Sure it does.
Posted on 02/12/2004 6:23:34 AM PST by To Hell With Poverty
'Til death do us party Suzanne Fields (archive)
February 12, 2004
Cupid's working overtime this Valentine's Day, and he's getting a little help from his friends, including George W. Bush. The president has asked Congress for more than $1 billion to promote, stabilize and strengthen marriage, especially for low-income Americans. But it's the culture that needs help.
We could probably learn a thing or two from Amelia Limpert, age 100, who was married for 82 years. Her husband died the other day at 102. They broke off their engagement three times. But one day in 1921 they jumped into George's Model T Ford and eloped. They got no help from the government - it never occurred to anyone then that the government had any business with Cupid - but society at large imposed expectations that seem quaint today.
Liberals have dismissed the president's concern for what he calls the "sanctity of marriage" as a cynical sop to the religious right, and they may be right that marriage counseling is not a legitimate function of government. But you don't have to be right, left, Republican, Democrat, born again, agnostic or atheist to recognize that the president is right that "a strong America must also value the institution of marriage."
Homosexuals are pushing to "marry" just when marriage is having a hard time. Homosexual marriage mocks the very idea of marriage as a stabilizing force for raising families. There are many exceptions, of course, but the homosexual culture in general promotes promiscuity: 'Til Death Do Us Party. This is a difficult observation to make publicly, but it's well understood in the gay community.
Heterosexuals have their swinging parties and marriages break up over adulterous liaisons, but fidelity in marriage is honored even in its breach. When Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, Bill Clinton, the commander-in-cheat or not, eagerly signed it.
I've resisted supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman because recognizing and regulating marriage has always been a function of state government.
But law is ever more being made in the courts, and Congress, always eager to pass the buck, goes along to get along. Soon the states will accept same-sex marriages. A gay couple, for example, could be married legally in Massachusetts, where such unions are recognized, and then go to any of the states that have no defense of heterosexual marriage and demand recognition of their marriage. The states without laws prohibiting same-sex marriage would soon be under enormous judicial pressure to go along
Only an amendment to the Constitution, it seems to me, will uphold marriage as large majorities of Americans want traditional marriage upheld. Similar majorities are much more sympathetic to civil unions, allowing unmarried couples of whatever combinations to share common rights of property and health benefits.
"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people," the president says, "the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."
Children are already vulnerable to the cultural conversation that promotes moral equivalence between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage. Teenage girls with raging hormones and vulnerable psyches increasingly "experiment" with bisexuality. The evidence is ambiguous as to whether male homosexuality is biologically determined or whether it can be changed, but studies of young girls in female-female sexual relationships indicate that they are affected by social fads. Over time, that can change.
"Probably we're going to find that there are multiple pathways to homosexuality and that could vary by gender, " Diane Elze, an assistant professor of social work at Washington University in St. Louis who counsels young gays and lesbians, tells The Washington Post. Culture matters.
One of the glories of our land is that we can choose how we live our lives, but we've always respected certain limits, self-imposed on a moral baseline that we impart to the generation following us. Today it's increasingly difficult to speak out against homosexual exhibitionism. It's easier to express outrage at Janet Jackson flaunting her bejeweled nipple than to criticize Madonna and Britney flaunting a passionate kiss on national television.
Ellen DeGeneres "came out" in an episode of "Ellen" in 1997. "If this program helps some child in the Midwest with their sexual identification, we've done our job," Dava Savel, the producer told TV Guide. She might have said that "if this program encourages some girl toward lesbianism, we've done our job."
Only a decade ago a New Yorker magazine cover depicted a male bridegroom in a dark suit and a male bride in a white suit, holding a bouquet of red roses over a wedding cake. We were meant to chuckle. It doesn't seem so funny now.
Poor Cupid. He's confused, just like the rest of us. Happy Valentine's Day.
Agreed, but I think you have a moral obligation to disclose any deviant behavioral problems you have to your potential spouse before you wed.
Caveat emptor, I say. Anyone relying on full disclosure is taking an unnecessary risk. Allow for a suitable probationary period and be a keen observer. Still not a guarentee, but a good safeguard against all sorts of bad news.
Most of those "expectations that seem quaint today" have been destroyed by the government.
1. Homosexuality is "normal"
2. Having sex outside marriage is OK
3. Having babies outside marriage is fine and rewarded
4. Putting kids in daycare is just the same as if mommy was there
5. Taxing marriage
6. Defining "Chrisitan" as a hate group
7. Etc.
Go back and read it again. My position is based on the marriage, if you will, of two principles. One is the sanctity of marriage, the other is equal rights under the law. My position protects the sanctity of marriage by preserving its meaning as the union of a man and a woman. It also protects the principle of equal rights by affirming that any man, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to marry a woman, and any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to marry a man.
Well, for me it's sort of a joke line.
I don't believe the government should be giving any breaks to married people in the first place so any argument about equality before the gov't is moot in my eyes.
Interesting point.
Well, that's the whole thing for me. Marriage, for me, is mostly a religious thing. My wife and I don't have the same last name, nor do we wear wedding rings. We look on each other the same as any other man and wife would I suppose, but as far as the legality of it- it is strictly that. A legal binding. We have a document.
In our eyes, we are husband and wife- no matter what the gov't thinks. In the eyes of the government, we are only man and wife because of the legal document. Which, to me is pretty much BS.
At any rate, I don't think the gov't should favor anyone. You shouldn't get a tax break for being married. If you have a legal document, your partner should be able to make crucial decisions regarding your health if you are incapacitated. If you have a legal document, you should be able to legally inherit your partner's assets in the event of your death (where no other superceding document conflicts).
This is the sense that I say I support a legal union. I don't see where it is any different than what a marriage is- legally.
This is why I said moral not legal. One thing my short life has taught me is not every one is as moral as me and I am not as moral as others.
That's the sort of gov't benefit I'm talking about. I don't believe ANY American has a right to Social Security and I believe it is immoral for the gov't to confiscate my weatlh for SS funds.
All of the things that were designed to aid married hetero families because of children being involved, to protect widows and orphans from economic and social hardships.
It's all immoral. The gov't has no business doing that. If it's a private thing- fine. The gov't has no business doing that sort of thing though. Freedom has its price. You have no right to protection against social hardship.
be forced to provide family coverage to some employee's gay spouse now??
BE forced by who? The gov't shouldn't force them to provide ANY medical coverage for anyone. You don't have a right to it married or gay or whatever.
That's the point.
That's up to the employer and none of your business. The gov't has no right telling a private company what sort of benefits to pay. If they want to pay to gays- this is their problem, not yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.