Ruth Institute Blog

Are gay people better off because their relationships are now granted the same dignity and legal stability as straight peoples’ relationships? Of course we are! Dr. Morse, are you seriously claiming that the inability of gay people to have access to the social, economic, and psychological benefits of marriage does NOT have a negative impact on gay people?
As for the “mean old Catholic Church,” why on earth should any gay person have sympathy for an organization that calls us “evil” and “disordered,” and has refused to oppose efforts to criminalize us? The Church has never even had the decency to include gay people among the official list of apology recipients for past cruelties. Now, the Church has made the decision that caring for the widow and orphan is a less important biblical imperative than opposing gay people. That’s the Church’s problem, not ours.

You’re missing the point, Alex. First of all, it’s not about you or about individual situations. That is, a gay individual or couple may seem better off when our laws grant them the same protections as it does married people, but are we better off as a society when we tell children they don’t need both a mom and a dad and that who their biological parents are doesn’t matter? I don’t think so. Nor are we better off as a whole when government can intervene and tell a Church it cannot act on either its faith or what it believes to be the best interests of children in providing foster care and adoption services for those children. That’s just wrong.

The incredible thing about our country is that it was founded on principles of protecting individual rights, and not on collectivist ideas about the “common good.” Marriage is, everyone agrees, an institution that makes the people who are part of it healthier, wealthier, and happier–regardless of whether they have children or not. Child-rearing isn’t limited to married couples, nor are married couples required to rear children. Every state in the country, and the federal government, have recognized marriage as a right, and it’s a right because human beings–gay and straight–naturally form romantic relationships, and these relationships are central to an individual’s identity and life meaning. Finally, there isn’t a shred of evidence that the thousands of children currently being raised by gay couples are doing any worse than children raised by straight couples. Of course, such children are harmed by efforts from anti-gay organizations like the Ruth Institute to prevent their parents from being married and having the same dignity and stability of other families.

Karen: “are we better off as a society when we tell children they don’t need both a mom and a dad and that who their biological parents are doesn’t matter? ”

Alex: “ there isn’t a shred of evidence …”

In other words, according to Alex, children DON’T need both a mom and a dad, and who their biological parents are DOESN’T MATTER.

What a cruel and unusual message to send to EVER child, simply to justify your own bias against the opposite sex.

Talk about bigotry.

Does any serious student of history believe the founders of the country were indifferent to “the common good?” The phrases from the Preamble to the Constitution “…a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” document the founder’s concern about the common good. A similar concern for the common good appears in the preambles of state constitutions, e.g. in the case Massachusetts where the phrases “to secure the existence of the body politic…” and “…all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good” appear.

Balancing that, individual rights were and still are critically important, including freedom of religion (“the free exercise thereof”), and the right of popular sovereignty (“the consent of the governed”). These are individual rights the gay lobby seems to forget. Unfortunately, Washington, D.C. has limited sovereignty, and this is a good opportunity to push for statehood for D.C., something long overdue.

As for marriage, if it is primarily about romance, I don’t see a compelling reason for the state to be involved. If marriage is primarily about insurance and similar monetary items, I would argue that some insurance (e.g. health insurance) should be universal and not dependent on marital status, and other insurance (e.g. life insurance) should be based on private contracts. If, however, marriage is primarily about procreation and childrearing, since the state has an obvious interest in preserving the species, then the state has grounds for granting particular concessions or benefits to couples that are naturally capable of procreation and the rearing of their natural offspring.

Leo, you’re right, marriage is absolutely NOT primarily about romance. It is about families and the children that are raised and nurtured within them. Romance is what is NOT dependent on marriage at all. And it absolutely IS the responsibility of government to create laws that protect and benefit that relationship – the only relationship that can produce children naturally.

But, I’m not so sure about giving DC state status. If they’re going to continue behaving like they have been – trying to silence the voters on the issue of gay marriage – I would NEVER allow them to go without the oversight of Congress. Unfortunately, Congress right now is failing to do its job in that regard, but they should and we should hold them accountable for NOT doing their job. We need to insure that situations like this never occur in DC again, where the rights of the voters are stomped on by their so-called elected representatives. What they did was outrageous and they should never be allowed to do this again!

Marty you are misinterpreting Alex’s statement to suit your purposes. As a person who grew up in a single parenthood household for a large portion of my childhood, no, I didn’t need a father. There are thousands of children in single-parent households who do well. There thousands of adopted children who are happy with their adoptive parents, regardless of their gender. For that matter, there are thousands of kids who grow up in traditional two parent households who don’t do well, and do not lead happy lives. There is no reason why children in ANY adoptive household, traditional or gay shouldn’t be allowed access/information to their biological parents, and no one is arguing that. All Alex is saying is that they aren’t disadvantaged by having gay parents.
Everyone on this site seems obsessed with biology. Blood might be thicker then water, but blood isnt what keeps a family together. Love keeps a family together, and it knows no genetic bound.

Re statehood for D.C. I believe that if Washington, D.C. were a state with actual sovereignty, its citizens would become more involved and ultimately produce better governance. In any event, I favor democracy for D.C. on general grounds (“the consent of the governed’).

Re love. Love is a wonderful thing, but can be quite unrelated to families and is not limited to couples. The government can’t legislate love, can’t measure it, can’t tax it, and shouldn’t intervene in it. For government to be in the love business is for government to be in the thought control business.

Re access to information on biological parents. This is a tough issue. Biology may or may not be destiny, but it is a very important part of it. We deny that at our peril. Access to information is generally a good thing, but there are serious privacy rights involved and commitments once made for confidentiality should not be broken without mutual consent or a very compelling reason to do so.

nerdygirl, I hope you whistle when you walk by the family graveyard. It’s easy to say that love keeps a family together, or that you or anyone else doesn’t need a mother or a father or aunts and uncles & babies with their grandmother’s eyes… But these things are a birthright of every child, barring tragedy. They are of a priceless value, and are not so much bound by love, as by duty and honor, sacrifice and respect.

Marty and in case you didn’t notice I also said that every child should have access or at the very least information to their birth parents. There is no reason why they can’t have that and still be raised by their adoptive parents. There is no reason why these children can’t have successful lives, but as someone with single parent and step-parent upbringings, I’m quite tired of hearing everyone prattle on and on about the importance of biological fatherhood. Yes it’s important, but I am no less of a person because he wasn’t around, and neither is anyone else from a non-traditional home. Who raises the child isn’t near as important as HOW the child is raised.

Love is the beginning cause of duty, honor, sacrifice and respect. Where else could these qualities come from if not love?

1 John 4:8 says that God is love. There is no denying the importance of God or love, presumably the source of all good things. I am just saying that government should stay out of the love business, just as it should stay out of the religion business.

Sorry, Leo, but you’re wrong on both counts. Government, while it should absolutely not also be the head of a religion, as in the Church of England, it should absolutely guarantee the free expression and exercise of religion. In that sense, is shouldn’t “stay out of the religion business.” It is also appropriate for government to acknowledge the historical influence that religion has had on its laws and on the establishment of its government. But when you say government should stay out of the love business, I’m really unclear about what you mean. If you mean sex, it is completely appropriate for government to prohibit say, prostitution or the exploitation of children because they are, well, exploitative. So, clarify your point a bit, please.

Let me explain myself, and I think you will find we are in agreement. By stay out of the religion business it should neither establish religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. I think we are in complete agreement there.

By stay out of the love business I mean that love, as a thought or an emotion, is not (like religion, conscience and belief) the proper sphere of government regulation. Actions, however, like prostitution, are an entirely different matter and can be legitimately regulated. We should not confuse “love” with the sex trade. I think we are in agreement there.

My point on both religion and love is that die Gedanken sind frei (thoughts are free) at least as far as government is concerned. We should not have thought crimes.

Nerdy, you are no less of a person because your father wasn’t around, but the fact that he wasn’t around when he should have been is tragic. Either by fault or by accident, you were cheated out of a Dad.

I can only think of a few ways a kid can grow up without a father, and they are all tragic.

Is “because mommy doesn’t like boys” an exception?

My father cheated himself out of fatherhood. I was lucky enough to have an excellent step-father later in life, but I assure you some of the best lessons learned were from my single-mother. Sometimes biological parents are just unfit, and it kinda sucks to hear it touted just how damn fantastic they’re supposed to be and how life just isn’t good enough for a kid without them. I don’t see how having a single mother whose a lesbian would be any different then a single mother whose heterosexual, other of course then other people making fun of the child for it. (and thats not the mothers fault) Like I said in my last post, it’s not WHO raises a child, it’s HOW the child is raised. A child raised in a single household with love and attention will have a better chance at life then a child from a traditional two parent household with disinterest and distance. Whatsmore, just because mommy doesn’t like boys doesn’t mean there isn’t a father or father figure in the childs life, and there’s a difference between mommy being a lesbian (and possibly having two mommies) and mommy being a man-hater. A child needs a parent, mother or father, as long as there is love and communication, it will work out.

So you’re saying yes — it’s perfectly acceptable to deprive a child of a (likely, perfectly acceptable) father, for any reason at all. Including Mommy’s disdain for men.

Nice.

I don’t consider any child with a loving parent deprived. If a child has a loving mother or father, they are not deprived. No matter what tradition says.

Do you actually know any lesbians? Do you actually know any children raised in non-traditional households? Do you have any idea what life is like for someone else?

RIGHT ON NERDYGIRL!! Children do best when the adults in their lives love, protect and support them, and it doesn’t matter one whit what the sex or gender is of those adults. I am currently raising my biological niece with my same-sex partner because my heterosexual sister is a drug addict and the biological father is a low-life who wants nothing to do with the child that he helped to create. As a result of our intervention, this child is now a happy, healthy, confident, normal toddler who knows that she is loved by the two adults in her life. WE are the only parents this little girl has ever known. Wouldn’t it be nice if my niece could benefit from the marriage laws that the children of straight parents enjoy?

Actually, Heidi, it does matter. It matters more than you can imagine. When children find out they are adopted, for example, most often their first questions are “Who are my real mom and dad?” “Why didn’t they love me enough to keep me?” “Are they still alive?” “Do they even know or care I’m alive?” “Can I find them?” “What if I need medical help like a bone marrow transplant that ony a close relative can provide? What am I supposed to do?”

IT MATTERS! When a child is separated from its birth parents – or allowed to be separated by a legal system that cares more about the selfish wants of adults more than it does the needs of children – that child is deprived of everything that bonding and being raised by its real parents can provide. That may be unavoidable in some circumstances, but what we should NEVER do is create laws that intentionally allow a child to be deprived of the opportunity to be loved and raised by its natural parents by someone’s selfish wishes.

It is in that most intimate setting – the natural family home – that children first learn about the differences between men and women from their mom and dad. It’s how they learn to treat and respond to the opposite sex, and that happens in those first few months and years. To intentionally take that away from a child at someone’s whim is shameful! Besides that, we already know the separation rate in gay couples is huge! We don’t have enough data to talk about gay marriage yet in this country, but monogomy and commitment to one person and the family they create isn’t exactly a gay priority. It’s barely on the radar compared to the freedom to choose who you hook up with. I’m sorry, but to put a child in that environment is completely outrageous. It’s why the Catholic Archdioces of Washington DC ceased providing adoption services because they couldn’t seek out and provide the homes they knew to be best for children.