Family Equality Council Blog

Gust blogger Alan O’Brien-Myers is a rising senior at Holyoke High School in Holyoke, MA, where he lives with his two moms and younger brother.

As someone who was adopted by two lesbian moms, I was certainly disappointed to find out that John McCain, a candidate for President of the United States, doesn’t “believe in gay adoption.”

What’s not to believe in? Many gays and lesbians adopt children and create wonderful, loving families. My moms adopted me out of foster care when I was eleven years old. I’m seventeen now. I love my family. My moms provide for me in all the ways that other parents provide for their children. We have our problems just like everybody else, but in the end we take care of each other. We believe in each other.
Your Ad Here

What we don’t believe in is John McCain and any other politician who is out of touch with the reality of American families. Not all families are married moms and dads with their biological children. Many children are raised by single parents, unmarried parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and more. What makes these families real is the love and care they have for each other, their commitment to seeing each other through good times and bad.

John McCain says he supports a quicker route to adoption so kids who need homes can get them faster, but he clearly has a bias against my kind of family and all the ones I listed above. If John McCain had his way, my family would not exist. I’m not giving up my family just because John McCain is confused about what really makes a family.

If John McCain really cared about families, he would trust the professionals who have agreed that sexual orientation doesn’t affect someone’s ability to be a good parent. He would listen to my voice and the voice of many other kids being raised by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents. It’s not that our families are better, just that we’re basically the same, except in most places the laws don’t protect our families very well. If John McCain really cared about families like mine, he would let LGBT people marry the person they love so that all families can be treated equally to others.

My two moms, my little brother and me, we’re doing just fine. We could do a little better if we had the support of people like John McCain, who as President or even as a senator has so much power over how other people live their lives. Without his support, we’ll keep doing what we’ve always done-love each other, care for each other, argue like all families, make up like all families, and continue to work for a country that really respects all of its people and families.

We’d rather have our next president support us. Wouldn’t you?

As the family equality movement continues to make strides, with legislative victories and growing support in polls, it’s important to remind ourselves that though we’ve come far, there is still a long way to go.

This morning, I received an email from a family near and dear to our hearts. A friend of the family was searching Facebook’s groups, and discovered an anti-LGBT adoption group. The family’s defaced portrait was being used as the group’s cover image. “It distresses us beyond words and caused both of us to literally become sick to our stomachs,” the family said. “We are now in the process of getting Facebook to take down the unauthorized use of our family’s photo and have the site/account removed for abuse. We live in a sometimes very frightening world.”

Frightening indeed. The group has some 177 members and a description that reads: “There is just no way to take a child away from a natural single parent.”

Among the disturbing comments posted on the groups page are: “Gay adoption is just a selfish act. If you are gay and choose to live with a same-sex partner, you cannot have children. End of.”

If you care to view the Facebook group, click here.

While we have made great strides in this movement, the fight for family equality is anything but over. Situations like these are reminders about the importance of our work, and motivate me to fight even harder for our families.

Over the weekend, I discovered this interesting blog post about gay families and values written by Ruth, a doctoral candidate in Family & Child Development, with a certificate in Interdisciplinary Qualitative Research, at the University of Georgia. Her blog post is reproduced, in part, below:

When I was an undergrad at Syracuse University, Mr. Pat Buchanan himself came to speak at the chapel that served as our free speech zone. Always a believer in knowing my enemies, I went to hear him and managed to snag a seat in the very front row. Sitting along side a twitchy young woman with a folded sheet on her lap, I listened to him deftly avoid every controversial topic we knew him for, focusing instead on uniting concepts like improving our chances for getting jobs upon graduation. At the end of his lecture, just when the crowd seemed least sure of what to do, a group of protesters who were spread throughout the chapel stood quietly and assumed their places. Pairs of lesbians rose from the seated audience and began their kiss-in, long lines of liberals formed behind the micophones with question sheets in hand, and my neighbor on the front row bench sprung to the front of the room with her sheet. It turns out that her friend didn’t make it, so she took my hand in mid-leap and I joined her. Heady with the moment, there I was holding a homemade banner with an unknown message. I smiled at the room, spotting several of my professors, along with my confused boyfriend. Then I leaned back to read my banner, squinting through the sheet at the backwards, hand painted words.

“Gay Families Have Values, Too”

Within the week one of my classmates lost her job after a photo of her taken during the kiss-in reached her employer. She became the most important housemate I ever had even though we ended on terms that, in retrospect, I am not proud of. I learned a lot from her, and from that event. Her former employers at the childcare center didn’t seem to agree with our banner, but the truth of it is difficult to deny for those who spend any amount of time with same-sex parents and their children. All families have values of one sort or another, that’s inherent in the definition of the word. But those politically hot Family Values? One would expect to find them in homes where parents value their children, pour their hearts and resources into them, and never take for granted their ability to hold them close. Where are you more likely to find those kinds of Family Values than in a crowd gay and lesbian headed households?

This morning’s NY Times published an article on Rosie O’Donnell’s annual R Family Vacations charter cruise, filled with food and Broadway music. The whole article is worth a read, but the first 5 and final 3 paragraphs are a soul felt reminder of the real life application of this type of family’s values. Take a look for a refreshing alternative to photos of gay Pride events. Pride has a very important place in our culture, but most same-sex families would rather plod around in their crocks, sharing ice creams at the park (or on the cruise ship) instead.

Earlier in the week, we released the following press release in regards to Senator McCain’s comments about gay adoption:

Senator McCain’s comment in the New York Times on Sunday, July 13, stating, “I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption” demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding of the many kinds of families that exist in the United States. The Family Equality Council, the national organization working to ensure equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families, is disturbed and disappointed that a presidential candidate would make such a biased and ill-informed statement about the most “successful” kind of family.

These are the facts about American families. According to the 2000 census, the vast majority—more than 75%—of American households differ in structure from two married, heterosexual parents and their biological children. We are a nation of blended and multi-generational families, adoptive and foster families, and families headed by single parents, divorced parents, unmarried parents, same-sex couples and more. As an adoptive parent himself, McCain should be well aware of this. As a presidential candidate, he should seek to honor and support the many kinds of families that exist, rather than dismiss the vast majority of households in this country as second-tier.

This is what is true about lesbians and gays raising children: 30 years of scientifically valid research universally demonstrates that LGBT families are just as nurturing for children’s growth and development as heterosexual families.

Our society’s primary child welfare organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, have all issued statements supporting same-sex parents. The American Psychological Association has stated: “Gay and lesbian parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide healthy and supportive environments for their children.”

All of which makes one wonder: What is the basis for Senator McCain’s position?

American families may be diverse, but have at least one thing in common—we want our children to be safe, healthy, happy and supported. When our families are politicized, our ability to protect ourselves, each other and our children comes under attack. After eight years of similarly baseless attacks on our families, we hope that the next President of the United States will honor and support the vast array of families that daily work to raise happy, healthy and productive children. The Family Equality Council has a proud history of educating political leaders about our families and we welcome Senator McCain and others whose perspectives affect the most personal aspects of our lives to contact us and get to know the loving families he paints as “unsuccessful”.

After being blasted for his comments, Senator McCain’s campaign issued a clarification, stating:

“John McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue. … He was not endorsing any federal legislation. Sen. McCain expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. John McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.

Or so says Amro Worldwide, one of the leading gay and lesbian travel organizations. The company’s new “so gay” ad campaign, developed in partnership with the marketing agency, Out Now, is being featured in London tube stations to target London Pride-goers.

The posters, each of which features a different locale that has been deemed “so gay,” seek to direct London’s gay and lesbian communities to the many gay- and lesbian-friendly hot spots the U.S. has to offer. Participants in the campaign include Atlanta, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., South Carolina and, of course, Boston.

Amro’s CEO, Andrew Roberts, stated in a press release that the goal of the campaign is twofold: to publicize the exclusively gay-centric travel options Amro offers and to reclaim what has traditionally been framed as a derogatory phrase (the schoolyard taunt that so-and-so is, like, “so gay!”) and recast it in a positive light. In the words of Out Now’s CEO, Ian Johnson, “It is really about standing up and saying: You say: ‘So gay’? Then I say: ‘So what!’”

The campaign’s underlying message raises interesting questions about terminology, how we call ourselves, and the sheer power of words in our society. By taking a phrase like “so gay” or a term such as “queer” or “dyke” and reappropriating it, we shift the terms of discourse. We seize the right to define ourselves, instead of letting those in positions of power do so for us. By owning the dirty words we’ve been called, we draw attention to the negatives in our pasts while also seeking to move beyond them and create positive self-definitions to draw upon in the future.

Johnson expressed excitement at the fact that this outspoken campaign is coming to London right on the heels of the banned Heinz mayonnaise commercial, in which two men share a casual kiss. Unfortunately, the campaign has already become the subject of controversy.

On Friday, South Carolina’s tourism board denounced the state’s involvement in the campaign. Although it was too late for the ads to be removed, South Carolina’s tourism officials have refused to pay for them. The advertising manager who gave the project the green light has since resigned.

While South Carolina’s backpedaling is regrettable, I am pleased to see that Boston has decided to come out to the world, affirming its status as a “so gay” city!

We came across this article in the Washington Blade by Robert A. Bernstein and wanted to share it with you:

BARBARA WARNER, FORMER president of Metro DC PFLAG, is a longtime supporter and activist for gay equality. Still, when her son, Andrew, and his partner, Jay Edmundson, decided to adopt two Guatemalan boys, she had her doubts.

“Children need mothers,” she thought.  But now, as the beloved “Nana” of Tomas, 8, and David, 6, Warner calls her earlier fears a form of sexism: “These two little boys couldn’t be loved or cared for more than they are.”

I have long been convinced that same-sex parents — on average — tend to do a better job of parenting. As I wrote in my book “Families of Value,” early studies firmly supported that view for a variety of fairly obvious reasons. Unlike heterosexuals, same-sex couples don’t become parents by accident, or because of parental or cultural pressures. For them, those same pressures are barriers rather than incentives. So they become parents solely because their nurturing instincts are sufficiently strong to fuel the courage to overcome the societal barriers.

Newer studies — though not directly related to parenting — further explain same-sex parental success. As simply put in a recent New York Times report: A “growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships.” Most basically, gay and lesbian couples are “far more egalitarian” than their heterosexual counterparts in how they share responsibilities and resolve conflicts.

Left unsaid, but what would seem quite obvious, is that children benefit when their parents are more skilled at dividing up the familial tasks and resolving their inevitable differences.

Same-sex couples don’t have less to argue about. But they’re more constructive in how they handle their conflicts. Says Cathy Tuerk, a psychotherapist and another past president of Metro DC PFLAG:
“I think the bottom line is that same-sex couples tend to divide up their tasks based on their interests and their skills rather than on their gender or convention.”

SO, NO SURPRISE, the fly in the heterosexual ointment once again turns out to be addiction to cultural norms. It’s the attitude behind the question so often posed to parents of gay children in committed relationships: “Who’s the man and who’s the woman?”

Tuerk cites a heterosexual couple who came to her because of marital difficulties and whose conflict turned out in large part to be the woman’s insistence on making all the decisions regarding their home. In fact, “The husband was artistic and just as much interested in the china and furniture as she was.”

By definition, on the other hand, gender plays no role in same-sex couples’ division of child-care duties. So the children are far more apt to benefit from the natural strengths and interests of their two parents.

Or, in some cases, of a multitude of parents.

Danielle and Avi Naparsteck Silber, now adults who grew up in Takoma Park, say they have “four amazing parents:” their two lesbian mothers, their gay biological father and the father’s former partner. Their biological mother is Sue Silber, who with a private law practice and role as Takoma Park city attorney, has always worked full time. So their adoptive mother, Dana Napersteck, became a full-time stay-at-home parent for five years, then abandoned her earlier career as a community organizer in order to take a job with more flexibility to continue to be on call as the kids grew up.

THE CHILDREN’S BIOLOGICAL father, D.C. educator and businessman Chris Hennin, is their “Papa” who has developed their cultural interests and takes them on frequent vacation travel, often to such distant locations as France and Australia. But the man they call “Dad,” and thought of as more their “day-to-day father” during their growing-up years, is Chris’s former domestic partner Art Thomas, a longtime web manager at World Bank.

Don’t get me wrong.  For children of same-sex parents, growing up is hardly all honey and roses.
They face a variety of real and difficult challenges never dreamed of by children of heterosexuals. But for the most part, by all available evidence, they turn out just fine, thanks.

In a very interesting video, Dr. Judith Stacey answers the hot-button question, “Will the children of gay parents be gay?”

Click here to watch the video.

As posted earlier in our blog, the Heinz Corporation has pulled their British deli mayo ad which featured two men kissing, after viewers sent in complaints that it was inappropriate and unsuitable for children.

But, if homophobic groups think that banning this commercial means they have succeeded in safe guarding their children from homosexuality, they need to think again. For example, this ad ran for a little over a week before uproar ensued; however, Katy Perry’s hugely popular single “I Kissed a Girl” has been on rotation on pop radio stations and music channels for months.

Why, if the image of two men kissing is so threatening, do we allow a song about a woman drunkenly cheating on her boyfriend by making out with a girl allowed into children’s ears over and over again? The lyrics to this over played (and admittedly catchy) song actually say that kissing a girl “is not what good girls do” and not how good girls “should behave.” By pulling the Heinz ad, but allowing songs and videos like Perry’s to air, we are setting an extremely sexist and homophobic double standard.

We don’t approve of two men in a healthy, loving relationship, but we give the ok to a night of “experimental” homosexuality as long as it occurs between two attractive, young women, and in the name of promiscuity. Why do we allow such egregious sexism to enter into our popular culture and imagery?  By not showing positive, non-sexualized examples of LGBTQ love and families, homosexual relationships lose their legitimacy in the public eye-which makes the fight for equality even harder. In order to change these homophobic and objectifying attitudes, those of us in the LGBTQ community need to think about the types of media we condone; even if it means turning off Tila Tequila.

Tucked away on our website is a rainbow-colored heart just like the one pictured here in our blog. If you find the heart (and click on it), you’ll be entered into a raffle to win a beach bag signed by lesbian mom extraordinaire Rosie O’Donnell filled with goodies for your entire family! Invite the kids over and make this a game for your entire family.

Start at www.familyequality.org, but you’ll have to dig deeply as the heart is hidden on an inside page. Happy searching!

I recently read a thought-provoking essay by a blogger I admire very much. It made me confront and re-examine many of my beliefs. I don’t agree with everything this blogger wrote, but the essay added more nuance to my position on marriage equality and my beliefs regarding the implications that the marriage equality movement has for non-traditional families.

In this essay, Angry Brown Butch describes feeling unsettled upon reading a newspaper article about the recent same-sex weddings taking place in California. Basically, the referenced article discussed “gay leaders” warning the LGBT community to “be aware” of the images they would potentially be supplying to the other side- meaning those who opposed marriage equality. In other words, the leaders were essentially saying no dudes in dresses. Why? As Angry Brown Butch writes:

“Because the marriage equality movement is largely predicated on the notion that us queers are just like ‘everyone else,’ meaning mostly white, mostly middle-class or up, gender conforming monogamists. You know, the non-threatening queers. The rest of us should apparently find a nice closet to go hide in for a while, lest we threaten the rights that are apparently meant for the more upstanding, respectable members of the LGsomeotherlessimportantletters community.” 

It’s true that the marriage equality movement is predicated on this notion that gay people are “normal” and just like straight people. By necessity, due to the nature of the resistance to marriage equality, the marriage movement must predicate itself on this notion in order to make even small civil-union-sized gains. For instance, take but one example of a “marriage defender” who cites several long-term-but-non-monogamous gay couple who want to marry. This “marriage defender” will then argue that monogamy is an essential feature of marriage and will use the fact of these gay couples’ non-monogamy to argue that the “gay community” as a whole does not know what marriage is.  And further, that prevalent non-monogamy among gays is yet another reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry.

Personally, I think that in the struggle for marriage equality, marriage equality advocates who do value monogamy and who do think the state should sanction marriage are sort of caught in the middle. On the one side, we have often-bigoted “marriage defenders” pointing to drag queens in dresses saying “look at how immoral and confused gay people are.” They point to high rates of HIV and STDs among gay men and say “gay people spread disease.” In other words, most “marriage defenders” point to people who are not me in order to make generalizations about me, thereby rendering my experience in the world invisible. It’s certainly not right for bigots to make moral judgments about members of our community, and it angers me. But what also angers me is that “marriage defenders” refuse to acknowledge that “normal-ish” gay people also exist.

I know, woe is me, right?

Yet, on the other side, we have- for lack of a better term- “non-conforming” members of the LGBT community declaring that marriage equality activists don’t care about “non-conforming” queers.  Rather, we ignore those “bad” gays, take advantage of our “normalcy” privilege, and selfishly seek equality for ourselves. Admittedly, my first instinct upon hearing such a claim is to become defensive. I do care about and respect all of those in the LGBT community and I hate the anti-gay propaganda that our opponents spread. Yet, upon reflection, I have to agree with Angry Brown Butch’s statement about marriage equality, which:

“has never been and can never be about true equality and justice for all people who fall within the LGBT spectrum. That’s because legal marriage is about sanctioning and rewarding certain kinds of relationships while disqualifying and demeaning others.”     

Confronting our own privileges is not supposed to be comfortable or easy. Yet doing so is something I continually try to do. Personally, I value monogamy and, in spite of my Marxist tendencies (hee-hee), consider myself one of those “normal-ish” gays. Marriage, to me, is generally two loving committed adults in a sexually monogamous relationship. Accordingly, in seeking state-sanctioned marriage equality, I have sought to prove my “normalcy” to “marriage defenders.” We’re not all like them, I have argued, pointing to non-monogamous gays. But at the same time, I am able to value other people’s experiences in life regarding non-monogamy, gender conformity, and family formation.As one who is denied marital rights, I see how strongly society values the marital relationship and how loving-yet-non-marital families and relationships are demeaned and devalued.  

I also know that vast amounts of resources are dedicated to opposing the right of people like me to marry and that, therefore, accounts for why the marriage equality movement has, to the chagrin of many,“devoted so much time and attention and resources” to the cause.  Yet, just because marriage equality advocates are spending time, money, and resources to the cause it doesn’t mean the LGBT community at large is not addressing other important issues the community faces. To suggest otherwise is to make a claim strikingly similar to that of a “marriage defender” whose claims about the “gay community” I have previously addressed. The LGBT community is not monolithic and many of its members of all races, incomes, genders, and identities are trying to address the injustices imposed upon our community and our families.  Marriage equality is but one issue our community is facing.  But I will not stop advocating for full equality just because our community is also facing other important issues.

That being said, I am willing to reconsider my approach and some of my beliefs.   I definitely believe that so long as the state is doling out marriage licenses with a host of attendant privileges, benefits, and rights, it should not do so on a discriminatory basis. Or, it should have really good reasons for doing so. (That’s a really big “or,” I know). The denial of these rights has very real consequences to families from a legal and financial standpoint. At the same time, I too

“question whether fighting for marriage as a state-run institution is the best strategy for queer liberation more broadly….Instead of linking state benefits like healthcare, housing and welfare to marital privilege, they should be detached from marriage and available to all, regardless of marital or citizenship status. Rather than furthering the norm of two partners acting as a single economic childrearing unit, we argue for a movement that embraces multiple meanings of family, and recognizes that marriage and domestic partnership are not always optimal or desired choices. Finally, we believe we can better serve marginalized communities by fighting against all state regulation of sexual and gender choices, identities and expressions.”     

Tangibly and practically, I’m still searching for what this means to me. Take away the state’s power to say what “marriage” is? Maybe. De-couple the numerous benefits of marriage from the legal status of “marriage”? Perhaps. Law professor Katherine M. Franke has made a strong case similar to Angry Brown Butch’s, that “marriage equality for same sex couples must be undertaken, at a minimum, in a way that is compatible with efforts to dislodge marriage from its normatively superior status as compared with other forms of human attachment, commitment and desire…. we must unseat marriage as the measure of all things.”

I realize that is a scary statement for many “marriage defenders” to hear.  Yet, these are discussions that those on all sides of the marriage debate need to keep having. And, they should take place free from propaganda, free of scare tactics, and free of over-generalizations and simplistic thinking. I will continue seeking knowledge and opposing ideas. And, perhaps most importantly, I give myself permission to change my mind.

The floor is yours.