First there was a “study” that claimed to show that same-sex parents were inferior to opposite-sex parents.
Lots of people used this study to argue their court cases, including a defense in Utah of their SSM ban.
Then a judge in Michigan eviscerated the study.
Now the defense in Utah has decided they maybe don’t want to depend on this study. So they tell the court that the study isn’t important and that their opposition to SSM is all about the children of opposite-sex marriages.
So… huh? They fear the “potential long-term impact of a redefinition of marriage on the children of heterosexual parents”? What the heck does that even MEAN?
You’re sinking beneath the waves. Dangling above you is a single straw, almost certainly too flimsy to save you. Do you grab for it anyway, or give up and just let yourself drown? Anti-SSM folks are taking the first choice.
If there’s no basis for saying SSM is harmful to the children of same-sex parents, what’s left? Well, there probably aren’t a lot of studies on the impact of SSM to children of hetero parents, so they can attempt to use that “unknown” to argue their case. They hope they don’t have to make any specific arguments about what those bad impacts might be; simply raising the specter of potential impacts will be enough.
Well, you see, if we “redefine” marriage from “a societal, legal, and personal compact between a man and a woman” to “a societal, legal, and personal compact between two people”, then the children of man-woman marriages will be traumatized when they realize that this means their parents are, in fact, people. Or something.
I mean, honestly. There’s more logic in the premise that “ya got trouble with a capital ‘T’, and that rhymes with ‘P’, which stands for ‘pool’”.
Children of heterosexual parents will feel persecuted in the same way people that celebrate Christmas are persecuted. When you only make up 90% of the population, you get nervous.
If you hear a news report that begins with ‘a Federal judge ruled’ or ‘school officials said’ you know what is to follow is going to be an example of lunacy.
Need I remind you of the ‘school officials’ who were going to expel a female student who saved the life of her classmate? I have zero confidence, none whatsoever, in our institutions. Our judiciary and school system are filled with incompetents.
Welcome to the 21st Century. You will find a few differences from prior centuries you have lived in, try not to be too shocked.
If the laws are re-written to define marriage as between two people without specifying sex, gender, chromosomes, etc. then yes, in fact “same sex marriage” is no oxymoron but a legal fact, at least in some jurisdictions.
Now, if you want to say SSM doesn’t exist under the rules issued by your particular Magical Pink Unicorn Sky Fairy then have at it. This isn’t about marriage as a religious rite, it’s about marriage as a secular agreement between two parties.
What supports all laws regarding marriage? Custom and only custom. If you throw this out, then laws against bigamy or marrying your sister or a dog will be subject to the same process, for their foundation is no different. You can’t have it both ways. Does the passage of time in itself invalidate any law? What about laws against murder?
This is clearly a false analogy. Surely you aren’t serious about this.
How do you define ‘custom’ in this case from ‘law’? Is something correct merely because we chose to do it a certain way in the past? Are we as a culture not allowed to grow and become more functional, and more inclusive to all?
They’re afraid that the kids of heterosexual parents will feel cheated because they don’t have gay parents.
Just like how so many anti-gay activists are secretly jonesing for some hot gay lovin, but have been told it’s wrong, so they need society to protect them from their own desires. Thus we need to protect children from the allure of gay parents, so their unhappy loveless hetero parents can drag on even though they’ll never get the gay sexing up they really need.