- List All

  • Web   The Point


+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory

« Travis, wasn’t that a song? | Main | The Amazing Disappearing Act »

September 20, 2007

Stop the presses! Liberals are committing democracy!

I read this piece about Maryland's Court of Appeals tossing out a suit demanding that Maryland discard a law forbidding same-sex couples to marry--and cracked up:

"Plaintiffs vowed to take the fight over gay marriage in Maryland to the Legislature after the state's highest court threw out a suit challenging a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman."

Did you catch that? The plaintiff are threating to commit democracy!!!! They are going to take this polarizing issue out of the hands of judges and take their case directly to the people!

Excuse me, but.....isn't this supposed to be the way laws are made? By--you know--lawmakers who represent the people and who are accountable to them on Election Day?

For decades, left-wing extremists wanting to impose their vision on American society have deliberately bypassed state legislatures, turning instead to the courts where sympathetic, activist liberal judges do their bidding. It didn't work this time--so they are now threatening to go over the heads of judges and try to convince Marylanders that legalizing same-sex "marriage" would be a good thing--despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Note, also, plaintiff Lisa Polyak's view of the Constitution as a kind of indulgent mommy: It's there "to support the people," she announced--and chastises Maryland's "ignorant" judges for not recognizing this "fact."

Polyyak's ideas about the Constiitution remind me of a line in a film in which a "john" asks a prostitute what her name is. "Whatever you want it to be," she responds. 

Somehow, I don't think the framers of our state and federal constitutions intended Americans to take the same approach to constitutional law.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stop the presses! Liberals are committing democracy!:



When the Supreme Court handed down Loving v. Virginia which struck down laws against inter-racial marriage, 70% of Americans opposed the decision.

It was not until 1992 that a majority of Americans agreed with interracial marriage.

THAT is why we have three branches of government.

Such laws went against the fabric of the American dream and against the Constitution itself. Similar laws barring couples from marriage based on gender are equally offensive and I look forward to the day when they viewed by not only the courts as such but also the American public.



I would also like to register the ache I feel in my stomach as I process your coverage of this decision. You link to one article, written before any gay couples were married in Massachussettes, and claim "evidence to the contrary."

The article leads in with a plea to protect the children, yet study after study--
and I remember posting more about this once in the past --

show children raised by gay parents do just fine.

Some highlights to consider:

* The American Psychological Association, representing more than 155,000 psychologists, states that children of gay and lesbian parents are at no disadvantage psychologically or socially compared to children of heterosexual parents.

* The American Academy of Pediatrics, the nation’s leading pediatric authority with 57,000 members, says that children who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children with straight parents.

* The National Association of Social Workers, with nearly 150,000 members, agrees that research on gay and lesbian parenting shows a total absence of pathological findings in their children.

* “Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.” -- Charles J. Patterson, researcher at the University of Virginia, 2004

I'd like to take the time to discuss the conflation of "polyamory" with sexual orientation and the implications and/or causes of marriage rates, but for now:

It is my hope that as a Christian blog, posters will report truthfully. You may have theological problems with gay couples being parents but research does not bear out your concerns. I'm disappointed to see such "spin" coming from a follower of Christ.

I hope you will edit your post or publish a clarification informing your readers that all research to-date shows that gay and straight couples show difference in their ability to raise children.

A. Campbell

Nowhere in this post, nor in the article linked, is the subject of raising children addressed. In fact, Anne doesn't even mention the suitability of parents at all.

Steve (SBK)

Mostly, the linked article discusses the threat to 'marriage' in general by shifting definitions.

Here, though, is a link I found on breakpoint.
I'm sure thePoint bloggers can respond more completely to you Brian.

Is there a chance there's spin from the GLBT contingent?
(Say, because of an agenda? e.g. http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6787 )


A. Campbell,

The first two (short) paragraphs of the article setup the situation to which the author will be responding. The third paragraph then launches directly into a discussion of children:

"In setting up the institution of marriage, society offers special support and encouragement to the men and women who together make children. Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of children, it is a matter of public concern."

It is with children in mind--and hopefully in the reader's mind--that the author continues to rally against marriage equality. Issues such as polyamory (totally indendent of sexual orientation) and divorce (a problem across orientations) are discussed and the children serve as a backdrop to heighten these concerns.

I'm again concerned about the blatant disregard of facts by professed Christians. It is shocking and disheartening all at the same time.


Citizens in this country are protected in various ways. Certainly, one of those ways is as you mention: the freedom to ask legislators to change laws.

But there are also protections written in the constitutions of the states that require that existing laws be applied fairly.

It's not at all unreasonable for citizens to ask the courts to adjudicate questions of equal access.

To paint all favorable court decisions as emanating from "activist liberal judges" overlooks the fact that such decisions have sometimes been made by Republican judges known for a more conservative or libertarian bent -- but who find the arguments for equal access to be compelling in constitutional terms.

Grizzly Mom

Written tongue in cheek, please don’t have a cow: please let me know when it is legal for me to marry my brother so I can put him on my health insurance. Although we don’t have sex, we contribute significantly to raising our 27 nieces and nephews. Of course, then my name will be hyphenated to grizzly mom-grizzly pa.

The comments to this entry are closed.