Here’s a story about Cheryl and Keri.
Once upon a time they met and fell in love and decided to get married, start a family, and spend the rest of their lives together.
So Cheryl and Keri went to Vermont and had a civil union. And they used artificial insemination to have a daughter. Cheryl was the birth mother. And all was good.
Then, as too often happens in such stories, things went sour. Cheryl found out that Keri had been unfaithful and their relationship ended with remorse and recrimination. Keri moved out.
But though they were no longer a couple, Keri continued to see her daughter. Even after Cheryl moved from Utah to Texas, Keri would drive to see her child. This did not make Cheryl happy. So she stopped Keri’s access. And became ex-gay. And used the resources of the anti-gay movement to punish Keri and drive her away from her child.
The Supreme Court of Utah just decided in favor of Cheryl.
This sickens me not only because of the immorality of placing anti-gay bigotry ahead of all of the intentions of the couple, but also because ex-gay conversion was used to gain support from anti-gay activists and because the anti-gay religious community is rejoicing in one woman’s pain.
For me this raises a number of questions.
First, is there any moral reasoning that can justify separating Keri and her daughter? Perhaps one could argue that the law was what it was and that this is a sad conclusion. But morally?
Here’s what the Alliance Defense Fund had to say:
“Protecting the well-being of a small child trumps the desire of a legal stranger to usurp the care and protection of that child’s mom,” said the group’s Joe Infranco. “The Utah Supreme Court ruled correctly in affirming Cheryl Barlow’s right as a natural parent and putting an end to visitation with a woman who has no legitimate legal relationship to the child.”
And I’ve yet to see anyone from the ex-gay community condemn this action. Which makes me wonder whether they favor this cruel decision.
Second, what else could Keri have done to protect her family? Utah refused to recognize the steps she did take and did not allow her to take others solely because she was part of a same-sex couple.
And yet the ex-gay movement continues to claim that gay couples don’t need protections afforded by civil unions or marriage and is actively involved in efforts to prohibit same-sex adoptions.
I know that many ex-gay advocates read our comments here. And many will tell us that they are not vindictive or hateful or in favor of discriminatory or punitive treatment towards gay people. Some of you claim that you wish to treat others the way that you want to be treated.
My challenge to you ex-gay ministers is this:
Is there anyone involved in the ex-gay movement that thinks this is a morally unjustifiable result?
Is there anyone in the ex-gay movement brave enough to say, “I don’t want my children taken away from me so I find it unacceptable that Keri’s daughter was taken from her”?
Is there anyone willing to admit that using the ex-gay movement as a tool to be spiteful and vindictive is inappropriate?
Is there anyone willing to say that same-sex couples should be empowered to make decisions about their family and take protections – either through adoptions or civil unions or partnerships – that cannot be vetoed at the whim of an ex-partner?
In short, is there anyone involved in the ex-gay movement that is willing to take a stand for fairness, humanity, decency and basic morality?
In the middle of all this, voice unheard, is a small child.
A child who has no hope of comprehending the ways that “adults” behave at times to each other, or the law, or the all out assault on the very legitimacy of the personal lives of gay men and women.
But, also, a small child who can fully comprehend when a salient person suddenly is banished from their life.
Legalism: given a choice to act in love or obey a law, to decide to follow the law.
Obviously its not just gay people that need legal protections. Its children. The fact that gay couples cannot have access to the same rights as straight couples and may not both be able to be legal parents to their children leaves children vulnerable in many ways. Some prime examples.
Gay families (and single parents for that matter) pay thousands more in taxes than married families of the same size. This is money that could be used for the benefit of the child (food, medical care, college tuition etc).
If a child cannot be adopted by one of his parents, that child won’t have access to the health insurance provided by his parents employer. That parent may not be able to make emergency medical decisions for his own child.
And as illustrated here, in the unfortunate event of a breakup, children of gay parents are not afforded the same protection as children of straight parents. Lets not forget that in this case, a child also lost access to her own mother.
The list goes on and on. All in the name of family values.
Ya know how much I hate the morally bereft ADF.
They will go after the biological children (like mine) from a legal union in order to punish a GLBT ex-spouse. They really do not care if it destroys the children. Having purchased a bludgeon with blood, they easily move on to batter more families. They are cruel, heartless BRAVOs, intent on terrorizing GLBT persons back into the closet (or worse).
They were founded for this very reason – to destroy our families in any way they can. And then they use the publicity to obtain more unrighteous mammon so they can continue the program of terror.
Don’t expect any of their kapos for hire to step in on this. They should be ashamed of their paycheck.
The ex-gay response?
Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp [/crickets]
Don’t fall all over yourselves fighting to respond.
yah, I thought so. (posted 24 hours later and noticing no ex-gay response) But then again, professional ex-gays aren’t much into assuaging human tragedy, as much as exploiting it for $$.
SharonB,
I’m not going to assume that Exodus monitors our site EVERY day. But at some point I think I can start making some assumptions about their integrity and priorities.
I will admit that I am surprised that NOT ONE SINGLE EX-GAY MINISTER has yet been willing to disavow this evil either on this site or in private correspondence.
Timothy, are you assuming that they consider it evil? I would expect some spin towards the idea that “this is the result of not following God’s plan” etc, along with “the despair of “living homosexually” and so forth.
It may get a response, but I doubt it will be the one for which you hope.
I don’t know SharonB at all, but it sounds like this story stirred up something within her. I’d like to hear more of that story. I don’t know David Roberts either and I can’t speak for the people from whom you desire a comment, but he may have expressed it best.
Taking a child away from its mother for no reason other than that she is gay (which is unquestionably why ADF got involved) is evil.
Now is a chance for ex-gay ministers to tell us why it isn’t evil to do this. We hear all the time about “love”. I’m wondering if there is absolutely anything whatsoever that can be done to a gay person that they won’t justify in their minds as acceptable – and still use the word “love”.
So far, it looks like it.
Well, well….another family situation that parallels with that of black slave parents.
Black slaves had no rights to marry, nor have any control over the quality of life they could give their children or each other.
Being ‘sold away’ was a cruelty visited on slave couples and their children often.
And only because they were black, and therefore had no status or were considered able to be legitimate as a family.
Straight folks who invoke their privilege to do this to gay people, disregarding the feelings that gay parent’s own children says something not only about the heartlessness that can be directed at gay adults, but yes….at their children.
Just as the institution of slavery dehumanized blacks to this degrees, this is no less the same degree of dehumanizing.
It is a well known tactic of evil intent…that to cow a person into submission…attack them THROUGH THEIR CHILDREN.
More importantly, no ex gays or any other homophobes can point to tremendous social good by doing so.
Which can only make one conclude that being cruel to gay people is more of a sport, than a means to social and moral reform.
But Regan, according to Randy Thomas VP of Exodus:
[The fight for gay marriage] doesn’t have the same ring or impact as watching young black people being knocked down by fully opened fire hoses and mauled by tax payer funded police dogs.
Marriage might be a policy battle but it is not a civil rights issue.
Apparently Randy Thomas can’t comprehend of civil rights beyond one class of people, and one era. That’s all done with now, nice and neat. How nice.
Thanks, Regan, for reminding us of that comparison. It is funny how things just repeat over and over and some people just can’t bring themselves to recognize it.
Regan:
It is not a form of reform; it is a vindictive tool of punishment and control. It is a hate crime.
Randy Thomas only knows of those assaults on black marchers because the media was around to record it. But the mainstream media never had interest in what happened to blacks before and the reasons for the marches in the first place.
But not for the open casket picture of Emmett Till’s horribly violated body at his funeral, white folks never appreciated the gravity of what their peers were willing to do to keep black people in line, even if it was to kill a child.
Would the death scene pictures of Scotty Joe Weaver or Billy Jack Gaithers wake him up to the plight of innocent gay men set on by others?
Or would he take offense that such pictures were exploitive propaganda?
What WOULD it take for someone like Thomas to take brutality against gays and lesbians seriously?
Up until the murder of Matt Shepard, the mainstream media was disinterested in gay issues as the press was with black issues.
No one appreciated that a particularly harmless gay man (elfin in size, thin and non combative in nature), could provoke such brutality.
So, for Thomas to say something like that..he hasn’t been paying attention. He’s an intellectual coward, so that he doesn’t have to be troubled IN THIS DAY, by his stance….anymore than the segregationists were unmoved by the brutality exacted on blacks.
This is historical fact I do not have to make up.
As for the marriage issue and civil rights…it’s a human rights issue. No other human being, regardless of their characteristics, either opposite to, or comparable to, is denied marriage to each other, nor denied the ability to function fully as a parent and citizen, by WAY of the Constitution.
In effect, he’s behind laws to deny gay people what they ALREADY had rights to do.
In our lives as citizens this is the first time in modern history…since slavery…that a human being has been denied the ability to marry someone of their own characteristic and secure the social and financial support of their children.
This is to commit gays and lesbians to the whims of a hostile majority public, as blacks have been.
And also like the blacks Thomas so eagerly mentions…these actions are against a non criminal, compassionate, peacefully protesting class or people-who commit no violence to MAKE their needs known.
Thomas needs to hear this from ME…but he keeps avoiding me. I see far more historical and social credibility in the gay struggle for equality, than he has in denying it.
Jews were not brought here as slaves either…but anti Semitism has had no less a cruel history, and shouldn’t be dismissed as less legitimate than the struggle of any brutalized minority, looking for a safe home in which to live.
One of the things I love about you, Regan, is your definition of “us”. Some people’s “us” is so narrow that it only includes “us left-handed, red haired, Episcopal lebian accountants over 50 who live in Pasadena”. (no offense to any readers who might fit that category)
Your definition of “us” seems to transcend barriers of race, gender, orientation, age and religion and seems to be “us humans”. That’s an amazing ability.
Timothy, what I love about you, this blog…and our friends here…is that we are given the opportunity to congregate and have our differences become cooperative.
I came here to learn initially. I am a minority here…and I did learn.
A lot!
I am very proud of the folks here. I’m not too literate in the Scriptures. Of course I certainly appreciate those who are.
We all have contributions to make and can continue to. I blush at your compliment though, brother.
I try to employ simpler logic, although I might have a fairly convoluted way of making a point.
But the beauty part is, you know that about me and I’m getting better at making my points shorter…sometimes. :0P
I think what’s really frustrating me more and more…and perhaps I’d be more shrill in person, is how someone like me or you…get’s less and less opportunity to confront our detractors.
I’m used to being ignored, dismissed…whatever-but I REALLY hate it!
I think I have a right to know why, and also why our detractors are insulating themselves from challenge.
If they are so firm in their faith, and their truth is irrefutable…how will we know unless EVERYTHING is on the table other than their limited scraps?
Although I don’t really claim a religious affiliation, I feel more unshakable in my beliefs mostly because I’m not the one running, or ignoring or dismissing.
I’m about ready to jump up and down up in here and go….YOO HOO!
Seriously….I”m really not afraid, and sometimes I wonder why I’m not.
What is it about yoo hoo, straight, big mouthed black woman here, that makes me the dragon lady?
:0P
ADF continues to tear apart families :http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4026
Don’t know what the particulars are, given the ADF’s penchant for lying; however this story has many similarities to the above case. However, this one is in Virgina and is starting with restricted visitation (how my case began). Expect the mother in this case to use these restrictions in order to alienate the kid(s) in question from their father. Restrictions are only one way in these cases: on the gay parent. The straight parent is free to display affection or have opposite sex sleepovers. And of course, the same-sex attracted parent can never marry his partner, so you can see how this will impact visitation. Absolutely disgusting! I HATE THE ADF!
Don’t expect the Ex-gays for pay to comment on this. I have a rebuttable presumption for them: They are in favor of destroying the relationship of parents and kids if the parent is gay.
Sharon, you have my unconditional sympathy and support.
The ADF must be challenged on their cruelty. Especially to non criminal, non abusive parents.
It’s down to it folks…just SAYING what they think of gay folks in general and gay parents in particular absolutely cannot fly in a court of law.
Gays are the accused…but the accuser has the burden of proof. Where is the presumption of innocence for gay people?
Where is the assumption of proof on those who constantly accuse gay folks of something sinister and suspect, and regardless of reality and evidence to the contrary, get away with hurting others based SOLELY on accusation?
The courts are barely maintaining this mission when it comes to gay folks, and laws are being enacted to keep gay folks from access to courts and governments for redress of grievances.
Clearly that is un Constitutional as well.
So, just WHAT do those who attack gay parents, and their relationship to their kids, get out of it?
Because THEY sure aren’t trying to raise the child or be responsible for it’s support.
Regan:
Basically they get more contributions from their bigoted, ignorant hetrosupremacist christianist followers.
All about the money, actually.
Oh, and lording it over others.
BTW, you rock, woman!
First and foremost, our children should be protected. The courts chose to place the “out” on the state legislature and therefore, my daughter loses.
I appreciate this site and have found your thoughts to be very thoughtful. To add a little and make a few corrections…after I was awarded visitation in 2004, I saw my daughter atleast once a week and every other weekend. When my ex moved her to Texas, I still traveled there every single other weekend – up until the ruling.
It has now been over three months and I haven’t heard from her. I pray that I left with enough love to hold her for the next many years.