Two ancillary faux arguments, those articulated by Mr. Meese in the op-ed piece cited, are that by some stretch the tasks of parenting and the viability of the institution of marriage will be supported by a denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry and to raise children, and should thereby entitled to judicial support. To these one need not repair to any philosophy to destroy their validity. One need only cull the volumes of evidence to see they are without merit. Marriage? Half of all marriages in the US find their way to the divorce courts. In not a single case did the petition for a writ of divorcement include an allegation that either the underlying or ancillary issue was traceable to some geographic proximity to a same-sex couple that the divorcing couple suffered. And as to the proposition that parenting is undermined by same-sex couples living nearby, or that same-sex couples cannot raise emotionally and physically healthy children, that is also wholly without documented evidence.
(It is interesting to consider that those circumstances that would relieve many of the greatest stresses detrimental to both marriage and parenting -- more time off [ie -- shorter hours and higher wages] to spend with a spouse and with children, better, more affordable health care, convenient, well-staffed, affordable child-care facilities, etc. -- pass right on by the boards without either comment or concern.)
In plain language, whether based on religious tenets or other suppositions, the arguments are bogus, solely intended to camouflage the low intents of those making them. Neither Mr. Byrne, nor Mr. Meese, nor any others can have it both ways: that they believe all the tenets of their respective faiths equally, and yet have decided to observe by actual practice only those they prefer.
Yeah -- these folks, those pounding their chests self-righteously against the right of same-gender couples to marry, are lying. They're lying through their teeth. And we all know they are. None of us has leverage within the courtroom. The case, no matter how the district court finds, will eventually wend its way to the United States Supreme Court. Given its current complexion, way to the far Right, and with six of the nine justices being Catholic, there's little hope that genuine justice, or even much respect for the Constitution and precedent, will prevail. That should not, however become the final word. The final word should issue from our lips, whenever we encounter those who incline toward injustice in this issue. What each of us has an inescapable moral obligation to do is to call them on it. The likelihood of prevailing ought not to become our standard. Pursuing fairness and justice should.
If you need encouragement, crank those speakers WAY UP and visit
Do NOT try clicking the above! Due to translation errors inherent in OEN software clicking will result in an error message. Easiest: Visit YouTube, then insert in the search box Tom Petty. This may take a moment, but the moment is sooooo worth it!)
(Super Bowl 2008 -- Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down")
1 | 2