Supporting family values

[avram]

Here’s a PDF copy of the text of the Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts state supreme court case requiring the legislature to accommodate the marriage rights of gay couples. Hosted by a pro-bigotry group; sorry, it’s what I could find. Go drive up their bandwidth bill.

Some opponents of the freedom to marry have couched their arguments in terms of support for families, or the claim that marriage rights should be limited to couples capable of reproducing. Here’s an excerpt from the decision, describing the plaintiffs, with some key phrases emphasized by me:

The plaintiffs are fourteen individuals from five Massachusetts counties. As of April 11, 2001, the date they filed their complaint, the plaintiffs Gloria Bailey, sixty years old, and Linda Davies, fifty-five years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirty years; the plaintiffs Maureen Brodoff, forty-nine years old, and Ellen Wade, fifty-two years old, had been in a committed relationship for twenty years and lived with their twelve year old daughter; the plaintiffs Hillary Goodridge, forty-four years old, and Julie Goodridge, forty-three years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their five year old daughter; the plaintiffs Gary Chalmers, thirty-five years old, and Richard Linnell, thirty-seven years old, had been in a committed relationship for thirteen years and lived with their eight year old daughter and Richard's mother; the plaintiffs Heidi Norton, thirty-six years old, and Gina Smith, thirty-six years old, had been in a committed relationship for eleven years and lived with their two sons, ages five years and one year; the plaintiffs Michael Horgan, forty-one years old, and David Balmelli, forty-one years old, had been in a committed relationship for seven years; and the plaintiffs David Wilson, fifty-seven years old, and Robert Compton, fifty-one years old, had been in a committed relationship for four years and had cared for David's mother in their home after a serious illness until she died.

If you find yourself arguing with someone who tries to disguise his anti-gay bigotry with pro-family rhetoric, ask why he would rather have these five children raised by single parents than by loving married couples.

Update: Here’s another link to the PDF, from FindLaw, in case you don’t want to drive up some bigot’s bandwidth bill. And here it is in Microsoft Word format.

Comments

Hmm ...

[autopope.livejournal.com]

If you find yourself arguing with someone who tries to disguise his anti-gay bigotry with pro-family rhetoric, ask why he would rather have these five children raised by single parents than by loving married couples.

You can also ask your hypothetical bigot why they want to ban post-menopausal women, women with polycystic ovaries, or other reproductive problems from marrying. Or what they've got against surrogacy agreements and test-tube babies.

(The "only couples capable of reproducing should marry" argument collapses real fast when you start looking at real world heterosexual marriages, where IIRC roughly 10% have major or insuperable reproductive problems.)

Re: Hmm ...

[avram]

Yeah, but odds are they’ve heard that one before.

Quoting from elsewhere in the decision:

[cheshyre]

If procreation were a necessary component of civil marriage, our statutes would draw a tighter circle around the permissible bounds of nonmarital child bearing and the creation of families by noncoital means. <snip> The "marriage is procreation" argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage.

---

The department has offered no evidence that forbidding marriage to people of the same sex will increase the number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children. There is thus no rational relationship between the marriage statute and the Commonwealth's proffered goal of protecting the "optimal" child rearing unit. Moreover, the department readily concedes that people in same-sex couples may be "excellent" parents. These couples (including four of the plaintiff couples) have children for the reasons others do -- to love them, to care for them, to nurture them. But the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws. <snip> Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of "a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."

---

In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation.

[snale.livejournal.com]

Basically, I've heard no rational argument against gay marriage. Some individuals disagree with it on the basis of their faith or personal belief. They'll twist language to suit themselves and to gain sympathy for their views. I only hope their "logic" doesn't change what is now the law in Massachusetts.