RESPONSE TO EVE'S GOODRIDGE COLUMN: From The Right Coast

...The logic of her argument against same sex marriage--that marriage is about protecting children--seems to suggest that it is problematic for gay couples to adopt or have children. This is a premise that is often omitted from social conservative arguments against same sex marriage, but would appear to be an important part of that argument.

...The point in her second paragraph [i.e. there's a possible slippery slope to polygamy], however, seems naively academic. If the judges were motivated by consistency, then Tushnet might be right. But they are not: they are motivated by the belief 1) that same sex marriage should be allowed and 2) it is discriminatory for such marriages not to be allowed. It may be discriminatory that polygamy is prohibited, but the judges do not think it should be allowed (nor is there a strong political movement in favor of it), and therefore one should have no worry that it will be protected.

more

Eve replies: 1) Not sure what TRC means by "problematic." If he means, "In order to oppose SSM you must oppose all adoptions and parenting by same-sex couples," I strongly disagree. If he means, "Married, mom-and-pop couples should be favored in adoption law where possible and encouraged by society," I strongly agree.

2) Right now there is a tiny, nascent polygamy movement, and a tiny, nascent, separate "polyamory" movement. Only time will tell whether these things fizzle or flourish. The received standard wisdom of the judging class and the political power of nascent social movements change over time. I don't think it's naive to start worrying and working against pro-polygamy legal interpretations (like those offered here) now.
posted by Eve at 11:17 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home