Regardless of how one
feels about the issue of gay marriage, everyone, Conservatives and Progressives
alike have to be dismayed about the performance of the Court during the recent
hearings on whether or not laws refusing to allow or recognize gay marriage are
Constitutional. The conservative members
of the Court displayed their biased in a straight forward manner. Now biases are ok, The Dismal Political
Economist certainly has his, but in a court of law they are supposed to be
absent.
First up was the
comments by the Chief Justice, John Roberts about Obama’s unwillingness to
stop enforcing DOMA since he thought it was Unconstitutional. Mr. Obama had no choice here, DOMA and its
related 1,000 regulations has been in force for over a decade. Had the President unilaterally changed those
regulations he would have been subject to severe criticism and probably
impeachment. He did what he was supposed
to do, he kept the law in force and asked for the Supreme Court to rule.
But the Chief Justice
essentially called Mr. Obama a coward, a person who does not have the
courage of his convictions. All this did
was expose the Chief Justice for what he is, a partisan ideologue intent on
imposing his views on America
regardless of their legal basis.
In Associate Justice
Scalia’s comments we have an example, thanks
to Ezra Klein, of how this bigoted and biased judge just makes things up.
On Wednesday, I wrote about Justice Antonin Scalia’s comment that “there’s
considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of
raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or
not.”
Okay, first of all note that there is nothing in
these cases about children or the ability of same sex couples to adopt and
raise children. All this comment did was to reveal the animus and bias of
Justice Scalia. And it turns out Justice Scalia was wrong.
It relied, remember, on the idea that
sociologists are, in some significant way, split on this question. That’s not
what the American Association of Sociologists thinks. Here’s its official
statement on the matter:
The claim that same-sex
parents produce less positive child outcomes than
opposite-sex parents—either because such families lack both a
male and female parent or because both parents are not the biological
parents of their children—contradicts abundant social science research.
Decades of methodologically sound social science research, especially
multiple nationally representative studies and the expert evidence
introduced in the district courts below, confirm that positive child
wellbeing is the product of stability in the relationship between the two
parents, stability in the relationship between the parents and child, and
greater parental socioeconomic resources. Whether a child is raised by
same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no bearing on a
child’s wellbeing.
Oh, and where was this information?
That paragraph isn’t buried in a press release
on its blog or in an editorial from its trade magazine. It’s from the amicus curiae brief that
the ASA filed in the very case Scalia was commenting on.
In other words, the official organization representing
American sociologists went out of their way to provide the Supreme Court with
their “consensus” opinion on the effect of same-sex parents on children. And
yet, when struggling for a “concrete” harm that could come from gay marriage,
Scalia went with “considerable disagreement among sociologists.” So we’ve gone
from a weak claim — “considerable disagreement” over harm is not the same thing
as actual harm — to an explicitly wrong claim.
But this is par for the course for
Conservatives. When the facts don’t fit
the argument, make the stuff up.
No comments:
Post a Comment