For John, BLUF: Gay Squirrel. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Mr Andrew Klavan, of Pajamas Media, offers an alternative, and very Episcopalian, view on the rulings by SCOTUS yesterday.
The takeaway:
I believe the advent of no-fault divorce gutted marriage of any beneficent legal meaning, and so the government should simply get out of the business altogether and leave the whole thing to contract law and church ceremony.Exactly. Thanks to Assemblyman Jim Hayes.
Regards — Cliff
4 comments:
Thank You.
I've been having a diversity of conversations. Some great back and forth, but I'm worried.
I could cite law journals from 2006, a sponsored bill by Senator Obama back in 2007, even a court opinion from New York in 2006, the UN rights of children, anthropological kinship models, and numerous studies how fractured non-intact families affect children.
When you encounter a response of "i really hate the argument that marriage is all about the children"
Really, what can you do?
I can give you all the compelling reasons, who I have to acknowledge that a relationship between a man and a woman is objective different and why we need to tailor public policy on this different. It doesn't matter, to them it is just a hidden personal agenda against homosexuals.
As a Catholic puts it.
"You know, marriage was not redefined today. There are two very important reasons for this. One is that marriage cannot be redefined any more than the law of gravity can be redefined. These are things that can be described, but not changed because we find that they do not suit us. We can redefine different types of relationships, we can assign various legal statuses (stati?) to relationships, but marriage is not something that we get to make up what it is or is not."
"The redefinition that really concerns me is that my view on this can now redefine me as a bigot and a hater."
----------
Remember it isn't 'a church thing' it is a public policy thing and President Obama up to earlier this year understood this very well. I still believe the President still understands this, but the gay lobby has control of the podium and our President's authentic voice on marriage and family has been censored.
Andrew Sullivan wrote "A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage" back in 1989. (Recently reprinted with his permission by Slate). Here's the link: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/gay_marriage_votes_and_andrew_sullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.html
"It's one of the richest ironies of our society's blind spot toward gays that essentially conservative social goals should have the appearance of being so radical".
Kad, I saw marriage as a social justice issue, specifically for children. A conservative view from 1989, would mean little. I approached marriage from a liberal ideal of 'common good'.
Kad, and that is what so messed up. Liberals took the selfish model of marriage, and not the communal based one.
For those who have or still believe the government should promote male/female model, it comes from an objective view that a mom a dad are equal.
Without marriage, the mother becomes the gate keeper solely deciding the role if she wishes the dad to play. Dads are pushed out and fade away.
When the goal of marriage was redefined, it also falsely redefined me as a 'bigot'. I have close family members who can't understand why I don't support gay rights, when I have no problem with homosexuality.
The rights if adults end at the needs of children. Marriage was to be seen as an obligation, one of free will, so in the community we promote it. Not for the wedding gifts, but yeah... for the children.
Post a Comment