Name the child

Our opponents have long used the claim that a child needs a mother and a father as a reason to deny us marriage equality. This time it is a senator from Australia making that claim, but it is enough for Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin to ask for specifics. You say a child is harmed by not having a mother and a father? Name the child.

Kincaid is quite thorough with his answer and, surprisingly, only briefly mentions the studies that say kids of gay couples do just as well as kids of straight couples. The answer is thorough enough that I thought back to my early computer classes when flowcharts were taught. Alas, my available graphics tools and this blog don't present flowcharts well.

Gay couples acquire kids one of three ways. They adopt. One of the couple conceived a child while in a straight relationship. They planned for the child and go through extraordinary measures to conceive the child. Kids don't just happen.

Allowing gay couples to marry does raise acceptance of gay couples and with greater acceptance more gay couples will deal with the hassles so they can raise kids. But acceptance of gay couples is increasing without marriage equality. So don't use the possibility of kids to deny rights to gay couples.

There are a few reasons why some kids don't have both a mother and a father -- divorce, one parent takes off, or one parent dies. But our opponents are not talking about banning divorce and they aren't talking about banning military service or dangerous jobs.

This argument about needing both a mother and father is only applied to gay couples. It is not applied to the society as a whole. Is it in the best interest of the child to have a parent with a debilitating disease, addicted to drugs, with a criminal record, or living in poverty?

When a gay couple adopts it means the child has neither a mother nor a father. This isn't between biological parents and the gay couple, it is between adoption by a straight couple and a gay couple. Or, in many cases, a gay couple or no parents at all. So, should we foist the kid on a straight couple that doesn't want it? Besides, this is an issue of adoption law, not of marriage law.

If one of the couple conceived in a straight relationship there is a mother and a father and the non-custodial parent is usually still in the picture. Yes, the other parent may have died or has abdicated their parental role (and we're back to the first case). But if a divorce court is going to mandate the child will go to the straight parent, regardless of which parent is best for the child, it is a matter of divorce law, not marriage law.

As for the third case -- name the child. We'll go visit that child with you "when you look that kid in the face and tell her that she – and the society as a whole – would be better off if she had never been born."

That means the whole argument is really about defaming gay people and all that stuff about the welfare of the kid is a misdirection.