 |
| FRC's Tony Perkins thinks he can make lies into truth via repetition. |
Yesterday, the Georgia state Senate passed a bill which will streamline its adoption process. According to media reports, the bill was held up because it included a provision which would allow adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples on "religious grounds" while still receiving tax dollars. That provision was taken out and GA governor Nathan Deal is expected to sign the bill.
And that is what Family Research Council president Tony Perkins was raging about Tuesday afternoon:
Governor Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) never met a religious freedom bill he liked -- and the state's newest adoption proposal isn't likely to change that. The Georgia Republican, who valiantly displayed all the traits of a coward on the issue a year and a half ago, is back at it, threatening the state's conscience protections for faith-based groups.
After demanding a "clean" adoption bill from lawmakers, the state's conservatives obliged -- but only until they could introduce a standalone proposal that would give adoption agencies the freedom to turn down prospective parents based on their lifestyle. "Some will believe in same-sex marriage, others don't, whether it's by faith or other reasons," the bill's sponsor, Republican State Senator William Ligon said. "As a pluralistic society, we need to figure out ways to accommodate that and not pressure one group to accept another group's version of marriage."
Even before the Obergefell ruling, adoption was an explosive issue in places like Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts, who cut off government grants for organizations like Catholic Charities because they sought what the social science research made abundantly clear were the safest and most nurturing environment for kids. If Deal gets his way, it would be open season on groups who take the well-being of children into account in adoption placement.
This is how backwards we've become as a society. America's focus is no longer the well-being of children but on the "well-being" of a small but well organized political minority that uses Saul Alinsky tactics to force politicians into doing their illogical bidding. There's an abundance of social science data supporting the common-sense belief that children do best when raised by a married mother and father. In the largest peer-review study ever done on same-sex parenting, Dr. Mark Regnerus found that the emotional, financial, academic, and physical outcomes of kids raised in same-sex homes rated "suboptimal" or "negative" in almost every category. Because of that, there's every rational basis for agencies to prefer natural families over same-sex couples in adoption.
Why would anyone -- including Deal -- put the agencies that care about the social science out of business? Faith-based adoption agencies should never have to choose between their beliefs and helping people. That would be devastating – and not just for Georgia. Believe it or not, one of the biggest engines for adoption in America are private, social service agencies like Catholic Charities, who would sooner close its doors than compromise their biblical beliefs.
If Georgia accepts Deal's terms, faith-based groups would be driven out of the adoption business -- leaving children and prospective parents with even fewer options for building families. Adoption is not -- and should never be -- about adults. This is about giving children the best chance to succeed in life. It's a shame Nathan Deal refuses to.
In the above tantrum, Perkins spins two distortions. And I think he knows this because both have been cited before by Perkins and those who on his side of this issue. And both have been refuted time and time again, including by me. Someone needs to inform Perkins and FRC that the repetition of a lie doesn't change said lie into truth.
First of all, let's be clear about what Perkins favors. He thinks that citing "religious beliefs" should be a useful way for adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples while helping themselves to the tax money paid in part by those couples they are discriminating against.
Now let's tackle the distortions.
1. Perkins says:
Even before the Obergefell ruling, adoption was an explosive issue in places like Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts, who cut off government grants for organizations like Catholic Charities because they sought what the social science research made abundantly clear were the safest and most nurturing environment for kids. If Deal gets his way, it would be open season on groups who take the well-being of children into account in adoption placement.
No. No. No. What the social science has said on more than one occasion is that children raised in same-sex home suffer no adverse affects and do just as well as children raised in a mother-father environment. In fact, one study published in 2013 by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that:
Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.
2. Later in the same piece, Perkins says:
There's an abundance of social science data supporting the common-sense belief that children do best when raised by a married mother and father. In the largest peer-review study ever done on same-sex parenting, Dr. Mark Regnerus found that the emotional, financial, academic, and physical outcomes of kids raised in same-sex homes rated "suboptimal" or "negative" in almost every category. Because of that, there's every rational basis for agencies to prefer natural families over same-sex couples in adoption.
For Perkins to cite the infamous Mark Regnerus study takes a lot of nerve. Many people, particularly in the LGBTQ community, know the history of this fraudulent study. I will give a brief summation to those who don't:
In 2012, University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus published a study which claimed that children in same-sex households fair poorly when compared to children in mother/father households. The study also claimed that children in same-sex households have more negative outcomes.
Naturally, the religious right and several conservative groups and figures hailed the study. However, to put it nicely, the study wasn't accurate. It received many condemnations including about its methodology, the fact that it didn't accurately define gay and lesbian parents, and Regnerus admitting that it did not establish causation between children being raised in same-sex households and negative outcomes.
But the main red flag was who paid for its funding. It was discovered that groups who had been fighting against marriage equality funded the study, raising huge questions about its objectivity. According to a March 10, 2013 article in the Huffington Post, Regnerus was in fact recruited to do the study by its funders. These funders also used their connections to have the study released in time to sway SCOTUS on marriage equality rulings.
And we all know that goal failed.
It just goes to show that a worm is a worm, a snake is a snake, and a craven organization (i.e the Family Research Council) which engages in homophobic lies will always be a craven organization which engages in homophobic lies, no matter who in the White House may be giving them more power.
No comments:
Post a Comment