Somebody at Law and Order: SVU really did their research. Last night’s plot pieced together an assault committed by an eight year old girl (Emma) on a classmate who had been harassing her for having lesbian mothers. Like any Law and Order script, there were plenty of twists and turns. But none of it was out of the realm of possibility. Among the true-to-life plot points:

1) The daughter was not identifiable as a child from a lesbian household until her biological mother became terminally ill. At that point, her other mother began attending school functions. Before that, the school simply thought she had one mother.

Real life reflection: It was a crisis that forced the family to be out, without having the time to weight the full consequences or properly prepare the child. This is a common occurrence for children in queer families, most often kids with lesbian parents who say their family is a non-issue in the community, when really, they are not fully out, and don’t realize how un-out they are until a crisis like an accident or a death “outs” them.

2) The child was attending a Catholic School so the administration was not too happy with her being enrolled there. As one administrator described it, they were sending mixed messages: that homosexuality was a sin, but Emma’s family was somehow okay. She was initially expelled, but her parents threatened to sue, so they let the child back in.

Real life reflection: This is a loosely-based “ripped from the headlines” plot point. In September 14-year-old Shay Clark was expelled from Ontario Christian School because her lesbian mothers committed the sin of being in a 22 year relationship. Shay’s family is not contesting the expulsion.

3) The lesbian-parented family was blamed for the bullying. In court, the non-bio mom fights for custody after her partner has died and the opposing counsel breaks her down to agree with him that it is HER FAULT for exposing her daughter to harassment, rather than placing blame where it belongs: on the bully, or the bully’s parents whose anti-gay “values” helped the boy justify his actions.

Real life reflection: Gay parents are often blamed for the harassment their children face. It is also the same justification often used to argue gay adoption bans: “It’s not fair to place families in homes that society ostracizes” rather than supporting the family but criticizing current societal values. It’s the age-old “you were asking for it.”

4) Grandparents, who seemed perfectly fine with their granddaughter having two mommies, do a 180 on the surviving partner and sue for custody. They demonized the surviving partner, wanting to believe that their daughter would not have ever become a lesbian had it not been for the seduction of this other woman, and that she would use those same seductive powers to “recruit” or molest her non-bio daughter.

Real life reflection: No matter how great your “in-laws” treat you right now, you must have your legal relationship to your non-biological children clearly spelled out in case your partner dies. You have no way of knowing how your partner’s parents might react in the midst of their grief. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

5) Bogus research is used in the custody case to argue that Emma will be adversely affected by being raised by her surviving lesbian mother — that is that the child is more likely to be lesbian.

Real life reflection: Bad research has been used for years to limit children’s rights to their gay and lesbian parents. The specific study in the episode was conducted by an unnamed researcher who is later to be explained as kicked out of the American Psychological Association. This reference is obviously based on Paul Cameron, head of the toxic anti-gay “Family Research Institute” who was expelled from APA. (Among his outrageous practices, Cameron has used my writing as “evidence” of why “homosexuals” are “more apt” to raise homosexual children. Details to follow in an upcoming post; this is too long and involved to include here.)

6) What I found most chilling was the accuracy of the girl’s report of the incident. Here’s what the girl finally reveals: the boy is taunting her, saying she is a dyke just like her moms. She tells him she isn’t. He says “prove it” and tries to kiss her. She pushes him away. He cuts off her ponytail saying that since she is a dyke she should look like it too. Emma gets a hold of the scissors and stabs him in the back — damage to his spinal cord that paralyzes him from the waist down.

Real life reflection: While these circumstances seem extreme, I don’t underestimate the explosive effects of queer rage. Everybody has their breaking point. I know too many smart, creative, hopeful, sensitive kids of queers who, at one point or another have fought back. Others who didn’t snap still prepared themselves, by bringing a switch blade to school every day (before metal detectors in schools) or taking kick-boxing/self-defense classes, or recruiting another classmate to “protect” them.

Often times the confrontation is sparked by that familiar and powerful taunt: Prove it. Prove that you aren’t a fag like your dad. Prove that your moms haven’t turned you into a lesbian. And how are we supposed to prove it? In the Law and Order episode, it was a forced kiss. For other kids, it is more. Kids are sometimes coerced into tolerating fondling or intercourse to “prove” their parents haven’t “made” them gay. Many gay parents think I am alarmist when I talk about this, saying that their kids are far too young to even be thinking about this stuff. But I was first “accused” of being a lesbian when I was nine years old. Parents would be amazed by what their children conceal from them about what they are facing at school and how far they might go to protect the honor of their queer parents.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS