Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay At Home

The New York Times ^ | January 12, 2004 | GINIA BELLAFANTE

[erasmus605]

Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home By GINIA BELLAFANTE

INNEAPOLIS — Right before Christmas, Jamie McConnell arrived at the Lake Country School here, as he does most days of the week, to pick up his son, Ben, 3. Hardly short on spunk, Ben made his way out to the snowy playground, and Mr. McConnell, as parents have done since the dawn of swings and monkey bars, trailed behind.

Mr. McConnell had plenty of time to watch Ben romp and to invite one of his classmates and his mother home for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

For years, Mr. McConnell ate very different lunches. He was a corporate litigator at Dorsey & Whitney, among the country's most prestigious law firms. But since he and Dr. Bill Atmore, an anesthesiologist, adopted Ben as an infant, taking care of the child has been his full-time job. Dr. Atmore, his partner of eight years, works full time.

In assuming those roles, demographers say, the two are part of an emerging population of gay men who are not only raising children but are also committed to the idea that one parent should leave the workplace to do it. Of 9,328 same-sex couples with children whose census returns were randomly selected for analysis by the Census Bureau, 26 percent of the male couples included a stay-at-home parent, said Gary Gates, a demographer with the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington. That figure is one percentage point more than for married couples with children and four percentage points higher than for female couples, said Mr. Gates, who performed the analysis for this article.

The percentage of men who stay at home is significantly smaller among married heterosexual couples, Mr. Gates said.

The obstacles of finding surrogate mothers and of discriminatory adoption laws that favor heterosexual couples have led some gay men to pursue parenthood with fervor.

"Being a planned gay father is such a project in itself," said Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University and a senior scholar at the Council on Contemporary Families, a research organization. Often, Professor Stacey said, gay fathers or those aspiring to be "remain very judgmental of parents who don't stay home."

To some gay men, the idea of entrusting the care of a hard-won child to someone else seems to defeat the purpose of parenthood.

Ray Friedmann, of Portland, Ore., gave up an accounting job at a credit union after he and his partner adopted their daughter, Ceriwen, now six months old. Unable to join his partner's medical plan because it does not provide for domestic partners, Mr. Friedmann, like many other gay fathers, pays for his own health insurance.

"We never thought we'd even be able to have this child," Mr. Friedmann said. "When we had the opportunity to do it, we wanted to give her the best attention and love."

Four years ago, after Bernie Cummings and his partner, Ernie Johnston, a marketing executive at Warner Brothers, had a baby girl, Caelan, through a surrogate mother, Mr. Cummings left his job as a managing director at Ogilvy Public Relations. Since then, they have added twins to their family, also through surrogacy.

"I've taken myself out of an industry that moves pretty quickly," said Mr. Cummings, who lives in Los Angeles. "But if I were working, I'd miss that moment when Caelan was just getting up from her nap, grabbing and holding on to me."

Same-sex couples with a stay-at-home parent are doing this even though census figures show that their median household income, $35,000, is lower than the $45,000 for a heterosexual married couple with a stay-at-home parent, Mr. Gates of the Urban Institute said.

The 2000 census found that there were some 60,000 male couple households with children in America, and close to 96,000 female couple households. Those figures are about 20 percent of all male couples and a third of all female couples.

Rob Calhoun and his partner refinanced their home in suburban Atlanta when Mr. Calhoun quit his job as a social worker to stay home with their baby daughter. "We really couldn't afford it," Mr. Calhoun said.

Sociologists, gender researchers and gay parents themselves say that because gay men are liberated from the cultural expectations and pressures that women face to balance work and family life, they may approach raising children with a greater sense of freedom and choice.

They may also not fear stigmatization in these new roles, said Ellen Lewin, chairwoman of the women's studies department at the University of Iowa. Professor Lewin is the author of "Lesbian Mothers" (Cornell University Press, 1993) and is working on a study of gay fathers.

Conversely, feminism's legacy may leave lesbians more ideologically committed to equality in their relationships, said Christopher Carrington, a professor of sociology at San Francisco State University and the author of "No Place Like Home" (University of Chicago Press, 2002), which examines how gay and lesbian couples divide household labor.

That staying at home constitutes the just and noble course of parenthood was a sentiment echoed again and again in more than a dozen interviews with gay fathers.

Mike Farina, 40, left his job as an engineer in Anaheim, Calif., after adopting twins with his partner in 1998.

"In the beginning, I was even pig-headed about it," said Mr. Farina, who now has four children with his partner. "I wanted the kids to bond with us. I didn't want any help. In those first few years, I didn't even get baby sitters. I thought, `That's my job.' "

Though many gay fathers may enter into domesticity with few conflicts or reservations, the pressures of starting a new life stripped of professional status can mirror those faced by nonworking mothers. The transition may be even rockier, given that male identity is largely defined by achievements outside the confines of nurseries, mud rooms and kitchens.

Professor Carrington said some of the domestically oriented men he observed struggled with self-esteem. "Men who make these choices really grapple with how to portray their lives to their friends, families, to service people and repairmen," he said.

For Tom Howard, a stay-at-home father of three adopted children, all younger than 4, the consequence of his decision struck two years ago, just before April 15. "I was filling out our tax returns for the first entire calendar year I was not working, and my occupation went from `professor' to `homemaker.' I felt like someone had put a knife in my stomach and twisted it."

For the preceding 10 years, Mr. Howard, who has a doctorate in microbiology, had worked at the University of Southern California, first as a researcher at its virology laboratory and then also as a professor at its medical school. "I can truly empathize with the women's movement now," Mr. Howard said. "I know that I've committed career suicide."

After the birth of his first child, Emma, Mr. Howard, now 47, took a three-month paid paternity leave from the university, returning to work in February 2000. At the same time, his partner of 17 years, Ken Yood, 40, was working his way to a partnership at a Los Angeles law firm. "We realized pretty quickly that Ken's pay scale was going to support the family," he said.

No matter how fair-minded the intentions of partners may be, the myriad obligations of home stewardship invariably fall to the partner who remains at home.

After Tom Seid, 47, and his partner, Howard Ronder, the creative director of Gaiam, a lifestyle company in Boulder, Colo., adopted their son, Matthew, four years ago, Mr. Seid left his career as a feature-film editor. Their shift to a single income meant that they could no longer afford a housekeeper. Now, Mr. Seid's day consists of shopping, cleaning and dropping off and picking up his son from school.

The choice leaves many facing a loss of financial independence that may result in a suddenly dismal credit rating or strong feelings of guilt about buying a CD or sweater.

"I have a problem asking for money, and I have to ask for money every time we're paying the bills," said Bill Koch, who stays home with his 4-year-old son, Frankie, while his partner of eight years, Paul Lennander, works as an investigator at a children's social service agency here.

Mr. Koch, who previously worked in internal technology at General Mills, said that a lack of income had left him feeling invisible.

"After I'd been home a few months, we went to lease a car," Mr. Koch recalled. "We'd sold my car to come up with the money, and the whole time the salesman is only talking to Paul. The guy just looked right through me. Only Paul's name could appear on the lease, and I was just sitting there the whole time twirling my pearls, so to speak."

Still, Mr. Koch, like many of the other gay fathers interviewed, did not betray any eagerness to return to the work world soon.

As Peter Vitale, a gay stay-at-home father in the Twin Cities, put it, "If I were honest, I'd say that I want to do an excellent job at this because I know the world has me under a microscope."

[Senator_Blutarski]

By your example, then ALL parenting is wrong based on a few idiots.

Actually, I was just pointing out that the article was very biased and made the two mommys look like super-parents.

And for what it is worth, being the child of gay parents does carry lots of baggage. Just like being the child of an alcoholic or the child of a drug dealer.

[sunryse]

>And for what it is worth, being the child of gay parents >does carry lots of baggage. Just like being the child of >an alcoholic or the child of a drug dealer.

I am stunned by the level of ignorance in this statement. How on earth is being loved by two loving people, who hold down stable job(s), one even staying home to be a full time parent even compare to being the child of an alchoholic, or drug dealer!! The only way this statement makes sense is if we jump into your ignorant belief that homosexuality is degenerate and therefore something MUST be dysfunctional about it.

[Lucky Dog]

In an attempt to address your charge of “ignorant beliefs” on the part of those who object to homosexuality, review the relevant arguments presented below.

Negative Arguments (note: none of these are founded on “ignorant belief”):

1) Utilitarian Assertion: Homosexual behavior serves no objectively useful/productive purpose [to society or the individual] and causes significant detriments [both to society and individuals].

2) Resource Inefficient Use/Misapplication Assertion: Homosexual behavior results in significant misuse of societal resources:
a. Increases completely avoidable, deadly disease rates (HIV/AIDS/TB/Hepatitis, etc.) among its practitioners with attendant increases in premature death rates.
b. Increases other, completely avoidable, potentially less deadly diseases (STD’s) among its practitioners and potentially others (unavoidably).
c. Inordinately diverts medical resources to the care of completely avoidable diseases (especially in acute stages).
d. Inordinately diverts (in proportion to the percentage of those affected to the overall general population) limited resources into medical research for prevention/cure of these completely avoidable diseases.

3) Societal Degradation Assertion: Homosexual behaviors and open advocacy for their acceptance result in significant detriments to society at large.
a. In ordinate numbers (in proportion to percentage to the total population of perpetrators) of pedophiles are homosexual practitioners.
b. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will likely result in increased numbers of homosexual practitioners and equally likely resultant increases in cases of pedophilia.
c. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in legalization of homosexual marriage which will degrade the institution of marriage and its benefits to society, e.g., recent Mass. Supreme Court ruling.
d. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in increased acceptance of child adoption by these practitioners and cause increased societal costs for dealing with children harmed psychologically (and otherwise) by this practice.
e. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in general, will result in increased acceptance of bigamy, polygamy, incestuous unions, prostitution, bestiality, etc., which will inordinately and adversely affect the family in general and children (future citizens) in particular, e.g., current UT court case.
f. Homosexual behavior (by the overwhelming majority of its practitioners) focuses on individual pleasure/self-indulgence to the exclusion of any regard for negative impacts on others (hedonism) and causes a resultant decline in antithetical (to hedonism) virtues beneficial to society such as service to others, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, devotion to duty, etc.
g. Society unnecessarily loses potentially valuable contributions from homosexual practitioners who die prematurely due to avoidable diseases resulting from this behavior.

4) Theological Assertion: No major religion approves of homosexual behavior and most discourage and/or prohibit or condemn it.
a. Homosexual behavior is explicitly condemned multiple times in the Judeo-Christian scriptures (both Old and New Testaments).
b. Homosexual behavior is explicitly condemned in the Islamic foundational documents.
c. Tenants of Buddhism strongly discourage homosexual behavior.
d. Hindu documents discourage homosexual behavior.
e. Homosexual “orientation” (if there is such a thing) is not a problem absent homosexual behavior.

5) Biological/Psychological Assertion: Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural function of sex and normal human social behavior
a. Procreation is impossible to exclusively homosexual behavior practitioners.
b. If homosexuality were a genetic anomaly, it would appear in the population at much lower incidence than is observed.
c. Homosexual behaviors observed (Skinner, et al) in non-human animals are neurotic, abnormal singularities and require artificial, forced conditions (e.g., overcrowding) and is not seen in the normal habitat and behavior of these animals.
d. Homosexual behavior is a conscious choice by its practitioners… homosexual “orientation”(if it exists) no more requires an individual to participate in homosexual behavior than heterosexual “orientation” requires an individual to participate in rape, bigamy, prostitution or any other sexual activity.

Do you have any cogent counter arguments?

[sunryse]

>1) Utilitarian Assertion: Homosexual behavior serves no >objectively useful/productive purpose [to society or the >individual] and causes significant detriments [both to >society and individuals].

Ok, our whole purpose and existance on this earth is to suit society? If I choose to not have children, am I not serving a purpose to society. What if I were a brilliant doctor who could hold the cure for cancer in my mind, am I not useful because I sleep with another woman? While biologically there probably is no "function" in it's purist and simplistic form. But I like to think that we as humans serve more of a 'purpose' on this earth other than to procreate.

>a. Increases completely avoidable, deadly disease rates
>(HIV/AIDS/TB/Hepatitis, etc.) among its practitioners >with attendant increases in premature death rates.

So does smoking, alchoholism, hard drug use and stupid people operating heavy machinery.

>b. Increases other, completely avoidable, potentially >less deadly diseases (STD’s) among its practitioners and >potentially others (unavoidably).

So does 98% of the hip hop culture so I've seen. Noone's making it thier life goal that they go away.

>c. Inordinately diverts medical resources to the care of >completely avoidable diseases (especially in acute >stages).

See above response regarding smoking, alchoholism and hard drug use.

>d. Inordinately diverts (in proportion to the percentage >of those affected to the overall general population) >limited resources into medical research for >prevention/cure of these completely avoidable diseases.

Aaahh, ok, so now that we can say that the homosexual has higher instances of these diseases, than the heterosexual isn't held accountable for all these 'problems' either? Or is that part just overlooked. "It's all those gaaaayyyysss fault".

>3) Societal Degradation Assertion: Homosexual behaviors >and open advocacy for their acceptance result in >significant detriments to society at large.

Please don't tell me you are presenting this as fact or some sort of 'proof' that homosexuality is bad, cause this statement above sounds a whole lot like OPINION.

>a. In ordinate numbers (in proportion to percentage to >the total population of perpetrators) of pedophiles are >homosexual practitioners.

Again, please tell me where this statistic is located.

>b. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in >general, will likely result in increased numbers of >homosexual practitioners and equally likely resultant >increases in cases of pedophilia.

Assuming your statistics (that you haven't listed) are correct...

>c. Increasing acceptance of homosexual behavior, in >general, will result in legalization of homosexual >marriage which will degrade the institution of marriage >and its benefits to society, e.g., recent Mass. Supreme >Court ruling.

Sounds like another big ole OPINION.

As a matter of fact, I'm not going to sit behind each paragraph and scream OPINION. When someone presents thier opinion as fact, the ego is too much to debate with because nothing will be heard.

Therefore, I'll leave you to your prejudices. But I, ME, PERSONALLY think it's none of my business if Jim lives with Tom, or vice versa. If a pedophile attacks my kids, then they'll have to pay, whether they are gay or straight.

[Lucky Dog]

<<< Ok, our whole purpose and existence on this earth is to suit society? >>>

You have conveniently ignored the fact that homosexual behavior causes detriments to society and the individuals practicing it. Generally, society discourages or prohibits other activities that are detrimental to society and individuals, i.e., murder, theft, pedophilia, prostitution, etc.

<<< So does smoking, alcoholism, hard drug use and stupid people operating heavy machinery. >>>

I have yet to see any legislation, regulatory implementations demanding that the public condone does smoking, alcoholism, hard drug use and stupid people operating heavy machinery. In fact, there are numerous efforts to do just the opposite. Are you aware of any demonstrations by alcoholics that their lifestyle be accorded legal special rights? Generally, there are testing and license requirements to prevent “stupid people” from operating heavy machinery to avoid detriments to society and the individual. Are you aware of any homosexuals demonstrating for a test to become a practicing homosexual?

So does 98% of the hip hop culture so I've seen. No one's making it their life goal that they go away.

As you did with me, I challenge you to present statistics. Beyond that point, however, there are numerous medical researchers who are making their “life goal” to make STDs go away and a great many people according to news accounts and other sources who are making it their “life goal” to reduce and eliminate, if possible, the activities that spread STDs.

<<< See above response regarding smoking, alcoholism and hard drug use. >>>

See above response.

Aaahh, ok, so now that we can say that the homosexual has higher instances of these diseases, than the heterosexual isn't held accountable for all these 'problems' either? Or is that part just overlooked. "It's all those gaaaayyyysss fault".

You have completely missed the point. Many more people die of cancer, heart disease and numerous other diseases than die of HIV/AIDs. Yet the funding to find a cure for HIV/AIDs outstrips that of any other disease. As for responsibility, the straightforward answer to your implied question is “yes” it is the fault of gays who contract these diseases by engaging in high risk, immoral activity. If one does not engage in sexual activity with homosexuals, those who have, or intravenous drug users, the possibility of contracting HIV/AIDs is incredibly small. Nobody holds a gun to their heads and forces them to participate in such activity.

<<< Please don't tell me you are presenting this as fact or some sort of 'proof' that homosexuality is bad, cause this statement above sounds a whole lot like OPINION. >>>

Perhaps you missed the part about how much it costs society to provide care for those homosexuals in the acute stages of AIDs. Maybe you missed the part about the disproportionate share of child molesters that are homosexuals. If think these societal detriments are opinion rather than fact, your critical thinking ability is in need of some attention.

<<< Again, please tell me where this statistic is located. >>>
The Archives of Sexual Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly over represented in child sex offence cases:
The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to 40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999; Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles."

<<< As a matter of fact, I'm not going to sit behind each paragraph and scream OPINION. When someone presents their opinion as fact, the ego is too much to debate with because nothing will be heard. . >>>

If you like, I can cite scientific studies and/or authorities in their fields to back up every statement I made.

<<< Therefore, I'll leave you to your prejudices. But I, ME, PERSONALLY think it's none of my business if Jim lives with Tom, or vice versa. If a pedophile attacks my kids, then they'll have to pay, whether they are gay or straight. . >>>

It would appear that you are not thinking beyond your own prejudices.

Have you considered that organizations such as NAMBLA backed by the ACLU are pursuing court cases that may have the effect of not making a pedophile “pay” if they were to attack your kids? Are you aware that there are efforts to get rid of publicly accessible sex offender listings? Such goals are, in fact, published as part of the purposes of homosexual organizations.

Are you aware that if you are exposed to the blood of a person infected with HIV/AIDs, Hepatitis, etc., as, perhaps, in a car accident, or medical personnel treating you, that you have a significant risk of contracting the disease?

Given the above facts (for which I have sources) does it not make sense to you that society has a positive duty to you (and the 98% of the population that are non-homosexuals) to discourage homosexuality rather than grant it special privileges?

[Senator_Blutarski]

I am stunned by the level of ignorance in this statement. How on earth is being loved by two loving people, who hold down stable job(s), one even staying home to be a full time parent even compare to being the child of an alchoholic, or drug dealer!! The only way this statement makes sense is if we jump into your ignorant belief that homosexuality is degenerate and therefore something MUST be dysfunctional about it.

Actually, I was approaching this from the standpoint of what it is like to be the child of homosexual parents, parents who are different from the parents of other kids. It is very difficult to go through adolescence being "different" from everyone else. I am the son of an alcoholic. I have stuttered all my life. I know what it means to be "different" from everyone else as a child. You carry a lot of baggage. I guess I thought that was a fairly obvious point.

Since you raised the issue, I do in fact regard homosexual behavior as degenerate, a point of view that has been common for several millenia. Most avoidable behaviors that facilitate the spread of disease, shorten one's expected life span and serve no apparent purpose in the survival of the species fall into the "degenerate" category. Since biologists view the purpose of sexual behavior as being reproduction, homosexual behavior is dysfunctional. In fact, the use of body parts for functions for which they were not designed is exactly the definition of "dysfunctional". Anal sex is pretty much meets all the criteria for both "degenerate" and "dysfunctional".

I'm sorry you find me to be stunningly ignorant.

[Lucky Dog]

I notice that "sunryse" has not bothered to respond the facts that you and I posted supporting our earlier statements.

There seems to be a basic intellectual honesty lacking when someone challenges another to present facts, and it happens, then the challenger cannot admit it. Unfortunately, it has been my observation that this situation has been the case in all but one of the threads wherein supporters of the homosexual lifestyle have been challenged with facts.

These supporters typically, either, react with an incoherent outburst, or they just go silent. In either case, the debate proves the weakness of the argument for supporting homosexuality. Nonetheless, a concession acknowledgment would certainly be the intellectually honest course for these homosexuality supporters.

[Senator_Blutarski]

Lucky Dog, let's give sunryse a day or two to respond.

My own observation is that supporters of homosexual behavior finds ways to very carefully present their positions (no pun intended) in ways that avoid uncomfortable facts associated with feces, body cavities, disease, longevity, promiscuity and mental health (think "depression").

I have long believed that those who encourge acceptance of homosexual behavior have a lot in common with those who accept abortion. If you forced abortion advocates to watch an ultrasound prior to and during an abortion and then showed them the resulting corpse many of them would abandon their pro-abortion beliefs. Forcing some of the "open-minded" advocates of homosexuality to watch a couple of men in action would also change some minds. There is a denial of facts and reality involved in being pro-abortion or pro-homosexuality. Most people would find both situations revolting if forced to actually watch what happens.

[cherry]

a baby is born or woman for a reason..

when we start making up these false and obscence family groups, we are disrupting the evolutionary chain....

and just the thought of two gays taking care of a little boy or little girl is enough to give me nightmares...

because I believe with all my heart that homosexuality is abnormal, that at its heart is promiscuity.

[Rollee]

This is freaking me out. They are able to adopt a child, something my husband and I cannot due because we cannot afford me to stay home with said child, and yet they continue to whine about it! I am freaking out on many different levels. These poor children are going to grow up and be whiny and confused individuals. God help us!

[Senator_Blutarski]

sunryse, the courtesy of a response would be appreciated.

You made some harsh statements to which we have responded politely with reasoned arguments.

Have you reasoned arguments of your own to offer?

[erasmus605]

It is very difficult to go through adolescence being "different" from everyone else.

Just a thought...Isn't that the argument that people used to argue against interracial marriage? Lots of people grow up "different" from everyone else, be it from deformities, personality, race, language, disability...etc.

I'm not saying that gay parenting/gay marriage is a good idea, I'm just pointing out that this particular argument is not a strong one.

[CalKat]

How do you feel about in vitro fertilization and adoption? Do you think that heterosexuals who cannot reproduce for one reason or another, are not supposed to be parents, biologically speaking?

[RoughDobermann]

How do you feel about in vitro fertilization and adoption?

I think they're great.

Do you think that heterosexuals who cannot reproduce for one reason or another, are not supposed to be parents, biologically speaking?

Yes, by definition. However, modern medicine allows such couples to push beyond such defects, much like a person with cancer can be treated and live. It is still as nature intended. Homosexuals, by definition, cannot breed. This isn't a defect; it's by design.

[CalKat]

Why can't homosexuals breed? There are many gay people with their own biological children. Their reproductive systems isn't different than that of heterosexuals, or are you trying to say it is? And what do you mean it's by design -- so they can't propogate more gay people? Most gay people have straight parents.

[RoughDobermann]

Why can't homosexuals breed? There are many gay people with their own biological children. Their reproductive systems isn't different than that of heterosexuals, or are you trying to say it is? And what do you mean it's by design -- so they can't propogate more gay people? Most gay people have straight parents.

Are you being serious? Homosexuals can't breed WITH EACH OTHER. Sure, a homosexual man can knock up a homosexual female, but then they wouldn't be being homosexual, now would they.