That is obviously happening already, in the wake of it being the legal reality and the feared bad things not happening - just as was the case with desegregation.
At what point would you no longer think you belong on that “side”?
You’re hypothesizing an alternate universe, where desegregation was *already *the general popular view and legislators got elected on that basis. Might as well hypothesize some wizards and unicorns in it, too. Wallace’s actions were indistinguishable from those of an ambitious politician taking what seemed to be the most expedient course, btw - his recantation of segregation later in life was perhaps about as sincere as his leadership of it earlier.
Many older persons were part of the civil rights movement, or came to join or support it as they realized it was the right thing to do and the right way to leave the world for their grandchildren. You’re never too old to learn and grow, unless you *decide *not to.
I rather hope they don’t rule on it. If they were to reverse all the courts that have struck down SSM bans, I think we;d have riots in the streets. Public opinion has swung so quickly and so dramatically in favor of gay rights that to have such a reversal from the Supremes would shake the republic to its core.
I think they’ll hear the case the minute somebody with standing to appeal decides to appeal one of the federal appeals court decisions declaring a state’s law unconstitutional.
What I want to know is, if the Supreme Court does take a case, and they do find that state same-sex marriage bans are allowed, would the decision apply to states (e.g. California) that chose not to appeal? (Technically, Hollingsworth v. Perry, which appealed the overturning of California’s Proposition 8, has not been heard by the Supreme Court - then again, the couple in question got married in California since then, so can the Court declare the case moot?)
I might do that in a few years. Call me whatever names you like, but I sincerely believe that the best environment for a child is with a happily married man and woman. Of course that doesn’t always happen, but we shouldn’t just throw in the towel because of no fault divorce.
I have a 10 year old daughter. If I don’t change my beliefs she will one day look at me like people look at their Archie Bunker grandfather sitting on the porch spitting tobacco and bitching about uppity niggers. I accept and understand that. But I haven’t been given a good reason to accept discarding traditional marriage. I haven’t been shown the logical equivalence between racial bigotry and the belief that marriage should keep the definition that it has had for thousands of years.
I’m 38. I think I’m the last of “my generation” Wasn’t being called a fag the worst insult on your schoolyard?
That’s a very good question that I haven’t thought of before your post. Suppose that Kennedy gets a zap to the brain and realizes that the constitution does not require SSM. Does that reinstate Prop 8 in California? Do all of the same sex couples have their marriages invalidated? That last part is the bad facts make bad law part of the equation. Court rulings which don’t have stays put an appellate court in the position of having to tell couples that their marriages are void. That affects any judge to rule the other way, and that’s why those rulings are they way they are.
You realize that this issue has been studied, and that they’ve repeatedly found no difference in the health, happiness, or success of children raised by same sex couples as compared to opposite sex couple, right? I mean, it’s not really a matter of “belief.” We’re not talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin, here. There are real world metrics we can examine, and over and over, it comes up that being raised by gay parents presents absolutely no discernible disadvantage to children.
But these studies are conducted in a society where no-fault divorce is available as an option. Again, don’t get me wrong. I have taken advantage of the no-fault divorce laws. It wouldn’t have been better to have to prove fault on one side or the other in court.
That being said, should we just kill off any idea that the best interests of children are to have a motherly and a fatherly influence? Is marriage now simply and solely for two adults to be happy?
I had the privilege of Mom comforting me when bad things happened, and Dad busting my ass to get me out of bed to go back to the world after that. Do two moms or two dads do the same thing? Maybe, but I don’t see how. Should new laws be passed on the word of liberal and biased psychologists who state that such an arrangement is okay?
IOW, studies that show that these kids don’t rob gas stations at a higher rate than those raised by heterosexual couples miss the mark. Do these kids have the male and female roles taught to them for use in the future? How would we know? These families haven’t been in existence long enough, and the absence of one gender would suggest that it doesn’t happen…
You don’t see how? I’m sure you’ve been alive long enough to know that not all men are the same and not all women are the same.
What are “the male and female roles?” Most of us don’t fit into stereotyped gender roles, and we’d probably be better off if we didn’t insist that the world worked that way. Children also have influences outside the home, so it’s not as if a child with two dads will never meet a woman.
I never impressed with line of argument, whether it pertains to gay rights, evolution, or climate change. Your inability to comprehend should not limit the actual, factual existence of things. Especially when you make a concerted effort to not be informed, or eschew any studies that disagree with your ‘common sense’ worldview regardless of rigor or methodology.
If there’s no evidence that it’s true, yes. I’ll go so far as to suggest, as a general principle, things that are proven untrue should usually be discarded.
What do you mean, you don’t see how? Are you saying you genuinely can’t conceive of an authoritarian woman, or a nurturing man?
Why are you assuming the psychologists are liberal and biased?
I’m not sure what you mean by “have the male and female roles taught to them.” What are these roles, and what does teaching them entail? What happens if kids aren’t taught these roles?
Well, that’s why we do these studies, innit?
Here’s an idea: why don’t you actually examine the research, instead of just randomly guessing at what sort of flaws it might contain?
Heck, single parenthood (i.e. parenthood where one gender isn’t represented) ain’t new, though in the 1930s and earlier, it was typically because one of the parents was dead.
We also have demonstrable evidence of some groups which, on average, have worse parenting outcomes than average - people in poverty, for instance. And yet there is no movement demanding that poor people not be permitted to marry (in fact you hear complaints that they’re not marrying enough.) Even if same-sex couples had worse parenting outcomes than average - and it’s not clear that they do - they should still have an individual shot at proving themselves exceptions, just like everyone else.
Exactly! Those studies cited above are interesting, I guess, but they have nothing to do with the issue at hand, except as one tool for convincing a certain subset (mainly older people) of those opposed to SSM.
To give an extreme and imperfect analogue, it’s as if you could have your 1st Amendment rights taken away because you exhibit poor grammar.
You realize there is a huge excluded middle here? You can express a preference for one type of family unit without banning others.
Anyway, this kind of puts the lie to the rhetoric of “traditional marriage” supporters. What do all the state constitutional bans on SSM say? “A marriage is one man and one woman as husband and wife”, or words to that effect. And yet the (alleged) point of all those bans is a stable/balanced childrearing unit - a purpose that is never mentioned anywhere until things go to court.
For much of the history you treasure, that wasn’t the way it worked. Kids of the upper classes were raised by a succession of nannies and governesses - boys eventually by tutors and then to school - often with very little contact with EITHER parent. For kids of lower classes - how much time do you think you spent with Dad if he was a sailor? Or a baker? Or worked twelve hour days in the counting house? You probably didn’t get that much time with Mom either - she was busy keeping a house, probably pregnant or nursing much of them time, with kids younger than you to keep out of the fire. Of course, eventually - when you were eight or nine, you’d probably be apprenticed off losing that parental influence which was seen as coddling. I had a great uncle who spent years working in Alaska while his family lived in the Twin Cities - he’d come down twice a year. That was in the 1950s. And that wasn’t that unusual - you went where the job was.
We have this idealistic view of family life throughout history - Beaver sitting down for dinner with the whole family. The middle class Victorian family. For most of history for most families, family life was far from idyllic. The temperance movement was driven because many, many families were headed by a drunk. Women died in childbirth leaving young children with one parent. Kids were orphaned by disease or accident. Both parents often had to work twelve or fourteen hour days for survival - and kids went to work as soon as they could. Historically, marriage has never been about giving kids the best - its been primarily an economic arrangement.
There have been many family structures over the past 1000 years - many did not fit our idea of modern parenting.
