I've been paying some attention (not a lot) to the trial currently underway which will determine if California's Proposition 8 — the one that banned Gay Marriage — is Constitutional. Apparently, most of Friday's testimony was spent with the defense — the pro-8 side — trying to establish that children stand a better chance of being raised well in a household with a heterosexual mother and father. There are plenty of studies that suggest there's no valid proof of that.
But even if there is, isn't that an argument against letting gays adopt? That doesn't sound to me like an argument against letting them marry. Letting two guys or two gals get hitched is not going to produce a lot of children. Or am I missing something here?
It's also an argument against letting single parents raise kids…which happens a lot in a country with such a high divorce rate. It's not, by the way, 50% as some sources claim…but it's pretty high. Oddly enough, I've never heard anyone ever suggest that when a marriage that has yielded children is going to break up, the government should step in and stop that for the sake of the kids. Or force a widow or widower to quickly find another partner.
As you know, I think gays oughta be able to marry. I also think that if they want to adopt, the process should be exactly the same as it is for straight couples. And I don't understand what one thing has to do with the other.