CLUMC Forum on Amendment C

I attended a forum on Amendment C held this evening at Canyon Lake United Methodist Church. Unfortunately it wasn't well attended, but those that were there found it quite interesting and engaging. (There's another one next Sunday night; I highly recommend it!) Elizabeth Krause was apparently scheduled to defend her prize child of a constitutional amendment, but, was not able to attend. Pity. So at the table above you see Bill Nachalilo, who identified himself as the West River Coordinator for the South Dakota Family Policy Council, Bruce Crosswait, who (bravely) moderated the discussion -- my dear Mom would have been proud of his panache and firmness in that role-- and at right, Michael Coats, West River Coordinator for South Dakotans Against Discrimination.

Nachalilo sure impressed me as a really good guy, he's a retired teacher, has adopted kids and said he had hosted more than 170 foster kids. Hats off to him, I really respect that. But I don't respect or appreciate what he had to say--he made the usual weak arguments, based on the usual bad science, or good science taken out of context, to promote discrimination against families that don't look like his. You've heard it all before: "gay families are bad for kids, kids do best with two heterosexual biological parents, marriage between one man and one woman is the basis of our civilization and in the last ten years, gays have threatened to destroy it all, polygamy (or worse) is next." He even took a swipe at no-fault divorce, knocked single-parent families in general damaging to children, etc. (As a grateful son of a successful single parent, and a dedicated step-dad, I tend to get kind of cranky when people start talking to me like this.)

This stuff was RIGHT out of the current Family Policy Council talking points, and how do I know this? Well, the arguments Nachalilo cited are listed (almost in order) on this recent post (9/21/06) refuting them based on, uh, peer reviewed research taken in context.

(BTW, I highly recommend reading the post as it doesn't only refute these arguments, but goes on to offense, pointing out that the real research doesn't only disprove the assumptions of the anti-gay-marriage folks, but actually indicates that harm is done to children by the authoritarian parenting, abstinence-only sex ed, and chastity pledges so favored by fundamentalists Christians under the guidance Dr. Dobson, Gary Bauer, et al.)

The real peer-reviewed science is so compelling that the gender of parents is immaterial to the welfare of children that the red-state Arkansas courts (who'd have thunk?) have had to allow gay parents to adopt children. Here's what they said:

The court found that there was no validity to the arguments made by opponents of gay adoption, noting that: Children of lesbian and gay parents are just as well-adjusted as children of heterosexual parents; Being raised by gay parents doesn?t increase the risk of psychological, behavioral, academic, gender identity, or any other sort of adjustment problems; Being raised by gay parents doesn?t prevent children from forming healthy relationships with their peers and others; There is no factual basis for saying that gay parents might be less able to guide their children through adolescence than heterosexual parents; There is no evidence that gay people, as a group, are more likely to engage in domestic violence or sexual abuse than heterosexual people; The exclusion of gay people and people with gay family members may be harmful to children because it excludes a pool of effective foster parents.

Mike Coats kept his cool a lot better than most of the small audience; he pointed out that most of the real meaning of Amendment C will have to be worked out in the courts by the very "activist judges" it's purportedly designed to protect us from. And that gays aren't the only ones that could be hurt by this law. This is the common ground that led the South Dakota Episcopalians to vote to recommend non-support of C four to one. Mike pointed out correctly that a change in the constitution trumps any contracts and laws retroactively, so should a lawyer find a loophole, we have given them new tools to invalidate contracts. It's that simple and that scary. We just don't know. He also pointed out that none other than the Ohio affliate of the Family Policy Council (of which SDFPC is one as well) is working to shield abusers from prosecution using the Ohio "gay marriage" constitutional amendment. I thought this was all about protecting children?!?

The one and only Bob Ellis dropped in halfway through the session. Should have gotten a picture of him with the Radical. Maybe next time. (Hey Bob, nice to meet you in person. Warm greetings from one passionate blogger to another. [Not that there's anything wrong with that.])

Next week, Canyon Lake UMC is having another forum, this time on Referred Law 6, 3500 Canyon Lake Dr, 6-7:30 pm. All are invited.

Let's hear it for the United Methodists over by Canyon Lake. They are a brave bunch!