So states, in oddly plain and blunt legislative language, the law of the State of Florida.   Last month, a Miami-Dade judge declared the law “unconstitutional on its face” and unrelated to the best interests of the child.  She appointed custody of [...]]]> “No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is homosexual.”

So states, in oddly plain and blunt legislative language, the law of the State of Florida.   Last month, a Miami-Dade judge declared the law “unconstitutional on its face” and unrelated to the best interests of the child.  She appointed custody of an infant (removed from home almost immediately) to a family member who is a lesbian in a committed relationship.  Florida’s Department of Child and Family Services filed its appeal last week.  The state’s argument and the spirit of the 1977 law boil down to the idea that adoptive parenting by homosexuals is so obviously harmful to children that prohibiting it is “rationally related” to a legitimate state aim.  The idea is that heterosexuals are, by definition, better parents.  This claim, wherever it asserts itself, is more than baseless and bigoted toward homosexuals.  It is tragically shortsighted and remarkably cruel to the roughly 100,000 American children (about 7% of them in Florida) waiting to be adopted out of the foster care system.

Several gay friends of mine refer to straight people as “breeders.”  And indeed, breed we do.  Heterosexuals, generally by definition, produce millions of children each year.  And a disturbing percentage of us rip our own children apart like dogs with a chew toy.  In two very different cities where I served as an ADA, I encountered fathers who sexually abused their children over years, beginning before the children were in first grade.  I saw mothers who literally starved their children to death, or pimped them out for drugs, rent or just extra cash.  I saw toddlers pressed against heating grates by one or both parents as if in a waffle iron.  I saw fathers who shook infants to blindness and epilepsy, their ribs snapping like dry twigs in the process.  In one particularly brutal shaken baby case I prosecuted in the Bronx in 2006, the mother sided with the offending father (a drug dealer) and refused to cooperate with me even while her son languished in a NICU on the edge of death.  The people who did these things came from a broad diversity of racial, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds and circumstances.  In fact, there were only two things common to every one of the most brutal physical and sexual abuse cases I worked on:

1.  The children involved, if they survived, needed new homes and new parents.

2.  The biological parents, whether perpetrators or accomplices, were all heterosexual.

I’m not claiming that homosexual parents, adoptive or biological, can’t or don’t abuse their children.  I’m just saying I’ve never seen it.  Not in nearly 15 years.  The point is not that homosexuals are perfect.  The point is that they’re human, and when they are successful, compassionate, loving and stable adults who want to improve the life of a child without a home, they should be considered as adoptive parents.

Opponents of homosexual adoption often try to point to non-religious, “objective factors” to support their arguments.  They never get far.  No reputable scientific evidence supports a single claim that homosexual parents will be less successful or even that they will somehow foster a homosexual lifestyle on the part of their children.  One of the last legislative pushes to prove that homosexuals are naturally disordered and dangerous as parents came from a particularly despicable Virginia legislator in 2004 (to my eternal shame, he represented my hometown of Sterling Park for seven years). The bill he finally got passed in the House of Delegates would have required social workers to investigate whether perspective adoptive parents were homosexual.  The rationale, that homosexuality was related to increased levels of child molestation among other things, was based largely on junk science spewed by a single discredited and religiously biased sociologist.  The bill, and the sociologist, were eventually routed in the Virginia senate, thanks in good measure to courageous Republicans who called this effort out for the rank bigotry that it was.

Although Biblical views of homosexuality (and similar non-Judeo-Christian religious tenets) are the primary force behind laws like Florida’s and efforts like Virginia’s, I won’t engage in a wholesale bashing of these religious views.  There’s enough of that going on, and bigotry against religious people is as bad as bigotry toward anyone.  To hold strict religious views is a private and sometimes difficult choice, and I know many decent Christians (among other religious) who struggle to reconcile the doctrines of their faith with their common experience as compassionate people.  I draw the line, though, when positions based solely on religious doctrine become law in a pluralistic society.  And I draw it in red when children- discarded, debased or destroyed by the supposedly “sexually healthy” people who created them, are languishing in a far too often chaotic, uncertain and flawed foster care system.

© 2010, Roger Canaff. All rights reserved.

Mr. Haggard, of course, is the disgraced mega-church pastor from Colorado who resigned in disgrace in late 2006 for trysts with a Denver male prostitute who eventually spoke out because of Haggard’s hypocrisy regarding same-sex marriage.  Haggard acknowledged his ’sin’, [...]]]> It’s called the “abuse excuse” and most people have at least a passing familiarity with it.

Mr. Haggard, of course, is the disgraced mega-church pastor from Colorado who resigned in disgrace in late 2006 for trysts with a Denver male prostitute who eventually spoke out because of Haggard’s hypocrisy regarding same-sex marriage.  Haggard acknowledged his ’sin’, but then qualified it to an Illinois church audience about two years later, explaining that sexual abuse, suffered as a child of seven, had led him, decades later, to engage in the homosexual acts that eventually led to his downfall.  His wife Gayle, a kind looking and sympathetic figure who has stayed by his side, released a book late last month and made a Today show appearance last week backing up her husband’s explanation that his homosexual behavior with Mike Jones was caused by events in his childhood that he had yet to resolve.

As I think most decent people would, I want to clarify that I’m not ranting against Gayle Haggard in any way.  Indeed, I’m happy to more or less plug her book as she has a family to support and God only knows how much debt to swim out of because of the situation her husband put her family in.  And far more importantly, I can only stand in awe of her resolve and strength in the face of what she’s dealt with for more than three years- and that’s just in public.  I feel for her terribly, and I hope she’s able to pull herself and her children through this in a way that doesn’t scar them all too deeply.  I disagree with her assessment of her husband’s issues of course, but since she’s chosen to stay 1) by his side, and 2) in-tune with evangelical views on the subject of homosexuality, I assume she has no other option than to shut down the analytical part of her possibly very sharp mind that would normally calculate what’s going on here without much difficulty.

Of course, for Ted and for Gayle, it’s convenient.  As a mega-church pastor, anything is better than admitting the truth- that Haggard is a repressed homosexual from infancy forward who may have struggled mightily with his nature but eventually gave in to his impulses even in the face of his upbringing, inferences and eventual meal-ticket.  My guess is that Haggard’s dodge here is part cynical deflection, but also part desperate Biblical justification.  A wise and loving God, according to most evangelicals I know, simply doesn’t create homosexuality.  That “condition,” viewed sometimes as a test, often as an unholy curse to be prayed over and resisted, is one that God didn’t intend for any of His creatures.  If, in the sweaty fog of adolescence, you’re a boy in a narrow bed whose heart beats and blood races at the thought of another male’s touch, you’re either doomed to the test or somehow tainted by the prince of this world.  God guarantees you a destination, but hardly an easy journey.  And so forth.  I’m not being gratuitous or anti-Christian.  I am a Christian, as I define it anyway.   My point is that, as tempting as it is for some to believe that Haggard is a godless cretin interested only in the trappings of wealth and influence that religion once delivered him, I’ve found that motivations, and the people behind them, are surprisingly gray rather than black or white.  I don’t believe the evangelical view of homosexuality, despite Scriptural references to the contrary.  I don’t think God is that cruel or that stupid.  But I don’t necessarily believe that Ted Haggard is or was a complete psychopath bent on making money and amassing influence by selling God like a hair tonic to gullible believers.  The truth, more than likely, is somewhere in the middle.

I lose patience with him because of what he’s leaning on to describe who he is.  I don’t condemn so much what he did.  Of course it was awful; a crime, albeit a minor one, and a betrayal of his family and his marriage.  But I don’t blame him for acting on innate impulse, and indeed, I am sympathetic to the mercilessly rigid religious constructs he grew up with that have driven this central part of him underground to begin with.  But when he blames these indiscretions on child sexual abuse, I draw a line.  Not only is it simply incorrect to make that connection, it also contributes to the devastation of people everywhere who are survivors of such abuse.  I’m not saying he wasn’t abused- he may very well have been and probably was.  I’m not in the business of doubting people who claim child sex abuse, as I have a working knowledge of how prevalent it is.  I’m saying that the abuse of him had zero to do with who he is and always has been.  To suggest otherwise is to demonize victims and blame an innate condition on some pathological etiology.  He doesn’t have the right to do that- not to millions of other survivors who are homosexual or straight, or to homosexuals who have emerged as they are under completely non-abusive circumstances.

Haggard is suggesting, in line with evangelical views on the subject, that his indiscretions are the product of a crime and a grave sin.  There is absolutely no psychological or otherwise scientific evidence to support this.  But Bible Christians and others who believe that homosexuality is a disability that must be either cured or endured often point to an interesting and seemingly compelling fact:  There is an unusually large percentage of homosexual males who report child sex abuse at a young age.  Yes, this is true.  I’ve seen it.  This tends to beg the question, then:  Isn’t homosexuality, at least in part, a product of child sex abuse?

Actually, no.  Increasing evidence suggests a biological/genetic component to homosexuality.  But while that’s not fully established (because many in the Christian world will beat me over the head, despite common observation, with the lack of irrefutable evidence at this point), let me give you a brief tutorial in how predators work:  Many boys (girls also) who eventually emerge as homosexual in puberty and adolescence, show signs of their sexual orientation in early years.  I want to be very careful here so as not to stereotype or categorize gay males or gay people in general, and I know this is a sensitive subject.  But the fact is, experienced predators are remarkably intuitive at picking up on characteristics that help them to choose targets.  Boys who, even at very young ages, are already wrestling with gender identity and an innate sexual orientation, are not always but often identifiable to predators looking for suitable targets.  So predators looking for male children target these particular boys for three reasons:

1.  They are, because of their emerging sexual orientation, already marginalized, isolated and often the victims of bullying and teasing.  They are often already alienated from their families.  They often feel alone and helpless, wishing for someone who might understand them.  Predators dream of opportunities like this.

2.  Predators assume, because of their perception of the boy’s apparent sexual leanings, that he’ll be more open to the exploitation and abuse (‘you know, since he’s queer anyway, he’ll probably like it,’ goes the thinking).  For predators who aren’t psychopathic and have to justify what they do, this is a handy tool.

3.  Boys suffering sex abuse will be even less likely to report the abuse than girls because of the stigma attached to homosexuality, the perceived result or cause of the abuse in the first place.  Predators love this; they have a safer bet with a scared and shamed child.

That’s it in a nutshell.  Was Ted Haggard abused by a sexual predator when he was seven?  Likely, unless he’s even more devious than even I believe.  Did it “turn him gay” or create desires within him that through some pscyho-babble explanation had to be lived out?   No.  I’ve worked with and known dozens of boys who were profoundly sexually abused by males and are confidently straight, and vice-versa.  Problem is, when a guy like Haggard hangs his own unresolved sexuality on criminal predation, he demeans the nature of boys, straight and gay, who emerge that way because of how God created them, not because of some storm they were caught in.

The vast majority of child predators claim sex abuse in their childhood also- it’s extremely useful to them in eliciting more lenient plea deals and sentences from prosecutors and judges all too willing to buy their sympathetic argument that “something awful in childhood made them do it.”   Particularly for the faithful, this is a comforting canard.  “I don’t believe in a God who would create a guy like this defendant, so I’m readily willing to accept and credit his explanation at being broken and twisted by some other poor victim in a vicious cycle of abuse.”

Problem is, that’s often bunk.  Research by psychologist and predator expert Anna Salter and others shows that, when child predators are even threatened with a polygraph on their claims of child sex abuse, self-reporting goes down dramatically.  It’s hard to swallow, folks, but the fact is no one knows where the urge to sexually harm a child comes from.  It’s very easy to blame it on a cycle of abuse, but that doesn’t explain it.  On the contrary, it unfairly brands victims of child sex abuse as somehow damaged and questionable, even though the vast majority of those abused actually react to the abuse by being more vigilant and protective parents and adults.

But don’t ask Ted Haggard to plumb those nuances.  He has his excuse, and he can sell it to quiet his tortured soul and to face his family, friends and neighbors.  Given the magnitude of the disgrace he’s suffered I’m tempted to forgive him.  And as a Christian I’m commanded to.  I’ll do that.  But I won’t give cover to this nonsense.  Not for one minute.  There are far too many suffering souls who didn’t seek out power, comfort and fame and who need the healing power of the truth, not convenient spiritual pablum.  This is for them, not Pastor Haggard.

© 2010, Roger Canaff. All rights reserved.