Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

[Stone holm]

I don't see how they can avoid the equal rights argument.  Isn't that the core of the issue for gay marriage?  Certainly the federal government does not have the right to regulate marriage in any state.  But they do have a right to insure equality of all Americans.  Those rights trump state's rights, especially when the can not point to any harm gay marriage has on a state other than we don't like it.

The SCOTUS has not determined homosexuals to be a suspect class, so all it would take is some sliver of a rational basis. If Utah has not already shut the public policy doors, then they could seize on one of those coupled with a Federalism argument might get Kennedy's vote. It is an unlikely, but possible route. The stupidity lies in spending that much money to brand Utah as having a culture similar to the Deep South. Especially, given the fact that the political battle was lost after the Prop 8 backlash. If Utah is successful, the social backlash against the Church will taint it and us for decades. Most Americans do not distinguish between Utah and Mormonism, just as they do not distinguish between Mormonism and the political views of the majority of the American members and the Church.

[rockpond]

Horse apples. The end effect of the ruling is to promote SSM, no matter how you want to hide behind the way you reword it here.

Your CFR is also invalid. It should be clear to anyone that judges often let their personal views drive their judgments. In this case, Shelby is disregarding any reasonable procedure by cramming this ruling down the throat of the state of Utah by fiat. If you would bother to read his ruling, his uses as phrases like this:

"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason"

indicate clearly that he has a personal agenda in this matter, since he's basically parroting SSM advocate sound bites.

It's not an SSM sound bite. That's a legal decision that continues to be arrived at by judge after judge.

Though, I suppose if he had decided the case differently and parroted any of the anti-SSM sound bites that you like to use, it not longer would have been judicial activism or fiat.

[Calm]

This is incorrect. Much of the fearful predictions in this thread that LDS clergy will be "forced" to marry same-sex couples haven't made a clear distinction between "receiving a marriage licence" vs. "Being licensed by the state to marry couples (that is, to officiate over a wedding ceremony)." The failure to draw/understand the difference is probably contributing to these irrational fears.

add-on:  I went ahead and started a new thread---so please respond there---because I want to know about more than just your prediction though I am especially interested in yours, cb's and anyone's who positively anticipates the lifting of any restriction on homosexual relationships in the Church...at least in the sense of having identical limits as heterosexual ones.  I would also like to hear from those who see the need to keep the standard of marriage within the Church the same even though they welcome the legal change.  And I would be interested in hearing specific predictions from those who are "fearful" according to Daniel's label.

------------

So your nonfearful prediction is that gays won't attempt to seek to be married or sealed in the temple once their marriage is recognized legally or that it will happen, but the laws protecting religious practice will cause such attempts to be dismissed so there should be no concern?  Or something else?  Do you think that now those who are desirous for whatever reason of a temple sealing that they will just wait until the Church accepts them using only nonlegal avenues of persuasion or what, anticipating that attitude change will be enough?

 

I would assume that the gay community who are seeking recognition for marriage probably has relatively small core of activists and a larger group that are somewhat involved and a much larger group that are mainly interested observers just as most groups vary over their involvement in a mutual goal.  If I am right (and even if I am wrong and the setup is very different, are you aware of any discussions going on with those in the core as well as extended?

 

I would assume there is a lot of celebration going on now, but am wondering if there is any talk of 'what comes next'....if there is even anything 'next' for Utah.

 

PS:  this would actually be a good new topic "What comes next" if you are interested enough in that kind of discussion...I would love to see everyone's prediction...we could offer a prize to be given in ten years for the one closest.  Some official board title like "Ultimate Cosmic MDDB Prognosticator".

[Stone holm]

add-on:  I went ahead and started a new thread---so please respond there---because I want to know about more than just your prediction though I am especially interested in yours, cb's and anyone's who positively anticipates the lifting of any restriction on homosexual relationships in the Church...at least in the sense of having identical limits as heterosexual ones.  I would also like to hear from those who see the need to keep the standard of marriage within the Church the same even though they welcome the legal change.  And I would be interested in hearing specific predictions from those who are "fearful" according to Daniel's label.

------------

So your nonfearful prediction is that gays won't attempt to seek to be married or sealed in the temple once their marriage is recognized legally or that it will happen, but the laws protecting religious practice will cause such attempts to be dismissed so there should be no concern?  Or something else?  Do you think that now those who are desirous for whatever reason of a temple sealing that they will just wait until the Church accepts them using only nonlegal avenues of persuasion or what, anticipating that attitude change will be enough?

 

I would assume that the gay community who are seeking recognition for marriage probably has relatively small core of activists and a larger group that are somewhat involved and a much larger group that are mainly interested observers just as most groups vary over their involvement in a mutual goal.  If I am right (and even if I am wrong and the setup is very different, are you aware of any discussions going on with those in the core as well as extended?

 

I would assume there is a lot of celebration going on now, but am wondering if there is any talk of 'what comes next'....if there is even anything 'next' for Utah.

 

PS:  this would actually be a good new topic "What comes next" if you are interested enough in that kind of discussion...I would love to see everyone's prediction...we could offer a prize to be given in ten years for the one closest.  Some official board title like "Ultimate Cosmic MDDB Prognosticator".

Worst case scenario in America is that eventually, the Church might have to do what it does in other countries, namely the couple goes through a civil ceremony outside the Temple and then go inside for the sealing. As for the sealing being forced, not going to happen, that is just right wing scare tactics.

[california boy]

An article about Judge Shelby who ruled on gay marriage in Utah.

 

He had been a combat engineer in the Persian Gulf conflict and was, according to state voter records, a registered Republican. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a seven-term Utah Republican, recommended him for a federal judgeship, calling him an experienced lawyer “with an unwavering commitment to the law.” Senator Mike Lee, a Tea Party Republican, said that Mr. Shelby was “pre-eminently qualified” and predicted he would be an outstanding judge.

 

Here is the rest of the article

[cdowis]

 It would have saved 40 million dollars that could have gone for something more productive.  And people would have much less prejudice against the church.

 

I personally don't worry what the christophobes think about us. 

It made a favorable impression on those who are concerned about sin and its effect on society.  The more we are attacked, the more doors it opens for us to teach the the Gospel.

 

Forty million dollars generated hundreds of millions of dollars in publicity ==>> that's a pretty good return on investment.  They are still talking about us.

[ERayR]

Worst case scenario in America is that eventually, the Church might have to do what it does in other countries, namely the couple goes through a civil ceremony outside the Temple and then go inside for the sealing. As for the sealing being forced, not going to happen, that is just right wing scare tactics.

 

Thirty years ago the prediction of homosexual marriage was "just right wing scare tactics".

[rockpond]

I personally don't worry what the christophobes think about us. 

It made a favorable impression on those who are concerned about sin and its effect on society.  The more we are attacked, the more doors it opens for us to teach the the Gospel.

 

Forty million dollars generated hundreds of millions of dollars in publicity ==>> that's a pretty good return on investment.  They are still talking about us.

 

Yes, they are still talking about us regarding gay marriage... do you think it's in a good way?

 

Do you think that our campaign against gay marriage has had a net positive effect on our missionary efforts?  Because that is not the impression I've gotten.

[rockpond]

Thirty years ago the prediction of homosexual marriage was "just right wing scare tactics".

 

I'm not sure if that's true but suppose it was... we've had legally recognized gay marriage in parts of the US for a decade now.  Has it shown itself to be anything to fear?

[Daniel2]

Another Utah amendment on marriage coming

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57332977-90/amendment-anderegg-church-marriage.html.csp

Amendment proposal aims to clarify that churches don’t need to endorse marriages that violate their views.

By Lee Davidson

| The Salt Lake Tribune

First Published Dec 30 2013 12:32 pm • Updated 3 hours ago

After a federal judge struck down a Utah constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage, legislators are about to consider asking Utahns to vote on another amendment — this one seeking to ensure that churches cannot be forced to participate in marriages that violate their religious views.

"The truth is, the main reason I’m proposing this is that I just want people to relax" and to cool heated rhetoric after the same-sex marriage ban was overturned, says Rep. Jacob Anderegg, R-Lehi, the amendment’s sponsor. "If they know they have their federal religious guarantees in writing, I hope they will just relax."

Proposed constitutional amendment

“No religious organization, association, or society and no individual acting in a role connected with a religious organization, association, or society, may be required or compelled to solemnize, officiate in, or recognize a marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right of conscience or their free exercise of religion.

Even Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, who is gay and was married after the ban was struck down, does not oppose the idea. "I don’t think anybody wants to be married by somebody that doesn’t want to marry them," he said, adding it could help end worries and fighting.

However, Dabakis says he would support the amendment only if it were changed to require a civil marriage first for everyone, followed by a possible religious ceremony to help make clear that "civil marriage is a constitutional right."

Timing » Anderegg said he made his proposed amendment, HJR1, public online the day before Judge Robert J. Shelby rejected Utah’s same-sex marriage ban created by Amendment 3 in 2004, and a few days after Judge Clark Waddoups ordered decriminalizing polygamy.

Anderegg said his legislation is not in reaction to those court rulings and that he has been working on it for more than year. He said he had a draft written last year that he did not introduce because he figured then that it would not have enough interest to pass, but the rulings have changed that.

"We’ll see if it sprouts legs and walks in this session," he said, "or runs."

Anderegg said he started working on the proposal because federal courts seemed increasingly to be using the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law to trump the 10th Amendment’s protection of state rights on marriage.

He figures tests will come eventually over whether the 14th Amendment can also trump the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty on marriage.

"Like [hockey star] Wayne Gretzky said, ‘A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be,’ " Anderegg said. "I think this is where the law is going and want to put some extra protection in place."

He is also writing, but has not yet made public, a simple statute aiming to do the same thing as his proposed constitutional amendment. He said they may run in tandem, or one instead of the other, depending on support.

Anderegg says some conservatives have told him his amendment is not needed because the First Amendment already guarantees religious freedom.

—

Expanding exemption » On the other hand, he also has been told that some lawmakers may try to expand his amendment beyond covering just clergy and churches to also seek protection for commercial enterprises that do not want to participate in same-sex weddings, noting that some wedding photographers and cake makers have been sued in other states.

Dabakis said he would strongly oppose such an expansion. "That is about public accommodation. Do we want to go back to the day when somebody goes into a public business but [the owner] decides that African-Americans are inferior and it is their right not to provide them service?"

Bill Duncan, director of the national Marriage Law Foundation based in Lehi, said, "Maybe that’s a signal he [Dabakis] doesn’t believe the amendment will actually accomplish anything of any significance" if it focuses only on churches and clergy.

Duncan said while such a narrow amendment is "a good first step," he believes it should be expanded to business people who don’t want to be forced to participate in something that violates their religious beliefs "because that is where legal challenges are most likely to come" — and already have — and where protection is needed the most.

Anderegg said he has heard of five other marriage bills in early stages of discussion by state legislators, but added he is not at liberty to talk about their contents or sponsors yet. He expects marriage to be a hot topic when the Legislature convenes next month.

Anderegg said a key to his legislation may be whether the Salt Lake City-based LDS Church takes a stand on it or any other bills. He notes he believes his amendment mirrors current church policy.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

 

The argument from the 10th Amendment is a bit of a sticky wicket. No one really wants the Feds to intervene in state matters until those state matters personally effect them.

[strappinglad]

This issue must be taken to the Supreme Court ASAP. Let's get a clear ruling so that this " death by a thousand(50)cuts " does not continue.

[rockpond]

This issue must be taken to the Supreme Court ASAP. Let's get a clear ruling so that this " death by a thousand(50)cuts " does not continue.

A SCOTUS ruling will not end the debates and politicking. Exhibit A: Roe v Wade.

[Stone holm]

Thirty years ago the prediction of homosexual marriage was "just right wing scare tactics".

Not a very scary tactic since it had no impact on us straights or the Church. There is a inference between wielding ones religion as a sword or wielding it as a shield. We have been wielding it as a sword to deny rights and privileges to others who believe differently, it becomes a whole different matter when it is used as a shield to protect religious rituals and sanctuaries. It was used as a sword against us in US v Reynolds, but if US v Reynolds were tried today it would be a close call whether it would end the same. The thing is even if Utah prevails, which I give less than a 50% chance! it isn't the end because the political tide is moving towards allowing SSM, on a bipartisan basis. In fact, Log Cabin Republicans have been some of the litigants. As more and more families have children, or Aunts and Uncles come out, there will be growing acceptance and tolerance, plus the movement has tremendous economic clout which can make itself felt in the tourism and convention trade. The Marriots were quick to step away from Prop 8, because they saw no upside for their businesses.

[Stone holm]

Just read an amazing article in the Deseret News by some politician in Utah complaining about the trial judge not granting the stay. The article was accompanied by a photo of a government building packed with people waiting on marriage licenses. How is it that in a State so dead set against SSM that there is such a mass of people seeking SSM. I don't recall anything like that out here.

[thesometimesaint]

 

This issue must be taken to the Supreme Court ASAP. Let's get a clear ruling so that this " death by a thousand(50)cuts " does not continue.

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again while I personally oppose SSM on moral grounds. I can think of no legally consistent grounds to prohibit it by law.

I don't want the State in charge of my morals, and I don't want the Church in charge of my laws.

[Stone holm]

Yes, they are still talking about us regarding gay marriage... do you think it's in a good way?

 

Do you think that our campaign against gay marriage has had a net positive effect on our missionary efforts?  Because that is not the impression I've gotten.

I think that is the divisive issue, some on this board think it is good publicity, some think we should relish standing against sin, some think it was a bad idea to go political on it, and some think it was simple bigotry. Personally, I do not approve of homosexual behavior, or think SSM has any place with Mormonism, but I don't think it was right to go political on the issue. One of the worst things that could happen to Utah and possibly the Church, is for Utah to be the State whose ban on SSM is upheld by the SCOTUS. It will take decades for the taint to wash away after the issue is solved in the other direction and could actually spawn the LGBT community taking up the sword against our religion rather than merely trying to establish and defend their personal liberties. This may prove a very difficult tiger to dismount.

[Daniel2]

Another legal argument against same-sex marriage is abandoned...

Procreation argument dropped in stay application

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57340626-219/marriage-state-sex-court.html.csp

First Published Jan 01 2014 03:10 pm

Last Updated Jan 01 2014 05:20 pm

Utah made a subtle shift in its arguments in defense of opposite-sex marriage in a stay application to the U.S. Supreme Court filed Tuesday.

Gone is any mention of procreation.

Instead, the state talks about child-rearing without discussing how children may be produced.

Utah argues one reason it is likely to ultimately prevail in reversing legalization of same-sex marriage in the state is the "large and growing body of social science research" that supports its "rational" interest in opposite-sex marriage.

That research, it argues, backs "the importance of providing unique encouragement and protection for man-woman unions" because it shows children do best when raised by their father and mother (whether biological or adoptive) and limiting access to marriage to such unions increases that likelihood.

These are the core "legislative facts" that lawmakers and voters have relied on in limiting marriage to man-woman unions, it says.

"And even when contravened by other evidence, they are not subject to second-guessing by the judiciary without a showing that no rational person could believe them," the state says.

In a footnote, the state says according to other Supreme Court decisions it has no burden to prove that "its views on marriage are correct or sound."

Rather, "the research discussed here briefly sketches what Utah and its citizens could rationally believe about the benefits of limiting marriage to man-woman unions," it says.

A state that allows same-sex marriage "necessarily loses much of its ability to encourage gender complementarity as the preferred parenting arrangement," the application states. "And it thereby substantially increases the likelihood that any given child will be raised without the everyday influence of his or her biological mother and father — indeed, without the everyday influence of a father or mother at all."

The state doesn’t elaborate on that point.

But Utah observes that in its United States v. Windsor decision, which struck down a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act, the court said states were "constitutionally permitted to decide that this risk is offset, for example, by the risk that children being raised in families headed by same-sex couples will feel demeaned by their families’ inability to use the term ‘marriage.’"

The state concludes that the Windsor majority "does not suggest — and we think the court unlikely to hold after carefully considering the manifest benefits of gender complementarity — that a sovereign state is constitutionally compelled to make that choice."

In his decision, Shelby said both sides provided numerous studies about child-rearing in opposite-sex and same-sex households, creating a "factual dispute about the optimal environment for children" which the court could not resolve on motions for summary judgment.

In other words, it’s an unsettled issue.

That said, Shelby added he did not need to resolve the question "because the state’s argument is unpersuasive for another reason."

"Once again, the state fails to demonstrate any rational link between its prohibition of same-sex marriage and its goal of having more children raised in the family structure the state wishes to promote."

— Brooke Adams

© 2013 The Salt Lake Tribune

[california boy]

So Utah is pinning it's hopes of stopping gay marriage because of a few suspect studies that go against EVERY professional association.  And even if they could convince a court that their studies are better than all the other studies that consistently show children raised in gay families do just as well as children in straight families, then what?  There are even more conclusive studies showing that when parents are better educated, children do better.  Children from poor families don't do as well as homes that are more financially stable, etc.  Is the state of Utah going to not allow poor people to marry?  Are you going to have to have a certain level of education in order to marry?  If Mormon families do better than Baptist families, are they going to have to convert to Mormonism in order to marry?

 

If as all it takes for the State of Utah to deny a marriage license is a study that shows children do better under certain conditions, just who will be left to qualify for marriage?  You can kiss that 2 million goodbye if that is all they can come up with.

[Daniel2]

So Utah is pinning it's hopes of stopping gay marriage because of a few suspect studies that go against EVERY professional association. And even if they could convince a court that their studies are better than all the other studies that consistently show children raised in gay families do just as well as children in straight families, then what? There are even more conclusive studies showing that when parents are better educated, children do better. Children from poor families don't do as well as homes that are more financially stable, etc. Is the state of Utah going to not allow poor people to marry? Are you going to have to have a certain level of education in order to marry? If Mormon families do better than Baptist families, are they going to have to convert to Mormonism in order to marry?

If as all it takes for the State of Utah to deny a marriage license is a study that shows children do better under certain conditions, just who will be left to qualify for marriage? You can kiss that 2 million goodbye if that is all they can come up with.

I agree the $2,000,000.00 will be spent on a lost cause, CB... Evenso, I imagine many Utahns will believe it was worth the effort and money, regardless of it being a lost cause, simply as a matter of defending what they believe God wants (just as many feel about Prop 8 ).

[The Nehor]

So Utah is pinning it's hopes of stopping gay marriage because of a few suspect studies that go against EVERY professional association.  And even if they could convince a court that their studies are better than all the other studies that consistently show children raised in gay families do just as well as children in straight families, then what?  There are even more conclusive studies showing that when parents are better educated, children do better.  Children from poor families don't do as well as homes that are more financially stable, etc.  Is the state of Utah going to not allow poor people to marry?  Are you going to have to have a certain level of education in order to marry?  If Mormon families do better than Baptist families, are they going to have to convert to Mormonism in order to marry?

 

If as all it takes for the State of Utah to deny a marriage license is a study that shows children do better under certain conditions, just who will be left to qualify for marriage?  You can kiss that 2 million goodbye if that is all they can come up with.

 

There isn't enough data to establish this either way. There have been studies of children raised in same-sex relationship homes but I have not seen one with a good sampling method and adequate controls done by either side. The pro-gay marriage studies are usually done on a volunteer basis and funded by organizations that have already taken a side. This means you get a disproportionate number of stable relationships with disproportionately high income and education. They then compare it to the national average and "SURPRISE!!!" they win. The opposing side is equally selective and their studies are also done by organizations already having chosen a side.

 

The argument is too politicized for anyone to get good data.

[Daniel2]

01/02/2014

WHY THERE SHOULD BE NO STAY OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN UTAH

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

Gays and lesbians have been free to marry in Utah -- yes, Utah -- for two weeks. Judge Richard Shelby, who was appointed by President Obama at the behest of Utah's arch-conservative Republican senators, cited the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor when he said that the Constitution's guarantee of equal "dignity" for gays and lesbians requires the state to recognize their love. Since the decision was handed down, hundreds of gay couples, including Natalie Dicou, left, and her partner, Nicole Christensen, have gotten married.

Now, the State -- the home of the Mormon Church, Prop 8's principal benefactor -- wants those marriages to stop. After failing to ask for a stay during the course of the case before Judge Shelby, after messing up its request after the fact, and after ultimately losing before the Tenth Circuit,the State has one last hope to delay equality: Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

There are many problems with the State's request. Let's set aside for the moment the fact that the conservative leaders of Utah's state government want to deny the very existence of our love. Set aside the injustice of anti-gay marriage discrimination, in general, and focus on the stay itself.

The standard for a stay in federal court is demonstrating "irreparable harm." Where is the harm in letting gays continue to marry?

I discuss the problems with the stay argument in more detail [below].

Utah has made such a mess of its anti-gay arguments that it's almost as if the state's attorneys were litigating the case while in some kind of stupor. In previous gay marriage cases, the party defending the bans generally included a request for a stay in their motion documents so that even if -- or when -- they lose, they could continue their hopeless anti-gay cause without having to recognize gay rights in the interim.

The stay is also important as a matter of law. Sure, once marriages start happening and people see pictures of happy couples, some old, some young, some black, some white, just celebrating their love, opposition to gay marriages tends to drop. More importantly, it is hard to wriggle out of the fact of gay marriages after they already exist without incident. Gays have been marrying in Massachusetts for almost 10 years and the sky hasn't fallen and religious rights have not been compromised. The longer gays can marry in Utah, the easier it will be for pro-equality advocates to argue that recognizing our right to marry causes no harm.

Despite the importance of the stay to their cause, Utah's attorneys never asked for one. Then Judge Shelby issued his decision, at which point Utah didn't ask him for a stay, but went right to the Tenth Circuit, the appellate court covering Utah. But that's not how it works. First the district court judge has to rule, then the circuit court. Utah's acting attorney general apparently needed that crash course in Law 101.

So, Utah went back to Judge Shelby, who, naturally, declined to interrupt the implementation of his own order. The State then returned to the Tenth Circuit only to lose officially. Meanwhile, hundreds of gay couples were marrying in almost every county.

Justice Sotomayor is Utah's only hope. In addition to serving as the final arbiters on all legal questions, the nine justices of the Supreme Court have administrative responsibilities. They divide up the circuit courts and whenever emergency motions come from one of those circuits, the assigned justice can either decide the motion herself or refer it to the full Court. Therefore, Justice Sotomayor could grant the stay, deny the stay, or ask the entire Court to make the decision (perhaps, though not necessarily, after some briefing). It's entirely up to her.

The standard she, and any other federal judge, should use when determining if they will grant stays of court orders is "irreparable harm": Will the losing party be irreparably harmed if the order goes into effect? Stays happen in several cases, like in a custody case where loss of custody for any extended period of time could do irreparable damage to the parent-child relationship, or in any case where money damages doesn't cut it. In a case like one challenging a ban on same-sex marriage, the state has to argue that, somehow, allowing gays to marry does irreparable harm to the state, to marriage, to government interests.

The problem is that gays have been marrying in Utah for some time and nothing terrible has happened. And gays have been marrying throughout the country and nothing bad has happened. What's more, the Supreme Court itself has said that gays are entitled to equal "dignity," a guarantee that is denied every moment they cannot wed. If there is irreparable harm, then, it is to the gay couples that the stay would prevent from marrying. In this way, a stay is not just unwarranted, it is harmful and unjust.

Some argue that stays should be granted to maintain the status quo until a final decision has been made. There are two problems with that argument. First, the status quo in Utah is gay marriage is legal. Second, if we granted every case a stay until the Supreme Court denied review or issued a decision, no court orders would function.

Others argue that the stay should be granted because gay marriage is such a divisive political issue and, therefore, courts should move slowly when dipping their toes into such waters. But such a basis for a stay, though unfortunately common, has no basis in law. You have to show that a deviation from the pre-order state of affairs would do irreparable harm to the aggrieved party. There is nothing in that standard about moving slowly.

Stays do not exist to let us take the scenic route to equality.

***

Follow me on Twitter: @ariezrawaldman

Ari Ezra Waldman is a professor and the Director of the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School and is concurrently getting his PhD at Columbia University in New York City. He is a 2002 graduate of Harvard College and a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law School. Ari writes weekly posts on law and various LGBT issues.

[Stone holm]

There isn't enough data to establish this either way. There have been studies of children raised in same-sex relationship homes but I have not seen one with a good sampling method and adequate controls done by either side. The pro-gay marriage studies are usually done on a volunteer basis and funded by organizations that have already taken a side. This means you get a disproportionate number of stable relationships with disproportionately high income and education. They then compare it to the national average and "SURPRISE!!!" they win. The opposing side is equally selective and their studies are also done by organizations already having chosen a side.

 

The argument is too politicized for anyone to get good data.

I would be very surprised if gay couples did not outperform in parenting studies heterosexual parents, unless they only compared adoptive parents on both sides of the study. Gays have to run the gauntlet of adopting agencies and they only have children if they really, really want them as compared to naturally born children to biological parents. In addition, they would have to control for education and economic levels since gays tend to be better educated and in a better economic class statistically. By the time you instituted all of the controls, I suspect you would have fairly meaningless conclusions. So I suspect under the circumstances you probably could just as well assume they are as good or better parents, and the claim that a male and female couple are better is probably more cultural bias than anything rooted in fact. Child rearing has had huge variations in various cultures.

[The Nehor]

So I suspect under the circumstances you probably could just as well assume they are as good or better parents, and the claim that a male and female couple are better is probably more cultural bias than anything rooted in fact. Child rearing has had huge variations in various cultures.

 

I think I am just going to stick with the assumption that they are unironic supporters of Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" and that they in fact eat their adopted children. They then use their contacts in the Unseelie faerie court to acquire changeling babies and enchant them so that they are impossible to study.

 

Well-played...........

[california boy]

I would be very surprised if gay couples did not outperform in parenting studies heterosexual parents, unless they only compared adoptive parents on both sides of the study. Gays have to run the gauntlet of adopting agencies and they only have children if they really, really want them as compared to naturally born children to biological parents. In addition, they would have to control for education and economic levels since gays tend to be better educated and in a better economic class statistically. By the time you instituted all of the controls, I suspect you would have fairly meaningless conclusions. So I suspect under the circumstances you probably could just as well assume they are as good or better parents, and the claim that a male and female couple are better is probably more cultural bias than anything rooted in fact. Child rearing has had huge variations in various cultures.

I tend to agree with you.  My bigger point is, that even if studies showed that gay parents didn't do as good of job, what difference would that make.  Unless we start limiting marriage to only groups that perform well in studies, it would still be discrimination.  You have to either apply that litmus test to everyone who wants to marry or to none who want to marry.

 

Just like every other state that has tried to defend their prejudicial treatment of gay couples, Utah is in a bad position of going to court without any argument that is logical and 2 million dollars poorer.