Hier beschreibt Dawn Stefanowicz – die bei einem homosexuellem Elternpaar aufgewachsen ist – ihre Erfahrungen in dieser Konstellation. Und sie beschreibt die Erfahrungen, die sie in Kanada gemacht hat, nach dem die Ehe dort für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare geöffnet worden ist.
Sie und sechs andere Kinder, die auch in einer sog. „Regenbogenfamilie“ aufgewachsen sind, haben sich an den Supreme Court der USA gewandt, als dieser über die Öffnung der Ehe beriet, mit der Bitte, sich gegen die Öffnung zu entscheiden.
Zwei Grundaussagen dieses Artikels sind relevant:
In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.
Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups.
Gerade im Zusammenhang mit dem geplanten Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) unseres Justizministers, der die Bewertung von „Hasskommentaren“ den Betreibern von Sozialen Netzwerken überlassen möchte, schrillen bei mir die Alarmglocken für die Meinungskultur in der Zukunft.
Das zweite ist:
Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.
When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.
Mothers and fathers bring unique and complementary gifts to their children. Contrary to the logic of same-sex marriage, the gender of parents matters for the healthy development of children. We know, for example, that the majority of incarcerated men did not have their fathers in the home. Fathers by their nature secure identity, instill direction, provide discipline, boundaries, and risk-taking adventures, and set lifelong examples for children. But fathers cannot nurture children in the womb or give birth to and breast-feed babies. Mothers nurture children in unique and beneficial ways that cannot be duplicated by fathers.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.
Wie das Adoptionsrecht und die Definition von Elternschaft in Deutschland sich verändern werden, ist noch unklar.
Aber es ist schon sehr erhellend, wenn ein Kind von gleichgeschlechtlichen Eltern deutlich betont, wie wichtig die Verschiedengeschlechtlichkeit der Eltern für die Erziehung der Kinder ist.