Monday, September 15, 2008

Hooray for Dr. J!

In the news: Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse was featured with other supporters (and opposers) of Prop. 8 here in California. The newspaper was the San Diego Union Tribune. Even though our side was outnumbered, the pro-Prop 8ers clearly knew their stuff and did well to promote the message of what true marriage is. Check it out here.

Here's a little taste of it:

Hasn't marriage always been available for couples who don't have children,
for 65-year-olds who want to get married?

MORSE: Yes, It's quite true that not every married couple has children.
But every child has parents. And every child is entitled to a relationship with
both of their parents, and no child is in a position to protect that right on
their own. Adult society has to create institutions to do that.

Ding! Point for our side! Someone has to look out for the children. Those against Prop. 8 seem to forget about them.

And there's lots more where that came from.


Anonymous said...

Pardon, but it is impossible for me to believe that anyone in such a frame of mind as you and your supporters could possibly have any friends who have had a child out of wedlock, have had more than one marriage, are in an intimate relationship with a person of the same sex, or have had an abortion.
Also, your comment to a caller on the radio today ran along the lines of "Adoption's purpose is to bring needy children to parents, not to bring children to needy adults.
As person who in her circle of close friends has two couples who have adopted children, I felt a pang of unjustified insult for their sake.
I disagree so whole-heartedly that only one sort of family is good for children. And the more that large demographics of society insist that one man and one woman is the only proper way to raise children, the more frightening the world will be for so many children who grow up in families that are not made up of one man, one woman married to each other.
As a mother I would not like to see my own children's future happiness or security shadowed by such a narrow definition of marriage.
Although my own ideal for myself would have been to find a man who shared my particular religious beliefs implicitly and live all the days of my life with him as mother to our children and dutiful wife to himself, I don't mind that this is not everyone's ideal.
I hope that in your quest to rescue our nation's children's future happiness, you will not mar my little Americans' chances to marry or not marry for whatever reasons they wish. I am not raising sheep or robots...I am raising people who will have their own ideas, tastes and pursuits that may not resemble my own at all.
I will add that divorce does not necessarily take children away from either parent. My children's father lives two blocks away from me and our children see the both of us everyday.
Your outspoken manner, though proficient in announcing views you think are the best for everyone, will prevent timider folks who have happily chosen different routes from being honest in your company.
I found that out myself when I had a very distintive attitude toward a particular practice...and expounded upon it fervently...only to discover some years later that each time I did this I was unwittingly wounding many people whose shoes I had never stood in, and who,despite my lack of grace on the subject, remained dearest of friends with me through thick and thin.
I wish you the best...for you! And let us all wish the best for eachother, without being so haughty as to believe that our ideals are indeed in the best interest of everyone else and their children. They are not.

Jennifer Roback Morse said...

I feel compelled to respond to at least part of this. I am an adoptive parent myself. As a social institution, adoption is CHILD-CENTERED. It exists, exactly as I said, for the benefit of children, not adults. That is the crucial point. Adopting my son was not about me and my husband: it was about our son and his needs.
Jenny, there is so much evidence on the harms to children, the risks to children, from non-intact families, that I don't know where to begin. Of course, the fact that your chidlren see their father regularly is better than not seeing him: no doubt about that. But there is also no doubt that it would have been better for them, and probably for you, too, if you could have dodged the divorce. Honestly, wouldn't you have preferred to have found the right person? or to have figured out how to make your marriage work?
I've talked to many, many people about this. I have yet to hear anyone say that divorce was something they aspired to. it is always the second-best.
I deeply resent your suggestion that people who advocate lifelong marriage are raising sheep or robots. That was completely uncalled for.