A not-so-Rosie outlook on marriage

Home » Blogs »

August 17, 2010

by Jenny Tyree

Rosie O’Donnell stated last week that her same-sex marriage to Kelli Carpenter was “an act of defiance” in response to a statement from then-President George W. Bush.

Rosie’s statement adds strength to the point that the push to redefine marriage is driven by adult desires that fall outside of the child-centered purpose of marriage. Specifically, that nature attempts to give a mother and father to every child, and that social science confirms that children thrive when raised by their biological, married mother and father.

This statement adds to the public record of Rosie’s personal narrative about her family. Rosie and Kelli adopted children into their mother-only home, and in a 2004 interview with Diane Sawyer, Rosie shared her response when her son, Parker, said he wanted a daddy.

Sawyer: Would it break your heart if he [6-year-old Parker] said, ‘I want a mommy and a daddy’?

Rosie: No. And he has said that.

Sawyer: He has?

Rosie: Of course he has. But as I said to my son, Parker, ‘If you were to have a daddy, you wouldn’t have me as a mommy because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy.’

(Diane Sawyer (Anchor), “Rosie’s Story: For the Sake of the Children: Rosie O’Donnel’s Crusade on Behalf of Gay Parents Seeking to Adopt Children,” ABC News: “Primetime,” March 14, 2004).

Rosie entered marriage for two stated reasons:

1) She wanted to make a political statement,

2) and she wanted to be a mother.

In short, Rosie and Kelli’s desire to marry and parent trumped the need of the children they adopted, for a father. And marriage is either about Rosie’s right, or the right of children to a mother and a father.

Rosie’s forthright and honest statements are an indication of her own views, as well as those of other proponents of same-sex marriage. Her statements are the argument for adult-centered marriage.

In contrast, CitizenLink believes that, regardless of the way the institution of marriage has been damaged, it should be strengthened so it can thrive in its child-centered purpose: giving a mother and father to every child.

In the great cultural battle over marriage that our country is having, let there be no mistake about what we are deciding; either marriage has meaning for children or it doesn’t.

Related content:

Kristy

In short, Rosie and Kelli’s desire to marry and parent trumped the need of the children they adopted, for a father. And marriage is either about Rosie’s right, or the right of children to a mother and a father.

what about all the kids in foster homes that can’t get adopted out. Not to mention the over crowding in the foster homes that are available. To deny a child a loving family is a much bigger problem. I’ve seen children of same sex families flourish and grow into adulthood wonderfully and children from “a married biological mother and father” have a much harder time as adults. I also find the “biological married mother and father” part of this blog very disdainful of familes where the “bilogical” father is absent for whatever reason and an uncle or stepparent steps up to the plate and provides the role.

Jenny Tyree

Thanks for writing, Kristy.

You bring up some interesting points. It’s true that there are too many children in foster homes, and Focus on the Family’s “Wait No More” project is helping to find forever families for children waiting to be adopted. You can read more about it here: http://www.icareaboutorphans.org/

When it comes to policy, while there must also be laws and provision for those times when children are left without their biological parents, my post was written in support of maintaining the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage in law because that definition of marriage helps to give every child what nature and social science says they desperately need–both a mother and a father. The biological connection isn’t everything, but is important–that is a fact.

Additionally, CitizenLink and Focus on the Family respect and support the efforts of male family members getting involved in the lives of children who do not have fathers in the home. Our online bookstore reflects our desire to support single parent families, stepparents and mentors.

http://family.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find

All the best,

Jenny

Jill B

Should anyone, lesbian, gay, “straight” EVER enter into a marriage as an act of defiance??? Seems to me that’s a sure way to ensure the marriage will fail…
Justin W

It is sad to read that Parker’s desire for his father was lost so two women could satisfy their own desires. Whether it is gay marriage or divorce, children are usually the ones to pay the price when the traditional family unit breaks down.

Only time will tell what the true cost to society will be for these imperfect relationships. We may find that the cost from damaged lives will be much greater than expected.

Although I did not have much growing up, I did have a mother and father who worked to make their marriage the best it could be. I did not realize it at the time, but I was much better off than the wealthier kids coming from broken homes. Thank you God for the blessing of growing up in a traditional home.
Diana Semon

Thank you, Jenny, for answering Kristy’s comments. The key is that it truly be for the children. It seems to me that our whole culture is so not about the children. It has all come down to feelings and no sacrifice. We have a highly sexualized culture that never thinks about the results of behavior but only what each person wants. So we have a lot of children out there in foster care, single parents and worst, millions aborted every year. Notice how we try to solve one problem by making a worse one. This culture is never going to admit that sex within marriage between one man and one woman is not only the healthiest course for our culture but the absolute best for us as a people. It is restraint. It is boundaries. It is the most civilized. No social group can last long without all three. Thank you again for answering Kristy’s letter in a way that might get her thinking. My answer would just have her making another political statement.
Steve

How convenient for Focus on the Family to criticize reasons why Rosie chose to marry her partner. It is shabby one-sided reporting that leaves out the stated reason Rosie married her partner – which is love.

I find it double standard how Focus on the Family argues for state rights and individual liberty, but apparently argues the government has a right to police personal freedoms, including the choice to marry or raise children.
George

Should get these somments by Rosie and use them directly in ads on mainsteream media, not religious radio stations, but the stations that everybody listens to to get the weather or traffic reports, place your ads on these stations when the issue comes up with homosexual adoption and marriage
JJ

As someone whose father chose to become absent out of his own volition–I believe I have to say that though having another father figure step in afterward may help–it should not be the first and only option as represented by homosexual marriage.

The ideal of both a mother and father should at least be given priority because, in my case, I would have preferred that my own biological father step up to his responsibility as a parent rather than having someone else end up doing it. Homosexual parenthood negates even the possibility of starting out with both parental roles intact.

And biology does play a large part in a child’s identity because we want to know what we inherited and we want to identify our birth with an expression of our parent’s love and intimacy toward each other combined with a desire to extend love and connection towards us. Sperm and egg donation from an anonymous or even less intimate donor is a shabby replacement.

So I do not believe this article is in any way “disdainful” to those from my background. I believe putting forth the idea that children should be subjected to the selfishness of denying any possibility of both a mother and father as proposed by homosexual marriage to be “disdainful”. It is as selfish or more than an absentee father from a heterosexual marriage. At least my father started out with the intention of staying and being a role model. Please don’t insult me or others by implying that the situations are comparable.