Todd Huffman, writing a Guest Viewpoint in today’s Register-Guard online, has a terrific piece delineating exactly why the “it hurts the children” arguments presented against same-sex marriage are so erroneous and malevolent:
Notwithstanding the complex cultural, moral and religious issues related to same-gender couples and their children, the case for denying same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage – and all its attendant benefits, rights and privileges – cannot and must no longer be defended by claiming the best interest of the child. The child’s best interest is served foremost by attachment to committed, nurturing and competent parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation.
Decades of study have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents. What has been consistently demonstrated is what common sense tells us: that greater stability and nurturance within a family system, irrespective of the parents’ gender, predicts greater security and fewer behavioral problems among children.
While those of us who are gay have often made these same arguments, Huffman’s presentation is eloquent and straightforward, and today’s must read. As he notes, moral and religous arguments aside, “it’s best for the children” is really not scientifically proven. No matter what “scientists” James Dobson decides to hobble forth with next. No, it would seem, from the actual scientific studies, that stability in the home is the most important thing. Of course, those grand old preachers who keep getting divorced and marrying their mistresses don’t want you to know about that. Then they’d have to stop getting divorced. I’ve been with the same man for 14 years, they get a new wife every five or so, and they’re questioning my morality? Whatever happened to “Judge not, lest ye be judged?”
Relatedly, while the Anglican Union continues to fracture over the question of whether or not to bless same-sex unions, perform ceremonies, and even ordain ministers and bishops, the rest of the world watches. And the potential schism of the worldwide Anglican Communion, including the American Episcopal Church (which consecrated openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson last year), looks awfully reflective of the societal struggle taking place within the United States.
In a final statement to bring the six-day meeting to a close, leaders explained that the pledges made by the ECUSA for a moratorium on gay unions and consecrations have been so ambiguous that they have failed to fully mend “broken relationships” in the 77 million-member Anglican Communion.
The ECUSA was told to immediately clarify its position, and should submit its stance by 30th September or face a “damaged” relationship with other Anglican Churches. . .
In 2006, the rift between traditionalists and liberals widened when the ECUSA installed new Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who immediately gave her firm backing to homosexuality in the Church.
Just as heretofore “moderate” politicians struggle to find acceptance with the Religious Right in America, so do “moderate” Anglicans struggle to find acceptance within their Communion. For both, the rift seems to be widening, and a permanent schism seems imminent. I predict a major fracture and restructuring for both the Republican Party, which just now is seeing the folly of letting itself be beholden to any one particular group, and the Anglican church, which has some Primates acting like, well, primates.
As any Lutheran knows, sometimes you have to stand for what is right and nail that message to the church’s front door. (If you don’t know the story of Martin Luther, look it up.) And while gay Anglicans hang in the balance (a literal hanging in so many parts of Africa, where we gays are just sooooo adored) many franchises are standing firm:
“The Anglican Communion can never come to an integrated teaching on human sexuality until it has listened with open mind and heart to our experience and Christian testimony,” the statement continued.
“We subscribe to a high Christian sexual and relational ethic. We object outright to the idea that it is possible to divide our innate sexual identity as lesbian and gay people from what the church insists on calling ‘genital activity’.
“Like heterosexuals we believe the love between two mature adults should be expressed in a faithful, life-long partnership in which sexual expression is integral.”
Or, as my Gramma used to say, “Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.”
Because, as you can see from the response above, progress is indeed being made. I guess someone’s answering my prayers.