Thursday, February 27, 2014

Ryan Anderson tells us why the federal judge in TX was wrong to strike down the state's ban on marriage equality

Ryan T. Anderson - Heritage Foundation
Ryan T. Anderson is Robby George's creature — presumably recruited into Opus Dei when Anderson was George's student at Princeton. Instead of being an intellectually curious critical thinker, Anderson reverse engineers logic to fit the conclusion required by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, we get (sentences are numbered):
<1> Yet another judge has struck down a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. <2> These rulings claim that the equal protection of the law requires the redefinition of marriage. <3> It does not. <4> State laws that reflect the truth about marriage should be ruled constitutional.

It's a remarkable paragraph from a very bright guy. It falls short of argument because the proposition of equal protection in sentences two and three is not addressed by the conclusion in the fourth sentence. Furthermore, when Anderson refers to the "truth" about marriage he is referring to the teachings of the Catholic Church. When it comes to same-sex marriage, the teachings of the Catholic Church are represented by a 2003 treatise written by then Cardinal Ratzinger. Of course Ratzinger treated gay marriage as an end of world event.

Therefore, Anderson is criticizing a federal judge for not ruling in accordance with the opinion of a Catholic prelate in Rome and he is claiming that Ratzinger's opinion, from Rome, would afford equal protection under the law here. Where on earth does Ryan come up with this stuff? And who could possibly believe such crap?

This all goes on and on with the usual rhetoric about discarding the wishes of the electorate and how no same-sex union can produce a child. As I said, the usual nonsense as in:
While respecting everyone’s civil rights, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage between a man and a woman as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing, and child-rearing. Recognizing that we are all created equal doesn’t challenge this historic understanding.
Except, as seven or eight federal judges have said, allowing gays to marry has no effect, whatsoever, on marriages between men and a women while infringing on the rights of gays. To suggest that, because gays can marry, the same men won't marry the same women and produce the same children is ludicrous. Anderson doesn't even attempt to explain this mysterious effect that gay marriage has on straight people. It insults our collective intelligence. As expected, Anderson goes on to intentionally misstate the opinion in United States v. Windsor. Where I come from, they call that a lie.
… the Court declared that “the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.” The states remain free—and should continue—to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
I am getting quite tired of typing this but Justice Kennedy wrote: “State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia.” These federal judges have all ruled that marriage equality bans do not respect the constitutional rights of citizens. The Court said nothing about continuing to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Anderson concludes by referring to the book that he co-wrote with Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis. That book was specifically written to influence the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor. That didn't work either.
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.