|
||
|
|
||
|
Family Scholars Blog
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
SS COUPLES AND CHILDREN (CONT.): Matt Taylor raises a fundamental issue. I think his recent exchanges with Elizabeth are fascinating and important, in part because they are a model of respectful, serious debate. For that reason, the last thing I'd want to do is jump in with easy answers, because I agree that there are no easy answers, and that the topic itself is painful. OK, enough throat-clearing, you say. My own view is that committed same-sex couples who want children should consider adoption -- there are so many children bouncing around in foster care that desperately need loving homes -- but should not consider using reproductive technologies or other means to create or give birth to a child that is biologically related to one of the two members of the couple. I would say the same thing to an unmarried single heterosexual woman, and for the same reason. It's the reason that Elizabeth has been spelling out in her recent posts. To me, put most sharply, here is the principle: The right of a child to know and be loved by both her mother and father is more important than -- morally more weighty than -- the right of adults who want children to intentionally bring into the world a child who by definition can never know and be loved by both her mother and father. BRAVE NEW VACATION FOR SPRING BREAK: Students offered Australian holiday for their spermAt least the Australian law preventing donor anonymity seems to have a salutory effect on getting sperm donors to think about what they are doing. Once a man is ensured sperm donation not the equivalent of an anonymous one-night stand, he's more likely to think about the long-term consequences. So now sperm banks are forced to bring in foreign fathers. Perhaps donors should also be forced to take legal responsibility for their children. As a child, how would you feel if your father was your father just because he wanted to get a free vacation? MATT TAYLOR REPLIES: It would be callous indeed to question the value of a living child, but actually I had in mind children who are not yet born. Perhaps a better way to ask the question would be, "Do you think it is so hard for kids of gay parents that gays shouldn't have kids?". This question is very real for me, as I don't yet have kids and am uncertain as to the circumstances that would be best for my future kids' well-being. I do not mean to say that the gift of life overshadows all possible pain that children may feel. On the contrary, childrens' experience is the most important factor to consider in making social policy. The problem with respect to gay parenting is to choose the social policy that affects childrens' experience most positively, through its influence on adult behavior. Therefore, I return to my original question: what behavior should be encouraged in gay adults? To have children in a same-sex relationship, to have children in a traditional, opposite-sex marriage, or not to have children at all? Tuesday, December 16, 2025
STIGMAS AND SILENCE: Some have suggested that to oppose SSM � or to suggest that the norm should be two bio parents raising kids, with the exception of adoption � is to participate in the perpetuation of stigmas for the children of gays and lesbians. I�ve been thinking a lot about stigmas. I certainly agree that gays and lesbians and their children face a significant stigma in our society and I would like to see that be eradicated. Maybe SSM would eventually reduce the stigma for these couples and their kids (though I fear SSM could make things first get worse, not better, for the current generation of kids of SS couples). But there�s something else I worry about, a kind of childhood pain that can operate in tandem with or apart from stigmas, and that is silence. When I was growing up in a divorced family (born in 1970) I faced no stigma at all because of my family makeup. In my young lifetime divorce came to be so widespread it was often seen simply as a new norm. I don�t ever remember a single kid teasing me about it and the adults, to the contrary, took pains to say nice things to me about my parents. Yet the lack of a stigma did not make the pain of my family experience disappear. Growing up in a divorced family left me always missing one of my parents, faced with complex moral issues, struggling with loss � stuff I�m writing about in my forthcoming book. And growing up I navigated all of this completely alone, in silence. The adults either did not know or did not care to know how different my childhood was from the one they had known. Their largely well-intended efforts to pretend that my childhood was �just fine� left me to sort out the morass of post-divorce family life completely alone. Here�s my worry: We can confidently say that children of SS couples do just fine without their bio father or mother, and maybe, just maybe, saying it will make it true. But I suspect the reverse is more likely: By confidently stating these kids are fine without a dad or mom without really knowing if it�s true � and when evidence from other family forms suggests that it�s often not true � we might be turning our backs on these kids, denying them a language to express their own experience, and doing to them what was done to us children of divorce over the last several decades. Instead of being willing to affirm what they might be feeling we will leave each of them to grow up, alone, struggling to articulate independently an experience they have no idea they share with other kids, because none of the adults are willing to talk about it. For me, this danger of denying the experience of another generation of kids is the heart of the matter. A TRADEOFF IN SSM? Matt Taylor responds to my suggestion that there is a tradeoff at stake in SSM. I wrote: �I would have much more sympathy for the pro-SSM argument if it faced up to the conflict of interest and said something like this: "�Yes, it is on average a harder way for kids to grow up. But we think the tradeoff is worthwhile given the enormous stakes for the rights and dignity of gay and lesbian adults.�� Matt Taylor replies: I agree with the downside of the tradeoff you have formulated; it's usually harder for kids to grow up with one or more openly gay parents, regardless of the parent's marital status. Such kids will likely be separated from one of their biological parents, and will be subject to ridicule whether the openly gay parent lives in a straight or gay relationship. We also appear to agree, if I understand you correctly, that a gay parent disguising his or her sexuality is ultimately painful for everyone, including the kids. The conclusion: life is harder for kids of gays under any circumstances. I appreciate Matt Taylor thinking carefully about my proposition of a tradeoff at stake in SSM and offering his own version more true to his experience. I respect his version. At the same time, since I began suggesting that children of SS couples might possibly miss their bio father or mother enough people have challenged me with the question, �So, do you think these kids would be better off never having been born in the first place?� that I find myself a little reluctant to accept Matt�s reformulation. Any child who is already here is a gift � the question of whether a living child should have been born seems irrelevant and rather callous to bring up (though I don�t think Matt at all intends it that way � but I sense that others have tried to make me sound callous by raising the question). However, I�m interested in Matt�s feeling that the tough tradeoff here is not adult rights vs. kids� needs, but, if I understand him correctly, a desire to support full flourishing of the kids� lives while recognizing that their lot is admittedly harder in the first place. Yet it seems like Matt has changed the focus a bit. I was arguing that in larger, social terms there is a tradeoff at stake in SSM. He seems to be arguing that in concrete terms, looking at families that already exist, whatever hardships the kids might experience are outweighed by the gift of their birth in the first place. Of course I agree with him. But does a recognition of the fundamental worth and dignity of every child lead us to endorse every possible policy change that affects children? Do we as a society say, well, they have the gift of life, whatever other pain they may experience is not worth focusing on? Again, I don�t think Matt means to suggest that, but I think this quibble is why I find his reformulation if anything less reassuring. A BIT MORE ON STROM: Interesting comments over at The Volokh Conspiracy on the despicableness of Strom Thurmond. It's really a shame this didn't all come out when he was alive, and much younger. What an awful father. He most likely took advantage of his daughter's mother, the family's 16-year-old maid. Then, throughout his life, whether due to racism or rank selfishness, he refused to acknowledge his own daughter, his own flesh and blood. But didn't he at least support her financially, you say? Only in the sense that he most likely paid her to deny that he was her father. He paid his daughter to deny her own father. For over 60 years. And it was his fault that she would have been poor in the first place. Strom Thurmond: an irresponsible, horrible father to the end. CIVIL UNIONS, ANYONE? (MR. PRESIDENT?): In an early transcript released by ABC News [in an interview with Diane Sawyer, to air tonight], the president is reported to have said he supports an amendment "which would honor marriage between a man and a woman." He also says, "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."Is he endorsing the possibility of civil unions? PRIVELEGE OF TWO PARENTS, CON�T Matt Taylor responds to my earlier posts (here and here) on the question of whether it's a privelege (as compared to a birthright, for example) to be raised by your own two parents. His perspective is quite interesting: In your reply to Gabriel Rosenberg, you reject his comparison between children raised by their mother and father and children raised by affluent couples. If I understand you correctly, you find the comparison flawed because non-traditional families result from adult choice, while poverty and lack of education do not. My response: I don't think gay people should marry straight people to have kids (having seen the pain that results for everybody when that happens) nor do I think gay people should somehow be barred from having children. On the contrary, this is why I struggle with nailing down my position on this, because I understand the desire for children very well, and at the same time my life's work, so far, is all about studying children's loss of their father or mother through divorce. I support gay adoption and certainly support gays raising their children that may have resulted from a previous relationship. What troubles me is what I see as a lack of candor when it comes to using radical reproductive technologies to create families. There is a strong civil rights argument to be made in favor of SSM. At the same time, is it just possible that children of gays and lesbians find the lack of their biological father or mother in their homes to be a loss just like other children do? I would have much more sympathy for the pro-SSM argument if it faced up to the conflict of interest and said something like this: "Yes, it is on average a harder way for kids to grow up. But we think the tradeoff is worthwhile given the enormous stakes for the rights and dignity of gay and lesbian adults." I don't think being raised by a SS couple is akin to being raised by abusive or alcoholic parents or anything like that. But I suspect it may be a lot like being raised by divorced or single parents, because of the shared loss of having one's bio mother and father in the same home. And it's the flat out denial, earlier by divorcing parents, and now by gay and lesbian parents, that there could be any problems at all, whatsoever, with this family model that bothers me. "A group of men are accusing judges of gender bias. Fathers Are Parents Too, a coalition based in Lawrenceville, say men don�t get a fair hearing in divorce proceedings in Gwinnett and often have to spend thousands to even see their children." NOT A GOOD DIVORCE: Mr Justice Wall took the unusual step of making his ruling public because it raised points that warranted public discussion ... In this case, the father had accused the mother of child abuse, defamation and perjury. These allegations were "manifestly unsustainable, indeed absurd", the judge concluded. O [the child] had told a social worker during the course of the court battles: "It is like a war. You know they are fighting and they are fighting over me." And in a letter, the boy wrote: "I just want them to be friends. I love them both." His mother had said during one of the hearings that her son had said he did not want to see his father again, but she thought he did not mean it. During a series of hearings the courts had found that the stresses of coping with the parents' divorce and their continued "acrimonious behaviour" towards one another were becoming intolerable for the boy ... He added: "Blaming the system, as the father does in this case, is no answer. He must shoulder his share of the responsibility for the state of affairs he has helped to bring about. All the evidence is that he has proved incapable of doing so" ... O's parents married in 1978 and were divorced in 1998, when their son was six. Contact between O and his father initially took place by agreement but rifts began when the father applied to the courts for increased contact. O was becoming increasingly independent, the court was told, and began to find the visits to his father a burden because he could not use his evenings and weekends to see his friends or go to parties. The judge said the father had mistaken his son's reluctance over visits and telephone calls for evidence that his former wife was trying to drive them apart ... [The father] made accusations against the mother, her solicitors, court mediation services and judges who had previously heard the case. He said he no longer wished to "pursue justice within the family courts" because his human rights were being abused. THURMOND FAMILY ADMITS PATERNITY CLAIM: After decades of denials, the family of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) acknowledged yesterday a claim made by a 78-year-old Los Angeles schoolteacher that she is the senator's mixed-race daughter....Best excerpt: "There was a time that, had it been known, it would have destroyed his political career," said Fowler, who said he had never heard the woman's name until it was published in The Post. "It would have been very damaging to him. It was inconsistent with his public image." (emphasis added)Well, yes, that's one way to put it. Monday, December 15, 2025
An editorial from the Tri-City Herald in Washington state: "Marriage marketing not job for government" The editorial is astonishingly sloppy and uninformed. It suggests that the main component of the Administration's marriage initiative is a pro-marriage ad campaign. Patently false. It suggests that another big part of the program consists of efforts to "make it more difficult for couples to get divorced." Unless they know something I don't know, false again. It says that the program would seek to pressure couples into marrying. Absolutely false. And it also reports that "studies show" that increasing marriage would do little or nothing to reduce poverty. In fact, numerous studies suggest that more marriage would mean less poverty. Attention Tri-City editorial writers: If you want to be against this inititiave, fine. But you owe it to your readers to know what you are talking about. This editorial is a pretty weak outing. DIVORCE LAW REFORM ANYONE? Barry Maley, a senior fellow at the Australian Centre for Independent Studies and author of the new book, Divorce Law and the Future of Marriage, has an essay in (tomorrow's!) Sydney Morning Herald on the injustice of "unilateralism" in divorce. It's worth a read. Maley is a very smart guy -- I met him in Australia a few years ago; he's been working in the marriage vineyards a while -- and to me he makes a lot of sense on this issue, even though, in terms of public opinion, his is clearly a minority view. His essay reminds me of what, on most days, I wish marriage nuts were doing here in the U.S. instead of endlessly debating you-know-what. Clarence Page on SSM: "Don't Like Gay Marriage? Don't Have One." I's a clever line, and it summarizes one of the key pro-SSM arguments out there today: How is a same-sex marriage going to threaten opposite-sex couples? The people who make this point seem very sure of themselves, as if the point is self-evident to anyone not dumb as a tree or blinded by bigotry. But it's not self-evident to me. (If it were, I would be unambiguously pro-SSM.) I recall that lots of advocates made exactly this argument in favor of no-fault divorce in the late 1960s and 1970s: How is letting people who want to divorce going to threaten people who want to stay married? "Don't like divorce? Don't have one." Well, we now know that it's not that simple. Research by Paul Amato, Norval Glenn and others clearly suggests that, in a high divorce society, marriage in general -- everyone's marriage -- is adversely affected. In retrospect, I think this point is pretty clear to everyone, with respect to no-fault divorce. Those old "where's the harm?" arguments from the 1970s seem remarkably naive and simplistic when we look at them today. So I don't see why it's so hard for Clarence Page and others to realize that the relevant scope for our consideration of SSM is not just a discreet number of individual cases, but also the vitality of an institution and the impact of a particular (and arguably rather fundamental) change on a larger social ecology. Don't like crimes? Don't commit one! Don't like litter on the street? Don't litter! It's a valid point. But it is also highly misleading, because it obtusely refuses to recognize other points which are equally valid. STROM THURMOND, UNWED FATHER: It looks like one of America's most notorious segregationists was also an unwed, absent father who never even had the decency to acknowledge his daughter. Of course, Thurmond lacked decency in many spheres of life. He never apologized for his hateful, racist Dixiecrat campaign and continued to blatantly lie about its core aims up to his death. Here's part of what his supposed daughter told the Post: "I did not want anybody to know I had an illegitimate father," said Williams, who has four grown children. "My children convinced me to tell the truth. I want to finally answer all of these questions . . . that have been following me for 50 or 60 years."I've never seen the term "illegitimate father" before, but I like it, at least applied to Thurmond. The term "illegitimate child" is fortunately falling out of use because it stigmatizes a child. "Illegitimate father" shifts the stigma to the adult, where it belongs. At the time of his death, Focus on the Family hailed Thurmond as a "Pioneer Conservative from the South." Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation said that Thurmond was "an important part" of the pro-family conservative movement. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition called Thurmond a "great U.S. Senate leader" who fought for "pro-family conservatives." Oh, the irony. Sunday, December 14, 2025
|
||
