Gregory Freeman: 'Family Value' Issue Ignores Real Families. PD 8/30/1992

Headline: 'FAMILY VALUE' ISSUE IGNORES REAL FAMILIES
Reporter: By Gregory Freeman

Publication: ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Last Printed: Sun., Aug. 30, 1992
Section: NEWS, Page: 4B, Edition: LATE FIVE STAR

ONE would think that Margaret Aaron's household would epitomize the typical ''all-American'' family.
She and her husband live in a quiet neighborhood in St. Louis County. They have two golden retrievers who romp playfully in the yard all day. They've raised three sons, all of whom have graduated from college and are now on their own.

But Aaron is disturbed by the recent talk among politicians about ''family values.''
She thinks that she and her family are being excluded.
That's because Aaron's oldest son is gay.
''It's clear that when these guys start talking about 'family values, ' they're not including my family, '' said Aaron. ''I feel that we're being condemned, all because of our son's sexual identity.''

Aaron acknowledges that she doesn't know exactly what politicians are talking about when they discuss ''family values.''
''I think they've made it pretty clear who they're not including, '' she said. ''And that's a shame. My son is just as human as anyone else, and he deserves the same rights as every American. But these guys are trying to get a few votes by picking on our family and other families like ours.
''My son didn't choose to become gay. That was something that he was born with. Our other two sons aren't gay, but they have noth ing against their brother. This whole 'family values' stuff is silly, if you ask me.''

Or if you ask Darlene Edmonds.
   Edmonds is a secretary downtown who is the mother of a 10-year-old boy. She got pregnant when she was in high school.
   ''It sure wasn't something that I planned to do, '' she said. ''But I didn't believe in abortion, so I had my son. I'm glad that I did.''
   She also went back to school and got the skills she needed to become a secretary.

So it's no surprise when she raises her voice when asked about ''family values.''
''I am so sick and tired of these people talking about this kind of stuff, '' she said. ''No, I'm not happy that I had a baby when I was in high school. But I've tried to better myself and make life better for me and my son. So who's got the right to condemn me - tell me that I'm living wrong? In some ways, I'm probably better off than some of these people who stay married and fight all day and night.
''As long as I'm taking care of me and my son, I don't think it's anybody's business - especially some politicians - how I live. I don't appreciate it.''

Both Aaron's family and Edmonds' family are excluded when Vice President Dan Quayle says, ''There is only one school of life's true values, and that is the family, the traditional family.''
But what is the ''traditional'' family? Is it a family where the husband goes to work and the wife stays home to take care of two adoring children? I suspect that that family hasn't been ''traditional'' in quite a while. White American women have been in the working world for some time now. And most black American women have been working even longer. Even ''Blondie'' of the comics has a job today.

Let's be honest with ourselves. The whole issue of ''family values'' is little more than a smokescreen, designed to get people to take their minds off some of the real issues out there, such as the lousy economy, the shipping of American jobs to Mexico and other foreign countries and the country's environmental problems.
All of those issues are issues that government can do something about. There is nothing it can do about ''Murphy Brown'' having a baby out of wedlock.

The Washington-based People for the American Way is denouncing the use of ''family values'' as an issue. In a statement made public recently, the group says:
''No one disputes the value of the family in American life. But in the context of the 1992 campaign, 'family values' is a phrase that is being used not to include and unite, but to exclude and stigmatize millions of Americans . . . Over the past few years, this phrase has become the cover for aggressive, wide-ranging attacks on women with children who work outside the home, gays and black Americans.
''However innocuous it may sound, 'family values' rhetoric has become the framework for sweeping and invasive condemnations of how individual Americans live their lives, meet their economic needs or raise their children. It is particularly dangerous because it is now being used as a wedge to turn public anger and frustration with the nation's problems against certain groups in our society.''

We don't need politicians who talk about ''family values.'' What we need are politicians who value families - regardless of how those families are structured.

Daniel Schesch - Webweaver

back