SAME-SEX PARENTING: Mike Pignatello replies to Eve

Let's clarify what's at stake with Goodridge by taking a look at another family arrangement that the anti-SSM camp finds unacceptable: the single parent home. First, let's acknowledge that single parent households exist. Okay?

Point #1: If a single, non-married straight parent can raise a child, and a gay, single parent can raise a child, and if we assume that these two children are similary disadvantaged because there is a second parent "missing," then isn't more GAINED by adding one parent--of EITHER sex--to the arrangement? The child now has two parents, not one!

Point #2: Anti-SSM'ers imply that the sexual orientation of a parent doesn't matter in single parenting (-- I assume no one has a problem with gay parents?) -- but, when it comes to TWO parents in a home, sexual orientation suddenly matters. It is, after all, the sexual orientation of the original parent that determines the sex of the additional partner. And because the new parent "role model" in the same sex household is not of the preferred sex, the relationship is therefore undesirable and not worthy of state sanction. So now we're going to penalize the child for the sex of the additional parent (or the sexual orientation of the original parent) by witholding marriage benefits from the family and making it harder (or impossible) for that child to become the legal dependent of the second parent.

How can the anti-SSM camp pretend that this debate is largely about what's best for children? Their arguments always finish with the conclusion that same sex parents will never be sufficient role models for children--and, by extension, cannot be adequate parents--because one of the spouses is of the wrong sex. So because same sex couples can't adhere to the "ideal" that others have established, those couples don't deserve the benefits of marriage that would make their lives, and the lives of their children, more secure.
posted by Eve at 12:59 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home