Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Part 2, The lie of “think of the children” Pennsylvania style

Part 1 here.

A rather pathetic example of one of those Christians who want to pretend their personal beliefs should be made law is a recent op-ed “Defend marriage, for the kids’ sake” (yep, he went there) It was written by Brian McGinley of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, another one of those organizations that has to put “family” in its name since no one would notice it from their actions.  It should read the “Pennsylvania Family As We Define It Institute”.  Mr. McGinley starts off with the usual emotional appeal  “Think of the Children!” nonsense citing how much kids are hurt by single parents(women of course), fatherlessness, divorce, etc.  Funny how Mr. McGinley and his ilk are never advocating laws to stop divorces, to force parents to stay together.  Of course, they don’t; since their ignorant constituencies want their divorces.  And funny how Mr. McGinley can’t actually cite one actual study showing his claims to be true.

And what does the opening salvo have to do with gay marriage?  Well, nothing as we can see.  And what’s hilarious that gay marriage between two guys would supply that supposed need for fathers doubly!  Surely, Mr. McGinley would be for such a thing.  Oh, but they wouldn’t be “real” fathers per Mr. McGinley.  Mr. McGinley of course wants to declare that marriage is only “real” if the biological parents are the ones raising the kids and who are stuck together with no other choice.  Sorry, folks who care enough to marry another person with kids, sorry those parents who had a mate that was dangerous and worthless and are doing it on your own,  you aren’t good enough per Mr. McGinley and his “Pennsylvania Family Institute”  even if you are straight.  They want to deny your rights too.

My husband and I have been married 22 years.  That’s far longer than his many brothers and sisters who have kids and who have had multiple divorces.  We got simply lucky in that we married someone that some ignorant people deign to “approve of”.  If I add that we have no children and chose to do that, there are those who would say we aren’t “really” married either and who would take our rights away.  Just like Mr. McGinley “Makes no mistake about it: If marriage is not about children, there is no reason for it to exist at all.”  My rights are at risk too.

Mr. McGinley is a sad little man and one helluva hypocrite.  “Surely we don’t need the government to bless our private sexual relationships to give them value and meaning.”  He cries crocodile tears when he says “How sad it would be if our relationships depended on the blessing of the state?”  But that is exactly what he wants done by the state, since we depend on the state to do more than just approve our sex.  It approves our relationships, and Mr. McGinley wants to declare that no one but those he approves of can have legal rights to share our loved one’s life.

Mr. McGinley does do one thing that I’m sure he doesn’t intend “But we don’t (and shouldn’t) make public policy based on cultural trends. We make public policy based on reasons and arguments about the common good—and especially the good of the voiceless and vulnerable who are our society’s future.”  Hmmm, but we do make public policy on cultural trends that come from reason and arguments for the common good, not just the good of those selfish and ignorant, be they majority or minority, who want to deny equal rights to everyone.  That’s how the stupidity of miscegenation was destroyed.  That’s how integration came about.  We used reason and arguments about the common good, not the whining of a few religions (Christian, Islam, Jewish, etc) that want to pretend that their god agrees with them.  We are speaking up for the voiceless and vulnerable, those who Mr. McGinley would love to deny equal rights.

It’s not about the children for Mr. McGinley.  It’s only about Mr. McGinley.