BY DAN
KENNEDY
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
For information on Dan Kennedy's book, Little People: Learning to
See the World Through My Daughter's Eyes (Rodale, October 2003),
click
here.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
WILL MITT ROMNEY TRY TO OUTLAW
GAY PARENTHOOD? I'm sure he won't. (Although I'm not so sure he
wouldn't try if he thought he could.) Which is what makes his
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday a prime
example of political hypocrisy, even by his low standards.
During his opening
statement, he said
this:
But marriage is not solely
for adults. Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is
principally for the nurturing and development of children. The
children of America have the right to have a father and a
mother.
Of course, even today,
circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still
has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child
can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the
child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her
psychological development can still be influenced by the
contrasting features of both genders.
Are we ready to usher in a
society indifferent about having fathers and mothers? Will our
children be indifferent about having a mother and a
father?
But we already live in a society
that is pretty much indifferent about having fathers and mothers, do
we not? Single women choose to have kids. Gay and lesbian couples
choose to have kids. For that matter, single women and gay couples
sometimes adopt kids, suggesting not just indifference on the
part of society but, rather, active participation. Would Romney stop
any of this? Of course he wouldn't. (Again, maybe he would if he
could.)
A few moments later, Romney
said:
Scientific studies of
children raised by same sex couples are almost non-existent. And
the societal implications and effects on these children are not
likely to be observed for at least a generation, probably several
generations. Same sex marriage doesn't hurt my marriage, or
yours. But it may affect the development of children and
thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the
implications for human development of a different definition of
marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over
thousands of years.
Preserving the definition of
marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live
in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as
a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose
to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is
an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should
cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and
understanding.
But there is a difference
between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights,
but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not
deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights
of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will
ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all.
I highlighted the part where the
governor acknowledges that same-sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone
else's marriage, and I'm glad to learn that he won't be sporting a
"Protect Ma and Pa" button anytime soon. But again, the hypocrisy
here isn't even hidden - it's shimmering right on the
surface.
Marriage is about children. We
don't know what the effects may be of raising children in gay and
lesbian households. So we shouldn't rush into this. But Governor
- much of what the legal definition of civil marriage is all about is
making it easier to raise children. Tax incentives. Rights of
inheritance. Joint medical insurance. And on and on.
Today's best take is by the
Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh, who observes
that Romney appears to be running against his own state in order to
advance his fevered national ambitions. Lehigh writes, "Can Romney be
an effective governor by continually taking on the culture and
candidate of the state he leads? Or will Massachusetts voters
eventually grow tired of watching their chief executive raise his
national profile at the state's expense?"
AGAIN. I hope we're not
getting inured to the horror of terrorist beheadings in the Middle
East. Somehow, yesterday's execution
of Kim Sun Il by terrorists allegedly tied to Abu Musab Zarqawi (who
is believed to have personally beheaded Nicholas Berg) didn't seem
like as big a story as it should have.
The danger is that each
decapitation - of Daniel Pearl, of Berg, of Paul Johnson, and now of
Kim - will make us progressively numb to the horror of what's taking
place. We should remember each victim. You don't have to support
George W. Bush misadventure in Iraq to acknowledge that these men
gave their lives in the war against terrorism.
ZZZZZ. Right-wing journalist
Mark Steyn hits me where it hurts. He's linked
to my less-than-flattering profile
of him, and adds this commentary: "Warning: May cause drowsiness. Do
not attempt to read before operating a motor vehicle or heavy
machinery." Oof!
MEDIA LOG ON THE AIR. Tune
in to WRKO Radio (AM 680) this Saturday from 7 to 10 p.m. I'll be
hosting Counterpoint,
the station's liberal alternative to its 165 weekly hours of
conservative and right-wing talk.
posted at 9:00 AM |
4 comments
|
link
4 Comments:
You think Lehigh's is the "best take"? Lehigh presents the Romney testimony as smart and polished, when in fact, as you point out, much of it was nonsensical and offensive.
Kim's death got less play because he's not American and we don't have grisly pictures. That terrorists would kidnap and kill people is hardly shocking to me.
The Arab-Moslem terrorists are conducting what eggheads like to call "asymmetrical warfare", that is, they hide among civilians and kill whomever they can. To garner publicity they make the killings as gruesome as possible, either by killing a lot of people, like they did in Madrid, or by killing in spectacular fashion, like beheading the victim.
Now, it only works like that when the Arab-Moslems are on the weak side of the asymmetry. When they are on the strong side, it looks like the Sudan: Opposing forces cannot hide among civilians, b/c there will be no civilians.
Of course, no horror can possibly overshadow the unfathomable indignity of having to wear women's undergarment in Abu Ghraib.
Romney's position makes about zero sense, apart from being self-serving.
He admits that same-sex marriages don't hurt other marriages. So that just leaves the "think about the children argument."
Dan pointed out many reasons why the availability of marriage for same-sex couples will help them raise their children. But here's something else to think about. Right now in Massachusetts, same-sex couples are married and raising children. The Federal Marriage Amendment would not only erase these marriages (presumably), but also negate any court decision requiring marriage or civil unions (as the Lehigh article mentions).
Unless the Mass legislature acted to create civil unions or same-sex marriage (no guarantee), the baseline would basically be where Virginia is now, i.e. nothing resembling the benefits of marriage between two people of the same sex.
That is surely what Romney would like. However, it seems like all the children actually being raised by same-sex couples right now would be severely harmed by the passage of the FMA. Too bad Ted Kennedy didn't mention that.
DK, think of Counterpoint as 'RKO's version of Boston Phoenix's conservative page. Oh, wait, I forgot...Anyway, good luck with the show! I'll hopefully be able to catch the tail end of it.
Post a Comment
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
