New York Catholics Support Gay Marriage

Barbara Bush's public support for gay marriage has garnered a lot of press attention over the past week. Reporting on this the Washington Post has drawn my attention to another finding that should have drawn more attention. Alongside the number of Republican politicians and Evangelical Christians who are breaking ranks with their traditional opposition and starting to support equality, the majority of US (and European) Catholics have already parted company with their bishops on the matter. This has been demonstrated in several polls in recent years, at national level, and in state level polls, as in Rhode Island.

When I read and reported on the recent finding of the Quinnipiac poll that a majority of New Yorkers now support full legal recognition of same sex marriages, I neglected to follow through on my usual practice of checking the cross-tabs for a breakdown by religion. This was a mistake. (In mitigation, I plead that I was under intense pressure  for time last week). As the Washington Post has now observed, the national pattern is found in New York, too.  An absolute majority of New York Catholics support full marriage (not simply civil unions). As the paper's report notes in its concluding remark, "Republican and Catholic leaders may find themselves increasingly out of touch with the rhythm and blues that are moving their constituents and congregants on these issues".

For how much longer can bishops, in the US or elsewhere, get away with claiming to speak for "Catholics" on such matters (or, in the Philippines), it is patently obvious that they are not speaking of the real beliefs or real Catholics, but only for Vatican doctrine and the rule book Catholics who would prefer to get their ideas from a moral manual, without personal thought or reflection?

What Constitutes a “Family”? Empirical Study Finds A Wider View

Religious conservatives are regularly referring to the “traditional family” as a foundation for their beliefs, but there is no such thing. The conservative interpretation of the so-called traditional family is  a relatively modern invention, created to fit the conditions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Western Europe and North America. In earlier times, and other parts of the world. family structures varied enormously from  this particular model.

Family history, like all other history, is constantly changing to fit new circumstances, so it should be no surprise that conceptions of family in the twenty first century are continuing to evolve, to fit a world that is no longer what it was in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Some of these changes are obvious, but like so much that is familiar, can easily be “hidden in plain sight.” A new study by sociologist  Brian Powell brings this into plain view. (His study is specifically of American views, but with the emergence of a shared world culture, many of his findings will also have relevance across a much wider geographic region.)

The central finding is that people no longer define “family” as mom pop and kids, but also include   same-sex couples with children (Children seem to be central: childless couples, gay or straight, are not seen as “families”, but just as couples). However, there is an increasing movement towards acceptance. An important finding, familiar from previous studies on the subject, is that people who know gay people (more accurately, who recognize that people they know are gay), are more supportive than those who are not aware that family members or acquaintances are gay. This simply reinforces the necessity for the wider political struggle, that wherever possible, gay men and lesbians should come out openly, in as many contexts as possible. Coming out personally will improve acceptance in our circles of friends and family. Politicians and other public figures who come out   do so indirectly for the wider community.

I particularly liked an argument on gay adoption that I have been using regularly: framing arguments in terms of the “the best interests of the child” can work to our advantage, not those opposed to gay adoption. (In adoption considerations, the best interests of the child require placement with the best parents available. Sometimes, they will be gay).  Indeed, the claim made (but not elaborated on in the reports I have seen), is that the interests of children may well be a more effective argument than others in making the case for more general equality of same-sex couples.

From the New York Times

A majority of Americans now say their definition of family includes same-sex couples with children, as well as married gay and lesbian couples.

At the same time, most Americans do not consider unmarried cohabiting couples, either heterosexual or same-sex, to be a family — unless they have children.

The findings — part of a survey conducted this year as well as in 2003 and 2006 by Brian Powell, a sociology professor at Indiana University, Bloomington — are reported in a new book, “Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family,” to be published on Wednesday by the Russell Sage Foundation. Since the surveys began, the proportion of people who reported having a gay friend or relative rose 10 percentage points, said Professor Powell, the book’s lead author.

“This is not because more people are gay now than in 2003,” he said. “This indicates a more open social environment in which individuals now feel more comfortable discussing and acknowledging sexuality. Ironically with all the antigay initiatives, all of a sudden people were saying the word ‘gay’ out loud. Just the discussion about it made people more comfortable.”

The book concludes that framing the equality of same-sex couples in terms of “the best interests of the child” might prove to be a more successful political argument than others.

Related articles at Queering the Church

• The Gospels' Queer Values
• Traditional "Family Values"; "Traditional Family" Values.
• Church Marriage: Required Only For Priests?
• LGBT community: The Real Defenders of Traditional Marriage.
• "Traditional Marriage Is Between Men": US Bishop.
• An Ignorant Mexican Cardinal, vs  Authentic History of Marriage
• Natural Law, Natural Sex, Natural Families.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Now I Know Who All These People Running Around My House Are (bilerico.com)
• Who's a family? New study tracks shifting US views (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Israeli Gay adoption policy undergoes reform

The fundamental principle of "the best interests of the child" in adoption procedures demands that the child be placed with the best possible parents available. Israel is yet another country now recognising that the best available parents just might be a same-sex couple. Adoption regulations have already been modified to allow women to adopt the biological children of their female partners, so becoming recognized as co-parents. The regulations will now be modified further, to allow  men likewise to adopt the children of their male partners born to surrogate mothers.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="Israeli Dads, with twins"][/caption]

one please think of the kiddies?

Hello all. This is Robynn, Terence's daughter, responding to his invitation to comment for myself on the terrible, terrible hardship I suffered growing up with a gay father. Wait, that's not quite right...

I feel a little out of place writing here, as I am not Catholic; indeed, not a believer at all. Normally I am happy to stick to what I know and keep my opinions on Church policies to myself, but then, the Church doesn't seem to follow the same principle, insisting as it does on telling us all that gay couples make terrible parents. Not only do the bishops not have any special knowledge on the subject, they seem to be denying what evidence and experience is in fact out there. And they're certainly not keeping their prejudices opinions to themselves.

I can of course only speak from my own experience, and from common sense. I was not adopted; my parents divorced when I was around 7 years old and, like most children after divorce, I was raised mainly by my mother. However, I spent a lot of time (including one full year as a teenager) with my father and his then partner, Bruce, with whom he shared an 18-year relationship. I consider myself entirely unscarred by the experience. In fact, to confirm Dad's report, I do feel that I was privileged to be part of this unusual family.

It's hard to explain why, without sounding terribly patronising - not my intention. But in high school, particularly, I was very aware of having a different perspective to my peers. I enjoyed this and I believe it was very valuable in forming my worldview, a view perhaps less limited than that of many suburban kids. My family was unusual, but stable, and very supportive. Gay parents: I recommend them.

Of course not every couple will be stable; not every couple will make supportive, loving parents. That's terribly unfortunate, isn't it? If only there were some way to screen for the suitability of prospective parents... if only couples wishing to adopt had to undergo some sort of screening, be interviewed by social workers for instance, convince the authorities of their commitment to and suitability for raising children... OH WAIT A MINUTE.

Really it's ridiculous. Anybody at all can have a baby (I should know, I just did). But not anybody can adopt. A gay couple who want to raise a family will certainly have to work hard to get those kids; it won't be undertaken lightly and no one will simply hand a baby over, no questions asked. That's the case for adoption by straight couples, and I expect that, fairly or not, the authorities will look even more closely at gay would-be parents. So common sense tells me, as strongly as my own experience, that the bishops are... well... not firing on all cylinders here. What on earth are they afraid of? I really can't understand.