gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents.
In fact, the latest report from the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute says that it strongly supports the rights of gays and lesbians to adopt, and urges that remaining obstacles be removed.
"Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes," the report says. "Adoption agencies should energetically recruit gays and lesbians."
I'm sure the hardcore conservatives will just blame "the gay agenda" for the fact that there is no scientific support for conservatives' claims. I couldn't even find one story of a child who suffered abuse or neglect at the hands of gay parents. (Interestingly enough, I did find several antecdotes - and a really right-on comic - supporting a proposed Ohio ban on Republican adoption.)
Virtually every serious child welfare entity, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Psychological Association, recognize that gay parents are as capable - and as loving - as heterosexual ones.
Yet, in spite of all the evidence, 16 states - including Alaska, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee - are now considering laws or constitutional amendments banning gay adoption.
What reasons do legislators give for passing such punitive, spiteful, and anti-child measures? They claim that homosexuals are immoral. They claim that same-sex households are "unstable." They even claim that a family is not a real family unless there are two parents: one husband, one wife (which would mean that roughly 2/3 of all American families, including my own, are not "real" families).
There is no evidence to support any of these claims. Which leads me to believe that the people who oppose gay adoption have never talked to a single child who was raised by a gay person or couple. If they did, they would have to realize how wrong they are.
I'm not the only one who thinks this. Journalist Dahlia Lithwick wrote in a recent article, "To defend the current adoption and custody regimes, then, you need to subordinate the practical and emotional interests of these children to the moral preferences of lawmakers. That is precisely what family law prohibits."
And it is precisely what Helen Lovejoy would insist upon.
www.dailyvidette.com
