The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Marriage Confusions

10.10.07 @ 12:01AM

MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
Re: James M. Thunder's Love and Marriage...Discrimination:

I'm not sure why Mr. Thunder is trying to load up the debate on gay marriage with a claimed right of a child to know its parents, but...

There's no fundamental right for a child to know the identity of his or her biological parents. Historically, no such right has existed; only the science of DNA testing makes such a claim possible.

Withholding the identity of biological parents falls under the umbrella of parenting decisions. The law has neither the authority nor the ability to micromanage such decisions. For example, a mother may not tell her daughter that she has an aunt because the mother and her sister are estranged, even though the aunt's bout with early breast cancer might provide her daughter with valuable health information. The number of parenting decisions that can have a potential negative impact is limitless. Cheerleading? BB guns? Visits with grandma even though she smokes like a chimney? Unless they reach the level of abuse, which is the opposite of parenting, parenting decisions no matter how wrong or selfish are beyond the reach of the law.

There may be obvious good reasons to withhold the identity of biological parents, such as conception through rape, or the reason may simply be the desire of the biological parent(s). It is important to remember that in adoption, post-natal or pre-natal (which is what sperm and egg donor situations really are), even if the placing parents never see their child, their decisions about adoption are parenting decisions that must be respected. Outside adoption, one common reason for withholding biological parent information is that the biological father is the married mother's boyfriend. It is also sometimes possible to provide information about the medical history of the biological parent(s) without further identification.

Some adults may feel the loss of a biological history keenly, but others are not bothered by it. Because the degree of indifference or unhappiness is such an individual matter, the extreme unhappiness felt by some does not outweigh the right of parents to make parenting decisions.

And there is a tremendous freedom in not being shackled to a particular biological family history. You don't have to like to sing because Grandma Atonal did. You can be the first one in the family to love singing, all on your own.
-- Mary Wardrip

I've always wondered (somebody tell me if they know) how health insurers deal with domestic partners and dependent benefits. The potential for fraud is staggering. Some gay person who is unemployed (or otherwise has no health insurance) needs say a heart transplant, AIDS cocktails, or other expensive medical treatment. Any other gay person, not necessarily even a lover, who is employed by government or a large corporation, says: Hey, no problem: I'll just go into HR tomorrow and put you down as my domestic partner/dependent. Viola! Instant, unlimited, free health care. Maybe some gays are even selling such benefits. And maybe not even necessarily to other gays. What's to keep two straights from entering into such an arrangement as long as the one who is employed doesn't mind misrepresenting his/her sexual orientation to his/her employer?
-- Ty Knoy
Ann Arbor, Michigan

As Justice Clarence Thomas writes in his new book, My Grandfather's Son:

"Every time the government uses racial criteria to 'bring the races together,' someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race."

I think this could be adapted to James Thunder's marriage discrimination argument, also.
-- Jack A. Summers
Detroit, Michigan

Marriage used to be a pretty good institution before the lawyers got a hold of it. This brings to mind the line that Tom Hanks said in the movie Philadelphia: "What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?"

"A good start."
-- Melvin Leppla
Jacksonville, North Carolina

MISREPRESENTATIVE WAXMAN
Re: The Prowler's Rush Week:

I cannot believe that Rep. Waxman is willing to spend MY tax dollars to investigate a radio talk show host(s). Mr. Waxman all you have to do if you don't like what he (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin) is saying is TURN OFF YOUR RADIO! None of you left-leaning people ever get it right anyway. Witness the "Phony Soldier" uproar over a statement which was taken completely out of context and a huge deal made of it. I think that pretty well wraps up how you lefties get things half way right and if you don't get it right you twist and lie until it suits the way you want your mind numbed robot followers to think.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Health Care, Bill Clinton, Islam, Abortion, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, NATO, Immigration