CNN Report Raises Interesting Points about Same-Sex Couples Raising Children

On Monday, CNN spotlighted a news story about gay families, called "Gay Adoption: A new take on the American Family." Not only was this story one of their "Top Stories" for the day, but it was also prominently displayed on the left top of their homepage, with a picture of a gay family and their adopted children, and a paragraph introduction to the story.

CNN highlights stories in this manner to call attention to the news coverage.

The article begins with a story about 5-year-old Jackson who lives with his two dads. The parents talk about their own anxiety about raising their son in a non-traditional family. They admit that at this point, it probably worries them more than it does Jackson.

They also told the reporter that recently, Jackson has been asking about a "mom".

Peggy Drexler found similar scenarios in her "research" on lesbian and "single-by-choice" female families, Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men. One boy being raised in a lesbian household regularly clings to the leg of his male aftercare worker when his moms come to pick him up. Another boy with lesbian moms regularly says he "wants a Daddy." Another boy being raised in a single mom household routinely points to men on the tv and tells his mom, "That's my daddy."

Are the comments these children make the norm for children being raised by lesbian and gay parents? Maybe. Maybe not.

Drexler's research was definitely not representative of lesbian households overall. And while CNN reports a similar comment, little Jackson is not representative of all children being raised with two dads.

Certainly some of the resistance to gay & lesbian couples having children and/or adopting (aside from resistance just being flat out homophobia) has to do with the notion that children need a mother and a father in the home in order to turn out well.

But why? Is it because successful parenting can be reduced to such a simple formula?

Mom + Dad = happy Child

How is it that the attacks on gay parenting have been reduced to this simple notion of what it takes to raise a child?

What about other aspects of parenting - like providing a loving, safe environment; setting boundaries; providing routine and structure; teaching (and modeling) life lessons such as right from wrong, learning from mistakes, problem solving, thinking critically ... I could go on and on.

Why is it that these issues are not up for consideration in this attack on same-sex couples raising children?

Most of us who raise children know there is no right way to raise a child. We know that we have to continuously change our approach, evaluate what we're doing and why, re-evaluate what we're doing and why, change our approach again.... And even then, if we wake up on the wrong side of the bed, or our child wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, we might just have to toss it all out the window and find something new. Or maybe we'll just screw it up for a moment, or a day, and try again tomorrow.

And then, we have to start all over again during the next stage of our child's development because again, what used to work probably isn't going to work the same way now that our child is maturing and learning and developing.

Most of us also realize that no two parents are the same. Even when two parents in a household are basically on the same parenting philosophy page, one parent will handle a situation in their own unique way because of their particular personality, and the other parent will handle the same situation slightly differently.

And most of us realize that no one is perfect. There is no "perfect" way to parent a child. There are numerous ways to approach a common goal - raising a child - and just because I might approach it one way, doesn't mean there aren't many other excellent ways to approach it.

Most of us further realize as parents that we will have absolutely no clue how well we've done for years. And honestly, some of us may never really know how successful we were as parents.

And so, given these realities about parenting and what it takes to be a "good" parent, how can the definition of parent be reduced to the simple formula, mom plus dad equals happy child?

Sure, gay and lesbian parents may or may not hear their children ask about where their mom/dad is. But kids routinely ask about things they are curious about. And kids routinely ask *for* things they don't have.

And certainly single parents get these questions as well. But they're not being attacked in the same manner as gay and lesbian parents are. So what's the deal? Homophobia it seems ....

Jackson's parents responded by talking to him about the female figures in his life. Jackson's response - "Ok." Will he ask again at a later date? Maybe. And his parents will probably address it in a similar, age-appropriate manner, as many parents do when their children ask questions about anything.

Some gay and lesbian parents will address their family makeup as their children ask questions. Some gay and lesbian parents will address their family makeup well before the questions surface.

But all parents do this - no matter what the topic. Sometimes parents prepare their children ahead of time and sometimes they wait until the questions surface. Certainly gay and lesbian parents are well within the norm on this issue.

And the reality is, there isn't a normal family anymore. The "normal" family is like a rainbow - full of different colors and expanding and contracting depending on where it begins and where it ends. And tomorrow it looks completely different.

Normal is abnormal. Every family has something different - some alternative configuration. *That* is normal. So what's the big deal?

Does this mean a gay couple can't be successful without a mom in the picture? Does this mean a lesbian couple can't be successful without a dad in the picture?

Maybe we should be asking this in response, "Why is it so many heterosexual couples aren't successful when there is a mom and a dad in the home?"

We're kind of partial to this part of the story, "We're not moms, we're not heterosexual. We're not biological parents," Rob Calhoun said. But "we're totally equal and just as loving as female parents, as straight parents, and biological parents." "Love makes a family, not biology or gender," he added.

Now doesn't that just about sum it up?

(Please do not misunderstand the point here - We are NOT trying to define a "good" parent. We are simply trying to point out that doing so is quite probably impossible, and certainly we believe any definition should be inclusive of all family units - LGBT, opposite-sex, coupled, not, etc. The closest any parent can get is to do the best they can with good intentions, evaluating their methods continuously, seeking help and guidance when needed, and love and guide their children into adulthood. Obviously this implies that techniques employed by parents do not include abuse of any kind.)

Gay Kiss Blacked out of Newark Yearbook - Hetero Kisses Left Alone

Staff and Administration at East Side High School in Newark, NJ, took the "liberty" of blacking out the above picture in every high school yearbook before distributing them to students.

Teachers sat in one room with markers, blacking out the picture, while students lined up in an adjacent room waiting to pick up their copy of the yearbook.

Superintendent of Schools, Marion Bolden, claimed the picture was "illicit" and provocative. The picture was brought to her attention by Assistant Superintendent, Russell Garris, who oversees the high schools in the district. Garris was concerned the picture "might upset parents."

Bolden, Garris, and other officials at the school, seem to have missed the other "illicit" and provocative pictures displayed in the yearbook - you know, the heterosexual ones. In fact, had staff turned just one more page further in the yearbook, they would have seen precisely this. (Unfortunately, I have not been able to capture a still copy of the heterosexual kissing photos. Please view the Fox News video coverage of this story for pictures.)

Bolden, Superintendent of the Newark Public School District, claims there will be an investigation into who approved the final version of the yearbook, prior to printing.

This is an interesting stance for Bolden, considering the Mission Statement on the District's website claims, "The Newark Public Schools recognize that each child is a unique individual.... We further recognize that each child can only be successful when we acknowledge all aspects of that child’s life...."

Launching an investigation into who approved a picture of two young men kissing does not seem consistent with the claim that the District recognizes the "uniqueness" of each of their students. Nor does allowing heterosexual kissing pictures to remain in the yearbook while blacking out a homosexual couple kissing seem like an "acknowledgment" of this aspect of this couple's life, and denying the display of the picture doesn't seem like promotion of success for this couple. In fact, the act of blacking out the picture sends a message of quite the opposite - East Side High School and the Newark Public School District will not acknowledge homosexuals and will not promote any homosexual student's success.

The East Side High School website makes similar claims as the Newark District website. From their information page, "Our citizenry is a divergent mixture of people and cultures from around the world that makes East Side High School a place for all students to excel and thrive." And part of their mission statement, "We are concerned for the welfare of each individual." Apparently "all students" does not apply to homosexuals; and apparently a student's welfare isn't of concern if they're gay.

While Bolden previously claimed she was going to launch an investigation to find the party responsible for allowing the inclusion of this "illicit" picture in the yearbook, she has just released a public apology; and now she's singing a different tune. In her apology, she claims the picture was, in part, blacked out due to confusion as to whether the boy who purchased the page for the yearbook was actually a student at the high school.

Come on. Do you think we're actually that stupid? If that was truly part of the motivation for blacking out one picture among a series of pictures on this boy's page, then why didn't you insist the stagg black out the entire page prior to distributing the yearbook to students? I mean seriously....

The District claims it will reissue an "un-redacted" version of the yearbook to any student who wants one.

Well that's just famous of you. If you really want to rectify this situation, send each and every family who received a yearbook two versions of the yearbook - one with all the heterosexual kissing pictures blacked out (leaving the gay couple untouched) and one with no pictures blacked out. Or better yet, send them three versions - the 3rd with all kissing pictures blacked out. Let the families decide which version they want to keep.

Or maybe you should put some funding into anti-discrimination classes for your staff and administration. Maybe then the entire district, Assistant Superintendents included, can be consistent with the District Mission statement claims of recognizing the diversity and difference in all their students.

Minor Lesbian Girls Get Kicked Off Bus

On June 8, two teenage girls were kicked off a public bus for kissing. The bus driver called the girls "sickos" and allegedly smacked one of the girls.

The teenage girls who are 14 years old, were on their way to the Sexual Minority Youth Resource Center.

The Youth Resource Center states they have been "[c]reating safety and support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth in Oregon since 1998, through youth empowerment, community building, education and direct services."

A quote from a minor on their website talks about the impact SMYRC has had on their life. "SMYRC has given me a safe place where I can go, not having to worry about people calling me names or telling me that who I am is wrong. In all honesty, SMYRC has saved my life."

But apparently getting to SMYRC is a little more challenging for some.

The TriMet bus line in Portland, Oregon, regularly transports youth passengers to the Rec Center. One of the teenagers involved in the incident relies on the TriMet system to transport her to and from school on a daily basis.

The TriMet policy, according to a spokesperson, is to never eject minors and other vulnerable persons from the bus.

On June 20th, The Advocate reported the TriMet transit officials issued a formal apology to the teenagers and their families.

The driver is being held "responsible" - although TriMet policy forbids public disclosure of any disciplinary actions.

Quiz on Family Values

Feature: Quiz on Family Values at Cafe Press

1) Who brings babies into this world unplanned and unwanted?

2) Whose children are filling up our foster care system?

3) Who models more hate and discrimination to their children?

Hint: It's not the homosexuals

Our Family Values products are our number one seller at Cafe Press. We invite you to take a look at this and all of our products.


http://www.cafepress.com/wearefamilytoo

Matthew Shepard Act

Did you know that one in six hate crimes are motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, and yet today's federal laws don't include any protections for these Americans?

What's even more outrageous is that the radical right is running an all-out campaign to stop Congress from expanding hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity - something three out of four Americans support.

The Human Rights Campaign is asking all of us to contact our Senators and urge them to pass this important legislation!

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/matthew_shepard

Opus Comic - Davie Dinkle has Two Moms

Berkeley Breathed's nationally sindicated comic strip, OPUS, is causing quite a controversy amongst various advocacy groups.

The strip depicts two young boys talking about Davie Dinkle, a third grader, who has two moms. One of the boys questions how Davie will fare with no male role models in the home as one of the boys' father throws the tv out the window, yelling and screaming at the baseball game he's been watching, as the tv smashes on the porch next to the boys.

The strip's message that fathers are essentially useless in raising children, at least this is how the Father's Rights Movement has interpreted the strip, has prompted some heated debate on the subject. Another view of this portrayal of a father figure could be the presence of a father in the home is not such a big loss.

But either way, the emphasis of a lesbian family raising children seems to have gotten lost.

Father's Rights Groups and other advocates sympathetic to fathers are criticizing the strip's message that fathers are useless in raising children.

Gay Rights Advocates are promoting the strip's message that lesbian families are raising children and criticizing the focus the strip seems to have taken - the status of fathers in childrearing.

And the Religious Right is just flat out bashing the concept of gay parenting.

Those of us who raise children in the context of lesbian and gay households know that children raised in a loving home with appropriate boundaries and limits, with teachings including right from wrong among other things, and teachings lacking hate and discrimination among other things, are environments where children thrive.

Similarly, we know that just because our children are raised by two moms or two dads, doesn't mean there aren't strong male or female role models in our childrens' lives.

We also know that there are entirely too many variables to say that any single family constellation, any single parenting style, and single educational environment, and single (you choose) is *the* best environment for any or every child.

Here's the part that's confusing. Why is it a bad thing when two people want to raise a child together. Or, alternatively, why should a parent / parent figure be excluded from a child's life simply because someone wants to exclude them?

This comic strip depicts a reality for some children - some families have two moms; some families have fathers who watch sports, drink beer, smoke cigars and get angry at the tv. Sure, this strip puts fathers in a negative light as every other group of people, minority or otherwise, has been shed in some negative light at some other point in time. That's not to say any of these depictions are correct, or that any of these groups *should* be depicted in a negative light ... it's just a reality.

Is it a reality that fathers often get shafted? Absolutely. Fathers are typically depicted as uninvolved or absent. They generally end up marginalized in their child's lives, even when they want quite the opposite.

No matter whether you think this strip is funny, or you hate it, or you don't really care one way or another, there are collective truths this controversy seems to be ignoring:

• Some children live in homes where fathers are present and uninvolved.
• Some children live in homes where mothers are present and uninvolved.
• Some children live in homes where fathers are present and involved.
• Some children live in homes where mothers are present and involved.
• Some children live in homes where fathers are absent.
• Some children live in homes where mothers are absent.
• Some children live with two moms.
• Some children live with two dads.
• Some children live with numerous family members.
• Some children live with no parents at all.
• Some children live in environments where there is no love.
• Some children live in environments where there is an abundance of love.
• Some children live in environments where [you fill in the blank]. (Quite honestly this list could go on endlessly, which happens to be the point ....)

The point of the controversy shouldn't be about who the strip is focused on; or who is being portrayed as good or evil. Or who is "better" able to raise children.

There are entirely too many variables affecting the outcome of childrearing to generalize and point to one variable as *the* reason children are or are not successful in life.

Some children grow up to be productive members of society - happy and healthy - whether that is attributable to their home environment, some outside influence, or a combination of the two.

Some children grow up miserable, unproductive and unhappy - whether attributable to their home environment, some outside influence, or a combination of the two.

What is glaringly missing in all the focus on whether someone is being slighted or someone else is being portrayed in a positive light, is a focus on obliterating the anger and hatred so prevalent in our society.

Children don't need to be taught to hate.

Children need to learn acceptance.

People need to learn acceptance.

Until we as a society learn to accept people for who they are, and accept that people are different from us and may have different ideas and opinions, comics and similar messages such as this OPUS strip will continue to be disseminated. People will continue to fight over comics and similar messages such as this. And things will remain the same.

4EQLTY

Check out our 4EQLTY products at Cafe Press!

Is PA Really Making a Moral Statement on their License Plates?

I was on my way to pick my son up from school the other day when I noticed the license plate on the car in front of me. Now I don't know, maybe it's just me, but this plate really looks like Pennsylvania is taking a stand on the Right to Life (or the Right to Choose... depending on how you see it). More on this "choice" in a minute.

I did a quick search on the specialty license plates available in Pennsylvania. There are quite a few Special Organizational License Plates available in Pennsylvania - but notice, I said, "Special Organizational." At least that's how PennDOT labels these plates on their website.

There are nearly 170 such "Special Organizational" plates available for purchase. Some of these organizations are colleges such as Temple University, Arcadia University (my alma mater), and Lehigh University. Then there are such "Special Organizations" such as the Army Reserve and the Air Force Reserve, the American Legion and the Carpenters Union. There are Fire Companies, the Harley Owners Group, the Autism Society of America, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. And yes, there is even Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania, an organization listed as such with the state of Pennsylvania.

Out of all the "Special Organizations" listed, only one license plate is not associated with a specific "Organization" - the PA Choose Life plate.

PennDOT tells us we should contact our "Special Organization" to find out how we can order our "Special Organizational License Plate." So, theoretically, if I *wanted* to get my hands on a "PA Choose Life" license plate, how would I go about doing so?

If I want a plate with the 4H Club on it, I'll call the National 4-H Council. If I want a plate with the Ruffed Grouse Society on it, I'll call the Ruffed Grouse National Wildlife Conservation Society.

It would seem to me that a "Special Organizational" plate would have some indication as to the organization associated with the special plate.

But this particular Pennsylvania License Plate isn't about supporting an organization like the other 166 license plates listed on their site. This plate is about making a statement - a statement aligned with a particular (conservative, radical right wing motivated) ethical stance.

And it's a veiled statement at that.

What is the statement "Choose Life" really saying? Is this a statement for choice, or is this a statement against choice? Or is it neither?

My personal opinion is (and I'll know for sure once I get a response from PennDOT on who I need to contact to get one of these license plates) this is a Right Wing Extremist Agenda, blurring the lines of separation of Church and State, trying yet again to hide their rhetoric of hate in a Politically (in)Correct, highly visible, and highly public manner.

I wonder if Edward G. Rendell, Governor, is actually aware that Pennsylvania is taking this ethical stance in such a public way ....

Update: I received a response from PennDOT in reference to my query about the PA Choose Life plate. I still don't know what "organization" the plate is associated with. But now I have a name and number to contact someone about the plate ....