When the baby's diaper is being changed -- as any parent can tell you, the baby's eyes lock onto the parent's. The baby obviously responds to being touched and held and supported by the firm and loving hands. The eyes, smile and hands can belong to the mother, the father, one or two mothers or two fathers or, as in days of yore, any one of a number of trusted souls in the tribe. (Actually, most of us would likely vote for a slice of such archaism, given the chance.)
When a child is being disciplined -- ideally instructed in the commonly-accepted truisms of right and wrong, the child is resisting, yielding, processing or whatever, swamped with shame, anger, hurt, indifference or whatever, in reaction to the adult C.E.O. The gender or marital status of the adult, to the kid, is a moot point if the adult/parent/teacher/overseer of the moment is confident in his or her role.
When the child brings home a stellar report card or ball score, bursting for affirmation, the genitalia of the parent is not particularly germane to the transaction.
Pardon me. This is all so obvious and almost embarrassing to spell it out. However, here again in the long slog to fundamental rights, gay and lesbian Americans are up against the likes of, for example, this very moment in time, the elected officials of Utah.
Here's one beauty just fired off by the state, arguing against a constitutional right for same-sex marriage: restricting marriage to a man and a woman will make heterosexual couples act more responsibly when they have sex.The New York Times reported that this "responsible procreation" pitch lost traction, supplanted by "optimal parenting." The government benefits granted to those married encourage opposite-sex couples to form stable families "in which their planned, and especially unplanned, biological children may be raised." The heroic Federal District Court Judge, Robert J. Shelby, agreed but questioned why permitting same-sex couples to marry would change that. Then he added this clever twist: By forbidding gay and lesbian couples to wed "the state reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside of marriage." One can picture the elders of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) squirming over that one.
All this is getting dissected as if "the gold standard," as termed by the laudable editors of The Salt Lake Tribune, means demeaning all the single parents, adoptive families and melded families as "lead or tin."
Here's another thrust of the evolving, anti-gay posture of Utah's brief before the Supreme Court to halt Judge Shelby's granting same-sex marriage privilege to Utahns: "A substantial body of social science research confirms that children generally fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving, low-conflict marriage."
Okay, you want to invoke social science research?
Good for the lawyers arguing in defense of same-sex marriage who cited no less than nine national organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, that documented absolutely no difference to children and adolescents raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents.
We shouldn't gang up on Utahns just because their state is the latest red one forced to grapple with this nasty, polarizing business. They're sophisticated folks, and evenly divided on same-sex rights. It's not their fault Utah is saddled with Joseph Smith's enthronement of polygamy, including early-teen brides, all of this now illegal. And Utah resident Brian David Mitchell who abducted Elizabeth Smart, 14, a few years ago, was not acting as a Mormon. It's estimated that at least 30,000 people practice the "religious cohabitation" lifestyle. And although about 70 percent of residents identify as Mormon, not necessarily all of them adhere to ritual undergarments for holy matrimony to ensure purity, in this day and age. Religious beliefs are off-limits, right?
It's illegal for the Church to "dominate the State or interfere with its functioning," according to law professor Wayne McCormack. But how do you define its absolute entitlement to voice its opinions? Another can of worms.
Says Wayne Niederhauser, the Utah Senate Majority Whip who is lobbied by the LDS Church but always in a "soft-sell way: I was never told how to vote. Church representatives merely stated the Church's position on the issues."
Meanwhile, there's on Utahn, Trestin Meacham, on a hunger strike against LGBT equality until it goes away, claiming "I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes roots in my home." There are thousands more who concur with the following respondent to a recent survey: "This is what marriage means -- a man, a woman, and God. I just don't see it as anything else."Richard Mack, Provo police officer and former sheriff:
The people of Utah have rights, too, not just the homosexuals... shoving it down our throats. State sovereignty supersedes what this judge did. The way you take back freedom in America is one county at a time. The sheriff needs to defend the county clerks in saying 'No, we're not going to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals'.
So there. It's all a matter of time, you say. Vermont, New York, and so on, now... Utah, next... Alabama, eventually... Those crazy Republican governors and state legislators saying their voters should decide. If civil rights were so adjudicated, you respond, there would still be segregated schools, miscegenation laws, separate drinking fountains, bathrooms... all struck down by unpopular court decisions at the time.
Meanwhile, amidst all the ruckus, babies continue to have their diapers changed, kids are scolded and praised, one loving straight or gay family at a time, parents and non-parents alike, too preoccupied to read let alone heed every blow-by-blow of the partisan tug-of-war.