• Subscribe to Crisis

  • The Supreme Court’s Misuse of Children to Justify Same-Sex Marriage

    by Robert R. Reilly

    Reuters-children-of-gay-couple-pride-parade-photog-Jonathan-Alcorn

    Of all the misconceived nonsense in the recent Windsor v. United States ruling, perhaps the most egregious was Justice Anthony Kennedy’s insinuation that “the children made me do it.” Windsor declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because it defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Why was DOMA a problem for children? Justice Kennedy said that by denying same-sex couples legitimacy, DOMA “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.” The Act “makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Thus Justice Kennedy portrays himself as riding to the children’s rescue.

    This strategy is reminiscent of President Barack Obama’s misuse of the military to justify same-sex “marriage.” First, he forced the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” on the reluctant military, and then used that very same military as the excuse for endorsing homosexual “marriage,” as if it were the military asking for it. Those poor Marines in the foxholes of Afghanistan were just aching to marry each other, and Obama comes to their rescue. He shamelessly proclaimed: “When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that “don’t ask don’t tell” is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

    This was completely risible, but one has to admire the audacity of his sophistical argument, as we do Justice Kennedy’s similar one. His goes like this: First, allow same-sex couples to adopt children, but then do not blame the humiliation of the children on the situation into which they have been placed, through no fault of their own, but upon the people who objected to it in the first place. Do not fault those who created the problem through the fabrication of faux “marriage”; fault those who warned that the fabrication of faux “marriage,” along with attendant adoptions, would create this problem. First, exploit children by placing them in this situation, and then exploit them again in order to justify it. Voilà! A fully formed faux family.

    If children had their rights, there would be no such “families” in which to place them. The magnitude of the injustice involved in the redefinition of marriage comes most clearly into view in regard to children, to whom justice is also owed. As Professor Seana Sugrue writes, “the ability of same-sex couples to be parents depends crucially upon the state declaring that they possess such rights, and by extinguishing or redefining the rights of biological parents. With the rise of same-sex marriage, the obligations parents owed to their biological children are reduced to mere convention. This is true for everyone. Parents come to owe obligations to their children not because they are parents, but because they choose to be parents.” What is owed to children by right becomes optional by convention. This is a staggering loss for them.

    The adoption of children by same-sex couples is, of course, an extension of the rationalization of their sexual misbehavior, no matter how motivated it may be by accompanying eleemosynary motives. Children are the fruit of a mother and a father, ideally in matrimony as husband and wife. If same-sex couples, too, can have children, this must mean that they, also, have “real” marriages. The possession of the child by the same-sex couple completes the rationalization for them. Just as most active homosexuals practice faux intercourse, they can have faux progeny from it. They can pretend that this is so, and they can insist that society pretend along with them. In fact, Justice Kennedy just issued the order that we all must share in the rationalization. What is worse, same-sex couples will make the children pretend, too. They will be indoctrinated to participate in the lie, now reinforced by the Supreme Court. And therein lays a good deal of the harm that same-sex couples will bring to them, despite the love and affection they may provide. As one mother explained to me, “Most kids understand intuitively the idea that everything has a purpose. How does one explain to them that the purpose is ignored by adults? The children are caught in that web of deceit.”

    This makes complete nonsense of Justice Kennedy’s bizarre remark about how “difficult [it is] for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family” if the same-sex “family” is not accorded full legitimacy. It is difficult for the children to understand, not because of any animus or lack of respect from others, but because that “integrity and closeness” is compromised by the very nature of same-sex relationships. Same-sex “families” with children are broken by definition because in no instance will both parents be present. Therefore, they naturally do not possess the integrity of which Justice Kennedy spoke. Such “families” are made to be broken, or rather broken to be made, by design. This is especially so in the cases in which a child is bred—with the outside assistance of a person of the other gender—to be placed with the same-sex couple, only one of whom is, or could be, the parent of the child. This is a grotesque act of injustice to the children who are misused in this way and for this purpose. They are deliberately denied the possibility of being with both parents. They are made rootless, or rather made to be rootless in the essential aspect of the missing parent—an intentionally truncated genealogy. Indeed, they are willfully wrenched out of the chain of being.

    They can feel this acutely. Robert Oscar Lopez, a bisexual man raised by a lesbian couple, stated that, “children deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents or how much they love us. Children feel the loss keenly because they are powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother, and the absence of a male or female parent will likely be irreversible for them.” Elsewhere, Lopez added that, “Conferring marriage on same-sex couples means some children will never be able to invoke the words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ in order to describe the household that their parents are now allowed to describe as a ‘marriage.’ In order to grant validation and prestige to mom and mom or dad and dad, the kids lose access to the value of celebrating a maternal and paternal line of ancestry. Come Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, they will not be equal to their peers, due directly to the fact that their same-sex guardians fought so hard to be equal to their peers’ parents.” In light of this, who is really responsible for any lack of “concord with other families in their community” that same sex families may experience?

    For all of Justice Kennedy’s fulminations about the absolute equivalency of heterosexual and homosexual parenting, the children raised by two males or two females could never have that instinctive sense about the beginnings of their existence in the love of their parents—for the obvious reason that they could not originate in the relationship between two males or two females. If you are supposed to be the incarnation of the love between two people, but at least one of those people is missing, of what then are you the product? Can that incarnational love be replaced, or are your origins compromised? When my children were younger, they used to think that, if my wife and I removed our wedding rings, they would disappear. We never told them that. Yet they instinctively understood that their very existence depended upon the love between my wife and me. They sensed that they were incarnations of this love, and they therefore concluded that if it were broken they would disappear.

    Do the children of same-sex couples feel the loss of this incarnational love, or the tenuousness that its absence imparts to their own existence? Here is Lopez’s bitter reflection: “It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste.” Unconditional love, morally at least, was supposed to be there between the spouses as a condition for the creation of a new person. If it was not there (and it cannot be if one spouse is deliberately missing), how can the child be its incarnation? Is the child the result of one person and a petri dish? This terrible dilemma will leave these children with the lifelong quest for their real origins, or suffering from their being unable to discover them and wondering why at least one of their real parents did not want them. Even the laudable love of adoptive parents cannot overcome this profound instinctual problem.

    There is also ample human testimony from others who have endured same-sex upbringing concerning its dysfunctional character and the price they have paid for it. Here is a cri de coeur from Jean-Dominique Bunel, a 67-year-old French man, who was raised by two women. He lamented that, “I also suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and properly masculine behavior, and an otherness in relation to my mother and her partner. I realized this very early. I experienced this lack of a father as an amputation.” As a result, he advises, regarding homosexuals, “… give them as much as possible the same rights as heterosexuals but this equality obviously cannot apply to a ‘right to the child,’ which exists nowhere and is not found in any text.” Referring to the same sex marriage bill in France [which has since passed], Bunel said, “… this measure necessarily opens adoption, thus institutionalizing a state that had so disturbed me. There is an injustice that I cannot stand.” He concluded, “If the two women who raised me were married after the adoption of such a bill, I’d continue in this fight that I have filed a complaint against the French government to the European Court of Human Rights for violating my right to have a father and a mother.”

    Fortunately for Monsieur Brunel, his case would not appear before Justice Kennedy, who would inform him that the humiliation and injustice he suffered was not inherent to the situation in which he was unfairly placed, but was the result of France’s tardy recognition of same-sex “marriage.” There is a French phrase for Justice Kennedy’s behavior—trahison des clercs. He has earned it, especially in respect to his misuse of children to justify injustice.

    (Photo credit: Reuters/photo by Jonathan Alcorn 2012.)

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • CharlesOConnell

      RKids=2U? Every Child Needs a Married Mom & Dad. Don’t Believe It. Ask Any Kid.

      http://www.sacra-pizza-man.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/RkidsEqual2U.gif

      • John200

        Since you asked:

        Kids > Me.

        Kids are superior to me. We must become like little children to enter the kingdom of God. They are my model, and I come up short often enough.

        They might be superior to you, too, although it is not for me to say. Just thinking out loud…

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Those following the debate in France will have seen that, in that country, the widespread secular opposition to SSM stems from the belief that it will erode the ethical principle, enshrined in the Code Civil, that children cannot be made the subject and source of a transaction. Art 1128 lays down the general principle, “Only things in commerce can be the subject of an agreement.” Again, no one can own human genetic material; this is excluded by Art. 16-1 “The human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right.” Art. 16-5 reinforces Art. 1128, by providing that “Agreements that have the effect of bestowing a patrimonial value on the human body, its elements or products are void” and, out of an abundance of caution, Art. 16-7 provides that “All agreements relating to procreation or gestation on account of a third party are void.”

      There is something to be said for Gallic logic.

    • Kim Johnson

      Any society that supports and underwrites the death of millions of children through abortion by “right” of the parent such as the United States has done blinds and deceives itself from understanding what is good for children when adults start claiming rights in other areas. The points in this article are common sense and need to be articulated at a time when emotional sentiments against a child’s right and need to be raised by his or her mom and dad are rampant.

      • tamsin

        One can fairly call the procurement of a child by same-sex parents, the abortion of one or the other biological parent. SSP is aborting a parent.

        Until assisted reproductive technologies catch up with demand.

        • brucenyc

          Assisted reproductive technologies cant fix anything, unless and until they can make sperm into an egg or vice versa. Even if that day comes, such actions will still be immoral.

        • John200

          SSP is not quite as bad as abortion. The parent is not sliced to pieces, pulled apart, burned, poisoned with strong chemicals, or de-brained (is that a verb? Does it say what I mean?).

          Otherwise I agree that SSP is an excrescence, not to be encouraged.

    • AcceptingReality

      It doesn’t matter what Barack Obama or Anthony Kennedy, or anyone else, says. Even if the law allows it and a same sex couple goes through a ceremony proclaiming and they receive a document that states it, they still ain’t married. They’re just not. That much is obvious.

      • dch2

        They are married, and you all can’t stand the idea that they have done this. If this was not true your side would not have spent the time and money to pass initiatives and laws trying to block them.
        Back in the secular world gays have earned equality in 13 states and will eventually overturn the laws of the 31 states with discriminatory laws (it may take a decade or two). In the end, equality always win. Its a matter of time.

        • serreno

          You are right. They are married in the eyes of the state. But in the eyes of God…they are not and that will not and cannot change. I know you don’t want to hear that but it is truth. The world can do what it wants to…God gave us all free will. Evil is having its way but someday that will most certainly end. Unfortunately, the best thing people like you can hope for is that there is in fact…no God.

        • Adam__Baum

          After you get done celebrating this decision, you can start defending Plessy v. Ferguson, Buck v. Bell, Korematsu, Roe and Kelo.

          Troll Alert.

          • http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/ Scott W.

            Add the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act.

            • Bono95

              Did you know that Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade were both decided by the same number of majority votes?

        • David Elton

          Here’s a thought experiment for you, dch2. Let’s pretend that it’s not at all about EQUALITY, but about NATURE. That is, it’s all about male + female + sexual reproduction (continuation of the species) + raising the next generation of humans. The PURPOSE of the sexual act is to create children, don’t you agree? (Please don’t tell me that some people can’t reproduce. The vast majority of us can.) We who oppose “homosexual marriage” believe it’s about nature, not equality. Do you think you might be able to entertain this new (to you) thought?

          • dch2

            But this a concrete legal case that WAS about equality under the civil law of CA and nothing more in the secular world, no hypothetical required as it s a real court case that is already over and beyond appeal. The law is overturned and the SCOTUS is the end of the line for the case.
            People are free to disagree with your particular world view and you are free to hold the view described. What has changed is now a majority of citizens support marriage equality. The crossover occurred in the last year of so.

            • defensorofthefaith

              dch2, when we (believers) acknowledge the existence of an eternal, unchangeable, perfect God, we should necessarily believe that everything he creates has a nature that derives from his eternal, unchangeable, and perfect principles. A believer’s worldview should keep these natural principles in mind, one of which is that all things are made for a purpose. The purpose of man and woman is obvious, and what a believer should see in homosexuality is a twisting of that purpose. You may be a believer, but if you are then you are not being true to the implications of your belief in God. You are duplicitous if that is the case. But if you are not a believer, pray to God that you may believe—all happiness comes through him.
              Yes, people are free to disagree with my “worldview” but they will not be able to disagree with Jesus Christ at the final judgement, because with Judgement Day comes a knowledge and understanding of all our sins.
              dch2, though we believers failed to stop a harmful ruling from being made by the Supreme Court, we also do not put our faith in the world, so we concede your “victory.”

              • Jeremy Fulsom

                That was very mild tempered and well reasoned, great witness brother.

            • Bono95

              The very recentness of the crossover you describe is a big part of what makes the case for same-sex marriage so very iffy. Heterosexual marriage is one of humanities oldest institutions, celebrated in all cultures. At the same time, all homosexual acts were condemned by most societies, including a large number of non-Christian ones.

              Even in modern times, homosexuals make up only about 2% of the US population, not all of them want marriage or to be having SSA, most people (as you pointed out) were set against the idea of SSM until very recently, and although they did capitulate sooner, most liberal politicians (including Obama and the Clintons) did not originally support same sex marriage.

              If SSM is really so very natural and normal, why has it been almost universally condemned in the past, why is it still so uncommon today, and why did most of ardent political supporters start out set against it?

        • John200

          They are not married, but you are a skilled funnyman. Ha, ha, ha, ha,… (infinite sequence of laughter).

          I refer you to Abraham Lincoln’s lesson on a dog’s legs and tails.Google it. Then slap yourself. Not like that, you wimp, do it harder. Make your ears ring if you can

          You will discover in time what “gays have earned” for their foul exertions.

          Adios, el trollo.

          • dch2

            FACT: They are getting married under the civil laws of 13 states. That is EXACTLY the thing your side was trying to prevent. They won, your side lost and you cannot do anything more. There is no plausible legal, legislative, or electoral path to reinstating prop 8 in CA. Your side spend MILLIONS of dollars – all wasted. LOL

    • Kathy

      They can dress up this “marriage” any way they want but they still can’t take it downtown!!

    • msmischief

      One notes that Anne of Green Gables didn’t seem to suffer because the people who raised her couldn’t marry.

      • Bono95

        One also notes that the people who raised her were not the same gender.

    • Adam__Baum

      Here’s the interesting thing. For decades we were told marriage was unnecessary and that heterosexual cohabitants didn’t need a “piece of paper” to prove their love. No suddenly this archaic practice is suddenly a necessity again, but only for homosexuals.

      • John200

        Very droll, Adam. Our homo”sex”uals are penetrated to the h,….. oh gosh, no more of that.

        But you have pierced their “logic” beautifully. Well done.

    • windjammer

      Excellent article but unfortunately it will be entirely ignored. Reason? The use of common sense and truth really screws up the system today. It requires too much, humility, thought and reasoning all of which could cause brain infarctions in the libtard elites both within and without the Church. This is all about deviant desire. It’s about SIN! It’s nothing more than justifying irresponsible sexual behavior and personal sexual pleasure.

      The RCC in the US conceded the argument after Humanae Vitae in 1968 by essentially remaining silent on the tap root sin of contraception. Add the fact that the USCCB continues it’s annual collection for the CCHD (includes many organizations that support abortion/culture of death issues) but has yet to do a similar fund raising for Pro Life organizations. Now, mix it with the priest abuse scandals; wimpy, wussified Bishops; and the recently admitted, but long known, “Homo Lobby” in the Vatican. Next, miswrap it all in the flag of religious liberty and what you have is a giant disconnect with the dumbed down voters (including “Catholics”) who only want their “stuff” without personal responsibility. Obama/Libtards know it and deliver it. Bishops keep howling at the moon. They have no credibility which they have well earned.

    • Vivianne

      A biting article, but accurate!

    • David Elton

      Justice Kennedy and the other Disciples of Oprah have been feminized by a relentlessly anti-male, anti-father culture. They have swallowed this womanish nonsense hook, line and sinker. Obama is the perfect example: Surrounded from birth by adoring females, uncomfortable in the company of mature, rational, tough-minded men — he is always ready to advance the “wise Latinas” among us, and accept their craven adulation. Obama’s main problem is that he is unmanly. Things would have been very different with either McCain or Romney.

      • John200

        We know that Barry “Who’s Sane?” Obama is more than half white. I wonder if he is more than half female,…. you might be onto something there.

        To note that he is unmanly is a comical understatement (but I see your point).

    • Pingback: The Culture Wars: Marriage

    • DC

      We Catholics are the ones who should have THE best unquestionable credentials when it comes to defending the nature of marriage. It should be our birthright! After all we have the only unchanging, uncompromising, hardcore teaching on the essential purpose and permanence of marriage. However, our pathetic and pitiful application of this teaching has totally destroyed our right to claim these proper credentials. In my less charitable and angrier moments I think that if we didn’t have Catholics contracepting, divorcing (pardon me, getting annulments) and even aborting at the same rate as our fellow citizens and clergy who are not willing to call us on it but apparently content to run the marriage-to-annulment-to-marriage-to-annulment treadmills, just think what powerful witnesses we could be. Instead we’ve spent the last two or three generations accommodating to the culture and rolling with no-fault divorce, free sex, materialism and everything else that has come down the pike that has put the family directly on the chopping block and now we are surprised to find the foundational institution of society chopped to pieces. Don’t look now but I think we are the ones with the axe in our hands.

    • Anne Campbell

      “Same-sex ‘families’ with children are broken by definition because in no instance will both parents be present.” Hmm. As far as I’m aware, the Catholic Church allows, and even encourages, heterosexual couples to adopt. It also encourages unmarried pregnant women to place their babies for adoption rather than choosing abortion. Does that mean the Church is in the business of actively creating ‘broken’ families?

      • Kevin McCormick

        Anne,
        Sadly there are various situations in which children are left without their biological parents to love and care for them. In such situations it is certainly a blessing that there are married couples who respond to the call to raise the children as their own. They become parents out of necessity for the love of the children who are already in painful circumstances. In those situations it is always best for the children to be raised by a married couple for the reasons stated in the above article. The Church sees this as an act of love and healing for an *already broken* situation. This is obviously quite different from *creating* a broken family because one believes she has the right to do so for herself regardless of the effect on the children and on society.

    • Eileen Gunsher

      Equal rights were given to you by God. These rights are: the right to peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, the right to redress our grievances without fear of persecution and the right to change a government that has become tyrannical against our rights and freedoms. No where is it stated there is equality in marriage. It is said that a marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. It is just that simple. You now have the right to get married and some people just don’t like the idea. It is their right to state their opinion. If you claim to be Christian , then getting married to the same sex is wrong according to the Bible. God isn’t going to change. He never will. So you are sinning against God no matter what the government says you can do.

    • Jim

      More pointless pseudo-arguments from the losing side. After serving up meal after meal of these leftovers, you’d think these losers would dish out the last spoonful and finally find something new to cook up. But no. It’s more of the same old fare we’ve had before. Nobody liked it then and nobody wants to eat it now. By all means, Mr. Reilly, keep writing that book about natural law and homosexual marriage. That’s what your side needs: a reprise of a reprise of a reprise of a worn-out song and dance.

      • John200

        Dear Jim,

        I see that you are oh-so-sophisticated, but you didn’t bring us anything new. We’ve seen homo”sex”ual sophistry a thousand times.

        Homo”sex”uals are on the losing side of everything. Their praxis is marked by the reprise of the reprise of the reprise of various inane sophistries. The first sophistry is that homo”sex”ual activity is sex.

        There are many more. Sorry to deflate you so easily, I am sure you intended to troll CrisisMag for a little while longer.

        Maybe you will get a taker; there are many websites suited to your style of trolling. Good luck in your pursuits.

        To conclude, I want to advise you, in fraternal correction mode, to stop the perversion. Just don’t do that stuff, that’s all I have to say.

        Best to you and yours.

        • Jim

          I want to advise you to stop being a fatuous gasbag. Your post is inane and vacuous. Do you really think you said something in that string of words? What? One reason your side is losing is that your side is full of people like you!

          • John200

            We have seen homo”sex”ual sophistry a thousand times, Jim. It is unfortunate that you cannot understand the words I use. Most English speakers can.

            I said quite a bit, perhaps too much for one who thinks homo”sex”ual activity is sex. Oops! I didn’t mean to leave you behind.

            Perhaps you can hire an interpreter to help you parse English?

            • Jim

              You said nothing and used a lot of words to do it. I get that you don’t like gay people. So what? Who cares? Instead of this playing with quotation marks and verbal lard, why don’t you just be candid and honest? Express your hate, disdain, and contempt in plain language. Don’t be coy. Quit hiding behind a cartload of babble. What have you got to lose?

              • John200

                Dear Jim,

                I said plenty, I reckon too much for one who thinks homo”sex”ual activity is sex. I didn’t mean to leave you behind.

                This is descending to a personal conflict. Malheureusement, you are fighting 2000+ years of truth. And losing so badly I cannot suggest what you might do next.

                Are you ready to convert?

                • Jim

                  I’m not fighting 2000+ years of truth. I’m having a minor tussle with a little bit of vanity who’s got a chip on his shoulder about gays. Nothing more important than that.

                  • John200

                    It is extremely important to you. That is why you keep at it.

                    It is a lot easier to troll than to see 2000+ years of truth. This is especially true for one who thinks homo”sex”ual activity is sex.
                    You are not the first homo”sex”ual troll we have had here.

                    So sing along, Jim, you have a song in you, don’t you?
                    Big wheel keep on turnin’,
                    Proud Mary keep on burnin’,
                    Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river,
                    Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river,
                    Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river,…

                    As I noted above, this is too personal for you. A grave misfortune.

                    • Jim

                      Still struggling to say something worth saying. Keep plugging at it. Maybe you’ll get there before you die.

                      • John200

                        Dear Jim,
                        It is not worth saying to you because you are full of pride. But
                        it might just jog another deceived soul into truth-based thinking. You are losing your struggle because you think homo”sex”ual activity is sex. I tell you the truth (2000+ years’ worth behind me). You don’t like it. It contradicts you.

                        You are not the first homo”sex”ual troll to empty his diapers here.

                        By the way, get used to diapers. You’ll be wearing them again before you die. Your practices make an awful mess of both ends of the alimentary canal.

                        One hopes some of that was worth saying.

                      • Jim

                        I may be full of pride, but you’re certainly full of something else. Hint: starts with “s”, shares its vowel with the shortest pronoun, and ends with the consonants in “hat”. Got enough clues to figure it out? 2000+ years of mumbo-jumbo do not a truth make. History’s garbage dump is full of ancient “truths” that wore out and then got thrown out. Your load of superstition isn’t any different. Now get your adult diaper changed and take your mid-morning nap so you’ll be fresh and rested for your mid-afternoon nap.

                      • defensorofthefaith

                        Jim, may you find the peace of Christ. Holy Spirit of God, take Jim as your disciple. Guide him, illuminate him, sanctify him. Bind his hands that they may do no evil. Cover his eyes that they may see it no more. Sanctify his heart that evil may not dwell within him. Be Thou his God, be Thou his Guide. Wherever Thou leadest him, may he go. Whatever Thou forbiddest him, may he renounce. And whatever Thou commandest him, in Thy strength, may he do. Lead him then into the fullness of Thy truth.

                      • Jim

                        Why did you start out in ordinary English and end up in pseudo-17th century English? Do you talk and write like this normally?

                      • Bono95

                        Defensorodthefaith is composing a prayer. Several, though not all, prayers in English are composed in a style similar to his/hers, with very formal terms and phrases. I do not know Defensorofthefaith personally, but I would bet that he or she only talks like that when he or she prays.

                      • John200

                        I’ll help you:
                        1)”2000+ years of truth do not mumbo-jumbo make.” I tell you the truth. You don’t like it.

                        2)”History’s garbage dump is full of” — things that you have said on this discussion thread. First, you think homo”sex”ual activity is sex. Then I tell you the truth. You don’t like it.

                        3)You and the other homo”sex”ual troll run a high risk of wearing diapers. You, not me. Your practices make an awful mess of both ends of the alimentary canal. We can save the unfortunate effects of oral sex for a future thread. But it can make a hellish mess.

                        4)Perhaps you should combine efforts with the other homo”sex”ual troll.

                      • Jim

                        Your fascination with the alimentary canals of other people might be a big hint to go see a shrink–pronto! Take the hint. Go.

                      • John200

                        I have no such fascination, but one has to do one’s research before making conclusions about the effects of homo”sex”ual activity on the body. Many people do not consider the long term results of this species of “fun.”

                        So I did the research. It’s all out there. You, too, can look it up…
                        or experience it for yourself.

          • Adam__Baum

            Just as decent people lost in Nazi Germany

        • dch2

          Sorry to deflate you, but I think your a bit behind on current events. Prop 8 is history and the gay people you hate so much are getting the EXACT thing you were trying to prevent. LOL

          • John200

            You are not deflating me. Why do you think a homo”sex”ual troll can do that?

            As for the exact thing I was trying to prevent:

            Homo”sex”uals are getting the unfortunate earthly and eternal consequences of their perversion. I was trying to prevent that; I know that isn’t what you meant, but then, your meaning is already well known.

            • dch

              Actually I am not gay. I am just glad my fellow citizens have beaten back a ban on their personal freedom under the civil laws. You and your religion are completely unharmed by gay people getting married. They mean you know harm and nothing bad will happen to you or anyone else has result. Your side could not name a single SPECIFIC material harm or damage that has arisen by ten years of marriage equality in any of the court proceedings.

              • John200

                Of course you are not gay. Of course,…

                They never are.

                And you sell the lunatic idea that you have confounded us by pretending that homo”sex”ual marriage does not harm everyone:
                – the homo”sex”ual,
                – the partner you are destroying,
                – those who want the good for you,
                – people you might have helped in life,

                – society as a whole,
                – et al. There is more but you stopped listening awhile back.

                I would give you a “LOL!” but you are not funny. You are pitiful.

                It is easy to respond to you; you were preceded at CrisisMag by many homo”sex”ual trolls.

                • dch

                  OK, name a specific harm to a specific individual caused by another couple being married you don’t even know? That is your burden in court. That is why your side is losing this so badly.

                  Your side has not figured out that for you, limiting the rights of fellow citizens cost you nothing, but for the vilified minority it was a big loss. Therefore. you have nothing actually at stake; while those asking for equal treatment have something to gain. That is why they are beating you, they will not give up, and your side is now in a diminishing portion of the population. (You are now in the minority in opinion.)

                  To my 19 year old son’s age group’s ear you sound like nothing more than the old bigots they laugh at. Your sides attitude turned them off (they no longer hear you) and they will soon outnumber the aging voter blocks that are obsessed with this issue. My personal stake in this was my late brother – a gentle man who died from cancer ten years ago – he did not live to see this moment. He could not marry his long time companion. So when you all go off on homo”sex’uals you are going after my late brother. What you bigots don’t ever get is that every gay person has a family, you insulted all. Do the math, it a multiplier effect.

                  Prop 8 was the overreach by the anti-equality movement, taking existing rights away from citizens in CA was a stupid move – you created opponents who would not give up – and looked what happened. They beat you in under five years.

                  • John200

                    To my ears you have resorted to the “…Misuse of Children to Justify Same-Sex Marriage.”

                    Enfin, you support Mr. Reilly’s point — it is the title of the article.

                    Thank you for that.

                    To conclude things with you, and to prudently back away as the flames rise, if your late brother and deluded son exist, best wishes for their eternal good; a good that you are opposing.

                    Best wishes to you as well, and good luck on your journey.

                    PS — Here is a minor point, offered for your edification. In future disputes about your “sex,” you don’t have the power to decide what an opponent must prove in court. Your burden is completely different than that, and far heavier.

                    • dch

                      Your burden is bigotry. The people you vilify and hate so much have fought back and are winning in such a way that within a generation your side will be a small marginalized minority of aging bigots fighting a few dead end battles. And FYI, the burden in court in the Prop 8 case was to provide evidence of specific harms, they produced a total of zero. You still are not getting that the harder your side pushes the faster you will lose. You should talk to more young adults, the world has changed.

                      • John200

                        Print this little exchange and store it. Show it to any son you have, or can borrow on a temporary basis. Call particular attention to your use of “bigotry,” “vilify,” and “hate.” Go through the discussion and look for the bigot (hint: bring a mirror).

                        I talk to hundreds of young adults, 15-20 times every month. I also listen to them. Surely these exertions meet your proposed standard.

                        Best wishes to you and your son, if he exists. And good luck on your journey.

                        Your pride is showing, so I ask two parting questions:

                        1)Do you really think anyone is proud of you for getting sex wrong and trying to impose your errors on your betters?

                        2)Why must you make up a late brother and a 19-year old son in order to promote this error?

                        No need to answer me, I know the answer (hint: I placed it in the topic sentence of this concluding paragraph).

                      • dch

                        So you are indeed as dense as you appear. I hope the marriage bigots keep guys like you front and center, with guys like you fighting us we can’t lose.
                        My late brother is real as is my son, you simply don’t get that the gay people have families and are working together against you. They are not imaginary like you seem to think. It s big part of what you are up against and why the trend is decisively against you now.
                        From this month’s Pew study:
                        ” Nearly nine-in-ten Americans (87%) personally know someone who is gay or lesbian (up from 61% in 1993), according to the May survey. About half (49%) say a close family member or one of their closest friends is gay or lesbian. About a quarter (23%) say they know a lot of people who are gay or lesbian, and 31% know a gay or lesbian person who is raising children.”

                        So when your side pushed to restrict their equality, it was personal and not a abstract thing. I have a former coworker in CA who can now get married.

                      • John200

                        Thank you, a homo”sex”ual troll calls me dense. Ha, ha, thanks. Let’s see what you have brought us….
                        1)“My late brother is real as is my son,…” Neither is real, so they are equally real. My 6-legged cat is as real as my winged giraffe. Q.E.D.

                        2)“…the trend is decisively against you now…. So when your side pushed to restrict their equality, it was personal and not a abstract thing.” The word “so” indicates that this is a conclusion based on a Pew Poll. The rest is dross. Perverts do not lose equality when they cannot marry members of their own sex.

                        3)“I have a former coworker in CA who can now get married.” When you grow up you will be able to marry without reference to homo”sex”ual marriage. Ditto your coworker (if he exists).

                        I am not fighting you, I am pointing you from moral poverty toward maturity. You don’t have to end up this poor. Show our little exchange to someone you trust.

                        Best to you and yours.

                      • dch

                        You are still stuck on the idea that I am one of those homo”sex”uals that you despise. The small group of citizens you dehumanize and demonize come from families and have friends that form a larger networks who support their fight for equity under the law. This network of people has been now been mobilized into action with an unbeatable combination of numbers and huge attitude shifts. We now outnumber you, the best thing is you cannot even see us and you don’t have any arguments to sway anyone like us. Welcome to your future as diminishing marginalized minority.
                        Prop 8 and DOMA are dead and cannot be revived.

                      • John200

                        Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream,
                        Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.

                        Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream,
                        Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.

                        Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream,
                        Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.
                        .
                        .
                        .

                        Come on, dch, jump in and sing it. It is better than living your way of life. You will see if you grow up, it is really cool to be good.

                        For my part, I shake off the dust…. ask someone you trust what that reference means.

                      • dch

                        Your critical thinking is lacking and you don’t process outside data at all. Last week you should have figured out In the real world facts and numbers matter. This is a POLITICAL fight in a democracy and not some magical “spiritual struggle” as many of you imagine. Your opponents don’t care what you think, its your side’s political and legal actions they care about. Rants like your against homo”sex”uals (what are you 12 years old?) have no traction with the majority of fair minded citizens. I look forward to many more silly emotional rants from you has each case and election further removes the barriers to equality. You will be busy I suspect.

                      • John200

                        Troll on, brother.

                      • dch

                        Actually we won last week. DOMA and Prop 8 are gone and equality won. Process that data.

                    • Bono95

                      John, I agree with your arguments against SSM, but I see no reason why or proof for DCH’s son and brother being fictitious or for for him/her to be lying about not having SSA. Unless you have evidence that I don’t that shows DCH to be lying, I will continue to believe that he/she spoke the truth.

                      • John200

                        Dear Bono95,

                        Thank you for the reply. Of course, believe what the faith tells you in matters of faith; believe what makes the most sense to you in matters of prudential judgment.

                        Thanks for your agreement with the arguments. I found the best arguments I could find, on each side, before I made my conclusions. Aquinas told me to do it that way. The arguments for homo”sex”ual activity could never defeat what I found in scripture, the Catechism, Theology of the Body, Humanae Vitae and other encyclicals, and biological and medical coursework. One day I might compose a bibliography, annotated if I am feeling REALLY energetic.

                        I did the same for abortion and contraception (they were easy!), as well as a few other big topics. So that’s how I get my arguments.

                        Second point: in the present case, dch MIGHT be what he says he is. But if he is not a homo”sex”ual, he is doing a brilliant impersonation of the commonplace homo”sex”ual troll. As a mode of disputation, they are taught to pretend they are writing in the interest of a homo”sex”ual family member, or friend, or coworker. They stick to this lie for awhile and ultimately, they admit that they are the homo”sex”ual. This is an often-observed pattern, although it is not dispositive of the individual case of dch. But he fits the pattern and the familiar-but-dishonest mode of disputation. Advocates of other evils are taught to follow the same pattern (for example, abortion pushers). It is an Alinsky-like tactic and it is effective on good people who do not sense it in time.

                        If you look for this pattern of fakery, you will see it is fairly common. Of course, to know the homo”sex”ual’s (or the abortion-pusher’s) dishonest mode of disputation is to be better prepared to bring him around to the truth. He might even drop the pretense in time. Then, rapid improvement is possible.

                        My response (this note) has killed that possibility for the time being. That doesn’t matter; I just wanted you to know what I think and why.

                        Again, I am glad for your honesty and I thought you deserve an honest response. Honesty is characteristic of most of the commenters I have encountered here at CrisisMag.

                      • Bono95

                        Thanks for the reply. May God bless you and continue to give you the strength and and ready answers necessary to continue the struggle against the forces of evil. And thank you for your honesty and courage.

                      • dch

                        FACT 1; 52% of all the adults polled in 2103 supported marriage equality (Pew).

                        Assertion by John200: Since I support SSM I must be a homo”sex”ual since only a home”sex”ual could support marriage equality.
                        Thus, by the same “John200 logic” 52% of the adult population surveyed that supports marriage equality must by also be home”sex”uals.

                        Conclusion using John200 math: John200 is living in a gay majority country and is the only one aware of it.
                        LOL

                      • John200

                        Dear dch,

                        You pretend to think the US is a majority homo”sex”ual country. LOL indeed.

                        I have given more than adequate response to you. No news is your news.

      • HigherCalling

        Jim, what is the pro-homosexual answer to natural law theory? Can you give a cogent, concise, and intelligent argument that counters Mr. Reilly’s essay? I for one would honestly examine an essay that intelligently deconstructs the Catholic “pseudo” argument on homosexuality, marriage, life, and family, point for point, if such a deconstruction were available. Catholics are indeed on the losing side of today’s cultural debate for several understandable, if sad and weak, reasons. But Catholics are most certainly on the winning side of the philosophical and intellectual debate. The “worn-out song and dance” is actually the most thoroughly scrutinized intelligent examination of human existence that mankind has to work with. Dismissing these arguments out of hand exposes the weakness and falsehood of the opinions that now dominate the popular culture. Ad hominem attacks, redefining terminology, name-calling, worshiping the “new,” and mocking the “old,” are the default tactics of an argument that cannot withstand intellectual or philosophical scrutiny. Such is the sorry state of the modern debate. That these feeble tactics are “winning” today’s cultural battles is not something to celebrate but something any thinking person should be ashamed of.

        • Jim

          The answer to natural law theory is that natural law theory is bunk. The only natural laws are those discovered by empirical science. “Natural law theory” is just another crackpot pseudo-science from the past on a par with astrology, a facade put over mumbo-jumbo superstition to make it look respectable in the contemporary world. Nobody’s buying what you’re peddling. Better get a new line of goods to hawk.

          • McG

            The best non-response full of non-arguments against strawmen I have seen in a long while, which fails to not only provide any argument for a list of assertions and unjustified insults, but also fails grasp that “natural law theory” does not claim to be “science” at all (so therefore should not be classified as “pseudo-science”), but is in fact an ethical theory grounded in a robust metaphysical framework (Aristotelian-Thomism) that most people have not examined. Unless you’re willing to call all of ethics, metaphysics, and philosophy “pseudo-science” and “mumbo-jumbo superstition” “on a par with astrology”, you’ve completely missed the mark.

            Try again, and this time, put some more effort in actually persuading someone of your position, instead of revealing your ignorance of the matter with your stawman insults. Thanks. Pax :)

            • Jim

              “Science” means “knowledge.” If natural law theory isn’t science (knowledge), why bother with it? Natural law theory once tried to explain all sorts of things about the world. Its explanations explained nothing and were useless to anybody who wanted practical knowledge about the world. That’s why modern physicists explore the universe while natural law metaphysicians explore make-believe. Natural law theory’s claims to comprehend and explain the world have been proven empty. Why does its theory of ethics matter if the world-view that underpins it has nothing to do with the real world?

              • McG

                Hey Jim,

                Thanks for responding. You’re the rare type of fellow that uses a definition of “science” similar to the traditional understanding of the term. If we take science to mean “organized knowledge”, then philosophy and metaphysics are both considered sciences, wouldn’t you agree? What do you mean by “practical knowledge”? Any ethical theory is going to be eminently practical, in the sense of helping us determine how we ought to live our lives. Natural law theory understands itself as an attempt to understand human nature, part of which is our “final cause” (to use Aristotelian-Thomistic language), and this inquiry helps us determine what makes particular attitudes and actions good. The theory may be false, but you certainly haven’t demonstrated it to be so by provocative, but unsupported, assertions (its claims have been proven empty by whom? On what grounds?). Without backing your claims up, natural law theory remains as relevant today as a theory grounded in reality as it was in the medieval era.

      • defensorofthefaith

        “A reprise of a reprise of a reprise” is necessary because truth is eternal and we are forgetfull in our sinfullness. Jim, this is reality; get with it.

        • Jim

          Repeating lies for the nth time doesn’t make them true on the nth iteration. That’s reality. Cope with it.

          • defensorofthefaith

            They aren’t lies, and they’re true even if we don’t repeat them. What is truth to you, Jim?

            • John200

              Dear Defensorofthefaith,

              I do not mean to be a smartazse, but scroll up and down the thread. In 5-10 minutes, you can get a quick idea of what truth is to Jim.

            • Jim

              I don’t think there’s “truth” apart from a clear context of discourse. What “truth” are you talking about?

    • Steven Jonathan

      This article is profound and moving. Excellent and true! Children are used as pawns by the homosexualists, just like any other addiction, drugs, sex, whatever. If the homosexual agenda had any legitimacy, you might at least see them defend the rights of children as much as they defend their perversions, but they don’t, and they won’t.

    • sidneyallenjohnson

      legalizing pederasty…for the good of the children…and make no mistake about it…we have legalized pederasty…again…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kathryn-Leal/100001477955995 Kathryn Leal

      No one wins here, least of all the children. Oh, you know, I take that back, divorce lawyers will win, for a cursory glance at the monogamy rate of the homosexual man bears witness to the fact that they cannot stay in a relationship long enough for the ink to dry on the license itself. This too strikes at the heart of the argument that this collusion by the gays and our illustrious Supreme Court Justice is good for the children. How is a broken home good for any child?

    • Dawn Metzger

      Wow! An excellent article! So well reasoned. The best I’ve read so far. Thank you Mr. Reilly!

    • Pingback: Steynian 479st | Free Canuckistan!

    • Darianne

      The real goal of homosexuals is to blur all sexual and gender differences so that homosexuals appear to be normal. They now teach this to young children in schools with various programs and with books such as King and King. Children are being encouraged to “love” both genders. After all, say the homosexuals, “All people are the same and equally lovable”.
      Heterosexual men are now even starting to dress like homosexuals in terms of their flamboyance. It is now considered to be “hip” to be a homosexual man. Women think you are sensitive and courageous.
      This goes far beyond the issue of marriage. Marriage is just the homosexuals’ opening shot.

    • Arthur George Manche’

      How do same sex male partners make love ? They “bugger” each other !!!! This is a felony, yet legalising same sex “marriage”, means legalising “buggery” No wonder this earth of ours is going to the dogs !!!!!!