How My Lesbian Boss Makes Me a Better Father
Why Straight Parents Need to Take a Strong Stand Against Prop 8
A short while after my son was born, my wife brought him into the office to meet my co-workers. My wife was still nursing. My infant son was hungry and my wife was going to breast feed him in my crammed office. Within seconds of learning this, my boss cleared everyone out of the comfortable lounge where we entertain high-profile clients, magically pulled her old nursing pillow out of a nearby closet, and immediately put my wife at ease. I stood in amazement as I watched the scenario unfold. My boss looked at me and said, "Don't just stand there, get her a glass of water." I never forgot the glass of water again and it was the first of many lessons my lesbian boss has taught me about how to be a better father.
There was another time my boss walked in on the nervous phone argument I was having with my wife over whether or not we were going to vaccinate our child. She stopped what she was doing, led me into her office where she promptly whipped out the paper equivalent of the Warren Commission report on pros and cons of childhood vaccinations.
I could list dozens of similar examples of the parental wisdom that has been passed down from my boss. She and her wife are super-moms. You would be hard pressed to find parents who love their kids as much or who are as actively engaged in the well-being and development of children. When my wife and I wrestle with the millions of choices parents wrestle with, we often look to the decisions made by other parents we respect as a guide. Kelly and Linda would be at the top of that list. If there is one thing fatherhood has taught me, it is that good parents help make other parents good. And very often we straight Dads can use all the advice we can get.
For all of my boss' advice, it's witnessing the love she gives her kids that is a constant reminder of what it means to have your priorities in the right place. Her two daughters are in the office all the time. Even with a high-power position, she rarely misses a parent-teacher night or a school auction. Her office has a floor to ceiling cork board with all of her daughters' artwork and photographs. I've been to her house -- like mine, it has been taken over with the kids' toys, save for a tiny office reserved for the parents' stuff. My wife and I and our kids see their family at the Sunday morning farmers market, at a local pancake place, at swim lessons. Save for gender, our lives are virtually the same.
Occasionally, when straight parents get together, the subject of gay marriage or more over, gay parenting, comes up. For those of us who know same gender parents, the reaction is almost unanimous: gays and lesbians tend to make amazing parents. Maybe it's their acute sensitivity. Maybe it's because it is so much harder for gay and lesbians to become parents, so they work at it more. Maybe it's because they know they will face increased scrutiny and opposition as parents. Maybe it's genetics or a worldview, or maybe it's because of the heart-wrenching prospect that the same group behind the Prop 8 measure, if empowered, will some day try to take their children away.
As the Los Angeles Times wrote in its eloquent essay in opposition to Prop 8:
"Supporters of Proposition 8 insist that the measure is in no way intended to diminish the rights of gays and lesbians, but instead means to encourage ideal households for the raising of children."
Underneath the pro Prop 8 argument is a belief that gays and lesbians, simply by virtue of their sexual orientation, make bad parents. If only that were true, then we straight Dads would have it so easy.
I think moderate straight men and women might be able to rationalize, as both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates have, that the word "marriage" should be exclusively reserved for a man and a woman. While certainly discriminatory, it is an accepted and often widely embraced political mantra. It is easy to conflate Prop 8 with that political talking point. But the fact is the proposition is far more dangerous. This proposition would be the grease to a very, very slippery slope. If successful, Prop 8 will embolden a radical agenda (mostly funded from outside California) which will not only take aim at Adam and Steve, but their children.
For many straight, well-intentioned parents of all political affiliations, Prop 8 may conjure up stereotypical images of carefree gay and lesbian couples running off to City Hall in leather chaps, who could be similarly served by civil unions, and separate but equal laws. Those parents may believe, "You know, marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman." Setting aside the arguments of civil rights, basic fairness and equality, I would ask those parents to think carefully about when those same gender husbands and wives become mothers and fathers. Since children have been the focus of so many of those frightening television ads supporting Prop 8, I ask you, "What about the children?"
At the very least, Prop 8 will create a group of second-class citizens discriminated against by our state constitution. At its absolute worst, manufacturing a defined "difference" between straight and gay relationships will manifest itself in a manufactured difference between straight and gay parents. This prejudiced social construction already manifests itself in several states, where gays and lesbians are not allowed to adopt children; or a same-sex partner does not have the right to adopt their partner's biological child. This goes against the push for nuclear, two-parent households so passionately endorsed by many conservatives and liberals. Leaving children in the murky middle ground of adults' conflicts is simply unconscionable. And so is Prop 8.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As someone who cares deeply about children and works with them daily, I have been screaming about how cruel it is to subject children to marriage NON-equality and have other people WITH marriage rights decide who is a"Family" versus "Not a Family". Abusive, really. A new playground taunt is how "your parents can't get married" (it's already happened; I'm not joking).
Believe it or not, one doesn't need to HAVE children to care about their health and well-being, nor does one need to BE gay or lesbian to care enough to SPEAK OUT IN THE STRONGEST MANNER POSSIBLE about the injustices LGBT families endure every single day. Injustices children endure.
"What About The Children", indeed.
Legal cruelty to our families is the crime of the century, America, and you can stop it NOW with your voice.
The whole things breaks my heart. Great piece.
As a 48yr old American male - Im m sick to death of all this BS!..I't's Mean-sprited and Un-America
As a 48yr old American male - Im m sick to death of all this BS!..I't's Mean-sprited and Un-America
I'd like to introduce a different analysis. This springs from stories from missionaries in my former church: In some countries, marriage in the church is not recognized by the state. So young couples would have a civil ceremony to get the contracting part of the deal out of the way, but not live together until they were able to have a religious ceremony, the church's blessing. This points up that marriage is both a civil contract and a spiritual relationship. Part of the tangled up problem we are having with this issue is that we forget those words at the end of the marriage ceremony: "By the authority vested in me by the State...." The civil state in this country has given authority to the clergy to perform the civil contracting part of marrying. But our constitution calls for a separation of church and state. So the solomonic end to the argument would seem to be: let the state govern what is in its purview, and let religious people make their own decisions about what their churches will sanction and what they will not. If a particular religion frowns on same-sex unions, they should not be required to perform such marriages, or forced to allow gay/lesbian people to teach in their sunday schools, etc. Who cares? (although they all fear that!) On the other hand, we should recognize the secular nature of the contract, and let the state manage that. Anybody?
I appreciate your suggestion and indeed that is probably where we are headed. However, if you research the current and recent legislative and education efforts in California, you will see that the issue has moved well beyond equality and live and let live. We are into the arena that one must accept the equality argument as legislated and implemented or be at risk of losing State funding or be deemed in violation of hate laws, etc. You're suggestion is intends to be a compromise that would allow everyone to stand on equal ground to belief as they choose. Not sure that is the agenda. As you know "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." I have only been surprised by the immediacy with which it happened, not that it has happened. If you have any additional suggestions that will put all on equal ground to belief and raise children as they choose, we will have made progress. But, doing so does not seem to be the goal of the equality laws. Rather, the preference is to create a slippery slope, as bemoaned by the author. The author simply fails to acknowledge that the current California legistative and education efforts for equality intend to create a slippery slope, as well. Anybody?
Part 1:
I guess I am really off-topic here, as I am referring only to the marriage angle, and not to the parenting of children. Although if parenthood is one of the perquisites of marriage as a civil union, then the religious elements would have no ability to ban parenting by gays, either - only to disapprove of it within the confines of their own religious communities. And they would still be free to refuse to allow gay persons to preach from their pulpits, pass their collection plates, sing in their choirs, or teach their sunday school classes - the state has no right to dictate to religious organizations how they decide who participates in their worship and who does not. If the latter was not true, we would be seeing affirmative action in churches (which are still largely divided along ractial lines) as well as schools :)
Part 2:
Well of course the opponents of gay rights are not for equality. It's the rest of the citizenry that are going to have to stand up for it. As for losing State funding, what happened to the ("conservative"?) notion that if you take state money you conform to state principles and mandates? Churches are not supposed to be taking any state money. I don't see why they should not continue to get tax exemption (a whole different discusson), but they should not interfere in the civil enactment of marriage - leave the civil to the state, and the churches can be for or against whatever they want. There's no slippery slope argument that I can think of against that.
Part 3:
A couple of other minutiae: As I stated, if the civil (contract) part of marriage is governed by the state and only by the state, then the religious elements are free to approve or disapprove of spiritual (or whatever they call it) unions as they will. And if a particular church frowns on gay marriage, then probably most gay persons would choose not to be a part, or to ask for that church's blessing on their marriage. If they did have conflicting wishes to be part of the church but marry a gay partner, then they would have to deal with that conflict privately, as now, by either remaining in the church and giving up their partner, or leaving the church and keeping their partner - not likely to be a frequent case as who wants to stay where you are openly disapproved of? Point is, the state should not interfere except in rare cases with religious practices or beliefs. But let's get the civil out of the church, and the church out of the civil.
I might respond if I could figure out what you're trying to say.
For marriage on the continent of Europe....
Why we have this BLUR is because in England, the Church of England (Anglican) is the Official Church and in Scotland, the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) is the Official Church. Therefore, the Government or the Crown, if you will, gave the Ministers of Religion the power and authority of the Ministers of State to perform a civil marriage and a religious solemnification simultaneously.
The USA and Canada, who both began as British colonies, adopted this method.
Nope. The religious ceremony is completely optional here, too.
In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.
The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.
Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida.
As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time.
The "tradition" of marriage has already been devalued by straight people.
Back in the 1860 we fought a Civil War over the "tradition" of slavery.
One of the reasons we have a constitutional republic, and not a true democracy is that our founding fathers knew that the tyranny of the majority is just that, TYRANNY!
Enough with the tradition of marriage as the basis for your bigotry! When Americans no longer tolerate marriage as a prize on a reality TV show, or divorce and remarriage then you can talk to me about the tradition of marriage. Until then, look in the mirror and find that log in your eye and cast it out per your Jesus' direction.
Bravo! What a great and truthful comment.
Your argument assumes that people who wish to marry another of the same gender would decide to marry someone of the opposite gender if same-sex marriage is illegal. That's not true at all. So, to say that same-sex marriage is preferable means nothing.
This is the RW theocratic argument..
The role of a majority in a true democracy is to protect the equal rights of the minority. For an example of a real democracy.
Your term "traditional marriage" has meant many things over the millenia. It once meant that the man owned the woman. It once meant that one man could marry multiple women. It once meant (and not so long ago) that persons of different races couldn't marry. So which of these "traditions" do you wish to maintain?
And divorce doesn't compromise your precious "sanctity of marriage"? How about those roadside chapels in Vegas? Spears, Trump, MCCAIN, . . . hmmmmm
Get off your box and take it to a third world country where people get to tell the minorities what to do all of the time. Your tired bigotry and fear is so old hat and not wanted in this country where LIFE, LIBERTY, THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW is the rule of the land, not intolerance and hatred. Give me a birka, I am gay.
In REAL DEMOCRACIES, as opposed to the USA, the duty of the majority and of the courts is to protect the rights of the minority.
Thank you for this post. I'm glad you asked, "What about the children?" My gay son deserves to grow up with married role models that are just like him. Why should his model of a committed partnership be a heterosexual one only? How does that work for him? He had a rough time in junior high school because he was different. He had no social back-up because others like him have been forced to live their secret closeted lives for their own safety. Their relationships are not on display for all to see because of discrimination. All children deserve to see themselves in others, even gay children. Having gay married couples as role models for their own development might help bring down the suicide rates among gay teens. Do the Prop 8 supporters ever think of that? Just their opposition alone creates a scary environment for gay teens to develop self-dignity and self-identity that are true to their own natures and not just a disguise so they can fit in with the straight world and gain the acceptance all kids desire. Please vote NO on Prop 8 and its subtle hate. Thanks.
Amen. As a HS teacher in a rural area, I have experienced kids struggling with their sexuality. When I advise them just to be themselves, they almost always respond with some variation of, "but I don't know how to be myself; no one is like me." No matter how much I try to assure them that there are, they insist that they don't "see" them. Every human being deserves to be able to "see" people just like them living ordinary lives, and marriage and children are part of that "ordinarin
We need to make this argument more forcefully. The ads designed to invoke fear in parents ignore the fear it invokes in parents who have gay children. How much more abuse will our gay sons and daughters be forced to endure in a world unfriendly to their well being and their authentic nature? How can we help them develop a healthy self image when they are afraid to even tell us they are gay until they can't hide it anymore? Why must they be forced to bear a "secret?" What does hiding a part of their core being do to their healthy development? Why do gay kids have to "come out?" Why can't they just BE out? Why can't they just be who they are? Discrimination scares them, that's why. They see it everywhere. Having gay married couples in their lives would make a difference to these kids. Gay kids are no different than any other kid. End discrimination against them. Please vote NO on 8, for them.
Your son is lucky to have a mom like you.
Thanks, mercury613. And, I'm lucky to have a son like him. In fact, I'm blessed.
Thank you for your article about gay parents and gay couples...
It is so upsetting whenever I see angry people (often claiming to be Christian) spewing hate and trying to put up roadblocks
I've written on my experiences with gay adoption (something McCain is against) here....
http://min
Wonderful article, and I had not read any others where the subject of children was addressed. I am sure you are right that Prop 8 would inevitably lead to gays and lesbians being unable to adopt.
I cannot wait till this is settled once and for all and everybody has the right to marry whomever they wish (and all the other rights that go with being legally married).
Hubby and I were married by a judge in my parents' living room 31 years ago. His rabbi wouldn't marry us, and my preacher wouldn't marry us, though it was perfectly legal for either of them to do so. I am sure we will still run into officiants who refuse to marry gay couples even when it is legal to do so, for prejudice is ever with us. But, you will always be able to find open-minded officants for a marriage ceremony.
And for those who are arguing otherwise: Though we were married by a judge outside a place of worship, we have a MARRIAGE license. We are married. And the word marriage has meaning to ALL who wish to have it. Not just those of us couples who are one man/one woman.
A good friend of mine who is a clergyman at a church organized by gay and lesbian folks told me a horrific story of one his congregation being denied custody of his son because he is gay and the court thought the stable, man-woman home of the child's mother would be more fitting. It was shown in the court that the stepdad married to the mother had sexually and physically abused the child so the judge ordered he receive treatment, but still gave them custoday rather than give it to the gay couple. The child, then 14 and unable to choose a parent in Alabama (where this all took place) ran away from home and did not resurface until he was 16 and was legally allowed to choose to live with his gay dad and his dad's partner.
Beautifully written John. i just wish we could take the millions and millions of dollars all of of these churches are spending on hate and discrimination and do something to help people. i'm a lesbian mom with 2 children. We're fighting the fight, throwing lots of money at this hateful Prop 8, and the fight will just keep on going. it won't end until the supreme court ends it. when that finally happens...
The following quote from your article really gets to the heart of the issue:
"This proposition would be the grease to a very, very slippery slope. If successful, Prop 8 will embolden a radical agenda (mostly funded from outside California) which will not only take aim at Adam and Steve, but their children."
Perhaps the greatest reason for support for Proposition 8 is the perception that without Propostion 8, "a radical agenda (mostly funded outside California) ... will not only take aim at" Amanda "and Steve, but their children."
Any ideas on how to bring about equality without bringing about the unequal ground, or the slippery slope, to belief and to raise children as one chooses? Or, does arriving at equality require unequal ground as to beleif and the raising of children?
Here, here!
Quakers and Unitarian church conduct same-sex marriages in their respective places of worship? So what makes one religion trump out another with regard to marriage..
I agree church marriage does not equal state reconized marriage, so the fact that the state and federal government does not reconize same-sex marriage or tries to define "marriage" between a man and a woman is pure blantent discrimination. They are giving "special rights" to a group of people. I still do not understand how the heterosexual majority claimed during the '90's gays want "special rights"
Thank you so much for telling your story. I am a hopelessly straight single mom of a 9 year old and I share your experience that the very best parental models I know personally are lesbian couples--possibly, as you speculate, because there is such a challenging "choice" involved in becoming parents, by birth or by adoption. Theirs are the homes my kid most loves to visit because of the child-prioritizing, child-focused atmosphere which results from the consistent, conscious parenting skills these moms have developed.
In some cases, they are also great models as COUPLES of love and communication and resolviing differences BETWEEN parents. I have learned by example and they are among the most treasured members of the village i've assembled to support raising my child.
One of my daughter's fourth grade teachers is a married lesbian mother of two and it takes no "indoctrination" for a kid to see what the misguided adults supporting Prop 8 cannot: it is WRONG and UNFAIR to amend our state constitution to take away the rights of thousands of California families.
As a newly popular bumpersticker in Colorado says to the agents of intolerance, "Focus On Your Own Damn Families!" It is indeed time for straight parents to defend our LGBT brethren and their kids from this unfair and unjust attack.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
