SAME-SEX PARENTING: Gabriel Rosenberg replies to Mark Tardiff

Father Tardiff writes that it is "not argument but manipulative rhetoric" to contrast "the worst heterosexual situation with the best homosexual situation." The reasonable approach he figures is to compare "the best
with the best, and the worst with the worst." This echoes similar claims he made earlier
(http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog/2003_10_12_mdblog_archive.htm#106642318207837180).

I fear he may me not be understanding the argument, though. The idea behind equal protection is that people should be treated as individuals, not as members of some group. For example, men are generally faster than women. Would it be justified to exclude all women and include all men any time speed is a desired characteristic? Of course not. I could just imagine, "Yes, Miss Hammon, you are much faster than Mr. Dole, but he's a man and the fastest man is faster than the fastest woman. Sorry."

Of course in determining whether a same-sex couple should be allowed to marry, we are not even choosing between placing a child with same-sex parents or opposite-sex parents. The child has (or will have) same-sex parents and we should consider whether it would be better for the child if those parents were married instead of cohabiting. The court in Goodridge detailed at length how it could be much better for the child if the parents were married.

What about children of opposite-sex parents? Does prohibiting same-sex marriage help them in any way? Maggie and others claim that it does because without the prohibition men would no longer want to marry, or would view marriage or even fatherhood as unnecessary. There is absolutely no evidence of this. Suppose, however, twenty years from now John Doe does walk away from his responsibilities to his family. I would lay the blame squarely with John Doe and not with some court decision that merely said it was okay for others to take responsibility for their families.
posted by Eve at 4:54 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home