Recalculating: Steve Chapman on a New Century. Steve Chapman
victory in our history.
Well, we thought that was a profound trauma. Viewed through the haze cast by certain events that took place one morning in September, the case of Bush vs. Gore now looks like a petty squabble of unprincipled partisans, not the momentous struggle between good and evil that advocates on either side claimed at the time. Today, if you asked people for a personal embodiment of evil, not many Americans would name George W. Bush or Al Gore. And I doubt one in 50 could identify David Boies, who last December was famous — really — as Gore’s attorney.
Living through a horror is not really something to be recommended. Legend has it that after former Treasury Secretary John Connally and his wife had to declare bankruptcy back in 1987, a friend assured Nellie that the experience would make her a better, stronger person. “I didn’t want to be better or stronger,” she replied. Champions of collective discipline think the war on terrorism will firm up our national character. But there was really nothing wrong with our national character, as our determined response to Sept. 11 makes clear.
Still, finding ourselves suddenly at war had the same useful effects that a brush with death can have: illuminating truths that were not apparent before, and sharpening our sense of what is important. The government has been forcefully reminded that of all the countless responsibilities it has assumed in recent decades, none can match the gravity of its first duty: protecting its citizens from foreign enemies. Next to that, providing a Medicare prescription drug benefit — one of the main issues of that long-ago 2000 presidential campaign — seems to fall short of being absolutely essential.
Our leaders in Washington have also learned that when war is truly necessary, Americans will support it with almost universal fervor and resolve. A handful of left-wing critics, it’s true, did us the favor of proving that they are incapable of speaking up for their country even when it is under attack. Many commentators expected that ordinary people would likewise turn against our action in Afghanistan if things didn’t go well, something that had happened in previous conflicts.
But this war was fundamentally different from every war Americans have been asked to support over the last half-century. We didn’t embark on it because someone said it was needed to deter communist aggression, or preserve our credibility abroad, or prevent dominoes from falling, or shore up NATO, or avert a humanitarian crisis in one place, or enhance stability in another. We embarked on it because someone killed thousands of our fellow citizens and had every intention of killing more.
Osama bin Laden no doubt learned a lot as well from the aftermath of the attacks. He saw us leave Lebanon and Somalia when we suffered some casualties. He watched us respond ineffectually when terrorists attacked American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, an American military installation in Saudi Arabia, and an American destroyer in Yemen. So he thought he could carry out horrendous massacres on U.S. soil and pay no price.
That turned out to be the biggest miscalculation since Sen. James Chesnut of South Carolina, ridiculing the notion that the North would fight to preserve the Union, offered to drink all the blood that would be shed over secession. Like Chesnut, bin Laden has discovered that though Americans are a peaceable folk, their forbearance has limits.
At the same time, Americans have refused to let their fear override their principles. Free speech is alive and well. Though dissenters may be disregarded, they haven’t been persecuted. Civil liberties advocates are justified in asking why the government has detained hundreds of non-citizens without showing they pose a danger. But compared to what happened in past wars, that’s a small matter. The gross overreactions that some people feared haven’t emerged.
The most striking fact about our response to this crisis is not how badly suspect groups (such as Muslims, Arabs and other dusky-complexioned individuals) have fared but how well. One poll found that American attitudes about Muslims improved after the attacks. In March, 45
percent of those surveyed expressed a positive view of Muslims. By November, 59 percent had a favorable opinion of them.
Not long ago, Muslims and other Americans wondered if normality could survive the Sept. 11 attacks. Today, it certainly looks that way.
Gay adoption: In a child’s best interest
A law allowing gay parents to adopt children is not “depriving” children of the benefits of a mom and dad if they don’t have them to begin with
Sunday, February 10, 2002
When the American Academy of Pediatrics published a new policy statement in favor of letting gays and lesbians adopt children, it drew the expected response from hard-line conservatives who, upon hearing the word “homosexual,” have the urge to run screaming from the room.
“There is an abundance of research that children do best when raised by a mother and a father who are committed to one another in marriage,” asserted Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council. “To support a policy that would intentionally deprive a child of such benefits is unconscionable.” Sandy Rios, head of Concerned Women for America, said, “As the single mother of a son, I can see quite clearly that having a mother and a father together would be far better for my son.”
This reaction was an exercise in missing the point. Maybe a child living with his biological mother and her lesbian partner would be better off living with a heterosexual married couple. Maybe he would be better off living with the queen of England.
But the fact is, the child is not living with a heterosexual married couple. A law allowing custodial gay parents to adopt their children is not “depriving” a child of the benefits of a mother and father if the child doesn’t have them to begin with. A woman or man may be widowed after having a child and later move in with someone of the same sex. Or a woman may choose to bear a child on her own and then enter a long-term lesbian relationship. Or two women may decide together that one should be artificially inseminated to conceive a baby that they will raise together. None of these arrangements is illegal or uncommon. In any of them, the result is a child being brought up by a same-sex couple.
Though it may distress some conservatives to hear it, there is nothing to prevent homosexuals from falling in love and setting up housekeeping. We are pretty much past the stage of persecuting people for their sexual orientation. And if gays and lesbians are allowed to have stable homosexual relationships, some of those are bound to involve children.
Estimates are that anywhere from 1 million to 9 million children have at least one homosexual parent, and many of these live with same-sex couples. The pediatric group’s statement acknowledges that the evidence on how these children fare is based on “small and nonrepresentative samples,” but says the available information suggests “there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents” and no “risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents.”
Experts may argue about the data, but it’s irrelevant to the issue addressed by the academy: whether the law should allow “second-parent” adoption by one member of a gay couple. Some states ban such adoptions, and many others leave the matter to the whim of judges. Such adoptions are clearly sanctioned in only seven states (including Illinois).
But many children are already living with same-sex couples — most often, a biological parent and his or her partner. No one, even at the FRC and CWA, is proposing that these kids be removed from these homes and placed with the Osmond family. Like it or not, they will be raised by gays.
The question is how to protect the kids in these homes. What the critics insist on ignoring is that the debate is not about the rights of homosexuals. It’s about the welfare of children.
Children gain nothing from laws that prevent adoption by second parents. Just the opposite. If Heather has two mommies but Mommy No. 2 can’t adopt her, she’s worse off than a child with two legally recognized parents.
As the Human Rights Campaign Foundation notes, if she gets sick, Mommy No. 2’s health insurance policy may not cover her. If her second mother dies, she won’t be eligible for Social Security survivor benefits, as other children are, and she may inherit nothing. If her biological mother