My View Today
A few days ago I wrote here about the pendulum swing of public views. In Wait for It. Wait for It. . . I held that change will swing back. I also said that those who want change in different cases will need to work for it with others. I don't expect to see a change in the recent U.S. Supreme Court's majority (though not a complete one) marriage redefinition.
In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health et al., Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, joined Chief Justice Roberts in favor of Obergefell et al., same-gender marriage. Dissenting were Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.
In David Post's column June 29, 2015 in The Washington Post, he discussed problems with the Supreme Court making the decision. He wrote that while pleased with the law's change, he was "considerably less delighted that we arrived there because 5 Justices of the Supreme Court have so decided the matter." That may be the basis of any future court cases.
Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson about his view on the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decision favoring redefinition of marriage. Mr. Olson stated his agreement with the ruling and said that a legal denial of marriage to anyone of one's choice would be equal to denying equal, unsegregated education.
The two are incomparable. Marriage, from the beginning, has been a male-female covenant blessed by God and a bond of multi-generational families; public education is an institution intended to benefit people alone and in community. Both marriage and education are important, yet they are in no basic way the same in function, purpose, history or meaning.
This is one of the problems with arguments on either side of this issue: mixing apples and oranges in reasoning. Mr. Olson's argument has a problem in that it is based on the proverbial apples and oranges flaw--two unlike things being treated as alike and equal: marriage the apple, education the orange.
Since I first posted this commentary, there has begun an investigation into reports that the largest and wealthiest abortion-providing U.S. organization has been harvesting body parts of unborn children for sale for use...research, organ transplant, other. To what shall that be compared? With what arguments and comparisons will some in media and medicine deny, explain away, or...wait for it...defend or try to justify what is alleged in this case?
Related reading: New Name for Same-Sex Unions
A few days ago I wrote here about the pendulum swing of public views. In Wait for It. Wait for It. . . I held that change will swing back. I also said that those who want change in different cases will need to work for it with others. I don't expect to see a change in the recent U.S. Supreme Court's majority (though not a complete one) marriage redefinition.
In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health et al., Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, joined Chief Justice Roberts in favor of Obergefell et al., same-gender marriage. Dissenting were Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.
In David Post's column June 29, 2015 in The Washington Post, he discussed problems with the Supreme Court making the decision. He wrote that while pleased with the law's change, he was "considerably less delighted that we arrived there because 5 Justices of the Supreme Court have so decided the matter." That may be the basis of any future court cases.
Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson about his view on the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decision favoring redefinition of marriage. Mr. Olson stated his agreement with the ruling and said that a legal denial of marriage to anyone of one's choice would be equal to denying equal, unsegregated education.
The two are incomparable. Marriage, from the beginning, has been a male-female covenant blessed by God and a bond of multi-generational families; public education is an institution intended to benefit people alone and in community. Both marriage and education are important, yet they are in no basic way the same in function, purpose, history or meaning.
This is one of the problems with arguments on either side of this issue: mixing apples and oranges in reasoning. Mr. Olson's argument has a problem in that it is based on the proverbial apples and oranges flaw--two unlike things being treated as alike and equal: marriage the apple, education the orange.
Since I first posted this commentary, there has begun an investigation into reports that the largest and wealthiest abortion-providing U.S. organization has been harvesting body parts of unborn children for sale for use...research, organ transplant, other. To what shall that be compared? With what arguments and comparisons will some in media and medicine deny, explain away, or...wait for it...defend or try to justify what is alleged in this case?
Related reading: New Name for Same-Sex Unions
No comments:
Post a Comment