Two oped pieces worth reading...

Error message

Two opeds: first, a piece Bob Patterson did for the Philly Inquirer on the Republican Party's continued bondage to stale economic principles; and second, a piece by the Plain Dealer's deputy editorial page editor, Kevin O'Brien, concerning the coming ruling by SCOTUS on so-called sodomite marriage. Here's how O'Brien's piece ends...

If we put the law at odds with the order established and replicated throughout nature, then how can anyone ever justify drawing a new legal boundary line? If the only requirement for marriage is a feeling of love, how can society or its laws say no to marriages involving more than two people, marriages among siblings, marriages across species, marriages to inanimate objects, etc.?

If we adopt the standard that one cannot be prohibited from marrying the object(s) of one's love, then what arrangement becomes so unnatural that we may legally reject it?

What the court has been asked to consider is nothing less than choosing to deny a reality that is both rooted in nature and universal to human societies throughout all of human history. It is obligated to weigh whether it is in the best interests of the United States to throw the primary building block of civilization -- the family -- into chaos.

The question before the court is not whether to redefine marriage, but whether to enshrine chaos in law by undefining it. It's hard to imagine a graver error.


Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and big lots of grandchildren.

Want to get in touch? Send Tim an email!