New York Times political columnist and former arts commentator combined his past and present in Sunday's column on homosexual marriage, "Two Weddings, a Divorce and ‘Glee’." My comment:
"Glee" is great. My devout Mormon Republican spouse and I (empiricist Democrat) have watched every episode and love the show.
That said, it should be obvious to objective observers (including homosexual ones)--that the best parents you could hope for are a stable, loving heterosexual couple with no biases against homosexuals--if all other things are equal.
That way both boys and girls get appropriate role models, both for their gender and for interacting with the other gender.
I suppose homosexual babies might well be better off with homosexual parents, role model-wise, but we can't diagnose homosexuality at birth. Not yet, at least. And at any rate, homosexuality is perhaps 1% of the population (despite inflated claims by homosexual advocates), for what should be obvious biological reasons.
But--and it's a big but--all other things are often not equal. For example, my heterosexual parents [both long dead now] were an abusive drunk and a deadbeat. You expect a child who's had a tough day can go home, sit in mommy's lap (or daddy's) and be comforted. I never had that experience.
If you took Psych 101 in college, it's like I had the wire mother in
So in my case I believe I'd have been better off with two same-sex parents, if they were stable and loving etc. What kind of role model was my deadbeat dad? If I'd had a sister, what kind of role model would my drunken, cursing mother have been?
And for many kids the real alternative is a succession of foster homes instead of a homosexual couple.
So I agree with the traditionalists--Ozzie and Harriett would be better parents than Steve and Manny. But Steve and Manny trump what I got.
The only people who could disagree with this are religious zealots who believe homosexuals chose homosexuality because they worship Satan.
Certainly it's not the sex. No child wants to see or hear the slightest whiff of sex from any parent, regardless of sexual orientation. Virtually all children are innately revolted by their parents' sexuality towards each other (I'm not talking about pedophelia). Stable, normal (yes, normal) homosexual parents are just as discreet about their sexuality as heterosexual parents are. Duh.
So we should give stable, loving, unbiased heterosexual parents priority for adoption. But we all know there are far more kids available for adoption that that covers. Otherwise there'd be no need for every state's extensive foster care system.
So once the heterosexual parent pool is exhausted, homosexual parents should be considered preferable to foster care.
And anyone who disagrees with me about this must not know anything about foster care--or believe that Homosexuals are Satan worshipers.
But that leaves us with the marriage issue.
And there I may have a compromise everyone should find acceptable.
Let government get out of the religion business. Allow all religions to marry whoever fits their rules, and refuse to marry whoever doesn't. There are plenty of churches glad to marry homosexuals, after all.
Then let government deal with the civil aspect of marriage. Call it civil union. Make it available to any two people (sorry, I draw the line at polygamy and polyandry--it's innately unequal and also, in our culture, unstable). Have it govern childrens' wellbeing, hospital visitation rights, community property rights, and union dissolution protocols.
This doesn't discriminate against or regulate religions. And even today you need a marriage license to get married, regardless of what religion you may or may not use for a ceremony.
I propose keeping it that way. Just call it a civil union license instead of a marriage license. The word "marriage" has a religious aspect, and I see no reason not to leave it that way.
After all, homosexuals can live together today, and adopt or bear children in nearly all states. The only problems come if they break up or one of them lands in the hospital or dies or whatnot. It seems a matter of simple decency--and in the best interests of any children--for the state to provide a legal framework for those things.
Just don't call it marriage. For anyone.
And after all, heterosexual couples can get married in any religion they might belong to (except Shakers or Essenes, I guess).