Strangechord

Naturally, I voted NO on Measure 36, which would amend the Oregon Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, banning same-sex marriage.

A few weeks ago, I attended a debate at PSU between a Yes advocate and a No advocate (I forget their names/what they do), and the primary argument used over and over again by the Yes-er was basically, “Think of the children!” She stated repeatedly that “numerous studies show that children do best raised by parents comprised of one man, one woman”. I knew that she was misusing the research to which she was referring because it is comparing children raised in single-parent households to children raised in one-man, one-woman households. So she was comparing apples and oranges by using that research to claim that opposite-sex couples raise children better than same-sex couples. The whole argument is ridiculous because there have been no valid longitudinal studies of the effects on children raised by gay couples. I know a few gals and guys around my age who grew up in same-sex households or by single, gay parents and of course they’re as peachy keen as the rest of us.

Ampersand writes about the issue here and here and posts this from last Friday’s Oregonian:

“Modern research,” pronounces the Measure 36 mailer, behind a photo of two nervous-looking children, “now confirms . . . children do better socially, intellectually and behaviorally when raised with a nurturing mother and father.” In fact, the mailer declares, “the scientific evidence is indisputable,” which is why Oregon voters need to put a ban on gay marriage in their constitution.

Except that Katie is real, and the research the mailer describes about her is imaginary.

Working from what’s now “a considerable body of research on the subject,” writes Charlotte J. Patterson, professor of developmental psychology at the University of Virginia, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian and gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”

That’s why in July, the American Psychological Association concluded, “Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents,” and voted to support such families having access to marriage.

The Measure 36 mailer cites one researcher, Kyle Pruett, a Yale child psychiatrist. Thursday, Pruett responded, “It is a distortion of my position. . . . I was quite surprised, even a little dumbfounded to see my name listed.”

(He also said, “I am numbed by the narrow-minded arrogance of the entire argument,” which may be a different point, but the Measure 36 backers brought him up.)

In other words, even in a particularly truthless election year, the main argument of the supporters of Measure 36 is strikingly, unquestionably a lie.

At the debate, the Yes-er also kept saying that this measure was simply about letting Oregonians decide for themselves about the definition of marriage, rather than being at the mercy of the courts deciding for them. I asked her during the Q & Response, if this is all about letting Oregonians make the decision for themselves, then why is the Yes on 36 campaign literature so rife with lies and distortions? It seems to me it’s about deliberately misleading Oregonians in order to win a Yes vote. For instance, the brochures say things like if Measure 36 fails, then churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages pretty much on demand. This is totally false; failure of the measure’s solely means the Oregon Constitution wouldn’t be amended. Her reply was a slippery slope argument - that if the measure fails, then what’s to keep same-sex couples from taking their case down to the ACLU if their local church refuses to marry them. The point is, that a scenario such as that is not inherent within the measure, and the Yes campaign is phrasing it like it is and scaring voters with it.