My favorite part is the photo caption:

“James Obergefell, of Cincinnati, wants to be judged legally married to his late partner, John Arthur.”

Oh the humanity! Those ever-blessed gays, conspiring to gayify our cemeteries and death certificates. When will the madness end?

If only Ohio had some sort of leader, some great and glorious knight in shining armor to “stand athwart history, yelling STOP” at the insidious Gay Agenda that so offends our common decency by extolling such dastardly things as love, compassion, empathy, understanding, tolerance, social justice, and equality before the law.

Atop his great steed rides Attorney General Mike DeWine to the Supreme Court of our land, and this is the case he wants those nine wise souls to hear.  The one he doesn’t want them to hear is the Ohio case where four same-sex couples want to legally be considered the parents of their adopted children. The 6th Circuit Court in December ruled against equality for same-sex couples in both cases.

As the Dispatch reports:

“A spokesman for DeWine’s office stressed that the attorney general thinks both cases should be rejected on the merits, but that only one of the two should even be considered by the Supreme Court.”

o-MIKE-DEWINE-facebookSo DeWine makes a point to stress his firm belief that in neither case equality before the law should be afforded to same-sex couples. He just doesn’t want to have to argue before the entire nation that adoptive parents shouldn’t have legal rights over their adopted children. With all the academic evidence against him, and the lives of children at stake, it might, y’know, make him look like some sort of asshole.

Then the Dispatch inexplicably decides to round out the story with some molasses-thick source bias tacked on at the end:

Among the many outside parties filing friend-of-the-court briefs was a group calling itself “76 Scholars of Marriage.”

The group describes its members as “scholars of marriage from various disciplines — including sociology, psychology, economics, history, literature, philosophy and family law.”

Collectively, the scholars argue that redefining marriage, “the country’s most fundamental and valuable institution, will not well serve a state’s children or its future.”

“States and their citizens receive enormous benefits when man-woman couples heed these norms, which are central to the conjugal vision of marriage,” the scholars argue. “Indeed, common sense and a wealth of social-science data teach that children do best emotionally, socially, intellectually and economically when reared in an intact home by both biological parents.”

What in unholy hell is the matter with this paper?

After admitting there are “many outside parties” who have made filings that could be cited in this story, the Dispatch, in its infinite grace and wisdom, decides to highlight exactly one of those many parties, in particular one that is peddling a noxious and fantastically well-refuted sophism.

Let’s pick these last three graphs apart one-by-one, shall we?

The group describes its members as “scholars of marriage from various disciplines — including sociology, psychology, economics, history, literature, philosophy and family law.”

I can describe myself as master of time, space and dimension, but it doesn’t make it true. Nevertheless, it sure is a salve to the conscience when you’re rationalizing the denial of other people’s equal rights if you can couch it in “scholarship” spanning the life sciences, economics, history, literature, philosophy and law. Damn it feels good to be a gangster.

Collectively, the scholars argue that redefining marriage, “the country’s most fundamental and valuable institution, will not well serve a state’s children or its future.”

Well, isn’t that special? The country’s most fundamental and valuable institution: marriage. I might consider a country’s institutions of self-government its most fundamental and valuable, at least in comparison to what historically has been a patriarchal property pact between families, but whatever. Who am I? Just some geek with silly ideas about due process and equal rights under the law.

Now for the whopper:

“States and their citizens receive enormous benefits when man-woman couples heed these norms, which are central to the conjugal vision of marriage,” the scholars argue. “Indeed, common sense and a wealth of social-science data teach that children do best emotionally, socially, intellectually and economically when reared in an intact home by both biological parents.”

First, really Dispatch? “The scholars argue” … ? If I send you a picture of a sow in a mortarboard will you cite the pig as a “scholar” as well? Have you never heard the old journalism axiom, “If your mom tells you she loves you, check it out.”

Have you really bought into the cheap rhetorical play of the group calling itself “76 Scholars of Marriage”… ? Would you be interested in some coastal property I have for sale in Nebraska? Was it that hard to say “the group argues,” because— as I’m sure you’re aware due to your never-ending commitment to responsible journalism—pretty much all of the non-politicized scholarship on the subject refutes this preposterous claim.

How many peer-reviewed scholarly studies shall I cite? One hyperlinked for every word in these two sentences.

In fact, the studies bear out that the biggest problem children of same-sex couples face is our society’s lingering homophobia.

Or perhaps we should just trust the word of your bogus 76 Scholars, Columbus Dispatch, and follow your lead in exploring the issue no further.

David DeWitt is a writer and man of sport and leisure based out of Athens, Ohio. He has also written for Government Executive online, the National Journal’s Hotline, and The New York Observer’s Politicker.com. He can be found on Twitter @TheRevDeWitt.

 

 
  • Kofender

    Bravo! You have it exactly right. But the AG is quite wrong in thinking SCOTUS is going to pay much attention to what he wants. The Court has already telegraphed its intent—it doesn’t want to hear any more marriage equality cases. Next week, SCOTUS could very well remand the Ohio case back to the 6th Circuit with instructions to review its decision in light of what has happened in the other Circuits. And if it does decide to hear a case, it’s most likely to be the Michigan case (where the infamous Mark Regnerus was laughed out of court by the judge), and the final tally will be 7-2 (the two being Scalia and his lapdog Thomas).

  • Think.

    How could DeWine and the Dispatch possibly fall on their faces over same-sex marriage? Their integrity has already hit rock-bottom.

  • MKTG

    I think we are slipping into the Dark Ages with the…ahem…”leadership” of our “lordship” and his sycophants.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!