Defending Marriage, After Massachusetts: What the Court Did and How We Should Respond

National Catholic Register ^ | November 30 - December 6, 2003 | EVE TUSHNET

[Kevin Curry]

The way to save Marriage is to rope more people into it.

The way to save marriage is to begin at the beginning and remember what it is for. It is not just any relationship of human beings. It is a unique relationship of two human beings--a male and a female--and its binary nature evidences its purpose.

This nation's people once knew what marriage was all about. That was in the days before Roe v. Wade and the great marriage destroying social experiments that have followed in its wake.

The soul-dead, those with seared consciences, can no longer apprehend the special nature of marriage. They would define it down to include the deviency of men who are sexually attracted to other men.

If the shoe fits, where it proudly.

[breakem]

You just proved him wrong and now you're cosigning his post. ROTFLMAOSMH

[breakem]

At the beginning didn't 12 year olds get married. At the beginning didn't the old man kick the wife out if they didn't have children and try another woman.

Does conservative really mean bring back the good old days?

[breakem]

bump 114

[breakem]

bye boys and girls and boys and boys and whatever..christmas lights to hang.

I'm sure we will do this again.

[rodeocowboy]

This piece was beautifully, and thoughtfully, written. Well done.

[scripter]

Um, nice try but I said that in post 40: "the APA responded and said something about how they didn't mean to endorse pedophilia."

Obviously the twisting and turning has been you all along.

[BikerNYC]

Al lot of good that high and mighty definition of marriage does when close to half of those who choose to get married later choose to get divorced.

Roe v. Wade didn't cause the decay of marriage. Rather, it was an economic system that encouraged mobility of its workers, and a wage/productivity system that soon made it impossible for one spouse to stay at home.

I think Marx was a jackass, but in this case, he was right. Economics drove social change.

[scripter]

It appears breakem realized his error after re-reading my post 40.

[Kevin Curry]

BikerNYC says "the more the merrier." Everyone should be married. Find someone or thing--boy, girl, son, daughter, pet etc--and just marry! In no time marriage will be strengthened beyond our wildest desires.

Historically, the legislatures have acted to establish minimum ages of consent to marriage. I do not believe 12 year olds should have the legal capacity to consent. If my state allowed 12 year old children to marry, I would work hard to elect legislators who would change the law.

Even at that, I am not aware of any state that has ever allowed a 12 year old boy to marry another male. Are you? Are you suggesting this should be allowed?

Apparently, BikerNYC would support it.

[scripter]

When you return you should explain the differences, as you see it, between what I said in post 40 and post 115.

[jwalsh07]

It need not be limited to anything a priori. What did you have in mind?

I'm interested in whether or not you would limit the redefinition of marriage to couples or extend it to any number of people, be it a sexual or platonic relationship.

If you would extend it, then that is a principled position though one I would take a dim view of.

You're also conflating issues as regards marriage. The fact that there are people who do not practice marriage as it should be practiced says little to nothing about the institution of marriage. Similarly, the fact that marxists abound in our Constitutional Republic says nothing about the worth of our Constitution.

[breakem]

Kevin, you said go back to the beginning on marraige and I said like when they married at age 12 and got rid of the barren wife. Then you said you didn't want that. Well either you miss the good old days or not.

[breakem]

Hell, you can't explain your own comments, why would I try to explain them.

You get the spinner of the week award. And now you are using the time-honored losing technique of claiming a victory. It is especially disingenuous when you have to make up a new version of what is here in front of everyone.

I am now bored with another failed attempt to get you to admit the obvious. So you can have the last word. Please limit yourself to one reply so you don't stack up my comments function.

If I get interested in pointing out your methods on another hate-the-homo thread, I'll reply. If not, you can have the usual freedom to spread your propaganda.

It's been............interesting if nothing else.

[BikerNYC]

Since many marriages stop being sexual, I would not restrict marriage to sexual relationships and have the people to be married somehow verify that they have sex with each other.

As far as who should be able to get married, I will take those issues as they come. I am convinced that there is a sufficent number of relationships between gay people who hold themselves out to be everything but married, that to deny these people the means to get married is to teach young people that it is not necessary to be married if you have a serious loving relationship. That does not help marriage as an institution.

David Brooks was right. We should insist that gay people in committed relationships get married to each other, so that it becomes quite clear to young people that people in serious relationships get married. To act otherwise is to provide an alternative to marriage that is too atractive to ignore.

It's not just that there are some straight people who are not practicing marriage the way it should be practiced, it's that close to half of straight marriages end in divorce. The exception, in a sense, is gobbling up the rule. If it gets to 90%, what's the point?

[TKDietz]

Kevin:

There are an awful lot of laws that would have to be changed to give gay couples the same protections for as married heterosexual couples. I remember having to learn about some of this years ago in law school classes. Issues for same sex couples come up in family law, tax law, wills trusts and estates and so on. Don't be fooled into thinking it's all so simple. It's enough to make your head spin. Gay couples who can afford it sometimes end up entering into complicated contracts that may or may not be valid from one state to the next and that need to be reviewed fairly often to see that changes in the laws haven't rendered portions of them invalid . They end up doing all sorts of things like even going so far as adopting one another to enjoy some of the same protections married couples enjoy. There are lawyers who specialize in helping gay clients with these various issues. It's a dangerous area for the rest of us to tread because there are all sorts of pitfalls in creating these contractual partnerships, estate plans and so on for gay couples that could get lawyers who aren't well up on this stuff in a lot of trouble.

I don't know that I would call myself a big proponent of gay marriage. While I don't mind gay people and actually know a few that I like and respect, homosexuality is something that turns my stomach when I think about it. I am certainly not looking for a way to hijack anything or force anyone to do anything. I'm just not so opposed to gay marriage. It seems that at least from a legal standpoint to be something that could simplify a lot of issues. Also it seems that it might promote long term commitments and monogamy for gay couples, which couldn't be anything but good in terms of helping to stop the spread of disease and so on. And again, whether gays are ever allowed to marry or not, my main gripe in this thread was that I don't like idea of amending the constitution for something like this.

I'm really tired of this thread and will not be responding to any further posts. This just isn't my issue and I am done arguing about it.

[scripter]

Hey, anyone and everyone can see what I wrote in post 40 and 115. And I encourage everybody to do just that. If you honestly think there's some difference or contradiction between what I said in either post, please consider taking an extended vacation as you apparently need it more than anything else. If you're just trying to spin this to your advantage, I'll continue to bring folks back to post 40 and 115 and let them judge for themselves.

[GregoryFul]

And we won't last long this way.

Maybe its a good thing!

[GregoryFul]

You are not moral if you believe that gays should be allowed to marry each other!

[GregoryFul]

Ah ah! That explains your confusion.