Ken Starr , the dean of Pepperdine University's School of Law, is arguing before the California Supreme Court in defense of Prop 8. His goal is to nullify 18,000 same-sex marriages and has argued that by allowing same-sex marriage we as a people have "diminished a public commitment to protecting the welfare of children."
Starr argues against gay families by claiming that there are "substantial adverse consequences for children that often flow from alternative household arrangements."
Yesterday, lawyer David Gibbs , "told rally participants gay marriage would 'open the door to unusual marriage in North Carolina. Why not polygamy, or three or four spouses?' Gibbs asked. 'Maybe people will want to marry their pets or robots'."
What's with these lawyers?! I always thought lawyers needed hard facts and evidence to back up their claims and their agendas? Forgive me for valuing research but studies to date have shown that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and adults of both sexes and are fully engaged in social life. Their happiness is not affected by their parents' sexual orientation and they develop strong relationship with hetero and homosexual family members, peers, and friends. The only "substantial adverse consequences" that i can think of includes the hatred, intolerance, and discrimination that kids of gay and lesbian parents encounter from people like Ken Starr. The way I see it, Ken Starr is the "substantial adverse consequence" that he is trying to "protect" children from.
Sign the petition and tell Starr that his, "attempt to nullify the marriages of 18,000 loving couples in California is misguided and malicious. The rights of a minority should never be stripped by a simple majority vote, and the idea that divorcing parents could help the welfare of children is disgusting."
(cross posted at Feminist Gal .)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "substantial adverse consequence".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12324
"The only "substantial adverse consequences" that i can think of includes the hatred, intolerance, and discrimination that kids of gay and lesbian parents encounter from people like Ken Starr. The way I see it, Ken Starr is the "substantial adverse consequence" that he is trying to "protect" children from."
There was actually a Bullshit episode on same-sex marriage, where Penn Gillette sited some studies that said about the same thing as you.
I already signed that petition but thanks for posting it to get more people to do so.
I really hate the "gay marriage will lead to polygamy, bestility, etc..." Gay marriage opponents were hard-pressed to find a secular argument. Good thing that the argument they came up with is illogical.
Heterosexual marriage makes me want to marry my pet, and my robot. Yup, pet-robot polygamy. :)
Wow, the slippery slope argument is kind of messed up.
And you know what really bugs me? The Cali. judges said that they were hesitant to rule against Prop. 8 because they thought that retroactive marriages couldn't be affected by it. Well, lookee here, folks.
Robots and dogs. LOL.
Tell ya what: when robots and dogs can vote, pay taxes, sign contracts on their own recognizance, and receive full citizenship, but are otherwise treated as second-class citizens with respect to marriage... then we'll talk.
Also, I'd like to hear Ken Starr address the substantial adverse consequences of forcing children in same-sex-parented households to go without the benefit of the 1,100 rights conferred to that household by the marriage of their parents. What do you have against those kids, Ken?
EXACTLY
I have a tough time having a civil discourse about marriage equality. All, ALL the arguments against it are based on miss information and selective fact-picking. It's a civil goddamn right, end of story.
I think a Facebook group is in order.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=70359450967
This is the same Ken Starr who held the country hostage for eighteen months because Bill Clinton got a few blowjobs. So his attitudes about sex and the law are pretty warped.
In my opinion, the argue that gay marriage would open the doors to polygamy, etc. actually supports my point. Equal rights to all! People who practice polygamy and/or marry robots, dogs, whatever do not hurt or interfere with MY marriage! I am not about to tell people what they can or cannot do, especially if it does not involve me.
Why is it that nobody ever says: "then you should be against the right to own firearms too. Because allowing handguns opens the door to missile launchers and atomic bombs!"
would open the doors to polygamy, etc. actually supports my point. Equal rights to all! People who practice polygamy and/or marry robots, dogs, whatever do not hurt or interfere with MY marriage! I am not about to tell people what they can or cannot do, especially if it does not involve me. Information Technology Diploma | biology degree