Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Favoring marriage

Tom Krannawitter has a good essay at The Remedy on marriage. He supports Governor Mitt Romney’s article "One Man, One Woman: A Citizen’s Guide to Protecting Marriage," and adds value to the argument. Both are must reading. We should not be dispireted by the fact that we have to come to the defense of marriage. This is an opportunity for those who think clearly to help form public opinion on this issue. The good news is that public opinion is on the side of right. The bad news is that public opinion will be besieged and attacked and we have to get to the common sense of the subject and defend this good and necessary institution. Tom is right when he says that
"Marriage is among the oldest institutions of human civilization, and most Americans understand that perverting its basic meaning carries grave consequences." So let’s stay on this and help.

Discussions - 5 Comments

While I am no more in agreement with the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision than I am with any other example of judicial activism, I cannot for the life of me see how gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage. Will it make it any more difficult for heterosexuals to marry? In all honesty, I ask this question innocently--I’m not trying to start a fight. But aside from the biblical argument (which I don’t buy, but at least understand) I don’t get why conservatives are so horrified by homosexuality.

I too struggle with any of the arguments that the institution of marriage is harmed by allowing gay folks to participate. No one mentions the word love in these debates. Why not I wonder?

I will get back to this, because, of course, it is an entirely reasonable question. But later. For now, let me say that the question has nothing to do with being "horrified by homosexuality." Unless, of course, one is horrified by something or anything that one thinks is wrong. I am not such. But, later. I am oppressed by paper.

The purpose of promoting "gay marriage" is to trivialize real marriage and thus hasten its demise. That would be a bad thing. We have too many unparented and badly parented young people causing trouble for themselves and others. All children need and deserve two parents - their own parents. "Gay marriage" is another strategy from the 1960s Pandora’s box to subvert the "bourgeois family".

This evades the question. No one is claiming that the demise of marriage would not be a "bad thing." What I want to see is some hard evidence that either the purpose or the effect of gay marriage is "to trivialize real marriage." Given the high divorce rates, I would say that marriage is already trivial in the minds of many; how expanding the institution to include gay men and lesbians will contribute to this escapes me.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/3495