2016: NONE OF THE ABOVE
And along with saying some group is "harmful" to raise children, you would have to show why. Also even the definition of "harmful" is subjective to some views. For instance, there are some conservatives feel that raising children without god in their lives is "harmful" to the child. That's THEIR interpretation of harmful. That's not necessarily the reality of it.
When Justice Scalia sayshe is either lying or incompetent because the American Sociological Assn filed an amicus brief in the case before the courtthere's considerable disagreement among -- among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a -- in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not
The American Psychological Assn also has issued public statements to the effect that same-sex parenting is not deleterious to the well-being of the children in such familiesThe social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents as when they are raised by opposite sex parents. This consensus holds true across a wide range of child outcome indicators and is supported by numerous nationally representative studies. Accordingly, assuming that either DOMA or Proposition 8 has any effect on whether children are raised by opposite-sex or same-sex parents, there is no basis to prefer opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents and neither DOMA nor Proposition 8 is justified.
Justice Kennedy who seemed to be quite a bit more ambivalent about the case before the Court also seemed not to have read very much about same-sex parenting when he said
There is quite a bit more than "five years of information" on the subject.I -- I think there's -- there's substantial -- that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.
Scalia has not been reticent in making anti-gay statements in the past. As with many of his decisions, Scalia's vaunted 'originalist' judicial philosophy is rather flexible, he will wipe out past decisions of the Court if he doesn't agree with them, all the while ranting on and on about the importance of precedence in determining what the Founders intended.
Last edited by Somerville; 03-27-13 at 08:10 AM.
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
2016: NONE OF THE ABOVE