Deal W. Hudson

The Brave Dr. Morse: San Diego Ignores the Impact of Same-Sex Marriage on Children

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

As a tearful Mayor revealed that his daughter is Lesbian and reversed his promise to San Diego to oppose same-sex marriage, the pain and plight of children under modern maneuvering of marriage boundaries went, once again, IGNORED.  I say "ignored" because the stark, unemotional reality of the emotionally- stressed lives being carved for children by the ever-expanding Culture of Adult Desire was placed squarely on the table.  "Look at the consequences to the children, PLEASE," was the message delivered by the brave Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse to the San Diego City Council before its vote last week to support same-sex marriage.  Apparently moved to do "what's right" for his adult daughter, but unmoved by the emotional well-being of San Diego's children,  by the 62% of San Diego voters who supported one-man, one-woman marriage in 2000 and by his own campaign promise to protect marriage and children, the Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders signed the Council's resolution supporting same-sex marriage.

Dr. Morse's comments warrant a full read.  She speaks authoritatively and effectively on behalf of our children - to those who care to listen.  More, her courage challenges each of us to speak up and give voice to the children whose needs and well-being are being shunted from the public square, like the God whose gift they are. 

Next week, I will be going to Canada to do a briefing for their Members of Parliament about why cohabitation is not the same as marriage. I mention that to indicate that my primary job is to straighten out the straight people. And believe me, it is a full-time job. I am here today to explain why I believe instituting same sex marriage will make that job immeasurably more difficult. The needs of same sex couples and opposite sex couples would both be better served by having distinct institutional arrangements, rather than by trying to have one institution serve the needs of both groups.

Opposite sex couples have children, without any specific intervention by the state. Same sex couples can not have children without specific legal institutions in place to do two things: first, the rights of at least one of the genetic parents must be terminated. Second, at least one member of the same sex couple must have parental rights specifically assigned to them.

The advocates of same sex marriage hope that "marriage" will allow them to skip these steps. They hope, for instance, that any child born to either member of a lesbian couple will be presumed to be the child of both. But that requires that somehow, the male contributor to the conception of the child must be safely out of the way. That step still has to be taken, no matter what kind of union the members of the lesbian couple have with each other. Renaming their relationship should not be enough to invalidate the father's rights to his child.

In practice, there are two possible things that can happen with the opposite sex parent. Either that parent will be considered legally superfluous. Or, the child can have three parents, the two same sex parents, plus the cooperating opposite sex parent.

Neither of these options are particularly good for children. We know that children thrive when they are raised by two married parents. We know that children suffer specific kinds of losses from the absence of their mother or from the absence of their father. And we know that children in step-families have a specific set of emotional and behavioral risks. We can only imagine how those problems would be compounded in the event of three, rather than two, legal parents juggling the children from one home to another, disputing about custody schedules and fighting over child support.

These are some of the negative outcomes we can expect from trying to make marriage into a gender-neutral institution that applies identically to same sex and opposite sex couples.

1. Triple parenting will emerge, as it has already done in both Canada and Pennsylvania.

2. The state will have to determine, not just record, parentage of same sex couples. If same sex marriage is really treated as the equivalent of opposite sex marriage, that authority will be extended to cover opposite sex couples as well.

3. There will no longer be "natural parents," only "legal parents." In Spain, the birth certificates were changed from "mother" and "father" to "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B." In Canada, the birth certificates were changed from "natural mother" and "natural father" to "legal parent A" and "legal parent B."

4. Same sex marriage will further the process of marginalizing men from the family. If children don't really need one parent of each gender, the natural conclusion will be that fathers, not mothers, are disposable.

Legally recognizing same sex marriage will destabilize the legal determination of parentage. In cases in both Canada, which has legal same sex marriage, and Pennsylvania, which does not, courts have recognized three adults as legal parents. In the Pennsylvania case, Jacob v. Schulz-Jacob, the two members of the estranged lesbian couple as well as the biological father, all dispute one another's rights and responsibilities. The children have all the trauma of divorce, multiplied. They have visitation with three adults, none of whom live together, none of whom are cooperating with each other. It is a psychologist's nightmare.

We have all seen children of divorced parents shuttling from one household to another. If same sex marriage comes to California, we will be seeing children going among three or even more parents. I urge you to vote against this resolution. Picture a little girl, going from her mom's house to her mom's former partner's house, to her dad's, to her dad's former partner's. Those little children, with their backpacks and their sleeping bags, will be on your head, if the resolution supporting same sex marriage passes.

I speak on behalf of the many supporters of traditional marriage who are arrayed in this room. We come from all the major faith traditions, and no religion at all. But we are united in two core beliefs.

1. We believe that men and women are different in socially significant ways. We believe that mothers and fathers are not perfectly interchangeable. The advocates of same sex marriage must insist that gender is irrelevant to parenting.

2. We believe that something is owed to the child. We believe that every child is entitled to be born into a family of the mother and father who brought them into being through an act of love. Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents.

Like many others here today, I am devoted to helping opposite sex couples see the importance of life-long married love. Our efforts would be greatly hampered by a judgment of the state saying adults are entitled to cut off a child's relationship with one of his parents at birth, and that the child should be indifferent as to whether he has both parents or not.

That is why we have come here today: to speak on behalf of those children yet to be born, to affirm our commitment to the principle that every child deserves a mother and a father.

Rudy and the NRA

Marc Nadeau

Recently, Rudy Giuliani addressed the NRA - expressing that 9/11 changed his perspective about gun limits.  Like one of my friends told me the other day, where does he see the link?  Does he think that people will buy into the fact that he seems to think that guns could have prevented the fateful events of 6 years ago?  Make no mistake, security and the Second amendment issues are utmost important and should be treated with way much more seriousness than a sound-bite. 

To me, the link is sketchy.  In my sense, Rudy's tactics in trying to link guns and 9/11 were just cheap politics and NRA members had the right to expect way more than that.

My reading of this speech is that Rudy is now concerned that he may be out of steam with the conservative movement.  And I would not be surprised if he would try to re-invent himself in the near future and on other accounts, too.  I just can't imagine what he will try to do to impress values voters.

His trip to London, last week, is yet another representation of that.  Being a student and admirer of Churchill since longer than I can remember, I was aghast to see the great statesman's grand-daughter comparing Rudy to 'Churchill in a baseball cap'.  Does Rudy know what it is to be left in the political sidewalk for standing for convictions and values?  Churchill did.  Was Rudy willing to run against the current to promote and defend values that are important?  Nope.  He flip-flops and now embraces those he decried has having been 'extremists'.

I have lots of respect for Churchill's grand daughter.  But she's not Winston and any temptation to read the great man's mind should first take facts into account.

During his life, Churchill warned people against the perils of Nazism and communism.  He was right on both counts.  An archbishop I know reminded me that when he visited Rome, several years ago, he had a meeting with  John Paul II the Great and the question was asked to the Holy Father as of which was the issue threatening the future of the world.  John Paul II responded 'Radical Islam'. 

In the fight against it and in the investment of political courage to make progress on that count, John McCain seems to me as being the real Churchill in that field.  He puts his money where his mouth is.

Rudy may be a fan of Churchill, but that does not mean he has what it takes to don his mantle.

Hard Not To Chuckle

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

I'm glad Catholics United apologized, Deal, for e-ssailing your mailbox in response to your fully fair post on September 09, 2007, Vatican Accepts Gift of "Carbon Credits".   I hope I don't trigger a re-e-offensive.

But, I found it hard not to chuckle watching this Youtube after visiting www.cheatneutral.com, whose "small print" reads:

Small Print:

This site is designed to highlight some of the issues surrounding carbon offsetting and we hope you realise that it is satirical in intent. We do not advocate cheating on your loved ones, and we do not in all seriousness suggest that it is possible to 'offset' doing so, nor are we responsible for any distress caused by using our service. (Read it all.)

POSTSCRIPT:  THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN UPDATED SINCE I POSTED.  I RECOMMEND YOU SIGN OFF WHEN YOU SEE A TALL ROBOT TOWARD THE END - AT WHICH POINT THE SATIRE CONTAINS OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE.

">

Dobson Uses his Bully Pulpit and Uses it and Uses it and....

Deal Hudson

I'm starting to lose track, Marjorie, of Dr. Dobson's ex cathedra thunderbolts on the presidential candidates.

Let's see, in no particular order:

1. Newt Gingrich has come on my radio show, repented of his sins, and now he's OK to run for the nomination.

2. I won't vote for Rudy Giuliani, and if he is the nominee I won't vote at all.

3. Fred Thompson is not a Christian, so I won't vote for him.

4. Gov. Romney is a Mormon, so Evangelicals won't vote for him (I'm not saying whether I would vote for a Mormon or not. You guess.)

5. Fred Thompson is not for the Federal Marriage Amendment; he wants to leave it to the states to decide, and that' s not good enough for me, so that's the second reason I won't vote for him.

6. There is no way I would vote for John McCain under any circumstances.

7. Some Evangelicals think Gingrich is a better candidate, and so do I.

Why am I getting the picture of someone who thinks he has strings attached to Evangelical voters? 

I'm sure there are millions of people who listen to Dr. Dobson and take seriously what he has to say. 

But at some point aren't they going to start shaking their heads at all these hand signals about who they ought to vote for, according to Dr. Dobson?

Dobson made his justly deserved reputation with a book about "Daring to Discipline."

It looks to me as if a big dose of that discipline is being spooned out to the Christian voter.

 

Evangelical Spiting: Dr. Dobson

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Have you seen the sign hanging on llama enclosures:  WARNING, llamas may spit?  It's true, llamas do spit to to settle arguments, establish dominance and pecking order.  I don't want to be unfair here, but, I am beginning to wonder if Dr. Dobson and his Christian coterie need their own sign:  WARNING, evangelicals may spite.

It seems we got first wind of Mr. Dobson's possible distaste for a presidential Fred Thompson back in March when Dr. Dobson's camp claimed the media misreported and distorted his comments seemingly questioning Mr. Thompson's faith and faithfulness.  Dr. Dobson assailed the media and urged "friends of our ministry not to believe what they read about Dr. Dobson in the secular media today."

Now the secularly suspect The Associated Press has revealed that Dr. Dobson shared in a "privately" distributed email an apparently unqualified opinion about Mr. Thompson, now, allegedly, in his very own words, reported here by LifeNews.com:

"[Thompson] won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail," Dobson wrote.

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!" he added.

Now, if Dr. Dobson wrote and circulated such fiery allegations, well, this is not nice.  In fact, it's a tad spiteful, particularly in view of Mr. Thompson's statement that "he has never had the pleasure of meeting or talking with the Focus on the Family founder."

To his credit, Mr. Thompson, reportedly, is questioning the authenticity of the email.  Following that good example, I"ll say no more and watch with interest for Dr. Dobson to distance himself from spiteful language.   

An Apology from Catholics United

Deal Hudson

Every now and then in the political struggle between left and right civility prevails. 

I was delighted when I received the following e-mail from the director of the organization responsible for the cyber-attack of last week. 

By the time the ten-hour attack ended, at least several thousand e-mails had landed in my inbox. 

Here is the message I received:

Dear Deal,

I want to express my sincere apologies for filling up your inbox with so many emails last week.  We got a much bigger response to our blog posting than we anticipated.

The letters keep coming, and rather than send them to you individually, we opted to pass them on in batches - see attached.

We'll continue to forward these as they come in.

Best wishes,

Chris Korzen
Executive Director
Catholics United


I accepted his apology, of course.  And I  sympathized with how "things can get out of hand."

Notice of Vacation

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Why do you read The Drudge Report, Deal?  Good grief.

When I litigated in Miami, lawyers routinely filed a "Notice of Vacation" for the month of August - as flocks of children, spouses and litigators fled for the high hills of North Carolina, a tradition birthed in the long-forgotten days of summer polio.  Paid to stay in the mosquito-infested environs of Florida's flatlands, laden with North  Carolina-bound partner demands to "get something done", I opened these "Notices" with a sense of betrayed abandon.  I felt like an August Sisyphus - hoping for some September back-up muscle.

Perhaps the Holy Father could file the same:  Notice of Vacation. 

Then we'd paid no mind to  The (inflammatory) Drudge Report, eh?

An Italian Report That the Pope Snubbed Condi Rice

The Drudge Report is carrying a link today about a story from an Italian newspaper claiming that Pope Benedict XVI refused to see Sec. Rice in early August when she was on her way to the Middle East for negotiations. 

A couple of things about this story smell of bad faith.

First, it cites no sources in saying that Rice desperately wanted to beef up her credentials prior to the Middle East visit.  I hardly think any such thing would have been communicated to the Vatican through Ambassador Rooney.

Second, when Europeans go on vacation in August, they go on vacation! That includes the Pope. No one going to the Vatican in August should expect to meet the Holy Father, no one, not even an American Secretary of State. 

To call it a "snub" is yellow journalism with an Italian patina. 

What Makes Kristin "Catholic"?

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

I'm out of my field here but, hmmmm, I will venture anyway.

What makes Kristin Lavransdatter "Catholic", Deal? 

Hiking last week with two girlfriends, each of us seeking spiritual rest within the neuvo-retreat environment of Western "spa-ing", I tried to frame a description of this trilogy that captured the fundamental "Catholic" nature of Kristin's own spiritual journey - and why her fictional joys, passions and miseries offer a worthy dimension to our own secular search for fulfillment.

1.  Suffering deepens and defines the human experience - and only through suffering did Kristin's relationship with God reach maturity.  This is a wretchedly simplistic reduction of the intricate, uneven progression Sigrid Undset unfolds for Kristin across three volumes (1100 pages), but, in the secular-spa environment, it had to do.  Catholics put suffering on the table, just like low-fat, fine cuisine and hot stones massage.  This idea, even for my Catholic orientation, fits uneasily in spa reflections on well-being - as if I smoked a cigarette and drank a whiskey right after a seaweed facial.  But suffering is so well-known to us, it's a worthy consideration Catholics keep afloat - and Krsitin Lavrandatter excels at presentation.

2.  Children are a gift from God.  Among mothers, this theme can makes us warm and cozy.  Ms. Undset, I confided over morning granola, has Kristin nibble on baby toes, feed and cuddle her newborns skin-against-skin and indulge the ceaseless mother-fear that grips us well beyond any utility.  It's a Catholic notion that the intensity of the bodily pregnancy, birthing and breast-feeding experiences (in both pain and pleasure) and the permanent, enduring nature of mother-love participate in God's nature - a notion embraced in impact, at least, within my spa-ing circles.

3. Willing our destiny does not produce meaning.  Kristin's strong-willed nature proves no asset, under Ms. Undset's patient pen.  Kristin follows her heart - just as we spa-gals percolate and plumb plans from within our emotive selves for our post-spa, future well-being.  We are convinced, like Kristin, that our will alone can chart our path to meaning, obscured only by our inability to discern the proper destiny.  Frankly, I rather accept this notion, even as I doubt whether this pursuit offers any greater long-term fulfillment than, say, effective coping with external circumstances merely foisted upon me.  Like Kristin, I am slowly learning that graceful negotiation of "unfair-stuff-I-did-not-choose" may be God's currency, my buy-in to his presence.  Yet, I still find great comfort plotting my next life phase while breathing deeply in downward dog yoga position.

There's more to be said, here, I'm sure.  But, with only 3 days at the spa and a single read of Kristin Lavransdatter, Deal, this was the best I could muster between hikes and treatments. 

Sigrid Undset Wrote the Best Catholic Novel

Deal Hudson

Marjorie, I have been recommending Kristin Lavransdatter to people for 30 years. Everyone who read it went to the trouble of telling me, "thank you."

Kristin was recommended to my be a fellow graduate student named John at Emory University.  John had been a Jesuit novice but had left the order.  (I knew nothing about such things at the time, but was delighted to have such a good and learned friend!)

I've since read Kristin three times, twice in the old translation, once in the new Tina Nunnally translation available from Penguin. 

As you discovered on the Internet, I have written about Undset and have edited a book of essays on her life and work (now sadly out of print from Ignatius Press.)

Several years ago, the Swedish actress Liv Ullmann directed quite a good film based upon the first volume of the Kristin trilogy -- it's worth seeing.

When people ask me to name the best Catholic novel, I tell them Kristin.

I know that these kinds of questions, and answers to them, are suspect.  But their purpose is to provide signposts for readers who don't know where to go. 

And for that reason, I am unapologetic in urging them to read Sigrid Undset.

Once they read the trilogy, I hope they will go to read what is perhaps an even better novel by Undset, The Master of Hestvikan.