Tuesday, February 3, 2015

February 3, 2015 - A Response to Kathy Faust's Open Letter to Justice Kennedy

Recently someone in my Facebook friends list "liked" a shared article which is an open letter to Justice Kennedy regarding same sex marriage.

In the most basic of levels the letter which I have linked to here, states that allowing same sex couple the right to marry promotes a family structure which hurts children.  

Now, I've taken the time to read this open letter several times in an effort to get my thoughts straight and I'm loath to tell the author Kathy Faust that she should not "feel" this way because feelings are personal and who the heck am I to say they are not real.

Having said that I will point out that I disagree with a number of her points.  So much so that I felt the need to blog about it.  So let's see if I can do this in an intelligent manner.

Ms. Faust states that "The definition of marriage should have nothing to do with lessening emotional suffering within the homosexual community."   With this I can whole-heartedly agree, because same-sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the "emotional suffering" of the homosexual community and everything to do with providing same-sex couples with the same rights, responsibilities, and protections of any other "married" couple.

In one breath Ms. Faust seems to agree with that because she states: "There is no difference between the value and worth of heterosexual and homosexual persons. We all deserve equal protection and opportunity in academe, housing, employment, and medical care, because we are all humans created in the image of God."

In the next retracts that statement by stating: "However, when it comes to procreation and child-rearing, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are wholly unequal and should be treated differently for the sake of the children.

When two adults who cannot procreate want to raise children together, where do those babies come from? Each child is conceived by a mother and a father to whom that child has a natural right. When a child is placed in a same-sex-headed household, she will miss out on at least one critical parental relationship and a vital dual-gender influence. The nature of the adults’ union guarantees this. Whether by adoption, divorce, or third-party reproduction, the adults in this scenario satisfy their heart’s desires, while the child bears the most significant cost: missing out on one or more of her biological parents.

Making policy that intentionally deprives children of their fundamental rights is something that we should not endorse, incentivize, or promote."

Here's where I think the flaw her argument lies.  If we take this statement as true then the government should jump into the regulation of "marriage" with both feet.

If a single woman gets pregnant and decides that she does not want an abortion she should be forced to marry the father of that child, because to give that child up for adoption would deprive them of their right to both their biological mother and father, as would raising the child on their own.
Along those lines, married heterosexual couples with children should not be allowed to divorce, because again that would deprive the children of their fundamental right to both father and mother on a consistent basis in the home.

People who are unable or unwilling to give birth to children should not be allowed to marry because the sole purpose of marriage and its regulation is  ".. maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing.."

Now, god forbid, if one of the parents should die, as that would be the only way to separate a union, and there are children remaining in the household.  The remaining spouse should be forced to marry as soon as possible because it would be detrimental for them to only be influenced by a single gender parent.  Really, the government should not concern itself with emotions, its sole concern with marriage is to make sure that children are raised in a two parent heterosexual union.  As, such, if the remaining spouse can't find a suitable replacement, I am sure the government can.

Now that I think about it, this should reduce the numbers of children in the foster care or children's homes because no one would be allowed to give up their children.  Alright, in the unlikely scenario that both parents die, then the government can reassign those children to another heterosexual married couple.  It would be far more important for those children to be in a twp parent, opposite gender family than it would be to say, be raise a relative who is unmarried.  That would just deprive the children of their basic right to a two gender parent household.

Ok I admit it I just devolved into flippancy.  So let me take a step back.  "Marriage" from a civil perspective, not a religious perspective, has been redefined by society informally and formally forever.  Yes, years ago people who wanted to have children had to get married.  That's no longer true, there are many couples who live together outside of the confines of marriage who have children together.  Just as there are many married couple who are not able to have biological children or have no interest in having children.   Marriage is not about the regulation of who can and should raise children, no matter how much Ms. Faust may wish it so.  If it were then the government has been doing a god awful job managing that for centuries.

Copyright © C.A. Bailey 2010 - 2015, All Rights Reserved.


  1. I find your arguments just as valid as hers. Even the most flippant ones.

    My son would be happy to tell her that he's very happy with the parents he's got. The ones who share his stable, loving, laughter filled home. I'm sure he wouldn't want to swap with some of his classmates whose parents fight or are divorced. Or trade with the child of the heterosexual couple who live next door to us. Their kid got to be a little too much to handle after they spent 10 years basically ignoring her so they put her into a home. After several involuntary commitments.

    But, yeah, I can totally see her argument about straight parents being so much better for kids. /sarcasm.

    1. There are plenty of was for kids to be influenced positively by the opposite gender. That's what Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents, etc are for. Being in stable loving homes are the most important and there are too many kids out there who don't have that.