Observe the law

Dear editor:

I have read a recent newsletter from the Family Council of Arkansas written by their president, Jerry Cox, along with two policy briefs included, sent in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationally.

I find most of the content pure propaganda, something legal in terms of "free speech" in our great country, but terribly misleading for the readers.

Most of the content is denunciation of the ruling with portions contradictory and much outright questionable.

For example, Cox states that the ruling has no basis in the Constitution because the Constitution makes no mention of marriage. However, marriage has always been considered a "civil" ceremony since the days of ancient Rome, not a religious rite. Notice that no minister in any state can marry legally without a state license. That is one official role of judges, justices of the peace, etc.

Another example occurs when Cox states accurately that "nothing in this ruling forces churches or pastors to accommodate same-sex marriages." However, in several places he warns that pastors and churches may be sued for denying such, contradicting himself.

One questionable comment by Cox is that the ruling hinges on the "notion that marriages' chief end is about the happiness of the married couple." What else is marriage for? The creation of children primarily? For business reasons? Happiness has always been chief in the American concept, though the other factors may play a part as well.

In another place, Cox asserts that "diminishing and enhancing personhood and human dignity is something the government cannot do." What then of the "Declaration of Independence," which asserts that "all men are created equal" and have certain inalienable rights. The various Bill of Rights added to our Constitution bestows human dignity to individuals in many ways. Then, although highly controversial, there is the recent Supreme Court ruling that a corporation is a "person."

Many of the far-right political supporters of the Family Council have taken advantage of this ruling by using it to get elected those in agreement with their agenda.

The newsletter suggests in several places that elected officials disagreeing with the law should refuse to issue licenses or perform the weddings. Fortunately, our elected governor has chosen to emphasize that the ruling is the "law of the land" and must be obeyed. Publicly elected servants cannot choose to select the laws they want to enforce. The governor is to be commended for this action. Some officials in other states are taking a rebellious course.

I am not an advocate of same-sex marriage, as I am not an advocate of abortion, but I am an advocate of observing the law. I have been a victim of a strange interpretation of Arkansas law in recent years concerning the role of a landlord. Although I disagreed, and appealed, I had to accept the fact that wording can be used in strange ways. But deliberate violation of laws is another matter. I don't like the "seat belt" law, but I observe it. So should all elected officials in response to this court ruling.

John W. "Doc" Crawford

Hot Springs

Editorial on 07/26/2015

Upcoming Events