LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 23, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

A Call to Action

Bizarre, Apparently Jihadist Slaying in London (Video)

Oklahoma Needs Help, Not Ideology

Hell on Earth for Greeks

Another Memorial Day in This Endless War

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Fish Migration Reveals Ocean Warming

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
 * NEW! * A Call to Action
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

N.Y. Court: Gays Too Good as Parents to Marry

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 14, 2006

The New York Court of Appeals stated last week that it upheld a gay marriage ban because gay couples make more stable parental units than heterosexual couples—and thus the latter need the benefits of marriage to assist them. The reasoning behind this is wild, but it’s also insidious. Check it out.

  • Update: Nebraska just reinstated its gay marriage ban.

  • N.Y. Times, Op-Ed:

    LAST week, New York?s highest court voted 4-to-2 that a legislative ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the state Constitution. In doing so, it added to the patchwork of state rulings on the issue, including those of Indiana and Arizona (which similarly upheld legislative bans) and Massachusetts (which struck down a legislative ban).

    What?s noteworthy about the New York decision, however, is that it became the second ruling by a state high court to assert a startling rationale for prohibiting same-sex marriage ? that straight couples may be less stable parents than their gay counterparts and consequently require the benefits of marriage to assist them.

    The critical question, expressed in a plurality opinion by three members of the New York court, is whether a ?rational legislature? could decide that the benefits of marriage should be granted to opposite-sex couples but not to same-sex couples. The opinion then answered in the affirmative with two different arguments. While both related to the interests of children, they differed significantly in vintage and tone.

    Link

     

     

    More Below the Ad

    Advertisement


    New and Improved Comments

    If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

    By john, July 14, 2006 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I’ve seen the job these breeders have done and believe me it’s appalling. It figures that gays would make the best parents.  Breeders inherently know it so they pass stupid marriage amendments as a cover up for their incomptetnce. That term “the sanctity of marriage” is such a pathetic joke.

    Report this
    Newsletter

    sign up to get updates


     
     
     
     
    Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
    © 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.