Rep. Tim Huelskamp, a Republican from Kansas, authored this article making his case against Gay Marriage…and if you go read it, do yourself a favor and don't read the comments thread. It consists of about five smart people and fifty (from both sides) whose rudeness is in inverse proportion to their knowledge. I think Mr. Huelskamp has lost the battle he's waging but I was especially struck by the degree of misdirection in this paragraph…
The Justice Department argues that children do not need mothers. The Obama administration makes the incredible assertion that motherhood is superfluous to rebut an argument that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, provides the ideal situation to raise a child. In defiance of biology, nature and common sense, the administration argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers or more is just as good as having one of each.
That's about as large a misrepresentation of an opposing viewpoint as I've ever seen. I'm of the opinion that one of the biggest reasons why Gay Marriage has gained so much acceptance the last few years — more than anyone expected — is that folks who were once against it are finally hearing the real case for it. Not long ago, a lot of them were buying into the fear that letting Amos marry Andy would ensure a replay of The Fall of the Roman Empire. Now, they're getting that it's just about whether gay folks will be allowed the same dignity and respect that all human beings deserve. They're also noting that in the states where it's been legalized, locusts are not descending.
The quoted paragraph gets to core of a key point. Huelskamp also argues, "There is overwhelming social science evidence to corroborate the benefits of raising children in homes with both a mom and a dad." Let's say that's so. I mean, there's also overwhelming research that if kids don't have both, they can get along fine. But let's pretend he's right; that having one male father and one female mother is better than anything else.
My question then is: What are Huelskamp and his allies doing to make that happen for kids apart from demonizing gays? We have a huge divorce rate in this country. People vow to stay together 'til death do them part and then eight weeks later, file for separation. One report says 48% of all first births are happening outside of wedlock. If it's so important that every child have two parents, one of each gender, why is no one doing anything to outlaw or even discourage divorce? Why are women who aren't married even allowed to have sex?
The particular argument of Huelskamp's that I quoted really has nothing to do with gays getting married. If his supporting evidence was true, it might be a good case against gay adoption. There's almost no effort to stop that in this country, either. The folks arguing that everyone should conform to their template of a family unit need to explain the following. Why is it that the only thing they're doing to alleviate this great threat they perceive is to try and prevent gay marriages — unions which may very well involve no child whatsoever?