It is always fascinating to read the amicus briefs being delivered for the opposition in any case involving same-sex marriage. Apparently, there have been some fifty-eight amicus briefs filed by the anti-gay groups, and they are the usual mixture of inaccuracies, obfuscations and outright lies.
For instance “family law expert” Helen Alvare argued that it is in the best interest of children to be raised in two parent households. In order to argue this, though, Alvare relied upon, apparently, the standard anti-gay data drummed up by looking at the differences between two-parent households and single-parent households.
Former US Attorney General Ed Meese offered an interesting defense of bigotry by writing “Given the near-universal view, across different societies and different times, that a principle, if not the principal, purpose of marriage is the channeling of the unique procreative abilities of opposite-sex relationships into a societally beneficial institution, it is clear that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to that fundamental purpose.”
Except that he is incorrect. The idea of one-man/one-woman marriage is fairly isolated to Christians post AD 500, the Roman Empire and Republic, and the Greek City States. Most cultures engaged in a variety of different forms of marriage with the Americas practicing same-sex marriages for quite some time, and there being indications of same-sex marriages in Egypt, among the Celtic Tribes (who spanned, incidentally, from Ireland to China and Turkey to Norway).
Some historians and other professors apparently forgot their oaths and tried to claim differently stating “While the procedures and incidents of marriage have varied over time and across cultures, its primary form and legal meaning have remained remarkably constant. … Marriage as an opposite-sex institution is a universal phenomenon.”
What they seem to ignore is the fact that most cultures practiced polygamy, and marriage was not a religious but an economic structure. In fact, they do not look at the structure of child rearing. Among the Celts, for instance, a boy of six was sent to live with his uncle, and it was one of the prime sayings of the Celtic people that “You always know who your mother is, but you only have her word on who your father is.”
Marriage, historically, did not even really exist except in the upper echelons of society where it was important to pass on property from generation to generation. In fact, it was common for men and women or women and women or men and men to shack up. In fact, unless there was absolute proof that someone was gay, most of society just assumed they were two spinsters or two bachelors living together. Marriage as the institution that we know of it today really only dates to 1980 when women were no longer considered property under the Constitution.
And, of course, the coup de gras here. The Socialists who, according to the Heritage Foundation, are showing off “the scientifically robust data that exists on family structure and child wellbeing:”
Indeed, the only studies that were based on large, random, representative samples tended to reveal … significant differences in the outcomes of children raised by parents in a same-sex relationship and those raised by a married biological mother and father. What is clear is that much more study must be done on these questions. But there is no dispute that a biological mother and father provide, on average, an effective and proven environment for raising children. And it is reasonable to conclude that a mother and father function as a complementary parenting unit and that each tends to contribute something unique and beneficial to child development.
Except that this is incorrect. The data that they cite is either from comparisons between two-parent households and single-parent households or the fraudulent Regnerous study. While political scientists Leon Kass and Harvey Mansfield may caution the Court about politicized science saying “Claims that science provides support for constitutionalizing a right to same-sex marriage must necessarily rest on ideology. Ideology may be pervasive in the social sciences, especially when controversial policy issues are at stake, but ideology is not science” the problem is that the anti-gay groups have had to literally pay for a study to be done in order to claim that children are harmed by living with same-sex couples since they have not been able to get a single non-fraudulent study on their side to come out as they wanted.
It continues on. If you are interested in reading the rest, you can do so here.
The problem for the anti-gay groups is that they are fighting reality. While fifty-eight amicus briefs have been filed from their side, there have been far, far more from the other side, and they aren’t groups with dubious histories and practices. They include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Sociological Association, the American Psychological Association, and, in one case, a ten year old girl with two mommies.
And what is more, those briefs often obliterate what those fifty-eight anti-gay briefs say.