The new DoJ reply brief (discussed here) may have actually helped expose those fallacies. As reported in the Volokh Conspiracy
Much more significantly, and to me surprisingly, it now appears to be the view of the executive branch that the social interests in child-rearing and procreation do not even rationally justify the exclusion of gay couples from marriage:LawDork agrees, and wonders if this DoJ brief will affect ongoing litigation, including a gay adoption case in Florida:
Unlike the intervenors here, the government does not contend that there are legitimate government interests in "creating a legal structure that promotes the raising of children by both of their biological parents" or that the government's interest in "responsible procreation" justifies Congress's decision to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
This new position is a gift to the gay-marriage movement, since it was not necessary to support the government's position. It will be cited by litigants in state and federal litigation, and will no doubt make its way into judicial opinions. Indeed, some state court decisions have relied very heavily on procreation and child-rearing rationales to reject SSM claims. The DOJ is helping knock out a leg from under the opposition to gay marriage.
Next comes this passage, suggesting that empirical learning has bolstered the case for gay and lesbian parenting:
Since DOMA was enacted, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and the Child Welfare League of America have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting because they concluded, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.
The idea that same-sex parents are inadequate or at least sub-optimal has been a major point in the public-policy opposition to SSM, and was used to support passage of DOMA. The DOJ now implies that DOMA is anachronistic, a holdover from a benighted time when we didn't know so much about the quality of gay parenting. The parenting concern has also been a reason for deference by state courts: as long as there was still a legitimate debate over the quality of same-sex parenting, courts ought to defer to states' judgments that traditional families are best. While the DOJ hasn't exactly endorsed the view that the parenting debate is over, this passage certainly points us in that direction.
Wouldn't it be a divine irony that a brief ostensibly defending DOMA can be cited to eliminate one of the most pervasive lies used against us?
The immediate question this raised for me was whether this language could find its way down to Florida, where the court of appeals will soon be hearing the appeal of In re: Gill, a challenge to Florida’s ban on adoption by gay people. As I discussed in a preview of the case last month:
....Notably, the case included extensive presentation of evidence about the foster children’s circumstances and, more generally, expert witness evidence regarding children raised in families headed by lesbian or gay parents .