Prejudice Alive and Well in the 2008 Elections

While the election has been trumpeted as a triumph over prejudice, those declarations are premature. In numerous states, prejudice and discrimination against lesbian and gay people was further institutionalized. Arizona, California and Florida passed bans on gay marriage, while Arkansas banned gay couples from adopting children.

Taken as a whole, these measures seek to further exclude lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people from our definitions of family. Yet a focus on facts has been sorely missing from the arguments against gay and lesbian marriage and adoptions. The national organization, Sociologists for Women in Society, produced a fact sheet on LGBT Parenting and Children (and another on same-sex marriage and civil unions), analyzing three decades worth of research by sociologists, psychologists, and other scholars. Dr. Kristen Joos, author of the fact sheet, concluded that "no evidence exists to demonstrate that lesbians and gays are unfit as parents or that their children are psychologically or physically harmed by having lesbian, Gay, bisexual, or transgender parents." Examining the research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals, there was no evidence found that LGBT parents are any less fit than heterosexual parents; their children grow up to be as well adjusted both psychologically and socially.

Of course people always want to know if the children of LGBT parents are more likely to grow up to become gay or lesbian themselves. The answer is no. However, the more important question is, why are we asking this question in the first place? The question assumes there is something wrong with LGBT people to begin with.

Children of LGBT parents are actually better off than peers raised by heterosexual parents on some measures: they tend to be more open-minded and socially responsible; girls have higher self-esteem and boys are less physically aggressive, and both aspire to a wider array of career goals, outside of traditionally gendered occupations. For example, girls are more likely to seek to become doctors and astronauts. (I think a case should be made for offering gay and lesbian couples incentives to marry and adopt children!)

Are there any negative consequences? The only negative consequences for children of LGBT parents are the product of discrimination. Their families face higher levels of stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and legal obstacles. LGBT couples not allowed to marry are deprived of over 1,000 federal rights that marriage confers, including hospital visitation, tax benefits, joint insurance policies and many more. The reality is that many of these couples have children; they are living together and loving each other as families do. Eliminating marriage rights will not make these families disappear. It will only make their lives and the lives of their children far more difficult and dangerous. If we actually look at the facts, we find that the only difficulties children of LGBT parents are more likely to face are those that result from prejudice and discrimination against their families. Ballot measures like proposition 8 in California, eliminating LGBT marriage rights, will only add to the obstacles these families face.

If we truly value our society's children, we must make the elimination of homophobic oppression a top priority. LGBT adolescents in the U.S. face tremendous discrimination and prejudice. Suicide is the number one cause of death for lesbian and gay youth across the country. Last month, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network released the results of the 2007 National School Climate Survey, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the experiences of LGBT students. The survey found that nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT high school students experienced harassment at school based on their sexual orientation in just the past year, and 60% reported feeling unsafe at school. Their fears are not unfounded: 44% reported being physically harassed and 22% reported being physically assaulted at school in the past year alone.

This climate of hostility limits all students, not just those who are LGBT. In 2005, almost two thirds of all middle school students claimed that homophobic bullying and harassment were major problems at their school. When it comes to safety and our children -- LGBT parents pose no risk. It is heterosexist prejudice, discrimination, harassment and abuse that pose the only real threat.

Comments

[IRepTheKing]

It's a trip that the passing of this law is viewed as a human rights issue. This bill doesn't ban gay couples from being together. I am not even opposed to gay civil unions. I say, "to each its own" on that matter. But "marriage" is an act of faith. Why is it that when a person of faith speaks out to defend his faith, it get under attack, but yet a community that opposes a principle of faith wants to enter (and redefine) something that is in fact an "act of faith". Marriage is/has always been a faith thing. That's why so many are opposed to the idea of redefining it. It has a definition. If you want to be with another man/woman, fine. But marriage is sacred and will always be in this country.

This is not to disrespect the gay community. I have respect for all people. This is not an attack either nor a denial of your human rights. By all means, have as many civil unions as you like. But don't get upset when people of faith aren't ready to allow a redefinition of an "act of faith".

Like I said, I have respect for you regardless of your status, but this was a reflection of people who haven't abandoned this principles of their faith.

[Michale32086]

Sorry.. When you drag religion into it, my eyes just glaze over and I start humming the theme to SWAT...

Daa da da.... daa da da.... da da daaa... da da...
^^^^ Theme to SWAT

This isn't an issue of religious freedom. Those who choose to can call a same-sex marriage whatever they wish to... But to FORCE that definition on others is not proper...

Just as it is not proper for the gay community to FORCE the rest of the electorate to accept THEIR definition.

It works both ways...

In this regard, Prop 8 is a bad idea...

However I still maintain that Prop 8 is a pinprick to the larger issue..

Michale.....

[IRepTheKing]

Whether you hum SWAT or Amazing Grace, the fact remains... marriage is a sacred thing that's become socialized by the secular world. Whether you are/aren't of a faith, this country (and the world actually) abide by their faiths. Ignoring that and humming will not make that go away.

[IRepTheKing]

..also I didn't say this was about religious freedom. I said marriage is an "act of faith". That's it's origin. Therefore, those of us who are with faith regard it sacred and abide by the order in which it exists. YOU can hum a thousand songs and that would still be true. I have no hatred or ill will against the gay community, but they are witnessing the fact that many people (even Democrats like myself) have a sacred regard for what is defined as marriage. For gays to have the same legal rights as any other citizen - I'M FOR THAT. My (and many others) view on this is from a faith standpoint, not a political/legal rights standpoint. Unfortunately for the gay community, this is something that many liberal Democrats apparently agree with.

But again, I want to say again. I have no hatred for gays, but I would have for with this ban.

[Michale32086]

Dan4Equality

}}}
In the case of domestic partnership, it is not only different, but it is not equal. There is no justification for restricting same-sex couples access to a different and lesser institution, except to keep lgbt people in an inferior social position
{{{

And how would defeating Prop 8 had changed that??

Not a darn whit...

Prop 8 is simply one of labeling.. That's it... It doesn't PREVENT any rights, it doesn't TAKE AWAY any rights. It's simply a label..

Let me put it another way...

Postulate a scenario where Prop 8 went further to state that ANY and ALL discrimination at the private, state or federal level would be illegal and grounds for civil and criminal prosecution..

Would you have supported Prop 8 under those circumstances??

Michale.....

[Dan4Equality]

Now that would be a compromise that we may have been able to sign on to. Unfortunately that was not the proposition. Great compromises have been reached in many places - Vermont for one. Many European countries reached solutions that way. This was a not an option with Prop 8 - gays did not put prop 8 on the ballot, so we didn't get to negotiate anything.

Part of the problem with Prop 8 is that the proponents disingenuously claim to support civil unions and other rights for gays and lesbians.

In reality their next step now, which they have already started is to try to eliminate the right for lgbt people to adopt.

Many of these groups in their arguments against gay marriage, claim that gay people should just choose to be straight. The endgame is not some nice arrangement for gays to live in peace. Our opponents will not be satisfied until we don't exist.

[Dan4Equality]

Gotta go - but in short, if you read about the history of gay marriage and how it has worked in various countries - it has usually ended up being a series of compromises - and this is not necessarily a bad thing. This can be a good thing for everyone.

It might have been nice if our fight for equality developed differently, but it developed the way it has, and no one could have predicted this course. I guess this is what we have to work with.

However, it does lgbt no good to settle for being less than equal - and does not serve the cause of justice for people who value justice to advocate for less than that either. We will keep working at it.

Thanks for you supportive thoughts!

[Michale32086]

Well said... I wish you luck in your battle and will be right there to provide whatever support I can.

Michale....

[Michale32086]

AnotherTry

}}}}
Why must I settle for something different?
{{{{
Settle??

It seems to me that you WANT something different. You don't want the traditional form of marriage, you are opting for something different..

You seem to be equating "different" with "bad"....

"Anything different is good."
-Bill Murray, GROUNDHOG DAY

}}}}
If it were a choice and we could all decide between marriage and domestic partnership, I might see your point.
{{{{

Is your relationship a marriage in your eyes?? Of course it is..

So, why do you care what the State Of California thinks it is??

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

CONT

}}}}
Also, the term marriage carries much more respect - I'm sure you noticed the celebrations and weddings and great excitement that surrounded the 18,000 same-sex marriages in CA. When domestic partnership passed there was no such excitement. They are simply not the same in the minds of anyone.
{{{{

Respect-beschmect...

How much "respect" will same sex couples have if they FORCE others who do not wish to, to call their partnership a "marriage"...

The only respect that same sex couples should be concerned about is the respect of their families and friends. THAT is all that is important..

}}}}
The primary issue - why should gay people be treated any less than fully equal. We are not second class citizens.
{{{{

1000% agreed... I simply maintain that this Prop 8 battle is completely irrelevant to the main issue of rights and discrimination. It's as if the gay community wants to FORCE others to accept their relationships as equal to a man/woman marriage..

Which, of course, it is... But you are NEVER going to get EVERYONE to accept it. Especially over the barrel of a gun, so to speak.. You cannot FORCE acceptance..

All you can do is make it so no one can discriminate against you..

Prop 8 is more about the former and nothing about the latter...

Just my opinion..

Michale....

[Dan4Equality]

Whew - I'm glad we agree that gay people should be treated 100% equal. Please, join us in advocating for this as we move forward together towards full civil rights.

[Michale32086]

You have my unquestionable and enduring support in your quest to be considered 1000% equal..

But the battles must be chosen wisely or a backlash is risked..

For example.. Sending white powder to churches who supported Prop 8???

Really REALLY bad idea...

While I am sure that no one here supports such "pseudo-terrorism", the gay community does itself great harm by not completely and unequivocally condemning such actions.

Such condemnation has NOT been evident....

Michale.....

[Dan4Equality]

By the way - I completely agree about family and friend acceptance being the most important thing about a wedding. This is true for me. I had a wedding 17 years ago and its primary significance was to my family and friends signaling that my partner and I were to be a family.

However, we are still left unequal in the eyes of the law, and we do not want to be without full equality in our state (or our country). We want equal protection under the law, as we are entitled to as full citizens. We did marry this June, legally, and even to our friends and family who had attended our wedding 17 years earlier it was very moving and very important to know that our wedding had legal recognition as well as family and friend recognition. It is great also, that my marriage is recognized by my church. I have been working on issues of marriage equality for 17 years. It is very important to me and my husband.

[Michale32086]

I completely understand and sympathize with your predicament.

But Prop 8's defeat would not have had ANY impact on how you are viewed in the eyes of the law.. It's defeat would not have opened the flood gates of rights to the gay community..

I guess where I am confused about all of this is why does it matter what the State Of California calls your relationship?? It doesn't have ANY impact on Federal or Private discrimination.

Whether it passed or failed, the gay community would be EXACTLY where it is right now in the context of rights and discrimination.

"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
-Captain Spock

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@Dan4Equality

}}}
Not true. Prop 8 defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman. It has no effect on Domestic Partnerships which still exist in California.
{{{

That was exactly my point..

}}}}
Domestic Partnerships do not carry all of the rights and benefits of marriage - especially when it comes to Federal benefits. There are more than 1000 rights that are granted to married people and not to same-sex couples.
{{{{

AB205 guarantees all California State Rights to Domestic Partnerships save one..

But again, you are reiterating my point. It's the FEDERAL rights and the PRIVATE INSTITUTION rights that same sex couples need to be fighting for.. Not what the State Of California does or does not want to label marriage.

Put another way.. If Prop 8 had been defeated, would same-sex couples automagically have Federal and Private Institution rights?? No..

So, what's the big deal??

CONT

[Michale32086]

Let's be accurate here.

Prop 8 doesn't ban same-sex marriage. It simply states that the State Of California will not call a Domestic Partnership a "marriage". Big deal..

AB205 guarantees Domestic Partnerships all the state rights that are give to male/female married couples save one..

So what if the State Of California doesn't want to call a same-sex marriage a "marriage".. Sticks and stones and all that other carp..

The REAL fight is to make sure that NO ONE can discriminate against the relationship. PERIOD. Regardless of whether or not California calls it a marriage, a Domestic Partnership or whatever..

The gay community is doing their own cause a world of hurt by using fear-mongering and false claims to bolster their argument.

Michale......

[AnotherTry]

Not calling it a marriage IS discrimination.

Separate is not equal. That is settled law.

[Michale32086]

The "separate but equal" argument fails on two different fronts.

A Domestic Partnership is not a "separate" kind of marriage, but rather a DIFFERENT kind of marriage. There are many different kinds of marriage in the world. A domestic partnership is simply a different kind. As I said, the REAL fight is to make sure that no one can discriminate against that different kind of marriage.

The other failure of that argument is that the SCOTUS ruling in the "separate but equal" issue dealt with facilities. Bathrooms, schools, water fountains, etc etc etc..

There is absolutely no legal precedence to apply the "separate but equal" ruling to the act of marriage or any other actions. To be able to apply that ruling to actions would open up a Pandora's Box of legal ramifications..

Michale....

[Dan4Equality]

Not true. Prop 8 defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman. It has no effect on Domestic Partnerships which still exist in California.

Domestic Partnerships do not carry all of the rights and benefits of marriage - especially when it comes to Federal benefits. There are more than 1000 rights that are granted to married people and not to same-sex couples.

Also, the term marriage carries much more respect - I'm sure you noticed the celebrations and weddings and great excitement that surrounded the 18,000 same-sex marriages in CA. When domestic partnership passed there was no such excitement. They are simply not the same in the minds of anyone.

The primary issue - why should gay people be treated any less than fully equal. We are not second class citizens.

[GG1983]

There's a good explanation of the civil rights issue at http://quasisuspectclass.wordpress.com/.

[AnotherTry]

Why aren't we talking about the big elephant in the room. Obama, who kept quiet during the campaign out of fear of losing, is still silent. How can we believe in his change message if he continues to hang us out to dry?

His silence is deafening. If he doesn't speak up and speak up soon, LGTs should vow right now not to vote for his reelection.

[Robert2664]

As a gay man of mixed race living i Ca. i still want someone to tell me how a chicken and other farm animals get rights.And humans lose rights?

[SolarPowerGuy]

Robert: as a straight white man in a mixed marriage who also lives in California, and who voted against Proposition 8 -- I am at a near-total loss to answer your question.

It may appear intolerant to remark that religion can make people gratuitously unkind, but that's the best I can offer you. Religious people want to own the word "marriage."