Brendan Jones – 6/12/06

This page was last updated on June 13, 2006.

No reason to ban gay marriage; Brendan Jones; Beaver County Times; June 12, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The following is my rebuttal to Judy Crosby’s Wednesday letter to the editor regarding protecting gay marriage.

“Marriage is in no need of protection from the judiciary. In case you don’t remember, the judiciary, legislative and executive branches hold checks and balances on each other.

“An example of this is the judiciary has the authority to rule legislation unconstitutional, the executive branch appoints the judiciary, the executive branch can veto legislation and the legislative branch can impeach the president. This is what prevents majority rule, for reference, see segregation in the 1950s.”

[RWC] What is Mr. Jones talking about? None of this “prevents majority rule.” If the majority of people in the U.S suddenly decided they wanted to reinstate slavery, their federal and state representatives could pass an amendment doing so and the Supreme Court could not legally rule it unconstitutional.

Mr. Jones forgot to note the legislative branch also can impeach judges and can override vetoes. As a result, the legislative branch is “more equal” than the other two branches.

“You never hear of ‘judicial activism’ in the case of the civil rights movement because we recognize those who opposed it as racial bigots. The end product was simply the result of the judiciary overriding majority opinion.”

[RWC] Wow, where did Mr. Jones go to school? It was the Supreme Court that supported “separate but equal” in its “Plessy v. Ferguson” decision in 1896.

A second “wow” goes to Mr. Jones’ opinion that the “majority opinion” of the U.S. supported racial discrimination as recently as the 1950s.

“The same is true of the gay rights movement today. There is no compelling reason to deny these upstanding members of society the same rights as everyone else because of their sexual identity.”

[RWC] I really wish these guys would quit trying to equate expanding rights for homosexuals with the racial civil rights movement.

No one is trying “to deny these upstanding members of society the same rights as everyone else.” To the best of my knowledge, no one has proposed not allowing homosexual men from marrying heterosexual/homosexual women, et cetera. Also to the best of my knowledge, everyone who opposes redefining marriage to allow same-sex partners opposes it whether both partners are heterosexual, homosexual, or a combination.

“Numerous studies have proven that same-sex couples perform as well as heterosexual couples in all forms of domesticated life, including rearing children. If your preacher tells you different, he is bearing false witness.”

[RWC] I wonder why Mr. Jones didn’t cite the “numerous studies.”

“Same-sex couples perform as well as heterosexual couples in all forms of domesticated life, including rearing children?” How about conceiving a child without the assistance of a third party?

“It’s time to discard centuries old mythology in favor of methodological naturalism.”

[RWC] In case you’re not familiar with “methodological naturalism,” Mr. Jones is saying it’s time to discard religious beliefs.