Oyez! Oyez! The Supreme Court, evidence, and "family values."

Driving home from work today, I listened to All Things Considered on WBEZ and caught the story on the project to archive all the audio files from the Supreme Court decisions since 1955. My ears perked up when I heard the evidence presented in Loving vs. Virginia where the prosecutor for the State of Virginia that cited the difficulties interracial couples and their families experienced. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court determined that distinctions based on race were "odious to a free people" and essentially, the state of Virginia didn't have a leg to stand on in its racist policies. 

Since that unanimous decision in 1966, interracial marriage has been legal in all 50 states and despite the complaints of the State of Virginia, interracial families have thrived. Yes, the children sometimes experience racism, but that's a factor of the "family values" of others, not those of their family of origin.

In my previous posts of support of marriage equality, I have heard numerous complaints, but they basically boil down to the following three arguments: 1, the US was founded on Christian values; 2, Civil Unions give same-sex couples equal rights; and 3, the families/children of same-sex couples will suffer. Let me go point-by-point through these arguments citing legal and scientific evidence from the most respected research bodies on the topics of the well-being of the children of same-sex unions.

1. My beloved journalism advisor from high school recently posted the first amendment to the Constitution as her profile picture: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Our Founding Fathers declared there was not to be a State religion. Even though some of them held Christian values, they were not to be the guiding principle of our government. Freedom of religion is, however, a guiding principle. That spectrum includes Christians (and their many different affinities), Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Universal Unitarians, Atheists, and everyone in between. The Supreme Court has upheld the separation of Church and State. Repeatedly. For this reason, no religious beliefs can be the basis of civil law. Period.

2. I've heard repeatedly that if Civil Unions don't provide equal protection to marriage, then "they" need to change the laws regarding Civil Unions. Here I cite Brown versus the Board of Education. Separate does not equal "Equal." According to Justice Roberts, there are over 1,000 federal statutes pertaining to benefits stemming from marriage. So, at the federal level, Civil Unions do not equal Marriage, as discussed in the United States versus Windsor. This harkens, to me, the Brown versus the Board of Education decision. Separate does not equal equal.

3. In listening to the oral arguments from Loving vs. Virginia, I heard so many parallels with the current arguments that the children of same-sex unions, whether through adoption, fostering, surrogate, etc. will suffer. Perhaps the policy statements from the American Psychological Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics aren't sufficient? Both organizations, through their own research and research of over 40 additional sources, state that the families of same-sex couples fare as well as those of heterosexual couples. These aren't some fringe organizations, they're the premier organizations for Psychology and Pediatricians in the United States.

All that said, what do "family values" mean to this blogger, as I obviously don't support the bigotry inferred by the "family values" of the Republican party:

• Family comes first, period.
• Support your children in their paths to become themselves
• Dinner is a family gathering at the dinner table where everyone eats together and discusses their days
• You enter marriage believing it is forever
• Attend church and baptize your children into a community. For me, as an anthropologist, it doesn't need to be a Christian ceremony, just some rite of passage whereby a child is accepted by a community
• Assist your family in their spiritual, educational, and physical growth
• Love is unconditional
• Live within your means
• Save for your and your childrens' future

Are these so out-of-line with the Republican agenda? I get mad when a political arty claims an idea so broad as "family values" or "patriotism." I consider my liberal self to be both patriotic and a fount of family values. Yet I wave that liberal flag.