Homosexuality, the animal kingdom, and same-sex marriage

A few weeks ago, I read an article about gay penguins at a zoo in Northern China that I thought was cute and meaningful. Apparently, the pair had been segregated from the colony for disturbing other couples during hatching time. They wanted to be parents so badly that they were trying to steal eggs from other couples by substituting them with rocks. Awww. /pat

After protests from zoo visitors, they were given a chance to act as foster parents and were found to be the best parents out of the lot:

In response, zookeepers gave the pair two eggs laid by an inexperienced first-time mother.

"We decided to give them two eggs from another couple whose hatching ability had been poor and they've turned out to be the best parents in the whole zoo," said one of the keepers.

"It's very encouraging and if this works out well we will try to arrange for them to become real parents themselves with artificial insemination."

In the wild, or at least as depicted in March of the Penguins,the conditions are so harsh for penguins when they are raising their offspring that sometimes the parents don't make it. I imagine that the orphans tend to get adopted by other couples of the group, most likely the ones who don't (or can't) have their own offspring. Same-sex penguin mates obviously can't have offspring with each other, but the urge to raise offspring is innate and strong. From an aspect of nature and survival, having as many offspring as possible make it to adulthood makes sense, and so it seems that there is a purpose to be found in having mates, who cannot have offspring with each other, adopt and care for other offspring whose parents cannot finish the work.

Researchers have known about the existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom for decades. In recent years, we've had a scattering of news in popular media of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, including gay flamingos adopting and raising offspring to discussions about the sexual behaviors of some of our closest primate relatives, the bonobos. Several years ago, Central Park Zoo's gay penguins had sparked a debate on whether homosexuality in the animal kingdom could be extrapolated to humans:

Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UC Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.

That being said, in regard to human parenting, research has shown that the children of same-sex parents fare just as well as opposite parents, and as Dr. Judith Stacey says at this end of the following video, recent studies have shown that same-sex parents are often more committed parents, because like any other infertile couple, there are no accidents... their parenting is deliberate. She also clarifies James Dobson's distortions on her research that children fare better in a home with a mother and a father. She was comparing biological married parents with divorced and single parents, and since no same-sex couples were in her study at all, that research cannot be used to imply that children fare better in a home with a mother and a father as opposed to same-sex parents.

When a child ends up in the foster care system in our country, most likely they are orphaned, taken away from unsuitable parents, or given up by parents who can't or won't care for them. What a gift it is for those children to be adopted by parents who very much want to love, cherish, and care for them, especially if they had suffered abuse, were orphaned, or have some condition that makes them less desirable for some parents. Thankfully, a judge in Florida acknowledged this and overturned their decades-long ban on gay adoption. I believe that all children deserve to be raised in a loving and stable home, and if possible, in a family that is protected by the legal status, protections, and responsibilities of marriage. Considering that thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples, the fact that we would force any children to be raised "out of wedlock" by denying their parents the right to marry makes no sense to me.

This leads into some important questions. Should marriage be based on the split second union of a sperm and egg, or should it be based the foundation required for the 18 years of hard work afterward (love)? If we observe, think, reason, and reconsider our beliefs, just as Galileo did when he observed the heavens and concluded that the earth moves when the Bible tells us that it doesn't (Psalms 104:5), is it possible to reconcile our observations and our understanding of the world with our religious beliefs? Procreation isn't all about uniting a sperm and an egg. As we've seen, the work does not stop there. For those people who feel that this is about "nature," I think that by observing nature and the world around us, the evidence speaks for itself.

Technology and the No on Prop 8 campaign

I just wanted to make a suggestion in the hopes that someone from Equality California, the Human Rights Campaign, and other organizations that are fighting for marriage equality might read this. The Protect Marriage folks seriously out-campaigned Equality California on the grassroots front AND on the technology front. Here is just one example. Before the election, when I wanted to get lawn signs, I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to get them. If you were running the No on Prop 8 campaign and your supporters Googled "No on Prop 8 lawn signs" and the first hit they saw was not *your* site with a title of "Where to get lawn signs," then you seriously screwed up there. As a matter of fact, I knew how to get those bright-yellow-shiny-happy-people Yes on Prop 8 signs before I figured out where to find No on Prop 8 signs. It was all over the discussion groups that other people were looking for yard signs too. There were many would-be activists wanting to help, but no one could find this basic information. You can't imagine how frustrating that was! Any political campaign that hopes to do well these days better have someone on their Technology team that is well-versed in the craft of Search Engine Optimization (SEO). I still have trouble finding resources I need from your sites. So please... do us all a favor and hire an SEO consultant, PLEASE.

California's broken and abused initiative process: Using direct democracy to take away rights

California's initiative process allows Californians to enact legislation directly through ballot initiatives. An initiative measure requires a certain number of signatures to quality (5% of the votes cast for the last gubernatorial election for a statute, 8% for an amendment) and then a simple majority to pass. Once a process that was meant to ensure that power be kept away from wealthy political machines controlling our state legislature, it has now become a process controlled by wealthy political machines, many from out-of-state, who have the financial resources to put self-serving initiatives on the ballot and shell out large amounts of propaganda to the masses. Without any controls on what kind of information those campaigns put out, they often misrepresent the impact of those initiatives in an attempt to woo voters, as so many of us witnessed during the Prop 8 campaign.

In the fight for marriage equality, we could have a measure that amends the constitution with a new definition of marriage whenever it gets enough signatures to qualify, which seems a little ridiculous to me. A legal status such as marriage, a status on which the validity of other legal documents is based, should never be put up to a popular vote. It undermines the stability of our government and our legal system, and because the right to marry the person of one's choice is a fundamental right that is aligned with our constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness, Prop 8 was nothing but an egregious attack on the dignity and happiness of our fellow Americans.

People have been complaining about California's initiative system for a while now and how it is easier to write discrimination into our constitution than to pass legislation that will help alleviate our crumbling infrastructure. It seems great in theory because it embodies "popular sovereignty," but it is one of the reasons why California has become so difficult to govern. Once government can no longer govern effectively and no longer works for the people, then this form of "democracy" truly fails, and the people become the victims of their own "tyranny," so to speak. Ironically, the initiative process violates the principles of republicanism, which was put forth by the Founding Fathers of our country and ingrained in the U.S. Constitution. According to Jules Tygiel, a professor of history at San Francisco State University and author of Ronald Reagan and the Triumph of American Conservatism,the initiative process was born out of liberal fears and frustration of elected officials and goes against true conservative ideals, as well as undermines our democracy:

At the behest of Progressive Gov. Hiram Johnson, the Legislature added the initiative, referendum and recall to the California Constitution in 1911.

As a rule, liberals, who feared corporate privilege and professed faith in the ability of the masses to govern, championed direct democracy. Conservatives, who advocated laissez-faire economics and feared the tyranny of the majority, opposed it. Johnson's father, Grove, derided supporters of direct democracy. "The voice of the people is not the voice of God, for the voice of the people sent Jesus to the cross," he admonished.

Many people are now coming to realize how broken and abused our initiative process is, including the Libertarian Party, who had this to say about Prop 8 on their official blog:

The Libertarian Party officially opposes marriage as an institution of government--both gay and straight marriages. "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships," says the Party's platform. However, some Libertarians argue that until marriage ceases to become a government-licensed institution, there should be equality in it regardless of sexual orientation.

Regardless of the issue specifically with gay marriage, the problem with direct democracy in this case is that the people felt that they had a right to restrict, regulate, prohibit or limit the relationships of their neighbors, and in a system where the majority rule, it certainly was in their authority to do so.

This is not to say that direct democracy could never work, but it could only do so in a libertarian utopia that could also foster voluntarily socialism, societal anarchy or a number of other systems of order that rely on the perfect behavior of those governed. In order for direct democracy to work without violating the rights of others, those citizens who voted would have to have an absolute understanding of and dedication to property rights and individual liberty—something that is extremely unlikely to ever exist.

There is no place for any broad use of direct democracy in a free society because the majority does not always respect the rights of the whole. Even by a simple test against our platform, direct democracy does not stand up to the phrase: "No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government."

I have to agree that unless we live in a utopia where every single person respected each other as human beings and was informed and dedicated to upholding the rights of everyone else, direct democracy might not be a very good idea. I think our Founding Fathers had it right. So unless we want to continue down this path of our great state imploding on itself, maybe it's time for a little change.

Blue-eyes vs. brown-eyes: Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I recently came across this gem, a link to a PBS documentary called A Class Divided, about an Iowa schoolteacher who did an exercise with her class by separating the blue-eyed kids and the brown-eyed kids in order to give the kids first-hand experience in the meaning of discrimination. My son and I watched the beginning of it yesterday before school, and being about the same age as the kids in the documentary, he was so intrigued that he wanted to skip school to finish watching it. /grin

My teachers did something similar when I was in grade school, although definitely not to that extent, but it still left an impression on me... it was a lesson in equality and discrimination I would never forget. When I started this blog, it was to my parents and those teachers that I dedicated these words to. (The dedication is in my sidebar, for anyone who wants to read it.)

Because Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is coming up, I hope that everyone remembers his legacy, what he did for all of us, and that his work is far from done.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
- Coretta Scott King, civil rights leader and widow of Martin Luther King, Jr. at the 25th anniversary luncheon of Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998

"Prayers for Bobby" will air on Lifetime on January 24th

As a mom, one thing I know with all my heart is that my love for my children is unconditional, and I think that most parents are driven by their desire to do what they think is best for their children. Sometimes parents don't realize that something they are doing is causing them undue emotional harm until it's too late. My friend Katie posted this preview of Prayers for Bobby, a Lifetime movie that will be aired on January 24th about Mary Griffith, a conservative Christian mother who loses her gay son to suicide, and I had to pass it along. It's based on the book Prayers for Bobby: A Mother's Coming to Terms with the Suicide of Her Gay Son,which actually contains excerpts from a 400-page diary he kept. I haven't seen a Sigourney Weaver movie in a while, but I've always been a fan, and this trailer made me cry. /sob

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Too bad this movie didn't come out before the election. I hope that there are people out there who will watch this and reconsider their beliefs about sexual orientation. There is another movie that I recently moved to the top of my Netflix queue, For The Bible Tells Me So,which has gotten several honors, including a nomination for the Grand Jury prize at the Sundance Film Festival. It includes the story of Mary Lou Wallner, another mom who lost her lesbian daughter to suicide. Ironically, when I was searching for a trailer for For the Bible Tells Me So, I found this incredible piece of ignorance on YouTube, with comments from more ignorant, hateful people. What does Jesus Christ teach us about compassion? Apparently, some Christians don't seem to take the teachings of Jesus Christ all that seriously.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
- Mahatma Gandhi

UPDATE 1/10/2009: Thanks, Katie, for passing this link on. Teens who come out to their parents and whose parents respond in any number of negative ways, are 8 times more like to try to commit suicide. They are also 6 times as vulnerable to severe depression and 3 times at risk of drug use. So please... be sure to share this information with everyone you know. Through education, compassion, and understanding, we can help save lives.

UPDATE 2/5/2009: If you missed it, you can now watch Prayers for Bobby online!

The million dollar question: Why was Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place?

This question was posed to me by a very good friend from college, whom I still have a special place in my innerds, even though he voted Yes on Prop 8. Part of the issue has to do with the inherent dysfunction of the California Initiative Process, which deserves its own blog post, and I'll be commenting on that real soon. /grin

Here was my response to his question several weeks ago concerning why we would even be allowed to vote on it, if people were going to fight the outcome of the vote:

Well, that's the million dollar question. This is what all the lawsuits are about. The Supreme Court rejected the petition to remove Prop 8 from the ballot and didn't say why. I was reading some legal analyst comments about how they think it is because the courts are not supposed to rule on whether an amendment should have been a revision until it passes and there is legal evidence that supports this (because they can't evaluate the impact of it until it passes).

The reason why Prop 8 is different from voting for the president is because it affects the rights of a group of people. Again, we're not supposed to be voting on each other's rights. It undermines the principles of our government as a constitutional republic, which affects all of us. There are 3 lawsuits right now, and one is from the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Equal Justice Society, California NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Those organizations represent the rights of minorities like us, and their concern is that the precedent that Prop 8 set undermines the government's ability to protect the rights of all minorities. The other lawsuits were from the ACLU, who are representing couples who were planning on getting married and who cannot marry now. Another is from the Counties of Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Francisco, and Alameda, which are arguing that the measure is a major revision and not an amendment. There is also a petition from the California Council of Churches, which represents both Protestant and Orthodox Christian groups in California, and several other religious organizations that have the same concern about Prop 8 undermining the government's ability to protect the rights of religious minorities.

Anyway, I think a lot of people agree that measures like this should be voted on by our elected representatives first before making it onto the ballot, and the Prop 8 folks knew that they could never get this past the State Legislature because they had already voted on and passed same-sex marriage bills twice. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Actually, for those of you who don't know, according to a study by the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, this was a multi-million dollar question, $64 million in state and local government revenues and an economic boost of $684 million in wedding spending and tourism over 3 years, to be exact.