Kirsten Andersen

New Mexico groups promote same-sex “marriage” as a benefit to kids, ignoring the evidence

Kirsten Andersen
Kirsten Andersen

SANTA FE, December 13, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As the New Mexico Supreme Court mulls whether to order the state to permit homosexual couples to “marry,” three high-profile organizations have announced their support for same-sex nuptials, a move that garnered praise from homosexual activists.

The New Mexico Pediatric Society, the New Mexico Psychological Association, and the New Mexico chapter of the National Association of Social Workers all endorsed same-sex “marriage” Tuesday, arguing that kids being raised in homosexual unions deserve all the benefits that legal marriage brings to a household.

“Granting marriage equality is the right thing to do for New Mexico’s children and will strengthen and protect families who have lacked legal recognition for too long,” Alexandra Cvijanovich, president of the New Mexico Pediatric Society, said in a statement. “As pediatricians, we see how supportive parents — whether gay or straight — positively impact the development of their children. And there is no question that when their parents can marry, children are more protected legally and socially.”

Patrick Tyrrell of the New Mexico chapter of the National Association of Social Workers said, “The future of our society is entirely dependent on the quality of protective environments families offer our children today.  Marriage equality helps ensure all New Mexican children receive this essential support and care.”

The thrust of both Cvijanovich’s and Tyrrell’s arguments is that marriage is good for kids, so same-sex “marriage” will be good for the children of those involved in the homosexual lifestyle.  But the largest and most comprehensive study to date on the topic of children being raised in same-sex households found that having homosexual parents sets kids up for a host of problems later on.

According to the study, authored by Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, children raised in same-sex households actually fared even worse than children raised by single parents when it came to the risk of suicide and unemployment as young adults. 

The study found that 12% of those raised by lesbians and 24% of those raised by homosexual men reported having recently contemplated suicide, compared to only 5% raised by an intact biological family or a single parent. And while 28% of young adults raised by lesbians and 20% of those raised by homosexual men reported being currently unemployed, only 8% raised by an intact biological family and 13% raised by a single parent reported the same.

A shocking 23% of those raised in lesbian homes reported having been molested by adults as children, compared to only 2% of those raised in an intact biological family. Among those raised by homosexual men, the figure was 6%, and among those raised in single-parent households, the number was 10%. Children raised by homosexuals were also much more likely than those raised by their married biological parents to report having been raped.

“To claim that there are few meaningful statistical differences between the different groups evaluated here would be to state something that is empirically inaccurate,” Regnerus wrote of the study’s findings, which provoked significant outrage among advocates of homosexuality.  But other experts have called Regnerus’s study the “gold standard” among studies of its kind, due to its massive sample size and rigorous methodology.

Regnerus himself was so moved by the data that when the U.S. Supreme Court considered the Defense of Marriage/Prop. 8 case last summer, he and several other concerned sociologists filed an amicus brief with the court asking them to leave DOMA/Prop. 8 intact.

“Marriage is the legal means by which children are stably united with their biological mothers and fathers and poised for optimal development,” Regnerus and his colleagues argued. “Opposite-sex parenting allows children to benefit from distinctive maternal and paternal contributions. Given this, safeguarding marriage is a liberty to be accorded to children at least as much as to their parents.”

In recent years, an increasing number of children raised in homosexual households have come forward as young adults to say that their upbringing, no matter how loving, wasn’t all it could have been.  They frequently lament the absence of a father or mother figure in their lives, depending on the sex of the pair who raised them. 

One such person is Robert Oscar Lopez, who was raised by his lesbian mother and her partner from age 2 to 19.  He rejects efforts by groups like the New Mexico Pediatric Society and the New Mexico Psychological Association to promote same-sex “marriage” as a panacea to the ills suffered by children raised in homosexual households.

“I have heard of the supposed ‘consensus’ on the soundness of same-sex parenting from pediatricians and psychologists, but that consensus is frankly bogus,” Lopez wrote in a June article opposing same-sex “marriage.”

“Pediatricians are supposed to make sure kids don’t get ringworm or skip out on vaccinations—nobody I know doubts that same-sex couples are able to tend to such basic childcare needs,” wrote Lopez.  “Psychologists come from the same field that used to have a ‘consensus’ that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Neither field is equipped to answer the deeper existential dilemmas of legally removing fatherhood or motherhood as a human principle, which is what total ‘marriage equality’ would entail.”

Wrote Lopez, “The richest and most successful same-sex couple still cannot provide a child something that the poorest and most struggling spouses can provide: a mom and a dad. … But I am here to say no, having a mom and a dad is a precious value in its own right and not something that can be overridden, even if a gay couple has lots of money, can send a kid to the best schools, and raises the kid to be an Eagle Scout.”

Lopez argues that homosexual parenting is inherently selfish because it requires a biological family to break apart in order to make it possible in the first place.

“It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste,” wrote Lopez.  “It’s also racist and condescending for same-sex couples to think they can strong-arm adoption centers into giving them orphans by wielding financial or political clout. An orphan in Asia or in an American inner city has been entrusted to adoption authorities to make the best decision for the child’s life, not to meet a market demand for same-sex couples wanting children. Whatever trauma caused them to be orphans shouldn’t be compounded with the stress of being adopted into a same-sex partnership.”

Even some homosexual parents have begun to publicly acknowledge the limitations of their relationships with their children.  In a June article for the New York Times, Frank Ligtvoet, a homosexual in a stable relationship, spoke of the sadness he feels for his adopted daughter, who sometimes calls him “Mommy” in a voice that makes it obvious she knows she’s roleplaying.

“My daughter says ‘Mommy’ in a funny way, in a high-pitched voice,” Ligtvoet explained in the piece. “Although I refer the honors immediately to her birth mom, I am flattered. But saddened as well, because she expresses herself in a voice that is not her own. It is her stuffed-animal voice. She expresses not only love; she also expresses alienation. She can role-play the mother-daughter relationship, but she cannot use her real voice, nor have the real thing.”

Missing from the debate over homosexual parenting, Ligtvoet argues, “is the voice of the adoptee — my daughter’s voice, that is. Her awareness of being a motherless child is not addressed. I don’t want to appropriate our child’s voice, but I want to speak up for her, and her older brother, and I want to acknowledge their feelings.”

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook