From the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown:
Not long ago, I sent you an email hinting that NOM was getting ready to launch some major initiatives. Well, after participating in the March for Life last Friday, I am excited to announce that NOM is putting together a March for Marriage.
It will take place in Washington DC on March 26th — the day the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case. You can go to www.MarriageMarch.org and sign up for information and alerts today. . .
When I wrote you about some of NOM’s plans, I was boarding a plane to go to France to spend a week in Paris, offering whatever support and advice I could to the organizers of their recent marriage rally. I had the privilege of being in that town and witness ONE MILLION people gather to tell their government: “Children have a Right to A Mother and Father; Don’t Redefine Marriage!”
And, I have to say, it was incredible!
I was proud to march with pro-marriage brothers and sisters of every background — Catholics, Christians, Muslims and Jews; even some gay individuals who are against gay marriage! — all marching for a single, united purpose: to defend the commonsense truth that marriage is a unique union of a man and a woman, because children need their mother and father.
Thomas Peters, communications director of NOM, offered me this comment:
This is a tremendous opportunity to show our support for our most important social institution: marriage between one man and one woman.
It’s also a chance to exercise our core civil rights in defense of marriage, including freedom of speech, which would be threatened if laws protecting marriage were to be struck down by the Supreme Court and the false notion that pro-marriage beliefs are rooted in bigotry and animus is allowed to gain legitimacy.
January 28th, 2013 | 6:24 pm
That last sentence is crucial. The focus needs to be on the traditional, sacramental nature of marriage, not on contesting the morality of homosexuality.
While Catholic teaching holds that only homosexual behavior, and NOT homosexual orientation, is sinful, groups from across the spectrum of monotheism (including some Catholics) may bring signs and placards portraying countervailing sentiment. If this happens, the mainstream media will seek to portray the March as nothing more than a gay-bashing event, and the pro-marriage message will be lost to the public consciousness.
January 28th, 2013 | 8:03 pm
My fervent hope and prayer is that all dioceses avail themselves of the excellent materials in defense of marriage from Catholics for the Common Good, http://www.ccgaction.org .
Marriage is the only Institution that unites Children with their Moms and Dads—Protect It!
January 29th, 2013 | 11:56 am
Jim T.- it isn’t the government’s place to enforce what some religion may or may not consider sacremental. Under legal equality, the churches each retain their First Amendment rights to view marriage ini whatever sacremental terms they wish. They just can’t force those views on the rest of society.
January 29th, 2013 | 11:58 am
“It’s also a chance to exercise our core civil rights in defense of marriage, including freedom of speech, which would be threatened if laws protecting marriage were to be struck down by the Supreme Court and the false notion that pro-marriage beliefs are rooted in bigotry and animus is allowed to gain legitimacy.”
Every time there’s an advancement in gay rights the religious right screams about how their free speech rights are going to be abrogated. And yet every time said advancement in gay rights passes, they go right on speaking against gay rights. Why, precisely, will this time be different?
January 30th, 2013 | 12:50 pm
@Boo. The advances do infringe our rights. Because the government says it is legal, it becomes suddenly illegal for us to NOT recognize their homosexual arrangement. We have already seen in Canada cases of pastors being commanded not to preach the Gospel view. In American individuals have been sued and forced to serve homosexual “weddings,” since to not accept them as clients is “discrimination.” The gay lobby is not looking for “live and let live.” They want to force everyone to condone and participate. It is sad, really, their need for approval.
January 30th, 2013 | 2:17 pm
Anita- part of living in a free society is accepting that other people with whom you may not necessarily agree about everything exist and happen to share that society with you. It is unfortunate that Canada does not have the free speech and freedom of religion protections that the U.S. does, but the First Amendment protects churches here from being told what they can preach or who they have to marry. In fact that was the exact argument that many in the religious right were making in the U.S. when the debate was over adding sexual orientation to hate crimes laws. They claimed pastors were going to be dragged out of their pulpits for preaching anti-gay sermons. The law passed, and… no one was ever dragged out of their pulpit.
And yes, businesses, which exist as public accomodations, serve the public. There are still many people in this country whose sincere religious beliefs tell them that race-mixing is a sinful behavior, yet they still have to serve customers of other races or risk breaking the law. Having to treat other people equally under the law is not a violation of your rights.
January 30th, 2013 | 5:52 pm
Boo,
The bottom line is that marriage needs to protected from being redefined in order to protect children from the severe psychological deprivation and harm of being deliberately deprived of a father or of a mother. Read the literature on the harm caused by fatherlessness in children and multiply that by a factor of 100 in regard to severe damage done to children deliberately deprived of a secure attachment relationship with a mother.
January 30th, 2013 | 10:13 pm
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons- I have read the literature which clearly describes children raised in two parent families as being better off than children being raised in single parent families. That is one reason I support marriage equality- to ensure that same sex parents raising children are both legally bound to those children.
January 31st, 2013 | 10:09 am
I don’t understand the argument about children. Is it my understanding that the only people allowed to have children are married couples? What about single women? Will we be forcing them to marry someone they don’t love for the sake of the children? If children are the main focus of a marriage, then why do we permit divorce? Why not persecute people who fornicate outside of marriage?
January 31st, 2013 | 3:48 pm
Social science research has repeatedly demonstrated the vital importance of the role of the father and the mother to the healthy development of children. Numerous research studies have demonstrated the serious risks to children raised without a mother or a father. Mothers and fathers bring unique gifts that are essential to the health of a child.
Mothers’ Unique Talents
Among the many distinctive talents that mothers bring to the parenting enterprise, three stand out: their capacity to breastfeed, their ability to understand infants and children, and their ability to offer nurture or comfort to their children.
Social science studies have documented the vital role of the mother in child development. Numerous studies indicate that infants and toddlers prefer their mothers to their fathers when they seek solace or relief from hunger, fear, sickness, or some other distress. Mothers tend to be more soothing. Mothers are more responsive to the distinctive cries of infants; they are better able than fathers, for instance, to distinguish between a cry of hunger and a cry of pain from their baby. They are also better than fathers at detecting the emotions of their children by looking at their faces, postures, and gestures.
Children who were deprived of maternal care during extended periods in their early lives “lacked feeling, had superficial relationships, and exhibited hostile or antisocial tendencies” as they developed into adulthood.(1.) Clinical experience would indicate that the deliberate deprivation of a mother to a child, motherlessness, while not studied as extensively as extensively as, causes even more severe damage to a child because the role of the mother is so crucial in establishing the child’s ability to trust and to feel safe in relationships. All cultures of the world recognize the essential role of the mother in child development…
January 31st, 2013 | 7:33 pm
Boo,
Several research studies demonstrates the importance of gender complementarity to the healthy development of children.
In a well designed study of 174 primary school children in Australia with 58 children in married families, 58 in heterosexual cohabitating and 58 in homosexual unions, married couples offer the best environment for a child’s social and education environment, followed by cohabiting couples and finally by homosexual couples.(1.)
In a study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that “children in same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers in married, 2-biological parent households on two academic outcomes, and that these differences can be attributed to higher levels of family instability in same-sex families, compared to intact, biological married families. This study was also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey of school-age children; moreover, the same-sex parents in this study lived together.(2)
A 2012 study from the University of Texas found that young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex relationships were more likely to suffer from a range of emotional and social problems.(3)
1.) Sarantakos, S. (1996) Children in three contexts. Children Australia, 21(3), 23-31.
2.) Potter, D. 2012. “Same-Sex Parent Families and Children’s Academic Achievement.” Journal of Marriage and Family 74: 556-571
3.) Mark Regnerus. 2012. “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.” Social Science Research 41:4
January 31st, 2013 | 10:29 pm
Dr. Fitzgibbons- It is well known now that Regnerus goosed his data to get the results he wanted. The journal’s own internal audit admitted his paper was severely flawed and should not have been published. He carefully teased out children raised from birth by intact biological families from all other family forms for straight parents, but children who had any parent who ever had a gay relationship were all lumped together under his gay parents category regardless of their other circumstances. This is clearly comparing apples to oranges. The other studies were criticized for failing to take into account the fact that same sex parents are disproportionately likely to have children by adoption or from previous heterosexual relationships. Legalizing same sex marriage would cut down on the number of gay people entering into opposite sex marriage, and children needing adoption exist whether gay people adopt them or not. I know of at least one instance where a researcher accused you of deliberately misrepresenting her work (a charge which seemed to me amply demonstrated). I suggest you not dig yourself deeper in this area.
February 1st, 2013 | 10:03 am
Boo, your response is bordering on the ridiculous. I admit that each of these studies is flawed. Yet, the following entire corpus of research is tragically flawed: the research trying to desperately show that same-sex adult caretakers are as good as one mother and one father in a stable relationship. There is not one credible study showing equivalence of same-sex parenting with one mother and one father parenting. Boo, where is your critique of this useless corpus of false knowledge? You then talk of legalizing same-sex marriage as if all is well. I repeat: Not one study has supported same-sex unions as being as effective as one mother and one father. Finally, your accusation that one researcher claims that I misrepresented her data is patently ridiculous. Readers, the context to this distortion is this: I gave a fair interpretation of data and the author has another interpretation. So what? An author cannot be the final determiner of the quality of his or her own work. The peer review process takes that out of any author’s hand. Boo, you distort the truth for your own gain. We need to stop the attempts to redefine traditional marriage and protect children.
February 1st, 2013 | 10:46 am
Dr. Fitzgibbons- My claim is that gay people, as people, deserve equal rights. You contest that with the claim that gay couples make inferior parents. You need to support that claim but have no credible data to do so. And your claim that there are no studies showing same sex couples to be as effective parents as opposite sx couples is a flat out lie. The Regnerus study, in fact, shows just that. The two kids in his study that were actually raised by same sex couples turned out just as well as the kids raised by intact biological families.
I notice you failed to state exactly what your “fair interpretation” of Sirota’s study was. I know what it was. You know what it was. Are you willing to admit what it was so other readers can judge for themselves? Or should I?
February 1st, 2013 | 11:51 am
Here are the research findings about the risks of SSA parenting from the author’s abstract that I have cited.
In a study of 68 women with gay or bisexual fathers and 68 women with heterosexual fathers, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The women (average age of 29 in both groups) with gay or bisexual fathers had difficulty with adult attachment issues in three areas: 1) They were less comfortable with closeness and intimacy, 2) less able to trust and depend on others, and 3) experienced more anxiety in relationships compared to the women raised by heterosexual fathers (and mothers).
Sirota, T, (2009) Adult Attachment Style Dimensions in women with Gay or Bisexual Fathers. Arch. Psych Nursing, 23: 289-297.
February 1st, 2013 | 2:11 pm
Dr. Fitzgibbons- and, as you and I both know, you left one rather important detail out:
The fathers in that study were married to the mothers.
That is not a study of the outcomes of being raised by gay couples, it is a study of the outcome of being raised by a mixed orientation marriage. You are comparing apples to oranges. It is one thing for scholars to disagree on interpretation of data. It is quite another thing and much rarer, as you well know, for one scholar to accuse another of misrepresenting her work.
Let me ask you a very simple question: should purportedly scientific claims about what the studies show on the fitness of gay couples to raise children be based on studies of gay couples raising children? Yes or no?
I, I ought to note, am in agreement that it is a bad idea for gay men to marry women. That is one reason why I support marriage equality.
February 1st, 2013 | 4:55 pm
No, Boo—-no. Do you know why? It is because the SSA lifestyle is notoriously fluid. That’s what the research shows. Follow the logic and weep: It is the SSA people themselves who choose to sometimes partner with someone from the opposite sex, then someone from the same sex, and on it goes. This is especially the case for women. Do you know who is creating the apples and oranges? Right! The SSA people themselves. So, Boo, the confusion of apples and oranges is not my doing. It is the doing of the SSA groups. Readers, SSA lifestyles are fluid (tending to go from a man to a woman and back again) statistically more so than heterosexual couples. Would you want children raised in this chaos? Boo, I can see that you just don’t get it. Please stop pushing for a policy you clearly do not yet understand.
February 3rd, 2013 | 1:28 pm
Dr. Fitzgibbons- You don’t back up bare assertions with more bare assertions.
I repeat my question: should purportedly scientific claims about what the studies show on the fitness of gay couples to raise children be based on studies of gay couples raising children? Yes or no?
February 4th, 2013 | 12:01 pm
Boo, your lack of insight is overshadowed only by your sense of trying to rigidly control this communication. You did not respond to anything I have written and what I have written is based on sound science. Obviously, the attempt to redefine marriage and thereby deliberately harm children by depriving them of a mother or a father cannot be defended from psychological science.
February 4th, 2013 | 6:47 pm
Note to the moderators- why don’t you just admit that you reserve the right to censor comments that do not conform to the agenda this site is pushing? It’s certainly your right to do so, and it would be more honest.
February 6th, 2013 | 1:34 pm
Dr. Fitzgibbons- I have responded by pointing out that what you are writing is merely empty assertions which you seem unable to back up. And the psychological profession is on my side.
February 6th, 2013 | 5:59 pm
Boo,
A wisdom greater than psychological science may be helpful here, specifically Pope Benedict’s on understanding the vital complimentary of a husband and a wife that is for the healthy development of a children.
Pope Benedict has described the “male genius” and the “female genius” in The Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church. He wrote in regard to the “male genius” that, “Greater distance from process of gestation and birth enables him to act more calmly on behalf of life; he acts to protect life and guarantee its future; he is a father in a physical and spiritual sense and he is called to be strong, firm, reliable and trustworthy.”
In describing the “female genius,” he wrote, “She has a special capacity to show love, a delicate sensitivity to the needs of others, a special capacity for the other and understanding of inner conflicts in others.”
February 6th, 2013 | 7:08 pm
A sample size of two, Boo, is not a scientific study. Boo hoo.
February 7th, 2013 | 2:41 pm
Dr. Fitzgibbons- I never said it was. I said you can’t back up your claims. A point you continue to make for me.
February 7th, 2013 | 2:42 pm
A’s Letters- the pope’s religious assertions are neither here nor there.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact