PART TWO.
This completes an article begun here on Wednesday, April 3, 2013.
"There's 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."
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, quoted during oral argument at the United States Supreme Court in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry/United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor.
No, there isn't:
"The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by opposite-sex parents."
Amicus Brief of the American Sociological Association, the opening sentence of the CONCLUSION on page 31 of their Brief filed in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry/United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor. [Emphasis added.]
Judges are not the only ones who sometimes provide legal opinions basically by ignoring or even contradicting actual evidence to the contrary. Other people besides Judges sometimes also offer legal opinions despite all the actual evidence to the contrary. The author is frequently retained as an expert witness on disputed insurance issues. At the trial of one such case, it came to light that a particular insurance company, its adjusters, claim managers, and counsel were all convinced that its insurance policy did not provide coverage because of a particular exclusion which is often found in policies of the kind at issue in that case. However, there was no such exclusion in the policy at issue. See also Claims Management Magazine (August 2012), available for free access on the Publications page of my website.
In conclusion, there are both definite and also immeasurable costs associated with legal opinions which are not supported or which are even contradicted by the actual facts in the situation. Lawyers understandably charge their clients more for protracted litigation than they do for early resolution of legal disputes.
The legal system followed in every known jurisdiction in the United States is based on proof of facts, and there is a good reason historically: Judgments and opinions have less value to people other than the people who issue the judgment or render the opinion if the judgments and opinions are based on fantasy or foregone conclusions rather than on proven facts. As the Iowa Supreme Court observed in their unanimous opinion in a recent case, in which the Iowa Supreme Court recognized that statutory restrictions on same-sex marriage are valid only when supported by the actual evidence in the case:
Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents. On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.
Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 899 (Iowa 2009).
The costs of lives ruined by baseless legal opinions are also immeasurable consequences of this failure. Just because these costs cannot be calculated does not mean that there are no costs. There are.
Please Read The Disclaimer.