LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
February 18, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

This Gay Man Represented the President

Truthdigger of the Week: Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis

Déjà Pooh

Apple's China Comes Home to Haunt Us

Interracial Love Is No Societal Cure-All

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Comes the Revolution
Pay Close Attention to China

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
 * NEW! * Déjà Pooh

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
Conversations With Scorsese

Conversations With Scorsese

By Richard Schickel
$19.80

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

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

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

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


    Comments

    Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

    By john, July 14, 2006 at 6:40 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

    Add Your Comment

    Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
    are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






                            Number of characters remaining: 4000

    Are you a human? Retype the word you see here.

         

    Please read and abide by our comment policy.
    By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

    Newsletter

    Get Truthdig in your inbox


     
     
     
    Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
    Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.