Depraved Heterosexual Parenting -- So Much for the "Gold Standard"

Interesting to see that the State of Florida, the only state in the nation to explicitly ban adoption of children by gay citizens, saw to it in its eminent bureaucratic wisdom to subject five of their youths to the likes of heterosexuals John and Linda Dollar. I am assuming that they were avowed heterosexuals, "avowed" being a word that carries some sort of water with policymakers in determining the priviliges and immunities of particular citizens.

As with all issues raised by the inclusion of gays and others who do not fall within the sexual “mainstream,” it is branded by some commentators and political actors as a conflict between the forces of Judeo-Christianity (with a knowing wink to the Judeo-part), and those of “secularism,” which has become the new communism for some on the Right.

On this issue, I stand forthrightly with the Founders, who were by in large men of intense personal faith. They understood the necessity of having a secular state, for only then could religious diversity and open expressions of such flourish, free from the yoke of state-sanctioned orthodoxy.

It is lamentable that Jesus’ name is continually parried about in the crass, venal world of political gamesmanship, especially when ministers and purportedly religious-minded politicians use it to their own discrete advantage. Would he really bemoan loving gay parents? Remember that this was a man who publicly embraced and befriended those found unsavory by the majority (prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers).

The paradox of contemporary Christianity's approach to this issue can be found, to an extent, in the views and deeds of the late Cardinal O’Connor, who towed the standard line on gays (“hate the sin, love the sinner”) while at the same time volunteering at AIDS hospices. One of the more despicable statements on the subject of gay (non)inclusion, it should be noted, came from the Vatican a few years ago -- where it explicitly claimed that gay parents continually commit violence upon their children: “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in [same-sex] unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.” The entire document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," may be found here.

Far be it for me to dispute the carefully considered doctrinal positions of the Roman Catholic Church, but the relevant question in the gay marriage debate must necessarily focus on the following: what is the interest of the state in precluding consenting adults pursuing those emotional bonds and contractual relationships that they deem beneficial? The negative liberty that is found in the formation of one’s own household -- including the selection of one’s life partner and the decision to become a parent -- should be tread upon only in select circumstances. For example, the enforcement of laws prohibiting the sort of abuse inflicted by the Dollars on their children is latently justifiable.

Simply put, the “sacred institution” of marriage should be divorced from the purview of the state, which instead should seek to facilitate the contractual relationships and obligations that have come to define adult relationships in a civil, i.e. secular, context.

What really enrages me about some of the self-anointed avatars of Christian virtue -- those who claim to know Christ in their heart and live His Word -- is their wanton refusal to acknowledge their continual commission of the deadly sin of pride.

It is all well and good for these “leaders” to quote passages from Leviticus, which has a series of prohibitions and admonitions that are otherwise wholly ignored, and Romans, which was written by a political propagandist, in defense of their boundless majoritarian agenda of exclusion.

Instead, they ought to take a step back and contemplate a question routinely asked by today's American evangelical Christians: WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

No one can seriously claim anything resembling certitude, but I would humbly argue that He would take issue with those ministers who claim to speak through Him, as they wallow in the avarice and gluttony that He so despised. "My house will be called a house of prayer but you are making it a den of robbers" (Matthew 21:12). And to those believers who follow them blindly: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

By all accounts, bigotry that is shrouded by the self-serving imprimatur of Christian principles is a far more dangerous development in our current polity than the observations of freethinkers -- just it has been through the ages.

Here are a few sage words from a secular (and Jewish) source on the subject of tolerance and the rightful limits of coercion in a society committed to liberty:

"[T]he mere dislike of what is being done by others, or even the knowledge that others harm themselves by what they do, provides no legitimate ground for coercion.... The bare fact that an action is disliked by some of those who learn about it cannot be a sufficient ground for prohibiting it." -- F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, at p. 145.

In addition to the negative liberties of gay citizens to pursue happiness absent the encumbrance of priggish state meddling, public policy should also shift toward a position that recognizes the same liberty enjoyed by single persons -- those who have exercised their right to not get married and not have children. Given the broad, general commitment of public dollars to the health, education, and welfare of children, singles are obliged to underwrite the procreative decisions of others. For people like me, this is the ultimate price of living in the “servile state.” Where’s the justice in that?