A reader writes:
Upon reading your post titled "The Thing About Mary", I thought it was a total non sequitur for you to jump to the extreme of asking if same sex marriage opponents stand against the insemination of lesbians. For your information, a very significant number of same sex marriage opponents support same sex couple adoption if a reasonable search for a stable man-woman relationship cannot be found for a child. You are absolutely wrong to presume that "Christianists" – your misguided term for people who believe in universal justice and standards that come from a universal source – desire mandatory husbands for lesbian or single moms. Why does one have to support such draconian measures if they simply believe that government has the right to determine which type of institution is ideal for childrearing, and reserving the term "marriage" for that type of institution?
For you to trot out the few extremists, like there are in every bunch, as evidence of the supposed close-mindedness of same sex marriage opponents reveals a lack of desire on your part to confront the very reasonable, non-religious based, and non-bigoted arguments against the redefinition of this institution.
My point is to ask how opponents of gay marriage and parenting hope to enforce their view of the world. And if there’s nothing to be done, except ensure the instability of children brought up by gay couples, then maybe they need to rethink their strategy for the sake of the children. My further point would be to ask what empirical evidence there is that children brought up by two mommies or two daddies end up less advantaged than those brought up by a mother and a father. I’ve read countless studies, and, frankly, there’s no evidence to suggest any advantage to heterosexual rearing. The studies are not very good or very reliable. But the literature points to no reason for such a position other than prejudice. I published the full data of such studies, by the way, in my reader, "Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con."
The Dish 