I received the following press release and thought I would share.
VIRGINIA’S PEDIATRICIANS SAY “MARRIAGE AMENDMENT” WOULD HARM CHILDREN
The “Marriage Amendment” will be harmful to Virginia’s children, said Dr. Colleen Kraft, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Virginia Chapter today. “The Virginia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics is asking Virginians to critically evaluate the consequences of the Marriage Amendment on the rights of children in our Commonwealth. This Amendment clearly, albeit unintentionally, divides children’s rights based on the marital status of their parents.”
Dr. Kraft announced the Virginia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics has approved the following statement:
“The American Academy of Pediatrics, Virginia Chapter, firmly believes that the family is the principal caregiver and center of strength and support for children.
Children do not choose their parents or their families.
Many children in Virginia have been and will continue to be raised in nontraditional families, regardless of laws prohibiting or recognizing these families. The issue at stake is whether these children will benefit from being raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections that are considered crucial to all other parents.
Children in nontraditional families often experience economic and legal insecurity as a result of the absence of legal recognition of their relationship to nonbiological parents.
By approving a marriage amendment to the Virginia constitution, legal recognition of nontraditional families will be denied and children will risk:
- losing legal recognition of their relationship to both of their parents
- losing health insurance and other benefits from their parents
- losing the right to have both parents present for their care and comfort in hospitals and other medical settings
- losing the protection that comes from both parents’ ability to be involved in medical and educational decisions
- losing their ability to travel with a nonadoptive parent
- losing the right to stay with their surviving parent and if their other parent dies
- losing inheritance rights and benefits from a deceased parent
Discriminatory practices against these children are based on the assumption that their parents are different from other parents in ways that are detrimental to their well-being.
For the sake of children, it is important that all Virginians support the important link between the health and well-being of all children, the support and encouragement of all parents, and the protection of strong family relationships.
The Virginia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics urges all Virginians to vote “NO” on Amendment #1.
Beverley Bayes, M.D., FAAP, a pediatrician in Northern Virginia, comments, “Twenty five years of research has shown that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial and behavioral adjustment. Restrictions on the civil rights of children in non-traditional families, such as not allowing visitation in a hospital ICU by the non-adoptive parent, or the right to remain with the surviving mother or father in the case of death can result in devastating loss and incredible anguish for these children.”
The data supporting this statement can be found in an article published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in the July 2006 issue of PEDIATRICS, “The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-Being of Children”. This article concludes that “Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.”
The Virginia Chapter of the Academy has distributed a one-page summary of the harmful impact of the amendments to all pediatricians in Virginia and has encouraged them to discuss the amendment with the parents of their patients.
Senator Janet Howell (32nd District), the American Academy’s National 2006 Child Advocate of the Year, urged all Virginians to vote against the amendment. “The so-called ‘Marriage Amendment’ is really an Anti-Child Amendment. Until today, the impact on children has been overlooked. All Virginia’s children deserve legal protections. No child should suffer because a poorly worded constitutional amendment takes away their rights and protections. Virginians are kind and want to help all children. For the sake of children, please vote “NO” on November 7.”
Technorati Tags: Virginia Marriage Amendment, Marshall Newman Amendment
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Thanks for the post, Vivian. I had never thought about it in this context. Very informative addition to the debate.
First of all, do lawyers make such pronouncements about medicine?
Let’s look at these claims one-by-one:
– losing legal recognition of their relationship to both of their parents
They don’t have it now, anyway. Furthermore, this in itself is meaningless. It is the following statements that derive from this that may be important.
– losing health insurance and other benefits from their parents
Only one parent is required to insure the child. I know of no couples who pay for double medical coverage, because the companies reduce benefits if there is other insurance.
– losing the right to have both parents present for their care and comfort in hospitals and other medical settings
A parent can grant anyone such access — spouse, uncle, grandparent, godparent, inlaw, or outlaw.
– losing the protection that comes from both parents’ ability to be involved in medical and educational decisions
This is only a problem if the parents disagree. In which case, is it not better that there be only one with final authority?
– losing their ability to travel with a nonadoptive parent
Again, such ability may be granted by the parent. In fact, children can fly alone, anyway.
– losing the right to stay with their surviving parent and if their other parent dies
That’s what wills are for. If my wife and I die, our will says the kids go to my sons’ godparents, and there is nothing my mom or sister can do about it.
– losing inheritance rights and benefits from a deceased parent
Again, that’s what wills are for.
Perhaps the good doctors should stick to medicine.
What a total load of crap. Surely these doctors can’t believe that our citizens are stupid enough to believe this.
Please see the excellent post above.
Ingrid – thanks for your comments.
Jack – I disagree with just about everything you have posted. I don’t have a clue what you do for a living but your arguments just fly in the face of reason. I really suggest you look at the legal memo which points out why your arguments make no sense.
And Jane – do you really think these doctors would put themselves out like this if they didn’t believe what they are saying to be true?
Bottom line is EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion as to why they support or oppose this amendment. Denigrating your opponents only shows small mindedness, not depth. Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable.
There is another moral issue involving children that I’ve not seen addressed by the proponents of this amendment, or by those who are fighting what they say is a “gay agenda”. There are far more orphaned children in the world than there are adopting parents. It is normal for a heterosexual couple to want to procreate and to have children that continue their own ancestral gene line. However, do they make a moral choice when they make the decision of having natural children in lieu of adopting an already parentless child, a child that will now never have the opportunity of loving parents?
And more to the point, how moral it to prevent homosexual parents, who are even more strictly screened than heterosexual parents, from adopting, and also preventing a child from ever having the opportunity of growing up in a loving and caring family?
As was brought out in the article, homosexual parenting has not been shown to be deficient compared to heterosexual parenting. The National Association of Social Workers — it is the largest social work association in the world, with 153,000 members and chapters in every state as well as internationally — has concluded:
“All the social science research on same-sex parenting has reached the same, unequivocal conclusion: lesbian and gay couples raise children who are as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples. Based on all the measures by which child development is analyzed, there is no meaningful distinction between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by opposite-sex couples. Indeed, there are no scientifically valid social science studies establishing that children raised by an intact same-sex couple are any differently adjusted as compared with those raised by an intact opposite-sex couple.”
If there is a moral issue here, I think it is the exploitation of societal ignorance about homosexuality, by Republicans to energize evangelical Christians to go out and vote Republican. This has been well documented in 20 states where this marriage amendment has been put to voters, and now is being hypocritically used in Virginia. We’ve had a long history of the devil masquerading as a preacher man – it’s time for Virginians to recognize the difference between fact based and fear based legislation.
Excellent points, Bill.
~
And V., commendable restraint.
” losing the right to stay with their surviving parent and if their other parent dies
That’s what wills are for. If my wife and I die, our will says the kids go to my sons’ godparents, and there is nothing my mom or sister can do about it.”
Think again Jack. There is A LOT your mom & sister can do about it. Just think for a second about the craziness that goes on over mere MONEY & wills. That’s just a drop in the bucket compared to the damage that can be done to children “left” in a will.
Those are good points Bill. My only problem with same sex parents is that they tend to raise their kids as liberlas, and I think that is cruel 🙂 What that means is that we need to work harder on the image that conservatives have.
Everyone assumes that Conservatives and Republicans are anti-gay, and that is not true. I am a conservative, I am a registered Republican, I am not anti-gay. Just wish more people knew that Conservatives are not bad people 🙂
Squeak – you aren’t a registered anything – since we don’t register by party in VA 🙂 – but I understand your point. And it is one that I have used in every speech I have given about the amendment. (I’ve been making the rounds on this – from the Eastern Shore to Suffolk. I did one this morning in Virginia Beach.) This is not a partisan issue.
The so-called “social conservatives” have indeed given the terms “conservative” and “Republican” a bad name, kinda like the KKK has given the Confederate flag a bad name. Conservatives – true conservatives – are mostly in agreement that this amendment is a very bad idea.
And as for the children raised by gay parents – well, don’t forget that some of those parents are Log Cabin Republicans 🙂 And I think that’s cruel 😆
This is why Vivian’s blog is one of my favorites and a MUST read for everyone!
Vivian continues to show that it is possible to disagree, and not be disagreeable and when their is common ground, shine a light on it!
Some OTHER people could learn a thing or two from Vivian (cough, Eileen, cough)
Yes, I believe that liberal pediatricians would pretend to be attorneys and lie to people. Their arguments are crude, written to scare the masses, and patently absurd.
I am NOT anti-gay anymore than I am anti-black, or anti-poor, or anti-stupid, or anti-anyone else. But I do think that traditional marriage is the best way to raise children. Marriage has been under attack since the liberals decided in the 1960’s that single parents could do just as good a job as 2 parents. We all know the results of that liberal experiment. It failed children on every level, failed society on every level too. Unless someone can prove to me that this latest liberal experiment, gay marriage, will benefit society and benefit children, then I’m not willing to back to another liberal experiment. Their track record has been dismal, harmful to children and society.
Jane,
ANYTIME two people come together and accept the responsibility to raise children in a loving and caring environment then it benefits society and the children. You bounce from single liberal parent to gay marriage in one single leap and trash both. I personally know two gay couples who have adopted mental,physically handicapped, or HIV positive children. These were children that your conservatives in traditional marriages weren’t interested in adopting… The children are well cared for and reside in a loving and caring environment. The only difference is that their parents are of the same sex. The children are happy and the parents are happy. If this is a liberal experiment, then these two appear to be a success story. I’m proud to have these two couples as friends and professional associates! And nowhere have I ever heard of most pediatricians being in the liberal camp or masquerading as lawyers. I’m interested to know what supporting evidence you use to back up these statements. BTW what is the difference between a child being raised by a single non-married Mom and one coming from a opposite sex divorced couple with a dead-beat Dad? Only difference is the later is a product of a traditional marriage…
No, Jane, we don’t “all know” any such thing. What some of us do know is that some bigots just aren’t reachable, and all we can do is try to limit the damage of their ignorance.
Jane Oldham — Where in the world do you come up with such notions? Child raising is related to the quality of parenting, not the sexual orientation of the parents. And it is a conservative concept that two adults in a loving, caring committed relationship be supported by those around them — versus indiscriminate, uncaring connections, promiscuity, and living alone and uncared for.
Shouldn’t we celebrate love and commitment? Shouldn’t we want the best for all the orphaned and unwanted children in the world? Sometimes I find little Christian in so-called Christians.
Olivia — can you show me ANY VIrginia in which Children were left to a competent guardian by a legal will, and the family successfully challenged it?
Vivian — I have disected the legal memo on another blog (http://www.equalityloudoun.org/?p=378). The ludicrous document even discusses a class of person, a federal tax dependent who is also a “domestic partner,” which DOES NOT LEGALLY EXIST!! If you would like to start a threat on this memo, I would be happy to dismatle it here, too.