  On Eve Tushnet: In arguing against gay marriage, Eve Tushnet argued that children do better when they have mother-father parents because they learn to relate to both sexes, as opposed to only one. In fact, throughout her arguments, Tushnet made the assumption that non-same-sex relationships are better because they provide gender balance. Here's what I find to be flawed in that assumption: 1. Not All Relationships are Good Ones Not all mother-father households provide a good example of how to relate to the opposite sex, or how to best exemplify attributes of one's own sex. Consider the example set to children wherein the parents are abusive to one another, or, worse yet, are abusive to the children themselves. I am not saying the overwhelming majority of mother-father relationships are negative, but I think the assumption that all of them are necessarily positive, in terms of providing role models for children, is fallaious. Parents are not good parents because they have a penis or a vagina; parents are good parents because, regardless of their gender, they exemplify positive character attributes that serve as good examples for their children.
Honesty, love, trust commitment: these attributes are not bound by gender, yet I think most people would agree that they provide some of the best character attributes in parents. Mother-father households, like heterosexual marriage, cannot claim a monopoly on providing these (among other) positive role model traits/attributes to their children or society. 2. Children of Single-Parent Households Are People Too Regardless of what role models children have at home, there is this other thing that all children, regardless of the number of parents they have, experience: the outside world.
In terms of relating to members of the opposite sex or of the same sex, there are a plethora of social situations that provide opportunities for children to relate to members of both sexes, namely, school. Moreover, I think Ms. Tushnet's assumption that children of single-parent households are somehow less socially equipped to be successful or socially normal is based on an outdated notion of normality and success. Like Megan brought up in her question, the real generation to watch, in terms of how children of single-parent homes fare in society, is ours.
Similarly, the generation of children to watch, in terms of how children of same-sex households fare in society, will be the one right behind us. Just because something used to be normal, doesn't mean it is anymore. And that would be my two cents on Ms. Tushnet, absent a lesson in What Not to Wear. Your thoughts? -Fabs 
