My friend and former roomate, Justin, recently started a blog ("More Cowbell"). It reminds me of Accidental Blogger on the days when we are not all ranting about George W. Bush, in that a number of interesting topics are discussed.
What I like about it is that Justin has completed one year of medical school at (The) Ohio State University--much like with Ruchira and her science background, he brings a different perspective than my own as an English/philosophy major and to-be law student at the University of Minnesota. Justin self-identifies as a conservative, but not of the crazy "I'm Dick Cheney and I will shoot a 78-year-old man in the face because he looks like a small, wingless, pen-raised quail-tard" variety. What does this mean? That he's on the right side of important issues, such as global human rights--or more recently, the nonprotection of gay rights in the New York courts:
On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the State of New York rejected claims stating that a domestic relations law interpreted to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry violated the New York constitution and the federal right to due process and guarantee of equality. The court's leading opinion was that children should be reared with a mother and a father and nothing requires the state to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This is a strong blow to the pursuit of gay rights in America.
While I have several grievances with this decision, I want to concentrate on the argument that same-sex couples are not as capable of rearing children as are opposite-sex couples. The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released research results indicating that this is not the case; sexual orientation alone does not determine if someone is capable of being a good parent, and sexual orientation does not determine the success of a couple in raising children.
I am especially distraught that New York of all places would reject gay marriages. Gov. Pataki further supported the decision of the New York Supreme Court. Legislation is coming up in Washington and California. Originally, the campaign for legalization of gay marriage was supposed to be an updraft in raising awareness for improving gay rights among the public; the push has certainly raised awareness of gay rights, but also has hindered the push for improvement of gay rights.
It is a popular notion in public policy that, oftentimes, the side of a debate with the simplest argument is the one that wins out. Unfortunately, the LGBT community has the more complex argument going. It has research statistics and logical discourse explaining the importance of granting gay rights and equality, whereas the conservative community has Bible thumpers, who are loud and simple and shout their claims from the hilltop. Hopefully, as the push distills itself further, the LBGT community will be able to have its argument heard more clearly by a public that does not want to listen, and will have more victories soon.
(Ruchira, I hope you don't mind that I've done a bit of other-blog-promotion in this post. I'd have just linked to and quoted from his post on why gay people are also capable of being good "family people," but this way seemed better!)
Joe:
I don't mind at all. Anything of sense is welcome here. Best of luck to Justin with his blogging efforts. Please invite him to visit here.
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | July 08, 2006 at 10:30 PM
The supreme court decision is, to put it mildly, lame.
- if both a mother and a father are required to raise kids, what about single mothers (or fathers) raising kids alone? what about widows/widowers? what about the children of soldiers posted in Iraq for 2 and 3 tours of duty? In such cases does the state then NOT have an interest in mandating/providing the missing spouse?!
- who said marriage - hetero or homo - is undertaken only to facilitate the raising of kids? What about other dimensions of marriage?
- If a couple decides not to have kids (or cannot have kids) does their marriage become null or irrelevant? Does a marriage become irrelevant after the kids grow up and move out?
If the end result is a ruling based on such flimsy logic, why do we need a Supreme Court? Why not just say, "because I said so"? This decision has even less logic in its favor than a Magic 8 ball. At least with a Magic 8 ball we have unassailable randomness.
Posted by: PIAW | July 09, 2006 at 05:46 AM
PIAW:
You are absolutely right about the leaky logic here. The state of heterosexual marriage doesn't arouse much confidence for child rearing either if those are the criteria. But in the end, as you said, this is not about logic or fairness. It is about "I said so" because "I don't like you."
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | July 09, 2006 at 08:22 PM
Thank you for the warm welcome; I look forward to reading entries and engaging in discussion.
Posted by: Justin | July 09, 2006 at 11:44 PM
The court in this case was just trying to avoid a decision. Saying "the legislature will have to decide this" is the new States' rights.
Posted by: Phil | July 10, 2006 at 07:37 AM
Phil:
Probably true. The courts may be washing their hands of culturally divisive issues so as to be free of charges of left leaning social activism a la Roe vs Wade. The state legislatures will most certainly go with the safe choice of legislating against gay rights. For the right wing, judicial activism is okay when it enables their candidate to win a highly contested presidential election but not in granting equal rights to a small and beleagured minority.
Posted by: Ruchira Paul | July 11, 2006 at 09:21 AM
i don't see why gay issues have to reach legislature.. a lot of gay couples i see in websites like webdate.com are not particularly too disturbed and they would sometimes laugh at the people making it a big deal.
just as long as they are happy with each other it doesn't bother them anymore...
Posted by: steller | July 30, 2006 at 04:14 AM