Tuesday, April 14, 2015

PS, Katy Faust: You are irrelevant (even at Witherspoon)

Opus Dei Cross
On Tuesday Katy Faust, marriage discrimination advocate, has yet another post on Witherspoon Institute's blog. This one titled “PS, Justice Kennedy: Same-Sex Marriage Isn’t Good for Kids.” Faust offers the same nonsensical rhetoric that we have become so familiar with. According to Ms. Faust:
Earlier this year I wrote you a letter, “Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent.” My letter has now been quoted (and criticized) by the Family Equality Coalition (FEC) and COLAGE (Children of Lesbian and Gays) in the amicus brief they have filed in support of same-sex marriage. The brief is filled with quotations from children with gay or lesbian parents asking the court to redefine marriage for the entire country so that their two moms or two dads could get married.
I hate to pile on but the anti-gay rhetoric of National Organization for Marriage (and Witherspoon Institute) spouted by someone who was raised by gay parents is still the anti-gay rhetoric of National Organization for Marriage. It is also preposterous. Simply stated a child being raised by a gay couple is better off if that couple is married.

Among other things, marriage creates a marital estate which provides a legal and economic structure for any children that the couple might raise. Then there are the intangibles. The child of a married couple is probably going to feel more secure than having unmarried parents. These things seem unrebuttable.

Faust just repeats the religion-based gibberish: “… the government’s interest in marriage is children, and the historic basis for marriage has been a procreative relationship.” She is right about one thing. The interest of the state is the children. This is usually defined as the care of children in the event that the marriage dissolve or one spouse dies. US v Windsor was all about how the government treats a surviving spouse. The decision becomes even clearer if you consider that others in Edie Windsor's position might have children to take care of. It is abundantly obvious that children being raised by gay couples are disadvantaged by the state if their parents are prohibited from marrying.

What these complainers have in common is that these are children of divorce (we don't seem to be hearing from adopted kids). It is the divorce (and the attendant religious opprobrium) that makes people like Ms. Faust angry and irrational. I suspect that, according to Faust's “logic,” it is the acceptability of (forbidden) homosexual unions that created the divorce in the first place. The reality is probably quite different. If she lacked a relationship with her father it wasn't because she was being raised by two lesbian. Rather it was because her father chose to be absent from her life.

Instead of writing amicus briefs and pointless polemics, these folks need good therapists — secular therapists.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.