The Power of [Gay] Marriage (David Brooks OP-ED)

NYT ^ | November 22, 2003 | David Brooks

[beckett]

Gay parenthood is the problem, not the hidebound, phony "procreation" argument that you formulate so skillfully. Using kids as guinea pigs for gay "fulfillment as a family" is the devastating effect of permitting gay marriage. Utterly absurd Hollywood sitcoms notwithstanding, it is just a lie to pretend that heterosexual kids don't suffer when sexual role modeling is as confused as it perforce must be in a home where both parents are the same gender and masculine or feminine virtue is modeled with a gay twist. If it could be arranged that gays would not be raising kids, the argument to extend to them the benefits of the institution of marriage would carry more weight.

From Westlaw on the Goodridge decision:

"..Conspicuously absent from the court's opinion today is any acknowledgment that the attempts at scientific study of the ramifications of raising children in same-sex couple households are themselves in their infancy and have so far produced inconclusive and conflicting results. Notwithstanding our belief that gender and sexual orientation of parents should not matter to the success of the child rearing venture, studies to date reveal that there are still some observable differences between children raised by opposite-sex couples and children raised by same-sex couples. See post at--(Cordy, J., dissenting). Interpretation of the data gathered by those studies then becomes clouded by the personal and political beliefs of the investigators, both as to whether the differences identified are positive or negative, and as to the untested explanations of what might account for those differences. (This is hardly the first time in history that the ostensible steel of the scientific method has melted and buckled under the intense heat of political and religious passions.) Even in the absence of bias or political agenda behind the various studies of children raised by same-sex couples, the most neutral and strict application of scientific principles to this field would be constrained by the limited period of observation that has been available. Gay and lesbian couples living together openly, and official recognition of them as their children's sole parents, comprise a very recent phenomenon, and the recency of that phenomenon has not yet permitted any study of how those children fare as adults and at best minimal study of how they fare during their adolescent years. The Legislature can rationally view the state of the scientific evidence as unsettled on the critical question it now faces: Are families headed by same- sex parents equally successful in rearing children from infancy to adulthood as families headed by parents of opposite sexes? Our belief that children raised by same-sex couples should fare the same as children raised in traditional families is just that: a passionately held but utterly untested belief. The Legislature is not required to share that belief but may, as the creator of the institution of civil marriage, wish to see the proof before making a fundamental alteration to that institution."

[Aquinasfan]

Not true. One in four end in divorce, that one just gets divorced many times.

Among Catholics who don't use artificial birth control, it's 1 in 25 or 1 in 50.

[Jacquerie]

All three branches of government are equally responsible for upholding the Constitution. The problem is that politicians punt on difficult issues to the courts which are happy to fill the power vacuum. Unfortunatley, we the people allow it.

Has the pig Kennedy ever introduced a law to support unrestricted abortion or gay marriage? No, because he knows the bills would never pass. Leftists rely on the unrestricted use of judicial tyranny to achieved their goals. They have to because the democratic process would never adopt their wild-eyed utopian dreams. So much for "Power to the People".

Example. In about 1965 the Supreme Court ruled that the "right to privacy" meant that use of birth control pills could not be restricted by state law. That so called right morphed into the right to abortion, post birth infanticide and recently the right for guys to engage in anal sex! Legislatures? No thanks, don't need 'em.

Unrestricted judicial activism is a clear and present danger to our republic.

[William Terrell]

How about a reputable link to back up that reputable study.

Here.

[truthandjustice1]

"Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution"

So is my dog.

[William Terrell]

You figure that homosexual relationships last longer here?

[Torie]

It is amazing how much I agree with Brooks' sensibilities (even the bit that he disliked Gore more than Clinton), and identify with his temperment. It must be the Univeristy of Chicago thing or something. The main difference is that he is apparently Jewish with WASP sensibilities (I assume being an Anglophile qualifies), and I am a WASP with Jewish sensibilites. Maybe it is the same thing.

[beckett]

I'm something of a Brooks conservative myself, but not entirely, I suppose, since I always disliked Clinton more than Gore.