by Doctor Science -- who blogger.com has decided to let in again
Adam Liptak at the NY Times doesn't *have* to mock the Utah Attorney General's office arguments against marriage equality (aka same-sex marriage), they come pre-mocked for your convenience:
"A substantial body of social science research confirms," the brief said, "that children generally fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving, low-conflict marriage."And now, they go a step further:
Lawyers for the couples challenging Utah's ban on same-sex marriage responded that the assertion "is not true." For evidence, they cited "the scientific consensus of every national health care organization charged with the welfare of children and adolescents," and listed nine such groups. The view of the groups, the challengers said, "based on a significant and well-respected body of current research, is that children and adolescents raised by same-sex parents, with all things being equal, are as well-adjusted as children raised by opposite-sex couples."
Utah responded that it would not be swayed by "politically correct trade associations," referring to, among others, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. "We are not ruled by experts," the state's brief said.
drawing on Supreme Court decisions endorsing the value of diversity in deciding who may attend public universities, the state now said it was pursuing "gender diversity" in marriages. "Society has long recognized that diversity in education brings a host of benefits to students," the brief said. "If that is true in education, why not in parenting?"You have *got* to be kidding.
IANAL, but some of you are. Is this kind of "throw absolutely everything at the wall to see what sticks" standard procedure for high-level appeals cases? Or is this a function of turmoil in the Utah AG office?
Once again, I am boggled at how feeble and poorly-rehearsed the anti-same-sex-marriage arguments are. For crying out loud, people, this has been going on for *years*, decades even -- why haven't you managed to come up with something better than that? It's as though they haven't even *tried*.