Marriage intent, commitment, and animus

The fix is in for same-sex marriage, and most judges seem to have gotten the memo that we are getting it regardless of the law and the voters. But gay law professor Dale Carpenter complains about a judge not on board:

Yet Judge Sutton does not even feel the need to cite a single study to support the view that it’s commitment, not sexual orientation, that matters in relationships and child-rearing. What a remarkable, rather matter-of-fact claim for a court that in the same breath treats constitutional rights as if they were set in stone by men who lived 150 years ago, never to be enforced beyond their narrow understanding by anyone but the very state legislators they distrusted.

The Sixth Circuit fully agrees that the earth has moved under our feet on the subjects of homosexuality, same-sex relationships, and gay parenting. What a shame that it does not honor the framers of the amendment by acknowledging that they might have had the insight to know that their own human understanding might be fallible.

I am pretty sure that those framers knew about homosexuality.

The judge did not cite any studies on homosexual commitment to child-rearing, because they are worthless. People have to say that stuff, or else they will be accused of being bigots.

My concern here is not with the few (less than 1% of the population) who want to have same-sex marriages. I am wondering why this minority gets all the constitutional rights, while millions of fathers cannot see their kids.

There are legitimate social science studies showing that kids do better with dads and joint custody. Those constitutional framers really did believe that parents had rights to their kids. And yet family courts routine deny those rights, and higher courts refuse to hear appeals.

Carpenter's main argument for same-sex marriage is that the laws against it are based on unconstitutional animus. I cannot find the word "animus" in my dictionary. The evidence for animus is usually stories like this:

Tight trousers and other skin-tight clothes are not ‘appropriate’, according to a member of the Jehovah’s Witness governing body.

Anthony Morris III told fellow church members: ‘They are tight all the way down to the ankles, it’s not appropriate, it’s not sound of mind.”

‘The homosexuals that are designing these clothes – they’d like you in tight pants.’

Maybe so, but there is 10x more animus towards fathers.

There is also animus towards moms also. I have heard stories of moms who somehow got on the bad side of some court official, and then got treated like children. There is animus towards homeschoolers or anyone doing anything out of the ordinary like that.

The whole doctrine of Best Interest of the Child (BIOTCh) is just a way for judges to apply their prejudices against those for whom they have animus.

Somehow some tiny percentage of the population has managed to reform all our marriage laws, and not done a thing to support the parental rights of real parents.

Here is an example of animus towards men:

Thousands of people have called on the Home Office to deny a visa to a controversial US “pick-up artist” who holds seminars that critics say teach men sexually abusive and racist tricks to attract women.

Julien Blanc was forced to cut short his Australian tour last week after his visa was cancelled in the wake of protests against his seminars. Police in Victoria confirmed that Blanc and his assistant, who had planned to stay in the country until December, had left. ...

“It is wrong on every level – it is promoting violence against women and girls, it takes advantage of men and it sends a message to survivors of sexual assault that they will not be listened to. To allow someone into the UK who is explicitly promoting these things is abysmal.”

He is just a dating coach. If a woman were giving lessons to women on dating more successfully, no one would take any offense. My local supermarket checkout counter has magazines with dating advice for women. But this guy gives a few flirting tips for men, and they deport him! (The dating seminars are similar to sales seminars. It is hard to see how one is more offensive than the other, as the message is about the same.)

Here is an attack on a Euro space scientist because his shirt is supposedly sexist! He had to apologize and change his shirt. I do not see any gays being deported because they wear tight pants or flowery bowling shirts.