« When Things Fall Apart II | Main | O)pen Th]read »

June 02, 2006


That's one really excellent objection you raise, and one I wouldn't have immediately thought of. What my mind jumped to in considering the children issue was the way it implies that marriage automatically includes children (which you note) and that parenthood only happens in marriage. What? Same-sex couples are only going to have children if they're allowed to marry? Because I know of an awful lot of Massachusetts children who attended their mothers' weddings 2 years ago when it became legal. If you're going to be looking to studies about what kind of parents benefit children, give equal time to the ones concluding that children are best with married parents (a conclusion I don't particularly endorse, but if we're looking at crappy studies about child welfare, we should go all the way).

This is just another smoke screen. They'll keep moving the goal posts and attempting to find reasons to deny us our rights for as long as they can. I've been in a committed lesbian partnership for fifteen years (no kids by choice) and I need marriage rights to protect our financial future more than anything else. And by the way, I was raised by straight parents and I "turned out" lesbian. I'd imagine most kids raised by lesbian parents "turn out" straight. So which parents did the "better" job? I mean the whole argument is so ridiculous, as you pointed out.

Judges ask questions for many different reasons. Sometimes they ask a question that a colleague asked in conference because they want to give the attorney (whjose position they support) an opening to answwer it. It wouldn't surprise me if the "polygamy" question wasn't one of those. It could even apply to the first question.

But without knowing which judges asked which questions and what their past leanings are, it is impossible to read much of anything into this.

Mimikatz, I'm sure you're right. Looking into it, the question appears to have been raised at least by Judge Robert Smith:

Smith, who combined skepticism and friendly sarcasm to poke holes in both sides' logic throughout the afternoon, questioned Kaplan's contention that the government's rationale for opposing same-sex marriage did not satisfy even a rational-basis test.

"Could a legislature rationally conclude that on a whole it's preferable for children to have a mother and a father than two mothers or two fathers?" he asked.

Kaplan cited a number of scientific studies that she said shows there is no difference.

The article I'm taking that from says earlier that Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, works for the law firm at which Judge Smith was a partner, and it notes she "spoke confidently with an informal air, once accidentally referring to Judge Robert Smith as "Bob," before quickly correcting herself." So it's not unlikely that the question was 'friendly fire' intended to let her confront and defuse that argument.

I don't think the question deserves the respect of being treated as an honest inquiry though, for whatever reason it's raised. I think it should be laughed out of court, whether raised in chambers by another judge before arguments, or in court by a friendly or unfriendly judge or by the lawyer. And I think it certainly doesn't deserve to be repeated in coverage of the case by the media as if it were a legitimate question -- although I realize the judges aren't picking their questions based on how they will play in the morning paper. In theory.

I take it that a marriage between two people, male and female, who are beyond the age of procreation, who wish to make sure that there is someone they trust making medical decisions for them when the time comes, is a "sham" mariage since it isn't for the purpose of overpopulating the planet with bipedal cancer cells????

Watching these overeducated morons prove that Blackstone was right when he said "the law sharpens the mind by narrowing it," would be funny were it not so pathetic and full of shit.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad