Getting to this original blog post I went through Professor [Stephen] Bainbridge's blog, where the blogger opined:
Living in sin is bad enough. Living in sin with fake fairy godmother Sandra Lee is beyond the pale.That seemed a little harsh.
I remember when I was station at Bitburg AB, in Germany, we had a Wing Commander who was canned for moving a young chippy in with him after his divorce. As I recall, he had already had a successful tour as Wing King at Hahn AB, somewhat East of us. He was destined for stars, and thought he was bullet proof. For those who wonder, it was not Ms Hester Prynne, although that is about the right time frame.
Hat tip to the Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
7 comments:
I have a hard time with statements like "One of the great social problems of the current epoch is the failure of men and women to marry". Says who??? Has anyone done a study to establish the scurrility quotient of Cuomo's supposed unpardonable affront to human decency, compared to, let's say, John Warner becoming Liz Taylor's sixth out of eight? (So far).
This "marriage" obsession among certain conservatives is a farce. If we can all agree that family is a critical social unit, especially for the rearing of children, then red herrings like this "marriage" debate only serve to further obscure the larger and more important issue.
You can't have it both ways. Opposing gay marriage, as many of these marriage-obsessed folks do, opposes stable family units, just as surely as opposition to un-government-sanctioned cohabitation is hypocritical in the face of serial divorce.
My properly conservative grandmother used to tell me in situations like these to always mind my own personal business, and to encourage others to do the same. She'd insist Mr. Vecchione take the example.
I think we need to do away with Governor Mansions.
I'm not sure what to make of the 'famously Catholic' remark. Famous Catholics becomes Saints, not media celebrities.
kad, As a marriage advocate, I'm not a fan of no-fault/serial divorces either. It's not about perfection, but rather we know what's ideal for each person born. We know it's easier, when mom and dad get along under the same roof. Since we know how babies are made, we encourage stable relationships between a man and a woman. We want to promote that, even in our public policy.
As my children's friends, sometimes we're one of the few families that are intact in their lives? It's not that I judge them, but rather single parents want their children to know, yeah, it's unfortunate that I'm not with your mom/dad, some couples can make it and are happy to know there are some marriages that can survive.
Pardon me, but I find "we know what's ideal for each person born" to be an even more troubling statement than the "great social problem" canard. You do not know, nor do I know, and certainly do not any proverbial "we", what is ideal for other individuals. We may feel and believe that stable families are better than not as a matter of broad demographics, and we may choose such for ourselves, but promoting that end should not extend to criticisms of individuals for their personal choices, and can not be pushed to the extreme of bureaucratic requirement without tearing down the very social fabric it is intended to save. (See the results of prohibition for one moralistic example).
A good example leads best. A bad public policy corrupts worst.
Excuse me... But I find it troubling you find such a statement so troubling. The fact is there is absolutely nothing troubling with what I said, Do I have to repeat?
"It's not about perfection, but rather we know what's ideal for each person born. We know it's easier, when mom and dad get along under the same roof. Since we know how babies are made, we encourage stable relationships between a man and a woman. We want to promote that, even in our public policy. "
The freak'in horror, I said 'we encourage stable relationships between a man and a woman.'. All laws are judgments, all laws are forms of morality. I'm not tearing down any social fabric, by merely stating the honest and truthful statement of human sexuality, that should hold value in a civilized society. It's base on sound reason.
Whether it was marriage prep at my parish, or currently working with Department of Children & Families with their Foster Care Review unit, that's where I place my community service to see what I can do so children can be raised by their parents in a healthy and stable home.
So yeah, I'm a little hurt you find my statement 'troubling'. It's not proverbial, at all, it's what should be and as a community it's the standard we what men and women to behave as.
So here I am in the middle.
If we are all materialists—and we are, aren't we; Darwin and all that—then we realize that it's all about the Selfish Gene.
As Kad notes, marriage "is a critical social unit". Marriage is both a solution and a test.
Since the instinct to reproduce is in charge and society is just a social construct for how to best manage that instinct, we find that in most societies marriage is the solution for raising children. While the Sec State gave us It Takes a Village, we haven't had that village for several decades, thus making the family more important.
The test part is that the family status is the number one indicator of future success. Are your natural parents still living together? Adopted children struggle a little more than natural children. That is why in the past we often worked to keep adoption a secret from the adoptee.
Divorce is a reality. My parents divorced. Serial polygamy exists, but yet we deny parallel polygamy.
But, easy divorce is something new, brought to us via California Assembly Representative Jim Hayes. He is the father of "No Fault" divorce, from the late 1960s.
People exist on a spectrum. In one or another the Selfish Gene may have gone off in a different direction. Or, it may have misunderstood the best way to achieve its end.
At the same time, there is concern on the part of some (including me) that marriage as we have understood it, is in trouble. How much variation can we have before the system goes divergent? I don't know and tend to be conservative (in the sense that I don't wish to test the limits) about this issue.
The voters of New York are free to elect anyone they wish, but when you are a leader there are, IMHO certain expectations. I am disappointed in the Governor that he would encourage by his own example "living in sin". He and his girl friend likely have the maturity to execute this well. A lot of folks don't and should not be encouraged to try this kind of thing.
And, yes, I do support mansions for governors. I think it is not a good thing that the Commonwealth's Governor must rent space from the General Court. If not a mansion, how about at least an office in a separate building.
Regards — Cliff
Go ahead and repeat, Renee. Do you really know what is best for me? Do you? Do you even know me? Do you know what is best for every man, woman and child in this country? Do you know them, too? Really?
You cannot run to hide behind other qualifying statements. You expressed the belief that some sort of proverbial "we" is qualified to stand in judgment of the family choices made by everyone else in this country. That is, prima facie, offensive to me. It's also unconstitutional the way I read our founding document.
I cannot be forced to marry, and you cannot be forced to divorce. That we may both agree that a stable family unit is an important social construct does not change the limit to our influence over the lives of others.
The governor, as badly as we may construe his personal choice, has every right to cohabit with whom he chooses. Our right, or rather, more accurately, the right of the People of New York, is to vote him out of office.
If anyone would like to promote marriage and stable family units, I'd say that was their right and moral obligation. There is a vast difference between promotion of one concept, and attack on another. You have presumed the right to attack, and I say that's arrogant, presumptuous, based on unconstitutional rhetoric, and, not uncoincidentally, contrary to Jesus' teaching in the Bible--judge not that ye may be not judged, or something like that depending on your translation.
You all talk as if Common Law marriage is without Christ. There is no Christian Marriage without Common Law--at least in a particular Protestant perspective.
Post a Comment