Wednesday, November 7, 2007

The judges opinion on lesbian parents denied discrimination complaint: good outcome, wrong headed editorial comments by judge

A lesbian couple, denied a family membership to the Rochester Athletic Club because they weren't married, lost their discrimination lawsuit. The judge correctly pointed out that there was no sexual orientation discrimination because cohabiting heterosexual couples are also denied family memberships. Judge Kevin A. Lund wrote, "It is for the Legislature, not the courts, to determine whether nonmarital relationships such as that involved in this case deserve the statutory protection afforded the sanctity of the marriage union." Good decision evidencing judicial restraint.

In his editorial comments though Judge Lund was off base in calling the health club's definition of family
"unrealistically narrow" and "fails to recognize the underlying stability and commitment of the Monsons' relationship.' He also wrote, "Other, arguably more enlightened organizations, such as the Rochester Area Family Y, have chosen not to reduce the definition of family in such an anachronistic fashion,'' he said.

He calls the policy less than enlightened but that simply begs the questions, is the present effort to redefine the family and marriage good for society. Let's see. Family breakdown is at unprecedented levels. Cohabitation, divorce rates are far too high and marriage rates are dropping. Kids do much worse in unmarried headed households. Past family redefinition experiments like subsidizing single parent headed households have been an utter failure. Now there's an effort afoot to re-define marriage to be a "loving relationship." Yet homosexual relationships are more unstable than heterosexual relationships and by definition deliberately deny a child the benefit of a mother or a father.

Marriage sounds like the best policy for strong families. But of course Judge Lund who seems to have absorbed much of the "spirit of our age" fails to see beyond the politically correct view of family. How bad will things have to get before he and others realize that common sense, modern research and millennia of experience affirm the ancient truth -- man and woman were created for a purpose.

5 comments:

Troy said...

Same circular argument that is always used. You argue that gay relationships are more unstable than heterosexual relationships, yet do not want gay relationships to be able to take advantage of the stability that marriage can offer.

Cohabitation and divorce have NOTHING to with gay relationships, heterosexuals have already trashed marriage. Perhaps focusing on the bad existing marriages and passing laws against adultery and divorce would be more beneficial....

Tom Prichard said...

Even in the context of "committed" relationships, homosexual relationships are unstable. In Holland, where homosexual relationships are officially recognized, a study found that male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.)

I'm also all for overhauling our no fault divorce laws.

Certainly, cohabitation and divorce are major problems and must be addressed, but how will redefining marriage address these problems? It won't.

Troy said...

Perhaps redefining marriage as between one man and one woman, monogamously, one-time and no divorce allowed. Criminalizing adultery (which is a sin worthy of stoning according to leviticus) would be a step in the right direction. This would do FAR more to protect marriage than disallowing another group. It is far easier to see the sliver in someone else's eye than the plank in your own...

Anonymous said...

Good decision evidencing judicial restraint.
http://www.findbilover.com

Anonymous said...

Huh?