This whole "gay" marriage thing is really about the destruction of marriage as a bedrock institution of our society. The polygymists are next. Group "marriages", hey, why not.
If the meaning of marriage is what the popular culture of the moment says it is, then it means nothing. Once redefined, it will be redefined again and again, removing all meaning from the word marriage.
Logic on which to hang your hat.
Thanks for posting this article.
Separate the two and it all becomes clear. Marriage should not be reachable by the government because its love and religious qualities are outside the evaluative powers of government by definition.
Marriage should also not be termed alone, but in reference to the spiritual tradition, religion or church from which it is derived in each case. This is true anyway - religions don't generally accept marriages outside of their own tradition.
Then, as a separate event, people should have to file a separate petition for civil union with the government that is never called "marriage."
There already exists a standard definition of “marriage” that withstands all the tests of time, tradition, and biology. If that definition is to be changed, something radically different has to have emerged about human nature to justify the change. Yet the homo community has demonstrated no compelling reason to redefine such a cornerstone institution except their own caprice.
I propose that they have failed to meet their burden of proof, and that that alone is justification for leaving the definition of marriage as it is, and as it has been for centuries.
The author is quite the intellectual. But he is not smart enough to understand that “gay marriage” in Massachusetts was not instituted by the Supreme Judicial Court, but by Mitt Romney, the “Republican” governor.
Frankly, polygamy is a far less serious challenge to the social structure, than making a mockery of family formation in relation to procreation. Solomon having multiple wives did not undermine the concept of marriage in the Old Testament. The present effort to divorce "marriage" from biological reality--i.e., who is able to procreate; why is humanity divided into two sexes, etc..--can surely undermine the social fabric.
Everyone reading this was once an adolescent. Did not most of those with whom you grew up, not have at least a major focus, in high school, on an effort to idealize a pursuit, or the invitation to a pursuit at the very minimum, for finding a mate from the opposite sex? The theme is basic, in some form, in most of the literature people read for recreation. It permeates the movies--even those produced by "artists," who themselves eschew traditional sex roles. The pursuit of sexual role adequacy & decent child rearing, inspire much of what ennobles individuals, through the generations.
The writer raises questions about allowing couples over what used to be referred to as "the age of hope," from marrying. But that is answered by the idea of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt--a benefit growing out of the report of the incredibly late in life birth to Sarah in Genesis. Of course, the ACLU might not like the concept, but earlier generations of the Western peoples considered the Bible a guide to what was morally acceptable. Like it or not, the concept of marriage has always been inextricably linked to family formation, via a sanctification of a properly mated--that is a naturally mated--couple's union.
“The justices have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.” — Andrew Jackson
Because you F***ing idiot, our entire legal and judicial system is based on the belief that God can make an old man and an old women bear children if it's his will. Look up Abraham and Sarah.
These laws and customs were set down during a time when belief in the bible was quite strong, and everyone in Western History knew of the story of Abraham and Sarah.
It's you modern day Godless idiots who don't understand the underpinnings of our existing social structures.
Excellent. I hope Justice Stevens reads this and takes it to heart.
“The strongest argument for same-sex marriage has come in rejecting the case for marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The argument sounded most often against that understanding is that not every marriage between a man and a woman manages to bring forth children. If that were the rationale, says Justice Kagan, why would we permit people to marry in their later years, when they are well past the time of begetting and bearing children?”
Not every marriage contains love, indeed historicity a great many were arranged and loveless, just as a great many manage to be loveless nonetheless.
Therefore marriage is NOT and cannot be regarded as about love.
As for people being passed the age of conception ive seen an 80 year old make a child, and many men and women deemed sterile conceive children nonetheless. Even today the capabilities of medical science can’t make those determinations with certainty much less when theses laws were written.
Now there may be a case to refusing marriage licences to people whom we know are sterile but we don’t know that of any man and woman.
I thought they were ruling on homosexual marriage? I haven’t heard a word about heterosexual same-sex marriage.
Bookmarking for a future link back. Say, around the end of June.