Matt Birk is a Victim of His Own Hypocrisy

I don't know if Matt Birk is a plagiarist or not, or if Minnesota for Marriage is simply passing out templates for people to modify as they see fit.  Whatever the case, Baltimore Ravens' center Matt Birk's "editorial" to the Star Tribune, the same paper that published Riley Balling's "editorial" a few days ago reads as oddly similar.  It's entirely possible that some National Organization for Marriage money went Birk's way to be one of the "non-cognitive elites" that they so enjoy.  Stereotypically speaking, it is tough to get more non-cognitive than a football player.

Again, I won't debate Birk point by point; you can read his "editorial" in its entirety in the first link I provided.  I will, however, point out his stunning hypocrisy.

Throughout his "editorial," Birk talks about doing things 'for the children.'

• government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids.
• Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn't always happen. Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and underprivileged schools, we have witnessed firsthand the many heroic efforts of single mothers and fathers -- many of whom work very hard to provide what's best for their kids.
• How much longer do we put the desires of adults before the needs of kids?
• Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society.

Matt Birk runs a charity called The Hike Foundation which reaches out to at-risk children.  Whether this simply means academically failing, or refers to other aspects such as socioeconomic status is unclear.

The ironic part is that in working against allowing LGBT couples to marry, Birk is contributing to the number of at-risk children by denying children with LGBT parents the financial benefits they would be afforded if their parents were allowed to marry.  Birk is working on both sides of the fence.  (I guess that helps to ensure the longevity of his charity.)

Birk talks about drawing false connections  which is also ironic because Birk's letter is wrought with them either by way of either completely erroneous science, or no science at all.  Birk seems to be working off the points that homosexuality is a choice and that LGBT couples are bad at raising children, neither of which are true.

Birk complains about people with his views being referred to as bigots.  If you ignore science for your own biases, even when they come at the expense of children, what are you?