Ban on Gay Marriage Denies Justice to Children

Salon ^ | July 10, 2006 | Sara Miles

[america4vr]

Jul. 10, 2006 | There's nothing like a judicial ruling -- in this case, the extremely tortured one written last week by Judge Robert S. Smith of the New York Court of Appeals against gay marriage -- to make me feel simultaneously all-powerful and helpless. On Friday, my family read the news over breakfast. I was on my way to volunteer at my church food pantry; my wife was finishing the endless paperwork for our 17-year-old daughter's college loan, and Katie -- one of the "children" in whose interest the court said it ruled -- was on her way out the door to her summer job.

Who knew we could have such a grandiose impact? Just by hanging out in our kitchen, the three of us challenge what Smith called the "accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex." By asking for the legal benefits of marriage, we threaten the already unstable institution of the heterosexual family.

Judge Smith's decision posited two major reasons to "rationally support" the ban on gay marriage -- both of them grounded in the assumption, which I share, that marriage is important to the welfare of children. After a few factually incorrect preambles (note to judge: Not all gay couples become parents through adoption or "technological marvels"; we can tell you how reproduction works later, in private) he launched his argument.

First, the judge delivered a surprising attack on the heterosexual agenda: Straight people, he said, are really bad at marriage. Opposite-sex relationships, wrote the judge, are often "casual" or temporary. (Wasn't that what right-wing frothers used to say about queers?)

[america4vr]

Wow. This really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. Gay marriage should be supported in the name of the children. Gay Rights= Childen's Rights. But you see, this is exactly why gay marriage advocates don't get it.

The N.Y. court says marriage is good for kids. Then why doesn't my daughter deserve the same legal protection as the children of opposite-sex parents?

The fundamental basis for all gay-rights is the fallacious argument that gay rights are a matter of social justice.

Gay rights advocates make social equality, social justice, on the surface a laudable principle to uphold.based on an implied sense of morality but what ultimately is revealed to be convoluted, fallacious and disingenuous.

Gay rights advocates calling for equal rights make for a seemingly unimpeachable argument (what person could possibly be against equal rights, except maybe a Nazi?) that is purely emotional , one that is logically unsound because to the uninitiated the argument grants itself an implication it has no right to assume in the manner as if some sort of existential, legalistic reciprocity exists between groups.

The arguments implied by proponents of gay marriage rights make a powerfully emotional rallying call but is one based on a self-deluding assumption that any sort of symmetry is even legalsitically sound, inherent simply because one self-defined group finds itself at odds with another.

Who/what defines us? Who/what defines them?

It's a slippery, slimey slope that has now come to this.

JUSTICE FOR KIDS!

Yeah. and who among us could possibly be against kids?

[Shimmer128]

Her wife???????


ewwwwwwwwww

[FreeRep]

I like what the church wrote "It would be "gravely immoral" to let same-sex couples adopt children."

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full development."

[Restorer]

Not all gay couples become parents through adoption or "technological marvels"

There is always, of course, the option of "adultery."

[Admin Moderator]

The Activism sidebar is reserved for Activism, protests, news and business of Free Republic Chapters.

Not this.

Please read the following for FR's posting rules for further guidelines.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611173/posts

Thanks,

[docman57]

This article is nothing more than a vile, disgusting, stinking of fresh excrement, filth!

[digger48]

This article Salon.com is nothing more than a vile, disgusting, stinking of fresh excrement, filth!

[redfog]

Au contraire, the ban on sod "marriage" ensures justice to children.

Man, these people are right out of Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" and the Principles of Newspeak, e.g. the Ministry of Peace makes war, etc.

[telebob]

"...note to judge: Not all gay couples become parents through adoption or "technological marvels"; we can tell you how reproduction works later, in private..."

Yes, please do explain how this works. How can two women be the parents to two children when neither of the women (I assume) can produce sperm? Fantasy role playing becomes a societal norm because some mush heads decide it's the 'right thing to do'.

I wonder if Sarah Miles' wife knows she's the wife...

[darkangel82]

Ping. Where's the barf alert?

[backhoe]

I came to realize, toward the end of the last century, that anytime someone invoked "for the children," I needed to desparately check my civil rights, and my wallet, in that order. It always means "you lose- something."

It is also used to silence debate, and dissent. Kind of like Ann Coulter pointed out about "victimhood."

Far as this?

Her 'wife..."

Kindly observe this family unit:

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.24.2004

Cecile McKee, an associate linguistics professor, would be able to get medical insurance for her partner ( Frisch's name has already been established as a verb ) if she worked for Harvard University, the University of Colorado or Pima Community College.

But she can't because ...

Pseudoblogged here:

-When Whackademics Attack----Yes, yes, I know. I really should quit rubbernecking at that trainwreck, but it’s just too damn fascinating.

[Chode]

it's for the children... right.

[Jack Hammer]

It pleases Sara to call her domestic partner a "wife." It pleases me to have an un-birthday party 364 days of the year and invite the Mad Hatter. That doesn't make it any more reality-based. Anyone can live in fantasy world, but, by definition and all the customs and usages of thousands of years of civilization - not to mention virtually every religious, moral, ethical, and legal treatise in existence - a marriage is a sanctioned bond between one man and one woman. Otherwise, I'd "marry" the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Uh... if I could get them to agree, of course. Anothers would certainly marry his dog Spot, a goat, or a camel. Words, and the concepts they represent, are not fungible. The same people who want to define "marriage" to include a partnership with anyone - or anything - refer to the constitution as "a living document" to be defined at any time by anyone in whatever manner he or she chooses, consider all privately owned goods and privately contracted services to be the rightful property of the state, and believe the UN to have authority over life in the US. These things are simply an exercise in nonsense - very "modern" but ultimately meaningless.

[DJ MacWoW]

Homosexual agenda ping

[Celebratelife008]

The leftists redefined "life". Now they want to redefine marriage. They have mainstreamed abortion---the homosexual lifestyle is next.

[DBeers]

Thanks for the ping.

[darkangel82]

You're welcome.
LOLOL@the keywords, I guess someone did add a barf alert.

[longtermmemmory]

no barf alert?

The salon homosexual makes a few erroneous assumptions.

If a homosexual did not use technology to get pregnant then she or he simply had sex with a member of the opposit sex. Which means heather has a mother and a father.

The author fails on several points but the bottom line is that society has a REASONBLE ground to exclude homosexuals from marriage because homosexuality by its very act offers NOTHING to the future of society.

[Charlespg]

Ban on Gay Marriage Denies Justice to Children

BULL SH**

[DBeers]

In my opinion this article warranted at minimum a (Mega Barf Alert!) in the title.

LOL

[DBeers]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search [ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Judge Smith's decision posited two major reasons to "rationally support" the ban on gay marriage -- both of them grounded in the assumption, which I share, that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

Actually the judge cited many incidental reasons that "rationally support" marriage as it is and always has been understood. Including one if not the only primary rational based reason that homosexual couplings do not nor can not aspire too -procreation...

Creating children is a far different vocation than that of raising children...

[Tax Government]

Children need to grow up within a normal, heterosexual-parent family -- ideally, the one that conceived them. Gay couples have NO right to deprive children of that experience. Gay couples' twisted view of normalcy need not be the issue, so long as they don't foist it on children or impressionable teens.

[DBeers]

-follow up for posterity:

Why not allow homosexual marriage -it seems fair?

Why should marriage and with it the societal accommodation and privilege be limited to only heterosexual couples that wish to marry?

Simply put, because society has decided so. As evidenced in tradition, conventional wisdom, common law, and enacted law. Society -the people through elected representatives, in legislative bodies have enacted legislation that is premised alone upon the rational basis of procreation -society has decided such... Unlike those arguing for a leftist utopian socialist village ideology would suggest, marriage has never been accommodated, merited privilege, and rewarded simply to foster and promote love or even monogamous sex...

Incidental exceptions, e.g. couples who choose to contracept, do not negate the basis, they test it and in doing so clearly contrast against and specifically identify the basis that some attempt to deny as one very much existing and relevant. Case in point, Griswold v. Connecticut where premised upon a right to privacy it was decided that individuals have the right NOT to procreate via use of contraceptives...

One can clearly see that with Griswold it is that contrasted with the exception that demonstrates clearly the rule, the rational basis of procreation exists!

Regardless a legislature has not chosen to handle exceptions to the basis, e.g. those that choose to contracept, exceptionally by incorporating more rules or by changing totally the basis or doing away with ANY marital accommodation -that is their prerogative, not something for the courts to decide.

Again, as evidenced in Griswold v. Connecticut, there is no supposed heterosexual (or homosexual) right to be accommodated and rewarded by society for entering into non-procreative marriage -such marriages are exceptions incidental to the basis of procreation with such incidence being premised in the right to privacy (just as abortion is). Unlike privacy, marital accommodation, subsidy, and reward is a societal privilege premised upon legitimate and rationally based societal discrimination -marital accommodation, subsidy, and reward is NOT a right...

It is only by illegitimately ignoring the rational basis of procreation - illegitimately conflating the right to privacy (which prohibits the State from enforcing procreation) with the privilege accorded marriage (rationally based in procreation as provided for legislatively by the State) that one can even attempt to argue the ability to choose to engage in homosexual sex with another as something that merits anything from society.

In essence, homosexuals do not get a "free pass" under the privacy right like non-procreative heterosexuals do BECAUSE homosexuals objectively can not possibly ever procreate homosexually...

The ability to procreate and the possibility of procreation -something two homosexuals can not do no matter how much they try...

Some may argue -but what of no-fault divorce laws? Did not the "procreative position" as to rational basis lose most of its force in the 1970's when almost every state passed no-fault divorce statutes?

The legal impact of no-fault divorce laws could be argued both ways and I would suggest that in resolving apparent contradictions between the two ways one would necessarily find the truth as to just what the continued rational basis premising accommodation and privilege of heterosexual marriage was and even more so is now as evidenced by direct correlation to continued societal accommodation and privilege.

e.g. no fault divorce simply is an admission that love can not be legislated and as such is by default not a rational basis premising ANY accommodation and privilege (therefore promoting love via homosexual marriage is a non-starter)...

e.g. no fault divorce simply is an admission that keeping a couple together in the interest of raising children can not be legislated and as such is by default not a rational basis premising ANY accommodation and privilege (therefore promoting raising of children via homosexual marriage is a non-starter)...

IF society has not and does not reward love and child rearing with the benefits reserved marital privilege then what is the rational basis? -- The answer is obvious --PROCREATION

[america4vr]

Yeah. Let's do it for the KIDS!!!!

[DJ MacWoW]

By all means. We want to legislate this as the "norm" and teach it to the kiddies.

Btw, that's a guy.

[FreeRep]

Children need a male and a female role model in a permanent relationship, not some distorted government experiment aimed at redefining marriage, subverting the family.

[norton]

"Ban on Gay Marriage Denies Justice to Children

That deserves a bmup all by itself...

One wonders about the "how to" manual.
But one does not want to read it.

[knuthom]

The N.Y. court says marriage is good for kids. Then why doesn't my daughter deserve the same legal protection as the children of opposite-sex parents?

Unless the kid was cloned, her daughter IS the child of opposite sex parents, whether she wants to admit it or not.

[ChildOfThe60s]

I have no problem with same sex relationships in the sense that I wish to tell them what to. As long as they show some sense of discretion and decorum. I don't care if they wish to set up some kind of civil contract.

But it is not, nor can it ever be marriage. And should never be codified as such. A dog does not become a horse because we change the way it is spelled. You can name your dog Seattle Slew, but he still can't run in the Kentucky Derby.

And it is unclear to me what "legal protections" and "rights" the child of a married couple has that a child of a single parent is supposedly lacking. Again, the left is out there demanding special privileges be given under the guise of "rights". They surely have bastardized the Constitutional concept of rights.

[Lancey Howard]

"gay marriage"

LOL, is that like brilliant darkness or broiled ice cream?

These liberal scumbags crack me up. Their frustrated, whining, teeth-gnashing irrationality simply brings joy to my heart. All is right in the world when the scumbags are crying.

[Howie66]

Really?

Would somebody please explain to me how faggots manage to procreate?

I must have missed something in biology classes.

[Alouette]

Nobody ever mentions all those little gay bastards, conceived out of wedlock by gay lovers. Don't all those little illegitimati deserve to be made legal?

Oh, wait.

[Alouette]

please do explain how this works.

They hire a stud service, Mr. Turk E. Baster.

[little jeremiah]

Fast and furious, isn't it?

Have you see wagglebee around lately?

[RichInOC]

(note to judge: Not all gay couples become parents through adoption or "technological marvels"; we can tell you how reproduction works later, in private)

Sara, dear, I think most of us, never mind the judge, understand quite well how reproduction normally works already. That's really what's perplexing us in cases like yours. I suppose if we ever meet, I can buy you a drink and a cigar and we can toast the fact that you're not shooting blanks.

[telebob]

Bump Bump Bah Da Bump Bump

It's time for - - -

Gay Divorce Court

Cue Theme Music

Announcer: In today’s episode of Gay Divorce Court, a lesbian couple from San Francisco, California comes before Judge Yolanda Sans Spermatozoa to put an end to their six month marriage amid allegations of mental cruelty, false imprisonment and emotional distress.

Marie Ball-Bustier has filed for divorce from her long time lover and short time spouse, Vaginitia Lackluster, claiming among other things that Ms. Lackluster has tried to impregnate her against her will and has taken to locking her in the car on family outings. Let’s now join the court as Judge Sans Spermatozoa solicits testimony in this emotional case.

Marie: Your honor, I’m a feminist/lesbian and I object to any intrusion into my bodily orifices because of my conviction that all heterosexual behavior is rape perpetrated by a patreo/judaeo/christo/mohammedo/capitalo societal framework embossed onto our collective consciousness by Republicans and their archetypical co-religionists.

So you can imagine my surprise when Vaginitia attempted to impregnate me with a commercial grade turkey baster and the sperm of a man whom I consider to be a psycho-historical revisionist.

Vaginitia: Your honor, for years I complied with Marie’s wishes concerning her physical apprehensions but now that we’re married I feel that I have a right to offspring. Since Marie’s my wife, I feel it’s her obligation to give me children…

Marie: I’m NOT the wife!

Vaginitia: You’re the wife…

Marie: NOT!!

Judge Sans Spermatozoa: Womyn, please! Since this is a new area of the law and we’re just making it up anyway, I feel that I have the discretionary latitude to assign roles in these matters. Ms. Ball-Bustier, you’re the wife…

Marie: NOT!!

Cue Theme Music

Cut to Commercial

[Kryptonite]

"extremely tortured" is what gay marriage is all about, Sara.

[DBeers]

Have you see wagglebee around lately?

Not recently that I can recall...

[ViLaLuz]

"The N.Y. court says marriage is good for kids. Then why doesn't my daughter deserve the same legal protection as the children of opposite-sex parents?"

Because you chose not to marry her mother (or father) and decided to shack up with someone of the same sex for a counterfeit marriage.

[ViLaLuz]

"The leftists redefined "life". Now they want to redefine marriage. They have mainstreamed abortion---the homosexual lifestyle is next."

Add pedophilia to that list.

[HiTech RedNeck]

its 4 the chillun

[FormerLib]

Homo couplings do not equal a family.

[ivyleaguebrat]

I'd hardly call a turkey baster a technological marvel.. :)