Andrew Walker and Ryan Anderson

The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson, a disciple of National Organization for Marriage former chairman Robert George, has become a national spokesperson for opposition to marriage equality. In a new piece for Focus on the Family co-written with Heritage’s Andrew Walker, they make “a Millennial case for marriage,” citing a litany of arguments about the importance of not “redefining marriage.” Strikingly, not one of their arguments actually addresses the lives of gay people, and in turn, not one of their points would actually be compromised by same-sex couples marrying.

Here are some of their claims, many of which derive from an arbitrary definition of marriage that “men and women are different and complementary”:

Children Need To Have Fathers

Borrowing a tactic from NOM, Anderson and Walker invoke President Obama’s concerns about how growing up without a father has a significant negative impact on children.  They conclude, “fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and children.” But abandoned single mothers have nothing to do with same-sex couples, and studies about “fatherlessness” do not even include lesbian families in their samples. Heterosexual men deserting their families is a legitimate societal concern, but it has nothing to do with same-sex families.

Children Do Best With A Mother And Father

Without referencing a single citation — not even Mark Regnerus — Anderson and Walker proclaim, “For decades, social science has shown that children tend to do best when reared by their married mother and father.” It may be true that children do better with both of their parents as opposed to only one, but social science has found that committed same-sex couples are just as capable of effectively raising children.

They later acknowledge that a “relatively small number” of gay or lesbian couples “would be” raising children — avoiding the reality that they already are — but offer no thought as to how those families would actually benefit from the protections of marriage outlined throughout the rest of the post.

Men Will No Longer Stay Committed To Their Wives

This continues to be one of the most absurd arguments against marriage equality: “Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children, and for men and women to marry before having children.” Whether men will cheat on their wives has nothing to do with whether same-sex couples can marry.

Marital Norms Will Dissolve

Anderson and Walker’s slippery slope suggests that if marriages were reduced to just “intense emotional regard,” they would not have to be permanent, limited to two people, sexually exclusive, or oriented to raising families. But all of these points are already true of opposite-sex couples: many divorce, some practice polygamy, plenty cheat or are open, and none have any obligation to raise children. This argument also undercuts the important protections that couples themselves gain from marriage through that “intense emotional regard,” particularly as they age. Because they don’t have access to marriage, older same-sex couples struggle economically and face extra hurdles to care for each other.

Marriage Equality Discriminates Against Christians

Somehow marriage equality “further marginalizes those with traditional views and erodes religious liberty.” Anderson and Walker are concerned that people who are prejudiced against same-sex couples marrying will be perceived as prejudiced, which just isn’t fair. Borrowing another popular talking point, they claim that Catholic Charities in Massachusetts was “forced to discontinue adoption services,” when in fact they voluntarily shut down because of their insistence on discriminating. They’re also afraid elementary school children will learn that same-sex couples exist, ignoring that they’ll already learn that if their classmates’ parents are same-sex couples. The underlying objection here seems to be that marriage equality will make it harder for Christians to discriminate against the gay community — discrimination for discrimination’s sake.

Society Will ‘Self-Correct On Marriage Over Time’

Anderson and Walker conclude their piece by constructing a narrative of momentum for opposition to marriage equality, imagining “Americans committed to marriage coming out of the shadows.” This optimism for their cause ignores that people of all ages are increasingly supporting same-sex marriage, a trend driven most robustly by the young people they claim to represent. Their hope is that when young people marry, they’ll appreciate the “gendered nature of parenting,” but what seems more likely is that they will only further appreciate just how much respect and security is denied to same-sex couples.

Portugal has offered marriage equality to same-sex couples since 2010, but until now had not allowed those couple to adopt each other’s children. Today, the Portuguese Parliament passed a bill 99-94 to allow adoption, ending the discrepancy in what it means for same-sex couples to be married. Portugal is one of the few countries in the world that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in its constitution. (HT: Joe.My.God.)

Recently, opponents of marriage equality have focused more on their objection that laws will no longer recognize the uniqueness of husbands and wives or mothers and fathers. Just this weekend the coalition opposed to Minnesota marriage equality used Mother’s Day to mourn that “Mother” will be removed from marriage laws, having previously warned not to “erase moms and dads.” Family Research Council senior fellow Cathy Ruse has attempted to make a similar argument, complaining about the Department of Education’s decision to recognize same-sex families when assessing need for financial aid:

I carried my children for 9 months in my womb, I endured the pain (and joy) of birth, I nursed them for many months after they were born, and every morning they jump into my bed screaming, “Mommy!”

But the federal government says I’m Mommy no more.

I am Parent 1.

Or maybe Parent 2.

Kind of like Thing One and Thing Two. But Dr. Seuss was being ironic.

Mr. President, I dare you to tell my daughters I’m not their mother.

Ruse’s quibble aptly reveals how little substance this argument has. No one is telling her she’s not her children’s mother. Likewise, lesbian moms are mothers too. The reason for the change is to recognize that not all families are alike, and thus should not face discrimination when simply filling out a form because it has gendered language.

The argument mirrors the rhetorical question asked by 11-year-old Grace Evans during a Minnesota House committee hearing: “Which parent do I not need, my mom or my dad?” This ruse ignores that children of same-sex couples could ask the very same question. For example, Eagle Scout and LGBT ally Zach Wahls could easily ask, “Which of my moms do I not need?” and thus highlight that marriage equality has nothing to do with taking a parent away.

Perhaps Ruse is Parent 1 some days and Parent 2 other days. She has the freedom to be whatever kind of parent she wants to be to her children, including a mother that hyper-conforms to gender norms. What guarantees that privilege is the protections she and her family have because she is legally recognized as one of her children’s parents — the same protections that same-sex couples are seeking for their families through marriage equality. If Ruse has been relying on the federal government to inform her of her gender and parenting role, perhaps she should simply take her kids’ word for it when they call her, “Mommy!”

Yesterday, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced that they plan to reintroduce the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, which would prevent child welfare agencies from discriminating against LGBT Americans who wish to become foster or adoptive parents.

There are currently 400,000 children in the foster care system and studies show that removing barriers that prevent LGBT people from fostering and adopting children could significantly help solve nation’s foster care crisis.  Researchers estimated that as many as 2 million LGBT people are interested in adoption.

Whereas some states outright ban LGBT people from adopting, a vast majority of states are merely silent on the issue, which means it is perfectly legal for child welfare agencies to discriminate against potential foster and adoptive parents who are LGBT. This is especially problematic when states in need of adoptive homes for children consistently report finding interested, qualified families who want to adopt as one of their biggest obstacles. Discriminating against LGBT people willing and able to provide loving, stable homes to foster youth puts the best interests of vulnerable children at stake.  The Every Child Deserves a Family Act would limit federal funds to agencies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status, and give children a greater opportunity to find foster and adoptive homes.

The agencies and programs that discriminate against LGBT people allege that it is not in a child’s best interest to be adopted by a same-sex couple, a concern which is not only insulting but completely unsubstantiated. In October, UCLA released a study that found that same-sex parents are just as effective at raising foster children as heterosexual couples and concluded that there is no scientific basis to discriminate against gay and lesbian parents. This holds true with the conclusions drawn by the American Sociological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and a host of other reputable groups that, “whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no bearing on the child’s wellbeing.”

If passed, the bill would also prevent child welfare programs from discriminating against children who are LGBT. LGBT youth are overrepresented in the foster care system, in part because of the discrimination they experience in their schools and families of origin.

Christopher Frost, intern, and Katie Miller, Special Assistant, are part of LGBT Progress.

In an appearance on Meet The Press this weekend, Newt Gingrich reiterated a claim he’s made many times before that Massachusetts’s legalization of marriage equality discriminated against the Catholic Church’s ability to provide adoption services. In this particular appearance, he offered his most exaggerated description of what happened when Catholic Charities in Boston closed its adoption services, claiming that the state “outlawed” Catholic doctrine. MSNBC Joy-Ann Reid offered counterpoint:

GINGRICH: What I’m struck with is the one-sidedness of the desire for rights. There are no rights for Catholics to have adoption services in Massachusetts. They’re outlawed. There are no rights in DC for Catholics to have adoption service. They’re outlawed. This passing reference to religion, we sort of respect religion, sure — as long as you don’t practice it. I mean I think it would be good to have a debate over, you know — beyond this question of, “Are you able to be gay in America?”What does it mean?

Does it mean that you have to actually affirmatively eliminate any institution which does not automatically accept that, and therefore, you’re now going to have a secular state say to a wide range of religious groups — Catholics, Protestants, orthodox Jews, Mormons, frankly, Muslims — “You cannot practice your religion the way you believe it, and we will outlaw your institutions.” … Let’s just start with adoption services. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to have an adoption service in Massachusetts that follows Catholic doctrine.

REID: But didn’t the Catholic Church, particularly Catholic Charities in Boston — they affirmatively decided to withdraw adoption services. No one said they are not allowed to provide adoption services.

GINGRICH: No, they withdrew them because they were told, “You could not follow Catholic doctrine,” which is for marriage between a man and a woman.

Watch it:

Gingrich always leaves out two details when he weaves this tale. First of all, Massachusetts has had a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation since 1989, well before the 2004 decision by the state Supreme Court allowing recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages. As reported by the Boston Globe, over the course of about two decades until 2005, Catholic Charities facilitated 720 adoptions, 13 of which were actually to same-sex couples — without complaint.

Secondly, Catholic Charities accepted state funding to provide its adoption services, requiring it to continue complying with that nondiscrimination law. It was only in 2006 that four bishops decided of their own accord that Catholic Charities should be exempt from that requirement, a proposal for which they received minimal support from state lawmakers. Even though the agency’s 42-member board unanimously agreed to continue facilitating adoptions by same-sex couples, the bishops arbitrarily shut the entire operation down in protest of the law. It had nothing to do with the legality of same-sex marriage, especially because that was decided by the state Supreme Court and thus reflected no change in the laws regulating adoption services. Arguably, it was only the increase in visibility of same-sex families that may have prompted the bishops to respond.

This has been the case in other places where Catholic Charities has claimed to face conflict with marriage equality, including the District of Columbia and Illinois; the organizations only shut down for political purposes, not because any laws required them to do so. Most notably, when Colorado was considering civil unions in 2012, the bill had a specific protection to allow Catholic Charities to continue discriminating against same-sex couples, but the agency still threatened to shut down in protest of the law. The bill that ultimately passed this year did not include those protections, but that didn’t stop the organization from attempting to derail it.

Gingrich’s claim that marriage equality somehow impedes the religious freedom of Catholics is completely unfounded. In all of these states, Catholic Charities could continue to operate, but if it wants to continue receiving state funding, it has to comply with state laws. No chapter has yet attempted to continue functioning without state subsidies.

Melissa, Heather, and MacKenzie Gartner (Credit: Des Moines Register)

The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that when a woman in a same-sex marriage gives birth to a child, her spouse should be listed as the other parent. The case involved Heather Martin Gartner, who gave birth to her daughter Mackenzie in 2009, but was told her wife Melissa would have to go through the costly process of adoption to be recognized as Mackenzie’s other parent.

At issue is that the language in Iowa’s laws about presumption of parentage are gendered (husband, father, paternity). However, the Court pointed out that the law does assume that the husband of a mother is the father — in fact, if a woman in an opposite-sex marriage were to use an anonymous sperm donor, the state would not even know when it determines her husband to be the father. Thus, the same standard should apply to lesbian couples under the Iowa Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection — the same guarantee the Court used to rule for marriage equality in 2009:

It is important for our laws to recognize that married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children. By naming the nonbirthing spouse on the birth certificate of a married lesbian couple’s child, the child is ensured support from that parent and the parent establishes fundamental legal rights at the moment of birth. Therefore, the only explanation for not listing the nonbirthing lesbian spouse on the birth certificate is stereotype or prejudice. The exclusion of the nonbirthing spouse on the birth certificate of a child born to a married lesbian couple is not substantially related to the objective of establishing parentage.

Thus, section 144.13(2) fails to comport with the guarantees of equal protection under article 1, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution. The Department has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for refusing to list on a child’s birth certificate the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage, when the child was conceived using an anonymous sperm donor and was born to the other spouse during the marriage. Thus, the language in section 144.13(2) limiting the requirement to “the name of the husband” on the birth certificate is unconstitutional as applied to married lesbian couples who have a child born to them during marriage.

This decision is one of many the Court may still need to make to address the gendered language that remains in Iowa law. Unlike in states that have passed marriage equality legislatively, the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in 2009 did not automatically rewrite all Iowa laws related to spouses with gender-neutral language. Thus, other statutes must be interpreted separately in accordance with past decisions unless Iowa lawmakers correct them through new legislation. Notably, lawmakers in Washington recently completed the removal of all references to gender throughout the state’s laws.

Perhaps ironically, this decision may apply uniquely to lesbian couples and not to gay male couples. This, of course, is due to the fact that neither man in such a couple (providing he is not transgender) will be giving birth to a child. If issues arise in regards to how a birth certificate is issued when two men have a child through a surrogate mother, a separate but similar case may have to proceed before both can be listed as the child’s parents.

WISCONSIN — Former GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan told a Wisconsin town hall audience on Monday that he now supports the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, even though he still opposes marriage equality.

Confronted by an audience member about his anti-LGBT voting record — Ryan earned a “zero percent” score on gay rights from the Human Rights Campaign — the House Budget Committee chairman admitted that gays and lesbians could provide a loving home to “orphans.” In 1999, Ryan voted against adoption for same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, but said he would vote differently today:

RYAN: Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that. Period. I would vote that way. I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, we just respectfully disagree on that issue.

Watch it:

Ryan’s opposition to marriage equality actually makes less sense given his support for same-sex adoption. One of the primary arguments against same-sex marriage is the false claim that children are better off with opposite-sex parents. Now it seems he supports allowing same-sex families to raise children, but he still opposes providing those families with the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex parents.

During the town hall, Ryan also highlighted his support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure has been introduced in Congress almost every session since 1994, through Ryan initially lobbied to weaken ENDA so it did not include gender identity, and ultimately voted for the weakened version in 2007. Ryan did not say if he would support the more inclusive bill in this Congress.

Throughout the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney argued that adoption “should be assessed on a state-by-state basis.”

Today the U.S. Department of Education announced a small but significant change to the FAFSA, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, that will make the application a more fair, effective, and efficient tool for students seeking financial aid to finance their college education.

The FAFSA currently uses the terms “mother/stepmother” and “father/stepfather” when requesting information about an applicant’s parents. Applicants with same-sex parents then must either arbitrarily designate one parent as “mother” and the other as “father,” or omit one parent from the form entirely. In other words, the current FAFSA puts these applicants in a lose-lose scenario forcing them to complete and submit an application that is inaccurate and not reflective of their family structure.

Today’s proposal will help change that. For the 2014-2015 FAFSA, the Department will amend the terms “Mother/Stepmother” and “Father/Stepfather” to instead read “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.” This change also means that for the first time the Department will collect same-sex parents’ financial information in the same way that it does for different-sex parents. In addition to accurately reflecting LGBT families, these changes will capture the economic situation of these families so that students applying for aid can access financial aid based on their true financial need — without any bearing on their parents’ sexual orientation.

This change mimics similar changes made at other federal agencies. In 2011, for example, the State Department initiated reforms to give passport forms a more gender-neutral parental designation. Doing so required minimal changes to federal forms while significantly enhancing the accuracy, fairness, effectiveness, and efficiency of government operations.

At its core, this much-needed change achieves two important policy objectives.

Read more

Crosby Burns is a Policy Analyst for LGBT Progress.

Anti-gay conservatives are very concerned about a new bill proposed in California that would require insurance companies to cover fertility treatments for same-sex couples just like they do for opposite-sex couples. AB 460 stipulates that such coverage cannot be denied because of sexual orientation — in other words, any couple that is unable to conceive “after a year or more of regular sexual relations without contraception” would be entitled to coverage equally.

Conservatives like Breitbart.com’s Ben Shapiro and WorldNetDaily’s Bob Unruh described the bill as “bizarre,” claiming it takes “pro-homosexual actions to a whole new level.” The American Family Association published the following quote from fellow hate group leader Peter LaBarbera:

This is about biology. Biologically, homosexuals cannot produce children, so politics cannot trump biology. The sad part is, we do have kids being placed in homes which are intentionally motherless or intentionally fatherless – and that’s very sad. But to force insurance companies to provide infertility treatment benefits to homosexual couples is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, and hopefully the taxpayers of California will restore some common sense to the Legislature and say no.

And in her condescending fashion, Maggie Gallagher added, “The fantasy continues…”

Currently, 15 states, including California, require insurance companies to cover infertility diagnosis and treatment in some fashion. In other words, heterosexual couples in those states who want to have children will have the same opportunity to do so without financial burden whether they can conceive the old-fashioned way or require some medical assistance to do so.

Same-sex couples currently must spend tens of thousands of dollars in order to have a child through methods like surrogacy and egg donors. This is an unfair financial burden that punishes same-sex couples and deprives them of the same opportunity to raise a family. Under this bill, all couples would have the same support to have children. It has nothing to do with “trumping biology”; it’s about creating equity for all California families.

The National Organization for Marriage’s Jennifer Roback Morse has been one of the most outspoken opponents of not only marriage equality, but of gay people themselves. Whether she’s claiming that same-sex couples’ children resent them or reiterating her belief that homosexuality is a chosen behavior and so gays and lesbians should be celibate for life, she always finds a creative way to demonstrate how little she understands the lives of LGBT people, and this weekend was no exception. Speaking before a few dozen attendees at an anti-equality rally in Montevideo, Minnesota, Morse claimed that marriage equality has so little to do with “marriage” that it would simply be a “government registry of friendships”:

MORSE: When Vaughan Walker overturned Prop 8, he came up with a purpose of marriage that was completely gender-neutral. He said something like, “It’s the state recognition for two people who want to share their commitment with one another, and share resources, and take care of any dependents, if any,” you know? If you look at that purpose, there’s nothing there about children. It doesn’t even have to be a sexual relationship… It’s nothing but a government registry of friendships.

Now why would we need a government registry of friendships? We don’t! We don’t need that. No one needs that. And so the next step after removing the gender requirement from marriage will be — must be — to say, “Who needs marriage at all? Let’s get rid of it. It’s stupid. It doesn’t do anything.”

Watch her full remarks:

It’s unclear how Morse defines family. Walker’s definition, as paraphrased, suggests family units that share resources, take care of each other, and raise children. Those seem like really important reasons to marry, not to mentions protections that marriage can guarantee for all families. Same-sex couples are just as capable of making loving life commitments to each other and just as capable of raising families. By reducing them to “friendships,” Morse proves that she either doesn’t know what she’s even talking about or, more likely, doesn’t care.