Thursday, September 2, 2010

Proponents of same-sex "marriage" "assume that which remains to be proved"

Common sense (which is not as common as it used to be) from the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals this week. The court was ruling on the "'Marriage' of H. B. and J.B"--a counterfeit marriage which took place in Massachusetts--and the attempt by the two parties to get a "divorce" in Texas. The court said No. "No valid marriage, no divorce."

I particularly like this bit, because I made the same argument and used a nearly identical phrase in the comments section of one of our blog posts a few months back.

Texas court:

"The court also held that “'the purported right to marry a person of the same sex’” requires first “asserting that marriage includes the union of two persons of the same sex,” and concluded: “A fatal flaw in this position is that it assumes the truth of the proposition to be proved.”


"... But Professor Mott (of Seton Hall) has already decided. He says of his class “It is one thing to say ‘I am for or against gay marriage, it’s another to actually understand the issue.” He thus assumes right off the bat what remains to be demonstrated--that there is such a thing as “gay marriage...”

In the article linked to above, William Duncan also highlighted some rather obvious points the court made:

"Where Judge Walker believed the only rationale for defining marriage as the union of a husband and wife was animus, the Texas decision found legitimate state interests in doing so:

● “The state has a legitimate interest in promoting the raising of children in the optimal familial setting. It is reasonable for the state to conclude that the optimal familial setting for the raising of children is the household headed by an opposite-sex couple.”

● “Because only relationships between opposite-sex couples can naturally produce children, it is reasonable for the state to afford unique legal recognition to that particular social unit in the form of opposite-sex marriage.”

● “The legislature could reasonably conclude that the institution of civil marriage as it has existed in this country from the beginning has successfully provided this desirable social structure and should be preserved.”

● “The state also could have rationally concluded that children are benefited by being exposed to and influenced by the beneficial and distinguishing attributes a man and a woman individually and collectively contribute to the relationship.”

Last week's A Shepherd's Voice book of the week was the New Science of Politics by Eric Voegelin. Here's an a propos quote:

"...disregard for elementary verities happens to be one of the characteristics of the positivistic attitude; and hence it becomes necessary to elaborate the obvious."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney


Anonymous said...

There is no such thing as "the institution of civil marriage as it has existed in this country from the beginning" -- unless one means constantly evolving. Civil marriage today is not today "as it has existed in this country from the beginning" and it never will be.

Bill said...

I suspect a large overlap between the set of all who believe in "gay marriage" and the set of all who believe in "women's ordination."