Replies

"...sure there are some legal benefits that would accrue by virtue of the recognition of their marriage..."

Prof, as a 56 year old guy who was married (two times) for a total of 27 years, I have a slightly iconoclastic view of marriage and "homosexual marriage."

I believe that for the most part the men instigated marriage into their relationships with women in order to get sex and to keep their women to themselves.

I believe that starting with my generation women instigated marriage into their relationships with men in order to accomplish their maternal instinct and acquire financial security provided to them by either their husband or the courts. Since this time men are much less eager to get married...after all the sex is available and there is no committment or as many consequences (legally speaking).

I think that the homosexuals are at least one or two generations behind heterosexuals with regard to marriage. I believe that if this "homosexual marriage" thing takes hold, those poor fools will be sooooo sorry.

Today neither party in a homosexual couple can push the other to marry ('cause it ain't legal). Under the new paradiagm one party or the other will start to push and of course the other will give in for the sex. Later there will be the much more lasting state of "homosexual divorce." The term "gay" may die there...nothing like a divorce and spousal support and community property settlements and perhaps even child support to take the gay right out of being "gay."

All I can say is the homosexuals ought to be careful what the ask for because they might get it.

The real reasons homosexual activists have pushed for "gay" marriage are best said in their own words. What follows are a few quotes from well-known homosexual spokespeople, and the reasons are not because they are interested in the state of holy matrimony.

"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit."
[At that same conference and also in the list of demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]