Thursday, April 5, 2012

"Are You Tired of Being Called a Bigot?"! Part II

Continuing our examination of The Ruth Institute's and NOM's "secret weapon":

But not all married couples have children.  How can you say that marriage is about the benefits to children?

9.) This looks at marriage from the adult point of view.  It reveals just how deeply same sex marriage inverts the purpose of marriage.

10.) Look at marriage from a child's point of view.  Not every marriage produces children.  But every child has parents.

Their first point certainly seems to imply, at it's face, that childless married couples shouldn't have the dignity of a state-sanctional or legal marriages.  But, it's second point blames the Gay community for something that heterosexuals have been doing to so-called "traditional marriage" for a long time, and The Ruth Institute has only their heterosexual coevals to blame!  The notion that gay people are, at core, to blame for non-child-centered marital definitions is deeply offensive!   Their tenth argument also belies the presumed fact that children growing up exist in a vacuum impressionable only to their care-giver's teachings and belief systems, and that they will never see--or perhaps will even be confused by the sight of--married adults with no children, or even children with unmarried parents!  ...If I am to play Devil's Advocate for the moment.

11.) Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents.

12.) Every child is entitled to know and be known by both parents.

13.) No child can possibly protect these entitlements on his or her own.

14.) Adult society must protect the child's right to affiliation with both parents.

Okay, this is getting into the realm not of marriage-law, but of family-law, which seems somewhat atypical for a single-focus group such as NOM and The Ruth Institute.  What of the rights of the children of same-sex married couples?  In 2000 Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller conceived a child together, but in 2003 the couple broke up at which point Lisa became an Evangelical Christian.  Albeit Janet had visitation rights, as all parents do with their children, Lisa kept putting road blocks and distance between Janet and her daughter in flagrant violation of the Court's orders.  Finally, Lisa moved out of state to Virginia in an attempt to finally squash Janet's legal ties to their daughter because Gay parents are given no legitimate rights, there; the Vermont Court, however, ruled that Lisa was "an unfit parent" for doing so and immediately granted Janet full custody because Lisa's actions were demonstrably not in the best interests of their child, which sought to end the parent-child relationship between small Isabella and her former spouse.  Lisa then fled the country with her daughter by driving to Canada and seeking a flight to South America with the direct aid of an anti-Gay Evangelical organization.  This egregious and illegal action were, at least in part, orchestrated by one Timothy Miller (no relation), a paster performing missionary work in Nicaragua where Lisa and Isabella lived for a time at a beach house owned by one Phillip Zodhiates, a wealthy donor t Jerry Fallwell's theofascist Liberty University, as well as perhaps by her own attorneys who were employed by the Fallwell's private University.

However, no one seems to be asking: If The Ruth Institute and NOM believe that children have a leal right to opposite-sex parents, would either group ovately support laws that would rip children from the arms of their Gay parents or care-givers?!  I have long-suspected that they would considering how they have phrased much of their early polemics.

15.) Adult society must protect these rights through prevention of harm, not through restitution after the fact.

This point seems to be two-fold:  One the one hand they seem to be suggesting that, within the context of this document, Gay parents are innately harmful (as well as the poor!) to children that are not biologically-related to them; and secondly, that wherever possible children that are conceived must be kept by the couple that contrived to conceive them.

16.) Man/woman marriage is the institution adult society uses to pro-actively protect the rights of all children to affiliation with both parents.

Again, this is historically and culturally fallacious, as I have already highlighted in Part I of this series.

17.) Same sex marriage changes marriage from a  child-centered institution to an adult-centered institution.

No, again, this is laying blame where it does not belong; marriage has long been an adult-centered institution, and it was primarily heterosexual couples that that transformed it thanks to Vegas-style drive-through weddings, Brittany Spear's 72 hour wedding (which was then annulled), the loss of Covenant marriage in place of non-Covenant style marriages in which women were no longer legally responsible to the husband and could not legally sign a contract  for this vast cultural shift that is already severe generations old.  The Ruth Institute and NOM has no one to blame but secular heterosexual society for this, not Gay people!

18.) Without man/woman marriage marriage, there will be no institution specifically protecting the rights of children to be in relationship with both parents (sic.).

Yes there will, the courts have always had a hand in maintaining the rights of children to a relationship with both their parents as per any civil marriage contract.  One cannot blame fears about the future that are certainly not destined to pass on the Gay community and our search for a legal right!

19.) Adopted and foster children tell us they long for relationship with their biological parents (sic.).

This is a rather sweeping generalization that places undue pressure onto the biological parents of an adopted child.  This point dismisses the fact that there was a grounded reason for an adoption to begin with, such as poverty or rape.  Does the Ruth Institute and NOM advocate that children who were conceived because of rape be kept by their biological mothers as living, breathing reminders of that violation?  That is cruel!  And, what of the destitute parent who gives her child away in the hopes that he or she will have a better life?  Also, a great many adopted children have no interest in meeting their biological relations.  Maggie Gallagher's own son, Patric, had no interest in meeting or forging a relationship with his paternal grandmother who knew nothing of his existence!

20.) The law in most states helps adopted children find their birth parents (sic.).

This is superfluous and has absolutely no relationship to the subject of Marriage Equality.

21.) Deliberately conceiving a child with the life plan that he or she will never have a relationship with his or her father is unjust and cruel to the child.

Notice that this question has, at it's core-purpose- the sole intent of censuring any non-heteronorminative family structures such as in vitro fertilization fora lesbian couple or adoption and surrogacy for a Gay couple, as well as even adoption on a more general level.  It's intended t make Gay people look like the bad guys, and innately selfish and directly harmful to the alleged "well-being" of children!

In reading these documents, by consistently hammering home the point of so-called "responsible procreation" (even though such lies outside the purview of civil marriage laws) NOM and The Ruth institute seem to be suggesting that if we can limit the number of unwanted pregnancies and those people that cannot afford to keep their babies, than heterosexuals might just be able to step-up and adopt every child in need of a home, thus leaving none for gay people to parent.  Then, if I may be allowed to read the tea-leaves, if they can impose onto these people and these babies the importance of marriage as establishing the alleged rights of children then they might have a hope for imposing their so-called  "marriage culture", yet.  Diabolical!!!

To be continued...  We have 56 more specious polemics left to examine.

1 comment:

  1. Basically, bigot is political code for "if you don't agree with me then . . . ", this is especially true for liberals/secularists (and certain Christian conservatives as well). Take it in stride but be vocal (in a gentle manner) about why you believe what you believe. There will always be resistance to the truth, especially when lies are dressed up in sympathetic garb.

    ~ Jane of Adam4Adam