“Proposition 8 does not ‘dishonor’ gays and lesbians.” So says the brief filed with the Supreme Court by the advocates of Prop. 8, because same-sex couples are not “similarly situated” with opposite sex couples. Glad they cleared that up. And while I’m frankly feeling even more dishonored having read the brief (and the brief in the DOMA case), I’m also feeling for another group being given an almost equally short straw – any child not raised by their biological parents, who are apparently less deserving of a stable family.
You won’t find it stated so succinctly, but follow the “logic” of their arguments to uphold Prop. 8. “Intercourse between members of the opposite sex runs the risk of producing a child; children who aren’t cared for are a societal problem; marriage is society’s way of encouraging sexual partners to stay together and care for their children; since intercourse between same-sex couples can’t produce a child, we are not similarly situated; and “It is simply not stigmatizing for the law to treat different things differently.”
The “things” they want to treat differently, of course, are same-sex couples. But think about it in regard to children. From the discussion of the historic importance of marriage, it appears to be the only thing preventing a nation overrun with uncared for children in a Malthus meets Oliver Twist dystopia. Then, suddenly, you are asked to believe this critical institution only applies to biological children of opposite sex couples. Otherwise, the government can shrug, ostensibly with no consequences.
That might work in a primitive and somewhat draconian world where all offspring are the products of intercourse and their parents are forced to raise them. Indeed, that may be the world in which Prop. 8 enthusiasts desperately want to live. Current reality, however, produces other options, including in vitro fertilization, adoption and divorce. Why would society have no interest to ensure that children born into such situations not have access to the stability of marriage?
From their arguments, when a single mom weds, any benefit her son may have from her marriage is just a quirk of the system designed to help his pending natural half-siblings. It can’t be intended by government to help him, because if it were, it would suggest that society’s real interest is a loving, stable and supportive environment for children, not the DNA of their guardians.
Stipulating this would present a problem for traditional marriage enthusiasts, because it runs them head first into the fact that the children of lesbian parents do just as well, or better, than those raised by a biological mother and father.
Andrew Cohen of the The Atlantic calls the brief by the Prop. 8 supporters “their strongest case yet.”
As legal thrusts at Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas that may prove true. From a common sense perspective, however, it only highlights the long-term absurdity of their case.
Providing children with love and support is an important societal interest. If marriage is the best way to do that, it should be available to all children and families, even those formed in ways the framers didn’t foresee.
