Beyond Gay Marriage

Weekly Standard ^ | 08/04/2003 | Stanley Kurtz

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

For the sexual libertines/anarchists who still haven't a clue…Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To ...

[Post Toasties]

IMO, marriage is to benefit future generations (the children), not to provide some goodie grab bag for the married partners. This should be kept in mind when deciding what tax and other benefits accrue to families.

[randog]

bump for later read.

[KantianBurke]

A "Marriage" Amendment will put an end to these shenanigans. Bush won't give the country one. That "new tone" and all.

[BiffWondercat]

Very shortly, my "Love Ewe" and I will no longer have to live in shame!

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Half of all marriages in America end up in divorce, or annulment or separation. This is not the fault of the relatively new phenomena of Gay Marriage or Gay Civil Unions.

And you want to destroy what is left and approve of American Psychiatric Association...Pedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism....Mental Illnesses as the next social experiment?

[Maria S]

Good post!

I posted this yesterday on another article; still seems to fit here!

Once homosexuals are given the right to "marry", then will Mormons be given the right to legally have more than one wife? Or could two "married" homosexuals be given the right to marry a woman, thus affording them a way to have children? Or, could...

Ah, forget it! What a bunch of nonsense this whole thing is!!!

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

A "Marriage" Amendment will put an end to these shenanigans. Bush won't give the country one. That "new tone" and all.

He should know that the Supreme Court will need detailed instructions, lengthy exposition, photographs, and possibly graphics, such as circle/slash, in order to understand any law that is passed.

Bush put the brakes on the homosexual agenda this week, announcing, "I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. That is the definition of marriage, and we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that." 01 August 2003, Federalist No. 03-31,Friday Digest

 

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Ah, forget it! What a bunch of nonsense this whole thing is!!!

NONSENSE and total loss of common sense.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

One site dedicated to answer you question - Focus on the Family With Dr. James Dobson

[only1percent]

No matter how one feels about the gay lobby in this country, we should avoid clouding the REAL issues behind the degradation of marriage in this country with an easy scapegoat.

Well said.

I absolutely reject the judicial imposition of gay marriage as betrayal of the legal system which must be overturned were it to occur ... but I believe that heterosexuals (and Christian heterosexuals in particular) need to carefully contemplate Christ's admonition regarding who gets to cast the first stone.

Defense of marriage begins not at the courthouse, or the legislature, but with neighborhoods and churches finding ways to build and sustain long-term marriages (and, importantly, avoid ill-considered marriages which are likely doomed to failure from the start.)

[independentmind]

To her frustration, she could not convince even the most progressive members of Madison's Equal Opportunities Commission to recognize "plural sexual groupings" as marriages. That failure helped energize Fineman's lifelong drive to abolish marriage.

Thanks for posting this article. I just have one question. Where do all these people come from and why don't I know any of them? How did they all end up in academia? (Two questions actually.)

[KantianBurke]

Bush didn't "put the brakes on anything." Unless of course you're referring to his attempting to quiet down his base's backlash at the recent Supreme Court decision. Let the issue dissappear from the radar screen and make sure the country "moves on."

[Maria S]

Thanks for posting that website! What an eye-opener!

From the website's article, with a couple of excerpts:

"Should These Conditions Be Normalized?"
American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debates Whether Pedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses

“Without such evidence for observable distress and disability, a condition is generally not considered to be a mental disorder.” Translated: If you don’t feel guilty about having sex with a 6-year old, then you’re not mentally ill.

“Besides, Moser and Kleinplatz add, psychiatry has no baseline, theoretical model of what, in fact, constitutes normal and healthy sexuality to which it could compare people whose sexual interests draw them to children or sadism/masochism.” Translated: All that stuff your grandparents believed was ‘normal’ between grown men and women was just a bunch of garbage. You know how confused old people get.

[independentmind]

A "Marriage" Amendment will put an end to these shenanigans. Bush won't give the country one. That "new tone" and all.

I'm willing to give Bush some time on this one. But if he doesn't end up supporting a constitutional amendment, he needs to explain why. Unfortunately, explaining things isn't one of his strong points.

[only1percent]

Bush has nothing to do, legally, with a Constitutional amendment. It requires two-thirds of each house of Congress to propose and three-fourths of the states to adopt. (In each state, a simple majority of each house of the legislature is required for approval of that state.)

I suspect that Democrats in Congress won't be willing to vote for a marriage amendment as a prophylactic measure (i.e., to deal with a problem that hasn't yet arisen). If the Massuchessets or New Jersey courts mandate gay marriage (they have cases which give them the chance to do so in the next few months) AND the Supreme Court were to determine that "Full Faith and Credit" mandates other states to recognize those marriages and/or overturns some or all of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, then, and only then, will the issue really be ripe.

If and when that situation occurs, I expect that the Amendment will get through Congress within a few months. The states are another matter. It will chalk up 30-33 states in short order. Getting up to 38 is going to be quite hard. I'd give it a 50/50 chance within the 7 years that would be allowed.

[KantianBurke]

Good argument. However as President, Bush has the "bully pulpit." Why is he refusing to use it? Or if and when your scenario arises is it a legitimate concern that he'll refuse to campaign for such an amendment?