Political Animal

Blog

March 29, 2013 3:50 PM Scalia Very Confused About Gay Adoptions

By Ed Kilgore

Paul Glastris did a post yesterday noting that during oral arguments in the Prop 8 case, Justice Scalia didn’t seem to know that gay adoptions were legal in California, reflecting the under-the-radar legalization of same-sex couple adoptions around the country that Alison Gash has written about for the Washington Monthly.

Turns out Scalia’s confusion was even deeper than that. As Ezra Klein notes today, the doughty right-wing jurist asserted there was “considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not.”

Trouble is an amicus brief filed by the American Sociological Association in the very case Scalia was hearing states unambiguously that the sexual orientation of parents “has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing.”

Seems Scalia or his clerks should be a bit more thorough in reading all those briefs.

Ed Kilgore is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for The Democratic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Find him on Twitter: @ed_kilgore.

Comments

  • Califlander on March 29, 2013 3:55 PM:

    Why read the briefs when you don't care what anyone else thinks?

  • dalloway on March 29, 2013 4:00 PM:

    Why read the briefs when you already know how you're going to vote?

  • Josef K on March 29, 2013 4:11 PM:

    Oh dear god. As if the Supremes haven't already lost enough creditability.

  • schtick on March 29, 2013 4:11 PM:

    The teapubs don't need to read anything and that goes for the bills they vote on.

  • boatboy_srq on March 29, 2013 4:24 PM:

    Scalia is probably (deliberately) confusing scholarship on "single-sex families" with scholarship on single parent families (which would technically also fall under the former category).

    Given that we already know the only reason Scalia tolerates divorce is 400+ years of jurisprudence (from Jamestown onward) allowing it in the New World, it's hardly surprising that he still thinks cisgendered couples are the best places to rear Teh Children.

  • arkie on March 29, 2013 4:26 PM:

    But the statement that there is “considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not.” feels true to Scalia. It therefore meets the Colbert standard for "truthiness".

  • c u n d gulag on March 29, 2013 5:07 PM:

    At this point, Scalia is nothing more that a Reich-wing troll on the SCOTUS, and need to either retire, or be retired.
    That pig is wallowing in his own ignorant sh*t.

  • Kelly Cowan on March 29, 2013 5:28 PM:

    I found Chief Justice Roberts disingenuous and cynical assertion that pro gay lobbyist are somehow responsible for,"the sea change" in America and, "politicians falling over themselves to support" the repeal of DOMA, ridiculous, and absurd.

    Roberts has some nerve complaining about lobbyist influencing the debate and politicians?

    Didn't he vote for Citizens United?

    He completely ignores the reality and complexity of the multitude of organic events that have transpired between average Americans over the years; involving gays coming out, people having gay friends, family, and co-workers, and the acceptance of gay media and political figures.

    He has consciously inserted these ideas into the court record to offer up political cover for the Right, and now we will undoubtedly be hearing it nonstop. "It is the gay lobby that has trick America into this change"

    Roberts, and the Right in America can not accept and acknowledge that the consciousness of America is unfolding into a new social paradigm. That the population at large is abandoning the repressive, dogmatic, and ignorant ideology that has maintained a stranglehold on the progress of our country, and our world, for far too long.

  • iyoumeweus on March 29, 2013 6:41 PM:

    He is a faker! Does not give a hoot or a holler about the Constitution or the rule of law. Just his opinion and who pays the most. Should never been appointed, never approved and impeached long ago.

  • jpeckjr on March 29, 2013 6:47 PM:

    I want to know what sociological research was done before opposite-sex marriage was allowed that showed if the consequences of raising a child in a two-sex family are harmful or not? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Cause from what I can see, lots of the children from one man / one woman marriages are damn messed up!

    I would note to Mr. Scalia that Adam and Eve, the very first one man / one woman marriage had one son murder another son. How's that for great parenting! Maybe if a little more research had been done . . .

  • Ms. Anonymously on March 29, 2013 7:18 PM:

    Very much worth taking note of, and out of touch. It was an alarming revelation. Feels like that picture of him giving the bafungula with his hand to his nose is still being given. Hostile towards citizens, it would appear.

  • Quaker in a Basement on March 29, 2013 9:18 PM:

    It's just like with climate change. You can file all the briefs you want, but the Heritage Foundation will be able to dig up a contrarian sociologist. Alakazam--"substantial disagreement"!

  • Quaker in a Basement on March 29, 2013 9:22 PM:

    "Biblical" marriage? IIRC, Moses, David, and many others didn't adhere to the "one-man-one-woman" rule.

  • Luke Lea on March 29, 2013 9:37 PM:

    How could there be much data one way or the other? Maybe with lesbians, but male homosexual couples?

  • Minnesota Slim on March 30, 2013 12:24 AM:

    Warning: rant follows.

    I suppose it's asking to much for Nino to actually read the district court's order, review the record, and apply the proper standard of review.

    The trial court's factual findings are reviewable under the deferential "clear error" standard, reversible only if, from a review of the record as a whole, the appellate court is left with the unmistakable conviction that a mistake has been made.

    Deference is particularly warranted in conclusions based on testimony, given the fact finder's capacity to weigh witness credibility. Plaintiffs wiped the floor with Prop 8 proponents' 'expert' witnesses, and made a compelling case through their own experts.

    Herewith are some of Judge Walker' findings of fact relevant to Scalia's 'adoption' inquiry (record citations omitted):

    41. The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple's children.
    48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.
    49. California law permits and encourages gays and lesbians to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology. Approximately eighteen percent of same-sex couples in California are raising children.
    56. The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry."

    The Prop 8 trial record and court's findings also slap down Roberts' DOMA argument "teh gays have all the political power" phantasm.

  • Gaylib on March 30, 2013 7:47 AM:

    What about the dangers of straight parents? In Scalias case it resulted in a closeted priest who practices conversion therapy. I'm sure that poor boy would have turned out much better had he been raised by loving gay parents

  • Gaylib on March 30, 2013 7:49 AM:

    What about the dangers of straight parents? In Scalias case it resulted in a closeted priest who practices conversion therapy. I'm sure that poor boy would have turned out much better had he been raised by loving gay parents

  • smartalek on March 31, 2013 2:33 PM:

    "Scalia Lies About Gay Adoptions"

    Fixed.
    No charge.