October 18, 2009 in Opinion

Cute kids, repulsive politics

• Print
• Email
• Share

While heading into work on Friday, I saw a small group on the corner of Second Avenue and Lincoln Street waving signs in opposition to Referendum 71, which would give voter approval to the “everything but marriage” law that was adopted by the Legislature last spring. The law grants to registered same-sex couples the same rights and benefits accorded married couples under state statutes.

Normally, I wouldn’t mind such a political display, but among those holding “Protect Children” placards were children themselves. Do you suppose the kids independently researched the topic before deciding they’d be imperiled if discrimination against same-sex couples were brought to an end? More likely, adults shoved the signs into their hands for emotional appeal. Must be that indoctrination I’ve been hearing about.

The use of children in politics has always bugged me, whether it’s the serene family photos on glossy brochures or those oh-so-cute appearances at political rallies. Then there’s the positioning of children near the lectern to dissuade questions about why politicians were sleeping around. But the anti-Referendum 71 example strikes me as particularly odious, because the signs make it seem like the issue is about child predators and one side is all for them.

The logical leap is that a household with a man and a woman is better for child-rearing. There is no firm empirical evidence of this, but even if there were, there are many socioeconomic factors that determine outcomes for children. Divorce and single parenthood matter. So do income, educational level and the age at which people marry.

So where are the campaigns to prohibit marriage (and the rights that go with it) for those who have low incomes or are under 25 years old or don’t have college degrees? Where are the signs protesting the impending marriages of those who tried it before and failed? There aren’t any, and I wonder why. Isn’t this about the kids?

Mixed message. Speaking of protecting children, a justice of the peace in Hammond, La., is making headlines for refusing to sign a marriage license because the couple is biracial. That’s right, Keith Barnwell turned away the couple because of his concern for their yet-to-be-born children. For one thing, he says, mixed-race couples are more apt to get divorced.

Barnwell says he’s not racist, because he has officiated at many marriages involving African-American men and women. But why would he do that when those couples have an above-average divorce rate? Don’t those kids matter?

Maybe we need to pass a law that prohibits adults from using children as an excuse for their bigotry.

You don’t say. It’s interesting how many arguments against gay marriage were first used to defend state laws that barred mixed-race nuptials. Here’s one:

“We aren’t bigoted,” said the backers of anti-miscegenation laws. “We just worry, what will happen to the children? They’ll be taunted and teased.”

It’s like telling a shoe salesman that size matters. Minorities don’t need a heads-up on the possibilities of bigotry. Neither do gays and lesbians. It’s a truth that’s self-evident.

Follow the balloon. A nation is transfixed. What is it? What keeps it aloft? How high will it go? What if it crashes? What if there’s too much inflation or sudden deflation? What if rescuers can’t get there in time? What if there’s no way to bail out? Who built it? Who approved it? Who could think it would ever be safe?

But enough about the economy, how about that balloon boy?

Smart Bombs is written by Associate Editor Gary Crooks and appears Wednesdays and Sundays on the Opinion page. Crooks can be reached at garyc@spokesman.com or at (509) 459-5026.

Three comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on October 18 at 9:20 a.m.

  A personal experience:

  When I was gettting ready to marry my first wife Karen, who was a Japanese woman from Hawaii in 1966, I was “given a talk” by my dear aunt and uncle who were Roman Catholic.. (not catholic at all) and their advice to me was…J Don’t marry her.. it is breaking your parents heart… and “What about the Children”… well we did marry, and the earth did not grind to a halt, although at the time there were still 14 States (yes the same states we worry about now) that our marriage was not considered legal.. that was to come 2 years later with the Supreme Court decision with the Love family having their marriage confirmed by the highest court in the land.

  My observation is that some of the most talented and beautiful children in the world are “racial” mix… from Tiger Woods, to our Current President… so ??Pregunta?? what about the childrent…. Indeed, give us more of gifted lovely people that are the result of “mixed marriages” where children are wanted and loved and revered, and not seen as a religious responsibilty to produce… ( and then abuse as you observed). Dr John Olsen Spokane

• 

  Bob_Knows on October 18 at 7:00 p.m.

  Yes, Referendum 71 is very repulsive politics.

  As a society we should be affirming and strengthening marriage instead of doing everything our corrupt politicians can think of to finally destroy marriage and families.

• 

  ChefGus/ John Olsen on October 24 at 8:52 a.m.

  i observed multiple women standing on the corner of second and maple coming across town yesterday and the day before in the fading light of evening… all dressed in the same manner.. high end coats and boots and well coiffed …. clear example of the “special status” that their families can afford for their upkeep… looked sort of like a gaggle of stepford wives in my opinion.. pretty much afraid of and not embracing of any diversity …. john