SOCIETY by Bill MuehlenbergNews Weekly
Homosexual 'marriage'? First, listen to the children
, February 28, 2015
As activist judges, a secular left-wing media, and politically-correct politicians all work overtime to implement the radical homosexual agenda, including homosexual “marriage”, the very people we should be listening to in this debate are being completely ignored and overlooked.
Robert Oscar Lopez
And this is even more important now that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hold a hearing on same-sex marriage in April. As usual, the homosexual activists will get a terrific hearing, as they seek to shout the loudest and drown out competing voices. But it is the children who should be heard here.
Indeed, in all the clamouring for homosexual marriage and adoption rights, one vitally important party to all this is conspicuous by its absence. What about the children? Why do we never consider their needs, rights and concerns? Why is it only the selfish lusts and demands of adults that we consider, but never the well-being of children?
We of course know the answer to those questions. The radical militants don’t actually give a rip about the rights of the child (e.g., to have their own biological mother and father), but only care about themselves, and their destructive social engineering agendas.
Children are simply the abused pawns in the twisted games of adult activists. It is time that they were encouraged to speak up about all this. And some of them are starting to do just that. Children raised in homosexual households are beginning to tell their side of the story, and it is imperative that we listen carefully to them.
Recently, four such adult children have spoken out against the radical agenda of the homosexuals, demanding that their needs and considerations be taken into account.
I have written about some of these brave individuals before. Some, like Dawn Stefanowicz, have even written up their stories into a full-length book. (My review of her book, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, may be found in News Weekly, November 14, 2009).
In recent court testimony in the U.S. she said this in part: “We are often forced to approve and tolerate all forms of expressed sexuality, including various sexual and gender identity preferences.
“As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion. Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licences, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s).
“Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children don’t accept their parent’s partner du jour.
“The special-interest GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] groups and so-called support groups for kids sometimes act, or function, as fronts for a far darker side that silences, intimidates and threatens the children who want to share the truth, allowing only a politically-correct version of our childhoods to be heard.
“These special-interest groups support political and legal objectives toward same-sex marriage, ignoring the horrendous inequality, permanent losses and prejudice to children in the name of adult sexual rights. Children lose forever their rights to know and be raised by their married biological father and mother” (LifeSiteNews, January 13, 2015).
And some, like Robert Oscar Lopez, have told their stories in various articles (for instance, in “A tale of targeting”, First Things, October 21, 2014).
Lopez also gave a court briefing on this. He said: “Children raised by same-sex couples face a gauntlet if they break the silence about the ‘no disadvantages’ consensus. In such a climate, I must conclude that placing children in same-sex couples’ homes is dangerous, because they have no space or latitude to express negative feelings about losing a mom or dad, and in fact they have much to fear if they do” (LifeSiteNews, January 13, 2015).
Another one to give evidence was Katy Faust. She said: “Some adult children with gay parents shy away from making their thoughts about marriage public because we do not want to jeopardise our relationships with those to whom our hearts are tethered. Unfortunately, many gay-marriage lobbyists have made gay marriage the sole badge of loyalty to our LGBT family and friends.
“The labels of bigot or hater have become very powerful and effective tools to silence those of us who choose not to endorse the marriage platform of many gay lobbyists. For much of my adult life I was content to keep my opinions on the subject of marriage to myself. I was (and still am) sickened by the accusation that I was bigoted and anti-gay for my belief in natural marriage.
“For many years those devices kept me quiet. I didn’t seek a venue where I could share my views. But I have come to realise that my silence, and the silence of others, has allowed for the conversation to be dominated by those who claim that only animus, ignorance, or indoctrination could lead one to oppose ‘marriage equality’.” (LifeSiteNews, January 13, 2015).
Faust has just penned a very important article in the Witherspoon Institute’s journal, Public Discourse, on the case against homosexual marriage in light of the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which is well worth quoting from.
She says: “This debate, at its core, is about one thing. It’s about children.
“The definition of marriage should have nothing to do with lessening emotional suffering within the homosexual community. If the Supreme Court were able to make rulings to affect feelings, racism would have ended fifty years ago. Nor is this issue primarily about the florist, the baker, or the candlestick-maker, though the very real impact on those private citizens is well-publicised. The Supreme Court has no business involving itself in romance or interpersonal relationships. I hope very much that your [i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court’s] ruling in June will be devoid of any such consideration.
“Children are the reason government has any stake in this discussion at all. Congress was spot on in 1996 when it passed the Defence of Marriage Act.”
The act stated: “At bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.”
Faust goes on to argue that children have a fundamental right to be loved by their own mother and father: “Like most Americans, I am for adults having the freedom to live as they please. I unequivocally oppose criminalising gay relationships. But defining marriage correctly criminalises nothing. And the government’s interest in marriage is about the children that only male-female relationships can produce.
“Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. It moves us well beyond our ‘live and let live’ philosophy into the land where our society promotes a family structure where children will always suffer loss. It will be our policy, stamped and sealed by the most powerful of governmental institutions, that these children will have their right to be known and loved by their mother and/or father stripped from them in every instance. In same-sex-headed households, the desires of the adults trump the rights of the child.
“Have we really arrived at a time when we are considering institutionalising the stripping of a child’s natural right to a mother and a father in order to validate the emotions of adults?….
“This is not about being against anyone. This is about what I am for. I am for children! I want all children to have the love of their mother and their father. Being for children also makes me for LGBT youth. They deserve all the physical, social and emotional benefits of being raised by their mother and father as well. But I fear that, in the case before you [the U.S. Supreme Court], we are at the mercy of loud, organised, well-funded adults who have nearly everyone in this country running scared.
“Six adult children of gay parents are willing to stand against the bluster of the gay lobby and submit amicus briefs for your consideration in this case. I ask that you please read them.
“We are just the tip of the iceberg of children currently being raised in gay households. When they come of age, many will wonder why the separation from one parent who desperately mattered to them was celebrated as a ‘triumph of civil rights’, and they will turn to this generation for an answer. What should we tell them?” (Public Discourse, February 2, 2015).
Thank God that this courageous quartet (and others) have decided that they must speak out in the interests of defending children, marriage, family and society itself from the ongoing attacks of the militants.
For too long the radicals have been the sole voice heard in these debates. It is time that the children, on whom all this so heavily impacts, get a chance to be heard as well.
Bill Muehlenberg is a commentator on contemporary issues, and lectures on ethics and philosophy. His website CultureWatch is at: www.billmuehlenberg.com
Bill Muehlenberg’s review of Dawn Stefanowicz’s book, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, in News Weekly, November 14, 2009.
Robert O. Lopez, “A tale of targeting”, First Things (Institute on Religion and Public Life, New York), October 21, 2014.
Kirsten Anderson, “‘Quartet of Truth’: Adult children of gay parents testify against same-sex ‘marriage’ at 5th Circuit”, LifeSiteNews, January 13, 2015.
Katy Faust, “Dear Justice Kennedy: An open letter from the child of a loving gay parent”, Public Discourse (Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey), February 2, 2015.
A new study published in the February 2015 issue of the British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science appears to be the largest yet on the matter of same-sex households and children’s emotional outcomes. It analysed 512 children of same-sex parents, drawn from a pool of over 207,000 U.S. respondents between 1997 and 2013.
Results reveal that, on eight out of 12 psychometric measures, the risk of clinical emotional problems, developmental problems or use of mental health treatment services is nearly double among those with same-sex parents when contrasted with children of opposite-sex parents.
The estimate of serious child emotional problems in children with same-sex parents is 17 per cent, compared with 7 per cent among opposite-sex parents, after adjusting for age, race, gender and parent’s education and income.
The study’s author, sociologist Paul Sullins, assessed a variety of different hypotheses about the differences, including comparative residential stability, experience of stigma or bullying, parental emotional problems (6.1 per cent among same-sex parents vs. 3.4 per cent among opposite-sex ones), and biological attachment. Each of these factors predictably aggravated children’s emotional health, but only the last of these — biological parentage — accounted for nearly all of the variation in emotional problems.
The study reveals (that) there is no equivalent replacement for the enduring gift to a child that a married biological mother and father offer. It’s no guarantee of success. It’s not always possible. But the odds of emotional struggle at least double without it.
Biology matters — as new research released this week confirms — and no amount of legislation, litigation or cheerleading can alter that. Whether the high court will elect to legally sever the rights of children to the security and benefits of their mother’s and father’s home is anyone’s guess.
Extract from Mark Regnerus, Public Discourse (Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey), February 10, 2015.