True or not, doesn't matter. A child's right to have two parents, one of each gender takes precedence
So does that mean that if a child can't find a man/woman couple tough luck?
Does that mean that babies should therefore be taken away from single moms, single dads and only given back when they couple again?
Just wondering. with millions of homeless children in this world are we to allow only those who are lucky enough to find a man/woman legally married couple a chance in life?
How can we be so cruel and uncaring that unless circumstances are perfect we're willing to deny any chance in life for millions who are very likely to die otherwise?
It all has to do with the rights of the parties affected versus a state's interest in promoting something. The state is the least interested party & has to demonstrate a compelling interest to change a status quo.
First, there are many good things that are not guaranteed rights. But does that mean the state should embrace social policy that works directly against theose things? No way. This debate is about citizens insuring that some baolck robed potentate will not work against the good of children, end of story.
Second, the statement was that the right of a child two have two complementary parents takes precedence over the "right" to gay marriage. It does not say that no child can ever be raised in a different situation.
Third, the last three paragraphs are idiotic strawmen. You may feel better when you paint a reasonable position (Children should have a mom and dad) as some wacko space trip, but it makes you look dumb and self-righteous.
blaock=black