Wednesday, August 5, 2015

The desperate desire to continue debate when the issue is settled

The issue of marriage equality was settled on June 26 by the Supreme Court of the United States. However, orthodox Catholics – defenders of the faith – see some virtue in trying to convince people that the Supreme Court got it wrong. To make their “case” they are employing the arguments that failed to persuade a majority of the justices.

Tuesday, the dependably nutty Robert Oscar Lopez wrote a piece on Witherspoon Institute's blog (which is supposedly edited by Ryan T. Anderson) titled “Planned Inhumanities: From Roe to Obergefell.” The gist is that both Supreme Court decisions treat children as commodities. Regarding Planned Parenthood:
The Monstrous Idea of “Planning”: From Roe to Obergefell

It is the “planned” part of the organization’s title that needs to be urgently criticized. What kind of society is so lacking in humanity that it thinks “parenthood”—a phenomenon responsible for, well, the perpetuation of everything social about us—can be regimented, organized, scheduled, commoditized, bought, sold, and programmed by people?
“Monstrous” I'll have you know. Apparently “Bobby” doesn't want to accept the simple fact that Griswold v. Connecticut is also settled law. Despite the staunch objections of the Roman Catholic Church, contraception is legal. People who loathe abortion should logically promote the use of contraceptives. However, logic is not part of religious doctrine. Anyway, according to Lopez, same-sex marriage produces more “planned” children which ties it to Roe v. Wade. And that's bad. The rest of the mess conflates body parts with marriage equality and that is really bad if the reader is reasonably sane.

Wednesday provides us with the insane (and inane) stylings of Stephen M. Krason and William B. May.

Krason is a professor of political science and legal studies at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is also co-founder and president of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. According to him, nobody did their job “resisting” marriage equality. He never explains why they should do so. I guess that, in his orb, public policy should reflect pixel-by-pixel the teachings of the Catholic Church. I'll share some of his fantasy (the paragraph in full goes on forever):
There was not even much pushback from the governors or attorneys general of the states who opposed the Obergefell decision (there was some resistance from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi). Keeping in mind that the Court’s decisions bind only the parties before it—and, as stated, even then are not self-enforcing—those officials could simply have refused to recognize the decision as precedential and forced the homosexualists into more litigation respecting their states. If the governor of at least one of the states in the Sixth Circuit, where Obergefell came from, would have petitioned the Court for a rehearing and then joined, say, fifteen or more other opposing state governors to announce firmly that they were refusing to carry out the Court’s ruling in their states it could have gotten the ball rolling.
He happens to be dead wrong. A Supreme Court decision is precedential per se and binding in all lower courts. The reason that none of the governors in the Sixth Circuit chose to petition for a rehearing is that they knew it was futile. Moreover, Republican governors were happy to get this issue behind them despite the public displays of feigned outrage by presidential contenders.

Krason then cannot resist the preposterous comparison of Obergefell to Dredd Scott.
Abraham Lincoln, said after Dred Scott: A decision of the Court binds only the parties before it and does not tie the hands of the political branches for all time. They are free to legislate otherwise if for no other reason than to force the Court to reconsider. Lincoln also refused to carry out Chief Justice Taney’s habeas corpus order in Ex parte Merryman.
Has this guy considered, for just a minute, that the slave states supported Dred Scott and that those same former slave states are the most opposed to Obergefell? Does that not cause even some measure of concern?

That brings me to William B. May, “founder of the Catholics for the Common Good Institute, an apostolate for the evangelization of culture and sponsor of the Marriage Reality Movement to take back marriage for our children and families.” May was the original author of some of the failed talking points.

In any event, May seems convinced that Obergefell is somehow dependent upon public opinion polls. While citing a recent drop in the AP poll on marriage equality, May claims that the “AP Poll Asked the Wrong Questions
The real issue, and therefore the real question that needs to be asked, pertains to what the Court had to do to permit same-sex couples to marry.
In reality, they deleted from the law the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads. That is the consequence of changing marriage between “a man and a woman” in the law to marriage between “two people.” Sure, men and women can still marry, but fewer and fewer young people are marrying, partly because marriage has now seen as an adult centered institution separated from children as sociologists tell us. This has led to increased children in poverty and the consequences of increased fatherlessness, including increased delinquency and school dropout rates, higher incarceration rates as adults, and greater likelihood of living in poverty as adults.
The consequences of same-sex marriage are poverty, fatherlessness, delinquency, school drop-outs, etc. Just how many times is May going to repeat the same idiotic argument? The only institution line appeared in countless amicus briefs in Obergefell. It was among the losing arguments! Repetition will not improve its persuasiveness.

There is much more from more adherents posing as intellectual stalwarts but you get the idea. What do these people hope to accomplish? I keep writing very polite emails (without a site link) asking that very question and I never get an answer.

These guys are not allowed to masturbate. Perhaps this is a substitute. However, they never get to climax. 

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.