Huck on Gay Adoption
Okay, quick twofer here (not that you asked for it) on former Arkansas Governor Michael Huckabee’s interview last week.
He talked about more than just Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, of course. In fact, his most consequential comments were in regard to gay adoption. About gays who wanted to adopt children, his comments were, in full (well, as in full as reported online by the newspaper):
I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family…
And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults.
Children are not puppies
This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?
Now, I’ve never met Huck, so I’m not going to try to delve too deeply into his motivations. I think he’s likely a very good man who just sees the world (having been a Baptist minister) very differently than I do. That said, I can’t help but read his comments as being suggestive that he believes gay couples who wish to adopt see doing so not as a loving extension of their family, hoping to bring joy and stability to an otherwise orphan, but simply as a novelty or trophy of some sort.
Of course, I imagine if I put it that way to him, he’d have a more gentle way of putting it, but I think that’s generally where he comes down, and I think he’s wrong.
But here’s where the cool twist comes in:
I don’t watch TV, but apparently there’s a show on the Food Network (apparently, there’s a “Food Network”!) hosted…get ready for this…by a couple of gay dudes. The hosts, Dan Smith and Steve McDonagh are adoptive fathers of a son. They, rightly, take offense at what Huck had to say and Steve posted this letter to the governor on his blog:
Mr. Huckabee,
You may know me from Food Network. My partner, Dan Smith, and I are The Hearty Boys. We’re Chicago caterers, restaurateurs, cookbook authors and most importantly, dads. Dan and I have been in a stable, monogamous, loving, positive, nurturing and healthy relationship for 13 years. We were blessed to adopt our son, Nate, at his birth 4 1/2 years ago.
Sir, your comments likening my parenting my son to adopting a pet are beyond hurtful and dangerous. My love, passion and commitment to Nate is not one iota different than what you have for John Mark, David and Sarah. Our son is loved and cared for just as much. He feels just as loved and cared for. He is a happy, well adjusted little guy whom I fiercely love.
Mr. Huckabee, I invite you to spend the evening with us at our home in Chicago next time you come through. You need to understand and see firsthand what a family like ours is like. We are no less a family than yours, and in fact, we are healthier and more stable than most.
Americans are no longer going to sit silent as our families are attacked. And even though I find your comments reprehensible and irresponsible, I will open my home to you and pray that we might help you better understand the damage you could inflict.
Steve McDonagh
When I first read it, I was put off slightly by the choice of words (“beyond hurtful and dangerous“, “sit silent as our families are attacked“, “the damage you could inflict”) as a bit over-the-top. But the more I thought about it, the more I figured, Ya know what? That’s fair, because it’s how he feels. Just as the governor was free, and felt free, to voice his opinion, these guys, while a bit melodramatic in their choice of words (although I don’t doubt for a minute they come straight from the heart), should be honest with Huck in describing how they feel.
Okay, all that softy-stuff out of the way, here’s the thing:
BRAVO for these guys to have the GUTS (are you listening, Constance?) to invite a guy like Huckabee to their home to learn about their family. I’m also heartened by the reaction on the web. As I peruse other blogs who have written about this, most responses are dubious that Huckabee would RSVP ‘aye’, but very few think these guys are wrong to invite him.
I’m sure many others who read this blog have a story like mine with some of my relatives: They live in a part of the country wherein they come into very little contact with openly gay men and women. When word went around my family about my coming out, they were intrigued at first, and once they felt more comfortable (“He’s the same Nick we’ve always known”), they were inquisitive and eager to know more about me; about us. To a person, they’ve all been welcoming, and in fact, I feel it’s because they now know a gay person with a steady job who’s not strung out on drugs or otherwise doesn’t fit the negative stereotypes, they’re likely more accepting and respectful toward all of us.
Now, I wouldn’t expect this dinner to unfold like some sort of after-school special (wrong network, for starters). And Governor Huckabee certainly has a constituency. But I believe in the redemptive power of the human nature. I also believe Michael Huckabee is a good man. I honestly feel that exposure is what he needs.
More importantly, the usual suspects (from whom I’m sure we’ll hear in 3, 2, 1…) could take a lesson from these two Chicagoans. In an age where the first inclination for so many gay men and women is to accuse someone who has a problem with the “gay” “lifestyle” of being ignorant, here are two people who are hoping to educate. After all, isn’t that the way to fix ignorance?
Now, that’s refreshing.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)
13 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think the invitation is, hyperbolic language aside, a great response. I’d encourage Huckabee to take them up on it, though I doubt he will.
That being said, I wonder if there might be a more generous interpretation of Huckabee’s statement that you’re overlooking. He may well be referring more to those pushing the issue politically as the ones making a statement, and not necessarily the couples. Moreover, it is entirely possible for him to both find that those couples wanting to adopt have the best of intentions and are looking to do so for all the right reasons, but that it would still be bad for the children/society. I personally disagree with that view and support gay adoption, but that’s another reasonable interpretation of his statement.
Comment by Brian Garst — April 19, 2010 @ 1:02 am - April 19, 2010
Well, yeah, as a matter of fact, you are. Your children are missing a mother. His are not. Mothers matter. Your family is no less a family than a single father, indeed, its probably better than a single father, but families without a mother and a father are lesser. Sorry. Men and women are not interchangeable.
Comment by American Elephant — April 19, 2010 @ 2:53 am - April 19, 2010
I have to say as someone who is doing the single parent thing for the third time around, the traditional model is superior. I can do a lot for my kids, but I can’t model a loving committed marriage for them. That’s kind of a big deal.
Comment by V the K — April 19, 2010 @ 7:06 am - April 19, 2010
Indeed. I think the (social) conservative case should be stated as, “We would love to see every child placed in a home with a mother and father who care for them. This being reality, we applaud those strong and healthy people who bring a child into their home, and raise them as their own flesh and blood.”
No fuss, no muss.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 7:46 am - April 19, 2010
Yea well we don’t leave in perfect utopias where every child gets a mother or a father, or gets to have everything their heart desires because their family is not rich or well to do.
I don’t get why some people have to go out of their way to belittle people. I am sure their son is quite happy and they really love their family the way it is.
I agree with Livewire, Social Conversatives seem to want a hands off approach to their own family decisions they should do the same for others.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — April 19, 2010 @ 9:14 am - April 19, 2010
Nick, I also hope that the Huck-a-boom takes the Chicago family up on their offer to visit, learn and put his fingers in their wounds, so to speak. We’d be happy to host him if he’s a’feared of them Chicago types.
Media pundits often fill the air with inartfully arranged words –I, too, think Huck-a-boom probably meant something other than he said and if he could expand, we’d get an Obama-like 17 minute answer that touches on everything but the question.
As a partnered Dad of 3 sons, I can tell you that our family is modeling a committed, loving marriage-centered family to our boys, to our broader family, to our neighborhood, their school, our church, &c. And I’ll grant you, that’s unusual when most in the gay community think a 3 week relationship is the definition of LTR and allows gays, after the inevitable breakup, to call your fling an “ex” for many years.
Is our situation the norm for gay families? No way. I just hope that Huck-a-boom’s potential hosts are some of the few who do make it work, prosper and affirming and don’t sputter like pork fat in the fryin’ pan on the fire.
As for the role of moms in a family… one word: “over-rated”. What kids need isn’t a mom and dad, it’s 2 loving parents, compassionate and committed to their future, helping them become good moral agents in society. Moms are first and foremost parents and having 2 parents means a broader base and blending of talents to address family issues… moms have the eggs, uterus and breast… after birth, they bring nothing unique to the perspective of parenting that can’t be duplicated or jobbed out.
I think a traditional family is found in the strength of two parents, not in the roles of a mom and dad… and that’s where Huck-a-boom and others get it wrong.
Huck-a-boom needs to get with the 21st century on that point, if he isn’t there already… 17 minute expansion, not withstanding.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 19, 2010 @ 9:39 am - April 19, 2010
And that is why gay relationships are lesser than marriages. Marriages don’t need to “job out” any part of parenthood. Marriages dont need to go outside their relationship to provide a mom, or provide a dad. That’s rather the point.
Of course kids are better with gay parents than with no parents. I even think kids are better with gay parents than with a single parent. But the idea that the two sexes dont bring unique perspectives and important differences to parenthood is laughable. Men and women are different! That’s why you’re gay!
Comment by American Elephant — April 19, 2010 @ 9:58 am - April 19, 2010
Matt, as a mom I beg to differ. A mother and father are both important and bring very different things to the table.
That being said, never in history have children been guaranteed a mother and father.
Of course there are many gay couples who are doing a better job at parenting than the birth parents are, even in some situations where both birth parents are raising the kid together.
In this day and age, when society has gone out of it’s way to destroy the traditional family structure, it is useless for Huck to try and close the barn door 30 years after the horse has left.
It is always easy to come after the gays, than to look at mainstream society that has completely abdicated responsibility towards the family. This idea that one must do what’s best for the kids, is a very nice idea, but it’s the easy divorce, the total acceptance of single parenthood and the disregard for the role of fathers in the lives of children that have done all the harm.
Comment by Leah — April 19, 2010 @ 11:27 am - April 19, 2010
Wouldn’t it be great to see a back and forth between Gov. Huckabee and VP Dick Cheney?
I’m pretty sure he would have the backs of gay parents.
And I love the way he expresses himself.
Comment by Nan G — April 19, 2010 @ 6:06 pm - April 19, 2010
It would be wonderful Nan G.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 19, 2010 @ 6:30 pm - April 19, 2010
Leah, I agree with your every word, except this idea that we no longer can or should stand up for the best case scenario simply because we’ve been tolerant of no-fault divorce and single parenthood for so long.
Again, just to be clear, I am not opposed to gay adoption, I am in favor of it until there are enough homes with a mom and a dad for every child in need, and I think its preferable to single parent families. But I also think its important to maintain that a mom and a dad is the ideal. It’s been losing sight of that ideal that gave us no-fault divorce and the glorification of single parenthood to begin with. And giving up on that ideal simply because we’ve been tolerant of alternatives is exactly what people opposed to those alternatives warned would happen.
The damage that the liberalization of marriage has done is NOT a good excuse for the further liberalization of marriage. It’s a good argument against it.
Comment by American Elephant — April 19, 2010 @ 8:52 pm - April 19, 2010
I have no problem with same-sex couples getting legally married and adopting children. I am against adultery, no-fault divorces, short-term promiscuous relationships, polygamous relationships, and domestic abuse. Those are clearly unhealthy, oppressive relationships. But same-sex couples marrying and adopting? No, I don’t see any evidence of harm or negativity done to any human being in their vicinity. As long as the adult same-sex couple is in a stable relationship providing a healthy environment for kids, then I couldn’t be more joyful– for any family. It adds to the benefit of their communities, aren’t like adultery or no-fault divorces (that most likely happen with adult heterosexuals– social science research). How unfortunate.
As a young adult, I dream of marrying someday and having a family of my own here in beautiful California. I just need to get through my education first. God bless any other young adult Gay and Lesbian American wanting to fulfill the ‘American Dream.’ If my Gay and Hetero friends and relatives can have mutual relationships, get married, adopt children, form a healthy family, then so can I.
Comment by Totakikay — April 20, 2010 @ 5:08 am - April 20, 2010
There’s a great deal of generalization going on in this discussion. Good parenting situations inevitably come down to the nature of the specific people involved. In my own childhood, I was blessed with a wonderful father but unfortunately had a mother who..well.. let’s just say I’d have been far more problem-free without her in my life. On the other hand, I know many people for whom their mother was and/or is the main source of stability and support. Equally, some fathers are great and others are problems. The basic requirement for good parenting is the capability for love, support and encouragement. Given that, the gender of the parent makes no real difference.
I happen to be a graduate of the college whose student magazine published the Huckabee interview and live only ten minutes away. In the course of my own work as a magazine editor, I had occasion to correspond with the editor of the student publication. For whatever my assertion may be worth, I’d like to say the interview as posted on the internet was not edited but was given in full. Further, I think the reaction of the Chicago couple – to invite Huckabee into their home, was splendid and speaks to a central problem in today’s ‘culture war’ – that the differing sides rarely actually converse with each other but more often stand at a distance and throw verbal bricks. (Hey – I am just as guilty of that as anyone else.) Sometimes it does come to that of necessity but we could accomplish more, in many situations, through real dialog and actually getting to know people on the other side. It doesn’t work with the Fred Phelpses of the world but they are way out on the loonie fringe. Most people, conservative or liberal, are not.
Comment by tobyg — April 20, 2010 @ 9:03 am - April 20, 2010