“For the Children"—Not
Liberals love to say that what whatever they want to do—whether it’s universal preschool, hot lunches, or state-sponsored gambling—is “for the children.” These three little words are designed to shut down all debate. After all, who could possibly oppose something that’s “for the children”?
But in the matter of so-called “gay adoption,” Massachusetts liberals have dispensed with this pretense, showing that their ultimate loyalty is not to “the children” but to a radical homosexual agenda that demands that all other groups bow before it. On March 10, Catholic Charities of Boston announced that it would pull out of the adoption business altogether rather than be forced to place children with homosexual couples.
Mind you, Catholic Charities was not trying to shut down the practice of homosexual adoptions, which church teaching regards as “gravely immoral.” It was merely seeking a conscience-based exemption from state anti-discrimination regulations so that it could continue helping kids.
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey would stomach none of that, saying, “I believe that any institution that wants to provide services that are regulated by the state has to abide by the laws of this state, and our anti-discrimination laws are some of the most important.”
In effect, according to Healey, the right of gays to adopt trumps the rights of religious groups to conduct their work in accord with their most deeply held religious principles. It also apparently trumps the right of “the children” to grow up in a home with a mother and father.
And make no mistake: No matter how hard we try to cover it up, all “families” are not created equal. Yes, many homosexuals are wonderful people (and all are valuable because they are created in God’s image). And, yes, some homosexuals make good parents, certainly better than the dysfunctional heterosexual situations that many would-be adoptees come from.
But most of the recent research purporting to show that children raised by homosexual couples are no worse off than children raised by two-parent, heterosexual parents is fatally flawed, according to an analysis by the Family Research Council.
“[M]uch 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,” says the FRC’s Timothy Dailey. “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.”
Meanwhile, on the Left Coast, according to the Family Research Council, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on March 21 for a nonbinding resolution condemning Cardinal-designate William J. Levada, who says Catholic Charities should not place children with gay couples. “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in [homosexual] unions would actually mean doing violence to these children,” Levada said, “in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full development.”
Even the most biased among us can acknowledge that children should have a loving father and mother whenever possible, and that there is a difference between having a mom and a dad versus two moms or two dads. According to research cited by the National Fatherhood Initiative, children need moms and dads:
“Having a loving and nurturing father was as important for a child’s happiness, well-being, and social and academic success as having a loving and nurturing mother,” the NFI notes. “Withdrawal of love by either the father or the mother was equally influential in predicting a child's emotional instability, lack of self-esteem, depression, social withdrawal, and level of aggression.”
Judeo-Christian religion, of course, has been unambiguous about this matter for thousands of years. Marriage is the exclusive, “one-flesh” relationship between a man and a woman, a prime purpose of which is producing godly children—something no homosexual couple can do. Christians further believe that the man-woman relationship of marriage is designed to provide a beautiful picture of Christ and the church. Such a picture is indelibly marred when two men or two women attempt to “marry.”
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has announced plans to craft an exemption for Catholic Charities. “They have within their religion the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that children should not be sent into homes without a mother and a father,” he said. “We’d like them to be able to be true to their religion.”
Should Romney fail to deliver, what then? Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby worries about what might be ahead.
“Is this a sign of things to come?” Jacoby writes. “In the name of nondiscrimination, will more states force religious organizations to swallow their principles or go out of business?”
One thing is certain if they do. The biggest losers will not be the religious organizations, but “the children.”