Today's Paper Latest Elections Coronavirus 🔵 Covid Classroom Cooking Families Core values Story ideas iPad Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles Archive

The story is told of a community facing a terrible dilemma—what to do about a dangerous cliff over which children were increasingly falling to the valley below. Two solutions were proposed: some advocated building a fence on the hill, while others preferred placing an ambulance down in the valley. Ultimately, those who promoted the ambulance prevailed; then proceeded to ridicule and demean those who maintained that it would be far better to construct a fence.

This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives.

Editorial, Pages 11 on 05/09/2011

Print Headline: Guest writer Stability favored


Sponsor Content

Archived Comments

  • JakeTidmore
    May 9, 2011 at 6 a.m.

    Would this guest writer deign to actually have some facts to back up his statements about the stability of one home over another? No study is cited. No research is given. No data is referred to.

    Methinks this is a cracked crock of you know what.

  • 23cal
    May 9, 2011 at 7:46 a.m.

    Your statements "This State’s preference for marriage is consistent with the significant social science evidence that marriage ‘is the single most significant factor distinguishing two categories of children: one group advantaged, the other disadvantaged" and "The support for this position in social science research is ‘simply overwhelming’ in its findings of ‘substantial disadvantages for children raised by non-marital, cohabitating parents or a parent and his adult partner.’” are out and out bald faced LIES. The proof:
    American Psychological Association (APA): They issued a statement which said, in part: "Whereas scientific research has not found significant psychological or emotional differences between the children raised in different-sex versus same-sex households..."
    North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC): The NACAC issued a policy statement which states: "Everyone with the potential to successfully parent a child in foster care and adoption is entitled to fair and equal consideration regardless of sexual orientation or differing life style or physical appearance."
    American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): The Dr. Ellen Perrin, led the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health at the AAP. They studied adoption by same-sex parents. Her prime task was to determine if there is a disadvantage conferred upon a child who is being raised by two men or two women, in comparison to the same child being raised by a man and woman. Perrin said: "We felt that the data were very conclusive that the answer to that question is 'no.'" Thus, the AAP will support legal and legislative efforts to allow adoption by gay and lesbian couples."
    The American Psychoanalytic Association endorsed same-sex parenting. "Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child....[They should be] afforded the same rights and....responsibilities as heterosexual parents."
    Chairperson Gary Grossman headed the committee which prepared the statement. He commented that it should "help judges, who may have their own biases for whatever reasons, to look at the evidence and listen to the professionals..."Optimally, children do better with two parents, but the gender of the parents is really not so relevant."
    American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry: "“Outcome studies of children raised by parents with a homosexual or bisexual orientation, when compared to heterosexual parents, show no greater degree of instability in the parental relationship or developmental dysfunction in children.”
    American Medical Association:“[The American Medical Association will] support legislative and other efforts to allow the adoption of a child by the same-sex partner, or opposite-sex non-married partner, who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child.”

  • 23cal
    May 9, 2011 at 8:02 a.m.

    First, the analogy in paragraph one is just plain stupid.

    Then he says, "Unmarried, cohabitating relationships are, by definition, characterized by a lesser level of commitment than marriage and thus more unstable and prone to disrupt." Really? I guess I failed to read that part of the "definition". Point it out, please. And to say that because SOME marriages have more commitment and then to conclude that ALL will have is just dumb. Surely we all know some unmarried relationships that have more commitment than some married relationships. So, the Division of Children and Family Services should look at each potential home on an individual basis, and "married" or "unmarried" should at best only be one factor among many, and not a deal breaker in and of itself.

    He says "...a legal brief considered by the Arkansas Supreme Court stated..." Whoa, Sport! The court CONSIDERED all kinds of briefs on both sides of the issue, some of which directly contradicted the one you cite. More importantly, the court REJECTED the one you cite, as they ruled the other way. Your attempt to lend legitimacy to that tripe by saying the court "considered" it just don't hunt.

    He goes on to say, "But the question remains undebatable as to what constitutes an optimal home for children-the home of a loving, nurturing, married biological father and mother." Even if it were true (it isn't), that isn't a choice for a number of these kids who need homes. For one thing, they absolutely will not be getting their BIOLOGICAL father and mother. No way, no how. Secondly, in many cases, their options are either an unmarried cohabiting parent home or NO HOME AT ALL. So that a married parent home might be better is totally irrelevant because they won't get a shot at that type of home.

    As far as ignoring "the will of a majority of Arkansas voters". When the Supreme Court in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia ignored "the will of the voters" in overturning misogyny laws, it did the right thing. When the majority of Arkansas voters choose to ignore scientifically arrived facts in order to indulge their prejudice and to discriminate for no good reason, they deserve to have their will ignored. It isn't the job of the court to pander to is to make certain their wishes are in line with the Constitution.

    Statement from the National Association of Social Workers: “The most striking feature of the research on lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children is an absence of pathological findings. The second most striking feature is how similar the groups of gay and lesbian parents and their children are to heterosexual parents and their children that were included in the studies.” These are obviously not "married biological father and mother.

  • Coralie
    May 9, 2011 at 12:43 p.m.

    With the very high divorce rate in this country, a traditional married couple with biological mother and father may not stay that way.