Homo What He Said
posted by on June 24 at 13:03 PM
Jonathan Rauch in today’s Wall Street Journal…
In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples—including gay parents—live openly and for the most part comfortably in mainstream life. This will not change, ever…. Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock.…
America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation.
I'm all for gay marriage, but not sure I see the logic in the following statement.
"America needs more marriages, not fewer"
Why?
So we can employ more lawyers in gay divorces, J.
@1
Marriage is, above all, an economic instituation.
News item today says the Mormons are going to actively try to ban gay marriage in California by supporting the constitutional amendment. I suggest we subvert them by making an openhearted effort to widen state-sanctioned marriage to plural wives (even tho the LDS church banned polygamy, we all know they really want it). Hell, we could even throw a little "man on dog" action into the marriage revision just to gratify the secret desires of 'ol what's-his-name.
Ah, for the days when all this country needed was a good $0.05 cigar.
Why does America need more marriages? Aside from direct impact on certain economic sectors I suppose some people think it a benefit all of those whacky behavioral changes associated with getting married.
@4 - or they could just go move to a state that thinks like them ... maybe Utah?
RISK?!?!
Uhhh try "already have". It IS a civil-rights violation and always has been. Fucking conservative scumbags.
@5 It seemed pretty clear to me upon reading the full article that the author highly values those whacky behavioral changes.
"...(even tho the LDS church banned polygamy, we all know they really want it)."
Technically the church only banned polygamy in THIS life, simply to keep the government off their backs. However, Mormon men, while legally obligated to divorce, may spiritually bind as many women to themselves as they wish and will be with them all eternally, while a woman has to obtain both a legal and spiritual divorce before they can remarry. No polygamy for women, even in the celestial kingdom.
Therefore I doubt they will support allowing a form of polygamy that seeks to redefine the time-honored definition of one man, many women.
more marriage is needed, not to honor the relationship, but so that the rules are clear for the end of the relationship...death, divorce, deadbeat dads (or moms), etc. And oh yeah, let's not forget not having to testify against your beloved and being clear about who can pull the plug.
Has Murdock fired Mr. Rauch yet? Can't believe he let that opinion be aired...
Good editorial. The comments page is full of stupid bullshit from right-wing douchebags, too, which is always a nice bonus.
@10 - originally, before that, it was one woman, many men.
says who, will?
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.