Ryan Anderson of Heritage (and co-author of What is Marriage? One Man, One Woman: A Defense) writes in CNN:
"...So what about that release from the American Academy of Pediatrics? Two eminent political scientists, Leon Kass (a professor at University of Chicago) and Harvey Mansfield (a professor at Harvard), filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court cautioning against accepting politicized science: "Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must necessarily rest on ideology. Ideology may be pervasive in the social sciences, especially when controversial policy issues are at stake, but ideology is not science."
Kass and Mansfield urge the court not to redefine marriage based on new, inconclusive research. The academic studies on same-sex parenting purporting to show "no differences" are, they argue, "subject to severe constraints arising from limited data" and a lack of "replicable experiments." The professors contend:
"Even if same-sex marriage and child rearing by same-sex couples were far more common than they now are, large amounts of data collected over decades would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the effects."
Although we still have much to learn about the impact of same-sex parenting, we do know quite a bit about marriage and child well-being. We have decades of rigorous social science data confirming that children do best with a married mother and father.
38 Comments
"Although we still have much to learn about the impact of same-sex parenting...."
Such as? How many studies have to be done people you people get it through your thick skulls that sexual orientation has nothing to do with parenting skills?? Why would it? It makes no sense as a hypothesis!
Poverty is a proven factor determining child outcomes. Is there a test of economic stability in order to marry?
No? But the data says there should!
What? It's not all about the data?
When will you dipwads understand that a child needs both a male parent and a female parent? That is the ideal situation for any child. A boy child needs a father as a role model, to teach him how to be a man, and a mother to teach him to appreciate women. A girl child needs a mother as a role model, to teach her how to be a woman, and a father to teach her how to appreciate men. You fools who act like gender doesn't matter are living in a world fashioned by Lewis Carroll, where reality is what YOU say it is, instead of what it is in fact. And as for "studies", there are other studies that prove just the opposite - that is, what most people already know is true. You're spouting Humpty-Dumpty logic, and like Humpty, you're going to take a fall.
FemEagle, when will you grow some brain cells and learn to think? There's no evidence a child needs different-sexed parents; that's a made-up thing by religio-homophobes.
Get a grip on yourself, then take firm hold of reality. It will be so much less stressful for you!
@Robert,
"There's no evidence a child needs different-sexed parents"
Seriously...did you flunk biology and blame it on the instructors inability to accept you BS?
Sincerely Robert, your jabbering shows that you got a very bad education. Sadly you never learne to think or whatever you have been smoking has fried your brain. Don't worry, you seem to be sadly in good company because apparently many folks have the same problem that you have.
Whatver the case, non of us who disagree with you are going to die tommorow or the next day or the next.
Study some recent history..
Roe V Wade...
It still exists and it was just as stupid as your philosophy is now but it's going to be far , far worse.
@Robert
"There's no evidence a child needs different-sexed parents. "
There are scores of evidence showing that children need both a mother and a father. Statistics overwhelmingly prove that when either parent(especially the father) is absent then children are more likely to:
drop out of school
be sexually active at a younger age
have a child out of wedlock
commit suicide
be unfaithful in a relationship
commit crimes
and more
Zack, I'm afraid I"ll need a citation and some evidence for your made-up claims. Dozens of studies refute your claim. Sorry for your loss.
This nutjob is getting slammed over on CNN! If you want to go public with your anti-gay views, you ought to at least make some sense! This.guy.doesn't.
Interesting that most of the folks who discount the importance of mothers and fathers were lucky enough to have them.
What else would we expect them to say? If they spoke in terms of reality they'd be negating their own arguments.
The pseudo-marriage inmates are running the asylum.
The Supreme Court WILL uphold marriage ... as a worthwhile institution that both Straight AND Gay couples should participate in.
The Supreme Court will uphold marriage by acknowledging that sexual depravity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself.
The right of conscience and free exercise thereof is absolute in these United States. No one has the right to declare your vote nil and void simply because they do not agree with your faith.;
Randy, no one, including SCOTUS, has in the past or will in the future determine a vote nil and void simply because they do not agree with your faith. They have and will void votes for any number of constitutional reasons. You see Randy this issue is not just about you and what your faith tells you. And please convey that message to the Catholic Church (aka, NOM).
Robert said: "get it through your thick skulls... when will you grow some brain cells... nutjob..."
name-calling is exactly the product of a brain with no thinking cells
hyperventilating stupidity, nothing more.
Richard,
Double talk much?
Every Jurist currently sitting at SCOTUS is on record acknowledging that there is no Constitutional right to change the meaning of what constitutes a marriage in these United States.
So what right is it that you believe is being violated here?
note: keep in mind that "consistent with the history and traditions of the United States" is the first hurdle you must clear.
Alessandra, why can't you learn, then? What other conclusion can we draw, other than you lack some key brain cells? You guys keep repeating your silly and discredited notions about civil marriage, and come up with the most bizarre reasons why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
@Robert,
Your insistence that sexual depravity turns you into a species of man unto yourself does not exactly paint you as rational.
Do you truly believe the desire to masturbate against same gendered companions is sane and rationale?
Yes randy you're a pervert. We know. Chill with the visuals, already.
Pervert:
A unusual or abnormal sexual act that is habitual
So you see experimentation is normal; making a career out of it is perverted.
The Supreme Court doesn't have to find any constitutional right to same-sex marriage to strike down both DOMA and Prop. 8 but it's interesting that Mr. King seems to think "history and tradition" trump the U.S. Constitution.
It they uphold marriage only partners of the opposite sex will be able to marry.
Being straight or gay will have no relevance.
Consistency with the history and traditions of the United States is a basic principle related to Constitutional challenges; the first hurdle.
You either have to clear said hurdle, or you have to successfully argue why recorded human history does not apply to you.
The "first hurdle" has been successfully cleared in nine states and counting, federal district courts, public opinion, previous SCOTUS rulings, the DOJ, two Presidents of the United States, reputable Republicans too numerous to name, religious institutions, major media outlets and even grandma and grandpa.
@Richard,
Those States did not rule on law; they invented new law out of whole cloth via an act of blatant tyranny.
What previous SCOTUS ruling gives you a pathway to change the meaning of Constitutes a marriage in these United States?
Numerous citations are listed in the footnotes of this ACP article
Excerpt:
Link did not work.
Here is the corrected link to the ACP article.
The "history and traditions" of the United States include slavery, denying women the right to vote, and anti-miscegenation laws. The Founding Fathers knew better than anybody that they were creating a country and a legal system that would change over time, and that that was a good and proper thing:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson
Does that prove no good tradition exists, or that all tradition should be rescinded?
Clearly not.
Thomas Jeffersen did not have the SSMer's attack on marriage in mind when he wrote of 1) development, 2) enlightenment, 3) new discoveries.
SSMers routinely explain that their opinion is based not on positive development and on the enlightenment of reason, but their rhetoric and argumentation does illustrate that they depend on the regression manifest in non-marital trends.
Chairm oh wouldn't it be wonderful if you could develop an understanding of reality, enlighten yourself to the existence of gay marriage in nine states and counting and discover through getting out of the house and meeting people that "the only thing to fear is fear itself".
Heh, Richard, why would you comment here under so many different monikers?
Reality, indeed.
Monogamous bride-groom marriage is the ideal form of marriage. It has no equal.
That is reality.
Calling other forms "equal" does not make them equal in reality, it only creates a veneer of equality.
Veneer hides reality. So does legal veneer.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Richard developed a true understanding of reality and looked beyond the legal veneer?
bman, I'll take the legal reality you can stick with a your religious veneer. The Constitution wins, hands down.
Chairm, "many different monikers"? Nope, just Richard really, really just Richard.
Objective reality is not the same thing as "legal reality."
You are choosing legal veneer over objective reality.
Objective reality is that monogamous bride-groom marriage is the ideal form of marriage.
No other form is objectively equal.
Where in the Constitution does it say objectively unequal forms of marriage are legally equal?
Besides, you seem to forget SCOTUS ruled there is no Constitutional right to SSM in Baker v. Nelson.
The majority of high courts to consider the issue since 2003, as well, have rejected a right to same-sex marriage.
And let's not forget that the principle of objective reality was also recognized by SCOTUS when applying the Constitution
Since the Constitution does not require objectively different things to be treated the same, it does not require the objectively different SSM form of marriage to be treated the same as monogamous bride-groom marriage.
Monogamous bride-groom marriage is the ideal form of marriage.
No other form is objectively equal.
Plus, of course, mislabeling a form of non-marriage as "gay marriage" is itself an error in comprehending the truth of marriage.
There is no gay in SSM law so there is no "gay marriage" under the SSM imposition. Not objectively.
Are the gay twosomes licensed for SSM? Sure, but the SSM law is an arbitrary act of government power and not justified -- explicitly not justified by the gay emphasis of SSM advocates. They themselves insist that gay identity is not a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligibility and ineligibility to SSM.
So SSM is not marriage but a rejection of the marriage idea; and SSM is not gay as per the SSMer's rejection of expressing the gay emphasis as a legal requirement for those who'd SSM.
Objective reality.
Abuses of governmental power is supposed to be the big theme of the pro-SSM complaint against the laws on eligibility and ineligibility to marry. But imposing SSM -- as per the arbitrariness of SSM rhetoric and argumentation -- turns around and devours the SSM advocate with one simple yawning gulp. Empty calories, really.