My moms don't have any rings

Same sex marriage is gaining legal acceptance more and more. Not because of popular acceptance, but because our elites are imposing it on us. The surprising thing is the argument that is winning the day.

The gay lobby used to be convinced that their best argument was that LGBT folks are born that way. However that has turned out to be a lousy argument in court, and it has been largely abandoned.

People used to be against gay and lesbian adoptions, in part because children might be stigmatized by having perverted parents. Now the conservatives have quit making this argument, and the LGBTQIA lobby is making it. Here is a LGBT legal brief in support of same-sex marriage:

Feelings of stigmatization, inferiority, and de-legitimization are common themes heard by the amici who work every day with children raised by same-sex parents. The former program director of amicus COLAGE told the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission that many children with whom she has worked have had their peers “question[] the validity of their families because their parents aren’t able to get married.”35 This, in turn, can lead children to have insecurity about their parents’ relationship, including the fear that somebody is going to come and break up their family.”36 They do not understand the distinction that the Marriage Laws make between their families and other families headed by different-sex couples, leaving them feeling vulnerable and confused.

Also:

My friends are starting to get engaged and married. We talk about what we want our weddings to be like, and how we want our engagement rings to look. We are in our mid-twenties, but you might think we were about twelve years old if you heard the way that my friends describe having always coveted their mothers’ rings or telling stories of their parents’ proposals. My moms don’t have any rings.

Also:

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage tells their children that the most important relationships in their lives are inferior, unworthy of state validation and protection. To children of same-sex parents, marriage inequality is “hurtful,”39 and it makes them feel “angry,”40 and “devastated,”41 and that their family is “less valued.”42 Same-sex marriage bans like those in Indiana and Wisconsin tell children that their families are “not legitimate” and “not welcome.”43 They create an insecurity — “a corrosive feeling of doubt” — in the perceived stability of their family.44

This is the argument that seems to persuade Judge Richard Posner, who is supposedly our smartest federal appeals judge.

Here is what Posner and the gays think is the killer argument:

Posner homed in on the impediments created for same-sex couples who adopt children. Observing that such children would benefit if their parents got the benefit of the breaks and other legal marital benefits, he asked, “These children would be better off if their parents could marry, no? It’s obvious.”

Posner noted the documented psychological stress suffered by the adopted offspring of unmarried same-sex couples, like wondering why their schoolmates’ parents were married and theirs were not. “What horrible stuff,” Posner said. What benefit to society could possibly be gained in barring gay marriage, he asked, that “outweighs that kind of damage to children?” “These people and their adopted children are harmed by your law,” Posner said of same sex couples. “The question is what is the offsetting benefit of your law. Who is being helped?” Samuelson offered the generality that “society as a whole” benefited by preserving marriage as it has long been defined. Posner asked if anyone would be harmed if same-sex couples were allowed to marry. He did not get an answer, because there isn’t one, but you would think the lawyers would have had an answer to it prepared.

The argument is fallacious, and Posner is a moron. First, legal legitimacy is not the same as public acceptance or social respectability. California has gone back and forth on issuing same-sex marriage certificates, and I haven't noticed any effect on anyone's views.

Second, the state does not automatically change policy just to boost the self-esteem of insecure and psychologically troubled folks. If it did, then it would wipe clean criminal arrest and conviction records, as those stigmatize folks also.

Third, our schools are about half illegitimate kids already, or children of divorce. Having unmarried parents is not much of a stigma anymore.

Fourth, the main thing wrong with the argument, is that it misunderstands how government incentivizes behavior. The govt recognizes marriages in order to encourage parents to take care of their kids. On balance it does that, regardless of complaints from those not getting the benefit.

Another govt policy is to give a tax deduction for home mortgage payments to incentivize home ownership. (I happen to think it does a lousy job of that, but that is beside the point.) One could easily find examples of where someone did not need the deduction, or someone deserved a deduction even tho he doesn't qualify, or other alleged imperfections. All tax policy is that way. So are most govt laws and regulations. These aspects do not make the policies unconstitutional.

Instead we have a huge assortment of anti-family policies, such as welfare to single moms. We have more illegitimate kids as a result. We have family courts that bust up families. We have onerous child support. Read this blog for many other examples.

Now we have judges like Posner who deny that the state has any legitimate interest in promoting nuclear families. At the hearing, he babbled endlessly about how elderly people are allowed to marry, even if they cannot have kids, about how there are thousands of kids in the foster care system who might be adopted by same-sex partners if they were allowed to marry, and about how a kid with two lesbian mommies might feel better if those lesbians wore rings.

I am not sure the kid does feel better if he has two lesbians as legal parents, thereby nullifying the biological dad. But even if he does, the same argument to a kid with polygamous or incestuous parents. Legalizing the arrangements might make a few people happier, at the cost of encouraging a lot of behavior that is detrimental to society.

We have a shortage of suitable kids for adoption. That's why couples try to get them from China, Russia, or Ethiopia. Encouraging marriage among the 1% or so of LGBTQIA folks is not going to help anything.

The gay lobby has succeed in making it politically incorrect to criticize homosexuality. We have gay tv shows winning lots of Emmys, and gay companies selling lots of iPhones. But I am not sure that getting the votes of a few elite intellectuals like Posner is going to remove the stigma. It is hard to force respect. Everyone knows that same-sex marriage was against the will of the California people, and against most major religions.

Update: Here is a gay site praising Posner:

Posner homed in on the impediments created for same-sex couples who adopt children. Observing that such children would benefit if their parents got the benefit of the breaks and other legal marital benefits, he asked, “These children would be better off if their parents could marry, no? It’s obvious.”

Posner noted the documented psychological stress suffered by the adopted offspring of unmarried same-sex couples, like wondering why their schoolmates’ parents were married and theirs were not. “What horrible stuff,” Posner said. What benefit to society could possibly be gained in barring gay marriage, he asked, that “outweighs that kind of damage to children?” “These people and their adopted children are harmed by your law,” Posner said of same sex couples. “The question is what is the offsetting benefit of your law. Who is being helped?” Samuelson offered the generality that “society as a whole” benefited by preserving marriage as it has long been defined. Posner asked if anyone would be harmed if same-sex couples were allowed to marry. He did not get an answer, because there isn’t one, but you would think the lawyers would have had an answer to it prepared.

And here is the more recent 9th Circuit appeal argument:

It was clear that Stewart had no real evidence to show the harm that is caused by gay marriage. All he could do is predict horrible things will happen if Idaho has gay marriage, such as the state will see a rise in "dad-less" or "mom-less" families. When Judge Berzon challenged him to cite evidence, Stewart fumbled through that question, citing numbers that showed that only about 58% of the state's children came from a mom-dad family unit. Judge Gould grew weary of the "child's bonding right" argument, and asked Stewart where that "bonding right" came from since it was not in the Bill of Rights. Stewart then admitted that he made up the phrase to collectively describe his argument that a child does best when it has a mother and a father who are married. Judge Reinholdt said if the state was so worried about marriage, shouldn't it ban divorce? Stewart then launched into a diatribe against no-fault divorce, again veering far off the issue at hand. Judge Berzon summed it up best when she told Stewart that the "train has already left the station" on marriage being redefined, using historical milestones to rebut his argument.

Yes, the anti-marriage train has left the station, and our ruling elites to eliminate kids having a right to a mom and a dad.