John Nassivera claims that he has been struck by the “total absence” of an argument based on the rights of children in the news or court cases about marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.
One wonders if his news sources are malfunctioning in some way. The only argument made by the proponents of Prop 8 (the only one that made it into court, at least) was “responsible procreation,” the idea that the purpose of marriage is to ensure that children are born into married households.
It was even front and center at the oral arguments before the Supreme Court: Charles Cooper argued as he had in the previous case that allowing same sex couples to marry will “refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adult couples.”
The court’s skepticism about this claim led to some judicial humor about whether the purpose of marriage was to rein in the fertility of males over 55 like Strom Thurmond.
The real problem, as Maggie Gallagher of NOM and John Nassivera himself know, is not “responsible procreation,” but the overwhelming irresponsible procreation of heterosexual couples.
Why they make the leap from their own issues with straight parenting to the idea that gay couples should be denied the right to marriage is beyond me. And Vermont made that decision back in 1993, when it became the first state to allow second parent adoptions for gay couples.
It is certainly curious that this issue that would seem to affect all couples suddenly arises only when we are talking about allowing gay couples to marry.
MiddleburyMORE IN Perspective
It was a satisfying end to the gardening season with a warm fall and no killing frost until Oct. Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed