Tommy Valentine in a letter to the editor of the Washington Examiner:
There are too many fallacies in Michael Barone's same-sex marriage column to address in a letter to the editor. But I would like to hit a couple points.
The statement that in 2004 the Massachusetts Supreme Court "discovered that the state's 1780 Constitution required recognition of same-sex marriages" is utterly ridiculous. No serious person actually believes that Samuel Adams and John Adams had homosexual marriage in mind as they wrote the Massachusetts Constitution. The 2004 decision was legislating from the bench at its finest.
I do agree with Barone's point that homosexual marriage is a bipartisan issue. This is neatly summed up in the ignored story of 11-year-old Grace Evans, who testified before the Minnesota House of Representatives on the importance of every child having a mom and a dad -- a right homosexual marriage inherently and deliberately denies children.
"Which parent do I not need? My mom or my dad?" Grace asked a panel of lawmakers. They were silent. She repeated the question and again got no response, because there is no response. Every child deserves a mom and a dad, and support for that right definitely crosses party lines.
32 Comments
In the wise words of Dr. Morse:
"We often hear the objection that some marriages don’t have children. This is perfectly true. However, every child has parents. Depriving a child of relationships with his or her parents is an injustice to the child, and should not be done without some compelling or unavoidable reason. The objection that some marriages don’t have children stands the rationale for marriage on its head. It views marriage strictly from the adult’s perspective, instead of from the child’s perspective.
Same sex couples and opposite sex couples are obviously different with respect to this essential public purpose of marriage. And treating different things differently is not discrimination."
I'm missing something here. Does a marriage license require the married couple have children or for that matter does the denial of a marriage licese prevent the couple from having children? If neither is true, children are not an issue with same sex marriage.
Um---when Grace testified (as did others) there was no response because responses are not given at testimonies. For anyone. Also, the founding fathers clearly left those things not specifically mentioned in the constitution to be part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and up ti the states, as long as they did not conflict with the federal constitution. Let us please remember the founding fathers did not mean for slavery to end nor for women to vote.
@flanoggin
"Let us please remember the founding fathers did not mean for slavery to end nor for women to vote."
A history lesson is due. The Founders for the most part were federalists, meaning they believed the states were to be the laboratories of our republic. They did not support slavery.
Anyways, I sincerely doubt the Founders could have predicted the moral and cultural decline of this great country to the degree it gotten to.
@Zack---I am well aware----space constrictions prevent a more elaborate review. And now 9 states are the "laboratories of our republic" allowing same sex marriage. A lesson may be due to you, sir. I truly believe the best days of the Republic are before us. I am sorry you have so little faith in this great country of ours. Good day to you, sir.
@flanoggin
"A lesson may be due to you, sir. I truly believe the best days of the Republic are before us. I am sorry you have so little faith in this great country of ours. Good day to you, sir."
Probably not the smartest thing to say to someone who currently in the Armed Forces. I have great faith in this country. It is not unpatriotic to feel shame for the direction we are taking. This country is going to the underworld in a hand basket with the current direction we are taking.
The United States has outlived its life expectancy as a free country. The average lifetime is 200 years. I suspect the inner boundaries and geographic make up to be changing sometime in the future.
Curious. Again we hear the argument, "Children are entitled to a mother and a father." And yet, again, we see no evidence of campaigns against single-parent adoptions. Is one father better than two? One mother better than two? Help me understand.
@Zack---I stand by my statements, and think it especially smart to remind you...BUT --- I TRULY thank you for your service, as I do all service members (gay, straight, white, black, asian, latino, female, democrat, republican, enlisted or officers, etc.). Thank you again for your service, and good day.
Also curious to me: Why have we heard nothing from Maggie Gallagher this close to a SCOTUS hearing? Something is "in the wind" here and I wonder if it is that certain former stalwarts of the anti-gay marriage debate are back-pedaling fast in anticipation of next week. If I am wrong this post should bring them out of the woodwork.
Just for kicks bloggers, check out the site the has the title initials, EOT. Read what people are saying about the different briefs before SCOTUS.
Earth to Richard RE your 9:37 post: we here at NOMBLOG know what you are about: wishful thinking. Moreover, since SCOTUS is merely hearing arguments next week, the back-pedaling you refer to exists SOLELY in your mind. All this is why your post will bring out not much more than this post...
@Herb,
"I'm missing something here. Does a marriage license require the married couple have children or for that matter does the denial of a marriage licese prevent the couple from having children? If neither is true, children are not an issue with same sex marriage."
When ssm is enacted, the presumption of paternity is used (in some places) to declare that a child has "two mothers," without a second-parent adoption taking place. In essence, the state claims that because two women are engaging in exclusive sexual activity, the child descended from both women and never had a father. The ancient doctrine used to establish a legal father-child relationship is used to instantly nullify the parental status of a child's father and declare that the father doesn't exist.
So while having children is not a legal requirement of marriage, and unmarried groupings can raise children, it's silly to pretend that ssm has nothing to do with parentage.
@flanoggin
I wouldn't ask you to recant your statements. Understand I will respond promptly.
"And yet, again, we see no evidence of campaigns against single-parent adoptions. Is one father better than two? One mother better than two? Help me understand."
@john:
Ok.
Nobody is really campaigning against same-sex adoptions either, just arguing that the state shouldn't discriminate against an adoption agency that wants to as policy to give a preference to mother-father couples over same-sex couples. Adoption agencies can give preference to couples over single parents. The law is currently being interpreted differently for same-sex couples under marriage where it exists.
Of course, you could have the position that same-sex marriage is OK, but the rules on adoption agencies should be more lenient. Say, they should also be legally able to decide they want to put babies of a certain race into homes where the parents are of the same race, and that the key interest should be the rights of the child and whether the child is discriminated against, not prospective parents. Which I have no problem with either as a policy.
However, its one of the several "loose ends" of the marriage debate.
Does that help a bit?
Flanoggin " Let us please remember the founding fathers did not mean for slavery to end nor for women to vote."
This is why we needed the 13th and 19th amendment to the constitution - not an enlightened Supreme Court to legislate from the bench.
Herb - Of course a marriage license does not require procreation, nor is procreation outside of marriage illegal.
But procreation is serious business and not to be trifled with - sort of like a gun. Common sense tells us to treat ALL guns as if they are loaded - even if we know they are not. You never point a unloaded gun at someone.
Some people go shooting their guns off all over the place and we end up with 1.3 million abortions a year, and 40% illegitimacy rate. Not good.
Responsible citizens will only shoot their guns on a supervised shooting range (Marriage) to minimize the risk to others.
Still others guns might be so old that they may not be safe to fire, so they are only taken to gun shows, or loaded to "shoot blanks". But even though they are old, the barrel is not pointed at anyone. Its respected as a fire arm.
Why can't Homosexual Relationships be analogous to a gun? Because it is a Category Error - ascribing a property to a thing that can not possibly have that property. In the case of Marriage that would be ascribing procreative powers and kinship to gays and lesbian families.
Treating Same Sex Marriage and Marriage the same would be like treating a Pop Tart eaten into the same of a gun the same as a real gun.
Children have an parental "Orientation" towards a Mom and a Dad. Forcing kids into a Same Sex Parenting situation is no better than forcing gays to pretend to be straight.
Roger- And what about divorce or children born out of wedlock? Don't these "force" kids into a one parent household. I live in an equality state. Several of my gay friends have married. Not one of these marriages has "forced" anything upon a child.
Coldfish...it doesn't clear anything up. the focus of the anti-marriage equality forces is now (in its latest incarnation) children and the "rights" a child has to a mother AND a father. It is not presented as a mere "loose end," as you suggest. Until a serious campaign is underway to prevent single-parent adoptions, no one can take seriously the claim that childrens' rights are the foundation of the anti-equality argument.
Why is it that same sex marriage wasn't around at the founding of our nation?
Gay activists discriminate against Catholic Charities.
Children don't just appear out of thin air; they have one mom, and one dad. Marriage IS a serious effort to promote resposible procreation prevent single parenting, or total abandonment. The divorce rate among couples with children is 40 percent lower than couples without children.
Nobody is discriminating against Catholic Charities. They just cannot use taxpayer dollars and then turn around and refuse to provide services to a segment of those taxpayers who are funding them.
That's just a red herring. This isn't about not receiving taxpayer dollars. It is about not receiving a license because one refuses to compromise his religious convictions.
Perhaps we should read what the former board chairman of Catholic Charities of Boston has to say on the matter:
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/17/news/state/former-catholic-charities-official-calls-claims-by-same-sex-marriage-foes-not-true-at-all/
The man is the former head for a reason; and it has nothing to do with his loyalty to the Catholic Church, or is faith.
Just saying!
Randy, the man told the truth. Are you suggesting he should have lied out of "loyalty" to the church and his faith? That's exactly the kind of behavior that caused the sexual abuse scandals to proliferate to staggering proportions. And Son of Adam, it has EVERYTHING to do with taxpayer dollars. A church can discriminate all it wants with its own money. Not so when it takes in tax money to act as an agent of the state.
Herb perhaps you are also missing something else.
Does SSM legally require the participants to engage in same-sex sexual behavior? To experience same-sex sexual attraction? To have membership in the gay identity group? Or does it empower Government to force them to do any of that stuff? Nope.
Does the denial a license to marry (i.e. form the union of husband and wife) prevent those who'd from having engaging in any of that same-sex sexual stuff? Nope.
If neither is true, then that stuff is not an issue with the bride-and-groom requirement of marriage law.
Use your own stated standards to test the SSM idea, Herb, and let the chips fall where they may.
Typo correction:
"Does the denial of a license to marry (i.e. form the union of husband and wife) prevent people (i.e. those who'd SSM) from engaging in any of that same-sex sexual stuff? Nope."
Fact is that John Adams had a very DIM view of homsexuality.
Apparently John has no clue about adoption.
While I agree that every child deserves both Mother & Father, there is a place for adoption.
Case in point...
My cousin Barb...first cousin btw....never was able to find a husband. She decided to adopt had to go to Central America to do so.
Barb was a Commander in The United States Navy, a Nurse (ret) Had another career.
She contracted inoperable cancer.
That child, Luis would not have had a better life.
Thankfully Barb has a large family and her sister Peggy became Luis' sponsor.
He is doing ok.
There is a place for folks who want to adopt.
But why screw up kids more by gay adoption?
Huh?
Catholic Charities used a higher standard than the minimal standard required for those who are accorded the license to arrange adoptions.
The financial contributions of Catholics themselves, and their volunteer work, dwarfs the funding of the state government. Catholic Charities could well have continued without that funding.
But they could not continue with the license. And the SSM lobbyists and the SSMers in the legislature and in the executive, they put their ideology ahead of the children in need. They stood against the good of society.
And now we hear, over and over, how the gay activists are all about justice when, really, they mean they are all about "just us".