For any kids in the family, and in some ways, it can be. A recent study of family units centered on lesbian couples showed that the lesbian parents were generally more involved in their kids’ life (in a positive, not over-protective, way) than was the case in family units centered on straight couples. And the kids weren’t teased any more than kids with straight parents were, lesbian parents would actually often be more popular than average.
I could dig out online sources, but they would all be in Norwegian and not much use to most of you… Speak up if you want to see them, though:)
I see those tests as attempts to give meaning to the phrase “equal protection.” “Equal protection” can’t mean equality in all things because the law always discriminates based on categorization. So it has to have a more limited meaning. Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis are each attempts to define the contours of the phrase “equal protection.” While it isn’t a perfect set of tests (no tests are), it recognizes that some types of equality (race, etc) are more important than others.
This is not unusual. Nearly everyone recognizes that “free speech” does not include libel or falsely shouting fire in a theatre. Even the most ardent strict constructionists recognize the need for judicial mapping of the meaning of that phrase.
But in both of those cases, the judicially-created tests are tied to the text of the constitution. The equal protection tests are tied to notions of equality before the law. The free speech tests are tied to notions of, well, free speech. A general right to privacy is not tied in the same manner to notions of approrpiate process.
I do see your point. Nor am I advocating a carte blanche “right to privacy” in the Blackian absolutist sense. But I do see a very strong right to privacy vis-a-vis the state and with explicit exceptions spelled out in the language of the Fourth Amendment (and its presumable extension to the states by the Fourteenth). IMHO, an “illegal search or seizure” cannot be legalized by calling it something else, and an entry by an agent of the state that does not meet the Fourth’s terms and conditions or their due process equivalents is trespass pure and simple.
That’s happened, Sua Sponte – a straight couple in NY state, on their first night out after the birth of their child, were attacked by gay bashers who thought the couple, both dressed for winter in pants, boots, heavy jackets & caps, were gay. It wasn’t until the woman’s jacket & shirt were torn off in the fight that they discovered their error.
I think it’s time we stopped making any kind of assumptions about strangers.
And – Why isn’t the completely acceptable living-together-and-having-children-without benefit-of-marriage more of a threat to traditional marriage than the concept of gay marriage? I live in the Bible Belt, know many couples who live together, attend the Baptist church every Sunday, are totally accepted. Non-marriage is the issue, it seems to me, not those who want to make a public commitment.
In his book Skipping Towards Gomorrah author Dan Savage references a study by Indiana University Southeast sociology professor and researcher Richard Jenks that shows that there are currently 1.1 million straight couples involved in the swinging movement. Where’s the outcry to rescind their non-monogamous marriage?
Some estimates of the numbers of gay men 18-50 in America put the figure at about 2 million. Assuming that every single one of us got married tomorrow, then that would only be about 1 million marriages - fewer than the number of Swingers.
An important thing to think about here is that it’s irrelevant whether gays and lesbians are more promiscuous than straights (I’m not convinced); we need to ask whether gays and lesbians who would be getting married are more promiscuous than straights.
ElJeffe has not done this explicitly, but the usual comparison that pops into people’s minds here is between married straights (who, by and large, even if they had a wild past, have “settled down” into monogamy) and the homosexual population at large, including those who will eventually settle down into monogamy.
I’m at a university. I know a few pretty promiscuous gay people. I also know a whole bunch of pretty promiscuous straight people. Most of them—of either (any!) orientation—will settle down, eventually.
An important thing to think about here is that it’s irrelevant whether gays and lesbians are more promiscuous than straights (I’m not convinced); we need to ask whether gays and lesbians who would be getting married are more promiscuous than straights.
ElJeffe has not done this explicitly, but the usual comparison that pops into people’s minds here is between married straights (who, by and large, even if they had a wild past, have “settled down” into monogamy) and the homosexual population at large, including those who will eventually settle down into monogamy.
I’m at a university. I know a few pretty promiscuous gay people. I also know a whole bunch of pretty promiscuous straight people. Most of them—of either (any!) orientation—will settle down, eventually.
DCU agreed, I was just pointing out the fallacy that is often brought up about gay marriage; since gay couples cannot procreate (under most circumstances) then they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. If that logic were applied to straight couples, as I was trying to show thru my analogy, its illogic (hopefully) becomes apparent.
Unfortunately, “Family Values” is a code word for a specific set of prejudices and unreasoned values that were fashionable in the relatively recent past.
