Whether it meant to or not, the National Organization for Marriage just demonstrated how callous the organization is when it comes to children living in same-sex households:
This is what NOM's blog says about the matter:
Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains why marriage should not be redefined because some same-sex couples are raising children:
"Very few same-sex couples are raising children. According to the Williams Institute, only 22% of same-sex couples are raising children. Many if not most of those couples involve children from a previous heterosexual relationship. The census bureau shows only 0.55% of all U.S. households are households of same-sex couples. Only 0.12% of U.S. households are same-sex couples raising children."
Beginning at the 1:14 mark in the video, Yanta sums up the coldness of NOM's anti-marriage equality campaign with this statement: "Why should the definition of marriage that has served us so well be redefined for the 99.88 percent of households in order to accommodate the desires of the 0.12 percent?"
First, let's get that question out of the way. Protecting same-sex families in no way redefines the marriages of heterosexual families, nor does protecting same-sex families cause harm to heterosexual families.
I'm just struck by the basic callousness of Yanta's statement. I refuse to argue whether or not her points are accurate, because it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many same-sex families raising children exist in America. Shouldn't these families be treated equally as heterosexual families? Not according to Yanta, and definitely not according to NOM. According to their reasoning, because same-sex families are not as numerous as heterosexual families, they don't deserve protection under the law. To Yanta and NOM, these families and their children don't matter.
This is a contradiction of the statements made by former NOM head Maggie Gallagher during a congressional hearing last year. Remember when she said that "there are some gay people who are wonderful parents"? So Gallagher concedes that some gays make wonderful parents, but according to her organization they don't deserve protections for their partners, and especially not for their children. Is this a new Christian ethic, one that values families not based on the love and support they give but based on the number of them that exist?
It's an ugly thing to ponder, especially when one remembers the Biblical story of the lost sheep. According to the Gospels of Matthew (18:12-14) and Luke (15:3-7), Jesus told a story of a shepherd who left his flock to find one lost sheep because he cared about that one lost sheep as much as he cared about those 99 others. The shepherd did not say, "Forget that sheep. It's just one, and I have 99 others." No, the shepherd looked for that sheep until he found it.
The point is that we all have value, and that value is defined not by the number of us who may exist but by the fact that we exist, period. And that's a value that needs to be upheld. It doesn't matter how many same-sex families raising children exist in this country. They count just as much as heterosexual families raising children. And they should be treated with the same amount of fairness, because it is the right thing to do.
A truly ethical and Christian organization would know this. But what does NOM know about true Christianity and true ethics? No matter how much NOM tries to deceive us, the organization's mask always seems to fall off, showing its true, ugly face.
How will Donald Trump’s first 100 days impact YOU? Subscribe, choose the community that you most identify with or want to learn more about and we’ll send you the news that matters most once a week throughout Trump’s first 100 days in office. Learn more