Court Sidesteps Broader Issue of Constitutionality in Prop 8: In the end, the court narrowly struck down DOMA 5-4 while it punted on the broader question of Prop 8’s constitutionality and simply argued that defenders lacked standing to back the 2008 Constitutional Amendment in California.
In striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion joined by the four liberal justices.
“DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life,” Justice Kennedy wrote.
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 5-4 majority in the Prop 8 ruling.
He wrote, “Federal courts have authority under the Constitution to answer such questions only if necessary to do so in the course of deciding an actual ‘case’ or ‘controversy.’ As used in the Constitution, those words do not include every sort of dispute, but only those ‘historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.’ “
“This is an essential limit on our power,” he argued. “It ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives.”
“The Article III requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in our system of separated powers,” Justice Roberts wrote. “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here. Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.”
In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Of course, the Court must be cautious before entering a realm of controversy where the legal community and society at large are still formulating ideas and approaches to a most difficult subject. But it is shortsighted to misconstrue principles of justiciability to avoid that subject.”
He added, “In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.”
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”
Governor Brown Tells California Counties to Issue Marriage Licenses
The effect of today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is that the 2010 federal district court’s decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional is left intact and the law cannot be enforced, the governor’s office stated in a release.
In response, the governor has directed the California Department of Public Health to advise county officials today that the district court’s injunction against Proposition 8 applies statewide, saying that all county clerks and county registrar/recorders must comply with it.
However, same-sex Californians will not be able to marry until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the lifting of the temporary stay, which has been in place throughout the appeals process, to the injunction.
In preparation for this outcome, Governor Brown conferred with California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris about whether the state, through the California Department of Public Health, can so advise county clerks and registrar/recorders to be bound by the federal district court’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The Attorney General declared that the California Department of Public Health “can and should” instruct county officials that they “must resume issuing marriage licenses to and recording the marriages of same-sex” couples. The Department of Public Health will issue another letter to county officials as soon as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms that the stay is lifted.
“After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California,” said Governor Jerry Brown. “In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted.”
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today declared that the United States Supreme Court’s historic opinion in Hollingsworth v. Perry means that every county in the State of California must now recognize the right of same sex couples to legally marry, and asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to lift its stay and allow same-sex marriages to take place.
“The Supreme Court’s historic ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry means that same-sex couples have the fundamental right to be legally married in all of California’s 58 counties,” said Attorney General Harris. “The Court agreed with our argument that opponents of same-sex marriage lacked the legal standing required to bring the issue to the court. Same-sex marriages can legally resume in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifts its stay on the District Court Ruling. I ask that the Ninth Circuit lift this stay immediately, because gay and lesbian couples in California have waited long enough for their full civil rights.”
Attorney General Harris filed a brief with the Supreme Court in February that argued opponents of same-sex marriage had no legal standing to interfere with the rights of others.
“Unlike state officials, proponents have no authority to enforce Proposition 8, and suffered no injury-in-fact from the district court’s judgment enjoining its enforcement,” the amicus brief states. As a result, the Proposition 8 sponsors “can only assert the kind of undifferentiated interest in the validity of state law that this Court has held to be insufficient for [legal] standing.”
Attorney General Harris also argued that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional: “To be clear, Proposition 8’s sole purpose was to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. There is absolutely no legitimate or rational state interest in doing so. Proposition 8 is therefore unconstitutional.”
In May 2011, Attorney General Harris filed a similar amicus brief in California Supreme Court.
Attorney General Harris also praised the Supreme Court’s ruling that found the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) unconstitutional. Specifically, the court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor found that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates against a specific class of people, gays and lesbians.
“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State,” reads the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor.
In February, Attorney General Harris joined 14 other attorneys general in filing a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down DOMA as unconstitutional.
“I joined 14 other Attorneys General in filing an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA because it is unconstitutional,” said Attorney General Harris. “It is gratifying to see the highest court in the land deliver an across-the-board victory for equality and justice today. Edith Windsor deserved to have her marriage recognized by the United States, and today’s decision is a historic step forward in the fight for civil rights for same-sex couples across this country.”
Local and Other Response
Congressman John Garamendi, a longtime proponent “of equal rights for all Americans,” said today, “American history can be read as a gradual expansion of true equality under the law. Today, the arc of history bent further toward justice.”
“I have long believed that all loving couples deserve the freedom to marry,” the Representative stated. “Hundreds of thousands of LGBT Americans are building a life together, raising children, and are part of the fabric of communities throughout our nation. They deserve all the same rights that my wife Patti and I have, and I’m glad we’re one step closer to a country that treats everyone with dignity and respect.”
“Marriage equality is now legal in California and federal marriage benefits have been expanded to married same sex couples throughout the country. Love wins every time and the march toward a fairer, more just America continues,” he said.
“We are a country that celebrates the ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. Today, we came even closer to making that ideal a reality,” the statement continued. “This past weekend, I went to Philadelphia with my family and we visited the location of the Continental Congress, where the Constitution was written as a living, breathing document that could not foresee the issues of the future but provided a mechanism to resolve these issues. Our continued progress toward the fundamental values enshrined in this document is what makes our country great.”
Assemblymember Mariko Yamada, also a longtime supporter of marriage equality added, “Today, I join with millions of Americans in applauding the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the fundamental principles of marriage equality. More importantly, the decisions issued today are a beacon of hope to all who choose to travel our country’s long road to justice. Let us all continue the fight for civil rights for all people.”
“It’s a wonderful day for Californians who believe in equal rights for all. In 2008, Proposition 8 stripped the right to marry from LGBT citizens, while DOMA imposed an unprecedented standard that allowed states to ignore marriage contracts formed elsewhere in our nation,” San Francisco Senator Leland Yee said in a release.
He added, “Today the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fundamental ideas our nation was founded upon and taken a step towards equality and fairness. Now that the laws that held same sex couples apart have been found unconstitutional, we can finally live up to our creed that all people are created equal. I look forward to again officiating at weddings for all couples who wish to marry, this time knowing that their right is here to stay.”
Senator Barbara Boxer said, “Today my spirits are soaring because the Supreme Court reaffirmed the promise of America by rejecting two blatantly unconstitutional measures that discriminated against millions of our families.”
“I was proud to have voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and it is so heartening to see that the federal government will now treat all marriages equally,” the Senator added. “Because of the Court’s ruling on Proposition 8, millions of Californians will be able to marry the person they love – with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it.”
Yolo County’s Clerk and Record, Freddie Oakley has been fighting this fight at least since 2007 when she protested same sex marriage prohibition laws by staging on Valentine’s Day, a symbolic marriage certificate.
On Wednesday, she told the Vanguard, “As Yolo County’s clerk-recorder, I am happy that I will no longer be forced to discriminate based on gender when I issue marriage licenses. That moment will come very soon, just as soon as the California Department of Health gives us a green light.”
“As a firm believer in equality before the law and the equal value of all persons, I am, personally, happy to think that the State of California will soon rejoin the 11 states and the District of Columbia who all have marriage laws that allow adults to marry without regard to gender,” she added. “That was assured today, I hope.”
“I am very happy, indeed, to think that I will soon be a part of the support and confirmation of so many families who have waited too long for this moment,” she said. “As a very serious-minded religious woman, I will be happy on the day when people of varying faiths stop picking and choosing their Bible passages to whack at one another’s souls, if that day ever arrives.”
Anthony Farrington, a Lake County Supervisor and candidate for the 4th Assembly District told the Vanguard, “I am very pleased with the ruling of the United States Supreme Court. While Lady Justice may be blind, she has a big heart. This is a historic step in the name of equality for all lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender people. However, there is much more work to do in the name of marriage equality.”
The Vanguard will have more reaction as it comes in.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Update at 2:20 pm: Added Comments from County Clerk Freddie Oakley and Assembly candidate Anthony Farrington.
UPDATE at 11:24 am: Added Senator Boxer’s statement. Section on Attorney General Kamala Harris added previously.
[quote]In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.”[/quote]
Am I missing something or is he arguing that we can use the initiative process to make any law the majority of people want regardless of wether or not they infringe on the basic human rights of others?
This is a welcome, if limited, step in the right direction. I have done both domestic partnership and marriage with the man I married, and marriage is very, very different from domestic partnership on many levels. It should not be denied to same sex couples.
I think he’s arguing that the point of the initiative process in part is to allow the people to sidestep the legislature to pass laws. By requiring that the state and the state alone has standing to defend such laws undermines the original purpose of the initiative process.
I’m not saying I agree with him, but that’s what I believe him to be arguing.
Update: Just added a section on Kamala Harris from her statement and press conference this morning.
I wonder where Kennedy would have come down if the Court would have decided to vote on the Constitutionality of Prop. 8–instead of “punting” by deciding on the standing issue.
I’ve assumed that if they wanted to vote on constitutionality they would have so they either couldn’t agree or punted.
Welcome to California the banana republic where fruits and nuts run the state without any intention of following and upholding any laws that they disagree with.
Next stop… your local churches and other private organizations will be sued to try and force them to marry and accept gay couples.
Why do we know this will happen? Because the root motivation for the demand that gays can “marry” instead of accepting equal-rights civil unions is about them feeling accepted and same. This SCOTUS ruling will not change the fact that there are material difference between gay and straight married couples… especially as it relates to procreation and childhood development. So, after the euphoria of the win dies down, gays will be back to feeling different. And so they will look to subvert the next social structure in the name of false equality… and they will continue into perpetuity never achieving that unattainable status of same.
Bottom line for gays, this does not change a thing in terms of how they stack up against a traditional marriage (all other things being equal). Straight partners will always be the preferred model because children need both gender role-models to effectively develop.
This is the big material difference that no amount of legislative or judicial activist wins can change.
[quote]the fact that there are material difference between gay and straight married couples… especially as it relates to procreation and childhood development. […] Straight partners will always be the preferred model because children need both gender role-models to effectively develop.[/quote]
Are there peer-reviewed studies that show that childhood development is affected in any material way by having two same-gender parents, and that this causes children to -not- “effectively develop” (whatever that means)?
At least one longitudinal study that’s been going on since 1986 suggests otherwise: http://www.nllfs.org/about/.
It’s not something I’m hugely knowledgeable about, but the little poking around I’ve done on the Internet recently suggests that you can’t conclusively say that parents of opposite genders are requisite for healthy development.
While not my ideal solution(Abolition of civil marriage), this is about as good as one could realistically hope for and frankly, the reaction from the right wing [edit] is very satisfying.
Biddlin ;>)/
The studies that discount the impact of fatherless and motherless parenting are incomplete, shoddy and done by biased sources. There are not enough studies mostly because the money that goes to fund the studies goes to where the liberal political agenda is beating profusely.
There is plenty of qualified opinion, for example, that states the importance of having a father involved.
[quote]What does the research say these days? According to a report in “Fathers and Their Impact on Children’s Well-Being”:
“Even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections.
The way fathers play with their children also has an important impact on a child’s emotional and social development. Fathers spend a higher percentage of their one-to-one interactions with infants and preschoolers in stimulating, playful activity than do mothers. From these interactions, children learn how to regulate their feelings and behavior.
Children with involved, caring fathers have better educational outcomes. The influence of a father’s involvement extends into adolescence and young adulthood. Numerous studies find that an active and nurturing style of fathering is associated with better verbal skills, intellectual functioning, and academic achievement among adolescents.”[/quote]
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-long-reach-childhood/201106/the-importance-fathers
[quote]The studies that discount the impact of fatherless and motherless parenting are incomplete, shoddy and done by biased sources. There are not enough studies mostly because the money that goes to fund the studies goes to where the liberal political agenda is beating profusely.
[/quote]
I’m asking about two parent households, where the parents are both of the same gender. Are there appreciable studies that find “ineffective” development of children of these families?
[quote]There is plenty of qualified opinion, for example, that states the importance of having a father involved.
[/quote]
So two fathers must be even better, right? 🙂
[i]So two fathers must be even better, right?[/i]
Maybe, but then there is all those married lesbian couples with children.
Is this type of name calling allowed on the Vanguard? I just need to know the rules and that the same rules will be applied equally to everyone.
[quote]Is this type of name calling allowed on the Vanguard? I just need to know the rules and that the same rules will be applied equally to everyone.[/quote]
Edited both instances.
[quote]Maybe, but then there is all those married lesbian couples with children.[/quote]
And the ones I’m acquainted with are raising their children very effectively.
[quote]So two fathers must be even better, right?
Maybe, but then there is all those married lesbian couples with children. [/quote]
Frankly, good response, boys and girls both need their role models.
[quote]So two fathers must be even better, right?
Maybe, but then there is all those married lesbian couples with children. [/quote]
The longitudinal study on lesbian families I cited above suggests that the children of lesbians are doing quite well. The study is also discussed here: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html.
I agree with what you said previously: that there are oftentimes issues with how some of these studies are conducted. This one follows “planned” lesbian families–that is, families who had same-gendered parents from the outset and used artificial insemination for reproduction.
Many studies that show negative outcomes of children of gay parents include appreciable numbers of cases where there was a pre-existing divorce prior to the gay relationship, which can bring in its own issues. So, some of the “ineffective” development outcomes in these cases could be attributed to problems in heterosexual parents prior to the new family arrangement.
I’m just saying that I don’t think it can be definitely said that in all cases will heterosexual parents be the best-case scenario. There are too many factors.
[quote]“The cooperative input and influence of a male parent and a female parent is essential for proper child development.
•“As fathering expert Dr. Kyle Pruett of YaleMedicalSchool explains in Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child, “fathers do not mother.” Psychology Today explains, “fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.” A father, as a male parent, brings unique contributions to the parenting project.
•Likewise, a mother, as a female, uniquely impacts the life and development of her child, as Dr. Brenda Hunter explains in her book, The Power of Mother Love: Transforming Both Mother and Child. Erik Erikson, a pioneer in the world of child psychology, explained that father love and mother love are qualitatively different kinds of love. As cited in Kyle D. Pruett, The Nurturing Father, (New York: Warner Books, 1987), p. 49.
[/quote]
[quote]When we disregard the gender distinctions of parental influence as unimportant or unnecessary, we seriously diminish the proper development of children. Kids need the active participation of a mother and a father, and both parents need to be true to their gender designs. Both bring different and equally important things to the parenting project. We impoverish children and society when we deny our kids the influence of a mother and father, because we limit their development into full, healthy adults.[/quote]
[quote]“The cooperative input and influence of a male parent and a female parent is essential for proper child development. [/quote]
From the same site where your quoted material came from:
“Marriage: We believe that marriage was intended by God to be a life-long relationship between one man and one woman. Such marriages best promote the nurturing and equipping of children and provide the foundation for a healthy, enduring society.”
Since they have this as a sort of starting proposition, I’m skeptical about the studies they cite.
K. Smith, here’s a little about the studies you cited:
[quote]An Activist Study
The investigators of the NLLFS are not scholars in the field of child development. They are not scholars in the field of family formation. Their professional research has been solely in the field of lesbian research. Examine the bibliographies offered in each of their published studies to date. They offer the reader no survey of the vast literature on how various family forms impact child development and well-being in varying degrees. They consult – nearly exclusively – only published studies that examine gay or lesbian issues. When they do make a cursory reference to the larger, general body of research on how family form impacts children, they cite sociology text books rather than referring the reader to published studies, a practice unacceptable for beginning graduate students.
The study is also funded primarily by well-known and highly partisans groups such as The Gill Foundation, the world’s largest and most influential funder of GLBT political and social causes, the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay Lesbian Medical Association
[/quote]
Here’s a little about the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) Initiated by Nanette Gartrell, MD, the NLLFS examines the social, psychological, and emotional development of the children as well as the dynamics of planned lesbian families.
[quote]Dr. Gartrell has a long and award-winning history in lesbian-research activism. In 2001, she published Everyday Mutinies: Funding Lesbian Activism, a handbook showing how to grow and fund lesbian activism. 5
Gartrell is not only in the mainstream of lesbian activism, but practically beyond it as well. While married to award winning lesbian-film maker Dee Mosbacher, Gartrell and Mosbacher are self-proclaimed polyamorists. Gartrell explains their “progressive” relational arrangement in an article published in the Journal of Lesbian Studies provocatively entitled, “If This Is Tuesday, It Must Be Dee… Confessions of a Closet Polyamorist.” 6
To explain just how out of the mainstream of the lesbian community she has been, she admits, “And, as surprising as it may seem, I do not consider honesty, integrity, and commitment the guiding principle of my intimate life.” Rather her commitment is to “making each block of time I spend with each lover as glorious as it can be.” 7 She assures her reader that loving multiple adults should raise no concern; after all, she “would never think to challenge a parent’s capacity to love…multiple children at the same time.” 8 However, she spends most of her article talking about how both her and Dee had an uphill battle overcoming the strong jealousy that arose at the other’s “extra-relational” dalliances and the “overwhelming” guilt that issued from their own extra relationships. But such powerful jealousy and guilt is seldom part of parenting more than one child. She concludes her article by hoping that through polys “outing” themselves, “polyamorism will become just as passé’…as lesbianism is today.”9
But the facts that NLLFS is initiated and conducted by lesbian activists, funded by foundations backing GLBT activism and that the Principle Investigator is outside the mainstream of the lesbian community do not mean the study is not a reputable academic investigation. It only lets us know who’s behind it and their possible motivations.
[/quote]
[b]What Boys Learn from Their Dads[/b]
[quote]A father’s role
Fathers are different from mothers. They look different, they sound different, they play in a different way, and they usually have a different approach to raising children than a mother does. And that’s a good thing. A boy learns from his father, without even realizing he’s doing it, what a man is and does. He learns about masculinity, about what men like and don’t like. Many adult men report that they either wanted to be “just like my dad”—or wanted to be his exact opposite. Fathers undoubtedly have a powerful influence on their growing sons, and it begins from the moment of birth.
Fatherhood in the Early Years
Imagine a couple who have just welcomed the birth of a son. Curt was thrilled when his wife Nancy announced that she was pregnant with their first child. He was even more excited when tests showed that the baby was a boy. Curt had wonderful memories of camping trips and fishing expeditions with his own dad, and he looked forward to giving his son a happy and loving childhood. He attended childbirth classes enthusiastically, listened to parenting books on tape as he drove to work each day, and was right beside Nancy when she gave birth to Alex.
Fact
Ross Parke, Ph.D., at the University of California at Riverside, found that fathers are just as good at reading a baby’s emotional cues as mothers are, but they respond in different ways. A father’s active play and stimulation may actually help a baby learn to be aware of his own internal state and to tolerate a wide range of people and activities.
Research shows that without a doubt, fathers are an integral part of their sons’ healthy emotional, physical, and cognitive growth from their first moments of life. Boys whose fathers love them and can demonstrate that love in consistent, caring ways have fewer problems later in life with peers, academics, and delinquent behavior. One study tracked a group of boys and girls for twenty-six years, exploring the roles of both mothers and fathers in nurturing emotional health and empathy. While the mother’s role was important, by far the most influential factor in a child’s emotional health was how involved the father was in a child’s care. In fact, the benefits of having an active, involved father during infancy and early childhood appear to last well into adolescence.
Read more on FamilyEducation: [url]http://life.familyeducation.com/boys/fathers/55299.html#ixzz2XNSwjdIJ[/url][/quote]
[quote]Here’s a little about the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) Initiated by Nanette Gartrell, MD, the NLLFS examines the social, psychological, and emotional development of the children as well as the dynamics of planned lesbian families.[/quote]
Any support for this that doesn’t come from the Focus on the Family website?
Regardless, her own relationships really have no bearing on the research she does. She, herself, is not the one being studied. The only thing questionable I see is the sample selection. A lot of the study participants are likely more affluent and stable than comparison populations, but this would make sense if they’re purposefully limiting their population to “planned” lesbian families (who would have more financial resources to afford artificial insemination).
A group of social science professors present the scholarly research on a child’s need for a married mother and a father in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court.
[url]http://www.adfmedia.org/files/HollingsworthAmicusSocialScienceProfessors.pdf[/url]
[quote]SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
A persistent claim by those supporting same-sex marriage is that there is “no difference” in the outcomes of children raised by a biological mother and father and those who have been raised by two women or two men. That claim was made to the courts below, and will no doubt be made to this Court by associations like the American Psychological Association (“APA”). But as recent scholarship indicates, the claim is difficult to support because nearly all of the studies upon which the “no difference” assertion is based are rather limited, involving non-random, non-representative samples, often with relatively few participants. Specifically, the vast majority of the studies were based on samples of fewer than 100 parents (or children), and typically representative only of well-educated, white women (parents), often with elevated incomes. These are hardly representative samples of the lesbian and gay population raising children, and therefore not a sufficient basis to make broad claims about child outcomes of same-sex parenting structures
[/quote]
I guess the SCOTUS judges didn’t read it.
It’s about time Justice racked-up another win. Although, I worry about all the threatened heterosexual marriages. 🙂
-Michael Bisch
K.Smith, just wanted to point out that the references you used aren’t all that unbiased either since you threw the first stone.
So marriage is all about child rearing? I didn’t realize there was any testing requirements to determine whether applicants for marriage licenses were well-adjusted, financially stable, and had excellent relationship and parenting skills. Should we also test for fertility/virility? What about the childless marriages? Do we now impose divorces upon them? Just wish to clarify since we’re setting the bar at those that have the skill set to be the perfect breeding pair and parents.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]K.Smith, just wanted to point out that the references you used aren’t all that unbiased either since you threw the first stone. [/quote]
I threw quite a stone by evoking Time Magazine and the NLLFS itself, which is undertaken by a legitimate academic (no matter what her sexual orientation or sexual proclivities happen to be) out of UCLA.
These are a far cry from the unabashedly religious sources such as Focus on the Family and whatever that other site was that GI mined for that first quotation.
The articles that Frankly and GI refer to may suggest that intact heterosexual parents provide the best-case scenario, but do not offer support that children from gay families develop ineffectively–again, whatever that means.
No it is not all about child rearing, and I don’t see any material difference or reason to cite a difference for any type of childless couple regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, color, height, weight, etc…. except when it comes to raising children.
I am making the point that there is a material difference in a gay married couple’s ability to provide for the gender-specific development needs of their children equal to a traditional married couple’s ability to do the same.
My mother could not have done a good enough job teaching me and my brothers how to become good men because she was not a man, so how could my two lesbian mothers do any better?
There is a difference. The difference is material. Marriage as a legal and religious partnership entity has a basis in every society for being the source of procreation and child rearing. We can certainly add to that definition a non-child rearing partnership entity and require only that two people of any gender commit to loving each other, but if and when they decide to push out offspring out of a test-tube or if they adopt, they enter a new realm of marital existence that is inferior to traditional married couples (all other things being equal).
It is this material difference that we are screwing up not recognizing. Again, we have capitulated to the needy adults at the expense of children. Not our finest hour… and our hours these days are already pretty crappy.
image: [img]http://ct.politicomments.com/ol/pc/sw/i59/2/12/8/pc_35f566896f024c02adc3da4566b9b5d6.jpg[/img]
This argument is absurd. There is not requirement to have children to marry and there is not requirement to marry to have children. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It’s like ranking football players on their ability to juggle a soccer ball. Who gives a shit?
-Michael Bisch
[i]The articles that Frankly and GI refer to may suggest that intact heterosexual parents provide the best-case scenario, but do not offer support that children from gay families develop ineffectively–again, whatever that means[/i]
That is correct.
I want the best case scenario to be considered the premium and most desired situation. Conversely, I want the children of gay parents to be considered as more likely to have special needs.
The ONLY point I am making that there is material difference between gay and straight parenting as it relates to meeting the gender-specific development needs of their children. That is the ONLY point, but I think it is a very, very important point that has been glossed over and ignored… because bringing it front and center would have hurt the feelings of gays. So, to prevent us from hurting the feelings of gays, we are willing to increase the risk that some children will grow up getting short-sheeted on their gender-specific development needs.
Sorry, but I can more about children than I do the feelings of adult gays.
[i]Sorry, but I [s]can[/s] [b]care[/b] more about children than I do the feelings of adult gays.[/i]
From the Twitter-verse: “As we celebrate today, let’s spare a warm thought for our opponents, who have lost absolutely nothing.”
[quote]This argument is absurd. There is not requirement to have children to marry and there is not requirement to marry to have children. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It’s like ranking football players on their ability to juggle a soccer ball. Who gives a s**t?[/quote]
Exactly.
[i]This argument is absurd. There is not requirement to have children to marry and there is not requirement to marry to have children.[/i]
Agree with the second sentence. But if and when you do, there is a material difference. Do you honestly think that, all other things being equal, that two lesbian moms can do as good a job teaching John, Bob, Jeff and Michael how to be a good man? Did you have a male father? Was he a role model for you? How can two moms replace what a male father can provide for a son’s development into a well-functioning man?
image:
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2im0iRIru1rp8dtwo1_500.jpg[/img]
wdf1, you are on a roll!
image:[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxz8exgQ1t1r3a562o1_500.jpg[/img]
Just the fact that people wanting to enter into the traditional, “square” (that’s what the kids say these days, right?) institution of marriage isn’t a win for “conservative values” shows how convoluted and partisan this whole situation is.
I’ll go out on a limb to generalize and say that what’s best is to have a kid live with their (loving) mom and dad. In [i]general[/i]. My stepdaughter and I are very close, close enough for me to know a part of her will always mourn not being raised by mommy and daddy together in her own primary home. This is despite her having four parents that love her immensely, get along well, regularly met all together when she was a child to make sure we were “on the same page,” etc. Maybe her wishing she’d had that is only a result of societal norms, but there you go.
That being said, I’d far rather see a kid raised by two moms or two dads than by a single parent. I think having two loving parents is better than one having to kick it solo. Ask any single parent and they’ll likely tell you that having another adult that loved their kids as much as they do and wanted to help raise them would be an unimaginable blessing.
And no matter how many studies show (or don’t show) that it’s better to have a father and mother, it’s not the role of government to even consider those parameters when issuing (or not) a PERMIT to marry. I’m sure there are studies that show what is the optimal age to have children. Shall we start passing laws about marriage based upon that data? What if research shows a particular income bracket makes for better parents…should that be taken into consideration when people apply for a marriage permit? What if a person isn’t capable of having children…does that factor into the marriage-permitting equation?
Except Frankly what ends up happening is kids end up getting thrown into receiverships and group homes, they get abused and they end up in trouble. So what your telling me is that it’s your position that kids are better up ending up there than with a gay family?
image:[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3sim1EkPb1qa38rto1_1280.jpg[/img]
Honestly, Don, this exchange is entirely off topic and should be moved to a thread called, “Who Makes Better Parents Gays or Straights?” It sure as shit has nothing to do with marriage, the rights and responsibilities that come with the license, and never has. Even the tax code differentiates between marriage and dependents. It’s self-evident for God’s sake.
-Michael Bisch
Well, as wdf1 keeps pointing out, there is some humor value to the exchange.
-Michael Bisch
[i]Except Frankly what ends up happening is kids end up getting thrown into receiverships and group homes, they get abused and they end up in trouble. So what your telling me is that it’s your position that kids are better up ending up there than with a gay family?[/i]
David, this argument seems to show up when there is nothing left to argue against my points. Of course you cannot compare this situation with what I am talking about. It is apples to watermelons. Gay parents are not the saviors of all crappy parenting situations. But, of course a stable loving home with a loving gay couple is better than any abusive situation.
My point is “all things being equal”. That is the only way to accurately and honestly compare the two situations. Again, my ONLY problem… and the reason I would prefer gay civil unions with equal rights instead of gay marriage is that the different label provides society and all our services a justification for seeing the children of gay parents as being in need of supplemental gender-specific development assistance. I have not said that this is a bad thing. It is only a bad thing if we ignore it and expect the kids to just figure it out on their own.
Oops. Sorry about that–I didn’t realize I was egging on an off-topic debate. My original intent was to argue against what I perceived to be the main argument someone was making against allowing gay marriage. It kind of spiraled from there. 🙁
[i]And no matter how many studies show (or don’t show) that it’s better to have a father and mother, it’s not the role of government to even consider those parameters when issuing (or not) a PERMIT to marry. I’m sure there are studies that show what is the optimal age to have children. Shall we start passing laws about marriage based upon that data? What if research shows a particular income bracket makes for better parents…should that be taken into consideration when people apply for a marriage permit? What if a person isn’t capable of having children…does that factor into the marriage-permitting equation?[/i]
Ginger, these are good points. And, I agree with you that I would always prefer a stable and loving gay couple raising kids to a stable and loving single-parent.
However, I think you are discounting the problems that kids can have failing to get enough gender-specific parenting for their development. I see young people struggle to feel like they fit in. I see them struggle to find themselves and answer the question “who am I”. We are often the echo of our parent of the same gender. What if there is no same gender parent? Who will we echo? If it is our parent of another gender, will we be whole, or will we have gaps in understanding? I think the latter.
My own experience AND OBSERVATION is that association with a parent of the same gender is very important in assisting with development to a functioning adult. I also think cross gender association is important.
How a man treats and woman and a woman treats a man is often born from how we observed our parents doing the same. How does a child get that from gay parents?
So, is gay parenting equal? The answer is no. Should gays have equal rights? The answer is yes. Is marriage a right? The answer should be no.
Ahhhhhhhh! He’s relentless.
-Michael Bisch
Frankly, the thing is…let’s say that’s all true and well and good and whatnot. Still irrelevant to permitting marriages.
It’s weird. He’s hell bent on imposing this parenting standard on one subgroup, but not on any other subgroups for marriage licensing purposes. What about redheads? Are they better or worse parents? There are some hot-looking redheads out there, but I’m not sure we should allow them to marry. Dog lovers? They’re probably pretty good parents, so let’s let them marry. of course that means we can’t allow non dog lovers to marry because they’re inferior parents. German-Americans? Definitely not!
-Michael Bisch
Frankly, you hold an opinion on the matter, I’m simply pointing out a flaw in the opinion with regards to the foster care system. You believe that two sex parents are better than other options, I don’t know if you’re right, but I doubt I can talk you out of it especially tired as I am. But I can point out a flaw in your opinion which is that your are turning the perfect into the enemy of the good. For a lot of kids having a stable and loving home is far better than the alternative whether its two sex, one sex, or a single parent.
What about two hermaphrodites?
-Michael Bisch
So…. the issue of Prop 8 was decided on the basis of lack of standing. Then Attorney General Jerry Brown violated his oath of office to defend the CA constitution and launched this contorted legal travesty. His hubris and arrogance in not carrying out his sworn duty as CA Attorney General disqualifies him for public office for me when he appears on any future ballot. The legal contortions of the Prop 8 saga will no doubt be ample fodder for further legal challenges to the overturning the Prop 8, an amendment to the CA constitution that the CA Supreme Court found to be legally valid.
[i]It’s weird. He’s hell bent on imposing this parenting standard on one subgroup, but not on any other subgroups for marriage licensing purposes.[/i]
I am not imposing parenting standards. You are making up stuff.
If you believe that the institution of marriage exists at least in part for the purpose of procreation (I do), then you simply cannot make a claim that gay marriage is equal to traditional man-woman marriage when all other material criteria are the same (income-level, education, etc.)
I am fine with us treating other subgroups as different if it can also be factually demonstrated that membership in that subgroup is less than optimal situation for raising children.
Now if you see having and raising children as just a decision that any two people or three people of twelve people can make, and then go do it, then I see your point that it should not make any difference who gets a marriage license.
Note that in France they have outlawed the use of the words “mother” and “father” in schools so as not to offend the children of gays. I guess that is a direction we can go.
So, do you support the Supreme Court decision?
That’s the precisely the point. Anybody can have kids married or not, fit or not. And here in the States we should call the parents “mofathers”, “mofuthers”, something like that.
-Michael Bisch
[i]For a lot of kids having a stable and loving home is far better than the alternative whether its two sex, one sex, or a single parent.[/i]
But David, you are missing a key point. I am not against gay couples having or adopting kids. I am not saying that gay parents make bad parents. I am just saying they are missing a fundamental parental component of one gender or the other. I makes them incomplete parents, IMO.
Some want to separate that from marriage. I think that is a mistake.
I think we are so afraid of “difference” and any adverse impacts that it might result in, that we ignore true difference at the expense of people that would benefit from that admission… and they are impacted by the sub optimization from trying to force sameness.
I will never look at a gay married couple as being the same as a straight married couple as it relates to having and raising children.
I never look at any two families as being “the same.” Do you support the Supreme Court decision?
“Support” together with “Supreme Court decision” is a very strange combination of terms. What’s to support? Their decisions simply are with no rhyme or reason. Bush vs. Gore, Citizens United vs. FEC, they make it up as they go along. They make-up law, discern rights were none exist, even making non-humans into humans. Absurd.
-Michael Bisch
Upon further reflection, maybe Frankly is on to something. Earth is over-populated. If we restrict marriage and therefor breeding to left handed people, odds are the population will decline. Although we’d have to exclude left handed redheads because there are too many hot-looking redheaded chicks and including them would be counterproductive.
-Michael Bisch
Chief Justice John Roberts, on the other hand, accepts Kennedy’s limits, saying the decision’s reliance on federalism would lead the Court to uphold rather than strike down state bans on gay marriage.
So.. the narrative appears to be that CA had Prop 8 which was found to be valid by CA’s own Supreme Court. The Federal Court in San Francisco ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. This Federal Court decision . the US Supreme Court Chief Justice opinion appears to suggest that the SF Federal court did not have the authority to take on this case, most especially without a Prop 8 defendant in proper standing. Chief Justice Roberts now says that the US Supreme Court is “powerless”,leaving the lower Federal Court decision in place without the ability to be appealed. Robert’s majority opinion suggests that without the contorted machinations of Attorney General Brown, the Supreme Court majority opinion would uphold Prop 8 based upon federalism principles.
How to get a SF Federal opinion limited and not to include the fiercely anti-same-sex marriage states in the Federal district when appealed ,undoubtedly unleashing a political firestorm. The answer to this question was the origin of the illogical legal contortions that followed.
[quote]How a man treats and woman and a woman treats a man is often born from how we observed our parents doing the same. How does a child get that from gay parents? [/quote]
I just need to add that in some situations how a man treats a women (or vice versa) is not something we want observed or emulated by his/her children. There are a lot worse situations happening within some heterosexual marriages then kids missing a “fundamental parental component” but legally we allow and support these unfit parents to marry and raise children, while denying it to couples who potentially could be much fitter parents.
Having a role models from each gender seems a little overrated when you take into other account other factors that can negatively or positively impact a child’s life, and these factors have nothing to do with the gender of the parents.
Another thing I want to add. We don’t parent in a bubble. My kids have lots of role models beside my husband and myself. They see there grandparents interactions, their aunts and uncles, their friends parents (some of whom are gay couples). They have male and female role models at school and extra curricular activities. In my opinion it’s short sighted to suggest (and unhealthy if it was true) that a child’s immediate family is his/her only role model.
Child Abuse Rate at Zero Precent in Lesbian Households:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html
Why do I keep reading a comparison of unfit parents with gay parents?
Is the argument that since we allow unfit parents to marry and produce offspring, we should allow gays to do the same? It is a weak argument and seems to put gays in a low category of capability for the convenience of comparison.
After all this…
[quote]Straight partners will always be the preferred model because children need both gender role-models to effectively develop.
…they enter a new realm of marital existence that is inferior to traditional married couples (all other things being equal).
I want the children of gay parents to be considered as more likely to have special needs.
…the reason I would prefer gay civil unions with equal rights instead of gay marriage is that the different label provides society and all our services a justification for seeing the children of gay parents as being in need of supplemental gender-specific development assistance.
So, is gay parenting equal? The answer is no.
…membership in that subgroup is less than optimal situation for raising children.
It makes them incomplete parents, IMO.[/quote]
Then we get this:
[quote]
Why do I keep reading a comparison of unfit parents with gay parents?[/quote]
Because you consider gay parents ineffective, inferior, creating special needs, damaging children, unequal as parents, less optimal, and incomplete.
…
“Why do I keep reading a comparison of unfit parents with gay parents? Is the argument that since we allow unfit parents to marry and produce offspring, we should allow gays to do the same? It is a weak argument and seems to put gays in a low category of capability for the convenience of comparison.”
First, thanks Don for compiling the above quotes.
Secondly, this is my point,you argue that homosexuals make unfit parents, since we do allow unfit heterosexual parents to marry and have children why shouldn’t we allow homosexuals to as well (unfit or not?).
“How a man treats and woman and a woman treats a man is often born from how we observed our parents doing the same. How does a child get that from gay parents?”
I find this a suspect claim, given the many other influences in our young lives (peers, uncles, aunts, priests, teachers, coaches, neighbors, books, television, movies, etc.). But, if it’s true, some of us have taken on the wrong targets for improving the lot of American children.
First, married same-sex parents are, well, married. Fewer than half of the heterosexual parents remain married. High percentages of heterosexual parents never get married and don’t even live together.
All this concern about having parents rearing their children in a traditional family should be focused on heterosexual parents–by far the largest numbers of parents failing to provide the positive, live-in role models you find so critical.
The numbers of same-sex parents are infinitesimal by comparison. Furthermore, they seem to stay together more than traditional parents do and, by all accounts, are doing just fine as mother and mother or father and father. Time to leave the gay and lesbian families alone.
“All this concern about having parents rearing their children in a traditional family should be focused on heterosexual parents–by far the largest numbers of parents failing to provide the positive, live-in role models you find so critical.”
Good point, why focus on the “problems” a small percentage of kids being raised by gay parents face, when the heterosexual world gives us so much more to work with.
Defending traditional marriage:[img]http://www.branchtoon.com/sites/default/files/images/toons/newt-gingrich-marriages-web-3-11-11.jpg?1299895063[/img]
[i] Furthermore, they seem to stay together more than traditional parents do [/i]
Not enough data available in the US to make that claim. You would have to control for different variables including if the couples have kids.
But, this is what we can expect…
[quote]A 2004 study of registered partnerships in Sweden reported that gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples were nearly three times more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples.[/quote]
[url]http://www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-fak/fisoz/conference/abstracts/a_andersson.pdf[/url]
[quote]Because you consider gay parents ineffective, inferior, creating special needs, damaging children, unequal as parents, less optimal, and incomplete.[/quote]
Yes Don, but compared to traditional different-sex parents with equal backgrounds and equal economic circumstances and equal education. You and a few others are seeming pretty damn dense on this point. You keep drifting to comparing gay parents to a select group of crappy parents to make a point that gay parents would be the better choice. No shit.
Another concern…
[quote]A 2010 study by University of Toronto sociologist Adam Isaiah Green in the Canadian Journal of Sociology involving 30 same-sex married couples around Toronto found that two-thirds of same-sex spouses (40 percent female, 60 percent male) did not believe marriage needed always to be monogamous. In fact, nearly half of male same-sex spouses (47 percent) had an explicit agreement that allowed for non-monogamy. In comparison, the General Social Survey reported in 2010 that 19 percent of men and 14 percent of women they had been unfaithful at some point during their marriages.[/quote]
[quote]You keep drifting to comparing gay parents to a select group of crappy parents to make a point that gay parents would be the better choice. [quote]
I do?
“University of Toronto….In comparison, the General Social Survey reported in 2010 that 19 percent of men and 14 percent of women they had been unfaithful at some point during their marriages.” (Frankly, above)
“About 17 percent of divorces are caused by infidelity! That’s an amazing number, considering there are so many other reasons for divorce….About 70 percent of married men admitted to cheating on their wives! Another study found that 2/3 of women are not aware of their husband’s affair….What about the women? Most statistics found that about 50 to 60 percent of women admitted to having an affair.”(Read more: http://magazine.foxnews.com/love/cheating-statistics-do-men-cheat-more-women#ixzz2XP1c5HvW)
Given your report from norh of the border, I can only conclude that we need to send all our children th Canada for rearing. And, your study from Sweden suggests that we’re on the right track here shooting for actual marriages rather than the less committed “registered partnership” approach. You certainly have a wealth of evidence from around the globe that you feel buttresses your anti-gay views.
But, why are you so worried about the few thousands of children allegedly suffering role model issues because they have same-sex parents when millions of American children spend their lives with a single, unmarried parent or with unmarried couples or married couples, the majority of whom are out screwing around with others, presumably of the opposite sex?
Are you positive that your concern about the children isn’t keeping you from seeing that your real problem is with homosexuality and the resulting desire for same-sex marriage?
[i]C:UserskeithPictures11.jpg[/i]
Frankyl,”… especially as it relates to procreation and childhood development.”
Procreation? Then your argument is that all straight couples unable to conceive are not the perfect model for marriage?
Childhood development? Where are your stats that children of LGTB couples develop worse and turn into worse members of society?
On a personal note, my cousin lived on Castro St. and her neighbor was Harvey Milk. Harvey accepted her interracial marriage and was very kind to her children. He believed in human rights, not just gay rights. I just know that he is smiling today. I wish both he & my cousin could be alive to see the joy his work has brought.
” Is marriage a right? The answer should be no. “
Then it should be a private matter, and not protected by the state.
The only constitutional option to embracing [b][u]all[/u][/b] marriages is to abolish civil marriage and all the [u][b]privileges[/b][/u] granted by the state. No more public time or money wasted on divorces, no costly DA’s enforcement of child support. That would all be a matter between the contestant parties to be dealt with by clergy or in civil court, at the contestants’ expense. Sounds like a conservative’s dream and absolutely fair .
Biddlin ;>)/
Frankly – are you serious? Basing anything on a study with an N of 30 is ridiculous. Has it been replicated? Was it a representative sample?
Venturing into the research on this topic without an understanding of basic research design is dangerous territory. But nonetheless, the foolish have no fear about wandering in and making foolish statements without understanding how foolish their arguments are.
Frankly
I am surprised that in this instance, you seem to be abandoning your conservative principles in two ways.
1) your usual stance is that the rights of the individual should take precedence over those of the state.
Unless there were to be definitive proof, not just suggestion, that same sex marriages were detrimental to
the development of children, surely the right of the individual should trump that of the state to determine
who should marry.
2) You seem to ignore individual variation in favor of a stereotypical view of what constitutes being “manly”
or “womanly”. This ignores that these human qualities, like all other qualities, exist along a spectrum. I have
met many women in my life who demonstrate more of the traditional “manly” traits than do many of the men
I have met and vice versa. So what you are doing is basing human behavior, not on the totality of the
individual, but rather on the presence of absence of the Y chromosome. This leaves your argument on shaky
ground both biologically and behaviorally. For example, where would a Turner’s mosaic ( XO) fall on your
spectrum of parental suitability? What about a fragile X male ?
medwoman, I am the oldest of three sons of my two different-sex parents. We were fatherless for several years due to a divorce and my fathers mental health problems. I was 10, and my two brothers were 9 and 7 respectfully. My mother remarried when I was 15 but my new step father was 30 and in many ways less emotionally-developed than I was. So, needless to say that we were still fatherless. At the time I has several uncles and a grandfather that were strong role models.
My assessment of the impact of not having a capable father in the house during these early and mid childhood development years are the root of why I am so critical of any social promotion of fatherless parenting. I don’t have experience with motherless parenting, but I assume that there are similar impacts for female children.
The unfortunate thing about this is the non-thinking emotional reactions of people that this is anti-gay, or gay-hating, etc. I think I am very consistent in my opinions for things that put the needs of children above the competing needs of adults.
Frankly, don’t apologize, you’re allowed your feelings and opinions on this subject and it has nothing to do with being anti-gay or gay-hating. That’s just a ploy of the left to demonize.
I have a sneaking suspicion (suspicion only, mind you) that the apparent inconsistencies in Frankly’s views (and others who hold them) are because of either the religious thing (but here being cloaked behind “scientific” studies) or just a personal distaste for homosexuality, because “OMG!! Gross!!”
The distaste thing is supported in part by the language previously used in one of his posts where he described lesbians having a baby as “pushing out of a test tube…” which struck me as a rather dismissive and/or borderline crude way of describing this.
K. Smith:
[quote]but here being cloaked behind “scientific” studies[/quote]
You mean like those “scientific” studies that you cited where there was obvious bias?
“Frankly, don’t apologize, you’re allowed your feelings and opinions on this subject and it has nothing to do with being anti-gay or gay-hating. That’s just a ploy of the left to demonize.”
No, not to demonize anyone, just to try to figure out why he’s so obsessed about the few children with same-sex parents when millions more would be suffering role-model problems (and, worse, such as financial crises) wrought by heterosexual fathers who contribute little or nothing to their children’s upbringing.
Something other than logic drives this continuing attack on gay and lesbian living arrangements and marriages and their small numbers of adoptions of otherwise unwanted children and purposely procreated kids.
One of the studies Frankly offered up supported not his gay vs. heterosexual parenting differences, but found that children with a natural father in the home less likely to suffer abuse than those with stepfathers. “Father Knows Best” families are great because they’re traditionally successful homes for children.
All of the semi-related studies Frankly has cited become fairly meaningless when he points out his own anecdotal experience (and mine, as well) of having “several uncles and a grandfather that were strong role models.” If it worked for us, why wouldn’t it work for others’ children? The married-with-children lesbians I know make a point of assuring their kids have such ongoing connections.
[i]The distaste thing is supported in part by the language previously used in one of his posts where he described lesbians having a baby as “pushing out of a test tube…” which struck me as a rather dismissive and/or borderline crude way of describing this.[/i]
You are correct. That was in poor taste. I need to do better using that type of colorful language.
[i]I have a sneaking suspicion (suspicion only, mind you) that the apparent inconsistencies in Frankly’s views (and others who hold them) are because of either the religious thing[/I]
Nope. Wrong. I think you are looking for ways to dismiss the message and check out of the argument in a cloak of moral superiority.
Frankly, the only argument on this blog that has rung my bell is DT Businessman’s point that we let other less capable parents marry. My gut response to that is the standard “two wrongs do not make a right”; but I certainly see the logic in this point from a perspective of fairness.
My orientation is not religious-based, but I will admit that it is more traditional family-based. There are of course exceptions, but I think the strong traditional family is the primary ticket for a child’s probability for becoming a well-functioning, happy and successful adult. And, I think that “strong traditional family” generally requires a strong female mother and strong male father role model.
It seems to me that people with a more left-leaning political orientation, and possibly those with strong libertarian views, are more apt to have a Hillary Clinton worldview that “it takes a village”. It seems a view of smaller non-traditional families in a more communal existence where children bond with and get incremental role-model and development juice from many acquaintances instead of the big servings of these things that would otherwise come from a mother or father.
From my perspective, I don’t think humans are mentally, physically or psychologically wired for the former. I think we are wired to seek, observe and emulate our parents before we do so with any other adult. Of course if that adult role model is lacking, then we will gravitate to the next best thing. I don’t want kids to have to accept the next best thing.
Related question, can anybody name someone in a social, business or government leadership role that was the child of gay or lesbian parents?
[i]No, not to demonize anyone, just to try to figure out why he’s so obsessed about the few children with same-sex parents when millions more would be suffering role-model problems (and, worse, such as financial crises) wrought by heterosexual fathers who contribute little or nothing to their children’s upbringing. [/i]
It is not one or the other, it is all.
I have been very consistent in my calls for remedies to the problems you mention. I think the key to this remedy is our education system. Ideally I would like to force-sterilize men and women that demonstrate behavior to crank out babies without having adequate means or care to properly raise them. I like Rich Rifkin’s idea to provide some financial incentive that young girls and boys don’t make babies out of wedlock. I think we should require a certification for having attended a parenting class as a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.
But since these changes will never happen, we should look to our education system as the institution to start filling the gaps caused by crappy parenting. Today all we get is education making the excuse that the crappy schools are crappy because the parenting is crappy. Meanwhile all these kids are left seriously effed up by both crappy institutions.
What I have said over and over and over again, I care about giving children 100% of a positive opportunity to develop into a well-adjusted, happy and economically self-sufficient life. But once they become adults they are on their own and should not continue to have their childish needy needs addressed at the expense of real children.
Growth Izzue wrote, “Frankly, don’t apologize, you’re allowed your feelings and opinions on this subject and it has nothing to do with being anti-gay or gay-hating. That’s just a ploy of the left to demonize.”
Interesting – when someone disagrees with you, they are “victims” – what you called me in another post, in a mean, bullying fashion, or “demons” – what you are calling human rights proponents in your post today.
Growth Izzue – Correction, you are accusing human rights proponents of demonizing Frankly. Who called Frankly a demon? None of the proponentsed of human rights call Frankly a demon. That is not true.
Growth Izzue, Frankly is not a demon, and no one is calling him that. But you, sir, are a verbal bully.
In California where 40% of children live in poverty and Yolo county with hundreds of children in the foster system, if our concern is the welfare of children, we have greater issues than the gender of parents that need to be addressed. We also must remember it wasn’t long ago that same sex couples lived in fear of their children being taken away by the courts.
Still this entire discussion focuses on only one aspect of the gay marriage issue neglecting many of the other legal benefits that marriage confers upon those consensually entering into its covenant.
As for Don’s compilation of statements by Frankly, such a list of his statements could also be compiled on any number of conservative issues. Immigration immediately comes to mind among the many tired, out of the mainstream, super minority, right wing views he likes to champion. The danger is not that his outdated ideas will prevail in the long term especially here in California where the Republican party has almost no pulse left. The danger is that those who share his views on many issues, like the conservative Supreme Court majority that keeps rolling back voting rights, will cling to every trick in the book to maintain their vision of an America rooted in the past. They are not going down without a fight which means it will be a long time before their choke hold in the courts and the Congress is broken. Eventually the log jam will break but how long will it be before that day arrives?
Today we can rejoice for on one issue, the issue of having the protections of law for gay marriages, that day has arrived in California.
“Ideally I would like to force-sterilize men and women that demonstrate behavior to crank out babies without having adequate means or care to properly raise them. I like Rich Rifkin’s idea to provide some financial incentive that young girls and boys don’t make babies out of wedlock.”
Who needs a voting rights rollback if we can simply keep the unwashed masses from procreating. Like i say they are not going down without a fight and apparently Frankly sees eugenics as the final solution.
LOL Toad, which side is for abortion? That pretty much shoots your eugenics argument out of the water.
I’m caught wondering if you know what eugenics means… after all abortion is a time and place argument for pregnancy along with personal choice, involuntary sterilization eliminates any time and place considerations as well as personal choice. Whether you support or oppose abortion, there is a huge gap between sterilization and abortion.
Where I was coming from is that they both can involve the reduced reproduction of population.
Actually abortion and eugenics both were supported by population control groups during the progressive era by Republicans such as the Rockefellers. it is only since Bob Dole ran for Vice-President with Ford in 76 that anti-abortion policy has become a mainstay of Republican politics. At any rate the consistent issue is choice, choice to marry, choice to have or not have children. I’m for freedom to choose.
GI: Again, I question your understanding of eugenics.
[i]In other words, the kids of gay parents should have the stigma that derives from your beliefs about their upbringing. You actually believe that stigma should be codified in law. You believe their children should, in fact, be “humiliated” (to quote Justice Kennedy) and are “unworthy of federal protection.”
You believe that.[/i]
Sorry I am late to have read this from Don. But suffice to say that Don doesn’t comprehend very well.
Who said anything about a stigma or humiliation? I think it is very telling that you use that word Don. And you are conflating the Affirmative Action opinion with the gay marriage opinion.
My read of your mindset on this is that the risk of stigma and humiliation… and maybe social insecurity… is more important of a consideration that is REAL health and well being. You think that by changing the law to allow gay marriage that this will magically result in people changing their minds about gays, gay marriage and children of gay couples? I completely disagree. I think the acceptance of gays, gay marriage and children of gay parents has been on an upward slope that will not improve because of this SCOTUS decision and because our current governor failed to uphold the laws he was sworn to uphold. I think just the opposite will occur. I think the number of people that were neutral will turn against the illegal legislative and judicial actions of the politicians in this state, and will also feel like the Supreme Court, with its failure to take a case that the lower Federal court obviously screwed up, is also on an activist political tear.
I think this win will increase stigma because it is an attempt at government and judicial over and under-reach to engineer society.
But, getting back to the initial comment about stigma and humiliation. First, don’t confuse that with a lack of individual self-confidence. Because it is easy for a person to feel stigmatized and humiliated lacking self-confidence. It is a bit of a chicken vs. egg conundrum. But, no matter this SCOTUS decisions, a strong, traditional different-gender parenting situation will continue as the gold-standard.
I see this situation as similar to what I experienced in the workplace related to the women’s rights movement. In my corporate career experience there was a lot of harm to women that had to lead the dual role of being the same as the men they worked with, while also dealing with the lagging progressive social standards in the home and the unavoidable reality of their biological function and clock.
I see a similar problem with the children of gay parents developing. The social do-gooders win their political and social-engineering battle and now these kids have to act the same as the other kids. The testosterone-driven boy children of lesbians have to interact with the other testosterone-driven boys modeling their dads. Do you think those boys are going to give a crap that you won the political and social engineering battle legalizing the marriage of lesbian mothers?
What I would prefer is that we are open and honest about the different needs of children and then strive to provide the gap-filling help. I think the children of gay parents are going to have gaps and they will not get enough help because you and others want to legislate sameness and fairness in a reckless way.
David, then keep on questioning on if that floats your boat.
Or you could post something that demonstrates that you have at least a basic level understanding of the concept, because if you think abortion is a form of eugenics, I have my doubts.
Eugenics ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics[/url]) is a bio-social movement that had/has the goal of “improving” the genetic composition of the population.
But even that understates the problem of eugenics, which is necessarily the goal, but the means by which that goal was attempted to be obtained under Hitler and the experiments that occurred attempting to obtain the uberman.
Is this now an English class? Talk about getting way off topic. I see that you now even have help from one of your ilk….LOL
So even if I misused the word so what? Crucify me. Does making a huge issue out of it somehow make you feel better or superior? What’s next, are you going to check up on my punctuation?
I consider eugenics more of a history lesson than an English lesson. I’m a little sensitive to the issue given its Holocaust implications. But you are correct, this is way off topic and I apologize for taking us there.
Okay David, you can have the last word. Feel better now? Oh sorry, you’ll have to reply to this to have the last word. Go for it!
[quote]Who said anything about a stigma or humiliation? [/quote]
Justice Kennedy.
[quote]I think it is very telling that you use that word Don. And you are conflating the Affirmative Action opinion with the gay marriage opinion.[/quote]
No. I was quoting Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion on DOMA. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/windsor-v-us-ruling_n_3454920.html[/url]
[quote] You think that by changing the law to allow gay marriage that this will magically result in people changing their minds about gays, gay marriage and children of gay couples?[/quote]
No, there will still be people out there who think gay parents are inferior. They’ll say things like “no matter this SCOTUS decisions, a strong, traditional different-gender parenting situation will continue as the gold-standard.” And they’ll use that rationale as their basis for seeking to deny marriage rights to gays.
Wait, before you have the last word I found some interesting info:
[quote]
The Democrats’ Dirty Little Secret: Eugenics
Posted by Dottie MacQueen
The Democrats suffer from cognitive dissonance, which according to Merriam-Webster, is a psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously. You see, the Democrats are forever telling U.S. citizens and I might as well add, illegal aliens, that they are the party for the people. After all, they, unlike Republicans, despise torture, i.e., waterboarding. And they, unlike the Republicans, want to protect the poor, the disabled, racial minorities, homosexuals and every other class in this country they perceive as being persecuted by the Republicans and evil conservatives.
Unfortunately, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, is still floating around in the Dems’ collective conscience. You see, dear old Margaret believed that there were certain people who should never have children. She considered those people “human weeds.” As much as the Dems do not want to talk about their hero, Margaret, they are still pushing Margaret’s agenda – abortion. And I don’t care what the Dems say, I consider aborting an unborn child torture.
Ask yourself, are the Dems just trying to provide “human health services” to women or are they encouraging voluntary eugenics, which Merriam-Webster defines as the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race?
A well- known Democrat and Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, weighed in on Roe v Wade in 2009. In an interview for the New York Times Magazine, Justice Ginsberg said, “Frankly, I thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. Unfortunately, the interviewer did not ask Justice Ginsberg which populations to which she was referring. A question needs to be asked here. What is the real agenda on the part of the Democrats?
[/quote]
Well Margaret Sanger probably was a eugenicist or at least aligned herself with them, along with people like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.
Ginsburg’s full quote: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. [b][u]And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong[/u][/b].”
The full quote, while a bit awkwardly constructed, seems to suggest this was her belief at the time of Roe about the agenda, but she then realized her perception of it was wrong.
She then reiterated her position: “The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.”
So the person that you cited pulled the quote out of context.
“Eugenics is a bio-social movement that had/has the goal of “improving” the genetic composition of the population.”
Of course the problem is in deciding what human traits an improved genetic composition contains. As Darwin pointed out nature selects and since nature changes we have no idea what traits will be important in the future. It is on this basis that Eugenics fails.
Gee, thanks David. Because of your persistence I’ve done some more research and have found that abortion and eugenics are indeed very much tied together:
[u]http://www.popmodal.com/video/4881/The-Negro-Project-Margaret-Sanger-Planned-Parenthood-KKK-eugenics-and-Democrats[/u]
[url]http://www.popmodal.com/video/4881/The-Negro-Project-Margaret-Sanger-Planned-Parenthood-KKK-eugenics-and-Democrats[/url]
“It seems a view of smaller non-traditional families in a more communal existence where children bond with and get incremental role-model and development juice from many acquaintances instead of the big servings of these things that would otherwise come from a mother or father. From my perspective, I don’t think humans are mentally, physically or psychologically wired for the former. I think we are wired to seek, observe and emulate our parents before we do so with any other adult. “
I disagree and would argue that humans are biologically wired to live in communal settings. The “traditional family” is a very new (and not practiced in many cultures and societies around the world) and in a lot of ways, unhealthy construct.
So no response to my comment, GI?
[i]I disagree and would argue that humans are biologically wired to live in communal settings. The “traditional family” is a very new (and not practiced in many cultures and societies around the world) and in a lot of ways, unhealthy construct.[/i]
Very new? You mean from an history of the natural world perspective? Like compared with when our life expectancy was about 32 and we were stuck on the first two rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy?
You know of course that the founding of this country was largely caused by people running away from your idea of communal living and top-down control. This country was formed primarily by and for individuals that wanted to pursue their own interests without the oppression and suffocating blanket of social control by those always thinking they know better.
But as a country we have evolved, and progressed. We have also regressed. The question is which is better for individuals and society: policies that promote and strengthen strong families, or policies that allow and even encourage the degradation of our population of strong families to be replaced by hippie communes where love is free and plentiful, and psychological maladies are exploding around us.
Do you know about the increase in the numbers of people needing constant therapy for unresolved childhood issues? It didn’t used to be that big of a problem when we had to work really hard just to stay safe and eat… and then we died at age 30. Now, we have a lot of time to sit around that fret about our difficulty becoming self actualized. And physiologists and shrinks point to that common source for most of this dysfunction as being rooted in parent-child relationships.
Maybe gay marriage is a plot by mental and emotional health therapists to increase the number of paying customers.
Wow. Allowing gay marriage now “degrades” our population.
In the course of one thread you have revealed an extraordinary amount of animus and prejudice against one group of your fellow citizens.
Frankly: [i]Do you know about the increase in the numbers of people needing constant therapy for unresolved childhood issues? It didn’t used to be that big of a problem when we had to work really hard just to stay safe and eat… and then we died at age 30. Now, we have a lot of time to sit around that fret about our difficulty becoming self actualized. And physiologists and shrinks point to that common source for most of this dysfunction as being rooted in parent-child relationships.[/i]
You portray a somewhat rosy image of the past. That everyone just muddled through their personal problems and not talk about them. Domestic violence and abuse used to be so bad that we outlawed alcohol for awhile in this country. I’m certain a lot of those issues resulted from un-diagnosed depression, bi-polar disorder, childhood sexual abuse, PTSD (“shell-shock”), etc. Better to “waste” money on the therapist than wasting the family paycheck getting drunk at the local bar.
wdf1: [i]…resulted from un-diagnosed depression, bi-polar disorder, childhood sexual abuse, PTSD (“shell-shock”), etc.[/i]
…and repressed homosexuality…
[quote]Very new? You mean from an history of the natural world perspective? [/quote]
Yes, because you referred to the hired wiring of our brain:
[quote] I don’t think humans are mentally, physically or psychologically wired for the former. [/quote]
Our “hard-wiring” doesn’t change over the coarse of hundreds of years. We are biologically hard wired to live in communities. (Be that a positive or negative thing).
BTW: I’m not referring to hippie communes.
[quote]hired wiring[/quote] What happens when typing while being distracted…..
[quote]Do you know about the increase in the numbers of people needing constant therapy for unresolved childhood issues? ….. And physiologists and shrinks point to that common source for most of this dysfunction as being rooted in parent-child relationships. [/quote]
Were any of these people with “parent-child issue’s” raised by straight parents, or just gay ones?
“”Ideally I would like to force-sterilize men and women that demonstrate behavior to crank out babies without having adequate means or care to properly raise them.”
And who would you like to see run this “forced sterilization program ? The government that you seem to despise ? Or maybe you believe that you should be the sole arbiter of who has “adequate means or care to properly raise them” ? So perhaps a heterosexual couple low on financial resources but both hardworking should not be allowed to have children, but the son or daughter of someone extremely wealthy who has never had to do anything of value would qualify ? I’m just wondering about your criteria for “worthiness” to reproduce since that seems to be your criteria for marriage.
[i]Ideally I would like to force-sterilize men and women that demonstrate behavior to crank out babies without having adequate means or care to properly raise them.[/i]
Very disturbing concept.