I agree with Robin Wirthlin.

The Massachusetts Mormon mother and I might not seem to have a lot in common. She and her husband were featured in a 2008 video for California’s “Yes On 8” campaign in which she explains that she was shocked when her son told her his second-grade class had read the picture book King & King, about a prince who marries another prince.

She was so shocked, in fact, that she and her husband sued the school district, saying that the school’s attempt to “indoctrinate” their children violated their constitutional rights as parents. They did not win their case, despite an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (which the court refused to hear).

Still, they did not hesitate to make a video for Yes On 8 (used later by Stand for Marriage Maine) in which they say that their second-grader was too young “to learn about homosexuality.”

I’ve been thinking of the video because the defense in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Prop 8 trial played it for the court last week. They were attempting to get Yale professor George Chauncey to admit that parents should be able to exempt their children from learning in school about same-sex marriage. Chauncey, to his credit, stated that married same-sex couples are a fact of life in Massachusetts. If parents don’t want their kids to hear about that in public school, he said, they should put them in private school.

How, then, could I possibly agree with Robin Wirthlin?

Where we concur is in her assertion, “We just wanted [our children] to have a carefree and protected childhood.” That is a goal I, too, support for my son.

I strongly disagree with Wirthlin, however, about the type of things we think will do our children harm. Protecting them, as I see it, does not mean insulating them from the reality of other loving families in their communities. It does not mean harming other children in the process.

The harm to children is not from learning about gay people. It is from being told their families are second class, undeserving of the same rights as others. It is learning that marriage is not a matter of lasting commitment, but can be obliterated by something as simple as crossing a state line. It is feeling outcast because one wants to ask a person of the same gender to the high school dance, being harassed on the playground for not having a father, or beaten up in the boys’ locker room for wearing a too-feminine shirt.

During the Prop 8 hearings, Chauncey drew parallels between Wirthlins’ video and Anita Bryant’s “Save the Children” campaign in the 1970’s, in which the singer tried to show that gay people are child molesters and that gay-inclusive anti-discrimination laws would incent children to be gay. The campaign against marriage equality is part of this longer history of bias, Chauncey said.

Much of the struggle for lesbian and gay rights, therefore, can be seen as a struggle to show that there is nothing about gay men or lesbians that is of harm to children. The plaintiffs and the defense in the Prop 8 case have each lined up a slew of child psychology experts (or supposed experts) and research to back their side’s view. Not surprisingly, many of the witnesses and exhibits are the same ones used in the 2008 Florida case that considered whether gay men and lesbians should be allowed to adopt.

What the supporters of Prop 8 ignore, though, is that children will learn about gay people regardless of the curriculum or the legal status of our relationships. Unless we have our children taken from us by force, gay men and lesbians will continue to be parents. Our children will continue to be in schools, sitting next to theirs.

And that interaction can create unexpected bonds.

My son has two close friends who are Catholic. Their families are observant enough to send them to weekly religious education classes. The Catholic Church, however, ranks right up there with the Mormon Church as one of the religious institutions most opposed to LGBT rights.

The friends’ parents are, however, unphased about their children knowing that our son has two moms. They think nothing about sending their children to our house for playdates. We have formed a personal connection through our children that transcends what the Church as an institution may preach.

I know from speaking with other LGBT parents that I am not alone in this. While our rights are being debated on the public stage, it is the personal connections more than the political contests that give me hope.

It is painful to watch the defense in the Prop 8 case wielding misinformation about lesbian and gay parents. Regardless of the outcome of this case, though, I have to believe that more parents are realizing it is important to nurture their children’s friendships, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity of the friends’ parents. It is important to give children the understanding to interact with people from many different backgrounds.

Strong friendships and social flexibility. Those tools are protection against a variety of ills, and in the end more effective than keeping children tightly shielded from the world around them. Those are also the tools that will allow our children to finish the job we have begun, of building a better future for us all.

Progress may be slow, but we are creating change, one playdate at a time.

[Update: It seems the video's owner has made it private. I'm not going to try and find another copy; if he wants privacy, I'll respect that.]

(Via Truth Wins Out.)

• The ACLU and and Mississippi Safe Schools Coalition are advocating on behalf of a Mississippi high school student who wants to go to the prom with her girlfriend. School officials have said she may not arrive with her girlfriend or wear a tux, and must leave if other students become “uncomfortable.”
• A Catholic preschool in Boulder, Colorado has told a lesbian couple their child cannot return to the school next year because their sexual orientation is against Catholic teaching and school policy.
• The Washington State senate passed an LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying bill. It now goes to Gov. Christine Gregoire, who has said she will sign it.

Custody Cases

• Detroit’s Between the Lines has a lengthy and worthwhile piece on a custody case in which a biological mother is refusing to let her ex-partner see the three children the two of them had been raising together. Michigan does not allow second-parent adoptions. Nancy Polikoff has more on the case, and astutely notes: “We need courts to rule on the parent-child relationships created in a family, not on the perception that a ruling to preserve an existing parent-child relationship is a vote for same-sex marriage.”
• The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) announced the resolution of a custody dispute between a biological and a non-biological mom in California. (I’ve posted before about this case, in which the bio mom is now in a relationship with the women’s known sperm donor.) Under the settlement, both women are recognized as legal parents of their twins.

Politics and Law

• Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) plans this week to reintroduce the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, which would prohibit discrimination against LGBT people seeking to adopt children.
• Arizona state Rep. Warde Nichols says there’s no anti-gay agenda behind his bill giving preference to married couples in matters of adoption. Arizona Republic writer E.J. Montini is dubious.
• David Cameron, leader of the U.K.’s Conservative party, said that if his party gains power, it would extend maternity and paternity leave to same-sex couples in civil partnerships who adopt children or use assisted insemination. He also apologized for his party’s support of Section 28, a ban on the “promotion of homosexuality” by public authorities. (Side note: Section 28 had been enacted shortly before I went to live in the U.K. in 1988. It was my first real introduction to bias against gay people. Still, it’s about time the Tories are apologizing. I’m still not sure they’ve said “sorry” for Margaret Thatcher, though.)

That’s the question my spouse Helen asked over at her blog. I’ll let you pop over there for her thoughts on the subject.

Engaged volunteers needed!

I am looking for volunteers for a study of attitudes towards marriage and parenthood among engaged couples. The study consists of a 25-30 minute online survey. To qualify for the study, you must be 20-35 years old, live in the U.S., and plan to marry or have a commitment ceremony within the next 365 days. You and your romantic partner must not have children, and this must be the first marriage for both of you.

You can:

• Help a doctoral candidate;
• Increase the pool of scientific knowledge;
• Support research on marriage and families; and
• Spend some time thinking about your relationship!

I am working with Dr. Charlotte J. Patterson, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia. This study has been approved by the University of Virginia Institutional Review Board #2009025800.

If you and/or your romantic partner are interested in participating or want further information, please email me at survey.couples@gmail.com. I will send you a link that you can use to access the study.

Thanks!

Cristina Reitz-Krueger
Doctoral Student
University of Virginia
(434) 243-8558
survey.couples@gmail.com

Human Rights Watch, a nongovernmental human rights group, is interviewing parents (including LGBT parents) about their experiences with paid and unpaid maternity and paternity leave, and the impact on their families. The interviews will be used for a report (using pseudonyms, not actual names of interviewees) and, depending on the findings, for making recommendations on US law and policy.

Paid parental leave is considered a human right under several international treaties (not ratified by the US), and 177 countries now have laws guaranteeing paid parental leave. Only a few, including the United States, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Australia, do not have national laws on paid parental leave. Australia is about to fall out of these ranks by offering 18 paid weeks starting in 2011.

In the United States, the national Family and Medical Leave Act requires only unpaid leave. Only two states (California and New Jersey) currently offer paid parental leave, and a handful of others offer temporary disability insurance to mothers after childbirth. States that do offer such paid leave generally fund their programs through small payroll deductions, minimizing the impact on any particular business.

For the most part, it is up to employers to decide whether to offer this benefit. Some people are fortunate to work for generous employers, but the majority of US workers do not have paid parental leave benefits.

The lack of legally required paid parental leave with job protections hits low-income families the hardest. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2008, only 9 percent of civilian US workers had paid family (including parental) leave, and among the lowest-income workers, only 3 percent had such leave.

Research shows that paid parental leave can reduce infant mortality, improve immunization rates and health outcomes for mothers and babies, increase fathers’ participation in child care, improve breastfeeding initiation and duration, strengthen women’s connection to the workplace, avoid family poverty spells, and reduce businesses’ recruitment and training costs. Studies in the US have shown negative health and economic implications of the minimal paid parental leave benefits in this country.

Please post a comment about your experience!

When you gave birth or adopted your kids, did you take parental leave? Was it with or without pay? How long was your leave? How did this affect breastfeeding? Your health? Your baby’s health and access to immunizations? Your family’s finances? How did this affect your work and career? How else did the lack of paid parental leave affect you and your family? Do you know other parents who have had little or no paid parental leave?

And contact Janet Walsh at Human Rights Watch (walshj@hrw.org) if you are willing to share your experience in a short interview.

To learn more about Human Rights Watch, visit www.hrw.org.

In the current case, Dauphin County Senior Judge Joseph F. Kleinfelter had ignored the recommendation of a neutral social worker who proposed either a shared custody arrangement or primary custody going to the mother. Judge Kleinfelter, however, awarded primary custody to the father because the mother  was now involved with another woman.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports his original bias:

He concluded that “when weighing [daughter's] best interests between the two households, we believe those interests are better served by placing her in a traditional heterosexual environment.”

Judge Kleinfelter said he awarded primary custody to the father based on his personal experience as a judge, parent, grandparent and foster parent.

The Superior Court, reports the Post-Gazette, found he, “abused his discretion by both ignoring the recommendations of the social worker and by basing his decision on his personal opinion.” (Remind me again why anti-LGBT people always criticize pro-LGBT people for having “activist judges”?) The Superior Court awarded shared custody to both parents.

(Thanks, Sue!)

• A Vermont family court judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Lisa Miller, an “ex-lesbian” who disappeared with the girl who is legally the child of her and her former civil union partner, Janet Jenkins.
• A bit of good news to follow up on a case I posted about last June, when a California Court of Appeal denied the appeal of Kristina S., a biological, “ex-lesbian” mom (are you sensing a pattern here?) who has been trying since 2004 to prevent her former partner Charisma R. from being declared a legal parent to the child they planned and began to raise together. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case. Charisma was represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights; Kristina by the conservative Liberty Counsel. Nancy Polikoff explains that while the SCOTUS refusal sets no precedent, the California opinion in the case helps “protect a person designated as a parent under state law” and the SCOTUS denial “can’t help but add the tiniest bit of ‘oomph’ to any citation of the case in other states.”
• The Arizona House advanced a bill to give preference in adoption cases to legally married couples. The Arizona Republic reports, “Unmarried adults could still be considered for adoption when they are related to or already have a relationship with the child, or if there is not a married couple available. The best interests of the child would remain the determining factor in choosing adoptive parents.” That’s all well and good, but still . . . . Equality Arizona has launched an online petition through which Arizonans can contact their legislators and ask them to oppose the bill.
• Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell “almost certainly” will appeal last week’s federal appeals court ruling that ordered the state to issue an amended birth certificate listing two gay New York men as parents of a child born in Shreveport whom they adopted.

Entertainment

• The cast of Glee, which includes out actor Jane Lynch as well as several gay characters, has been invited to perform at the White House Egg Roll in April. Last year, the Obama administration reached out directly to LGBT families, encouraging them to attend the Egg Roll. Nice, but what about equality under the law, as I’ve said before (and as Dorothy Snarker rightly points out again)?
• Not exactly parenting news, but because those of us with children of a certain age are likely to have video games in the house—and sometimes play them ourselves—it’s worth noting that LesbianGamers.com has relaunched with a new look and all of the reviews, commentary, and other good stuff they’ve become known for.

One solution, from educational psychology researchers at Purdue University, is to teach science in kindergarten by integrating it with language teaching. Bravo—that’s the kind of integrated instruction I’ve written about before. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act focused on reading and math to the detriment of other subjects, but there’s no reason one can’t learn to read and write by reading and writing about science, or history, or social studies. It really took a major university study to figure this out?

The article does, however, make the excellent point that: “The goal of science education at the earliest levels should be to encourage and refine children’s innate love of exploring the world around them and to help that enthusiastic behavior grow into true scientific literacy.”

I should add that I’m not one to value scientific education over that of history, literature, or the arts.  I’m a big believer in the full range of the liberal arts as the basis of an education. Since scientific literacy is a part of that, however, I’m all for it.

The article is worth a read if you’re an educator or have young children.