Think of the children

Frequently when groups oppose LGTB rights, they invoke the children as an argument. This is something we have seen in the US, where organizations like NOM (National Organization for Marriage), and something which could be seen during last year's referendum on same sex marriage in Ireland.

There are generally two types of arguments:

1. That children that doesn't grow up in wholesome classic heterosexual families, will suffer one way or the other.
2. That by granting rights to LGTBs, it teaches the children that it is alright to be LGTB.

The first argument is usually the most common, since many people since to have a idealized view of married heterosexual couples - especially in the US, where there still seems to be a taboo around the concept of unmarried people getting children. Elsewhere, like in my native Denmark, there isn't the same taboo about getting children without getting children, and I know many people who has lived together for many years, raising their children, without getting married.

Unsurprisingly, to anyone who has been paying attention, there is no evidence that children raised by a heterosexual married couple are any better of than children raised by a homosexual couple (see e.g. Children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers, research shows) or even single parents. Rather it depends on how stable the household is, and other socio-economic factors.  

For a nice overview of the state of research on the area, including the flaws of the few studies that anti-LGTB groups tend to reference, I can recommend What does the scholarly research say about the wellbeing of children with gay or lesbian parents? on Columbia Law School's public policy research portal What We Know.

The second argument, that being accepting of LGTB means that children learn it is alright to be LGTB, is not often stated explicitly, as the groups opposed to LGTBs generally realize that this sounds bigoted. Of course, this only holds for groups that are trying to pretend that they aren't so - religious groups which uses religion as a foundation for their bigotry, doesn't seem to have the same resistance to demonstrate it.

I think it hardly goes without saying that such an attitude can be harmful towards children who fall within the LGTB spectrum. 

Acceptance of LGTB, both in general and in the specific case of a child being LGTB, is a much more healthy environment for LGTB youth to grow up in.

This has been demonstrated again and again, and latest through a study of the well-being of openly transgendered children: Study: Transgender children allowed to live openly fare well

The study looks into the well-being of children who are transgender, and whose parents have accepted them. The result is that these children fare about equally to other children.

There are some flaws in the study, which the researchers also acknowledge in the article, but it shows the benefits of parents accepting their children as they are, and that the psychological well-being of transgendered children can be as good as other children, which is not something that is part of the common discourse when it comes to these issues. As the article states:

The findings are “truly stunning,” given previous studies showing high rates of mental health problems including suicidal behavior in transgender children, Dr. Ilana Sherer, a Dublin, Calif., pediatrician, wrote in a Pediatrics editorial. Most previous research is in children who haven’t come out, Olson said.

So, when bigots try to use the well-being of children as their arguments, they are not only using an argument that has been shown to be untrue, they are also using an argument which has been shown to be harmful to children.

Congratulations Ireland

Yesterday Ireland voted on whether or not homosexuals should have marriage equality.

It is the first vote on this subject anywhere in the world.

All the political parties were behind the Yes-side in the referendum, and only private organizations (mostly Catholic in nature) were driving the No-side.

The final count is not yet in, but it seems like everyone agrees that the Yes-side has won by a landslide in Ireland.

I am not a fan of voting on the rights of other people, but when it happens, it is wonderful when the side of equality and rights win.

Ireland only made homosexuality legal two decades ago, so it is amazing that it has progressed to this point already.

Congratulations!

Voices becoming quiet

Within the last week or so, three real-world heroes have passed away. One of them was successful while the other two were still fighting their battles. Two of them died of natural causes, while the last one was killed by her opponents.

I think it's important to honor these people, by remembering their fights, and keep fighting when necessary.

The first of the three to die, was Lieutenant Colonel Malalai Kakar, the highest ranking woman in the Afghan police force. The existence of such a strong female was of course intolerable to the Taliban, who considered her a direct threat to their world view, and in the end, that ended up costing Malalai Kakar her life. On September 28th, some men caught her in an ambush, and killed her. This was not the first attempt on her life - in an earlier episode she managed to kill three attackers - but unfortunately it was the last. Again, the ugly side of religion rears its head.

BBC coverage

The second of the three, and the only successful one, was J.L. Chestnut Jr., a person I hadn't heard about, until I read his NY Times obit, but who certainly qualified to be considered a real-life hero.

J. L. Chestnut Jr., who after attending law school in Washington returned to his hometown, Selma, Ala., and set up shop in 1958 as the city’s first black lawyer, and who went on to fight for voting rights for blacks, laying the groundwork for the march led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from Selma to Montgomery in March 1965, died Tuesday in Birmingham, Ala. He was 77 and lived in Selma.

Sad that it took his death for me to hear about him.

NY Times obit

Finally, the third person to die, was someone I had heard about in the past, but who I know little about, except for his role as a voice for civil rights in Singapore.
I'm speaking of J. B. Jeyaretnam, who was the key opposition figure in Singapore - a country which appears fairly civilized, but which has decidedly totalitarian tendencies. Jeyaretnam's fight for civil rights cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered successful, but the symbolic value of it cannot be overestimated. The simple fact that someone is actually ready to speak out for it, is an important thing in itself.

NY Times obit

Responding to a comment

My last post was about a civil rights issue, and those always tend to draw in new readers who leave comments disagreeing with me. This also happened this time, when a commenter calling himself sonAmerica wrote, and I thought I'd respond to the comment publicly.

Prop 8 isn't an issue about "rights". It is about preserving the definition of "marriage" as between a man and a woman.

Marriage has throughout history been between a man and several women, yet it seems like people are ignoring this issue, when focusing on the historical aspect of marriage.

Also, I'll point out that the argument from tradition is the same which was used when people tried to stop inter-racial marriages.

Marriage is a state sanctioned ceremony, which homosexual couples want to have available.

Gay people can do what they want, and they can even enjoy many civil benefits through civil unions and the such. But that isn't marriage.

So, in other words, Gay people can't do what they want - which is to get married to the people they love.

And I did notice that you use the word "many" when talking about civil benefits. Why should Gay people accept that they have fewer rights than heterosexual people?

Gay people aren't the issue here nor the problem.

No, it's the bigots who want to change the Californian constitution to allow them to follow up on their bigotry, which is the problem.

The problem is that 4 arrogant judges in black robes sitting in their ivory tower overturned the express will of a clear majority of California citizens when they ruled by fiat and illegally legislated from the bench when they unilaterally redefined marriage.

Like the judges did in Loving vs. Virginia.

It's the job of judges to evaluate if any given law falls outside national or state constitutions, and if they do, overrule them. That's what happened in this case.

Prop 8 allows the citizens of California to say no to Judicial Activism and Judicial Tyranny.

No, it allows bigots to make laws that discriminate against people because of their sexuality.

here are elements of the judiciary that are way out of control and are endangering the balance of power in our republic by getting involved in "legislating". This has got to stop.

How dare they insist that the laws don't break the state constitution? How dare they keep people from being discriminated?

Voting yes on Prop 8 will help put those elitist judges back in their place and let them know they cannot arrogantly overule the will of the people in a matter as fundamental to the future of civilization as the bedrock institution of marriage. That is something important enough that it should not be left to 4 elitist judges to impose by fiat.

So, your right to be bigots should overrule the state constitution?

Proposition 8 is about changing the Californian state constitution in such a way that it becomes permitted to make laws that discriminate against other people because of their sexual orientation. There are many rights which are only accessible to people who are married - simple rights like the right to visit your partner in the hospital. Yet, bigots all across the US fight hard to deny such simple rights to others, simply because their sexual orientation.

May I speak a word to my gay friends, neighbors, coworkers, and fellow-countrymen.

I doubt you have any gay friends. You're certainly no friend to gay people.

You are a minority and I'm sure you recognize that. And that is ok. But please show kindness and tolerance for the rest of us and vote with us to help preserve marriage as between a man and a woman

Back when Loving vs. Virginia was won by the civil rights people, someone could basically had said exactly the same. And many would have agreed. Time, however, hasn't been kind to that side of the debate, for good reasons, and time won't be kind to the bigoted side in this debate.

In the long run, I believe that civil rights will win out.

I know you may not have any personal parochial interest in voting yes on Prop 8. But as your friend and neighbor, I'm asking for your vote to help preserve the definition of this institution that is so important. Thank you.

"In fact, it's so important that we want to deny it to some people, because somehow, it makes it less important that everyone has access to it."

Bigotry, no matter how well you try to cover it, is not a pretty sight.

If you can vote in California, please vote no to Proposition 8. If you're marriaged, it doesn't make any difference to your own marriage, but allows others to enjoy the same benefits that you get.

I'll end this post by quoting Mildred Loving

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Mildred Loving, Loving for All (.pdf)

Google supports equal rights to marriage

Currently there is a campaign in California to ban homosexual marriage. This is sought done through a proposition, proposition 8, which the Californian voters will vote on. You can read more about proposition 8 at Wikipedia.

Unsurprisingly, I am against that measure. Unfortunately, my opinion doesn't carry much weight among Californian voters. But perhaps Google's opinion will?

Google has come out officially in opposition to proposition 8.

It would be easy for a company like Google to just keep quiet on issues like gay marriage, so I am impressed that Google come out for equality.

Why openness is important

Lauren posted a moving Youtube clip over at Feministe.

It shows San Diego’s Republican mayor, Jerry Sanders, explain why he was not going to veto legislation supporting gay marriage, as expected. It's deeply touching, and it appears clear that Sanders is totally honest about the soul-searching that led him to this decision. A decision which cannot but cost him among parts of his Republican base.

San Diego Metro News has more

Sanders has, to my knowledge, never been rabidly anti-gay, and has always supported civil unions, but in the end, he realized that he could not support a "separate-but-equal institution", which what civil unions amount to. As he stated, he couldn't face the gay people he knows, including his daughter, if he did.

In the end, I couldn't look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana

He made the right decision in the end, and decided to back the San Diego City Council in its decision to support same-sex marriage before the Californian Supreme Court.

As his own statements make clear, this happened because of his proximity to gay people. That was what made him reconsider his stance, and change his mind. This is why it's important for people to be open about such things - it shouldn't be necessary for people to be open about it to get justice, but unfortunately it is. Hiding away because of hatred and discrimination unfortunately only makes it possible for the hatred and discrimination to continue much longer. It's hard to hate and discriminate your own daughter (though Alan Keyes of course manages to do so).

I am not saying that everyone has to come out - in some places that would be quite dangerous - but I hope more people will have the courage to do so, and at the same time change peoples' perception of who and what gay people are and represents.

Back to the story about Mayor Sanders. His daughter, Lisa Sanders, has generally not been commenting on the story, though it's pretty clear that she approves of it. The only comment she has made so far, is quite telling.

I'm just very proud of my father. And to be a part of this. It's about equality, and he's doing the right thing, and I'm very confident in him.

While I am sure that I would disagree with Sanders on many issues, I am totally in agreement with his stance on this issue, and wish him the best of luck in the future.

A couple of days late, but still worth remembering

June 12 1967 the US Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia on behalf on the right to marry, no matter your race. Until the, there were still places in the US where people with different skin colours were not allowed to marry.

Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars, I came across the public statement (.pdf) by Mildred Loving on the 40th anniversary. It's really worth reading, and I am happy to note that Loving used the occation to support gay marriage.

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Let's work on making this true.

Emmett Till slaying still closed

Not surprising news, but not the result I personally would have hoped for.

Mississippi Grand Jury Declines to Issue Indictment in 1955 Emmett Till Slaying

All but closing the books on a crime that helped give rise to the civil rights movement, a grand jury has refused to bring any new charges in the 1955 slaying of Emmett Till, a black teenager who was beaten and shot after whistling at a white woman in the Mississippi Delta.

The district attorney in rural Leflore County had sought a manslaughter charge against the white woman, Carolyn Bryant Donham, who was suspected of pointing out Till to her husband to punish the boy for what was a grave offense in the segregated South.

But the grand jury last Friday issued a "no bill," meaning it found insufficient evidence, according to documents made public Tuesday.

Since we don't know the facts being laid forward by the district attorney, it's of course hard to say that this was the wrong decision. However, the district attorney obviously felt that there were evidence enough to support an indictment, and the FBI suggested that it would be worth taking a closer look at Donham.

Another chapter in a sad story.