by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D

First published at Mercatornet.com on August 7, 2010.

Jennifer Roback Morse, foundress and president of the Ruth Institute, laments the overturn of Proposition 8 by Judge Vaughn Walker, who is widely reported to be g*y.

The Ruth Institute has been active in the efforts to educate the public about the essential public purpose of marriage, the social benefits of natural marriage, and the harms to society from redefining marriage. Dr. Morse is a former economics professor at Yale and George Mason Universities. In a press release she says:

Judge Walker’s reasoning today in overturning Prop 8 illustrates that he does not understand the essential public purpose of marriage, which is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. He replaces this public purpose with private purposes of adults’ feelings and desires.

By the time Judge Walker and his ilk are finished, there will be nothing left of marriage but a government registry of friendships. The essential problem of attaching children to the mothers and fathers will be pushed aside, and will have to be solved some other way.

* Redefining marriage as the union of any two persons will undermine the biological basis for parenthood, which amounts to a redefinition of parenthood.

* Same sex Marriage will marginalize men from the family.

* Redefining marriage will increase the power of the state over civil society, including religious bodies.

Surely the voters have the right to be consulted before making such a major change in public policy,” Dr. Morse said today. “Judge Walker has no right to disparage the voters of California the way he does in this opinion. “His opinion amounts to this sloppy syllogism. ‘First, I don’t understand that there are any arguments in favor of natural marriage. Therefore, there are no arguments in favor of natural marriage. Conclusion: unlawful animus against gays and lesbians is the only possible reason 7 million voters supported natural marriage.’

The fact that he doesn’t understand the arguments, doesn’t mean there aren’t any. And it is truly unprecedented for a judge to decide that some ideas cannot even be contested in public debate. The Ruth Institute will continue to educate the public about the significant role of natural marriage in society, and the harms from redefining marriage.

 

1 Response » to “Prop 8 judge displays ignorance of marriage”

  1. Warren says:

    Should American citizens have a right to vote on whether or not a woman can go out in public without being accompanied by a male relative? Or whether or not 2 people from different religions can get married? or whether a woman could refuse an arranged marriage? sounds a little ridiculous doesn’t it? In some jurisdictions in the country, oppressive restrictions on civil rights like that could pass a voter referendum but that does not mean the resulting law should remain valid. There are limits to what voters should be able to vote on otherwise we would have “mob rule”. Thanks.

Leave a Reply