[Cross-posted at
Los Punditos]
Jonathan Rauch, of the Brookings Institution, has a piece in yesterday's The New Republic Online, arguing that the legalization of same-sex marriage will be good not only for the children of homosexual parents, but the children of heterosexual ones as well. This is a perfectly reasonable argument, and one he makes quite well. Of course the piece, and Mr. Rauch's new book on the subject, will be met with derision and howls of inquietude by the conservative culture warriors for legitimizing the idea that - gosh! - homosexual couples can be good parents too and, more importantly, that man-woman unions do not necessarily need any more enshrining, at least, not under the law.
When confronted with gay marriage as a civil rights argument, or as a matter of civil acknowledgment of a religious institution, the culture warriors invariably fall back on "But... but.. think of the children!" Children, they say, are shown to benefit more from having a mommy and a daddy. This is a gross misreading of what the consensus actually is among educators, psychologists, and social scientists.
More accurately, a child is an incrediby fragile and yet incredibly resilient creature. They are easy to break, and amazingly good at protecting themselves. Project Cornerstone, a child advocacy group in San Jose, California, has identified over 40 "developmental assets" that children need to thrive. What has also been seen, is that they need only a few to allow them to be resilient.
The chief asset a child needs is an adult, a single adult, who they perceive as actively involved and interested in their development. Even if that child faces a derth of all other assets, the presence of that adult (and it need not be a parent) can provide the resilience and care they need to grow up with a chance of success.
Having a pair of parents obviously makes this asset much more available. With one parent doing the breadwinning the other parent is available to devote his or her time to the children. These parents need not be a man-woman dyad, except in the sense that this is what the culture warriors would like to see the children socialized in to.
In today's increasingly complex economic life, a single breadwinner often cannot pay all expenses on their own. They need every tax break they can get. So, why not allow gay couples to marry and file jointly? It would mean more resources for the children, who are, after all, what this is apparently all about.
It is not the gender of the parents that matter, but their level of interest in the children, when it comes to child development. The more interested, invested adults, the better. But more than the children already possessed by gay couples through various means, think of the other children who might benefit.
American adoption law is unnecessarily Byzantine and complex, which is why we have seen a trend towards adoptions abroad. It is very, very difficult to adopt a child in this country, even for childless heterosexual couples who cannot conceive children. How much more difficult, then, is it for homosexual couples who lack a societal and civil recognition of their commitment to parenthood? States such as Florida prohibit homosexuals from adopting children outright, denying unwanted children parents willing to devote themselves to their well-being.
If the conservative cultural czars were actually concerned for the children, as they purport, why deny children the opportunity to have multiple, invested adults, as research shows they need? To develop and thrive, children need parents. The problem, as these cultural fascisti see it, is that research increasingly shows that it doesn't have to be a male-female dyad, nor does the stay-at-home parent need to be the mother. Peter can have two mommys. Heather can have two daddys. In the end, what matters is that the parents love and care for the child, not their genders.
-Jim