…then I fail to understand how the children of same-sex parents deserve less stability than the children of opposite-sex parents. Even if I bought the twisted logic that most children are born to opposite-sex couples and that opposite-sex couples might require greater inducements to make stable households I don’t see how that leads to the conclusion that children in same-sex parent households require less protection under the law.
So, if this really is going to be about protecting the children then it seems to me that this decision is even worse. While the decision is about rights of adults (to form marriages) it hinges on assumptions about children’s needs and rights and then systematically denies those needs and rights when it comes to a set of children who have no power over what kind of household they live in. What kind of justice is that?
(The New York Times gave two front page stories to the decision. Here is a link to the main story about the decision itself, and here is a link to their story about what is next for the movement.) (I still recommend reading the decision itself, which I linked to my post yesterday.)