There’s a high-profile court case being held in Nashville, TN involving four former college football athletes for the University of Vanderbilt who are being accused of rape. The trial is in its opening stage where the defense attorney is offering the jury his clients’ point of view and other reasons for why one or more of his clients are not guilty. To most people this is the stage where defense lawyers earn a bad reputation – and for many of them it’s for good reason; and this trial has definitely helped to put a check-mark in the negative category. And why is that? Because of the plea that the defense attorney is making on behalf of his client who he claims is not responsible for what he did to a young woman sexually (i.e. rape) because they were living in a highly experimental and sexualized atmosphere and because he was too drunk to know what he was doing!
I guess from now on in the eyes of this attorney a murderer, a thief, a liar, a child-molester, and every other criminal, including drunk-drivers, can enter a plea that says they aren’t responsible for what they have done because they were too drunk to know better. And some people actually wonder why attorneys get a bad reputation.
Evidently, the Governor of Pennsylvania made a politically incorrect remark concerning gay marriage. He dared to make it the moral equivalent of a brother marrying a sister. Oh, the outrage! Mark Aronchick, an attorney, called the governor’s remarks “insensitive, insulting and plainly wrong.” To justify his condemnation of the perceived outrageous nature of the state leader’s remark, the well-educated attorney said, “Gay people marry for the same reason straight people do – to express their love and to declare commitment before friends and family.”
Let us consider the wisdom of the attorney in this news report. First, the “lawyer for the plaintiffs in the federal case,” spoke of the insensitive and insulting nature of the remark. Perhaps this is so, but that in no way demonstrates the words are wrong (legally or morally). Anyone who is in the moral wrong will consider such words as insensitive or insulting. Second, the attorney said the words are “plainly wrong.” Really? What is the standard utilized by the lawyer that makes this the case? I think thoughtful people would be interested. Does he have in view a moral wrong, or only a legal wrong? Third, gay people marry for the same reason straight people do; so would not incestuous people do the same (if granted the same opportunity)? To ask is the answer.
What we have is a governor who made a remark with regard to a moral condition in society; he was exactly spot on to make a moral equation of homosexual marriage with incestuous marriage; in the eyes of the Lord, one is as evil as the other is.