HEY LOOK, IT'S AN ONLINE CHAT WITH JONATHAN RAUCH!

He's everywhere you want to be. Some excerpts:

Grand Rapids, Mich.: My only hesitation toward gay marriage is something I never hear discussed. That is the possible negative effect it might have on a heterosexual child being raised by two homosexuals. Have there been any studies that address this issue?

Jonathan Rauch: Well, one thing to remember is that marriage and adoption/child custody, though related, are separate issues.

I believe all states allow single-parent adoption, for instance. You don't have to be married at all, much less straight-married, to adopt kids.

But to address the question...It's controversial. There's a fair amount of research, but it's a long way from definitive. Some people say it shows that children raised by same-sex couples do just as well, other people say there are some questions outstanding.

My take is that we don't yet know whether a same-sex couple can be considered optimal parents. But:

1) We'd certainly know by now if they were rotten parents, because we have lots of grown kids raised by gay couples. And any problems they have are hard to find. Which tells you that if being raised by a same-sex couple is a disadvantage, it's only a small one. (Unlike being raised by a single parent, where, statistically speaking and just on average, disadvantages are not hard to find.)

2) We don't require straight couples to be optimal in order to marry or raise kids. And we shouldn't require that of gay couples.

I think adoption/custody decisions should be made case-by-case, with the interest of the child (not the parents) foremost.

Which means that neither gay couples nor single parents nor less-than-optimal straight couples nor anyone else should be automatically ruled in or out.

Washington, D.C.: In my own personal opinion, allowing gays to marry would send a terrible message to the children of America. First, it is already hard enough to explain, much less guide or direct "sexuality" amongst kids today, mostly because of media imagery. Now you want to confuse them even more with "Mommy, why does Johnny have two daddies?" While I defend the right of gays to "be gay," I beleive that this "alternative" (notice I don't say "deviant" or some other negative term) sexuality should not be "promoted". Surely you recognize that heterosexuality is the natural order of humanity, so how can you not see that it would be detremental and confusing to children for gays to be allowed to marry (and for that matter, to adopt), forcing the issue to have to be explained to kids who aren't likely to be able to comprehend. I've always been a liberal Democrat -- perhaps you would call me conservative on this issue. However, I do not hate, or discriminate against gays -- I just have a problem with the wholesale "promotion" of homosexuality, homosexual "rights," and such. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks.

Jonathan Rauch: I don't think it's a question of "promotion." I think it's a question of civil and legal equality.

I believe that homosexuality is perfectly natural for homosexuals, just as heterosexuality is perfectly natural for heterosexuals. It's not like millions of people wake up at age 13 and decide to be gay for the fun of it. Homosexuality is statistically rare--like left-handedness--but it is natural. Here we are, after all.

It is something of a disadvantage that gay couples are infertile. But no one draws a perfect hand in life. And we don't go around denouncing other people who face particular disadvantages in life. We don't denounce diabetics for needing insulin, and say that giving it to them "promotes diabetes."

(No direct equation of diabetes and homosexuality intended. Illustrative purposes only.)

The only result of denying marriage to gay people will be to make many of them miserable. How can that be in anyone's interest?

And, ending where I began...I believe in the golden rule. I don't know of any straight people who'd impose upon themselves or other straight people the burden of going through life without any prospect of marriage. They wouldn't tolerate that for a minute. So that burden shouldn't be imposed upon gays. ...

Springfield, Va.: I agree with you that in America marriage is a combination of legal status and socital perception.

For most of society that percenption includes a religious connotation. Every day people all over the country are looking for the perfect church to get married in. And for the most part will never see the inside of one again.

For myself, I considered the legal aspect over when we went to the courthouse to get our license. But didn't consider us married until the service in our everyday church.

The easiest answer is if we could somehow go back in time and change so the legal union did not, and could not, involve a church, taking away a minister's ability to preform a legally binding ceremony. Then everyone would get married at the courthouse and then go to their church if they wanted their union "blessed".

Unfortunately we can't do that so the issue is complicated and not easily solved.

Jonathan Rauch: Marriage is a hybrid. It combines social and legal elements in a way that nothing else does.

Marriage would lose much of its bonding power--the power that fortifies rather than merely ratifies relationships--if it became a government license and nothing more than that.

So it's better to keep the social and legal elements in harmony to the extent we can. Which will mean starting out with gay marriage in places where it enjoys substantial social support. I.e., Massachusetts, Oregon, or California--not Texas or Virginia.

Takes time, but there are no shortcuts.

As Frost (?) said: The only way out is through.

more
posted by Eve at 9:49 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home