measure 36 debate and distortions
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.
Gender Specific said,
October 27, 2004 @ 5:50 pm
Don’t believe everything you read.
A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. Yet much of that research fails to meet acceptable standards for psychological research; it is compromised by methodological flaws and driven by political agendas instead of an objective search for truth.
In addition, openly lesbian researchers sometimes conduct research with an interest in portraying homosexual parenting in a positive light. The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias.
In their thorough review of homosexual parenting studies, Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai found little evidence to support the oft-repeated mantra that homosexual households are “just like” traditional families: “We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about ‘homosexual vs. heterosexual’ parenting. Their claims have no basis.”
Christine said,
October 27, 2004 @ 8:22 pm
If one just reads the the initiative petition, the very first word is AMENDS….that sent Mike and I over the edge to vote NO! We think the constitution is just fine the way it stands.
We believe that our marriage is more spiritual (ie religious to some) than civil and we are Big believers is separation of CHURCH and STATE….and so, I say maybe we should just have all CIVIL Unions and just drop the religious aspect of it, because in the end, we will still be spiritually connected and be taxed to death by the state - ergo we both win.
We are having this discussion in both my sociology of women class at this time, as well as my American Culture class (marriage & kinship section)…..while I find the social construction pieces of this fascinating, I am getting quite tired of all the politicans and their staffs gleaning/using only portions of their opponents records in an effort to WIN…it just seems that the WINNING part of it is more important than what happens when Wednesday November 3 rolls around…..
We (Americans) have such tiny hearts when consumed with EGO…..it’s no wonder that much of the globe don’t like us - sorry I digressed!
Emily said,
October 27, 2004 @ 10:01 pm
Well, “Gender Specific”, isn’t the point then that any studies comparing heterosexual and homosexual couples’ childraising have been inconclusive? I essentially said this already in my post: …there have been no valid longitudinal studies of the effects on children raised by gay couples… - so I don’t see how what you wrote refutes my point. The issue I raise in my post is that the Yes on 36 campaign is using studies in a distorted and dysfunctional way to bolster their arguments.
Pamela said,
October 27, 2004 @ 11:28 pm
I get so frustrated reading the rhetoric about two-parent households. I grew up in a two-parent household, one man, one woman, and it was a disaster. Here’s a newsflash for all the family-first regurgitators, it’s just not a perfect world of happily well-adjusted heterosexual couples out there, and children suffer in traditional households too. How do we guarantee ideal, or even just marginally healthy situations in one-man, one-woman households? If that’s the concern, will we monitor heterosexual parents for suitability?
We would never even consider making it mandatory for people to take a mental health test prior to having children, and yet the fundamentalist right is spinning in circles wanting to take away basic human rights from people based on the simple fact that they love their own gender. Claiming that it’s to “protect the children” is a ruse. If they are so concerned about the welfare of children, there are plenty of heterosexual parents that should be examined, and plenty of institutional inequalities that harm children in far more dire ways. There aren’t even enough people willing to be foster parents out there, but we’re suddenly worried about the consequences to these children–it’s hypocracy.
Shall we take a look at all the unhappy products of children from the one-man, one-woman households where one or both of those parents are abusive? How about neglectful or addicted parents? How can you quantify an “ideal” child-raising situation. One of my best friends was raised by a healthy single parent and she’s far better adjusted than many of us from a “traditional” marriage.
It’s a bogus silkscreen for a religiously-motivated agenda. And incidentally, I’m in a one-man, one-woman marriage in case my motivation should be misconstrued.
Gender Specific said,
October 28, 2004 @ 2:49 pm
Isn’t it so sad that people are now ending their blog posts with clarification that they’re in a heterosexual relationship? In a same-sex friendly world, wouldn’t that seem like a slap in the face? It’s like they say, “I support same-sex marriage, but ‘oh by the way, don’t misconstrue my motivation here, I’m not one of those people.’” Social discourse about sexuality has (sadly) taken an ambiguous turn.
I miss the days when “I’m married” meant you were heterosexual.
Emily said,
October 28, 2004 @ 3:02 pm
Oh gimme a break! Pamela added that she was in a straight marriage not because she’s embarrassed people will think she’s gay, but because it helps to quell any suspicion of bias regarding her statement. Too often, people will dismiss gay rights arguments because it’s a gay person making the argument. That’s the reason she raised her marital status.
Pamela said,
October 29, 2004 @ 2:57 pm
Thank you, Emily.
I think what’s really interesting is that so-called “Gender Specific” could only call out that section of my post … no response to any other aspect.
And you “miss the days when “I’m married” meant you were heterosexual.”–this is what you miss, being able to determine someone’s sexuality?!?!? I’m much more concerned with whether a couple is being guaranteed their civil rights.
There are a lot of things I miss, but it’s never been high on my list of priorities to be able to discern someone’s sexuality on contact.
Asher Abrams said,
November 1, 2004 @ 7:12 am
Emily,
Thanks for posting this.
I am a child of gay parents.
No, I wasn’t raised by two men or two women. My mother and my father were both homosexuals who stayed in the closet their whole lives. It was miserable. I watched my mother fall in love with other women and get her heart broken, and she could never say what it was that was causing her pain. She was very bitter and could be incredibly cruel to people, especially my father and me. My father was a kind and compassionate man who accepted Mom’s abuse without complaint. In a letter he wrote near the end of his life, he let on that he was gay. I don’t know whether he ever had an intimate relationship with another man.
I have no patience with the “experts” who think they can tell you all about homosexuality and how it can be “fixed”. Bigotry and intolerance are what need to be fixed.
Homophobia ruins lives. VOTE NO ON 36.