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