A measure to allow gay couples to adopt won the Senate’s initial approval Wednesday, despite several lawmakers’ objections that the measure is a backdoor attempt to push the “homosexual agenda.”

“This is a remake of the homosexual agenda,” said Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley. “It’s not about protecting children. It is an attack on the traditional family. It undermines traditional marriage structure that we need to keep strong and sacred.”

The Senate approved the bill on a party-line voice vote, with Democrats arguing that the “Second Parent Adoption Bill” isn’t about promoting the gay agenda, but about protecting children being raised by an array nontraditional families.

I will never understand the insane non-argument that allowing MORE people to have loving relationships and help children in need somehow “undermines traditional marriage.” I don’t even think that this Scott Renfroe - whoever he is - actually believes this nonsensical sound bite either. This is all about using people’s worst prejudices to build support for your rotten agenda. It’s sickening.

Thankfully, there are more brave, sane and kind people in the Senate than there are Scott Renfroes.

By the way, I wonder how many children Mr. Renfroe has adopted from bad circumstances or rescued from foster care.

Hmmm…let’s see his webpage. According to it, he has five children, no mention of whether or not any are adopted. He does, however, rather strangely, list his family as a “recreational interest:”

Recreational interests are family, golfing, water and snow skiing, snow boarding, basketball and short term missions

He also is so excited about having the opportunity to discriminate that he puts passing laws against our families as his first priority under his “issues” page:

“I believe life begins at conception, and will vote that way every time, without fail.  This issue is a major priority for me.  And you’ll find me strongly in Congresswoman Musgrave’s camp in banning gay marriage in Colorado and across our nation.”

Of all the issues in the world - providing quality health care to people, ensuring a good education for children, working towards peace or protecting our planet, this man’s MAJOR PRIORITY is making sure that some people he doesn’t care for don’t have the same basic human rights that I’m sure he’d want for his five beautiful children.

And while he is described as an evangelical, his other major concerns include making sure businesses have more rights (”We can’t strangle them by creating new licenses, new backdoor taxing methods, and increased regulations that only hamper their ability to employ and serve Colorado citizens.”), closing the door on people in people in need (” Those who enter our country without permission should not be allowed to collect benefits from Colorado taxpayers and should be deported to their home country quickly”) and making sure everyone has a deadly weapon available to them at all times (”You can count on Scott Renfroe to oppose gun control at every turn.  Maybe that’s why Scott Renfroe has been endorsed by Colorado’s only pro-gun political action committee.”)

I could think of a quite a few ways to contrast any one of these views with those of that peace-loving, money-changer-hating, judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged liberal hippie Jesus, but what’s the point?

People like Renfroe are reading from a political playbook, not the Bible. I just don’t understand who’s buying this crap.

Same-sex weddings are coming out at Disneyland.

Walt Disney Co. said yesterday that gay couples can buy the company’s high-end Fairy Tale Wedding package that allows them to exchange vows at Disney’s theme parks and aboard its cruise ships, starting about $4,000 per wedding.

Same-sex couples have been allowed to use facilities on Disney grounds, such as banquet halls and conference rooms, for commitment ceremonies. But now, same-sex couples have access to the very public elements of the Fairy Tale Wedding plan, which includes a ceremony at one of the parks’ marriage pavilions; Disney costumed characters at the reception; and a ride in a horse-drawn, glass-enclosed carriage through Disney property.

“This is the very logical extension of a business we are already in,” said Leslie Goodman, senior vice president for communications for Disney Parks and Resorts, which operates Walt Disney World in Florida, Disneyland in Southern California and the company’s cruise ships. Disney sells about 2,000 such packages each year, it said. Depending on the couples’ desires, the cost of Fairy Tale Weddings can reach into the tens of thousands of dollars.

Oh, how I long to spend tens of thousands of dollars to marry my husband while dressed as Mulan in front of the gaping tourists at the Magic Kingdom. But could we call it something a little butcher than a “Fairy Tale Wedding?”

Of course, no article about any kind of progress for LGBT people, no matter how innocuous, can be allowed in print unless it quotes someone who hates us. Here’s the ubiquitous umbrage from the radical right-wing:

“I think for years, Disney has reflected the values of America,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which opposes same-sex unions. “Now, I think it could be argued they are trying to shape those values in a very radical way.”

Damn it - the FRC caught us again! Of course the fact that Disney now allows well-off gay people who want to spend their children’s college funds on a crazy spectacle of excess is secretly a plan to convert naturally heterosexual children into raging homosexuals! How did they figure that out?

As an aside, the actor Tony Perkins lived his whole life as a closeted gay man. Do you think FRC’s spokesperson of the same name doth protest too much?

Massachusetts is the only state that recognizes same-sex marriages, the result of a 2003 ruling by its Supreme Judicial Court.

Three other states — Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey — have civil unions that extend marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.

California, Hawaii and Maine have granted various spousal rights to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, all but five states — Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island — have adopted constitutional amendments or statutes banning gay marriage. New Hampshire’s ban is statutory.

The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages, whether performed in Massachusetts or abroad. Congress has twice failed to approve a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage nationwide

The amount of states that have anti-equality statutes and amendments is depressing and shameful, but the fact that any state allows and recognizes some kind of same sex partnership, be it marriage or civil union, is a huge step forward from where we were just five years ago.

So, rejoice! And work hard to make the world a more equal place for our children.

Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, according to a new national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.

The study, published in the new issue of the American Sociological Review, found that couples who adopt spend more money on their children and invest more time on such activities as reading to them, eating together and talking with them about their problems.

“One of the reasons adoptive parents invest more is that they really want children, and they go to extraordinary means to have them,” Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, one of the study’s three co-authors, said in a telephone interview Monday.

“Adoptive parents face a culture where, to many other people, adoption is not real parenthood,” Powell said. “What they’re trying to do is compensate. … They recognize the barriers they face, and it sets the stage for them to be better parents.”

Powell and his colleagues examined data from 13,000 households with first-graders in the family. The data was part of a detailed survey called the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education and other agencies.

The researchers said 161 families in the survey were headed by two adoptive parents, and they rated better overall than families with biological parents on an array of criteria - including helping with homework, parental involvement in school, exposure to cultural activities and family attendance at religious services. The only category in which adoptive parents fared worse was the frequency of talking with parents of other children.

The researchers noted that adoptive couples, in general, were older and wealthier than biological parents, but said the adoptive parents still had an advantage - albeit smaller - when the data was reanalyzed to account for income inequality.

In particular, the researchers said, adoptive parents had a pronounced edge over single-parent and stepparent families.

The researchers said their findings call into question the long-standing argument that children are best off with their biological parents. Such arguments were included in state Supreme Court rulings last year in New York and Washington that upheld laws against same-sex marriage.

The researchers said gay and lesbian parents may react to discrimination by taking extra, compensatory steps to promote their children’s welfare.

“Ironically, the same social context that creates struggles for these alternative families may also set the stage for them to excel in some measures of parenting,” the study concluded.

An opponent of same-sex marriage, Peter Sprigg of the conservative Family Research Counsel, noted that the study focused on male/female adoptive couples, not on same-sex couples, and he questioned whether it shed any new light on adoptive parenting by gays.

Sprigg, the research council’s vice president for policy, said he warmly supports adoption, but believes it is best undertaken by married, heterosexual couples.

Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, welcomed the study’s findings, but cautioned against possibly exaggerated interpretations of it.

“It’s an affirmation that there are all sorts of families that are good for kids,” he said. “Adoptive parents aren’t less good or better. They just bring different benefits to the table. In terms of how families are formed, it should be a level playing field.”

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Spencer Foundation and the American Educational Research Association.

Hmmm, the study says that one of the reason adoptive parents are so great is because “they really want children, and they go to extraordinary means to have them.” Can you think of another group of people who - even when they give birth or build their families through surrogacy - “really want children, and…go to extraordinary means to have them?” Survey says…LGBT parents.

Download the Show.

Today we have a moving and inspiring interview with Robert A. Bernstein, author of Families of Value: Personal Profiles of Pioneering Lesbian and Gay Parents. This wonderful book is described like this by Booklist:

This wonderful book is described like this by Booklist:

With gay marriage in the news, attention has turned to gay parents. Bernstein, author of Straight Parents, Gay Children (1995), here portrays the gay and lesbian parents whose intimate lives he explores as pioneers fighting a cultural battle to change society. Growing numbers of children are raised in gay and lesbian households, he says, with hard-to-access statistics ranging from 1 to 14 million. The family stories he tells embrace a religiously conservative Protestant minister who is the gay father of two, a pair of lesbian policewomen who battled for extension of police death benefits, and a 12-year-old who, renouncing his lesbian mom’s Quaker pacifism, beats up a boy who calls her a “lezzie.” While some stories demonstrate the silver linings of storm clouds, one woman objects that the media light shone on gay families is too often rosy: she recalls a childhood spent in terror of being taken from her gay dad and his partner and of fearing their house would be torched. A strong addition to sociology and gender studies collections.

We also cover the news of the day and the news of my family!

Thanks to HRC for their sponsorship and thanks to you for listening.

Scott

Legislation that would replace Vermont’s landmark civil union law with same-sex marriage was introduced Wednesday at the State House.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Mark Larson (D) and has 32 house members and 10 senators as co-sponsors. “After seven years of civil unions, this is simply the right thing to do,” Larson said in introducing the legislation.

The measure is similar to one Larson put forward last year but failed to gain support.

The legislation, Larson said, would do three things. First, it would give same-sex couples the right to marry. Secondly, it would allow clergy to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage if it violated their religious beliefs. Thirdly it would convert civil unions already performed into marriages.

Good for Larson and the members and senators who are throwing in their support. Civil Unions have had no negative impact at all on anyone in the state. They’ve only served to create more loving families.

Of course, the fact that equality is being achieved on a state-by-state basis does create some problems. My partner and I had a CU when we lived in VT - does this mean we’ll be married if the bill passes? And if down the line, our current state offers CUs or equal marriage rights, will we have to get a divorce in VT? Or will we have two separate marraiges in two states?

Thanks a lot, federal government.

Scott

State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, announced plans yesterday morning to introduce a “marriage equality” bill.

The legislation would not have to be recognized by religious institutions, but proponents say they would afford more rights than civil unions and extend them over state lines.

“We have a chance, yet again, to lift people up,” McDonald said. McDonald and Lawlor are gay.

They were introduced at the event by Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family of Connecticut, the chief proponent of 2005’s civil-union legislation. I love this quote from her:

“Divorce is a threat to marriage. Infidelity, domestic violence and losing your job (are) a threat to marriage,” Stanback said. “Marriage is not a threat to marriage.”

Of course, the usual haters were there to remind us that their version of the Almighty strongly supports discrimination against LGBT people in Connecticut.

Unlike other issues, like property tax reform, Republican Senate leader Louis DeLuca said gay marriage goes beyond policy issues.

“The definition of marriage goes back to Christ,” said DeLuca, R-Woodbury.

DeLuca said, as a married man of 53 years, he is offended by efforts to pass a gay marriage bill and is certain it would not survive a statewide referendum.

I don’t remember the part in the Bible where Christ defined marriage - do you? Of course, he did preach about tolerance, love, charity and the importance of accepting those whom some in society would condemn.

But maybe he defined marriage in the crazy-backwards version of the Bible that Rep. DeLuca reads. I gotta get one of those.

You can read the whole story in Connecticut’s Advocate here.

On the postive side, she did defend herself, and by extension, all LGBT parents. This is from the NY Times:

Today at the panel discussion, inside a stuffy room decorated by portraits of stern-looking former Barnard presidents, Cindi Leive, the editor of Glamour, asked Ms. Cheney if she had anything to say to critics like Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Dobson wrote in Time magazine last month that years of social research “indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.” He also wrote that his group believes that “birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples.” (Two of the researchers whom Mr. Dobson cited in his article have complained that Mr. Dobson distorted

their views and said they disagreed with his conclusions.) Ms. Cheney noted Mr. Dobson’s distortions of the research he cited and added:

“Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years  has shown there is no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents; what matters is being raised in a stable, loving environment.”

On the other hand, when asked about her dad’s harsh reaction to being given a chance to defend her by Wolf Blitzer, she also acted harshly:

Her father became testy last week during a CNN interview when the host Wolf Blitzer asked what he thought of conservatives — specifically James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family— who are critical of his daughter Mary’s pregnancy. In refusing to answer, Mr. Cheney told Mr. Blitzer that he was “over the line.” Ms. Cheney said in a brief interview after the panel that she was not speaking for her father, but that when she saw the interview, she also felt Mr. Blitzer had crossed a line. “He was trying to get a rise out of my father,” she said.

Blitzer’s question was legitimate and sensitively phrased. Does even a kind reference to his daughter’s life get ”a rise” out of him? 

It also worries me that Mary says “This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate, on either side of a political issue. It is my child.” 

Yeah, it’s your kid, and he or she is a blessing, but guess what - you are in a debate, as is every other LGBT parent in America. Our famlies face discrimination, slander and abuse on a daily basis. What makes you unique is that you have a wonderful opportunity to affect that debate and to help change the landscape not just for your child but so many any others. If you take that opportunity, if you resist the temptation to hide behind that wall of privacy and priviledge that your family’s status provides you, maybe 20 years from now when another Vice President’s lesbian daughter has a baby, it won’t be a “political statement.”

But for now, just by virtue of being a gay parent, you are making a statement. The only question for you is — what are you saying?

Well, now I have to eat my words. And I’m thrilled to do so! Now I love, love, love Tony Blair. This is from BBC News:

Downing Street has said there will be no exemption from anti-discrimination laws for Catholic adoption agencies.

But Tony Blair said they would get 21 months to prepare for change, calling this a “sensible compromise”.

Adoption agencies had warned they would close rather than place children with gay couples, saying that went against their beliefs.

The Catholic Church in England and Wales said it was “deeply disappointed” that no exemption had been offered.

The proposed measures are likely to face a vote in Parliament next month before coming into effect on 6 April.

Mr Blair said he believed ministers had found a “way through” to prevent discrimination and protect the interests of children, which all “reasonable people” should be able to accept.

“There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple.

“And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination.”

Can you even imagine an American president standing up to the church like this and saying “There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple.” I got chills reading this simple, declarative comment. And why couldn’t he? His own Vice President’s daughter is going to be a gay mom!

What would it mean for this country if our leader took this attitude to all of our citizens were worthy of basic rights?

I’m just floored.

I love you, Tony!
 

The Church, which thankfully has never suffered any gay abuse scandals or anything, has sensibly decided not to look inward but to project their homophobia outwards. Maybe they figure that since their own repressed priests have so much trouble resisting the charms children, and that since their own leadership has been so comfortable turning a blind eye to it for so long, that all adults are unable to keep their hands off of little kids. How else to explain their extreme refusal to accept the law of the land in the country in which they are based?

This is from a Canadian newsource, CBC news, which sums up the troubles thusly:

Catholic adoption agencies should feel free to reject gay couples who apply for children, without fear of punishment from Britain’s anti-discrimination laws, the church has said.

With backing from the Anglican Church, Britain’s Roman Catholic leaders repeated their call Wednesday for Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration to exempt the Catholic church from Britain’s new Equality Act, due to take effect in April.

Otherwise, the Catholic Church threatened it would shut down its adoption services — which process 32 per cent of all voluntary sector adoptions across Wales and England — shutting out some 4,000 children still awaiting placements.

After all, what are the lives of 4,000 children worth when put against the Church’s right to defame and attack LGBT people? Screw the kids (not literally, of course, although this is the Catholic church we’re talking about…) they figure - let’s screw the gays.

Thankfully, there are some reasonable voices in the debate:

Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer told the BBC Tuesday he did not wish to see Catholic churches close their adoption agencies, but argued that if society disapproves of discrimination against homosexuals, “you cannot give exclusions to people on the grounds that their religion or their race says, ‘We don’t agree with that.’”

Sadly, word is that Tony Blair is leaning towards the church’s side. Another stunningly bad choice from the man who, alone among the world’s leaders, continues to support George Bush’s actions in Iraq.

God save the children from those who act in your name…

But not everyone has been positive. The far right has viciously attacked Mary for bringing a child into this world (see my previous posts for some of the ugliest things they’ve had to say).

Recently, Wolf Blitzer asked the Vice President to respond to the vicious things religious and social conservatives have said about his daughter. Instead of defending his youngest child, Cheney attacked Blitzer for bringing up the subject!

Q We’re out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter Mary, she’s pregnant. All of us are happy. She’s going to have a baby. You’re going to have another grandchild. Some of the — some critics, though, are suggesting, for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family: “Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question of what’s best for children. Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father, doesn’t mean it’s best for the child.” Do you want to respond to that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t.

Q She’s obviously a good daughter –

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I’m delighted — I’m delighted I’m about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf, and obviously think the world of both of my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you’re out of line with that question.

Q I think all of us appreciate — THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think you’re out of — I think you’re out of line with that question.

Q — your daughter. We like your daughters. Believe me, I’m very, very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that’s come up and it’s a responsible, fair question.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I just fundamentally disagree with your perspective.

So, what’s up with the Vice President? Why was it wrong to give him an opportunity to defend his daughter? Why is Cheney criticizing Blitzer, instead of conservatives like Bill O’Reilly, who said that gay parents like Mary Cheney are “taking Mother Nature and…throwing it right out the window?” Or Paul Cameron who said “Her pregnancy is further evidence that participation in homosexual activity distorts value systems, inducing practitioners to harm the commonweal. Our society already has too many children born without the benefits of marriage; Cheney’s action is not only a bad example, but poor treatment of an innocent child?” Or James Dobson who wrote “With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father?” Or Robert Knight who said ” “I think it’s tragic that a child has been conceived with the express purpose of denying it a father?”

As a parent myself, I don’t understand how Mr. Cheney doesn’t defend his daughter against attacks like that.

Nor do I get why he’s mad at Blitzer for discussing his daughter in a totally sympathetic light.

If I were Mary Cheney, I’d be devasted by my father’s actions. I’m so sorry for her. I hope she offers her child unconditional love and that she stands to defend him or her against attacks like the ones she’s suffered.

One way in which people do that is by adopting their partners. It seems odd to think of adopting another adult with whom you have an intimate relationship, but in some cases, it does give partners the rights of inheritence, ownership and other legal protections that they wouldn’t otherwise have.

Of course, this workaround brings its own problems. 365Gay.com reports on this story from Maine, where millions of dollars are at stake:

In 1991 Olive F. Watson used the law to adopt her partner of 14 years, Patricia A. Spado. Even though the couple lived in Connecticut Watson owned a summer home in Maine.

Watson was the daughter of former IBM executive Thomas J. Watson Jr., who was the CEO of the company from 1956 to 1971 and built it from a small cash register maker to a computer giant.

Now Watson, Spado and the Watson estate are battling in court over whether Spado is entitled to a share of the late Thomas Watson’s estate.

When Watson adopted Spado there were no same-sex partnership agreements in the country and Watson believed it would provide Spado with security if anything happened to her.

But a year later the couple broke up.

When Thomas Watson’s widow died in 2004 his fortune went into a trust and her 18 grandchildren became eligible to receive income from two trusts until they turned 35, at which time they would receive the principal outright.

Several months later a lawyer representing Spado notified the trust that there was a 19th grandchild, Spado, and that she also was entitled to a share of the trust.

A probate court in Connecticut where the will was filed ruled that Spado was not a grandchild and not entitled to any month. The decision is now on appeal in the state’s superior court.

What a mess! Had Watson and Spado had equal rights, Watson could have protected her partner through marriage and dissolved that marriage through a divorce. Another example of how discrimination hurts everyone.

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE

January 14, 2007: Today I talk to Jen Chrisler, the wonderful, articulate and passionate executive director of The Family Pride Coalition.

We chat about Mary Cheney (of course), and I make a strong pitch for you to support Family Pride. They do such wonderful work – will you consider making them a part of your giving in 2007?

Speaking of giving, I mention on the show a relevant article in the NY Times about what makes people happy. Here’s an interesting quote:

Positive psychology brings the same attention to positive emotions (happiness, pleasure, well-being) that clinical psychology has always paid to the negative ones (depression, anger, resentment). Psychoanalysis once promised to turn acute human misery into ordinary suffering; positive psychology promises to take mild human pleasure and turn it into a profound state of well-being. “Under certain circumstances, people — they’re not desperate or in misery — they start to wonder what’s the best thing life can offer,” says Martin Seligman, one of the field’s founders, who heads the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Thus positive psychology is not only about maximizing personal happiness but also about embracing civic engagement and spiritual connectedness, hope and charity. “Aristotle taught us virtue isn’t virtue unless you choose it,” Seligman says.

See? Giving to Family Pride will make you happy!

And while you’re at it, don‘t forget to contribute to the nation’s largest LGBT organization, HRC. They do so much for our community; let’s do for them, too.

Thanks to HRC for their sponsorship and, as always, thank you for listening.

The curriculum, titled “Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality,” explains concepts like sexual identity and orientation using nonjudgmental language.

Students in eighth grade are taught to recognize healthy relationships, and how to define human sexuality, gender identity and other terms. Students in 10th grade receive a more robust curriculum, including an examination of topics like coming out. It also asks students to consider the challenges a transgender student might face.

It wasn’t a total win - sadly, the school district omitted some “controversial” passages that would have made life a lot easier for some LGBT youth, including mentions “that most health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, and that gays can live happy and successful lives. ”

Obviously, just because these statements are demonstrably true doesn’t mean they should be taught to our children.

Of course, life is all about balance and while we didn’t get everything we want, neither did the haters.

Although the final vote was unanimous, the discussion was not always amicable. (A) proposed amendment — to clarify that homosexuality is not a disease — was vehemently opposed by board member Steve Abrams, who said the addendum was a “deal breaker,” and proposed that students likewise be told about a recent study that showed “homosexual behavior between animals can be changed.”

What kind of person would object to children being taught that homosexuality isn’t a disease? I can’t think of anyone, not even the most right-wing religious conservatives out there, who claim that it is.

And if it is a disease, is it contagious? Like bird flu? Should straight people be wearing hazmat suits when getting their hair done or meeting with an interior decorator? Or can you catch it by watching Project Runway? Why isn’t the CDC looking into this?

And what about his claim that there’s a study somewhere that shows that homosexuality among animals can be changed? Is this through religion, as the reparative therapists claim? Do nelly poodles or butch bulldogs relinquish their sinful ways through a relationship with Jesus? I want to know.

Has anyone else seen or heard about this study, or does it only exist in the mind of Mr. Abrams?

Actually, in the end Mr. Abrams said “I think the balance that was reached was an appropriate one and a good one, at least for starters.” 

See, he can be reasonable. Now, if only he hadn’t put on the surgical mask everytime a gay person testified at the hearing…

Disappointingly, Massachusttes lawmakers moved closer to letting the public vote on whether or not we deserve basic civil rights. This editorial in the Boston Globe takes them to task.

Meanwhile, California courts say we deserve to be treated as equal citizens, an opinion they don’t share with the Governor.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer points out that since a growing number of people support our rights to defend our nation in the military, why don’t they support our marriage rights, too? “So now that we’re considering letting homosexuals in on our big, national sacrifice,” the article concludes, ”maybe we can also let them get married. Just an idea.”

Don’t ask John McCain, who Vanity Fair reports, has been inscrutable. Here’s an exerpt from the article, in which he’s apparently vying for the Most Craven Politician of the Year Award. His politically motivated pandering at the expense of our families is just tragic.

It is three weeks before midterm elections that will prove to be a decidedly mixed bag for McCain. His party will experience the electorate’s repudiation of the war in Iraq, which McCain has always supported, and at the same time the voters will repudiate the cozy and corrupt Washington culture as a whole, which McCain has always loathed. Matthews wants to know McCain’s views on the prevalence of gay people in all walks of life, a subject whose predicate is the scandal involving Representative Mark Foley and his come-hither instant-messaging with congressional pages. “Should gay marriage be allowed?,” Matthews asks.

“I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that,” McCain answers, searching in vain for the less loaded phrases he knows are out there somewhere, such as “commitment ceremony” or “civil union.” “I don’t have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union between man and woman.” It may not be clear just what McCain is trying to say, but it’s easy to see how his words could be skewed in a direction that the Republican right might not like at all.

Fast-forward to the next commercial break, during which McCain and Matthews reposition themselves from the stage to the auditorium floor to take questions from the students. McCain’s longtime political strategist, John Weaver, a lanky, laconic Texan, moves in to whisper some advice. The next question is about the pending federal farm bill, and McCain repeats his long-standing opposition to certain agricultural subsidies.

But then, out of nowhere, he adds, “Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies, that’s fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.” There: he said it, the right words for his right flank. It might seem that this audience, the sons and daughters of a socially conservative and culturally traditional bellwether state, would accept, if not approve of, what McCain has just declared. But they are the Wi-Fi wave of the future, and they can smell a pander bear as surely as they can a hog lot. They erupt in a chorus of deafening boos. “Obviously some disagreement with that last comment,” McCain says tightly. “Thank you. It’s nice to see you.”

Moments later, McCain remounts the stage for the program’s final segment, and he bores into Weaver, standing quietly in the wings, with a cold look that seems to mingle irritation at Weaver’s whispered advice with regret that he took it, and demands, almost hisses, “Did I fix it? Did I fix it?”

]]> http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/01/09/gay-marriage-in-the-news-and-the-frighteningly-spineless-mccain/feed/ Scott Sherman January 7, 2007: Lots of news on the marriage front. Disappointingly, Massachusttes lawmakers moved closer to letting the public vote on whether or not we deserve ... January 7, 2007: Lots of news on the marriage front. Disappointingly, Massachusttes lawmakers moved closer to letting the public vote on whether or not we deserve basic civil rights. This editorial in the Boston Globe takes them to task. Meanwhile, California courts say we deserve to be treated as equal citizens, an opinion they don’t share with the Governor. The Seattle Post Intelligencer points out that since a growing number of people support our rights to defend our nation in the military, why don’t they support our marriage rights, too? "So now that we're considering letting homosexuals in on our big, national sacrifice," the article concludes, "maybe we can also let them get married. Just an idea." Don’t ask John McCain, who Vanity Fair reports, has been inscrutable. Here’s an exerpt from the article, in which he’s apparently vying for the Most Craven Politician of the Year Award. His politically motivated pandering at the expense of our families is just tragic. It is three weeks before midterm elections that will prove to be a decidedly mixed bag for McCain. His party will experience the electorate's repudiation of the war in Iraq, which McCain has always supported, and at the same time the voters will repudiate the cozy and corrupt Washington culture as a whole, which McCain has always loathed. Matthews wants to know McCain's views on the prevalence of gay people in all walks of life, a subject whose predicate is the scandal involving Representative Mark Foley and his come-hither instant-messaging with congressional pages. "Should gay marriage be allowed?," Matthews asks. "I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that," McCain answers, searching in vain for the less loaded phrases he knows are out there somewhere, such as "commitment ceremony" or "civil union." "I don't have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union between man and woman." It may not be clear just what McCain is trying to say, but it's easy to see how his words could be skewed in a direction that the Republican right might not like at all. Fast-forward to the next commercial break, during which McCain and Matthews reposition themselves from the stage to the auditorium floor to take questions from the students. McCain's longtime political strategist, John Weaver, a lanky, laconic Texan, moves in to whisper some advice. The next question is about the pending federal farm bill, and McCain repeats his long-standing opposition to certain agricultural subsidies. But then, out of nowhere, he adds, "Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies, that's fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal." There: he said it, the right words for his right flank. It might seem that this audience, the sons and daughters of a socially conservative and culturally traditional bellwether state, would accept, if not approve of, what McCain has just declared. But they are the Wi-Fi wave of the future, and they can smell a pander bear as surely as they can a hog lot. They erupt in a chorus of deafening boos. "Obviously some disagreement with that last comment," McCain says tightly. "Thank you. It's nice to see you." Moments later, McCain remounts the stage for the program's final segment, and he bores into Weaver, standing quietly in the wings, with a cold look that seems to mingle irritation at Weaver's whispered advice with regret that he took it, and demands, almost hisses, "Did I fix it? Did I fix it?" No No http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/01/02/happy-new-year/ http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/01/02/happy-new-year/#comments Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:18:41 +0000 Scott Sherman General http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/01/02/happy-new-year/ January 1, 2007: Happy New Year to all my LGBT familes and their friends!

 May 2007 find all famlies able to share the love and diversity that we exhibit in ours.

xoxox

Scott

]]> http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2007/01/02/happy-new-year/feed/ Scott Sherman January 1, 2007: Happy New Year to all my LGBT familes and their friends!  May 2007 find all famlies able to share the love and diversity that ... January 1, 2007: Happy New Year to all my LGBT familes and their friends!  May 2007 find all famlies able to share the love and diversity that we exhibit in ours. xoxox Scott No No http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/30/bill-oreilly-to-gay-parents-let-them-eat-cupcakes/ http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/30/bill-oreilly-to-gay-parents-let-them-eat-cupcakes/#comments Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:34:12 +0000 Scott Sherman General http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/30/bill-oreilly-to-gay-parents-let-them-eat-cupcakes/ December 29, 2006: A few years ago, a friend of mine who was a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Journalist’s Association paid me a wonderful compliment.  He told me that Bill O’Reilly had recently made a presentation to the group.  He said that O’Reilly told the audience that while he had been undecided about whether or not gay people should have children; a recent article he read in Newsweek had convinced him that LGBT people could make good parents.  

The nice thing about it was that the article was written by me. You can read it here.

Well, it’s 2006, and not only is O’Reilly no longer a fan of gay parenting, but he’s become completely unhinged. How else to explain his comments in a recent interview with the wonderful Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride (also present for the interview was journalist Norah Vincent):

CHRISLER: Yeah. You know, look, the reality is — is that research’s been done, and — and there is 30 years of that research, and it’s incontrovertible. There is no deficit.
Children do equally as well when they have two moms and two dads, or whether they have a mom and a dad, and if you’re really concerned –
O’REILLY: Well, that’s your story, but you know the Family Research Council and all the other have all the other data that says that is not the case, that there is a — something missing in the emotional realm, but I don’t even want to get into that. Nature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum, does it not?
CHRISLER: No, because the reality is they’re bad dads and bad moms, and they’re are –
O’REILLY: The nature doesn’t dictate that.
CHRISLER: You know –
O’REILLY: So what you’re saying to me is that a lesbian couple and a gay-guy couple are just as equipped to raise a child as heterosexual parents? That’s what you’re saying?
CHRISLER: Absolutely. Yeah, without a doubt –
O’REILLY: No difference.
CHRISLER: — because love –
O’REILLY: No difference.
CHRISLER: — stability, commitment, kindness, caring, values, morals, discipline, guidance, that’s what really makes good parents, and if we want to be worried about what we’re going to talk about here, we should talk about what are the qualities of a parent that really make a difference for a child, and that’s what it is.
O’REILLY: All right, well, I disagree with you. I’m going with nature. I’m going with — [free-lance journalist] Miss [Norah] Vincent, I’m going with — I’m throwing in with Mother Nature here and I’m going best-case scenario, dad and a mom. Am I a bigot?
VINCENT: No, you’re not a bigot for saying that, but nature is procreation, and we’re talking about something cultural called parenting.
O’REILLY: No, I’m talking about raising kids. I’m talking about — I know there are bad parents –
VINCENT: Well, there’s nothing inherent in biology –
O’REILLY: — and I know there are good gay parents. Absolutely, all right?
VINCENT: OK.
O’REILLY: But I’m talking optimum, best for the kid, having a mom and a dad. Are you going to call me a bigot for that?
VINCENT: Not at all, no. It’s a legitimate preference.
O’REILLY: Are you going to, Miss Chrisler, call me a bigot for that?
CHRISLER: Nope, I’m just going to call you wrong –
O’REILLY: Wrong.
CHRISLER: — which you are. So –
O’REILLY: You know, why wouldn’t — why wouldn’t nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake? You know? You know, you just throw –
CHRISLER: Well, we’d have –
O’REILLY: You take Mother Nature.
CHRISLER: We’d have a lot of people, wouldn’t we?
O’REILLY: You know the old commercial — don’t fool around with Mother Nature? What you’re doing is you’re taking Mother Nature and you’re throwing it right out the window, and I just think it’s crazy. I really do. And that’s not based on religion or morals or — Annie [sic], you’re a good person, Norah’s a good person. All right? But it’s just that you say, “Hell with nature — the hell with it. We’re going to do what we want. It’s just as good. And you guys are crazy.” And that’s what you’re saying.

Hey, speaking of “crazy” Bill – you’re nuts!  Not only do you constantly interrupt your guests, not only do you dismiss the vast majority of credible research which proves that children raised by same-sex parents suffer no ill effects, and not only do you keep referring to “Mother Nature” as if you watched those Parkay commercials one too many times as a kid and now you’re fixated on an imaginary figure, but you somehow manage to work cupcakes into the discussion.

Cupcakes!

It reminds me of when the killer of Harvey Milk trotted out the “Twinkie Defense” as a justification for why he murdered his victim.  This is the “Cupcake Argument.”

And can you prove that O’Reilly’s wrong?  It’s undeniably true that no one can get pregnant by eating a cupcake, right? So then, doesn’t it stand to reason that it’s wrong for two parents of the same gender to raise a child together in a loving home? I mean, isn’t that connection as clear as day? 

It is to Bill O’Reilly.

Maybe he should read my article again. Or have a cupcake. 

BTW, I took the above transcription from Media Matters here. They make some excellent points, including these:

In fact, the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and the Child Welfare League of America, among others, have all noted that credible scientific data shows that children suffer no harm from being reared by same-sex parents.
For instance, as Colorado Media Matters has noted (here and here), the American Psychological Association (APA) concluded in a 2005 study of lesbian and gay parenting that “[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” The study also found that “the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

 

]]> http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/30/bill-oreilly-to-gay-parents-let-them-eat-cupcakes/feed/ Scott Sherman December 29, 2006: A few years ago, a friend of mine who was a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Journalist’s Association paid me ... December 29, 2006: A few years ago, a friend of mine who was a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Journalist’s Association paid me a wonderful compliment.  He told me that Bill O’Reilly had recently made a presentation to the group.  He said that O’Reilly told the audience that while he had been undecided about whether or not gay people should have children; a recent article he read in Newsweek had convinced him that LGBT people could make good parents.   The nice thing about it was that the article was written by me. You can read it here. Well, it’s 2006, and not only is O’Reilly no longer a fan of gay parenting, but he’s become completely unhinged. How else to explain his comments in a recent interview with the wonderful Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Pride (also present for the interview was journalist Norah Vincent): CHRISLER: Yeah. You know, look, the reality is -- is that research's been done, and -- and there is 30 years of that research, and it's incontrovertible. There is no deficit. Children do equally as well when they have two moms and two dads, or whether they have a mom and a dad, and if you're really concerned -- O'REILLY: Well, that's your story, but you know the Family Research Council and all the other have all the other data that says that is not the case, that there is a -- something missing in the emotional realm, but I don't even want to get into that. Nature dictates that a dad and a mom is the optimum, does it not? CHRISLER: No, because the reality is they're bad dads and bad moms, and they're are -- O'REILLY: The nature doesn't dictate that. CHRISLER: You know -- O'REILLY: So what you're saying to me is that a lesbian couple and a gay-guy couple are just as equipped to raise a child as heterosexual parents? That's what you're saying? CHRISLER: Absolutely. Yeah, without a doubt -- O'REILLY: No difference. CHRISLER: -- because love -- O'REILLY: No difference. CHRISLER: -- stability, commitment, kindness, caring, values, morals, discipline, guidance, that's what really makes good parents, and if we want to be worried about what we're going to talk about here, we should talk about what are the qualities of a parent that really make a difference for a child, and that's what it is. O'REILLY: All right, well, I disagree with you. I'm going with nature. I'm going with -- [free-lance journalist] Miss [Norah] Vincent, I'm going with -- I'm throwing in with Mother Nature here and I'm going best-case scenario, dad and a mom. Am I a bigot? VINCENT: No, you're not a bigot for saying that, but nature is procreation, and we're talking about something cultural called parenting. O'REILLY: No, I'm talking about raising kids. I'm talking about -- I know there are bad parents -- VINCENT: Well, there's nothing inherent in biology -- O'REILLY: -- and I know there are good gay parents. Absolutely, all right? VINCENT: OK. O'REILLY: But I'm talking optimum, best for the kid, having a mom and a dad. Are you going to call me a bigot for that? VINCENT: Not at all, no. It's a legitimate preference. O'REILLY: Are you going to, Miss Chrisler, call me a bigot for that? CHRISLER: Nope, I'm just going to call you wrong -- O'REILLY: Wrong. CHRISLER: -- which you are. So -- O'REILLY: You know, why wouldn't -- why wouldn't nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake? You know? You know, you just throw -- CHRISLER: Well, we'd have -- O'REILLY: You take Mother Nature. CHRISLER: We'd have a lot of people, wouldn't we? O'REILLY: You know the old commercial -- don't fool around with Mother Nature? What you're doing is you're taking Mother Nature and you're throwing it right out the window, and I just think it's crazy. I really do. And that's not based on religion or morals or -- Annie [sic], you're a good person, Norah's a good person. All right? But it's just that you say, "Hell with nature -- the hell with it. We're going to do what we want. It's just as good. And you guys are crazy." And that's what you're saying. Hey, speaking of “crazy” Bill – you’re nuts!  Not only do you constantly interrupt your guests, not only do you dismiss the vast majority of credible research which proves that children raised by same-sex parents suffer no ill effects, and not only do you keep referring to “Mother Nature” as if you watched those Parkay commercials one too many times as a kid and now you’re fixated on an imaginary figure, but you somehow manage to work cupcakes into the discussion. Cupcakes! It reminds me of when the killer of Harvey Milk trotted out the “Twinkie Defense” as a justification for why he murdered his victim.  This is the “Cupcake Argument.” And can you prove that O’Reilly’s wrong?  It’s undeniably true that no one can get pregnant by eating a cupcake, right? So then, doesn’t it stand to reason that it’s wrong for two parents of the same gender to raise a child together in a loving home? I mean, isn’t that connection as clear as day?  It is to Bill O’Reilly. Maybe he should read my article again. Or have a cupcake.  BTW, I took the above transcription from Media Matters here. They make some excellent points, including these: In fact, the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and the Child Welfare League of America, among others, have all noted that credible scientific data shows that children suffer no harm from being reared by same-sex parents. For instance, as Colorado Media Matters has noted (here and here), the American Psychological Association (APA) concluded in a 2005 study of lesbian and gay parenting that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." The study also found that "the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."   No No http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/27/the-gay-parenting-show-29-the-vice-presidents-daughters-baby-and-ellen-kahn-from-hrc/ http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/27/the-gay-parenting-show-29-the-vice-presidents-daughters-baby-and-ellen-kahn-from-hrc/#comments Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:03:40 +0000 Scott Sherman General Podcast http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/27/the-gay-parenting-show-29-the-vice-presidents-daughters-baby-and-ellen-kahn-from-hrc/ The Gay Parenting Show #29: The Vice President’s Daughter’s Baby and Ellen Kahn from HRC (71 mins, 25MB)

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE

December 26, 2006: After eating a lot of humble crow for my looooong absence from the show, I talk about Mary Cheney and interivew Ellen Kahn, from the HRC Family Project.

It’s so embarrassing, but because of the show’s hiatus, the interview with Ellen is a Back to School Special! Airing in December! Can you ever forgive me?

Thanks to all of you for listening and to HRC for their sponsorship!

Scott

]]> http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/27/the-gay-parenting-show-29-the-vice-presidents-daughters-baby-and-ellen-kahn-from-hrc/feed/ Scott Sherman The Gay Parenting Show #29: The Vice President's Daughter's Baby and Ellen Kahn from HRC (71 mins, 25MB) LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE [audio:http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/audio/tpn_gay_20061226_029.mp3] December 26, 2006: After ... The Gay Parenting Show #29: The Vice President's Daughter's Baby and Ellen Kahn from HRC (71 mins, 25MB) LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE [audio:http://gayparenting.thepodcastnetwork.com/audio/tpn_gay_20061226_029.mp3] December 26, 2006: After eating a lot of humble crow for my looooong absence from the show, I talk about Mary Cheney and interivew Ellen Kahn, from the HRC Family Project. It's so embarrassing, but because of the show's hiatus, the interview with Ellen is a Back to School Special! Airing in December! Can you ever forgive me? Thanks to all