And try to create counterfeit marriage.
We've said it before: the only time same-sex "marriage" advocates get anywhere is through the courts. They maintain their perfect record: zero victories whenever the people get to have their say.
Now, Iowa judges think they are masters of reality. Bishop Wenski of Orlando commented on this attitude back on July 1, 2008:
"(Bishop Wenski) characterized the 'culture wars' as a conflict about 'the understanding of man and his relationship to truth and reality.' One side, which, he argued, includes homosexual marriage advocates, 'holds that anyone can essentially create his or her own reality. This side holds for a radical autonomy by which truth is determined not by the nature of things but by one's own individual will.' This position, in the bishop’s view, is a 'recipe for tyranny.'
The only remedy for this tyranny is an organized population. Citizens need to take power back from the courts, and even, if necessary, from their elected representatives. In Iowa, the constitutional amendment process takes a couple of years--and it has to begin in the legislature. If this report is accurate, there does not seem to be any great desire on the part of the legislature to take up the battle.
Thank God for California's referendum process!
__________________________________________________________
Jack Smith over at "The Catholic Key" reported this assertion, made in the Des Moines Register:
"Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America."
Jack responded:
"A court victory hardly demonstrates 'acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America'. A court victory didn't even demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in California."
__________________________________________________________
Ed Whelan over at "The Corner" weighs in:
The Iowa Supreme Court’s Attack on Marriage
"The lawless judicial attack on traditional marriage and on representative government continues...
Amidst the opinion’s 69 pages of blather, there are two key assertions (and they’re nothing more than that):
(1) '[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.' (p. 16)
If you were not attuned to the deceptive rhetoric of living-constitutionalist judges, you would sensibly imagine that that proposition would mean that the court would defer to the standard of the current generation reflected in the statute that Iowa adopted in 1998. But no:
(2) 'The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change.' (pp. 16-17)
What gobbledygook."
__________________________________________________________
Also writing at "The Corner," Maggie Gallagher quotes Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage" on the court's decision:
"The most heartbreaking sentence however is Footnote 26. In Footnote 26 these justices conclude: 'The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.'
Justices? Injustices. I hate being right about something so sad: but gay marriage really is about rejecting the natural family, the importance of bringing together the two creators of the child, the mom and the dad, to raise their baby in love together. The Iowa court ruling once again makes that connection crystal clear."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
You know it's bad when they start a decision like this:
"Like most Iowans, they [plaintiffs] are responsible, caring, and productive individuals."
So? I'm sure a lot of plaintiffs in lawsuits are responsible, caring, and productive. That doesn't mean their claim is right!
"Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children."
But two men, or two women, cannot "have" children. This is a blatant falsehood. It's simply not possible. They can "have" them in the sense of possess them, I suppose. But to "have" children, one needs to be capable of mixing to gene pools, and this can only be done through the marital act, by a man and a woman. Period. (God providing the soul, of course.)
Religion aside, this is sad as an act of pure judicial activism.
The justices are just doing their job. Every family in this country deserves to be recognized (even if it means going against the religious beliefs of some). I would encourage you and your readers to try to open your hearts and move beyond fear. There is nothing to be afraid of...
Anonymous 10:09:
It's not the job of the justices to redefine reality. Co-habitation does not constitute a "family."
The question is not a religious one (no religion invented marriage) but of the common good of society.
The common good is not served by an opinion that is agnostic on the fundamental question of whether it is a good for a child to be raised by a mother and a father.
Gibbons,
Families come in all forms. Children have lost both parents and are raised by a single grandparent. Two children I know are being raised by two single aunts. Another young child is being raised by a single god father. A mother of 4 recently lost her husband in a military accident. She is raising her children with the help of a close friend. It's all about the loving environment. You can not describe a "family" as just one where there is a mother and a father. Those I have described above are indeed families, and deserve to be called and treated as such. As Anonymous said, "we need to open our hearts to everyone."
I think in this instance, the judges are simply catching up with reality. Most people now see gays as a distinctive group within society (a minority, to use a better term) versus thinking of them as outcasts. Hence, the judges are realizing that it is for the common good to grant them equal rights in the eyes of the law.
I agree that co-habitating does not make a family on its own. I think though, that you are not considering that gay couples actually love and care about each other (just as their heterosexual counterparts). I would say that a loving set of parents (regardless of their gender), who respect each other, is the best scenario one could envision for a child. I think that the majority of the experts would agree with this statement.
With all that said, I don't see how your argument holds true; especially when you make a point of saying that this is not a religious question. I believe that you are basing your ideas on how the Church frames procreation and homosexuality and would like the judges to reflect such views. In general, and with the passage of time, this scenario is more and more unlikely to happen. As people become more and more used to the notion of gay marriage (and realize that society is not crumbling down), they will question why this recognition of equality did not happen sooner.
Anonymous 8:49:
Every instance you have described is a makeshift arrangement that came about ONLY because of some external deprivation. They are responses (sometimes quite admirable) to unfortuanate situations.
That in itself is a testimony to the normative, ideal situation (a biological mother and father raising their children.) Children need a role model of each gender. "Two aunts" cannot possibly replace a mother and a father.
Gibbons,
Your insensitivity is amazing! To call some families "makeshift" is appalling . The two aunts are all this child has. The parents were killed in an accident. There is no other family. One of the aunts lost her husband to cancer. They are doing the best they can, and for you to judge them so harshly shows a lack of compassion on your part. Again, families come in many forms, and it is not for you to make judgements as to what is the "proper" and "acceptable" one. Please try to open your own heart.
Anonymous 9:37. You raise two points and a conclusion. Your first point:
"Most people now see gays as a distinctive group within society (a minority, to use a better term) versus thinking of them as outcasts. Hence, the judges are realizing that it is for the common good to grant them equal rights in the eyes of the law."
That's a non-sequiter, and it assumes that discriminaton always equals injustice, which is not true. Non-citizens are also a minority. They live here, work here, pay taxes here. But they do not have the same rights as citizens, for instance the right to vote. How would giving them "equal rights under the law" --the right to vote--advance the common good?
Your second point: "I would say that a loving set of parents (regardless of their gender), who respect each other, is the best scenario one could envision for a child. I think that the majority of the experts would agree with this statement."
Not true. Gender is a reality. Men and women are different, with differing understandings of the world--both of which are needed for a child. As for "experts": there are no "experts" on this question--it is the common experience of humanity.
Let me ask a question: Imagine an opposite sex couple and a same-sex couple, each raising a child. The two couples are equal in every way: financial security, loving relationship, educational opportunity, etc. Which couple provides a better environment for a child?
In your conclusion, you contend that my argument is based on a religious understanding of the world. That's not true. My religion is Catholicism, which of course shares this argument, but you would find the same argument made by non-Catholics in say, China. You also would have found it before the Catholic Church came into existence. The argument is that the proper nurturing environment for the raising of children is the same as that which brought children into being: the union of the two halves of humanity: men and women.
Finally your assertion about gay "marriage" and the "crumbling of society":
Society is already crumbling--that's why gay "marriage" is even on the table. That's also why it has become necessary to explain the obvious: that men and women are different, that it is best for a child to be raised by his or her mother and father.
Anonymous 8:14:
Skip the phony outrage.
Anyone can read the comment you are responding to but I'll quote the relevant part here:
"Every instance you have described is a makeshift arrangement that came about ONLY because of some external deprivation. They are responses (sometimes quite admirable) to unfortuanate situations."
Post a Comment