Opinion piece by FOF psych. in AJC

[suzer1013]

This opinion piece appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution as an "equal time" article in response to the AJC's editorial against the FMA.

The piece really incensed me, as you can see by the fact that I'm still thinking about it two days later. What really gets me is that Maier makes this argument based on a 6 year old's question of "why don't I have a daddy" and turns it into "this 6 year old is saying he wants a daddy." That's not what was said -- it just says Parker asks why he doesn't have a daddy (has 2 mommies instead) -- it doesn't say anywhere that Parker said he wants a daddy.

I read Rosie O'Donnell's blog, and she's been clear that she and her partner make sure the kids have male role models in their lives. I'm a fan of Rosie. I don't like everything she does, I realize she's human like the rest of us, and I realize that it was her choice to put herself and her family in the spotlight. I think that helped gay families in some ways, and perhaps hurts them in others -- like when Maier takes a quote and then uses it to make baseless arguments to support the FMA.

I wonder what Maier's credentials are, if he has any, and if he's just one of those "Christian therapists" who operate without a proper license. If he's working for Focus on the Family, I can't imagine that his position on gays is supported by the APA.

He's right about one thing -- it is about "I want" -- "I WANT EQUAL RIGHTS!!!"

Susan


EQUAL TIME: Public views shouldn't be ignored
Bill Maier - For the Journal-Constitution
Wednesday, June 7, 2006

The argument for gay marriage boils down to two words: "I want." It's not about what's best for children, or society, or future generations --- it's about the "right" of 2 percent to 3 percent of the population to redefine the nature of marriage, regardless of the consequences.

And there will be consequences. Just ask Parker O'Donnell.

Parker is the adopted son of comedienne Rosie O'Donnell and her partner, Kelli Carpenter. A few years ago on ABC-TV's "Primetime," Diane Sawyer asked O'Donnell if Parker (then 6) wondered why he doesn't have a daddy.

"Oh, yes," said Rosie, "all the time." Sawyer asked, "Well, what do you tell him?" Rosie said she tells him he can't have a daddy "because I'm the kind of mommy who wants another mommy."

Parker longs for a father, and all Rosie can say is "I want."

That attitude is driving the push for same-sex marriage. It will create families that are motherless or fatherless by design, and mountains of social science data tell us that comes with grave consequences for children.

The Marriage Protection Amendment would help future generations avoid these consequences by preserving the institution of marriage. It is not "bigoted" to believe marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman. That's what a vast majority of Americans believe, as evidenced by the 19 states that passed similar amendments to their own constitutions.

For these Americans, the definition of marriage is important. They are tired of activist judges foisting their will on the rest of us. Marriage amendments in Nebraska and Georgia have already been struck down; the only way to prevent it from happening elsewhere is to define marriage in the U.S. Constitution.

That's why President Bush and social conservatives in the Senate support the Marriage Protection Amendment. To suggest that their backing is just a crass political ploy shortchanges the concerns of those millions of voters who have already spoken on the issue.

And it disregards the needs of children such as Parker O'Donnell. Parker doesn't lie awake at night wishing the state would legally recognize Rosie and Kelli's relationship, or that Rosie and Kelli could share Social Security benefits.

He lies awake at night wishing he had a daddy.

Bill Maier is a child and family psychologist and serves as vice president and psychologist-in-residence at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo.

This column is solicited to provide another viewpoint to an AJC editorial published today.

[Zerbie]

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that the marriage amendment will not change the status quo and will therefore not "guarantee" that all children are raised by a married opposite sex couple. The amendment will do nothing to change the fact that single and divorced people are raising children.

All it would do is ensure that children of same-sex couples who depend on their biological parent's partner's insurance benefits won't have health care coverage, among other harms. it's a bullshit argument based on emotional appeal with no basis in fact. Oh and, it concludes with an obvious lie - yes this IS a political ploy.