The Guardian
Mike Huckabee's family values
The Republican presidential hopeful is truly out of touch with America to cast Natalie Portman as a feckless unmarried mother
Shorter Mike Huckabee: "Won't someone please think about the poor celebrity children?"
According to gossip outlet TMZ, Huckabee took the "family values" part of the GOP platform to new lows when he slammed Oscar-winning actress Natalie Portman for having the audacity to have a child out of wedlock. Huckabee said in a radio interview:
"One of the most troubling things is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet that boasts of, 'hey look, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having children and they're doing just fine.'"
Huckabee goes on to complain about the number of single mothers who "are poor, uneducated, and can't get a job" – but seriously, unless he is campaigning to save the child from a terrible name selection, Huckabee misfired at his target.
No 1: Natalie Portman is engaged to be married to the father of her child. So, clearly, she intends to enter into a committed partnership, within the boundaries of marriage. Having a child out of wedlock isn't the tragedy that it used to be – as a high-earning, A-List actor, the financial problems that normally come with trying to raise a child on one salary just do not apply to Portman. But this point is largely irrelevant: in any case, Portman is set to take a walk down the aisle.
Even if she did not intend to marry her betrothed, though, Portman's decision to have and rear a child on her own would not be the end of her life, or severely compromise the child's happiness: millions of children grow up in nontraditional family structures. Blended stepfamilies, children raised by grandparents, widowers and divorcees are all part of the villages that contribute to rearing a child.
Remember all the fear-mongering over the children born to same-sex households? Gay and lesbian parents fought (and are still fighting) to raise their children, amid screams from conservatives that the children would grow up with irreparable damage. However, as the children of the so-called "Gayby Boom" of the 1980s grow up, we've seen no ill-effects resulting from a nontraditional family structure. Most of the challenges children face is due to state and federal policies that do not provide the financial or legal protection heterosexual couples take for granted. While Republicans would like to believe that a family begins and ends with a nuclear, heterosexual household, the reality is that children benefit from having committed caregivers – be they biological parents, adoptive parents, or extended family.
This conversation deserves to be retired. However, it is a popular talking-point for Republicans attempting to shore up the base. Back in 1992, then Vice President Dan Quayle blasted fictional character Murphy Brown for portraying single parenthood in a positive light. Even his own party couldn't defend the comments, and Quayle was forced to back down, later saying he respected single mothers.
Huckabee, perhaps in pursuit of the keys to the White House in 2012, thought that using this old tactic may show that he is still in touch with American voters; but it already seems he realises his remarks were ill-judged. In any event, the Bristol Palin saga of 2008 should have taught Huckabee a valuable lesson – for most people in America, single parenthood has become part of our messy existence. So the issue isn't so much the how or why of the situation, but what is in the best interest of the child.
Most families have an imperfect start. The important thing to focus on is not Natalie Portman's marital status, but her commitment to her child. And really, punditry and presidential aspirations aside, that is all that matters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/04/mikehuckabee-natalie-portman
No comments:
Post a Comment