MAKING FATHERHOOD OPTIONAL

Mississippi may be the last of all states to feel the social winds of the homosexual movement, which has not been without its effects as pointed out in a prior post -- “Is The Good Mayor Really On The Right Side Of History?”  In publicly announcing his support for same-sex “marriage,” Waveland’s mayor has proffered himself as a touchstone, throwing a cultural grenade into the middle of Hancock County, making noise and a lot of racket.  With all due respect, the mayor, an adept financial manager, in proudly making this announcement, wishes to redefine marriage – to redefine it as something different than what defines the one he himself is currently in.

The same-sex “marriage” issue is indeed directed at redefining marriage.  Opponents as well as gay activists readily agree that redefining marriage will change the institution of marriage forever and have far reaching consequential effects on society.  There is no disagreement over this aspect of the issue. 

One of the consequential effects of legitimizing the union of two men, or women, as being “married” concerns their advocacy of same-sex parenting.  The louder gay voice in the public square is for same-sex “marriage”; but the whine of same-sex parenting is easily heard.  We do not hear the voices, if they exist, of advocates of same-sex “marriage” who in the same breath oppose same-sex parenting.  To advocate same-sex “marriage” while disavowing the parenting would be to delegitimize the same-sex “marriage” effort.  Moreover, owners of media outlets preaching the Gospel of Normalcy of same-sex “marriage” do not wish to have any philosophical distractions or side shows to their main attraction.

In other words, if you ride the horse of same-sex “marriage” you are pulling the wagon of same-sex parenting.  Such is the horse, we can presume, gay advocates and the good mayor are riding as the mayor mounted this horse a few weeks ago.  Ride the horse, pull the wagon.

Same-sex “marriage”, by its own man-made social construct, makes fatherhood (and motherhood) optional with respect to raising a child.  With all due respect, before his pronouncement, one wonders if this conscious thought crossed the mayor’s mind, but it nevertheless is true.  A child raised by two lesbians is without a Dad; a child raised by two gay men is without a Mom.  And to claim one is the biological equivalent of the other parent is to pretend, as well as to be pretentious – not to mention that children raised in these arrangements will be denied celebrating a Father’s Day or Mother’s Day.  But this is a trivial matter when your priority is personal adult fulfillment.

It’s now an established fact based on about fifty years of vigorous social science that children raised by biological mothers and fathers have THE optimum chance of succeeding in all areas of life compared to any other parenting/family arrangement; if child-rearing is your mission, then this is the best formula for child-rearing.  That’s not to say of course that children raised in these other arrangements do not succeed; they do.  But the statistics bear out that these other parenting arrangements (single, divorced, co-habitating, etc.), in general, result in higher numbers of children with social, physical, and mental aberrancies compared to those raised by a mother and father.

The question with respect to same-sex “marriage” revolves around the father.  When a child is born, the mother will always be close by.  The question for our community and for law is what our desire will be with respect to the father.  Do we want him to be close by, participate in this bond, and engage the responsibility and obligations of caring for the mother, the child, as a family?  Or do we want to encourage him to be free from this bond?  And, if as a community we choose for him to be free, to what cost will it be to the government in picking up the pieces of this fractured family?  Will it be more, or less costly to the government to adjudicate, finance, and support the social fall out (lawsuits to determine
paternity, visitation rights, child support, and alimony)?  Do you, and the good mayor, favor higher government costs in this regard?  

The absence of the father for a child comes with dire social consequences many of which in one form or another influence the child’s physical and mental well-being.  Even President Obama himself, raised in a home where the father was absent since the age of two, summed up the statistics when he said:
     We know the statistics: that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

For reasons that can only be explained by raw politics and power, the President devolved from this position in 2008, and like the good mayor of Waveland, now holds a position that makes fatherhood optional at the expense of the child.

Men and women bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise. Respected Rutgers sociologist Professor David Popenoe concludes from his studies,
     We should disavow the notion that mommies can make good daddies, just as we should the popular notion that daddies can make good mommies. The two sexes are different to the core and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being.

Fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and children.  

Conceivably, if the mayor’s same-sex “marriage” vision prevails, a boy could grow up in Waveland totally without a matriarchal lineage, or at least one that will never be visible to him.  For example, consider if two gay men adopt a boy.  He then grows up and develops an interest in, and “marries” a similar boy having been raised by two gay men.  These two men, if they too adopt, will have a son whose family tree will be devoid of any matriarchal element, or one that’s invisible to the child.  Moreover, extend this family tree one generation and it will be without a maternal grandparent.  Is this not feminine discrimination of a different kind?

Is it the mayor’s vision that he and we as a community promote steps towards more fatherless unions, or do we promote the healthier vision of what science and experience has taught for centuries of civilized living -- that stability, efficiency, and gender matter, and prevail to enrich communities where traditional marriage and monogamy are encouraged?   

It is right and charitable to the good mayor to acknowledge his skills as an adept manager of his city’s budget and, in many matters perhaps, also a thoughtful man and devoted father.  But we must indeed hope that his politically-motivated efforts toward disrupting and confusing what marriage is, will be rebuked by his successor.  Because it’s more urgent than ever to the state at large, and society in general, to promote men and women to be husbands and wives -- as well as mothers and fathers.