Sheri Gay Marriage

Most of the arguments deployed with the intention of circumscribing the parenting rights of homosexual couples are founded in precarious condemnations of homosexuality in general. Consequently, few of these arguments hold water. However, the concern that the children of homosexual couples would be subject to taunting by their peers is certainly relevant to the well being of the children in question. Nevertheless, while stigma may be a reality for the children of same-sex parents, these stigma must not be cemented into law. Sheri’s argument is flawed on the grounds that bias should not be affirmed by the law, she fails to prove any actual harm to her daughter as a result of the father’s homosexuality, and the psychological harm from the separation
However, it is not guaranteed that their daughter will be a target of societal stigma, especially due to the persistent ascent of tolerance for same sex marriage and homosexuality in general. Over the past decade the percentage of Americans that support marriage equality has reversed: in 2006 only 35% supported marriage rights for gays and lesbians with 55% opposed, while in 2016 55% expressed support for gay marriage while only 37% remained opposed. Even more telling is the number of conservatives that now express tolerance for homosexuality in general. Approximately half of Republicans now feel that homosexuality ought to be accepted, up from a low of 33% ten years ago (Fingerhut). The Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges has had a reinforcing effect on the already climbing national opinion showing support for same sex marriage. This is a testament to the notion that law gives social phenomena legitimacy. By affirming that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to any American based on their sexual orientation, the Court has given public opinion a nudge toward the direction of tolerance. While bias toward homosexuality still persists in society, a majority of the American people now accept it; Sheri and David’s daughter may or may not face
The most crucial mistake present in her argument is the assertion that law should reaffirm biases toward specific social groups. This argument was rejected in the Supreme Court decision of Palmore v. Sidoti because law cannot be allowed to affirm prejudice toward interracial couples; nor can it be allowed to affirm homophobia in this case. Additionally, Sheri fails to provide a nexus between the father’s homosexuality and any harm to their daughter. She does not attempt to point to any harm that has arisen since the father began his relationship with a man, only justifying her argument by citing potential harm that may affect the daughter. Moreover, the psychological effects of separating David from the daughter would be more substantial than any stigma she may or may not face. Laws that stigmatize an immutable trait lead to hampered levels of self esteem, as reflected in the 1940’s “Dolls Tests.” Although bias toward homosexuals may persist within society, the law cannot be allowed to give these biases legitimacy. The law must continue serve as a steadfast protector of the rights of minorities, especially in the face of a hostile