Dueling Deace III: Living in a Destructive Way?

Concluding my discussion with Steve Deace from his WHO 1040 program, “Deace in the Afternoon.” Deace continued:

And then the third tangible impact is, that by ratifying and validating these relationships, we would continue to tell people that are living in destructive ways that it’s okay. And we’re not only not going to oppose it, as any healthy society has done for the last several thousand years, we’re now going to enable you to continue down the path of self-destruction.

In regard to his third point, I responded, “There are plenty of destructive heterosexual relationships, destructive relationships of… uh… vast varieties. Why would you single out one ‘destructive’ relationship to vilify?”

Deace, after sighing in what I took to be exasperation at my dull wit, clicked me off the air before responding that my parting comment was a red herring, saying:

You’re talking to the wrong guy. I can’t speak for every other talk show host in America, but how much time on this show have I spent talking about divorce, talking about shacking up? I mean, for goodness sakes, I even wrote a… I wrote a whole thing about it in my own book. And I talked about churches who go out of their way to talk about gay marriage and don’t do and say anything about the people having premarital, heterosexual sex in their congregations, about people having babies out of wedlock and leaving them, and leaving the mom holding the bag. About… you know… I mean, I agree with you that there are people that have chosen to vilify these relationships in exchange for overlooking things that have, up until this point, been tangibly much more destructive. But that’s not me. You need to call another show and make that argument. You’re calling the wrong show. I agree with you. In fact I have said to Chuck Hurley, on more than one occasion, if the only thing that is done out of this whole dialogue with these clergy is to stop two dudes from getting married, and no… and in the end nothing is ever addressed about the shacking up rate and the divorce rate in this culture, then, man, we are applying a tourniquet to a flesh wound. So on that point I whole-heartedly agree with you. But as I was raised growing up, two wrongs don’t make a right.

To be fair, I haven’t read Deace’s book, and I’m not likely to unless he decides to send me a copy gratis. And we may niggle over what we respectively believe to be tangible, harmful or wrong, but that isn’t the only difficulty with Deace’s position.

A “red herring” is an argument which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. In fact, my question was not a red herring, and is entirely relevant to the discussion of the IMA. Why? Because of all the other “destructive relationships” Deace went on to detail, in no other instance is he actively seeking to designate the union of that relationship illegal.

Though he acknowledges that “people have chosen to vilify these [homosexual] relationships in exchange for overlooking things that have, up until this point, been tangibly much more destructive,” he targets same-sex marriage for the very significant sanction of a constitutional ban. Has he advocated a constitutional restriction on the other behaviors he identifies as having been “tangibly much more destructive”? No. I’m not calling the wrong show, and I’m not talking to the wrong guy. If other behaviors are much more destructive, don’t they warrant much more attention? If your doctor told you you had both cancer and a cold, would you just ask him for some Drixoral and deal with the cancer later?

One also has to ask destructive in what way and by what standards? It would be useful for Deace to define “living in destructive ways.” Perhaps, if he sees this blog, he will, and I’ll attempt to respond to it.

To the extent that he means spiritually destructive, I suspect one would have to share his belief in Christianity, recognize his Biblical interpretation, or accept his understanding of spirituality in order to be in precise agreement. Such subjectivity makes it difficult to address. If one is not a Christian, or more specifically a Deaceian Christian (since he routinely disparages other denominations, recently the Methodists), and therefore not aligned with this view, then is there an objective criteria by which Deace deems homosexuality destructive?

Perhaps he feels homosexuality is destructive from a medical standpoint. There are many individuals, organizations and websites that cite studies indicating homosexuals have a higher incidence of medical illness, psychiatric disorders, suicidal behaviors, and that they can expect a shortened lifespan. They also suggest homosexuals are more promiscuous, and are unable to form commitments. One might conclude that there are, in fact, substantial reasons to feel the homosexual lifestyle is, indeed, unhealthy and destructive.

And that’s precisely what these many individuals, organizations and websites would like you to believe. The only problem? Pretty much all of the studies these groups cite is the work of a one disgraced “researcher” named Paul Cameron. I put researcher in quotations because to refer to this man thusly is a slap in the face to any legitimate scientist. Cameron was expelled from membership, or officially repudiated, by the American Psychological Association, the Nebraska Psychological Association (he taught at the University of Nebraska), the American Sociological Association and the Canadian Psychological Association. There is too much information on Cameron for me to condense in this blog. Please visit the links in this paragraph to learn more.

Despite his work being universally criticized within professional circles, religious and other anti-gay organizations continue to repeat his claims as if they were credible. More recently another researcher, Dr. John R. Diggs, has taken up the banner of Paul Cameron, and has continued to advance agenda-driven pseudoscience. Diggs, a member of the anti-gay Family Research Council, employs much the same technique as Cameron, even including references, without citation, to Cameron’s work.

Understand, I don’t invalidate documented, empirical data just because it originates from a Christian source, but I won’t accept unsupported opinion, or the “reinterpretation” of existing data to suit a Christian, anti-gay agenda. Fortunately, our Constitution protects us from having to accept an argument simply on its Christian merit.

Anecdotal evidence cannot be accepted as proof of anything beyond the bounds of the anecdote. Having offered that disclaimer, I know of at least three monogamous gay couples who have healthier relationships than a number of my straight, married acquaintances. These couples have been committed to monogamy for many years, own homes together, and are accomplished in their professions. They mow their lawns, shovel their sidewalks, pay their taxes. Some have raised perfectly normal children, attend regular church services, and all are actively involved in their communities. None of them need to be told that the way they’re living “is okay.” They’re not seeking affirmation; they just want the same legal recognition that Deace feels is his divine entitlement.

I know Deace is beyond reasonable dialogue on this issue, but as evidenced in these blogs, his assertions are patently false, unsupported by any empirical standard. You can say anything in 30 seconds of air time, and unfortunately many people, either already aligned with Deace, or inclined to ascribe authority to any voice droning from the radio, won’t question what he claims. Deace is inflexible in his views on homosexuality, but he’s apparently willing to entertain a fluid definition of bearing false witness.

I was also taught two wrongs don't make a right. I just don't know which two wrongs Deace is referring to.

Dueling Deace II: Same-sex marriage harms children?

Continuing my discussion with Steve Deace from his WHO 1040 program, “Deace in the Afternoon.” Deace maintained:

“Every single study shows, from secular studies to any other paradigm you want to look at, children are better off raised between one man and one woman in the bonds of holy matrimony. We are playing fire already with our children given how many are born out of wedlock, how many are born in shacked-up relationships. To further devolve the family is to do great harm to children.”

I’m personally inclined to agree that children are best raised by their biological father and mother in a stable, loving marriage, but I stress this is my inclination, not an empirical position. It’s not logically consistent to conclude, however, that because children are “better off” in one circumstance, that any differing circumstance does them “great harm.” There are numerous degrees of quality between “better” and “harmful,” and it’s entirely possible that two contingencies may be equally better or worse for a child. Is it better for a child to eat chicken or fish? An apple or a carrot? Each has their relative nutritional merit; each offers something somewhat different than the other.

This is not to equate family circumstances to a simple snack choice; it’s merely to illustrate the nuance in defining qualitative differences. Is a child better off raised by a loving, committed, responsible gay couple, or by a married, heterosexual couple with an abusive father and an alcoholic mother? Deace would legally prohibit the first, and give only a 50,000-watt cluck of the tongue to the second.

Despite Deace’s claim to the contrary, there is no monolithic scholarly agreement that children are better off raised between one man and one woman in the bonds of holy matrimony. Neither is there any documented evidence that concludes children raised by same-sex parents are done great harm. It’s a relatively new field of research, but there are a number of studies on the topic. For example:

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.

“Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents” by Ellen C. Perrin, MD and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, PEDIATRICS (The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics), Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 341-344

Dr. Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at Tufts-New England Medical Center, appearing on the PBS program NOW in April 2006, concluded that “there is no evidence that having gay or lesbian parents is harmful to children in any way.” On the same program, both The Child Welfare League of America and The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute support the rights of gays to adopt. Adam Pertman, the Executive Director of the Adoption Institute, said in a March 2006 statement, "The bottom line for those of us who advocate for children is clear. There's simply no credible research to indicate that children are harmed in any way when they're adopted by gay and lesbian parents, but there's lots of evidence to indicate that they do well in those homes."

In April 2001, two researchers from USC, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, examined 21 different studies on gay parenting. Their results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, indicate that, although the studies had deficits, all 21 of them demonstrated the children of gay parents show no difference in levels of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavior problems, or social performance; they do, however, display higher levels of affection, responsiveness, and concern for younger children and "seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength." Importantly, the children of gay parents are no more likely than the average population to identify themselves as gay, though they may indulge more same-sex experimentation when young.

The American Psychological Association’s official policy states that “research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."

Of course in Deace’s view, all these organizations almost certainly have a liberal bias, are staffed by Godless pagans, are tools of the devil, and can’t be relied upon to provide unbiased information. Only Focus on the Family can do that.

What other restrictions would Deace be willing to impose to prevent “great harm to children.” Would he deny legal marriage to other group/individuals if he deems their abilities/circumstances make them high risk parents? What if a black couple lives in a “high-risk” inner-city community? What if he feels a person with a prosthetic leg isn’t able to respond quickly enough in an emergency? What if a married couple has a child, then divorce because the husband comes out as gay? Should his parental rights be terminated? As a logical corollary, shouldn’t we legislate against procreation by, perhaps even institute forced sterilization for, unfit individuals (which, I assume, is almost anyone who disagrees with Deace)?

Some of the very same arguments Deace offered on his program echo those heard in the 1960s.

“This sort of marriage is not in the best interest of children!”

“God has a plan for marriage and this isn’t it!”

“Allowing this kind of marriage will pave the way for all sorts of moral depravity!”

These comments were observed regarding the interracial marriage of one man and one woman, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving. They had been married only 5 weeks when they were awakened at 2 a.m. by police, and arrested for being married to one another. While jailed they were housed on separate floors. On January 6, 1959, after pleading guilty to the charge against them, they were sentenced to one year in jail, which was suspended providing the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia for 25 years. The trial judge offered this opinion:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

After facing housing discrimination in Washington, D.C., and being unhappy about not living close to their families, Mildred wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. Kennedy forwarded the letter to the American Civil Liberties Union and attorney Bernard S. Cohen took their case. After a nine-year period in lesser courts, their case was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, and was decided unanimously in their favor.

It was only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S., and through 1967 at least sixteen states prohibited mixed race couples from marrying. Inter-racial marriage became legal after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia in that year.

Next... a destructive lifestyle?

Dueling Deace: The Iowa Marriage Amendment

I tuned in to Des Moines, Iowa's 50,000-watt AM powerhouse, WHO, to catch the “Deace in the Afternoon” program on Monday, Feb. 25 (podcast here, look for the show entitled “Iowa Marriage Amendment Update”). For any readers unfamiliar with him, Steve Deace is a self-proclaimed “Jesus freak” who hosts a conservative talk radio program on WHO Radio, AM 1040, afternoons from 4 – 7.

As suggested by the show’s title, the program was dedicated to discussion and advocacy of the Iowa Marriage Amendment (IMA). Deace’s guest for the afternoon was Chuck Hurley of the Iowa Family Policy Center. The program began with Hurley exhorting people to encourage the Iowa Legislature to move on the IMA before the March 6 funnel date, in order to get a vote on the issue before the 2008 session concludes. Then Deace took calls, beginning with mine.

I have only recently, within the past 3 or 4 months, begun listening to his program. Sometimes I agree with him; other times not so much. Usually it’s the not-so-much that motivates me to call. While I’m waiting on hold, I attempt to organize my thoughts and prepare what I’m going to say. No matter, once Deace takes the call and I’m on the air, it’s his domain. Oh, I can express my initial thought clearly enough, but this is his career, his focus, he’s more prepared for the argument than I, and I can’t immediately research and verify his assertions.

I began, “The number of times I’ve heard you speak on the Defense of Marriage amendment, and the possibility that Iowa could become a gateway state for gay marriage, I’ve yet to hear somebody articulate what the tangible, credible, practical harm is if gays are allowed to marry. I mean, will you and your wife divorce? Will your children become delinquent? What’s the issue?”

Deace spoke at length, citing specific examples on which I’ll elaborate in a moment. To summarize, he said there were three tangible harms, and that he’d articulated them on a number of occasions. He claims:

1. It limits religious freedom.

2. It harms children.

3. It tells people living in destructive ways that it’s okay.

Today I’ll respond to just the first of his claims, and will deal with the others individually in subsequent posts. In regard to religious freedom, Deace argued:

“The next step, if you look at what has happened in every single nation on this planet that has ratified homosexual marriage, the next step that those states have gone to is to limit religious freedom. For instance, tomorrow we’re going to have someone on the air who lives in Canada, and she has to be very, very reserved in what she has to say on this issue, because she could be charged according to Canada’s hate crimes laws. The next thing the Canadian legislature did, right after ratifying gay marriage, is they openly went after religious freedom. Because if we are going to say that these relationships are on par with the traditional family, then we’re just simply not going to allow folks to say, for instance that people who commit homosexual acts don’t inherit the kingdom of heaven, as Paul says in Corinthians. That to lie down as a man with a man as you would with a woman is an abomination as it is said in... that Moses says in Leviticus. Those things become hate speech. So the infringement upon religious freedom is the first very tangible impact, and I know that’s what a lot of the clergy were concerned about.”

Note that Deace doesn’t suggest homosexual marriage itself limits religious freedom; that apparently requires a “next step,” presumably the hate speech legislation to which he alludes. One could presumably sanction the first, for which Deace identified no direct harm, and actively oppose the second. Indeed, this seems to be the historical example in the United States. Slavery was abolished, and eventually the Constitution was amended to address the injustices of segregation and the Jim Crow laws, but the KKK and other similar organizations continue to exist, and they continue to avail themselves of their first amendment freedoms.

I don’t live in Canada, and am not much concerned what they do there. That’s the magic of sovereignty. Canada has never been as staunch an advocate of individual liberty as the United States; no other nation has been. Neither is Canada a reliable predictor of what might happen here.

Deace (and his friends at letusvoteiowa.org) would have you believe, however, that it is happening here. Deace explained:

“In Massachusetts, the one state that does have gay marriage on demand, Catholic Charities, the Catholic archdiocese there was forced to shut down their adoption agency because they weren’t willing to go along with the state and do adoptions to homosexuals. There’s a… there’s a practical American example of the infringement on religious freedom.”

Here are the facts: Catholic Charities was not “forced” to shut down their adoptions, they did so voluntarily, which is their right. Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state's four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. So, contrary to Deace’s claim, they were willing to go along with the state. They just weren’t willing for it to be publicized. In fact, Catholic Charities agencies in other states have also processed a handful of adoptions to same-sex couples, despite there being no legal mandate that they do so.

In December 2005, the Catholic Charities board in Mass., which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions. But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents…. So the church ignored the decision of its board members, who uniformly believed they should accommodate same-sex couples.

It should be noted that Catholic Charities didn’t avail themselves of the opportunity to address their concerns in court, and possibly win an exemption based on the doctrine of religious freedom, which is precisely the remedy our system provides.

Same-sex marriage is only one of many catalysts that might conceivably introduce restraints on liberty. I’m 100% in favor of protecting free speech, but Deace seems to argue for restricting one freedom in order to protect another, which is ethically and logically inconsistent. It’s like outlawing banks to prevent bank robberies. One of the videos on the letusvoteiowa.org site highlights the tribulations of a Wisconsin man who ran afoul of overzealous hate crime prosecution in 1996, long before a cohesive movement for legalizing same-sex marriage was even mobilized. Same-sex marriage didn’t arrive in Massachusetts until 2004. Clearly it’s not the precipitating force behind hate speech legislation. How, then, is preventing same-sex marriage going to prevent a similar incident? You may change the law, but you’re not going to change the sensibilities of the growing numbers of people who accept and condone monogamous, committed homosexual relationships. The only logically tenable position is to focus efforts on preventing arbitrary restrictions on First Amendment freedoms, no matter what the inspiration.

The record of the United States in defending our Constitutional rights is remarkably consistent. From the landmark 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, to the Wisconsin v. Yoder decision in 1971, to the many, many instances in which the courts struck down collegiate speech codes in the 1980s, to the Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia decision in 1995, The United States has virulently defended it’s First Amendment guarantees. Will there be instances of overzealous prosecution? Without doubt, but due to the sensibilities of specific, over-zealous individuals, not to a pervasive culture of hostility to religious liberty. Such instances ought to be addressed immediately and energetically… and on a case by case basis. With the current composition of the Supreme Court, it’s difficult to envision such encroachments enjoying any success.

As with most advances in civil rights, institutional prejudice seeks to justify perpetuating a favored injustice. For example, review the writings of Benjamin Morgan Palmer, a Presbyterian and a prominent New Orleans clergyman, educator, and a celebrated orator. Noah and his progeny played prominent roles in his Biblical imagination, and he invoked them often to explain the "natural" separation of the races and subordination of blacks. Perhaps Deace feels that the liberation of slaves shouldn’t have prevented Palmer from exercising his religious liberty to own a couple. Don’t delude yourself that this is a unique example; a great many white American Christians justified the oppression of African-Americans by invoking Noah's curse, and other Biblical justifications:

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

Not all Christians share Deace’s concerns, of course, so it’s certainly not a question of uniform moral outrage or a universal fear of diminished liberty in the Christian community. The implication is, of course, that Deace is more “right” a Christian than they, that his Biblical interpretation is more meaningful, and that his particular brand of Christianity deserves special protection and preservation. Perhaps the reactionary wing of the Christian faith needs to be dragged into the 21^st century.

Next… The alleged “harm to children.”