@ Samuel L: According to you, according to the study, the study looks at one
year of a 17 to 24 year old child's life and determines that the only thing
that matters to the child's high school graduation is that one year of life
and whether or not they were living with same-sex parents at that time.And the fact that the one year looked at was 2005 to 2006, and several of the
survey subjects would have graduated or not graduated high school prior to that
year and some of them would graduate or not graduate the year after the study is
supposed to show the impact on their graduation rate of that one year? How can you look at something that happened years after a child did or
did not graduate high school and claim a retroactive effect? How can you look
at children who have not yet finished their final year of high school and
determine whether they will or will not graduate and tie that graduation to one
event over the course of their lives?How can you seriously claim
that no other life events have an impact?
@Samuel L. --"The point of this study is to refute the previous
studies which claim "no-difference” even if the same-sex couple is not
married."And, again, it fails. It compares stability to
instability, not gay to straight."In terms of sheer numbers, the
real engine of child misery will always be family instability among
heteros."Right. Yet we don't see anyone
agitating to outlaw poverty-stricken marriages, or drug-stricken marriages, or
ignorance-riddled marriages."...then it will have done more harm
than good. "If you're worried about kids in unstable
families, then work to encourage stable families. As you point out yourself, the
numbers are with the straight families -- not the gay ones."Gay
marriage involves deliberately detaching a child permanently from at least one
of its parents. "Sigh. No, it doesn't.Any child
being raised by a gay couple was ALREADY "detached", as you put it. Gay
couples aren't somehow stealing kids from happy hetero homes."ART exploits the young egg donors..."So outlaw ART if you
want. The vast majority of customers are straight, not gay.
@Contrarius: “gay marriage is GOOD for kids”Yes, but
which kids? In terms of sheer numbers, the real engine of child misery will
always be family instability among heteros. Gay parents may be fabulous. Maybe
there really is “no difference” between child outcomes for gays and
heteros. But if the mind shift associated with gay marriage contributes even
just a little bit to the ongoing general trends of family dissolution and single
parenthood, then it will have done more harm than good. We will have blindly
sought to benefit the few at the expense of all.One of the main
purposes of marriage is to attaching a child to its natural parents in what is
ideally a permanent relationship. Gay marriage involves deliberately detaching a
child permanently from at least one of its parents. Gay marriage increases
demand for and popularizes (especially among TV watching Americans who according
to a Pew poll think 25% of people are gay) artificial reproductive technology
(ART) in which children are a bought and paid for commodity. ART exploits the
young egg donors who are eugenically selected for their good traits, and it
exploits the third world surrogates who are cheap.
I think it is important to learn a lesson from no-fault divorce. With a handful
of preliminary studies proclaiming that the kids will be fine it swept the
nation in the early 70's. The happy talk continued until the late 80's
when researchers started noticing disturbing trends. Fierce debate ensued for
another decade until the academicians started to come to a reluctant consensus
that the kids don't always do fine. And that was with 1 in 4 Americans
being a child of divorce! The 2011 Canada census showed that married and
common-law same-sex couples combined were 0.8% of all couples and only 9.4% of
those are raising kids (3.4% of gay male couples). Gay marriage is far more
politicized, the populations are much much smaller, and the effects are much
harder to measure either way. Good data will be hard to get.
It really helps to read the study. @Hutterite,Really,Kalindra,Contrarius: The study states explicitly TWICE
"this paper does not study the effect of growing up in a same-sex household,
but rather examines the association of school performance for those children who
lived with same-sex parents in 2006." The point of this study is to refute
the previous studies which claim "no-difference” even if the same-sex
couple is not married. Allen reviews 53 previous studies and
discusses their methodological flaws. With only a few exceptions the studies
use convenience samples collected, for example, by posting advertisements on
gay-parenting mailing lists or "snowballing" where subjects in one study
recruit there friends for a following study. All of the studies have trivial
sample sizes. The only study with large sample sizes turned out to be so
imprecise that it could not distinguish outcomes in same-sex househelds from
others that are known to be poor. Most of the studies use methods subject to
bias, such asking the parents how their kids are doing. Many don’t even
have a control group. Allen’s study is really the first of its kind.
@Tekakaromatagi --" I read an article about a man..."Oh for heaven's sake.If you want to get into "I
read an article about this one guy once", try listening to Zach Wahls, a
19-year-old raised by lesbian parents. Speaking in front of his state's
legislature:"I score in the 99th percentile on the ACT.
I’m an Eagle Scout. I own and operate my own small business. ....
I’m not so different from any of your children. .... The sense of family
comes the commitment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we
can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us. That’s what
makes a family..... In the next two hours, I’m sure
we’re going to hear a lot of testimony about how damaging having gay
parents is on kids. But not once have I ever been confronted by an individual
who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why?
Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero impact on the content
of my character. Thank you."
@Jeani --"gender in parents matters to children."Jeannie -- whether or not this is true, it's still a red herring.Poverty matters to children. Education matters to children. Drug abuse
matters to children.Do we therefore deny marriage to poor people, to
uneducated people, or to drug addicts??No, we don't. Heck, we
don't even deny marriage to people who are serving life sentences in
prison.In this society we don't permit or deny marriages based
on what might or might not create the ideal conditions for potential kids.We already know that kids grow up just fine with gay parents. The
question of whether they are 100% as successful, or only 99.9% as successful, as
kids from straight homes is irrelevant. Unless you want to start banning those
poor marriages, uneducated marriages, or drug-addicted marriages as well."There is nothing magical about the number two"Actually, there is. Two people create stability where one does not. And we
already know the importance of stability.
Jeani:Your point is correct. I read an article about a man who was
raised by two lesbian parents and he said that althought he turned out OK he
suffered not having the male influence in his home.Men and women
each bring a different perspective in the raising of a child. It is a yin and
yang thing. The male influece and the woman influence are opposite but
complementary in the raising of a well-rounded child. Lot of cultures in widely
different locations and societies have recognized the complementary but
different roles of fathers and mothers in the raising of child.
Contrarius,What YOU are steadfastly ignoring, and I understand why,
is that gender in parents matters to children. There is nothing magical about
the number two, except for the complimentary combination of a man and a woman,
seeing this is how nature designated children to be created. My
comments are up, I'm sure you'll get the last word. ;)
@jeanie --"Please do not assume you know what I am really saying
or observing. "If I am mistaken about your real-world experience
with gay couples, please correct me. Exactly how many children have you known
who have been raised by gay parents??"I have observed that when
one gender's influence is missing in a child's life there is a
deficiency. "What you are steadfastly ignoring is the fact that
every time you have seen one gender's influence to be missing, it is
because there has been only ONE parent in the home.And we already
know that children do better with two parents than with one parent. That is true
regardless of the parent's gender or orientation.And it says
NOTHING about whether children do better with stable opposite-sex families
compared to stable same-sex families.Absolutely nothing at all."What hurts kids is decisions adults make and then force kids to
live with."Right. Like forcing kids to grow up in unmarried,
unstable households just because you don't happen to approve of their
parents.Marriage helps kids. And that includes gay marriage.
Contrarius - Please do not assume you know what I am really saying
or observing. I have observed that when one gender's influence is missing
in a child's life there is a deficiency. I am sorry, but that is what I
have observed. What hurts kids is decisions adults make and then
force kids to live with.
Did you know that Ted Bundy got married and fathered a child while he was in
prison? Both of the guys who made up the "Hillside
Strangler" duo married while in prison.Several other individuals
have gotten married while in prison - some have been imprisoned in states that
allow conjugal visits and have been able to get their wives pregnant or get
pregnant themselves. Some states don't allow conjugal visits so the
marriage is never consummated - but the spouse still gets all the benefits of
marriage.Obviously, marriage is about more than children and it is
about more than sex. There is no ground in either of these areas to stand on to
oppose same-sex marriage.@ Rocket Science: Your first post,
"Yes, both parents are important in the development of children as this
study seems to confirm."Your second post, "So many have
missed the point of this opinion article which is that more study is
needed."Seems like you missed the point of the article - until
people started pointing out the flaws with the study.
@cjb --"If you need a study to let you know that fathers AND
mothers are important, ... Chances are you are a pin headed pseudo
intellectual."Is that really the most intelligent thing you can
think of to say on this topic?And incidentally -- nobody here has
said anything about either fathers or mothers being unimportant. So I guess
nobody here qualifies as your supposed "pin-headed pseudo-intellectual"
anyway. Would you like to try again?
@Twin Lights --"What we legalize, we promote."Really?Alcoholic beverages are legal in Utah. Do you really
believe that Utahns promote drinking?"If the data is
insufficient to make a full analysis, then it would be wise to wait until we do.
"Nope. It's still a red herring.And
let's say that legalization DOES equal promotion. I don't agree with
you, but let's assume that it's true for a moment.Marriage
between drug addicts is legal. Is that a good situation for children? Let's
make that marriage illegal!Marriage between poor people is legal. Is
poverty a good situation for children? Let's make that marriage illegal!Marriage between uneducated people is legal. Is ignorance a good
situation for children? Let's make that marriage illegal!You
see the problem. In our society, we don't base the legality of
marriages on whether or not those marriages create ideal environments for
raising kids. So, once again, the issue of which homes are "best" is a
red herring when we discuss gay marriage.Marriage helps kids. Gay
marriage helps kids, too.
Who's the woman in this photo? She's beautiful!
Twin LightsLouisville, KYContrariusiest,What we
legalize, we promote. So legalization may defend those already in this position
but it promotes others being place in this position. If the data is
insufficient to make a full analysis, then it would be wise to wait until we do.
Opinions are great. Expert opinions are great. But data wins. Again, if all
is well with the concept, the data will show this.
@Twin Lights --"So, should we (in the interest of putting kids
first) wait for such a cohort..."We don't need to wait.First -- as I already mentioned -- the professionals who **know** kids
and kid development already know from the current data and their professional
experience that kids do fine in gay-led homes.Second, we do have
lots of years of experience already. We've got 10 years in Massachusetts.
We've got 8 years in Canada, and even more years in some of the
Scandinavian countries.The problem is that Allen used old data.And third -- as I keep reminding people -- the whole question of
"where do kids grow up best" is a red herring anyway. Gay couples raise
kids with or without marriage. Denying marriage to gay couples would not make
them magically stop raising children. So denying gays marriage does NOTHING to
help kids, no matter *where* those "best" homes happen to be.In contrast, we know that stable homes help kids -- and we know that marriage
promotes stability. So gay marriage actively HELPS kids.Denying gays
the right to marriage only denies those kids stable homes. That HURTS children.
Fathers and mothers do both matter. More than that, they are critically
important. They're just as important as either member of a same-sex
@jeanie --" Children in a stable mom and dad home..."You're a teacher in a rather small town in Utah. You've
probably never even SEEN a child raised in a gay-led home -- and if you have,
only one or two.What you've actually seen is that children grow
up best in STABLE homes as compared to UNSTABLE homes. And that's something
all of us already know. You have NOT seen enough kids raised by gay couples --
if any at all -- to know anything about how they grow up on average.@Charles --"Male and male or female and female add nothing to
society. "Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? Leonardo da Vinci?
Michelangelo? Richard Cromwell? King James, of the King James Bible?Do you seriously believe that none of these people have added anything to
society?I could go on -- and on -- but you get the picture. "Commitment to our highest priority--to love and serve God--requires
that we look to His law for our standard of behavior."Loving and
serving God does NOT require hating your neighbor -- or denying your neighbor
equal rights, either.
Truth seeker, In my experience it is a stable home with a mom and a
dad. Economically unstable homes (unpredictable income, a need for government
assistance) can be navigated successfully for children if the parents are stable
(it is difficult, but possible). Emotionally secure homes include both gender
parents since each gender brings unique skills in the raising of a child. I have
witnessed children responding to male teachers differently than to female, as a
rule. Male teachers bring with them aspects that women teachers don't.
Children without a father in the home often crave male attention. Girls with
very strong female influence in their home and who have no father often cannot
relate well to men. Kids naturally sense gender differences and respond
accordingly. Back to your point, can a child do ok with secure,
stable same gender parents? I think they are in a better position than kids from
unstable two gender homes. However, as a society we are experimenting with the
idea that gender isn't important once a child is born. This is an idea
that I believe is inherently wrong.
Re:jeanie"Stable mom and dad home"Is it the mom or dad
ORIs it that stability and security is preeminently
important--economically, and emotionally stable secure homes? We
know there are many homes with a mom and dad which aren't functionally
Contrariusiest,Agreed that we need to compare apples to apples
(stable home to stable home) in order to have correct data. Others were saying
this data was flawed on that basis - that there had been insufficient time for a
stable cohort to develop for full comparison. So, should we (in the interest of
putting kids first) wait for such a cohort so that we have data to prove whether
or not they are comparable in result? As others (in favor of gay marriage) have
said, we really don't have this data. How can we make a full analysis
without such data? Though folks may opine one way or the other, without the
data, opinions are somewhat suspect. If all is well with the concept, the data
will prove out.
Homosexuality is not, nor has it ever been marriage. It's pure pretend.
Male and female exist for a reason. Male and male or female and female add
nothing to society. Never has, never will.I don't need a study
to tell me what logic and commonsense dictate. Spin it however you wish but
there is nothing virtuous about homosexuality.As was recently said,
"the new morality is just the old immorality." and "Man’s laws
cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest
priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for
our standard of behavior."Christ taught that a man and a woman
should leave their parent's and become one. Becoming one is impossible for
Our biology speaks to the need of two distinct genders in getting kids here,
feeding and raising them. If you really want experts who *KNOW*
children, survey school teachers. We see the fall-out of parental decisions on
children for good and bad. We can compare the emotional development of children
within their peer groups because we live with them and work with them 6 hours a
day, 5 days a week. We have had years of experience observing and interacting
with hundreds of children from many different family situations. Children in a
stable mom and dad home, on average, do much better than any other
configuration.Professional child development experts have access to
studies of select groups. They do not spend 40+ hours a week, year after year,
helping children navigate social settings and academic learning. Their findings
only go so far. To rely so heavily on current child development experts is
unwise. I have lived long enough to see much expert advise be
refuted years later.
When will the Deseret News be publishing an editorial about the Youth Risk
Survey in Massachusetts, which shows that over time since equality became law in
that state, youth suicides for both straight and gay teens have gone down? You
know, since the editorial board is so concerned about the "consequences"
of "redefining marriage."
@Twin Lights --"Should we then wait another 10 years to get that
cohort before we jump into something that may not be the best for kids?"1. Every professional group of child development experts in this country
supports gay marriage. They already recognize that kids grow up just fine in
gay-led homes. Children are their lives' work -- they KNOW kids.2. What is best for kids is loving, stable homes. Gay marriage promotes
stability. Therefore gay marriage is GOOD for kids.3. Gay couples
raise children with or without marriage. Denying gay people the right to marry
would not somehow magically remove children from those gay homes. Therefore the
issue of gay homes vs. straight homes is a red herring anyway.4. The
issue with this study is that it's dishonest. It claims to compare success
of children in gay-led homes with success of children in straight-led homes --
but what it REALLY compares is the success of children in stable homes (married
homes) with the success of children in UNstable homes (unmarried homes). As we
all know, stability is better. This says NOTHING about orientation or gender of
To those that note that Canada has only allowed same sex marriage for 8 years so
we don't have a cohort raised (fully) within marriage to study. Should we
then wait another 10 years to get that cohort before we jump into something that
may not be the best for kids?
In Utah past and present, if you have 7 wives and one husband that's still
7/8 same sex parenting isn't it? Even more if you count the
fact the husband has no time for 30 kids. Then what tragedies await the kids if
the husband dies and they are raised by said 7 women? Must never have
happened.If you want a theocracy so you can ban gay marriage then
have one, if you want a democracy then support the one you claim to love.Republicans say, "let them eat cake and have your cake and eat it
too." Brilliant. I'm seeing where all the non sequitur arguments come
from and what their purpose is.
I read through the posts several times to make sure that I saw what was printed
and not what I thought was printed. What I saw printed are the excuses that
people make for their choice to live a same-sex lifestyle. What I was printed
is that they care nothing about the children except for the fact that society
owes them the right to have children in their home even though their lifestyle
makes it impossible for them to procreate. What I saw printed is that they are
unwilling to consider any comment that questions them or their chosen
lifestyle.Thanks, Deseret News, for your effort to objectively show
that the propaganda from those who believe in and practice the same-sex
lifestyle is not going to improve society.
Well I know if we had a theocracy so you could outlaw gay marriage forever, most
of my posts would be censored just like they are here at the DN.
This article reminds me of all the "research" from a generation ago that
showed that children from interracial marriages were disadvantaged. Armed with
such "facts," Utah and many other states passed laws against
"miscegenation." Its funny how nobody runs editorials in support of
those alarming "findings" anymore. I strongly suspect the concern this
newspaper has to Gays raising children is motivated by a deeply held religious
objection to such unions, not any research study. Why not just say so?
What hurts the kids the fact that two people raising them do not get benefits
that other couples raising children get. As history shows, raising kids by same
sex couples happens already. So we can also say banning gay marriage hurts the
One thing we know about science research is that one study alone is not
proof-positive. Only when there is an accumulation of well-designed and
well-controlled studies do more reliable trends emerge.The NIH
published a fairly thorough examination of research titled "Nontraditional
Families and Childhood Progress Through School" stating:"In
45 empirical studies of outcomes of children of same-sex couples—including
all studies listed in Tasker’s (2005) comprehensive survey that examined
childhood outcomes, several more recent studies listed by Wald (2006), all four
studies listed by Meezan and Rauch (2005) as the highest-quality studies in this
field,1 and all the more recent studies that cite the earlier ones—none
found statistically significant disadvantages for children raised by gay and
lesbian parents compared with other children." Questions:How many of the families surveyed included adoption of "special needs"
children? Did the study control for children adopted at an older age? How does societal acceptance of nontraditional families affect children
and their school experience? As someone noted, Canada legalized same-sex
marriage mid-2005 and the researcher(s) used 2006 census data. Many
more questions remain.
So many have missed the point of this opinion article which is that more study
is needed."It makes no sense for society to fundamentally alter
such an institution without understanding the consequences."It
is funny that the LGBT community will not just assert their opinion but will
either discount research, call names, or shout down anyone who disagrees with
their position.Everyone who believes in the traditional family and
that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a religious extremest, a
bigot, a Nazi and does not hate LGBT.
The study may be right -- MAY. The majority of the comments here point out the
problems with the study that call into question the validity of the conclusion.
Be that as it may, how about the children that do not have the opportunity to be
raised by loving moms and dads ??Wouldn't it be better for the child
to be raised by a loving and stable same sex couple than to spend a life in
foster care or some public institution ??
"Canada is an ideal place to study the effects of same-gender marriage on
children, as it has embraced gay marriage for eight years " 1)
As pointed out by isrred: Except that they used the 2006 census data, which
means that at the time marriage had been legal for ONE year. And when you are
looking at data of 18-23 year olds, the entirety of the sample grew up in homes
THAT DIDN'T HAVE MARRIAGE. 2) We HAVE examples of gay marriage
in America for over ten years: 'TEN YEARS later, 85 Percent of
Massachusetts voters say NO HARM from Marriage Equality' – Think
Progress - 09/27/13 'But marriage equality has not turned
society inside out, nor has the promised parade of horribles has not come to
pass. Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex
families now enjoy full legal protections, and the Boston Red Sox have the best
record in Major League Baseball.' 5 years after gay marriage
was legal in MA they still had the lowest divorce rate in the country. From the National Center For Vital Statistics
I love that they keep using this line in all the stories: "Canada is an
ideal place to study the effects of same-gender marriage on children, as it has
embraced gay marriage for eight years "Except that they used the 2006
census data, which means that at the time marriage had been legal for ONE year.
And when you are looking at data of 18-23 year olds, the entirety of the sample
grew up in homes THAT DIDN'T HAVE MARRIAGE. The complete and
utter lack of understanding of research and blatant disregard for basic common
sense continues to baffle me. It shouldn't, but it does.
'The overall goal in caring for youth who are or think they might be gay,
lesbian, or bisexual is the same as for all youth: to promote normal adolescent
development, social and emotional well-being, and physical health. If their
environment is critical of their emerging sexual orientation, these adolescents
may experience profound isolation and fear of discovery, which interferes with
achieving developmental tasks of adolescence related to self-esteem, identity,
and intimacy.'- American Acadamy of Pediatrics-
PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 6 June 2004, pp. 1827-1832
I am glad this was presented as an opinion piece. Because every
other credible source disagrees with the outcome conclusion: "In
most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not
markedly different from those of heterosexual parents. They show no increased
incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just
as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely
to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than
those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from
gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay."'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY
STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished:
02/01/10- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
If one is into multiculturalism and diversity (really into it rather than giving
it lip service), they may see that a lot of cultures have stories about the
father and the mother bringing different strengths and capabilities in the
raising of children. Yin and yang, opposite male and female element come
together and create a better whole.
Despite what voters may support, legislatures may enact, or courts may decide,
marriage has been, is, and always will be the union of a man and woman as
husband and wife. A woman cannot be a husband and a man cannot be a wife and
therefore same gender couples don't meet the criteria. Yes, both parents
are important in the development of children as this study seems to confirm. Where there has been death of a parent or divorce, we need to do the
best we can to compensate for the lack in parenting. Fiends and neighbors need
to help where possible but, "It makes no sense for society to fundamentally
alter such an institution without understanding the consequences."
I am confused about how the researcher came up with his conclusions. If gay
marriage has only been legal in Canada for eight years, I can't help but
wonder about how many of the children in families headed by gay married couples
are old enough to have graduated from high school. I also wonder if they are
comparing all gay couples--married and unmarried--to all heterosexual couples or
just heterosexual couples who are married. I need to see more information about
the study to come to a better conclusion about its validity.
The Bigotry of the Dnews shines through again. Why are you so intent on
attacking LGBT families daily in your "news" paper?In the
state of Utah, I as a single person can adopt children legally and lawfully--but
if I am in a loving, committed same-sex relationship then that somehow makes me
an unfit parent for adoption purposes? Give me a break.
Gay couples are going to raise children irrespective of whether or not they can
marry. That ship sailed a very long time ago. If children are the issue then
marriage equality should be an imperative. Marriage provides kids with societal
and economic security. For example, without a spouse, a defined benefit pension
dies with the pensioner. As for that Canadian study, it's
author made the same claim last March before he did any research. He is also on
the advisory board of National Organization for Marriage.Post
Windsor, Utah is sending its gay couples to other states to get married. Utah
has to come to grips with the notion that religious opprobrium should not
dictate civil law. Meanwhile, the full pool of the best talent is not available
to Utah businesses. And it's not just gays. Others see marriage equality as
an indication of tolerance and a welcoming of diversity. The
"mommy and daddy" argument is a form of cognitive dissonance that is
offered as a substitute for any real consequences of same-sex marriage. There
are none. Only benefits.
Not all marriages produce children so the "argument" that marriage is
only to procreate is a fallacy. Any child who is raised by loving parents is one
lucky kid regardless of the gender of the parents.
The previous editorial in this paper about the study contained two quotes from
the study that highlighted problems.One quote stated that current
family situations of girls with gay parents was not relevant to graduation
rates, just the mere fact of having gay parents was enough to produce the
observed outcome. This flies in the face of all previous research into marriage
and families which shows that things like divorce, single parenthood, and
remarriage (current family situations) do have an impact on children. The other quote pertained to how the subjects were identified - by their
answer to a question asking if they are the child of a same-sex couple. No data
on the length of the parents' relationship, divorces, remarriages, or any
of the many other things we know have an impact on children. The
data looked at children 17 and older. Same-sex marriage has only been legal in
Canada for eight years, same-sex common law relationships have only been
recognized for 14 years. We know legality affects children of heterosexual
relationships but the study's author wants to discount that for children of
same-sex relationships?Solid, honest research is needed - this study
is not it.
But, as the article pointed out, Canada has allowed gay marriage for 8
years...not long enough for such a marriage to produce a high school graduate
from the ground up. So, other factors are at play here. Besides, so called
traditional marriage hasn't much to brag about these days anyway, and
ultimately I believe the obje3ction to gay marriage by the DN is religious, and
therefore entirely subjective. The old 'think of the children'
argument is a dodge.