Obama and Lesbian Moms?
Jason Kuznicki on Jun 20th 2008
This post from Joshua Claybourn seems worth passing along to the gay blogosphere:
On Father’s Day Barack Obama delivered a stirring speech on fatherhood, and in particular on the need to strengthen families through more committed fathers. Here’s a brief sample:
Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.
But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are missing - missing from too many lives and too many homes. . . And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.
In light of the numerous recent moves toward homosexual marriages, where does a lesbian couple with children fit into Obama’s worldview? Assuming fathers are as “critical” as Obama says they are to the “most important” rock in our lives, does not this hetero-centric worldview clash with those who say lesbian parents are equal to heterosexual ones?
If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that this was a giant snub to lesbian moms.
On the bright side, I guess that kids with two dads are just that much better off.
Filed in The Boudoir
I don’t follow. Saying that fathers are important to a family unit is not the same as saying that women are not.
In other words, if it were not Father’s day …
In my opinion, it is improper to imply that Obama snubs lesbians when his intent was to acknowledge (on Fathers Day) respect and appreciation for men who are actively involved in raising a family.
Saying that “every father” is “critical” to the foundation of the family is the same as saying that two women raising a family together are lacking something critical.
It’s very simple. It’s a small thing, but I have no intention of letting it go. There were many other ways he might have expressed appreciation for fathers without putting it in the way that he did.
“It’s a small thing, ”
Smaller than small; it’s tiny. It’s about one line out of a 20 minute speech, and he doesn’t go into any specifics about why a male biological father is so critical; all his examples concerning the difficulty of single parenthood, mentors and coaches, etc, are alleviated just as well by women. I would think that the fact that he’s talking about a problem that is greater in the black community (absent fathers) to a specifically black audience, on Father’s Day, provides a bit of context. Furthermore, I’d say that the fact that he specifically talks at length, and in the very same section that Claybourn quoted, about the problems with single parenthood provides some clarification on what he means by ‘every father’ being ‘critical’.
I guess he maybe could have put it better, but it’d be difficult to put as many qualifications on his statement that it would require so that someone cannot criticize him for all possible inferences. If we’re going to be anal about it, saying that ‘every father’ is ‘critical’ to the foundation of the family also says that a drunken, drug addicted, pedophiliac, racist, physically and mentally abusive, selfish biological father is critical to the foundation of his family. Why not blame him for also advocating putting/leaving children with dangerous fathers? Because it’s petty and inaccurate, but it’s still a logical inference from that one line.
would think that the fact that he’s talking about a problem that is greater in the black community (absent fathers) to a specifically black audience, on Father’s Day, provides a bit of context.
Exactly.
Why not blame him for also advocating putting/leaving children with dangerous fathers? Because it’s petty and inaccurate, but it’s still a logical inference from that one line.
Double exactly.
The speech was to black men, not to women who were raising a family together, like two sisters, mother and grandmother, mother and aunt or even two lesbians.
Even with lesbians, there may be a child who knows their father, who isn’t in the picture. You think that child would not want some interaction with their father. I think this may be the case, more often with black children of lesbians.
On father’s day I honestly don’t see how it is offensive to acknowledge that “every father” who constructively contributes is “critical” to the foundation of the family is offensive to those parents who are not fathers, or to those families for whom no father contributes.
hmmm … no offense, but I think you’re inserting words between the lines. Does your inference of Obama’s hidden message have a basis in his past statements or actions?
Jason, I’m not looking to ignite a conflict, but in the absence of evidence your comments appear to indicate lacking of perspective.
It’s a very simple logical sequence:
1. Fathers are critical.
2. Families headed by two lesbians are lacking a father.
3. Families headed by two lesbians are lacking something critical.
He’s not saying that every father who constructively contributes is critical. He’s saying that every father is critical. This avoids the difficulty Dave L mentions above: The abusive, drug addict, or absent fathers are also critical — for good or ill.
This is the sort of thing that the religious right could have a field day with. They make these arguments all the time. Yet studies don’t in fact show that fathers are “critical” in this sense. Having two parents present in the house, whatever their genders, seems to produce about the same beneficial outcome.
Is the definition of “critical” especially significant here? For example, if I take “critical” to mean especially important but not to mean essential, would you continue to find the statement problematic?
It seems like people are having a hard time understanding Jason’s post, but I’m not sure what part of Jason’s post is hard to understand. If Obama would have said “being born as part of a religious family is critical”, his comment would be viewed as saying that faith was critical, and people that raise children without religion are not doing it properly.
What does critical mean? The best synonym is “crucial”, or “of essential importance”.
“This avoids the difficulty Dave L mentions above: The abusive, drug addict, or absent fathers are also critical — for good or ill.”
Does that mean that you then think that’s it’s reasonable to say that Obama clearly is saying that, in the case of the recent European ‘father’ who had imprisoned and had sex with his daughter for several years, that this father is essential to her family? That is also reasonable interpretation of what he said?
I just think you and Josh are taking this essentially one sentence to a ridiculously literal level. I don’t know why the context of the speech is apparently totally irrelevant to you guys, as well as the rest of his lengthy speech which makes almost no case for the idea that, ‘Families headed by two lesbians are lacking something critical.’ I have no doubt that I could pluck one sentence out of either of yours many (and excellent) posts, take it absolutely literally, construct syllogisms like you have done, and ascribe to you positions that you most certainly do not hold.
Jason,
Give me a link where black lesbian couples hold your opinion.
If all black lesbian couples thought that the earth was flat, would they be right? Why should what’s right or wrong depend on what they think?
I wanted to know if they shared your opinion, because I would value theirs more than yours on this. They live in a the black community and have had parents themselves. If they have children they take responsibility for, I would think they would want their “brothers” to do likewise. I had made some attempt to find out myself, but I thought maybe you had more than a hunch.
I guess what I’m really driving at here, and I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear to begin with, is that even liberals lack a ready vocabulary for talking about families inclusively. These things happen all the time, and Obama is hardly alone here. I still can’t repeal the laws of logic, but I can concede that he didn’t intend the all too obvious implications.