oldschool CxC

Thursday, July 31, 2003

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such (homosexual) unions would actually mean doing violence to these children ... (placing) them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development."

The Catholic Church weighing in on gay marriage and adoption. Unbelievable. Someone should nudge the Pope awake and say, "Hey mack, why not get your own glass house in order before throwing stones." At best this seems a horrific PR blunder to comment on child welfare while their sex scandal is still unravelling. I can see their marketing guy whispering in the background, "Ixnay on the idskay."
So what's the alternative environment that is conducive to kids' full human development, cooling their heels in a state-run institution rather than being adopted by people who want to love and care for them? Hmm. Why not put the over 3/4 million children (figure from US Dept of Health & Human Services) awaiting adoption in the care of priests.

RM: I wish I could get a larger version of this magazine cover:

I think the cover art pretty much lets you know where they come out on the issue. I even made the mistake of checking out one the articles therein. A note to the author, Mr. Kurtz, should he read this blog: If your best argument is "slippery slope" you got nothing. I can only assume that companion articles will take up the always compelling "against nature" argument. [E: Frankly I don't see anything wrong with the slippery slope argument in this case, because it does ring true to me that allowing gay marriage on privacy grounds will open the door for legalized polygamy/polyamory. The difference between Kurtz and me is that I am completely comfortable with this outcome. As far as I'm concerned, you can marry and/or fuck as many humans of legal age as your heart desires. Go nuts. But I draw the line at pumpkins and sheep.] {RM: "Open the door" is just another way of saying "slippery slope", innit?. Rick sez that it's a rhetorical device to make something sound conditionally connected when the speaker can't or won't demonstrate that proposition to actually be true. A more rhetorically savvy author might try to imply a slippery slope argument without pointing out the nature of the argument. But this bufoon states at the outset that he intends to make a slippery slope argument, demonstrating conclusively that he's got nothing.}

On a related note I make this legal query: Will the Supremes find it within the Feds' commerce clause authority to pass legislation banning gay marriage? I haven't curled up with the Constitution in a while, but I don't think that the regulation of marriage is an enumerated power. 5 current Supremes struck down the federal gun 'n' schools legislation in Lopez, and Thomas even mentioned federal regulation of marriage in a "slippery slope" argument in his concurrence. Any guesses? I for one posit that there is no constitutional basis for such a federal law. Or maybe W is planning to take away a state's federal highway funds if they allow gay marriage.

[E: Yeah, their Hershey Highway funds. Ha ha ha ha ha! Ok, sorry. That's two gay-joke posts in less than 5 minutes. Time for me to go back to PC camp.]

SL: Flye, recite these 10 times a day and you will be cured . E's medicine


Post a Comment

<< Home