« Congressional conduct | Main | ‘Full-time quest’ for work »

February 23, 2009

Same-sex unions

I am grieved that partners Lisa Marie Pond and Janice Langbehn were not able to be together as Lisa died (2/17, Opinion, “Anti-gay policies simply cruelty, hatred wrapped up as morality”). I wish Lisa had brought a health-care directive with her on their trip so that there would have been no legal way to keep her from the one she loved.

I am glad Janice is suing the hospital, and I hope she wins. But in my compassion, I am not willing to embrace the illusion that same-sex unions are the same as heterosexual marriage.

Children raised by two women are missing the essential masculine influence only a father can provide (as so eloquently described by Barack Obama in his 2008 Father’s Day speech). Children raised by two men are deprived of the feminine nurture unique to mothers (which science has rather clinically identified as hormonally inspired).

While families take many forms in modern society, there can be no substitute for the ideal gender complementarity found in marriage. Laws seeking to preserve this ideal are founded not on hatred of homosexuals but concern for the children of our future.

Christie Jessee
Kansas City

It would be incomprehensible for a husband not to be admitted to his wife’s bedside at a hospital, and columnist Leonard Pitts sees right through the charade of Florida’s Marriage Protection Amendment.

Despite a slow integration of openly gay and lesbian citizens into our society, there is still much work to be done for everyone to be treated with equality and fairness as witnessed in the case in Florida. Glass ceilings, racism and homophobia are all wounds upon our nation, still waiting to be healed.

Heartland Men’s Chorus addresses these issues in our next concert, “And Justice for All,” featuring the songs of the civil rights movement, March 28-29 at the Folly Theater. As Kansas City’s gay men’s chorus, we take these issues seriously and address them through our music for those who want to hear it and, more important, for those who need to hear it.

Joseph P. Nadeau
Artistic director, Heartland Men’s Chorus
Kansas City

Comments

pepjrp

Ahh, the bigotry's out this morning in full flower according to Pub17.
It's nice that you can label something bigoted when others know it's wrong. I guess if you're against pedofiles, they would see you as a bigot. I only care what one being thinks on the subject, no one lese.


churd

'This pretty much says it all. It's alright if those gays get some rights, as long as their choices or lifestyle isn't forced on others' -- me

Just a note...this was sarcasm on my part.

ggbridge

Again, so strange. I am heterosexual yet my "lifestyle" is not forced upon my daughters. They are as they are and they will be as they will be. There is no way for anyone to force a "lifestyle" upon anyone else, or there would be no people who are gay, don't you think? Dumb argument equals hurt kids. Again, I don't care if you are a homophobe, just don't say it is because you care about children.

dolcemusica1

I like the comment - as long as they don't force their choices or lifestyles on others. Interesting, do deaf people force their choice of being deaf on others? Do autistic people force their choice of being autistic on others? Being gay is not a choice - it's the way God made them. Homo Sapiens as with all other species on the planets have approximately 4-6% of their population are gay. They are born that way.

Someone who is gay isn't going to force someone else to be gay - just like autistic people aren't going to force others to "act" autistic. Your either autistic or your not - it's not a choice. Same with being gay - you're either born gay or you're not - it's not a choice.

As was noted, most heterosexual couples want infants - not sure what it is now but it used to be 5-10 year waiting list for an American baby. Some don't want to wait or run the risk that the mother will change her mind and they are back on the list so they adopt internationally. If more heterosexual couples were willing to adopt older children or those with special needs - we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. But they don't and children need loving homes - whether it's in a heterosexual or a gay home.

churd

Long waits for international or domestic adoption is not due to a scarcity of children available for adoption. It is due to a scarcity of healthy babies available for adoption and red tape. If the adoptive parents were willing to look at older children their wait would be considerably shorter and a lot of deserving kids would find homes.

'People are interested in making sure the children grow up with a proper perspective of heterosexual lifestyle....which is still the vast majority of people' -- Girl Power

This pretty much says it all. It's alright if those gays get some rights, as long as their choices or lifestyle isn't forced on others.

ggbridge

Girl Power, I don't get your argument. Because parents are lined up for international adoptions, kids who need homes in this country should be shuffled from foster home to foster home, even if a gay couple wants to take care of them? Do you want to force people to adopt nationally? Personally, I'm not seeing where you care about kids. You seem only to want to keep kids in misery or make their lives more miserable.

Stifled Freedom

Dolce, your just sensationalizing and not seeing reality either. One can support gay marraige without supporting gay adoption. Take off those rose glasses yourself.

If I was anti-gay, I would not support gay marriage. I actually do support gay marriage as I stated earlier in my comments here...and I voted for it in KS even though it failed.

Stifled Freedom

"However, if there aren't enough of those parents to go around (which there aren't)" --Dolce

Then why are so many heterosexual couples lining up and waiting years for international adoption? I dont buy it that there are not enough parents when we have these long waits. I understand that the legal system here has defeated efforts to adopt domestically, but that could be changed by legilsative act....if they ever decided to fix the problem.

"Seems we have some who are more anti-gay than interested in the true welfare of some of these children." Dolce

That doesn't cut it either. People are interested in making sure the children grow up with a proper perspective of heterosexual lifestyle....which is still the vast majority of people. That is my concern with gay parents....and it is totally about the children's welfare.

churd

But being against gay marriage does not mean you hate gay people. What is wrong with civil unions? If equal rights are the goal, then civil unions accomplish that. -- jeanette

I see comments about being against gay marriage but for civil unions on here anytime that this topic is brought up. I would be curious how many of you voted for the Kansas Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and women and going on to say that no benefits of marriage can be extended to anyone not united in marriage. If you did, then you are either dumb and didn't read the amendment or a hypocrite.

jeanette

But being against gay marriage does not mean you hate gay people. What is wrong with civil unions? If equal rights are the goal, then civil unions accomplish that.
Of course, everyone knows the scenario for a perfect home, but this country has way too many children in need. To keep any gay people from adopting because the conditions aren't "perfect" is crazy.

ggbridge

I agree Dolce. If you are against gay parents adopting, fine. But don't say it's because you care about the kids, because you obviously don't.

Jessee has already sent the children currently living in gay households down the river. Nice.

dolcemusica1

Apparently, we have several individuals who are in some rose colored world. I agree the "optimum" family situation for children is a happily married, responsible, loving heterosexual couple. However, if there aren't enough of those parents to go around (which there aren't) - why not alternatives instead of their current situation?

I have several friends who are foster parents. One child they had was around 12 years old, had several medical problems, and had 13 foster homes since birth. Of course, it's better to be passed around every year or several months in heterosexual homes instead of having a stable, permanent, loving, gay home - right?

Operation Breakthrough is an inner city child care center. In one of the rooms, it's reserved only for hugs. Volunteers hug the children who ask for them - it can be a few minutes or several hours. Their own parents are either on drugs/don't care, etc and they receive NO love at home. Of course, this is much better than being in a loving, stable, caring gay home - right?

If the optimum isn't available for children, isn't the next best thing a healthy, loving, caring home with responsible adults who will take care of them - whether they are heterosexual or gay? Or is it better for them to be passed around the foster care system or remain in homes where they have no love at all?

Seems we have some who are more anti-gay than interested in the true welfare of some of these children.

churd

I support gay marriage. Do what you want with your own life, but I do no support gay couple adoption when it impacts a child who cannot make his/her own decisions. We seem to have it backwards in this country. --Girl Power

Because children stuck in the system being passed from one foster home to another is a much better situation then being placed with two people who have to go through a lengthy process to prove that they financially, emotionally, and physically capable of providing a stable loving home for a child.

Or better yet in case of international adoption the child is better left in a institutional environment till they turn into adults when they are turned out into the streets with little or no prospects of being able to care for themselves.

Stifled Freedom

Gay marriage is one thing. Gay couples raising kids via legal adoption (which is obviously the only way) is another.

I support gay marriage. Do what you want with your own life, but I do no support gay couple adoption when it impacts a child who cannot make his/her own decisions. We seem to have it backwards in this country.

ggbridge

Jessee's comments are so strange to me. Does she realize that there are already thousands of children with gay parent families? Does she not care about these children? Children of gay unions would be better off if there parents were married and were afforded all the benefits and legal rights of married heterosexual couples. If Jessee really cares about "the children of our future" she would be pro gay marraige.

Pub 17

Oh, knock it off, Special Services. Try responding to a legitimate point sometime. Alternatively, go sit on a three-cell flashlight.

BudRog

Warning! Warning! Warning! Moonbat check-in, Moonbat check-in!

Pub 17

Ahh, the bigotry's out this morning in full flower.

It's bigotry, Christie Jessee, because nowhere do you acknowledge that under your anti-gay-marriage logic, there should be laws forcing single parents to marry a member of the opposite sex PDQ, ASAP, chop chop, to similarly preserve "the ideal gender complementarity found in marriage."

You support a law like that, Christie?

TinaMcG

Frankly, I have never understood why dying patients can't designate anyone they want -- spouse, best friend, whoever -- at their bedsides. I think it's a dumb policy and its time is long passed.

solomon

Don't you love advertisements on the Letters page?

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright