Garrison Keillor steps in it

Rod, if the comment about 18-25 year olds were true, then we should also expect them to be more supportive of no-fault divorce than other people; I don't have figures in front of me, but I don't think this is true. It's not that young people are more socially liberal across the board (indeed, the NY Times article points out that 18-25 yr olds are more pro-life than the rest of the country). Maybe, instead, they [we? I'm 22] don't see a connection between gay marriage and other social issues, like divorce or abortion. Honestly, I'd be interested to see what you think the connection is between these issues--why do you think gay marriages necessarily more anarchic or destructive of the social order than straight marriages are?
On a lighter note, if you didn't see this link on the corner, it's definitely something you would enjoy-- http://www.curbed.com/archives/2007/03/15/morning_reverie_in_prospect_lefferts_gardens.php

I love the fact that Keillor is an unapologetic old fogey. He's profoundly liberal both economically and socially--a proper creation of the postwar, mainline Protestant Democratic party of the midwest--but he also knows deep in his bones that his liberalism, at least as it has evolved, is in tension with his hometown, old-school, grumpy conservative schtick--a schitck that I think he genuinely embraces, or else he never would have kept up with it for so long, not would have come back to it repeatedly after trying to leave it. The fact the he despises Republicans--and can be exceptionally cruel in addressing them and the evangelical Christian voters who support them--doesn't take away from the fact that he probably has a lot more in common with Rod Dreher than any Hollywood liberal.

As someone who hails from the upper midwest, I love Garrison Keillor. I've never liked the rhetorical move of making "hypocrisy" accusations. It's a sleight of hand, legerdemain: it subtly shifts the debate from the issue at hand to the character of the speaker. Put bluntly, the statement "Murder is still wrong" is not less true when uttered by a murderer. So, as far as Keillor's marital history goes, I would say sometimes its actually those who have sinned the most who recognize most cleary the danger of sin. I don't know what he has for kids, but I suspect his reflections might be borne from his own experiences.

...last 50 years have made such a hash of traditional values when it comes to marriage and family that we lack credibility when it comes to instructing gays. Rod, you did mean "last 5000 years", correct? Thanks to Adam, Eve and the first amendment, don't we all have "credibility problems" instructing anybody? That's funny about Keillor's serial affairs, or marriages or whatever. Well I guess it's not funny for his ex-families. Of course they no doubt have sweet alimony deals; he probably gets big $$$ from the PBS/NPR industrial complex. And I'm sure he's a miserable bear to cohabitate with.

I know someone already said this but this really needs to be emphasized, "...heterosexuals in the last 50 years have made such a hash of traditional values when it comes to marriage and family that we lack credibility when it comes to instructing gays." Amen and Amen. Of course, one can't justify one immoral act by pointing to another immoral act. Just because 50% of straight people divorce doesn't mean gay people should be able to get married. That said, when you have significant percentages of self-described Christians who divorce, contracept, abort, and in general make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage, it's hard to take people seriously. If our nation REALLY wants to make marriage and family important, simply banning gay people from marrying isn't the sole solution. The solution are honest, faithful Christians who take a vow before man and God to uphold the dignity and sacred nature of their own marriage as an example for the world to see. When our culture realizes that hey, a man and a woman committed to each other and their children no matter what for life is to be upheld and cherished, two people of the same gender shacking up and calling it "marriage" will appear to be the nonsense that it really is. However, at this juncture, true marriage has been so sullied and tarnished that any deviant system can be held against it and contain a similar shine.

"he can say, "I've lived this way, and I now realize more clearly than ever what a nightmare it is for the kids."" If he had said that, it would different. Of course, he didn't. Instead, he idealized his life and used it as a rationale for being opposed to those flamboyant gay men getting married. I think you can come from a point of saying, "I've messed up my life and therefore I know of what I speak." But too often, that doesn't happen. Maggie Gallagher never reflects publicly on having gotten knocked up by a man who she didn't marry. Instead, she just wrings her hands about gays and marriage and how kids are going to be messed up. But what about her own kid who was born out of wedlock and is not being raised by a stepfather (a situation she criticized in others).

Russell: The fact the he despises Republicans--and can be exceptionally cruel in addressing them and the evangelical Christian voters who support them--doesn't take away from the fact that he probably has a lot more in common with Rod Dreher than any Hollywood liberal. Why would Garrison's despising Republicans make him different than Rod?

Um, why is Keillor's credibility diminished by having personal knowledge of how screwed-up the modern family can be? His own experience enhances his credibility -- he can say, "I've lived this way, and I now realize more clearly than ever what a nightmare it is for the kids." I wish he had said that.
Note well that I agree with the general thrust of his comments with regard to how all the legal accomodations we make to satisfy adult desires are making it a worse world for kids. But again, without copping to his own sins, Keillor remains a flawed messenger. Pauli's right: Keillor really is tedious when it comes to politics. I read his book "Homegrown Democrat," I think it was, and it was pretty awful. Strident and humorless and nastily critical of conservatives. Which as Russell Arben Fox indicated is ironic, given that there's a deep social conservatism present in Keillor's Lake Wobegon worldview.

The funny thing is that Gary Keillor (his real name, by the way--"Garrison" is just what he started calling himself as an adult because it sounds so much more urbane and literary) is pretty much where I see Rod's trajectory headed over the next few years. Not that I expect him to leave Julie, mind you, just that by, 2015 at the latest, I expect him to continue to aver that he is "personally" offended by mainstream culture and is at heart a man of puritanical, conservative opinions, who nevertheless toes the left party line on account of things like the environment, health care, and whatever hard, dirty work we have to be undertaking in the Middle East at that time.

Rod, beginning with the post listed below, you've been indicating that social conservatives are going to have to put aside the "social" part of our interests in 2008: http://tinyurl.com/3aa5df In recent days, you've talked about Giuliani, pondered the necessity of voting for a pro-abortion candidate, and are now tarnishing the anti-gay marriage position by appearing to agree, using Keillor as an example, that heterosexuals are hypocrites on the subject. With all due respect, I would like to know if you still think of yourself as a social conservative. Or are you preparing your readers for an announcement similar to the one you made when you announced your conversion to Orthodoxy?

"The solution are honest, faithful Christians who take a vow before man and God to uphold the dignity and sacred nature of their own marriage as an example for the world to see. When our culture realizes that hey, a man and a woman committed to each other and their children no matter what for life is to be upheld and cherished, two people of the same gender shacking up and calling it "marriage" will appear to be the nonsense that it really is." Apparently non-Christians cannot be commited to each other and their children no matter what? Or if they do, it's nevertheless not a good example?

K Street, let's not forget isolationism, as Rod believes that social conservatives should promote an economic populism that includes "some form of localism and protectionism to buffer the destructive effects of globalism on local communities." And, Erin, as I documented a while back, Rod already smeared the movement to defend marriage by writing that it is "a pretty fair accusation" to say that the Republican party is appealing to "anti-gay prejudice" and "the fear and loathing of gay people" in taking a position identical to his. Traditionally, movement conservatism involves three branches: economic libertarianism, hawkish foreign policy, and social conservatism. Rod denounces the first two, and on the third he continues to diminish the political importance of the key issues of social conservatism -- abortion and marriage -- to support policies (and, I suspect, politicians) from the left.

K Street: I expect him to continue to aver that he is "personally" offended by mainstream culture and is at heart a man of puritanical, conservative opinions, who nevertheless toes the left party line on account of things like the environment, health care, and whatever hard, dirty work we have to be undertaking in the Middle East at that time. And being "left" (your word) on the environment, health care and the war on Iraq falsifies my beliefs on abortion, gay marriage and affirmative action precisely how? It's plainly difficult for some to think outside the binary Democratic/Republican box, but still, you should try. Erin: In recent days, you've talked about Giuliani, pondered the necessity of voting for a pro-abortion candidate, and are now tarnishing the anti-gay marriage position by appearing to agree, using Keillor as an example, that heterosexuals are hypocrites on the subject. With all due respect, I would like to know if you still think of yourself as a social conservative. Or are you preparing your readers for an announcement similar to the one you made when you announced your conversion to Orthodoxy? Come on, Erin, honestly. Why does it diminish one's opposition to gay marriage to observe that by their own post-sexual revolution conduct, heterosexuals have not exactly left themselves with a lot of credibility with which to lecture gays about how what they seek will screw up society by undermining the traditional family. Like I said, Keillor's personal failings do not obviate his point, but they do complicate the public case. An orthodox Catholic friend who is a chaste homosexual -- and who opposes gay marriage -- pointed out to me some years back that the divorce culture instituted by heterosexuals has done far more to harm children and to weaken social bonds than anything gays have done. We have to acknowledge that point, it seems to me.
And I also don't understand why trying to reason out loud through the flawed choices conservative voters will have for president in this difficult and dangerous time for our country, and trying to discuss the role abortion politics should play in determining one's choice, makes one therefore a social liberal. I can assure you that there are more than a few staunch pro-life social conservatives who look at the world we live in, and the choices available to us, and realize that at some point, a compromise of some sort is going to be required of them. It's no bad thing to talk this out. Accusing me and others who admit to ambiguity and conflict of being ideological deviationists who are about to defect to the Other Side is not helpful to the cause of clear thinking in a time of multiple serious crises facing the nation, and of unpalatable choices for presidential leadership.
If abortion is the only thing you really care about, and that anybody should really care about, that makes your decision a lot easier. But that's not the case for me, and I'm pretty sure it's not the case for the great majority of conservative voters.
And on gay marriage, I have absolutely no belief that Republicans in Washington will do anything to stop it. They had their chance. The GOP-controlled Senate wouldn't allow the traditional marriage amendment go to the states -- and that amendment was the only substantive thing that would have kept any court from instituting gay marriage by fiat. President Bush expended exactly no political capital in its defense, despite a pretty good case to be made that it was social conservatives coming out in 2004 to vote in state ballot initiatives on the marriage issue that helped him keep his office. The Republicans quite clearly are happy to get the social-conservative base fired up against gay marriage, but when put on the spot to actually do something serious about it, choke. I'm unwilling to be played by them anymore.

Dan, As honest, faithful pagans who took a vow before man and our Gods to uphold the dignity and sacred nature of our own marriage as an example for the world to see, my wife and I have no problem with two people of the same gender making a formal lifelong monogamous commitment and calling it "marriage". I still fail to see how gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage. Gay people aren't likely to go out and marry members of the opposite gender if gay marriage remains illegal (and when they do it usually ends disastrously for both parties anyway); and I don't imagine you'll see a rush of married straight people getting quickie divorces so they can marry someone of their own gender. I know *I* certainly have no plans in that direction.

Bubba, "Why would Garrison's despising Republicans make him different than Rod?" Well, for starters because Rod identifies with Republicans. How many times has he said on this blog that, as bothered by he is by the antics of the current Republican party, that there's nothing he'd like to see more than a Republican that started championing an authentic conservative agenda, one that was prudent about cultural change, careful with taxes, respectful of the environment, suspicious of capitalism, fully pro-life, etc.? The difference between Rod condemning Republicans and Keillor condemning Republicans is that Keillor has, unfortunately, a deep partisan contempt for them, whereas Rod wants to fix them. "Traditionally, movement conservatism involves three branches: economic libertarianism, hawkish foreign policy, and social conservatism. Rod denounces the first two, and on the third he continues to diminish the political importance of the key issues of social conservatism -- abortion and marriage -- to support policies (and, I suspect, politicians) from the left." To speak "traditionally" of movement conservatism is slightly nonsensical, since being part of a movement rarely makes one particularly adept at staying put and tending to traditions. What there is, is a history of "movement conservatism," circa early 1960s through today, which does admittedly include the elements you note. But the problem is that any proper "social conservatism" has got to be about, well, "conserving society," and it turns out--as many conservative readers of Rod's book have discovered--that neither economic libertarianism nor a hawkish foreign policy contribute to the tending to of social traditions particularly well. Once you knock away those two legs, all you have left is social conservatism, and looked at all on its lonesome, it's not difficult to imagine that abortion and same-sex marriage may not be the poltiical be-all and end-all issues which many conservatives otherwise understand them to be. Has Rod gone "left"? Not from what I can tell. Will he? Well, he should, of course; that's what I was saying back here and here and here. But don't listen to me; I'm one of those goofy Christian socialist types.

"The difference between Rod condemning Republicans and Keillor condemning Republicans is that Keillor has, unfortunately, a deep partisan contempt for them, whereas Rod wants to fix them." Personally, I would be more wary of someone who "wants to fix" me than someone who "had contempt" for me.

Rod, you said, "Why does it diminish one's opposition to gay marriage to observe that by their own post-sexual revolution conduct, heterosexuals have not exactly left themselves with a lot of credibility with which to lecture gays about how what they seek will screw up society by undermining the traditional family..." Because 'one's' opposition to gay marriage has to do with what marriage is, by definition, and what it always has been; 'one's,' or at least, my, opposition to gay marriage is about philosophy, not about which group bears more responsibility for the swift and destructive unraveling of society at large. If we want to have that discussion, I think we have to begin with the Reformation, although you could make a pretty clear case for going all the way back to the Manicheans. You also said, "If abortion is the only thing you really care about, and that anybody should really care about, that makes your decision a lot easier." Not really. I'm waiting to see who the GOP nominee will be, and the question I've been asking myself these days is, "Will 2008 be 1854 all over again?" In 1854 a group of principled men decided they could no longer stand by idly while the increasingly powerful South unraveled the Missouri Compromise one line at a time. The new political party they formed had as its purpose the containment of slavery to the South; even the most optimistic or idealistic among its members wouldn't have envisioned eradicating slavery at that time. The presidential candidate they ran, John C. Fremont, lost, naturally enough. But the party itself made a surprisingly strong showing in the free states; the candidate they ran in 1860 was Abraham Lincoln. It's never been a surprise to me that the party that once supported slavery would be the party of abortion today. I've also seen it as fitting that the party of Lincoln would be the party that defends life; but if the Republican party decides to burn that particular plank, then I see no further use for them.
I know others will make different decisions, but for myself I see no honor in compromising with my conscience for the sake of political expediency. Look, Rod. I get that you're disgusted with the GOP generally. Who isn't? But I don't see the Democrats as being any better, and I certainly don't see someone like Giuliani as the GOP's 'savior.'
Let me put my original question in some context. I have just (finally) started to read "Crunchy Cons." The voice of the man writing that book is an optimistic, hopeful voice; the man clearly has no problem standing for truth, beauty, family, the lasting and transcendent values, even when doing so is unpopular or politically costly. But on the blog in recent days, you seem to be projecting a cynical and defeatist pragmatism that is so very different from what I'm reading in the book that I've been seriously wondering if you're okay. The world does force us sometimes to make difficult decisions, and the political sphere is a particularly strong example of this. But there's a difference between saying, "Party X can no longer be trusted," and saying "There is no political solution; we should concede the political sphere to those on the other side of the issue," which is what I'm hearing you say.

Erin: The world does force us sometimes to make difficult decisions, and the political sphere is a particularly strong example of this. But there's a difference between saying, "Party X can no longer be trusted," and saying "There is no political solution; we should concede the political sphere to those on the other side of the issue," which is what I'm hearing you say. Close. I'm saying, "There is ultimately no political solution, so we should be a lot more realistic about what politics can achieve, and adjust our expectations accordingly."
I feel like we're getting all bollixed up here in the discussion on abortion and social policy re: the election. I don't actually like any of the Republican candidates, nor do I like the Democrats (well, I superficially like Obama's style, but I'm pretty sure that once we all start paying close attention to what he actually believes, that will evaporate). Again, I'm sure that we will all be faced with having to choose between a pro-choice Democrat, and a Republican who is either openly pro-choice (Giuliani) or so nominally pro-life that it would be hard to have much confidence in him to advance a pro-life agenda. In such a case, I would say that pro-life concerns are far less in play than in years past.
I estimate that I'll be a lot more driven in my voting by the war and foreign policy concerns than you are. Ironically for pro-lifers, the war, which more than any issue resulted in the Democrats taking the Senate, has made it far less likely that Bush would get an ostensibly pro-life justice onto the Supreme Court.

Perhaps. But then again, I've yet to see a candidate on either side propose an actual solution to Iraq, or formulate a coherent strategy for dealing with, not only the war, but what, if any, role we would be playing in a postwar Iraq, or indeed, in the entire Mideast. In the absence of more than sound bites and/or unwarranted optimism from the major candidates on both sides, I've yet to be convinced that either side has the answers on Iraq that we need. I agree. But remember, it's only March 2007! We're all going on like the primary votes are the week after next!

Rod, I for one don't see a lot of strangling of dissent on the right: to take one issue, neither D'Souza's (cough) controversial book nor the many conservatives who disagree have been silenced, even though his thesis is at the intersection of foreign policy and the culture war. It didn't happen with Crunchy Cons, either, not with the NRO story, the NR cover story, and the NRO blog: it's just that not everyone takes kindly to your positioning yourself as representing true, honorable conservatism in the face of a mainstream conservatism that you denigrate as greedy, materialistic, and fraudulent. I'll reiterate what I've written elsewhere: you may be more accurately described as some variant of paleoconservativism than as a liberal, but for practical purposes and for political purposes that difference is becoming less and less important, particularly because your take on Iraq and the environment and even your fellow conservatives betrays the assumptions of the left -- and because you seem inclined to support candidates from the left. In the end, I wonder if your perception about the supposed lock-step nature of mainstream conservatism says more about you than the movement. After all, you asserted that there was no heavy criticism of the Bush administration from the mainstream conservative punditry until late 2005, and the assertion was easily refuted.

Ironic triad bedfellows here: Rod says Keillor is a ' flawed spokesperson for traditional marriage'. (Actually, if you saw/heard GK on his recent book tour appearance in Dallas, you'd say he was a poor spokesperson for Garrison Keillor.) But Keillor is simply agreeing with 'homebody' ("My home and your body" or "My home and ANYbody") President Clinton who opposed same sex marriage for essentially the same reasons. Lest one forgets; Bill was the originator of the'don't ask/don't tell' military shell game. And of course a galvinizing proponent of marital sanctity.

I think it's incredibly silly of Garrison Keillor to write such comments about how gay men need to stop being so flamboyant if they want to raise children. Many gay men (and lesbians), flamboyant or not, raise children, often children that no one else wanted. Children with AIDS, children with disabilities, children who aren't the cute little white babies who are more likely to get adopted. There's no doubt that many gays and lesbians are too immature to get married, but most of those people aren't going to be raising children in the first place.
Keillor doesn't care about the traditional family, if you ask me. He was trying to be cute and make a point. The only way he could do that was to take an easy shot at gay men. His comment was much more applicable years ago than it is for today.

I hear you, Russell. I guess the thing is that despite the hostility among many Republicans to what I'm saying, there is at least a vocabulary there for dealing with these concepts, and I can point to conservative sources for my conclusions. Among the Democrats, people like me are the Other: the theocons, ayatollahs in blue jeans who are a greater threat to All That We Hold Dear than the actual ayatollahs. And while I bet you and I disagree on not a whole lot regarding economic policy, I don't see in the liberal worldview much philosophical basis for moral and social conservatism. I mean, I can make a case to conservatives for why the free market economics we embrace so uncritically must necessarily lead to the dwindling of the social and cultural institutions we cherish. My argument might not be persuasive, but I can make it. But how could you make an argument to the left, in terms it already professes, that social liberalism/permissiveness contradicts its core values? Isn't this kind of a New Left vs. Old Left thing? As I recall from my college studies, the New Left thought the Old Left were a bunch of prudes.

Rod, "I can make a case to conservatives for why the free market economics we embrace so uncritically must necessarily lead to the dwindling of the social and cultural institutions we cherish. My argument might not be persuasive, but I can make it. But how could you make an argument to the left, in terms it already professes, that social liberalism/permissiveness contradicts its core values? Isn't this kind of a New Left vs. Old Left thing? As I recall from my college studies, the New Left thought the Old Left were a bunch of prudes." I can't argue with you here; your analysis of the current situation is dead-on accurate. The movement conservatism which emerged in the 60s and 70s, philosophically liberal though it was, really could (and sometimes, occasionally, actually did) engage in a dialogue with traditionalism. Whereas the liberalism which emerged in the 1970s wrote off the collective, moralistic language of the Old Left almost entirely. (Of course the story is, as always, a little more complicated than that, I think: in some ways the New Left was reacting to the midcentury, "best and brightest," corporate mainstreaming of liberal thought, and in so doing they revived genuine communal and Jeffersonian language. Unfortunately, they'd also almost totally written off any kind of religious or cultural tradition upon which to ground their populist, democratic passions, and so aside from providing some interesting critiques of modern America, they mostly just degenerated into self-indulgent hippies. The hippies had some good points, as you've admitted, but creating a stronger, more decent society was not one of them.) So why do I (usually, though not always) still stand with a bunch of liberals? I don't know; maybe it's just a matter of temperament. Maybe because the particular way abortion has come to dominate culture of life discussions on the Republican side no longer completely persuades me. Or maybe it's because, in out-the-way corners of contemporary liberalism, you do still sometimes see Old Left attitudes popping up, here and there--whether in a David Blankenhorn or a Ralph Nader or a John Edwards--even if they're rarely recognized for what they are.

Several years ago I heard Garrison Keillor on his show say that he thought it was good that gay people would have to fight for recognition of their marriages since they didn't have to deal with the fight that goes along with trying to live with someone of the opposite sex. He compared it to marrying someone from the same team. (this was said in a humorous way and I'm making a hash of it here.) I do think he's right that the problem with gay marriage is that marriage, properly (traditionally?) understood is a means of arranging the perpetuation of the species. Kid have a RIGHT to mom and dad. I just don't see how when faced with a conflict between what kid's need and what adults desire, it's OK to just throw the kids under the bus. It has seemed to me for some time that one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are pretty comfortable with the idea that life isn't fair and that systems which serve the overwhelming majority well shouldn't be thrown out because there are a small minority of people to whom they are unfair. Liberals seem to see unfair situations and think that almost automatically justifies upending the system, even if it is working well for the overwhelming majority of people. I think this is why there's so little real understanding between the two sides - each is concerned with a completely different set of issues and is talking based on those concerns so that while they may sound convincing to themselves, the other side isn't hearing there concerns addressed and therefor finds the arguments proffered entirely unconvincing. Then each side gets frustrated and accuses the other of being hateful, uncaring, selfish, whatever. What's funny is that while liberals often claim that conservatives have been on the wrong side of history when it comes to social issues (a gross misrepresentation of the facts IMO, but a subject for another day), conservatives have, in fact been spot-on in their predictions of the deliterious effects of almost every social change which has taken place over the last 40 years. Of course, many people are willing to live with those effects in exchange for autonomy and freedom from old social mores. However, if people were being honest, they wouldn't bother arguing that conservatives are wrong about the effects of the changes they are proposing.

'INSTRUCTING GAYS'?!?!?!?!?!? Heterosexuals (particulary self-styled 'conservative' ones) have NOTHING to teach US. Except, maybe, what NOT to be...

"Kid have a RIGHT to mom and dad. " Like Andrea Yates' kids? Or Susan Smith's kids?
Kids have a RIGHT to a loving home. That's what children want. Homes can be loving and supportive whether or not they have a "mom and dad". That's not a right that children ask for. That's a right that adults ask for because they think that's what children need, because they think that the "good old days" can come back if everyone is pushed into some form of traditional family unit that has never been anywhere near as stable or rosy as people like to claim.

"Jon, there are exceptions to every rule, but every single bit of data or research shows unequivocably and without exception that children stand a much better chance on every single indicator of well being growing up in a home with mom and dad." Data also shows that children who grow up in a home with gay parents are just the same, just as content and successful, as children who grow up in a home with a mother and father.
"The days of being able to argue that all that matters is a loving home, no matter what the make up of the home are about 15 years gone." I would say the argument is more prevalent than ever, because we have spent the past 10 or 15 years in a "return to family values" and "protect the traditional family unit" type of setting. And from what I can tell, all that environment, this supposed return to morality, has caused is an increase in teen sex, in abortion, and so on.
When people say that kids have A RIGHT to a "mom and a dad", that's when I point out that they have A RIGHT to a loving home, period. Many of the people who talk about these things are people who don't ever bother to go see the babies and children who would be languishing nowhere if not for the gays and lesbians or the single parents who are willing to take them in. There is some mythical June and Ward Cleaver idea that everything will get better as long as there's a Mr. and a Mrs. at the table. Usually, that isn't how life works, from what I've seen.
If gay parents were so destructive to the lives of children, then we would have concrete proof by now. There have been openly gay parents for probably 20 or 30 years, if not longer. Yet instead of showing examples that gay relationships will harm the children raised in those relationships, the only recourse seems to be the ever-pervasive fear that if everything isn't June and Ward Cleaver, then the children and society are doomed.

"john, teen abortion, pregnancy, sexual activity, drug use and alcohol use are all down," Are you sure? I thought I'd read somewhere that sexual activity among teenagers is up over the past 10 years. I think that may also be true for abortion. The rate of abortions was dropping in the 90's but has increased over the past decade. "nevertheless concludes that "impossible to fully distinguish the impact of parent's sexual orientation on a child" because most homosexual child-rearing homes didn't start out fresh from birth, but are clouded by the dynamics of divorce, re-mating, and step-parenting issues" Refusing to allow gays to marry each other only continues the likelihood that more families led by gay parents would come from re-mating or divorce or whatever else, because that tells people that relationships with gay couples are not worthy in the eyes of the law. "The specifically point to more representative research which finds that 64% of children raised by homosexual parents have considered entering a same sex relationship as compared to 17% of those raised by heterosexual parents." "Considered entering". They're being raised by 2 members of the same sex. Naturally, when they see that, they think about what lies ahead for them. That doesn't mean children of gay parents are any more likely to become gay, or enter same-sex relationships.
"Everything we do knwo indicates rough seas ahead for kids raised in same sex households." If life was that terrible for children in gay households, we would know it by now. Not to mention that many of the children raised in same sex households came from terrible backgrounds. Would these children rather have a life of abuse or group homes, no real family, or a family that loathes them, or would they rather have a family with loving parents?
When people talk about how awful life must be for children of gay parents, what they don't always realize is that part of the reason it's so awful (if it is) is because society is constantly telling them what a terrible burden they face if their parents are gay.
I haven't seen any evidence that children with gay parents have a disadvantage, and I've seen far too many abusive, unhappy, loveless heterosexual relationships where they think having kids means everything will be great.

Hey, Dan Savage and I had a very nasty round back when I was a columnist at the NYPost, and he deliberately tried to make the GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer sick with the flu, to stop Bauer's presidential campaign. I wrote several columns trashing him for that. But after 9/11 -- literally, on 9/12 -- Dan Savage e-mailed me to say he hoped that I was okay, and that his thoughts are with all of us NYers. Which said something to me about him.