Postponing Gay “Marriage” Constitutes “Irreparable Harm?”

Posted: Jan 28, 2015 12:01 AM
Postponing Gay “Marriage” Constitutes “Irreparable Harm?”

Leave it to the homosexual lobby to defy rationality. U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade has determined that protecting a child’s right to a mom and a dad “constitue[s] irreparable harm,” and “injures those children.”

On Friday, Judge Granade overturned the marriage law dutifully amended into the state constitution by 81 percent of Alabama voters. Judge Granade has since issued a two week stay on the ruling to provide time for Attorney General Luther Strange to make an appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Two generous.

Instead of enforcing Alabama’s marriage laws, Judge Granade has taken it upon herself to change the law to accommodate those who wish to break it.

Granade, no stranger to controversy, ruled this past June against the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN)—a Catholic media network based in Irondale, Alabama—in their petition to be exempted from being forced to violate Catholic teaching in providing contraception and sterilization in their employee health care plans.

In the gay marriage case, her reasoning, or lack thereof, argues that “the laws in question are an irrational way of promoting biological relationships in Alabama... If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children.”

If defining marriage as the permanent union of a man and a woman and as partially yet fundamentally a “biological [relationship]” is “irrational,” what then is marriage? While Judge Granade seems content in nullifying the definition of marriage that has lasted for all human history, she does not seem to provide any definition of what marriage is. Rather she describes marriage as a “fundamental right,” “one of the vital personal rights,” and that it “[involves] the most intimate and personal choices a person may make” which is all true of the real definition of marriage anyway. Granade, by intending that a gay union is a “fundamental right,” without defining any boundaries for which “intimate and personal choices” constitute marriage and which do not has stripped marriage of any real meaning. Any relationship could be considered a marriage under Granade’s argument, a dangerous and irrational proposition indeed. Afterall, polygamy is an “intimate and personal” choice as are incestuous marriages.

The Plaintiffs, Cari Searchy and Kimberly McKeand are not only attempting to force a conservative state to recognize their gay “marriage,” they are also both trying to seek legal recognition as the parents of McKeand’s biological son.

To say that gay unions constitute parenthood is to say that men and women in their capacities to be fathers and mothers respectively have no intrinsic value. While the homosexual movement speaks of equality and tolerance, they show little respect for the equal value of men and women in their complementary nature. If mothers or fathers can be done away with, we are not regarding men and women with the intrinsic value that they bring to family life. Because one is regarded as unnecessary, we are not regarding men and women with equality. In abrogating the definition of man-woman marriage mothers and fathers are treated as disposable and as not worth consideration when placing a child in a home. It is profoundly unjust and an assault on the dignity of mothers and fathers and on the dignity of women and men.

The children are regarded even less. Children have no say when placed with a gay couple. In such arrangements, they are deprived of even the opportunity to have a mom and a dad. Orphan children desire the love and belonging of family life above all. After all, we were “born this way.” To willfully deprive adoptive children of a mother or father is deeply selfish as it ignores the needs of the child and the benefits of family life. Placing children with gay couples does more to satiate the homosexual movement’s burning desire to be elevated and honored in society than to account for the well-being of the child.

The research shows with near unanimity that children do best when raised in an intact family with a mother and father who are married to one another. For instance, children in two parent families score higher on standardized tests and in intact families children are less likely to repeat a grade or be subject to disciplinary action in school. Children are more likely to better off economically if raised by married parents as married adults make more money than unmarried adults. Mothers and fathers offer unique benefits to their children as well. When fathers are involved in their children’s lives, the child has significantly higher early cognitive development, greater mastery of language, and more emotional stability. When the father is absent, his daughter(s) are significantly at greater risk of teenage pregnancy. The absence of the mother causes a great deal of angst among infants, affecting sleeping and eating patterns and increasing the frequency of aggressive behavior. Infants display these behaviors even when attended to by their biological fathers through the period of separation. Another study found that children between the ages of seven and eighteen raised without their mothers were significantly more likely to show signs of depression. Judge Granade’s irrational argument that protecting marriage “detracts from...promoting optimal environments for children,” doesn’t hold a candle in face of the facts.

Children are not the only ones harmed by gay “marriages” either. Just ask Janna Darnelle who was abandoned by her husband for a gay lover.

In America we pride ourselves on our concern for the poor, the downtrodden, and the weaker members of the human family. Emma Lazarus captures it well: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless.” Ought we then take advantage of these, the homeless children yearning to live free in a safe and loving home? Ought we sacrifice the orphan, the child, the weakest and most defenseless members of our society for sake of a gay couple’s desire for what they cannot create by their biological nature?

Gay adoption then is an affront to human dignity and an attack on the family. The homosexual movement, however, will hear none of this. They are more interested in silencing the free speech rights and religious liberties of their critics. They are more interested in demonstrating their tolerance by castigating their opponents with vitriolic hate speech in caricaturizing Christian believers as “slaveholders and Holocaust perpetrators.” They are more interested in penalizing their fellow Americans who dare to stand up for marriage and their conscience rights with $13,000 fines and “sensitivity” training. Perhaps then the family is just another institution that ought to be discarded “into the ash heap of history.”