Ginsburg

Justice Ginsburg – Eviscerate or Irrelevant?

Ian Millhiser has written an article titled “Justice Ginsburg Eviscerates The Case Against Marriage Equality In Just Five Sentences.” Here are the five sentences:

[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

Millhiser summarizes, “Justice Ginsburg’s point was that, until surprisingly recently, the legal institution of marriage was defined in terms of gender roles.”

Here is Justice Ginsburg’s argument expressed as a syllogism:

  1. Marriage was complementary (dominant male and a subordinate female)
  2. Same-sex relationships cannot be complementary
  3. Therefore, same-sex relationships did not fit marriage

But now that marriage law has changed to egalitarian because of a Supreme Court case in 1982:

  1. Marriage is now egalitarian
  2. Same-sex relationships are egalitarian
  3. Therefore, same-sex relationships fit marriage

A question that should be asked when making an argument is would I buy the argument if it was used against my position. Asking this question helps to avoid bad, hypocritical arguments.

First, a SSM case was appealed to the Supreme Court in 1972. Advocates for SSM did not have a problem that this appeal occurred before the Court’s egalitarian ruling in 1982, only that the Court chose not to hear the case.

Second, most advocates for SSM are obliviously to the Court’s 1982 ruling. It is irrelevant to their view that same-sex relationships is a fit for marriage.

Third, gender roles have never been a criteria for entering marriage. No clerk has ever asked a couple, “do you meet the correct gender roles to be issued a marriage license?”

Fourth, if Justice Ginsburg believes same-sex marriage did not make sense under complementary marriage, then same-sex marriage does not make sense in a country where marriage has always been for opposite sex couples.

In conclusion, a better argument would have been:

  1. Marriage is for legal sexual relationships
  2. Same-sex sexual relationships were illegal in some states up until 2003
  3. Therefore, same-sex sexual relationships did not fit marriage nationally before 2003

But in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed its ban on sodomy from its ruling just 17 years earlier. I will conclude with a quote from every liberals favorite justice, Antonin Scalia:

“…if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers [1986], state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable.”

 

 

 

Male_Couple_With_Child-02

Gay Parents Do Just Fine

The APA declared, “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.”

Loren Marks, of Louisiana State University, authored “Same-Sex Parenting and Children’s Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting,” examined 59 studies cited by the APA regarding homosexual parenting. Marks concluded that the APA assertions about homosexual parenting were not empirically warranted — i.e., the data presented doesn’t validate their hypothesis.

Small Samples

Three-fourths (77%) of the studies cited by the APA brief are based on small, non-representative, convenient samples of fewer than 100 participants.

Misleading Comparison

Marks found that “many same-sex parenting researchers did not use marriage-based, intact families as heterosexual representatives, but instead used single mothers.”

Narrow Representation

Studies were “biased toward well-educated, privileged, white women with high incomes.”

Parent, Not Child Focus

The focus of most studies was on parental outcomes, not children’s. Marks argues that some studies “focused on fathers’ reports of fathers’ values and behaviors, not on children’s outcomes — illustrating a recurring tendency in the same-sex parenting literature to focus on the parent rather than the child.”

Long-Term

The long-term outcomes of children of lesbian and “gay” parents were not fully researched. Studies have shown that in the case of cohabiting families and “two-biological-parent married families,” the differences in children’s outcomes increase in significance as the children grow older. This indicates the importance of the examination of long-term outcomes.

Biased Conclusions

In Lerner and Nagai (2001)’s book-length examination of same-sex parenting studies indicate that 17 of the 22 same-sex parenting comparison studies they reviewed had been designed in such a way that the odds of failing to find a significant difference (between homo- and heterosexual groups) was 85% or higher.

Pro-gay parenting advocates do not trust studies against their position when similar problems are revealed. If consistent, why should they expect anyone to trust the APA’s conclusions?

This article is a summary of Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse’s Checking the APA’s Findings on Homosexual Parenting.

Explaining Christianity with Simplicity