This page was last updated on July 10, 2014.
A wise decision on same-sex marriage; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 25, 2014.
Previous editorials on this topic include “Gov. Corbett is out of touch,” “Civil affairs,” “Moving along,” “Loving,” “A gay time,” and “Salutes & Boots.”
Below is a critique of this editorial.
“The decision Tuesday that struck down Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage might not have been altogether unexpected, but the opinion written by federal Judge John E. Jones III had to catch many by surprise.
“Jones, an appointee of President George W. Bush (and supported by the ultra-conservative former Sen. Rick Santorum), outlined concisely and definitively what most Americans have come to believe over the past decade: that the rights provided through marriage ought to be afforded to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.”
[RWC] I’d like to hear the BCT definition of “ultra-conservative.” I’m just a conservative and I’m further to the right than Mr. Santorum. Given BCT positions over the years, I suspect anyone to the right of JFK is an “ultra-conservative.” In any case, appointing judges is a crap shoot. For example, when President George H.W. Bush appointed David Souter to the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Bush was assured Mr. Souter would interpret law as written and not engage in judicial activism. Instead, Mr. Souter became part of the left bloc on the Court. I don’t know enough of Mr. Jones’ ruling history to know if he falls into the Souter category, but his attack on those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage is cause for concern.
“The rights provided through marriage WERE afforded to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.” Whether the parties were hetero- or homosexual, the requirement was the same, one man and one woman.
“In striking down Pennsylvania’s law that restricted marriage to one man and one woman — and refused to recognize same-sex marriages from other states — Jones wrote that we owe more dignity and respect to gay couples. ‘We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history,’ he wrote.
“‘Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage,’ Jones wrote. ‘However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional.’”
[RWC] Though I disagree with Judge Jones’ ruling regarding the law, what really has me angry is his attack on those who believe marriage is one man and one woman. Though the reason for marriage has changed over time, its primary reason for existence today is, or was, to set up legal protections for raising a family. Why does that position belong on “the ash heap of history?” Political correctness aside, SS “marriages” can’t produce children and only a tiny minority will raise children.
If marriage is now simply a means to some privileges and/or a demonstration of love, those are not legitimate government interests and indicates it’s time for government to get out of the marriage business. This would mean no marriage licenses and government treating everyone as individuals (no joint tax returns, for example) with no special treatment for couples, triples, or whatever. If two or more people want to share assets, income, or whatever, let them enter into a legal contract they draw up. We would leave marriage to religions.
“As expected, several groups were quick to criticize the decision — the Pennsylvania Pastors Network, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput and Pittsburgh Catholic Bishop David Zubik among them — as potentially damaging to society in general and families in particular.
“Conservative legislators were also quick to criticize the ruling, claiming that the Legislature should be making such societal decisions, not the federal courts.
“Jones addressed that point as well, noting that if such equality decisions were left to state legislatures, we would still be dealing with segregated schools.
“‘In the 60 years since Brown (v. Board of Education) was decided, ‘separate’ has thankfully faded into history, and only ‘equal’ remains,’ Jones wrote. ‘Similarly, in future generations, the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage.’”
[RWC] If you accept segregation and traditional marriage as equivalent issues, you aren’t thinking.
“A wise opinion, indeed.”
[RWC] Keep in mind the BCT also believes the minimum wage is “A wise opinion, indeed.”
© 2004-2014 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.