Federal Supreme Court to Hear Gay Marriage “Arguments” on the Ability of Gay People to Parent
In the worst sort of gag joke ever, the Federal Supreme Court of the United States is
hearing the gay marriage arguments in a case pitting moral quandries with equal protection statutes, and claiming this is different from racial tensions. I can’t begin to describe how disgusting it is to me to be forced to listen to some fat old white male hacks lecture on the moral propriety of heterosexual marriage as though they are preachers on a pulpit. What happened to the separation of church and state? How is a discussion on “God’s purpose” for marriage, allegedly to procreate, a state matter? Whether marriage is damaged or not, what gives a federal agency liberty to enforce moral code?
And now the very private domain, heretofore protected by our right to privacy in our own homes (see Romer v. Evans or Griswold v. Connecticut), such as which type of person raises a child, with discrepancies made by gender, marital or sexual arrangement are now the moral fodder for the Federal Supreme Court of the United States? The Federal Supreme Court is somehow in the position to determine what is the best atmosphere in which to raise a child?
On the broader question of same-sex marriage, pressed by attorney Theodore Olson on behalf of two California same-sex couples, some conservative justices raised concerns about a lack of scientific data on same-sex couples raising children.
Justice Antonin Scalia said there is “considerable disagreement” about whether gays and lesbians should be able to raise children.
Kennedy agreed that there is “substance to the point that sociological information is new.”
On the liberal wing, justices probed Cooper on his assertion that the government’s interest in promoting procreation is a primary reason for limiting the definition of marriage.
Cooper said that expanding marriage “could well lead, over time, to harms” to the institution of marriage.
Newness of the concept of gay marriage or not, Scalia’s introduction on the propriety or newness of child rearing arrangements as a State issue based on the sexuality of the parents is a new low for the interference of the court in a matter strictly related to the personal domain of one’s home. Gay couples already raise children–that’s not at issue for the Federal Supreme Court of the United States to decide. If the argument presented is how a couple raises children, based on their sexual orientation alone, then the argument has moved away from awarding federal marriage benefits to gay couples and into a realm forbidden to the Federal Supreme Court, even in its grandiose visions of self grandeur, whether or not a person’s sexual orientation makes them suitable to parent a child. The Federal Supreme Court of the United States is by no means allowed to determine who can procreate in this country based on sexual orientation, any more than it was called upon to determine the parenting abilities of a person based on sexual orientation–this is a forbidden zone, an abuse of power on the part of the Federal Supreme Court of the United States.
Since when is the Federal Supreme Court of the United States moonlighting as a parental advice syndicate? What gives the Federal Supreme Court of the United States the right to set parenting rules for the entire country? Just because Alito says gay parenting is new, to which I would argue that it’s not new, that he is simply old and out of touch so has not recognized homosexual behavior as far back as recorded human data exists, doesn’t mean that parenting values are the proper realm of the Federal Supreme Court of the United States to decide:
In a similar vein, Justice Samuel Alito also urged caution, noting that gay marriage, as a concept, is “newer than cellphones and the Internet.”
Regardless of how new Alito believes parenting is, one would have to argue that parenting itself is as old as human civilization and since we have no notion of how parenting emerged to its present status besides inference, then to state that this is new is a flawed argument. To state that a parenting style is something to be determined as valid in the Federal Supreme Court is disgusting. Really, now the Supreme Court has become What to Expect When You Have a Toddler offering parenting advice similar to children’s books like: “I Have Two Mommies” or two daddies, or whatever else is out there?
Craziness. Abuse of power, and moral judgments don’t become them, so why are we becoming a country ruled by a moral majority rather than the legality of denying rights to a class of people?