I actually agree with the main point Mr. Ross makes. It is perfectly logical and consistant to support interracial marriage, but not same-sex marriage because one feels race is irrelvant and sex is not. That does not mean the analogy is not helpful. It shows the problem with the "there's no inequality because neither sex can marry a person of the opposite sex" argument. The problem is that it still draws a distinction based on sex. Mr. Ross is correct that the distinction perhaps should be permitted if it is relevant to some compelling state interest.

I don't believe it is relevant. Mr. Ross has one understanding of what it is to be a man and what it is to be a woman. I have a different one. He talks about a Dad making it to more baseball games. In my family, it was my Mom who was the big baseball fan. My Dad preferred football. If he thinks it is important for his children to have a parent of each gender, he should marry someone of the opposite gender. In our society we generally allow parents to decide what is best for their own children. Yes, there are limits, but those limits need to be justified. I don't think they are justified in this case.

Mr. Ross talks about bringing together two people who have different experiences. I don't see those experiences as primarily being defined by one's gender, though. I think of people as human beings first. Human beings each have different experiences that are shaped only in part by one's gender. They are shaped by so much more, though. A same sex couple can bring together two people with just as much diversity in experience as an opposite sex couple. He talks about the unique perspective a male has. I don't think there is a unique male perpsective. I think we all have unique perspectives.

Hey Justin, I just noticed you found this too. Pretty good argument and I linked to it in my latest concerning Sullivan and Krauthammer's takes on the FMA. I think that gay parents can be good parents, but the ideal is obvious: a mother and a father. I have seen the news pieces on those gay couple who have taken in children nobody else wanted. I commend them for that and believe they are doing God's work. Nonetheless, kids need parents of each sex. I'm not going to get into why here, though I could, but I will say that it points to how absurd this has all gotten when we have to legitimize why a Mom and Dad are ideal. Deconstructionism, ya gotta love it.

I thought it appropriate to note in this space that I've replied to Prof. Rosenberg (and he has replied back) here.

Marc,

I agree with you about stable gay couples that take in children, although even with adoption, I believe there ought to be a hierarchy of choices.