October 31, 2006

"If my dad married a man, who would be my mom?"

Here's an ad supporting the anti-same-sex marriage amendment.



I suspect it will be quite effective for some people. My question is whether it's actively unfair. Queerty is especially offended by this ad because "it exploits children to spread a political message and then it portrays said children as easily confounded ninnies."

77 comments:

chickenlittle said...

Why not just redefine the word "mom" to include men? A man can be the husband of a man.

Brent said...

So, it's okay to use Michael J Fox in the tremoring throes of his disease for partisan purposes - a strictly emotional appeal if there ever was one - but not okay to use children?

MadisonMan said...

Brent, Michael J. Fox is an adult. He actually has Parkinson's, and the medicine causes him to shake.

I rather doubt the child in the commercial the product of a same-sex marriage.

SteveR said...

and these poor ninnies will be so confused, they will do poorly in school and end up stuck in Iraq.

Actively unfair? As Brent points out, in this climate not really. Who would it be unfair to? Life's not fair anyway.

SteveR said...

MM: As an adult Fox at least was responsible for being accurate in what he was saying and representing. I have MS and am able to say he was misleading, at best, about what he was representing, based on my authority as a victim of MS.

And as a victim of MS I cannot be criticized because something terrible happened to me.

Jeremy said...

Of course, if her dad married a man, that would indicate that he was no longer married to her mom either through death or separation/divorce, so you could just as easily ask who her mom is now, anyway.

Freeman Hunt said...

One can disagree with the ad, but I think that this criticism is silly:

"it exploits children to spread a political message and then it portrays said children as easily confounded ninnies."

They're actors. Millions of ads portray the people in them as "easily confounded ninnies." Where would As Seen on TV products be without actors willing to play such parts?

Hecla Ma said...

They're upset that children were exploited in the making of the commercial? Wow. That's never happened before, right? "Mom, can I have another glass of arsenic?"

Ohhhh. Right.

MadisonMan said...

stever, since when is accuracy a hallmark of a political ad? Why does Michael J. Fox have to be truthful? (Let me repeat, that I have not seen the ad -- for all I know, it's 100% truthful).

I question the ethics of those who would use children to push a political point of view. And the question asked: nonsensical. If her Mom died, who would be her Mom?

The Jerk said...

Not unfair, just stupid. But the people behind the ad probably know that their targets aren't the brightest.

Benjamin M Vogel said...

This conversation is a little gay.

I have seen a lot of using children this year in ads all around the country. There is a prop 85 ad in California where kids are telling Bush to keep his oil hungry, gay bashing, tax-cut-only-for-the-rich friends out of their state.

I would also wager that these child actors are also oblivious to the political agendas that they are proposing.

Jim said...

If a kid lived in a car, what would be his home? If he were home schooled, where would his schoolhouse be? If he made a Skype or touch-tone phone call, how could he dial the number?

Kids can adapt to all these, male moms and so much more. It's the hidebound braindead adults who can't.

John Althouse Cohen said...

So, it's okay to use Michael J Fox in the tremoring throes of his disease for partisan purposes - a strictly emotional appeal if there ever was one - but not okay to use children?

Brent, who are you talking to?

Troy said...

Kids can adapt I guess, but to suggest that there will be no confusion or issues ro even to minimize the possibility stretches credulity. Kids are not ninnies, but they are absorbing and sorting a TON of information about who they ae, their place in the world, etc. Parents are supposed to provide structure, safety, and an ever increasing boundary in which they can do this. "Who's my Mommy?" detracts from that.

Jeremy said...

"I question the ethics of those who would use children to push a political point of view."

Does this include those who do things "for the children" and implore us to "think of the children"? I can't stand those.

The Drill SGT said...

and lest we forget the original classic kid exploitation ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND3FdwXgRSg

Johnson v Goldwater 64?

SteveR said...

MM: My point is, the kids in the ad are no worse and no better than Fox. Matters not that he's an adult with Parkinson's.

Like you said we can't expect truthfulness, in a lot of ways.

Lets not forget the Daisy Girl ad, 42 years ago.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Instead of whining about the fact that an emotional appeal is being used a few days before there's going to be a referendum on an issue that affects children, I would prefer it if liberals released their own ad making a more persuasive emotional appeal. The ad could show a kid realizing that it's unfair if his or her parents can't get married while his or her friends' parents can. You're never going to convince people with the argument that emotions shouldn't have a role in policy decisions, especially with an inherently emotional issue like this.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Why not just redefine the word "mom" to include men? A man can be the husband of a man.

I remember seeing the book Heather Has Two Moms when I was in fifth grade. I'm 25 now, and I'm amazed that this is still considered novel or confusing. "Dad" means "male parent"; thus, someone whose parents are two men has two dads, etc.

Ann Althouse said...

Jeremy said "Of course, if her dad married a man..."

I thought that was a boy. I'm confused...

Cedarford said...

Vogtle - There is a prop 85 ad in California where kids are telling Bush to keep his oil hungry, gay bashing, tax-cut-only-for-the-rich friends out of their state.

I think there is a difference in a kid actor advocating something beyond his or her years - like the merits of cloning for embryonic stem cell research or Amy Carter famously "advising" her Dad on medium range ballistic missile deployment in Europe....

And a more existential valid, childhood question "then who is my Mom?"

Elizabeth said...

I don't think it's unfair, I just think it's effing stupid. It's on the order of "hey, when you gay guys have sex, who's plays the woman?" I can't see how anyone would support this amendment when this is the quality of argument that goes out in support of it. Vote against gay cooties! Save the Children!

Ann Althouse said...

The anti-amendment ads use children too -- in precisely the way John suggests. Check out this one that uses pictures of a real child, one of whose mothers was dying and has since died of cancer. The surviving mother talks about the limits that affected her as her partner was dying.

Mark said...

I would prefer it if liberals released their own ad making a more persuasive emotional appeal. The ad could show a kid realizing that it's unfair if his or her parents can't get married while his or her friends' parents can.

I'd like to see how that works - how a kid with two male or two female parents was conceived. If I saw an ad like that described, I think it would do nothing so much as make blatant how weird the whole concept of two men being "married" is. I think gays would be wise, strategically, to remind people about children as little as possible.

I love this ad. I think it captures a little bit of the reality of what homosexual marriage would wreak. It brings to mind the controversy in England where gays insisted that a historic portrait of a man and woman standing at an altar be taken down from the place it had been hanging in a chapel for generations, because the depiction of a bride and groom suggested that marriage was just for male/female couples and was thus "heteronormative" or some such p.c. buzzword.

That's just the start. Soon it will be considered offensive to refer to your wife as a "wife" or husband as a "husband" because that will have that awful, bigoted tinge of heteronormativity. If you think I'm being ridiculous, consider how feminists insisted on eliminating "sexist" words like "chairman" in favor of "chairperson", etc. No, we'll all have to call our spouses "partners" and erase any other gender-related words from our traditions surrounding marriage if we don't want to be considered offensive anti-gay bigots.

The whole thing is so screamingly politically correct and ridiculous. It's going to end badly for gays I think, because there is going to be a tremendous angry backlash when the full extent of the intrusion on social traditions becomes clear (assuming gay marriage is legalized). There's already a lot of people like me who have had it with multiculturalism, internationalism, and all the other liberal assaults on our traditions, sovereignty, and national identity. Combine that building resentment with a good big economic crash and perhaps some more muslim terrorism and it could be quite ugly. (I am certainly not threatening anything. I am simply predicting what we would see happen.)

On the other hand, maybe gays should have their couple of decades of feeling normal before the muslim demographic wave overtakes us and they have to retreat to the closet in order to survive.

Sean said...

Well, to answer Prof. Althouse's question, this ad is no more unfair than a hundred other political pitches (most of them on the left, I think) that use the welfare of children to advance an agenda. Is it unfair to have a liberal advocacy group call itself "Children's Defense Fund"? No. Politics ain't beanbag.

Edward said...

The entire case against same-sex marriage now seems reduced to one little saying: “Every child deserves a mom and dad.”

Fine, every child deserves a mom and dad.

That’s a nice concept, but I’ve never been able to see what connection that has to same-sex marriage.

There is no evidence whatsoever that same-sex marriage will actually deprive of a mom or a dad any child who would not already be without a mom or a dad.

Many gay people today become parents, one way or another. Whether or not these gay parents are allowed to marry their same-sex partners, their children will be without either a mom or a dad. (Of course, in most cases, they’ll still have a second parent, but simply of the same sex as the first parent.)

Same-sex marriage will not deprive children of out-of-the-closet gay people of a mom or a dad.

And, of course, gay marriage will not deprive the children of heterosexual couples of a mom or a dad. Heterosexual couples will continue having children, and their children will continue to have both a mom and a dad. Thus, no change.

As for adoption, virtually every state in this country already allows stable and responsible gay people, either single or in couples, to adopt children.

Same-sex marriage is not going to produce a change in adoption policies, especially not in the few gay-friendly states that will allow civil unions or same-sex marriage for the foreseeable future.

So exactly what child is going to be deprived of a mom or dad as a result of same-sex marriage?

I just don’t get it.

In my opinion, the phrase “Every child deserves a mom and dad” is being used in a way that is deceptive, cynical, exploitative, and melodramatic.

The phrase by itself is nice, but the use being made of it in the campaign against same-sex marriage is just despicable.

The people using this phrase hope to produce in their audience a visceral feeling of disgust against same-sex marriage (and perhaps also against gay people).

But they must also be hoping that their audience won’t think too much about the phrase’s actual connection to same-sex marriage, because the connection is completely illogical. In fact, the connection is non-existent.

George said...

The ad is moving and effective because it shows how vulnerable children are to exploitation, not by the filmmakers, but by those who would overturn millenia of global human tradition.

How cavalier some are about changing the meaning of this word and that word and the other word. We're talking not about words but about children and the unknown effects that social experimentation may have upon them.

Wade_Garrett said...

This ad is unfair in all sorts of ways, but particularly so because the marriage amendment on the ballot in Wisconsin isn't about the definition of the word marriage. The amendment specifically prohibits the legislature from passing a bill that gives gay couples the same rights as married couples, which is an unnecessarily cruel step that will hurt real families.

If the amendment was merely about 'preserving the definition of the word,' then this ad would be less unfair. However, since the amendment goes beyond that, I have to agree with Elizabeth. Its a "hey gay guys, which one of you is the bitch?" sort of ad, and its offends me and a lot of other straight people.

Wade_Garrett said...

On an unrelated note, I wonder if I should point out to Mark that one cannot "wreak" reality? Nah, he's probably too busy watching Bill O'Reilly and screaming at his tv to care.

chickenlittle said...

Jim said:

"Kids can adapt to all these, male moms and so much more."

There you have it folks. The modified noun version of the next English word targeted for corruption. You read it hear first.

Funny how the left is always targeting family related words too.

Danny said...

"If my dad divorces my mom, who would be my mom?"
"If my mom marries another man, who would be my dad?"

or how about

"If my dad beats my mom, is he still a man?"

Robert said...

This brings up a few things for me.

Several years ago, I was in Washington, D.C., with my husband and our son. When out walking with my son (then seven), we walked past some leafleters. He very cleverly managed to snag a leaflet without me noticing (doing things without a parent noticing is a skill all children cherish, I've come to believe). When he showed me the leaflet, it was from one of America's many socially conservative, Biblical-inerrancy parachurch groups. I explained to him that the people who were handing out the fliers didn't believe that Daddy and Poppa should be married, or even be _his_ parents. He got very indignant, and snorted, "I _love_ my daddy and poppa!" and threw the leaflet in a trash can.

When I shared this experience on a blog run by a culturally/socially conservative Christian, one of his confreres snorted (in print) "What a child has to say about his parents is scarcely objective testimony!" I'd be interested if he's saying the same thing about this ad.

Also, neither of our sons had a 'mom 'n' dad 'n' me' family from the get-go. I have to wonder if the people fulminating about this subject really think that having them spend the next ten to fifteen years in foster care would be a preferable alternative, because in the world I live in, there wasn't a line of people out the door down at Social Services, begging to adopt the five year old boys.

And yes, our sons call us daddy and poppa, and we call each other husband.

Wade_Garrett said...

Danny -- That's awesome. If a politician put that advertisement on tv I would take out a bunch of new student loans just to write his campaign a larger check.

Edward said...

Chickenlittle: Take the long-term perspective. Over the past century, our culture has undergone enormous social, economic and technological change, most of it for the better.

I seriously doubt that you would want to turn the clock back on all that change.

The near future will bring even more social, economic and technological change, most of it for the better. I doubt that you would call for a stop to all that change.

Individuals, families and our culture overall will adjust to same-sex marriage, and everyone will be better for it.

chickenlittle said...

Edward,

WTF? what does that have to do with changing the meanings of the words marriage, mom, husband, wife, and "gay" for that matter?

Why aren't this vocal, whiny minority unable to think up their own words for new concepts, just like real innovators do?

I have to go take my kids trick or treating now.

Revenant said...

The modified noun version of the next English word targeted for corruption. You read it hear first

Oh, please. If you want to whine about corruption, move to France or some other nation that actually cares about enforced linguistic stasis. English has always been a whore of a language, willing to lie down with any new idea or foreign word that comes its way.

The English language managed to endure "creation science", "animal rights", and "organic beef" without the world coming to an end. It can handle "male mom".

Gahrie said...

The amendment specifically prohibits the legislature from passing a bill that gives gay couples the same rights as married couples

Can we just establish once and for all that this is a lie?

Heterosexual people have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Homosexual people have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

By definition, they have the same rights. What the Homosexual community wants to do is create a new right, the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

The obvious, and fair, compromise is civil unions, open to both heterosexual, and homosexual couples.

Wade_Garrett said...

Gahrie -- read closer. I said gay couples, not gay individuals.

And the "homosexuals want new rights" argument is so ten years ago that I don't really know how to begin dismissing it.

Ann Althouse said...

Robert: "Daddy and Poppa" is very sweet!

Gahrie said...

Terry:

Which is why Gay marriage will never be enacted except as a dictate from a court.

If it is truly about having the right to visit a spouse in hospital, share retirement income etc as we are told, civil unions will accomplish that, without destroying an institution that has been around at least as long as civilization.

Even in societies that embraced open homosexuality, there was no gay marriage.

This has become more about winning, and enforcing your will on the American people, than it is about securing certain rights, or civil unions would be acceptable.

Mark said...

Terry: On an unrelated note, I wonder if I should point out to Mark that one cannot "wreak" reality? Nah, he's probably too busy watching Bill O'Reilly and screaming at his tv to care.

Just more confirmation that when discussing things with a liberal, one must be very, very careful to get all spelling, grammar, and usage exactly right, because they are looking for any reason to denigrate your intelligence rather than honestly engage with your ideas.

Wade_Garrett said...

Gahrie -- once again, I would point out that the proposed amendment in Wisconsin would prohibit the legislature from passing a law establishing EITHER gay marriage OR civil unions, so your proposed compromise would be out of the question. If the proposed amendment barred only gay marriage, but allowed for civil unions, then it wouldn't be as bad.

Furthermore, neither the Massachusetts nor the New Jersey Supreme Courts imposed gay marriage upon the state. Rather, they held that the legislature cannot give certain rights to married couples without creating some sort of equivalent for gay couples. The legislature then had the choice to either create a legally recognized union for gay people OR to repeal the laws that granted special rights to married couples. Much to its credit, the Massachusetts legislature chose the former.

Gahrie said...

RE: New Jersey

The Court refused to specifically recognize marriage for same-sex couples, but said they are entitled to equal rights and benefits of married people, and that it can be called marriage or something else (civil unions).

Assemblyman Richard Merk called the Supreme Court "clueless" and vowed to introduce legislation that would impeach the entire court. The head of Garden State Equality chastised the court, vowed to stop at nothing short of marriage and quite ironically said, "SO HELP US GOD, New Jersey’s LGBTI community and our millions of straight allies will settle for nothing less than 100 percent marriage equality"

Joe Baby said...

I think the ad very deftly targets two sub-issues to the discussion regarding traditional marriage:

1. Traditional thoughts on gender.

2. The "it's not the same" theme.

Both sub-issues seem to be non-negotiable to the opponents of traditional marriage, and agreeing with either of the two points about is asking for an intolerant lecture on tolerance.

Rather than simply arguing for specific rights, it's clear that advocates of gay marriage want a complete redefinement of marriage, gender roles, and parenthood. Note how individuals are treated if they believe traditional marriage to be unique and--gasp--superior to other unions.

When Catholic Charities in Mass. has to get out of the business of adoption and the MTA has to pay damages for denying transgender bathroom of choice (preventing a man from using the women's room), we are way beyond gay marriage. It's obviously a much larger battle.

MadisonMan said...

I love this ad. I think it captures a little bit of the reality of what homosexual marriage would wreak.

Terry, I had the exact same reaction to this sentence. And it's not that it's incorrect, it just strikes me as funny.

Anyway, just about any child is a lot more adaptable than you're giving them credit, mark.

Elizabeth said...

Revenant says: "English has always been a whore of a language, willing to lie down with any new idea or foreign word that comes its way."

Between that and your remarks in the innate morality thread, you're my absolute favorite commenter on Althouse today, Revenant. You make our species stronger!

Cedarford said...

Edward - And, of course, gay marriage will not deprive the children of heterosexual couples of a mom or a dad. Heterosexual couples will continue having children, and their children will continue to have both a mom and a dad. Thus, no change.

That would be true if babies came out of gay men's rectums pumped with enough semen.

But they don't.

99.99% of the babies born come from heterosexual couples. Anytime a "gay couple" adopts, they replace one or both of the heterosexual partners involved in procreation.

Leaving the kid to explain how Mommy is the gay that agrees to "bottom" - as opposed to the gay who "tops".

Mark said...

English has always been a whore of a language.

Another thing liberals do: they have a propensity for using sexual vulgarity in their language and, as in this case, metaphors. It's not enough just to say "English has been flexible and adaptable." No, we've got to get a sexual vularity in there somewhere - so, liken English to a prostitute.

And then this "whore" metaphor prompts "elizabeth" to praise the person who said it. I think vulgarity must strike liberals as being really authentic - you know, not all tied up in knots like those damned right-wing religious zealots.

I should give more examples of this to make my case, but honestly it's just something I've noticed over the years when reading blogs.

Edward said...

Mark: I’m gay. I’m for same-sex marriage. And I try my best to avoid using vulgarities.

I’m not saying that makes me better than Revenant and Elizabeth, but it’s the way I am, and I don’t plan to change.

I’m sure there are lots of other supporters of same-sex marriage who avoid using vulgarities.

Take my advice, and don’t generalize carelessly about people you happen to disagree with.

By the way, I'm absolutely sure that there are plenty of opponents of same-sex marriage who swear like sailors.

Edward said...

Cedarford: Take a moment and wipe off the spittle that you must have covered your keyboard with while typing your last post.

(I may not use vulgarities, but I appreciate a well-placed put down.)

John Whiteside said...

Well, the entire anti-gay-marriage argument amounts to "Isn't that weird? Ooh!" so the ad is in keeping with that.

When you ask what the specific consequences will be (and examples from places like Massachusetts) there's a deafening silence.

Internet Ronin said...

Yes, every child does deserve a mom and dad in the home. I look forward to this group's next campaign to make divorce illegal. I'm not quite sure what they plan to do about the moms and dads who die prematurely, though. I don't think that hotline to God and their monopoly on interpreting His will is going to do them any good, however.

Internet Ronin said...

Hey Cedarford - Many do both and some do neither.

You figure it out.

Gahrie said...

When you ask what the specific consequences will be

How about the polygamists using the same arguments to promote polygamy? It's already happened in at least two court cases.

How about further undermining the basic structure of western society?
The promotion of libertine lifestyles by the left for the past 50 years has already put the status of the family in jeopardy.

Elizabeth said...

Mark, if you're so offended by vulgarities, how'd you miss Cedarford's ode to gay men's asses stuffed full of semen?

Methinks you ought to take the corncob outta yours. But if you did, who would provide the entertainment?

Elizabeth said...

Edward, you think it's spittle on Cedarford's keyboard? I'm not so sure. He gets really excited when he writes about the gays.

Internet Ronin said...

Corncob... megaphone... six of one, half-dozen of the other.

k said...

How much of the gay marriage debate is sprung from the families of gay couples who simply cannot come to grips with their child's gay relationship? Let me explain. I hear all these arguments talking about .. oh, insurance beneficiaries, visitors in hospital when only family may be admitted, and other similar relationships. Well, IANAL, but can't anyone designate anyone as an insurance beneficiary? I think the answer is yes.. so it comes down to relationship things, like hospital visitors. Are a lot of gay couples reacting to old-school moms and dads who won't admit that Sonny is gay and has a lover, and won't let said lover visit Sonny while hospitalized? And they are trying to make the state recognize the relationship so Reactionary Mom and Dad HAVE to? So .. my question is, why don't Sonny and Lover have a contract that lets Lover be admitted to hospital visitation? And if that just sounds too cruel, let me pose it as a heterosexual living-together scenario, where strait-laced Mom and Dad won't let Live-In Guy or Gal come visit heterosexual Daughter or Son in hospital as they have no legal right .. same deal, I think. Or, to put it in a more positive light: If Mom and Dad accept SameSexLover, they will let him/her come visit and cry and laugh with them. Only when there is this contentious family relationship does the legal argument enter (who gets to visit, who gets what family privileges). And, btw, I believe that end of life arguments are also grounded in this relationship miasma ... mom and dad think one thing, and spouse (or live-in ... hasn't happened yet, but it will!) disagrees. The law is just not up to date with the complicated relationships that modern day Homo sapiens choose to get involved in.

Gahrie said...

I gotta say Elizabeth, you moonbats always manage to remain consistently classless.

Internet Ronin said...

This has become more about winning, and enforcing your will on the American people, than it is about securing certain rights, or civil unions would be acceptable.


In fairmess to you, that is probably true.

Johnny Nucleo said...

You think a kid with gay parents has it tough? I was raised by wolves! Gay wolves!

Anon Y. Mous said...

What's unfair about it? Because children are featured? One of the central arguments used by the "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" crowd is that the reason that marriage gets the privileged treatment is that its primary purpose is the raising of children.

It's certainly legitimate to disagree with that viewpoint, but I don't see how you can argue that it is unfair for them to make their point.

Elizabeth said...

Gahris, yep, it's lowdown dirty of us to quote people making crass statements. You wingnuts don't disappoint either; you never fail to ignore the beam in your own eye.

Elizabeth said...

gahrie--sorry to mispell your name.

ronin--megaphone. funny!

Gahrie said...

Elizabeth:

You're wrong. I despise most Republican politicians almost as much as the Democratic ones. I loathe the fact that there is no responsible opposition to the Republican party.

I was once a Gore supporter in the 1980's, back when Gore was pro-life, pro-business and before he became a moonbat.

I don't particularly like either Pres. Bush. I am a Reagan Republican, something neither one of them is. But again, there was simply no credible opponent to vote for.

I long for the day when the Joe Liebermans and Zell Millers are once again welcome in the Democratic party.

The Jerk said...

"If my dad married a man, who would be my mom?"

Who is Spain?

Why is Hitler?

Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

The Jerk said...

I loathe the fact that there is no responsible opposition to the Republican party.

Perhaps we first need a responsible Republican party. Baby steps, yoosta bee, baby steps.

kettle said...

"Is it actively unfair?"

Does the above question have any practical value? This is a normative question, and there is no objective way to answer it.

That said, I think the ad makes some pretty gross assumptions about low intellectual capacity of the general public, and the resiliency of children!

Claiming that kids are going to be 'confused' by a change in the definition of marriage is just as idiotic as claiming we need to keep Pluto in the official solar system because the kids will be bummed and confused if we kick it out.

...
...

"...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."

I think the guy who wrote this had the right idea. If he did, then we ought to start handing out marriage licenses to these people, and equal protection and equal support under the law. Holy matrimony we may leave to Holy Writ.

Shanna said...

"it exploits children to spread a political message and then it portrays said children as easily confounded ninnies."
I HATE this line of thinking. The Dem in Arkansas is mad about the use of children in ads too. This is not new, and adults should be able to make political decision regardless of who is in the ad.

Those kids are hella cute though. Especially the blond mop haired one.

Also, Daddy and Poppa is adorable.

I think a man and a woman raising a child is ideal, but that's not the world we live in now and that's not something government could enforce.

Pogo said...

"...children have no business expressing opinions on anything except 'Do you have enough room in the toes?' "
Florence King

TMink said...

One of my daughter's friend had two mommies. One of her mommies was my divorce attorney, and got me half time custody of my daughter, hence she is one of my favorite people in the whole world! Having two mommies did not confuse my daughter's friend. When she told my daughter, my daughter smiled and said "I have two mommies too" meaning her mother and her step mother!

What confused my daughter's friend is that after her mommies broke up one of her mommies is now dating a man. THAT is confusing.

Trey

me said...

"Are a lot of gay couples reacting to old-school moms and dads who won't admit that Sonny is gay and has a lover, and won't let said lover visit Sonny while hospitalized? And they are trying to make the state recognize the relationship so Reactionary Mom and Dad HAVE to? So .. my question is, why don't Sonny and Lover have a contract that lets Lover be admitted to hospital visitation?"

Sonny could give Lover power of attorney but that is quite a drastic step -- not something able-bodied types normally do before there is a reason, like increasing infirmity, etc. I should know this, but I just don't think you can have a regular contract giving a person rights like who gets to come see you at the hospital. And Sonny can leave everything to Lover in his will -- but family can have that will overturned because of undue influence. Picture the jury, looking at sweet loving mom saying how her poor misguided son's will was overborne by "Teh Gay" sitting over there.


"And if that just sounds too cruel, let me pose it as a heterosexual living-together scenario, where strait-laced Mom and Dad won't let Live-In Guy or Gal come visit heterosexual Daughter or Son in hospital as they have no legal right .. same deal, I think. "

Yes, it is the same deal. Unless the live-in hetero couple is married, boyfriend HAS NO RIGHTS when it comes to girlfriend, no matter if he's lived with her for 25 years and she hasn't spoken to mom in 30 years. Same thing with gay couples.

"The law is just not up to date with the complicated relationships that modern day Homo sapiens choose to get involved in."

Perfectly correct. That's why people are trying to change the law . . . in typically messy homo sapiens fashion. :)

Elizabeth said...

gahrie, while you're going on about your impressively complex conservative identity, you completely ignore my point. Don't give me guff about what I've said when you happily ignore the foulness cedarford spews. That's the beam in your eye.

Since you're soooo concerned about identity, it's pretty funny that you labeled Revenant a liberal.

Slac said...

Odd that I don't see commercials with kids asking questions about divorce.

Haven't we already taught our children it's normal to have more than one mother? Keep divorcing and you can have five.

Revenant said...

"English has always been a whore of a language"

Another thing liberals do: they have a propensity for using sexual vulgarity in their language and, as in this case, metaphors.

The news that I'm a liberal will come as a surprise to the many commentators here who think I'm a right-wing Republican toady.

It's not enough just to say "English has been flexible and adaptable."

Oh, please. I used a lurid metaphor in response to a lurid accusation -- that a shift in vocabulary was part of a campaign to "corrupt" the English language. There are no good metaphors for "English is a thoroughly corrupt and impure language already" that won't offend your delicate ears. So do us all a favor and get over yourself already.

Fitz said...

Nobody seems to have a problem when gay people trot children out to prove what great parents they are. Remember the White House Easter egg hunt? We are also told that children don't need a mother or a father, and that a positive role model does just as well (i.e. teacher, postman, the checkout guy at the local grocery).

Does anyone really believe that if gay marriage became legal that nothing else will change? Look at Massachusetts before you answer that question. Schools now feel justified in reading same-sex fairy tales to grade-schoolers. Who can blame little Mark and Jimmy if, after hearing about two kings in love, they began to view their buddy as a play boyfriend? This is the nightmare scenario that millions of families will face.

We are continuously told that gay marriage will in no way affect religion. One might consider Catholic Charities. Unless they agreed to hand children over to gay couples they faced the revocation of their license to place at risk kids. No one seemed to concerned about protecting religious liberties in that case.

We are facing an untried social experiment that involves the most vulnerable amongst us....our children. Without some definitive prove that gay marriage indeed does not harm society, why are we so hellbent on enacting it?

Slac said...

Without some definitive prove that gay marriage indeed does not harm society, why are we so hellbent on enacting it?

We aren't. We're hellbent on creating a constitutional amendment to ban it. :/