RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man misapplies personal trauma to sexual orientation science » WND's editor fundamentally misunderstands nondiscrimination law (part 3 of 3) » Video: Why is this shockingly anti-gay (among other things) speech happening in a Connecticut public school? » Fined NY event space to host same-sex wedding receptions (*but no ceremonies for anyone) » Another day, another far-right pastor pushing Christians to civil war » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/24/2009

Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 11)

by Jeremy Hooper

This comes verbatim from page 54 of the Iowa marriage ruling:

Promotion of optimal environment to raise children. Another governmental objective proffered by the County is the promotion of “child rearing by a father and a mother in a marital relationship which social scientists say with confidence is the optimal milieu for child rearing.” This objective implicates the broader governmental interest to promote the best interests of children. The “best interests of children” is, undeniably, an important governmental objective. Yet, we first examine the underlying premise proffered by the County that the optimal environment for children is to be raised within a marriage of both a mother and a father.

Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents. On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.26


26

The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else. In any event, we do not address whether there is a rational basis for the marriage statute, as the sexual-orientation classification made by the statute is subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny.

The Supreme Court's consideration couldn't be more logical. They considered what both the plaintiffs and defendants submitted, and conducted their own independent research. And then they turned to reliable science to see which side's arguments have earned credibility. They did EXACTLY was a fair court should do is such a matter.

Maggie-GallagherBut leave it to the National Organization For Marriage's Maggie Gallagher to boil down this fair and measured point to an unfairly simplified degree so as to misrepresent and besmirch the "activist" court's good name. This comes from a recent appearance on Janet Parshall's talk show:





*AUDIO SOURCE: Janet Parshall's America

Maggie could have read what the ruling actually says. Maggie could have acknowledged that the court acknowledged her side's claims. Maggie could have taken on the point about "reliable scientific studies." But why should she, when the shun the judicial branch of government--make marriage all about children--use personal faith views combo is far more advantageous for her team of logic-gymnasts? A fair assessment wouldn't allow her to make the court sound like unfair asses.

As gay people, we're obviously offended by Mags and company's constant attacks on our humanity. But even more than that, we are deeply offended on an American-loving intellectual level by the way they continually and cruelly undermine any and every educated member of the independent judiciary who fails to buy into their own narrow, faith-based, typically-skewed arguments! How dare they crow on about how they'll suffer under marriage equality, when their policy on our nation's justices is "agree with us or we will ruin your career"?!

It is this latter point on which we LGBT activists can build a strong, broad-based coalition. It's up to us to show the American public how, at the end of the day, this fight is not 100% about gay rights. There are sweeping implications for anyone whose brand of fair-minded analysis involves a fair mind.

A good place to start making these connections is the state of Maine, where the National Organization For Marriage has just done this:

$1.1 million of the $1.4 million raised by Stand for Marriage Maine in October came from a single source: the National Organization for Marriage. In fact, the Washington, D.C., organization has bankrolled more than 60 percent of the campaign to ban same-sex marriages in Maine.
Money fueling battle over gay marriage [Bangor Daily News]

The National Organization For Marriage: This group is extremist. This group is unfair. This group is hellbent on destroying anything that gets in the way along their narrow path. At this point, this group (coupled with the Catholic church, to which NOM is strongly tied) essentially is Stand For Marriage Maine (the group pushing the 'Yes on 1' side) .

We have one week to defeat this group. What will you do to help?

NO ON 1

****

*EARLIER:

Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 1) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 2) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 3) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 4) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 5) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 6) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 7) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 8) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 9) [G-A-Y]
Yes on 1's biggest donor: An examination (Vol. 10) [G-A-Y]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Ah yes... Mrs. Gallagher is going "back to the beginning" to prove that her point has a solid foundation. Well...

Here's a different perspective on the creation story of Genesis that you probably won't find anywhere within Religious Right circles, all entirely based on the original Hebrew text and not "tradition" or new "revelation."

http://hoperemains.webs.com/adameveadamsteve.htm

I highly recommend the other pages on the site for anyone who's more interested in what the Bible says, and less in what other "Christians" have decided it says.

Posted by: Chris Cool | Oct 25, 2009 1:46:06 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails