Are you suggesting he should have used more Politically Correct terminology?

I believe the interests of a child are best served in having both a mother and father involved in their lives and preferably living together in the same household. I see the rights of parents distinct from and subservient to the rights and or interests of a child with respect to upbringing and nurturing. For those reasons, I do not believe that persons of the same sex should seek from the outset to raise a child, particularly from infancy. Of course, under current law, there is nothing to stop a woman (or a man?) from selecting a mate for the sole purpose of producing a child the parent intends to raise alone. I don't approve but I'm not sure you could ever word a law that would be effective or constitutional.

On the other hand, where a court awards custody to one parent (mother/father) or the other, or grants joint custody, I do not believe custody should be denied on the sole basis that one parent or the other is gay or lesbian.

Laws cannot address all spiritual matters, but I consider it fundamentally selfish to place one's own parenthood above the interest of a child in being raised, where at all possible, and absent abusive conditions, with both male and female parenting. While surrounding a child with "surrogates" or other responsible male role models, be they relatives or friends, can be healthy for a child, I don't see it as a "square-one" substitute for a father, be he a biolgical or adoptive parent.

This is not a simple matter of discrimination, yes or no, because children are human beings, not property, and their interests should be given considerable weight.

Obama's position is pro-children, not anti-gay, and to the extent I've understood the gist of his speech, I agree with it.

Finally, there are numerous situations of "hard-to-place" children either for foster care or adoption. At such point, the interests of a child may well lean toward a household without a father (or without a mother) over and above being shuffled around or left in sub-standard "orphanages." That is a far different question from deliberately creating a weak beginning point for a child. In many areas, my mother and father could substitute for one another in nurturing, giving advice, etc. But in other areas they couldn't. It may not be politicaly correct to say so, but the absence of fathers has contributed to the decimation of large portions of the African-American population and I'm starting to see those trends in portions of the white community. That is not to deny that racism has not played a very large role, only that there are other factors, too.

I'm suggesting that there is a contradiction here and I'm not sure how he, or those who share his views, would resolve it.

Many contradictions in life cannot be resolved easily. Capitalism seems to do the most for the most people when lots of folks seek to acquire material things, whether goods or services, and whether they need them or not. Capitalism also is indifferent to "vices" and exploitation of character weaknesses. (I read somewhere recently that the poorest of U.S. households average 9% of earnings spent on gambling, lttery tickets, etc.) Christianity, in contrast, is based in "seek ye first the Kingdom of God." The "love of money as the root of all evil" is far easier for most Christians to believe than to enact. The hard to resolve matter includes that the Bible lifts up the poor, and capitalism as a whole has proved to be the best system for providing jobs and affordable and available commodities.

"I'm suggesting that there is a contradiction here and I'm not sure how he, or those who share his views, would resolve it."

I guess I don't necessarily see the contradiction, although I'll admit I'm going solely by what you quoted. It's a stretch to assign to him a 'hetero-centric worldview' based on this speech, and I don't see any of the qualities he mentions in the quote pertaining solely to fathers. To me he is responding to a current problem, that a too significant percentage of fathers, especially in the African American community, are wholly absent in their child's life; to take his response to that issue because it specifically mentions fathers as if he is making some general statement I don't believe is valid, although I understand if you take is as such you may see it as hetero-centric. The absence is the focus, not the 'fatherness'. It's only hetero-centric because it's the hetero fathers who are most abandoning their own offspring.

IOW, if there were millions of lesbian couples with children, and let's say that the children are biological children of one of the partners (i.e their mother), then I'd think he could give nearly the exact same speech and change the word 'father' to, well, I'll use 'mother's partner', if they were also abandoning their children in droves, as these partners could and should also be mentors, coaches and role models.

Josh, you should be the new host of Meet the Press.

No, "father" can't be changed to "mother's partner" because Obama is saying that fathers per se play a crucial role as male role models. I don't think he is allowing for the idea of a female partner to a biological mother being a substitute. It isn't heterocentric because the emphasis is on the needs of the child and not on the needs and rights of the parents. The fact that lesbian or gay couples can be excellent parents, often better than straight parents, is beside the point. Again, that is not to say that Obama wouldn't recognize that in situations where a father is abusive, in prison, or otherwise unavailable single parents or same-sex couples can often do an admirable job in child-rearing. The only other result is to say "fathers matter" and "fathers are optional" in the same sentence. It won't work. I had a wonderful, loving, caring, nurturing, teaching mother, but there were many things by virtue of being female that she couldn't model for me and things she could not understand about my fears and dreams. If that's a sexist view, then we're back to the idea that fathers don't matter.

The contradiction will not disappear entirely, but it will be lessened if the focus is on the moral rights and needs of the child. Similarly, there is the ongoing argument that the "right" of a woman to an abortion should be unquestioned. However, to get to that point, it has to be said that a fetus has neither moral nor legal rights. I don't agree with a "no status" view for the unborn.

"No, "father" can't be changed to "mother's partner" because Obama is saying that fathers per se play a crucial role as male role models. "

After watching the clip, that's not take away from it. Yes, he does say as Josh quoted that they are the 'most important' rock in our lives, but that is about it; all the specifics he discusses at any length, the benefit of family, helping with homework, the difficulty of being a single parent, have zero to do with maleness and apply equally as well to a female partner. I don't see any indication that he is not "allowing for the idea of a female partner to a biological mother being a substitute", because he doesn't address that question at all, and provides very little emphasis or clarification on why a 'male biological father' is so necessary. The fact that he is speaking to an obviously black audience specifically about a primarily black issue (as I believe Bill Cosby has been doing for years now with a similar message), and the fact that homosexuality is wholly absent from his speech makes the labeling of his speech as 'hetero-centric' a little silly. The most you can accuse him of is possibly claiming that the ideal situation for raising children is with the biological mother and father if they are excellent parents , a view that many people hold including those who are in favor of gay rights. That is not what I'd label 'hetero-centric' though.

"The fact that lesbian or gay couples can be excellent parents, often better than straight parents" is not at all beside the point; it's reality and there's no reason to believe that Obama does not also recognize this fact and thus no reason to infer a 'hetero-centric worldview' in opposition to that idea. Most of those people who say lesbian/homosexual parents are equal to heterosexual ones say it not because they think, if we compare absolutely ideal people/'parents', that a perfect biological father is not preferable to a lesbian substitute, but that the reality of the situation is there are a lot of crappy biological heterosexual fathers. Since there are a significant number of children without excellent parents, you quickly get into the gray area of 'what's better': an alcholic abusive real father or a kind lesbian partner; a step-father or a male partner.

Unfortunately there is one main disadvantage to being a gay parent, and that is that so many people are either prejudice against you or question your parenting abilities simply based on who you are.

Children need and desire to bond with adults of both sexes. If the household lacks one of the two, the parent must improvise. I've played the role of adopted uncle on more than one occasion myself (to children of single moms, not of lesbian couples).

Dave L,

The idea that my support for the ideal of male fathers in a household is some sort of prejudice against gays is ignorant bunk, on par with Geraldine Ferraro's claim that Obama's campaign was rooted in reverse racism. You are so focused on the "rights" of gays that you will ignore the needs of a child and make men a dispensable commodity who serve no purpose other than contributing the seed. This has nothing to do with gay or straight, it has nothing to do with whether or not a woman is equally able to serve as president of the United States. It has nothing to do with whether or not women can be excellent auto mechanics (they can) or can teach a boy how to fix a lawnmower. It has to do with whether or not the sole difference between men and women is biological reproductive functions.

Your interpretation of Obama's words renders them meaningless as a Father's Day speech.

"The idea that my support for the ideal of male fathers in a household is some sort of prejudice against gays is ignorant bunk,"

Great, I agree. I never said a single thing about you. If you are inferring that I was based on the last sentence in my post, you are wrong, but I stand by that statement as it's obvious.

"You are so focused on the "rights" of gays that you will ignore the needs of a child and make men a dispensable commodity who serve no purpose other than contributing the seed."

Whoa, step away from the deep end; you're arguing with yourself here. You'll have to explain how you got that idea from what I've written, which will be difficult since I said nothing like that. I didn't say anything about gay rights; I don't have to because gays already have the 'right' to be parents. I also fully support the male fathers, if they are good fathers. My support for male fathers is superceded by the more general support for two good 'parents', regardless of their gender. The idea that the biological parents of a child, regardless of their attributes, are who would be best to raise that child is easily demolished by reality. I'll choose a sober, mature lesbian partner, or aunt for that matter, over a drunk, serially abusive 'father' almost any day as what's best for a child.

My interpretation of Obama's words are the same as yours for the most part. I just dispute what is necessarily being inferred from them, specifically that his stressing that fathers are most important clashes with 'those who say lesbian parents are equal to heterosexual ones'. I don't think you can compare lesbian parents and heterosexual parents as groups; you have to address the qualities of specific parents. And you'd think we'd have ample evidence by now from the children of lesbian parents demonstrating that they are worse off in some way in comparison; the studies that I'm aware of do not show that. I guess I just don't see the inference being made in the post being much more valid than, 'Assuming fathers are as 'critical' as Obama says, does not this male-centric worldview clash with those who say that mothers are equal parents to fathers?'

Dave L,

The implication I drew from your comment was that you considered it possible for a woman to be an every day substitute for a male father. I don't approve of same-sex couples of either gender setting out to have a baby conceived for the purpose of raising it. I believe the ideal is for a female mother and a male father. On the other hand, I oppose blanket laws banning adoption by gays. There are men who are beyond poor fathers but are just plain unacceptable to be a part of a child's life except perhaps for fleeting, chaperoned visits. My concern was from my conclusion, perhaps erroneous, that you were claiming that women can fill any and all roles that a male father can fill. I don't disagree, though, that in some circumstances a child is much better off being raised by two women, or two men, than by an unacceptably errant parent of the opposite gender. I'm sorry I jumped on you in the fashion I did. In any regard, "ignorant bunk" was a poor choice of words; they weren't intended to be a general reflection on your intelligence or integrity. I'm simply worried -- no, downright fearful -- that many in our society are finding biological males as role models an option rather than a need. If two women or two men were marginally to even some point beyond marginally better equipped to raise children in general I would still favor a male father and a female mother as the ideal for that child. Where the exact tipping point would be for me I can't say. Downplaying the importance of male fathers present in the home will place us in a deep valley desert for years, just as would the downplaying of the female mothers. If women can substitute for fathers, then the absence of fathers must be playing no role in the breakdown of significant portions of the Black community. And I should say that in rural white Oklahoma, we are starting to see many of the same trends with respect to absent male fathers and the effect here seems to be similarly bad.

Does he have any actual experience of being a father? If so, with what result? If not, wouldn't Bill Cosby be a better source for info?

Ask his two daughters, anon.

A woman has a choice to give her newborn either the milk from her breast or the formula. We all know that there is no better line of defense for the child than the mothers breast milk. Not only is the breast milk healthier for the baby in every way, the bond between mother and child is incredible. Sure you can nurse a baby at your bosom (man or woman)with formula and there be a very close connection but this connection ends at physical contact. However, the baby's internal immune system is left more vulnerable and must settle with an imitation instead of receiving the natural antibodies from the mother. The baby will still live but at what cost of being denied it's original defense?
Another example- just because I may be able to substitute water for milk in some of my recipes, does not mean that I should expect the same or even better outcome.

Check out my blog http://essenceofthings.blogspot.com

Thanks. How old are they?

Anonymous, since you seem to want to be rather tacky, I'll be tacky back. I didn't need to be the father of my 18-year-old nephew killed in an auto accident in September of 2005 in order to witness the profound effect his father, my older brother, as a male, had on his life. That isn't to diminish what his mother contributed. For all I know, maybe she gave more. But she didn't and couldn't give the same.

And at least when I posted with a pseudonym, I gave so many clues about my identity that any half intelligent interested person could have figured out who I was in 30 minutes or less.

Does someone have to be a fire fighter to know that they are important to our lives?

It sure is interesting reading comments here and on Jason's post from those who presumably support both Obama and gay rights. Obama's speech could have been lifted directly from Dr. James Dobson, and yet folks are doing logical backflips to interpret Obama's speech as not actually implying that having a mom and a dad is preferable for a child to having lesbian parents.

Joel,

I appreciate your comments and I do understand where you are coming from. No apologies necessary, and I'm sorry if I came off as too defensive.

Eric said:
"folks are doing logical backflips to interpret Obama's speech as not actually implying that having a mom and a dad is preferable for a child to having lesbian parents."

I just don't understand how we can on the one hand, essentially take one statement very literally, and then on the other ascribe to him vaguely defined statements such as he obviously doesn't think "lesbian parents are equal to heterosexual ones?" and "having a mom and a dad is preferable for a child to having lesbian parents". I find this ill-defined and sweeping inference especially curious since, and maybe I missed it, he doesn't even say the words, 'gay', 'lesbian', or even 'same-sex' in that lengthy speech, and again as far as I can tell, says nothing specifically referencing anything requiring maleness.

Why if I was to take things literally, Eric's statement, "having a mom and a dad is preferable for a child to having lesbian parents" is nonsensical; all children currently have a mom and dad, as I'm pretty sure we don't have the technology to create babies from two women's DNA. Now of course one can/should then say, oh come on, it's not absolutely obvious that that is what Eric meant and he specifies what he means with everything else he says around that quote. To which I say, exactly.

An interesting question was brought up on Jason's blog; if we take 'critical' to mean 'important' but not 'essential' (and in all fairness I usually take it to mean 'essential'), does this objection or contradiction disappear? I think it does, which, if that's all the inference hinges on, just makes it that much more flimsy.

Dave L,

I'm not ascribing any statements to Obama; I'm just agreeing with Josh on the logical implication of his speech.

It's quite possible that, if asked directly, Obama would say that lesbian parents are just as good for a child as a heterosexual couple is. But if so, he'd be contradicting himself. (Not that that's an unusual thing for a politician to do!)

Nothing tacky about asking questions about matters one is ignorant of. Of course, if you don't know how old the kids are then just say so.

"But if so, he'd be contradicting himself. (Not that that's an unusual thing for a politician to do!)"

Ha, very true, and good point. I'm not an Obama supporter and that wasn't the motivation for my dispute; to me nearly all politicians should be treated with excessive cynicism, and I haven't seen one that hadn't earned it. I see it less as a contradiction, although I can't argue with what he literally said, and more as a needed clarification on his part.

The main reason I don't agree with the implications Josh brought up is the context. If he said today in the middle of a speech listing his policy positions, "we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to the foundation of the family", then yes, I agree with the point. Even leaving aside the race issue, on Father's Day, I don't think I would have blinked if Ellen Degeneres said what the post quoted.