Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Talking about same-sex marriage

I'm getting a good number of responses to this blog post talking about how I view one of the issues I occasionally cover. Below the jump is one of the more sharply argued e-mails, and anything else that I find compelling I'll throw in this post.

your position on those that oppose same sex marriage is, I am afraid, ill-informed.

Your last paragraph reads
But who's threatened by legal same-sex marriage? Whose life is made worse? If there was science suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents are worse off than children raised by traditional families, that would be one thing, but I haven't seen it. We've watched legal same-sex marriage in several European countries and several states, and it hasn't ushered in some decline in the quality of life, or marriage, for those who don't participate in it."

Several points. First the matter of harm.

I point specifically to the case recently in Denver.

Regardless of where you come down on how the Church acted (and lets not be distracted with what is typically the immediate knee jerk reaction of those that don't like how the Church asserts its moral authority over it's flock is to call the church hypocrites because they don't apply moral code equitably. Case in point spokesperson of the SSM cause Perez Hilton -- the Church has every right to act as it did. It is a matter of faith and not for the state to legislate. If the state did in deed legislate in favor of SSM, the Denver church would have no recourse.

Again regardless of where you come down on the issue or the church I do not think that it is a stretch to say that such a situation would be in violation of the first amendment. Impeding the Church's free exercise of their faith.

A more extreme view, and one that I am certain that those in the 'bigoted' category you defined in your tweet this past weekend, would be that the u.s. federal government or state government that enact such laws would in effect be establishing a religion of their own, making it illegal to oppose such unions.

Is it a difficult issue, absolutely. The Denver case alone is heart wrenching. I'm sure we all know people that are affected by this issue. (though the cynical side of me wonders what the motivation for the parents in the case was for placing their child in the school - might be interesting to find out that it was motivated by political activism wouldn't it?)

I would suggest that if you are going to opine and write about the issue I think it is your duty, especially now as a member of the Washington post that you research all sides of the issue and do your best to represent what may lie beneath the motivation of the opposition. I think in nearly every case it will not be because they are anti gay bigots. Will there be exceptions? Of course but it is unfair to categorize the entire opposition as such.

Two more links for you to consider. Research is being conducted on the impact to children of such unions. Some opinions about it here and archbishop Chaput's statement on the Denver issue here.

At the end of the day I believe research will show that such unions will have as negative an impact upon children as divorce, and likely more. So one could argue that codifying ssm is tantamount to endorsing the placement of children into a fractured family dynamic.

Respectfully,
Joel Capperella

By David Weigel  |  May 4, 2010; 6:45 PM ET
Categories:  Conservatives  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Steele: 'Questions are being asked' about Obama response to oil spill
Next: Last call

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company