An unelected Federal judge overturned the Texas Constitution’s definition of marriage, proving the Courts’ lack of respect for our Constitutional Republic – and democracy in general.
Marriage is what it is: the union between one man and one woman. No one, least of all a lawmaker in the form of an activist judge, can make two men or two women “one flesh,” literally or figuratively. Biology isn’t destiny, but it does have consequences. The biological reality is that the male form and the female form are complementary for both pleasurable sex and for procreation.
No one ever claimed that the design of water fountains made one fountain suitable for one race and another fountain suitable for the other. In contrast, there is an obvious biological and common sense suitability in the sexual union of the male and female body – as well as potential consequences of that union– that can’t be found in homosexual sex acts.
Even in polygamous marriage, the man enters into many marriages, each between himself and an individual woman. Polygamy doesn’t create a marriage between the man, his wives and that woman. There’s certainly more history in support of polygamy than for same sex “marriage.”
In their zeal to redefine marriage and restructure society, the Left and the US Federal Courts engage in the equivalent of LaMarckian experiments with the fundamental institution of social organization of our society and government.If, as the Left claims, our Nation has “evolved” toward their definition of marriage, why must the Courts turn over State Legislature after Legislature?
That the People and the States were to be sovereign over the United States Federal government is supported both by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the original document’s provision for an orderly Amendment process. The Courts must stop acting as though the Constitution reserves the major decisions to the Federal Courts, while only allowing the People and our elected Legislatures to decide inconsequential matters.
And anyone who supports his views is at risk, too.
In June, WingRight.org reported on the publication of Mark Regnerus‘ article, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” in Social Science Research. The adults reported more problems when compared to adult children of “intact biological families.” The early complaints from critics were that the data didn’t distinguish between types of homosexual relationships in the same way that it did among heterosexual families. The adult subjects were designated as having Lesbian Mothers (LM) or gay fathers (GF), without breaking out smaller groups by how long or stable the relationships of the parents were. This was a weakness in the study that was recognized by the author.
Legitimate criticism was rare. One article, here, by Walter Olson under “Gay Voices” at least looks at the data itself, although dismissing much of it and declaring the author’s own bias. Critics repeatedly point to a very few small studies of carefully chosen – often self-selected -upper-middle class LM families that are written by very biased authors, who openly advocate for same-sex marriage and parenting. Somehow, they believe that bias in favor is not significant, but any data or mention that there might be negative consequences from alternative families – or documentation of positive outcomes from intact biological families – is immediately dismissed as bigoted and discriminatory.
However, instead of focusing on the problems described and noting that adult children of divorced and step families also fared poorly compared to IBFs, the conversation in the media and on line quickly became attacks on Dr. Regnerus, the source of the funding, the Witherspoon Institute, and the connections between the leaders of the Institute and the National Organization for Marriage.
An article in “The New Civil Rights Movement,” an online site devoted to “gay rights and issues and marriage equality,” very literally attacks not only Dr. Regnerus, Witherspoon and NOM, but also tears apart the motives and history of a man who came forward to tell his story after the Regnerus piece was published. The author, gay rights activist Scott Rosensweig who writes under the name Scott Rose, is most certainly biased. His piece is loaded with emotional rants, using words such as the repeated use of “gay-bashing”personal attacks on the author of the Witherspoon essay.
And now, the heat is on the University of Texas to somehow censor or censure Dr. Regnerus. Due to a “formal” complaint by Rosensweig, author of the article above, UT is conducting an inquiry to determine whether to fully investigate Dr. Regnerus and his methods. Rosensweig’s letter evidently charged that “Your employee, Professor Mark Regnerus, is shaming and disgracing your institution by violating your university’s academic honor code,” he wrote. “If you take no stand against Regnerus’ coordinated political anti-gay hate campaign then you are leaving your institution’s reputation in a garbage-bin of iniquity.”
I’m forwarding my own essay to the University and suggest that those of you with an interest in the issue, or who pay taxes in Texas, send them your own polite informative notes. President Bill Power’s e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
You wouldn’t know it from most of the headlines, however. Most of the mainstream news articles say that Federal Judge Alan C Kay ruled against gay marriage, “refuses to legalize gay marriage” or “upholds” a “ban” on gay marriage. One article at “Think Progress,” is even titled, “Reagan-Appointed Judge Upholds Marriage Discrimination In Hawaii.”
In fact, what the judge ruled was that the Courts shouldn’t overturn State Constitutional amendments passed by a popular vote of the people and/or laws passed by the State Legislature without good reason:
If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by Plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.
Rational basis review does not authorize “the judiciary [to] sit as a
superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of
legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither
affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.” Jackson, Kleid, &Bradley v. Ambercrombie & Fudder ruling by Alan C. Kaye for District Court in Hawaii.
The judge does explore the history of marriage and, indeed, concludes that marriage has traditionally included a man and a woman and that the Supreme Court and Circuit Court rulings have never considere marriage to be anything else. He also noted that homosexuals are not a “suspect class” that is protected from discrimination and that the law does not discriminate based on gender.
In an odd twist, the Governor of Hawaii, Democrat Neil Ambercrombie, was not only a defendant in the case,he testified for the plaintiffs, and against traditional marriage.
The original study by Mark Regnerus, PhD, can be found, here.
Of course, most of the articles reviewing the latest studies complain that the phenomenon is too new and still carries stigma that cause the problems. They say if we’ll experiment with our kids just a bit longer, and with more legal protection (i.e., “marriage” and laws to punish people who won’t gush over the forced changes), the kids will turn out better. (“Haven’t we heard this about socialism: it’s just never had a chance to be done right.”)
The legitimate criticism for the Regnerus study is that the statistics are weakened because there is no distinction between children raised by same-sex parents who had long-term relationships and parents with a series of multiple partners or long periods without while the children of heterosexual parents are divided into traditional families and variations including single parent, etc. The database didn’t include that information. However, the problems for the children of homosexual parents are statistically significant.
Grammar edited 8/13/12 BBN
(The title was “Marriage < (is less than) Benefits; States < Feds; Legislatures < Courts; Law = Nothing” It seemed good at the time.)
The 9th Federal Court of Appeals (that Court that is overturned more often than any of the other Federal Appeals Courts) claims that opposite sex couples will marry solely in order to qualify for health insurance. If marriage is something of so little worth, why not set up a matchmaking service, allowing lesbians and gays to marry willing opposite sex people to “marry” for the benefits?
The Federal Courts are acting as though the Constitution gives them the power to make all the important decisions and the Legislatures only get to decide inconsequential issues. Why have States and Legislatures – or that Bill of Rights – at all?
The 9th affirmed a lower Federal court’s injunction against a 2009 law of the State of Arizona which defined “dependent” as spouses, minor children and children in college as far as qualification for State Employee health insurance benefits. The State claims they were trying to save money and pointed out that the law did not discriminate against same-sex couples and their children, since it affected all (non-married) “domestic partners,” including cohabiting opposite sex couples and their children.
Former Governor Janet Napolitano had arbitrarily changed the regulations by an Executive Order to cover all “domestic partnerships” on her way out of Arizona to work in the Obama administration. The State Legislature passed a bill signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer to define “dependent.”
The first point made in the Court’s ruling was that homosexuals are an “unpopular group,” so any law regarding them can be reviewed under a lower standard: “We do not need to decide whether heightened scrutiny might be required.” So, this Court has declared that homosexuals are more equal than the rest of us, because the court has deemed them “unpopular.” They get what they want when they want it, simply by crying discrimination, which opposite sex couples can never, ever do:
The court said, however, that the cutoff had a discriminatory impact because only opposite-sex couples could restore their benefits by getting married. The ruling provides health coverage only to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian couples – the sole plaintiffs in the suit – an impact that Benson said promotes inequality. (Read more: at SFGate.com)
The Court deems marriage of so little value that people who have made the decision to live together without marriage would suddenly change their minds for health insurance benefits.
Well. In my opinion, where you live is much less important than the covenant of marriage. There are States where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry: let the same-sex couples move to New York or Massachusetts. That way, they would underscore how important they find marriage, for its own sake, and the Courts could avoid trampling the sovereign rights of the States.