Sowing the Wind

Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks that a “gay couple” -- of either gender – are, by definition, unfit for parenthood. In my book, Job #1 of parenting is providing a safe, secure, stable (note the word!) environment, along with love, affection, and ample opportunities for enhancement of the child's self-esteem... plus, of course, the basics when it comes to food and clothing (this does not have to include a credit card and weekly excursions to the mall). Gay couples can, and do, provide all of these things to natural and adopted children.

But what about this issue of “role modeling”? Well, that's a problem for single parents too, isn't it – maybe a bigger problem than it might be for gay couples. Parental separation and divorce can't be much help when it comes to role modeling; personally I would prefer a gay-couple household where there are at least two of them and they can model cooperation and division of labor, even if the lines that would distinguish traditional roles are a bit fuzzy. You know, it's amazing what kids can put up with and come out more or less intact; when it comes to “damage” -- I've never heard of anyone “scarred” by growing up in a “gay parent” household (although, admittedly, there can't be all that much data as of yet) – but I've seen plenty of scar tissue resulting from neglect, mistreatment, emotional abuse, and physical abuse (sexual and otherwise). So when it comes to making a choice – well, let's just say that it's OK to have an image of an ideal world, but when you're dealing with actual people you have to try and recognize what works and what doesn't on an everyday basis.

Having said all that, however, it is also true that certain “sexual minorities” have succeeded in politicizing behavior and lifestyles that would have been considered pathological – and been illegal, in some cases – not that far back. Now, aside from the legal issues, where was it ever written that one's sexual proclivities had to form the basis for one's politics, and for demands for certified victim status? Can't people just be the way they are and leave everyone else alone? Ah, but we have this obsession with “rights”, and with everything having to be out in public. All of a sudden it's a matter of “pride” (and parades). So if I can't push my sexuality into everyone else's face (so to speak), I'm failing in my duty as an “agent of change” and political activist. Suddenly tolerance is no longer enough – everything has to be legal, and in fact promoted through grants, subsidies, preferences, affirmative action, etc. (not to mention college and university programs). This, in my opinion, is a corrupting influence – but it's one that minorities have asked for... demanded... so now they get it. But they also forget that there is a price to be paid. If you want the government's seal of approval on your life style, you can expect some government involvement in that life style in return; this makes perfect sense, but no one is willing to face up to it until it's too late.

With that as a preamble, I provide an example, from the recent press, of what I call the “dark side” of the gay marriage, “alternative family structure” issue. As long as everyone is getting along, and the government is considered everyone's friend, and a protector of “minority rights”, things are fine. But what happens when clouds start to gather over GLBT utopia? Then we get things like this -- “Woman won't give up child to ex-lesbian lover.” Strictly speaking, it should have said “ex-lesbian ex-lover”, since the person in question not only split up with her companion but “renounced homosexuality and became an evangelical Christian” (presumably in that order). So I guess the average family court – even in Vermont! -- would find the born-again heterosexual woman's household a more suitable place to raise a child than the still-gay former partner's. No big surprise, except – guess what! -- the child is the natural child of the still-gay former partner, not the born-again heterosexual evangelical. So the state of Vermont -- Howard Dean country – has decided to take a child away from its natural mother and hand it over to... whom? At best a stepmother (of sorts, since there was a “Vermont civil union” involved). And the kid was conceived through artificial insemination, of course... but I don't believe that invalidates the rights of its natural mother. And what do you know, the kid's mother doesn't want to cooperate!

Now, this all happened a while back, and the situation may have morphed somewhat in the meantime. But the fact that something like this could happen – at all, ever! -- indicates how far we've come down the road to perdition. I mean, as mixed up as these people were, this kid does have, in fact, a natural mother, whose only “crime”, apparently, was to deny “access to the girl” on the part of her “ex”, who has absolutely no biological relationship to the child. But she does have a legal relationship, thanks to the People's Republic of Vermont, and that legal relationship is apparently deemed superior to anything as old-fashioned as biological motherhood.

I guess we can be thankful for one thing, at least – it didn't take all that long for the GLBT utopia to turn into a nightmare – at least for these folks. But in principle, it had to happen eventually, because things like this are accidents waiting to happen. I'm not saying these women were unstable because they were gay – or that they should not have contemplated raising a child. But the government takes a look at scenes like that and says, aha, here's an opportunity to make some real mischief – so the next thing you know, we have court verdicts like this one, which – in any other time or place in all of human history – would have been considered totally insane, and grounds for removing the judge and locking him up in an asylum for life. But places like Vermont, as charming as they can be at times, are – socially and morally – far out at sea with no anchor, and when a storm hits, as it must, disaster follows soon after. The mere spectacle of such a thing should make everyone think twice about the new version of “legislating morality” -- but, like any plague or catastrophe, you never think it's going to strike you. You're immune, for some reason, because of your benign will and good intentions. Well, these folks had those things too, and look at them now.