gripe, gripe, gripe

Yesterday my boss told me about a recent AP article. It was a story out of Bethlehem, PA, where he used to live, about an elderly man who sent his local newspaper a letter to the editor in which he stated that when Saddam Hussein was executed, “they hanged the wrong man.” The letter-writer was then visited by Secret Service agents. For a letter to the editor written to a small, local newspaper. That’s where we’re headed, folks. Welcome to your new life. Oh, and last year this same man received a visit from two FBI agents after he wrote a letter to the same newspaper advocating a civil war to unseat Bush. I want to give this fiery old guy a hearty pat on the back.

Me: “So, uh, I guess maybe I should remove that F**k Bush sticker you gave me from the rear window of my car?”

Boss: “Yeah, that’s probably wise. Especially since you’re inside the Beltway.”

Me: “Well, that sucks, but I don’t want to end up in Guantanamo Bay—you know I can’t stand heat and humidity.”

And now for my Gripe o’ the Day (no, not the America-is-scary segment above!). BBC News is reporting that Catholic leaders in England and Wales are saying that because their teachings prevent their church-run adoption agencies from allowing gay couples to adopt children, they would rather close those agencies than abide by rulings that would force them to comply. The Church of England has now backed that decision. The ruling in question is The Equality Act, which is due to come into effect in England, Wales, and Scotland in April, and will outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

I’m gonna preface my gripe by saying two things.

First of all, I’m not a huge cheerleader of Catholicism or organized religion in general. I mean, if religion brings you comfort, joy, and peace; if you choose that religion on your own volition—rather than just blindly accepting it because it’s how you were raised; and if you aren’t afraid to question that religion when doubts arise, then I think it’s wonderful for you to be a believer. But I personally do not pull anything meaningful out of organized religion. And its many downsides (wars fought in god’s name, for example) kind of override any advantages religion might offer me.

Second of all, I was raised Catholic. I’m talking the whole she-bang—everything short of parochial school (although I did attend a Jesuit university!). I was even baptized Catholic twice. (You read it correctly: twice. The first time was an emergency baptism in my parents’ living room, when nobody thought I was going to live long enough to see a full-scale christening, and the second time, after everyone was pretty sure I wasn’t going to kick it in the near future, was a traditional church baptism with all the bells and whistles.) I attended CCD for years. I attended mass every Sunday (my sister and I had to be on our deathbed before we were allowed to skip mass) and attended mass on the most obscure holy days you can imagine. I did confession, had my First Communion, attended nighttime Confirmation classes, got Confirmed, prayed for the souls in Purgatory, kept a vial of holy water in my bedroom after being wildly freaked out by Angel Heart and Prince of Darkness, blah blah blah. (Don’t believe that I was a good little Catholic girl? Click here to see a picture of me—along with the rest of my First Communion class—in my full-on creepy bride-of-Christ garb.)

I mention my former Catholicism because I think it gives me a bit more leeway with criticizing the Church. It’s easy to criticize and condemn something you don’t understand (ie, Christians who condemn all Muslims as being terrorists), and because I have 22 years of in-the-trenches experience with Catholicism, I feel like I have a bit more breathing room with saying, “Hey, I gots some problems with your tenets, yo.” Like the fact that women can’t be priests, bishops, or popes. And the fact that those priests, bishops, and popes—who are, for all intents and purposes, asexual beings, because they choose to lead a life of celibacy—feel that it’s okay to tell other people how to lead their sexual lives (eg, don’t use birth control, don’t have abortions, don’t be gay, don’t have sex outside of marriage).

But anyway, back to my Gripe o’ the Day.

Okay, look, under ordinary circumstances, I’m all for people not being forced to do something that goes against their beliefs. A pro-life doctor shouldn’t be forced to give abortions. An atheist student shouldn’t be forced to say “one nation, under God” while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. If these Catholic adoption agencies don’t want to adopt children out to gay households…well, I think it’s an appalling choice, personally, but since it really goes against their spiritual grain, fine, let them refuse. But to want an exemption from a law? A law that’s beneficial no less? (And yes, I think a law constructed to protect people whose rights and protections are tenuous at best, a law that seeks to end discrimination, is beneficial.) Is it right for the Church to be exempted from a law? The National Secular Society pointed out that allowing an exemption for the Church would open the “floodgates for a never-ending series of demands.” Everybody will be vying for one exemption or another.

That’s what bugs me about this whole thing—this idea of being above the law. That and the fact that these people—contrary to what they say—do not have children’s best interests at heart. How can they? They’d rather keep kids in orphanages, institutions, and in the foster care system than let them be adopted by loving gay households. How is that good for the kids? A non-gay adopter might come along at some point, or might not. The kid could be stuck without a home for years before adoption takes place. And if the kid is non-white, older than a baby or toddler, or has any semblance of physical or mental disability, his/her chances are lowered substantially. That ain’t pretty, but it’s the truth. There are good people out there who are willing to adopt older kids and disabled kids, but they are outnumbered by the kids who need homes.

Please, don’t tell me gays and lesbians are incapable of raising kids properly and morally. They do just as good a job as anybody else. Often better. Like Augusten Burroughs said in Magical Thinking: “But as a rule, gay guys do not make bad parents; they make excellent parents. Because unlike straight people, gay people can’t have kids by accident. Only by power of attorney. I would be a questionable parent not because I’m gay, but because I was raised by lunatics.” We’ve all heard the horror stories about straight people who are incapable of raising kids properly and morally. Parents who ignore their kids, beat their kids, molest their kids, starve their kids, keep their kids locked in cages. Straight people are just as capable as gay people of fucking up their kids, abusing them, or, at the very least, simply not instilling any morals in them. If the Church is that concerned about gay households being destructive for kids, then they need to investigate those household thoroughly before allowing them to adopt kids, just like they are hopefully investigating straight households trying to adopt kids, and they also need to keep tabs on the households after the adoptions go through.

There’s the argument that kids shouldn’t be sent to a home without a mother figure (two gays) or father figure (two lesbians). Well, what about all the single-parent households that are already out there? Does this mean that they’re inadequate or downright toxic to children? Look at how many kids are being raised without a father or a mother. Are they all disasters? Absolutely not! And even if you do have a mother and a father raising the child together, it doesn’t mean they’re both parenting equally. One of the parents could be physically absent much of the time and/or emotionally absent all of the time. I should know. I’ve been there. Just because there is technically a mother and a father in a household doesn’t mean the child is getting a positive and/or consistent influence from both sexes.

And then there’s the argument that gay parents will turn their adopted kids gay. Please. It’s shocking to think that this belief still persists in our supposedly enlightened 21st century age. Homosexuality stems from biology, not influence or coercion. Biology. It’s why straight parents sometimes have gay kids. If the Church is concerned about the welfare of kids around gays, then *cough*maybe they shouldn’t have shuffled around all those pedophile priests—sending them to new parishes with a fresh crop of victims instead of sending them to jail or forcing them to retire*cough*. I’m just sayin’.

I just think the important issue here isn’t so much sticking by personal beliefs, but making sure as many children as possible are adopted into loving, stable homes—be they gay, straight, black, white, mixed race, Christian, Pagan, Muslim, whatever.

I will shut up now.


song heard most recently before posting:
Endless Deep—U2