With same-sex marriage, the issue we are told is children. Even though the court observes that same-sex partners are not likely to have a child by ``accident or impulse,'' it goes on to say something downright mysterious: ``The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and father.'' Those italics are my own insidious contribution because, really, there is nothing rational about such a belief. It is based solely and exclusively on staying in chambers or, when venturing out, going no farther than the ninth hole.Nothing rational?! It has been conventional wisdom for 1000s of years, and it is still believed by most of the USA and the world.
The NY Times reported:
Judge Smith found that restricting marriages to heterosexual couples could be justified by arguing that it promotes responsible procreation and that children are best off when they are raised by a mother and a father. He left some room for adoptive and childless heterosexual parents, to avoid "grossly intrusive inquiries" into their private lives.The judge is right that there isn't much scientific evidence, but there are certainly some rational beliefs.
He said there was little scientific evidence to support one kind of parenting over another, but the idea that a mother and a father were the best parents was supported by "intuition" and "common sense."