The election is over and Mitt Romney may be yesterday’s man. But some of the issues which – well, if not quite central were certainly featuring  – in the campaign are far from yesterday’s issues. The definition of marriage was one of them.

Among the things which were disturbing on the campaign periphery was the vitriolic and abusive language which some commentators in the mainstream media – if the Huffington Post can now be described as such – are prepared to descend to in the debate on this issue.

Frances Kelly, on her Home Griddle blog, points to one example. Can anyone show a parallel example of this from the other side of the debate? We hope not – and hope that it remains that way. This is a debate in which right reason and not emotion should remain the currency of exchange. Those who devalue that currency might gain power over the other side but they will not win the argument.

Frances writes: This goes to show how extreme and reactive same sex marriage activists are.  Where is the shock and bigoted bile in the statement:  “Every child has the right to have a mother and father”?

Since when was supporting a child’s right to have a mother and a father “bigoted bile against gays”?

Huffington Post’s headline:  “Shocking Footage Emerges of Mitt Romney Spouting His Bigoted Bile Against Gays.

What did Romney say that offended them so much?  Romney spoke about the pressure to change birth certificate forms in Massachusetts after same sex marriage was legalized.

“Today, same-sex couples are marrying, under the law, in Massachusetts. Some gays are actually having children born to them. We’ve been asked to remove the phrase “mother” and “father” and replace it with “parent A” and “parent B.” It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has the right to have a mother and father.”  (Video here)

What is shocking about that statement?  Why is it “bigoted” to defend the right of all children to have a mother and a father?

Are gay rights activists more concerned about the feelings of adults than children?  They say that doctoring birth certificates by crossing out the word mother and handwriting the word Parent A “could disadvantage the children later in life” when they apply for other government forms such as passports.

It’s hard to believe they are acting in the best interests of children when they consider crossing out mother on a form a potential “disadvantage” yet they see no problem whatsoever in crossing out the actual mother from this child’s entire life.

What exactly are they arguing here?  That going through life with a birth certificate pre-printed with Parent A and B is way more important than having a mother?

You know what’s really shocking and bigoted?  Targeting our most vulnerable and claiming certain children don’t deserve equality.  Creating a micro minority of children purposely deprived of their mother and another subset of children intentionally denied a father for the rest of their lives.  That’s discrimination.  And that’s what same sex marriage does.

Michael Kirke was born in Ireland. In 1966 he graduated from University College Dublin (History and Politics). In that year he began working on the sub-editorial desk of The Evening...