March 23, 2015 8:10 AM

Ungrateful, judgmental, mean-spirited...and built to stay that way

A South Carolina woman’s new essay about being raised by her lesbian mom contains a surprising revelation: she opposes marriage equality…. “Gay community, I am your daughter. My mom raised me with her same-sex partner back in the ’80s and ’90s,” writes Heather Barwick, a 31-year-old mother of four, in The Federalist. “I’m writing to you because I’m letting myself out of the closet: I don’t support gay marriage. But it might not be for the reasons that you think. It’s not because you’re gay. I love you, so much. It’s because of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself.”…. “Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not,” she writes. “A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.”

It’s distressing enough that someone would make a case for opposing same-sex marriage as if she has the right to determine what is an appropriate relationship for other. It’s even worse when a woman turns her back on the two women who raised her, cared for her, and protected her. That’s about as disingenuous as it gets.

I wouldn’t think it appropriate to deny Barwick the right to live as she chooses; that’s her right in a free society. She can live and love as she deems appropriate for her…yet she would deny those who loved her, who raised her to adulthood, and who choose to live and love differently the same rights and benefits she enjoys because she’s heterosexual.

Barwick’s argument is that same-sex marriage, in her case two women, robbed her of having a father figure in her life, an absence she says she felt acutely. While I sympathize with her situation, conflating her experience into a justification for continuing to repress those who love differently is quite simply wrong. Her experience is exactly that, not a valid basis for denying equal rights to same-sex couples. Her argument, while it undoubtedly makes sense to her based as it is on her own experience, is hardly sufficient justification to continue denying equal rights to same-sex couples.

That she would turn her backs on the women who gave of themselves and loved her unconditionally seems beyond hurtful and disingenuous. Then again, those who think like Barwick generally don’t care about anything but their narrow agenda. The idea that someone else’s life choices might be every bit as valid as their own never seems to enter into the picture.

I hope that Barwick’s child will spare her the pain and anguish she’s undoubtedly caused her parents. Her essay justifies the marginalization of the two people who gave of themselves and loved her, which seems as cold as it is cruel and heartless. Then again, those who oppose marriage equality generally don’t care about what imposing their views would do to others; for them, it’s all about creating a moral universe that meshes with their fears and prejudices. That a child would advocate for imposing her views on her parents, the two people in the world she should be able to count on loving her unconditionally, is pretty cold.

Barwick is, of course, free to live and believe as she sees fit. It’s sad that she can’t see her way clear to extending that consideration to others who simply want to live their lives freely and authentically.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on March 23, 2015 8:10 AM.

How Republicans show off their vocabulary was the previous entry in this blog.

"Right to work"...it doesn't mean what you think it means is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 6.0.7