"They also serve who only stand and wait"

After today, all that can be done, at least in the courts, will be over.  The arguments will have been made, the justices will retire to their chambers and by the end of June we will know the fate of our LGBT family, friends, coworkers and fellow Americans.  For many of us it will be an excruciatingly long time.  As I listen to my body's reaction too all of this, I find myself feeling much as I did as a child anticipating the arrival of Santa Claus, or the first summer day in the swimming pool.  It was almost unbearable; yet Santa did come and go, and the summers dragged on.  But much more is a stake than getting that nice new bike or meeting with friends for a dunking contest.  Not knowing, when we know only too well how necessary the defeat of Prop 8 and DOMA are, added to the mystifying awareness that America is now only beginning to wake up to LGBT injustice, makes one grieve.  

I don't even want to think about what to do should the Court not rule in our favor.  It will be like how WWII was waged in the Pacific, beach head by beach head, atoll by atoll, island by island.  But in this case it will be State by State.  This will be enormously expensive both in money and effort.  The good news is that DOMA likely will fall.  Should Prop 8 only be limited to California, then when each State approves gay marriage, the 1011 Federal benefits now denied will be extended to all in same-sex marriages.  This is to be celebrated.

Americans are getting a world-class education in gay rights.  America will never be the same, and will eventually, say, 20 years from now, find its way to make LGBTs full citizens. It's this unnecessary interim that's so devastating.  How many couple's hopes will be dashed?  How many more children will be subject to ridicule? How many more families will have to live without the protections that heterosexual couples enjoy every day?  

I'm still holding out for a complete sweep of victory.  The signs are impossible to read with any assurance, but nothing has been ruled out as yet.  As David Boies put it, "The most remarkable thing that happened in there was there was no attempt to defend the ban on gay marriage."  I remember the day in 1954 when the decision in Brown v. Board of Education was announced that ended segregation.  This was not a popular decision, yet it was made. When Loving v. Virginia (IN 1967!)  struck down miscegenation laws allowing interracial marriage, the vast majority of the country was appalled.  So especially when the majority of Americans now favor same-sex marriage and gay rights over all, the Court is perfectly situated to do the right thing.  So I remain hopeful.

To really appreciate the title of this blog, we need to recall John Milton's poem, "On His Blindness."  

When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait." 

Wait we must; yet let us listen to Patience who counsels against those thousands who "post o'er land and ocean without rest."  Why is this Patience's work to counsel us to stand and wait? I think it's to remind us that, as Martin Luther King, put it, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”  In other words, not everything depends upon us; let us pause for the moment and let the universe do its thing.  It just may be that we will need to get going soon enough as it it.  

Here's a great summary of the events of yesterday from David Boies and Ted Olson

22 Reasons Why DOMA and Prop 8 Need to Be Declared Unconstitutional

And Same-sex Marriage Be Made Available Nationwide

1.   It's the right thing to do
2.   It will strengthen marriage all around
3.   LGBT families need the protection of legal marriage 
4.   LGBT partners need the protection of legal marriage
5.   LGBTs deserve the status of normal and worthy citizens that marriage bestows
6.   It will diminish the need for sham marriages and resultant divorces
7.   SCOTUS will be on the right side of history
8.   It’s inevitable; if not now it will happen eventually, so why wait?
9.   More orphaned children will find happy families
10. It resolves one more remaining justice issue in favor of equality
11. America can move on to other issues
12. We can retire right wing hypocrites who lecture us on morality
13. Maybe Maggie Galagher will go away?
14. Marriage is much more than about procreation, or, often, not about it at all
15. Republicans are even determined to make this a non-issue
16. I honors the Golden Rule
17. It in no way harms heterosexual marriage
18. Same-Sex Marriage Provides a More Stable Environment for Children of LGBT Couples
19. Love matters
20. "Separate but equal" was tried and failed
21. Did I say it’s the right thing to do?

And finally, so Associate Justice Antonin Scallia has to eat these words:

"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'”. [This quote is taken from his minority dissent to Lawrence v Texas when the court struck down sodomy laws.]

Yes, just "what justification could there possibly be", indeed?

Here's a little bit of what SCOTUS will hear today (from 

David Boies on "Meet the Press")

Okay, I cribbed this next list from StopGeek.com.  It's hilarious, and give us pause at our own shortsightedness.

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here NOM Goes Again!

I've devoted several posts to prior statements from the National Organization for Marriage, NOM, that more than require a scratching of the head. This time, however, they have outdone themselves.  Their peculiar brand of logic can only be described as solely at the service of their cramped ideology.  For it makes no sense except to them and to those who subscribe to their patriarchal notions of family.  To wit:

In an article yesterday from the Associated Press, the writer surveyed the Justices' family situations and discovered that they are divorced, remarried, never married with no children, and married once with children. In other words, the Justices' family lives look a lot like American families. This got John Cherlin, a Johns Hopkins sociologist thinking about the upcoming gay marriage cases, and mused, if "Justices consider their own family lives in these cases, it may change the way they rule."  Chief Justice Roberts and his wife are the parents of two adopted children.  The chairman of NOM, John Eastman, commented on the value of Justice Roberts' decision to adopt:

"You're looking at what is the best course society wide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option." 

The "second best option."  Adoption could never be considered anything but second best. Why?  Because only a family of the birth mother and birth father raising their own birth children qualifies as "the best."  

There is no room in NOM's world for anything but mom, dad and their child as the best, and if they had their way, the ONLY way to raise a family.  I wonder how Justice Roberts and his wife feel about being second best?  I wonder how his children when they look back upon their lives will feel about being raised "second best"?  Or adopted children and their parents everywhere?

I told you this would only make sense if you must defend at all costs NOM's view of the ideal home.  No wonder then that yesterday Brian Brown, NOM's president, released the following statement regarding the selection of Pope Francis I:

Pope Francis has also said: "At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts."

You see, the issue isn't that NOM really cares that adoption is second best.  What they really are after is a way of prioritizing the hierarchy of family configurations from best to worst so they can make gay families with adopted children the worst.

The stakes are so high with NOM that they will insult the Chief Justice of the United States, his children, all adoptive parents and their children, and all who will ever open their homes to orphaned children.  This is what happens when ideology blinds: anything goes.

The New Pope and Our Cause

I celebrate along with the 1.2 billion Roman Catholics and innumerable other religious and nonreligious people around the world the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina to the church's highest office.  Even thought I am a Protestant, I hold the Catholic Church in high esteem and recognize its importance to the world.  

All the earmarks are pointing in the right direction: Pope Francis I, is a product of the struggle in Latin America for justice for the poor, and is known as a critic of the business interests who continuously exploit their people.  He is a humble man, eschewing the perks of his high office, preferring public transportation to chauffeured limousines, and lives in a small flat, not a palace.  "Cardinal Bergoglio had a special place in his heart and his ministry for the poor, for the disenfranchised, for those living on the fringes and facing injustice," said Vatican spokesperson Thomas Rosica.  Even the choice of his papal name bespeaks of a man who cares deeply for human injustices. That is, for all but one:

The above quote occurred during the campaign in Argentina that resulted in legalization of same-sex marriage in 2010.  He also warned that adoption by gay parents would result in depriving children "of the human growth that God wanted [for] them given by a father and a mother."  

This makes me wonder how people of good will, and I believe most assuredly that our new pope is one, can isolate out certain injustices as not worthy of their attention.  Or in this case is seen as anything but an injustice, but an evil that must be eradicated.  

Sometimes it's simply a matter of theology or ideology trumping otherwise good judgment. It's seen in some Black Americans condemning LGBTs "because the Bible says they are an abomination," using as their source authority the same Bible that condemned them to slavery and segregation.  It's seen in Pro Life people who will sacrifice their lives to save the unborn, but won't support legislation to provide them a safety net after they are born.  It's seen in those who are against birth control, yet won't allow condoms to halt the spread of AIDS.  We could go on and on, couldn't we.  

The Catholic Sun says of Pope Francis I,

His role often forces him to speak publicly about the economic, social and political problems facing his country. His homilies and speeches are filled with references to the fact that all people are brothers and sisters and that the church and the country need to do what they can to make sure that everyone feels welcome, respected and cared for.  

How often have we seen signs on churches that advertise, "All are welcome here," only to find that this welcome is not universal, not for all.  Such statements from the pope are hypocritical at worst and blithely naive at best. As for "respected and cared for", how can we take him seriously when he supports the view, as stated in a letter to the Bishops (drafted by then Cardinal Ratzinger) from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered"? (This is from the same Congregation that ran the infamous Inquisition.)

Many believe that the Roman Catholic Church has lost its standing to tell anyone how to conduct sexually moral lives.  Perhaps this is partially why 58% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage, while only 38% oppose it.  And many of the most Catholic of countries, Spain, Portugal and even Argentina have legalized it.  People have a way of seeing through inconsistencies and rank injustices.

I am not a "one issue" voter.  I will not disregard the pope, or the Catholic Church for that matter, simply because they are on the opposite side of this issue from me.  I will support them for the many, many good things they do in the world for the poor and marginalized.  I will pray for the pope for the wisdom and support he needs to guide his church in the coming days and years.  But I will also speak out against this outrageous omission, this blind spot in the pope and his church, with the hope that maybe some day the leaders of the church will catch up to the wisdom of their members.

The following is a press release by the American Sociological Association sent yesterday. It should put to bed any remaining doubt that the academic community, the only body qualified to speak authoritatively on issues regarding scientific inquiry, is solidly behind same-sex marriage and gay normalcy in general. It speaks clearly for itself; I have no need to comment. Those who continue to foster contrary arguments do so from a position contrary to the facts. We will have to look to other motives to determine why.

_______________________________________________________

ASA Files Amicus Brief with U.S. Supreme Court in Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Research Shows Parents’ Sexual Orientation Has No Bearing on Children’s Well-Being

WASHINGTON, DC, February 28, 2013 — The American Sociological Association (ASA) weighed in on the gay marriage cases before the U.S. Supreme Court today, filing an amicus brief outlining social science research that shows “children fare just as well” when raised by same-sex or heterosexual parents.

“The results of our review are clear,” said ASA President Cecilia Ridgeway. “There is no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed, the greater stability offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents may be an asset for child well-being.”

Founded in 1905, the ASA has more than 14,000 members and a long history of presenting the consensus research findings of sociologists to American courts for their use in evaluating evidence and legal issues. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear cases on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages already legalized under the law of several states, and Proposition 8, which revoked the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

“An issue at the heart of these cases is whether family composition, per se, affects the well-being of children and thus, provides a justification for limiting the right to marry,” said Ridgeway, the Lucie Stern Professor of Social Sciences in the Sociology Department at Stanford University. “This core question is an empirical one and is the subject of a broad range of social science research. As a scientific body, ASA has a duty to provide the court with a systematic and balanced review of the evidence to assess what the consensus of scholarly research has shown.”

In their briefs to the court, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives, which is defending DOMA, the Hollingsworth Petitioners, which are defending Proposition 8, and their respective supporters assert that children fare better with opposite-sex parents than with same-sex parents.

“When the social science evidence is exhaustively examined—which the ASA has done—the facts demonstrate that children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents,” states the ASA amicus brief. “Unsubstantiated fears regarding same-sex child rearing do not overcome these facts and do not justify upholding DOMA and Proposition 8.”

Wendy Diane Manning, Professor of Sociology, Director of the Center for Family & Demographic Research, and Co-Director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University, led ASA’s examination of the social science evidence. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP of New York City served as counsel to the ASA on the brief.

____________________________________________

The American Sociological Association (www.asanet.org), founded in 1905, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to serving sociologists in their work, advancing sociology as a science and profession, and promoting the contributions to and use of sociology by society.

The Gay Agenda, Pt. 3

Prelude to the Series

The fact that there is a gay agenda, at least on the part of the leaders of the Gay Rights Movement, should not be understood as anything out of the ordinary.  All movements have agendas, including political parties, religious organizations and nonprofit enterprises like the Red Cross.  So simply having goals they want accomplished should not be off-putting.  It is a normal function of modern movements that want to advance their causes.  

However, many opponents of the gay agenda are trying to make it look like there is something underfoot akin to the subversive activities of the communists of the 1950s, along with a corresponding witch hunt.  When I finish with this series which focuses on the publicly declared and commonly held items of this agenda, I will list some of the more outrageous charges that act more as red herrings than actual concerns.   I hope to show that, regardless of the hysteria surrounding the reality of a gay agenda, these are reasonable, responsible and valuable contributions to the public square.  (Not withstanding the outlandish charges masquerading as part of the agenda, but are only made up by the opposition.)  This is why I chose an opponent of the gay rights movement's (John Rankin) list of what he sees as the gay agenda, as it is, except for the last two, a fair assessment of it.

 See the full list here.

The following quote is another of critic John Rankin's notions of the gay agenda: He is (mostly) right

"Gain ecclesiastical, legal and social 'approval' of the personal and social 'goodness' of homosexuality, and call it 'gay'."  And, "Translate this 'approval' into leadership positions – especially ordination status in the church and political office in the culture."

Again, this is a perfectly legitimate pursuit.  It only seems strange to those who react negatively to the arrival of LGBTs in their places of worship.  But there is little we can do for such as these.  They will continue to accept the pronouncements from their pulpits and tightly run synods and denominations that the only possible reason a Christian would associate with gays is to have the opportunity to "save" them.  They will continue to close their ears to the volume of biblical scholarship amassed over the last century that clearly shows that, for those who wish to, LGBTs rightfully hold their claim as Christians.  

I will also hasten to add that those Christians who oppose LGBT acceptance have their right to do so, as well.  I would not want them disbarred from the conversation, or jettisoned from our churches, any more than I want them to continue disassociating with LGBTs.  Perhaps if we are longsuffering enough, we might even "save" some of them!

The removal of the Sodomy laws was a major step in advancing this agenda item. On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Ironically, many of those crimes defined as sodomy were widely practiced by heterosexual couples, and continue to be.  How people consensually choose to express their sexuality is deemed not a matter of governmental concern and increasingly is not seen as anyone else's, either.

Also ironically, the uneven enforcement against LGBTs, overlooking the widespread breaking of sodomy laws by straights, was a major reason for striking down the law.  So the striking down of this law had as much to do with gay opponents overzealous abuse of the law as the proponents of gay rights fighting these laws in court.  No matter.  This aspect of the agenda is accomplished. Still to come are legalizing same-marriage, gay adoption, and the removal of all laws allowing discrimination against gays on the job.

The fact that many openly gay clergy have been ordained, even promoted to high office, signifies the success that the movement enjoys in promoting this part of their agenda.  The election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire and Mary Glaspool as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles are just two of many LGBTs who have ascended to high office of late.  Also, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have recently voted to end their longstanding prohibitions on openly gay clergy members. The United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist church have ordained openly gay clergy for decades.  Add to that the many congregations that will ordain and call openly gay pastors, the success of mainstreaming LGBTs in the church and society is apparent.  Give this agenda item its rightful due: it has succeeded and succeeded well.

Social approval was accomplished due to the widening acceptance of homosexuality as a normal part of the human experience.  Part of this was due to the research by the profession organizations that clearly shows that LGBTs are as normal as the next person.  But, the overwhelming verdict in favor of gay acceptance came when our sons and daughters, parents, uncles and aunts, cousins, friends and coworkers, and the person in the next pew, revealed their sexual orientation to us in large numbers.  When we came face to face with the true face of homosexuality, our fears vanished, our love for them continued, and our desire for their full access to all the rights any other human is afforded became our cause, too.  They are no longer strangers to be feared, but the very person we've always loved and admired.

I say to you who see only Gay Pride Parade exhibitionists, and think pedophiles are gay (they are not!), and hear only from homophobic ranters, get a life!  You are surrounded by gays who you actually admire and don't even know it.  That's how normal they are.  Imagine if heterosexuals were all thought to be like the Mardi Gras revelers or the nightly visitors to the singles bars, and the people displayed on porn sites. But we know there is a wide world of straights and gays who far outnumber these and act more like you do every day.  That's why the agenda is working.

TOMORROW: We'll examine Rankin's item: "Redefine 'marriage' to include 'same-sex' relationships."

What to Say to Your Friends about Same-sex Marriage, Pt. 1

Same-sex marriage is becoming less and less controversial as more states (and nations) are legalizing it, while books and articles on all sides of the issue abound.  It is a topic that has come of age.  Likely, you have been involved in discussions about this.  If you are unclear about how to think about same-sex marriage, or about how best to frame your responses, these suggestions may help.

"Marriage has always been between one man and one woman."
This is almost too easy to refute.  I am puzzled how anyone can hold this view.  The cynical side of me thinks that no educated person really believes this.  So, remind people that Abraham, King David, Solomon, and a host of Old Testament patriarchs had many wives as was approved under the Law of Moses.  In the New Testament, Paul advises that an Elder (congregational leader) should have only one wife, suggesting that polygamy was still in use among some Christians.

And to make matters worse for those who would make marriage between one man and one woman the ideal, both Paul and Jesus forswear marriage for Christians if at all possible.  The ideal is a celibate life; marriage is considered an encumbrance to spreading the gospel.

"Since the Bible condemns homosexuality, giving it the cover of marriage does not change the fact that it is a sin."
In the first place, America is not a theocracy.  Our Constitution governs us, not the Bible. So the mere fact that the Bible condemns anything is irrelevant.  Do we make gluttony or pride unlawful just because the Bible says they are sins?  Of course not.

"If we allow gay marriage, what's next? Polygamy? Child brides? Where will it end, marrying our pets?" 
This is commonly known as the "slippery slope" argument.  The fact that any supposed next step may be undesirable is irrelevant.  What is at issue is the worthwhileness of same-sex marriage.  It should stand or fall on its own merits, not on what may or may not ensue.  Opponents of the ban on assault weapons in 1994 claimed that the next step would be the banning of all rifles and eventually the confiscation of all guns.  The next step was actually the repeal of the ban on assault weapons.  The government's argument for sending troops to Vietnam was called the "domino effect."  If we let Vietnam fall, then it's neighbors will fall and we will loose the entire of South East Asia to the communists.  Vietnam fell to the communists.  No other nations fell. Today, we have normalized relations and Vietnam is a member of the UN, the World Trade Organization and a threat to no one.

The slippery slope argument is resorted to when no good arguments are any longer available. By using this, opponents of same-sex marriage are admitting they have nothing left of value to say.

"Marriage is only for the purpose of procreation.  LGBTs can't procreate, so they aren't eligible for marriage."
This is another of those arguments that stretch credibility.  This argument is made by the Roman Catholic Church and other religious groups, but even they don't honor it, for they will marry people well beyond the age to procreate, and those who are young but can't conceive.

Only the most dogged literalists would insist on limiting the definition of procreation to "sperm meets egg."  Procreation, that is, creating a family, is not only possible among LGBTs but happening every day.  Adoption   is one of the most urgent needs today.  Gay families have proven themselves to be appropriate options for raising a family.  Same-sex marriage would aid in making this possible.

"Legalizing same-sex marriage will harm traditional marriages."
The easiest way to defuse this objection is to ask a simple question: Tell me just how your marriage will be harmed?  In asking this countless times, I have yet to get any answer at all.  Not just a poor answer, but no answer.

To broaden the issue just a bit, if it is suggested that legalizing same-sex marriage will impact traditional families, they are correct.  Their children will be obliged to recognize that some of their playmates have two mommies or daddies.  This will certainly raise questions for their moms and dads. Schools will likely have to deal with same-sex relations in health classes.  However, this situation already exists.  Not legalizing same-sex marriage will not change this.  Recognizing it will mean that we will have open discussions and fact based research, such as the realization that gayness is not an airborne disease that we catch by being in the same room with it.  The children of opposite-sex parents will not more easily become gay by association; their parents have nothing to fear.  If their children turn out to be gay, it is for other reasons, altogether.

"Okay, smart-aleck, you tell me why same-sex marriage is a good thing!"
Same-sex couples face the same challenges and problems that opposite-sex couples who are married face, yet are without the same resources to meet these challenges.  There are 1009 federal benefits presently withheld from them as well as many state benefits.  America is all about equal rights.  LGBTs unable to marry are being discriminated against, and this should stop.  As Byrne Fone of Harvard said, "Homosexuality is the last respectable bigotry in America."  It's time we ended it.

Here's Bishop Gene Robinson's take on why separation of church and state works for the good of both the church and state:

TOMORROW: A Closer Look at the Bible and Same-sex Marriage

What Every Parent of a Gay Child Needs to Know: 9. You Still May Have Grandchildren

According to the US Census Bureau's data from 2010, the number of children in LGBT households doubled  since 2000.  And 25% of the children are biologically related to one of the parents.  Adoption accounts for the rest.  The trend continues into this decade as states are making it easier for gay couples to adopt.

According to the American Fertility Association, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow gay or lesbian stepparents to adopt their partners’ children. Except for Pennsylvania, those states also allow any other same-sex couples to adopt, as do Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. North Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and New Hampshire specifically prohibit it. All states except Florida allow a single LGBT person to adopt.

This trend toward expanding the right of gay couples to adopt is driven, in part, by research which shows that children are not adversely affected by being raised by same-sex couples.  The American Psychological Association states in their official policy that "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish." http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx  There is also no qualitative difference between the love of same-sex couples for their children and that of heterosexual couples.  To those who think otherwise, I have only one response: you don't know enough LGBTs who have formed families and been together for decades.

Same-sex couples are forming families at an astonishing rate with the increased acceptance of gay normalcy across America.  So, if you are the parent of an LGBT child, your chances of becoming a grandparent are still very good.  This is just another of the many ways that, once people get to know LGBTs and their families, they turn out to be little different from any other families we know.

One of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that gays can't procreate.  But marriage is for many more things than procreation.  With all the orphans that need good homes, it seems to me that LGBT families offer a great service to the rest of us when they take one or more into their homes.

The video below is just a slice of how gay adoption not only results in a happy child,

but in even happier parents!

TUESDAY: A new series begins
Important resources that will increase your effectiveness