Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 5 years, and nothing negative has happened as a result of it. This is a troubling sign for the hateful homophobes!

Conversely, if the injunction is granted against proposition 8, we’ll see the greatest happy protest at our Civic Center, in San Francisco!

Be well!

If only we could take those people, make them gay, and time machine them back to Nazi germany. And time machine out of nazi germany the real gays, and the Jews and other victims.

At least one good thing could come out of a nation that murdered 50 million people, headed by a Catholic who grew up and learned his hatreds in very Catholic Austria. And also spawned Pope BennieBoy , who learned his trade – total control of minds – in his youth, at the hands of a master who btw was a total maniac.

I think you overstate any scientific controversy when this question is limited to studies published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. However, I think you misread my intent (partly my fault), and I’d like to focus my reply on that.

Second, ultimately the burden of proof falls to same-sex advocates to show by a preponderance of the evidence that children living in same-sex families does not constitute heightened peril to these children

I believe you misunderstand me.

With respect to the legal argument, the idea I attempted to raise doesn’t follow this path. I am not saying “prohibiting same-sex marriage hurts children so you have to allow same-sex marriage.”, that argument, you and I would agree, would require a very high standard of proof, and understandably so. (Personally and emotionally, I think that a couple thousand dead queer kids a year qualifies, but I accept that that’s not a winning legal argument yet.)

Instead, I note that the Herrera brief attempts as a prong of it’s argument the demonstration of animus. I believe that the arguments presented by proponents of Proposition 8 about protecting children do reflect animus, and I believe that the serious scientific evidence, as well as it’s lack of presence in the Prop 8, amply helps to demonstrate that animus.

(My analogy to Brown is far weaker than it probably reads. It was meant to imply “the sociological data has weight in the debate”, not “we can win the same way.” I apologize for confusion on that point.)

My feeling is that there is not enough consensus among academia to convince the court to overturn centuries of traditional thinking regarding this issue.

If what you mean is, “harm to children isn’t enough to legally force same-sex marriage legally on its own”, I agree. But I do think the significant preponderance of evidence of harm done by same-sex marriage bans and such does have weight in debates over the true motives of proponents of Prop. 8 in particular, which goes to animus, which is relevant as per the Herrera brief.

Herrera touches on this evidence, but I think a little “harmony” from a reputable scientific organization laying out what information exists from reputable peer-reviewed sources, pro and con, would be thus be valuable.

I think the problem here is two-fold.

First, by your own admission, there is a wealth of information that speaks to the potential damage that children may experience within same-sex marriages directly or indirectly. Whether or not you take them seriously is a matter of opinion and perspective. Nevertheless, they are scholarly reviews, studies, and research that are legitimate in their scope and have been reviewed by their peers.

The same can be said for the numerous studies and research that has been put forward by same-sex advocates. Naturally, these scientific studies will be taken seriously by those who sympathize with same-sex marriages while those who are against same-sex marriages will find them unconvincing. Some of the objections put forward by those against same-sex marriages are that the studies are mostly small sample research studies and therefore not easily generalizable to the greater population, and there are no true long-term studies to draw inferences from. Still another concern is that many of the studies showing no adverse effects to children raised within same-sex families are plagued with problems in the way the studies were designed and therefore their conclusions are flawed. I have read some of these studies, and I must say some of these concerns are justified.

But again, this is simply a matter of opinion and perspective.

Second, ultimately the burden of proof falls to same-sex advocates to show by a preponderance of the evidence that children living in same-sex families does not constitute heightened peril to these children, a conclusion that the courts(at least at the federal level) are reluctant to draw.

My feeling is that there is not enough consensus among academia to convince the court to overturn centuries of traditional thinking regarding this issue.