Posted by Tina
I post the link below in light of the recent debate I’ve had with Chris regarding gay marriage. The article will take our readers to MIT where a doctoral student (financial economics) makes the case against gay marriage from a secular perspective. I must admit Adam Kolasinski articulates his position with more scholarly aplomb than I ever could, however the essence of his main argument matches mine and he also offers a rebuttal for many of the arguments Chris poses.
I give you “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” by Adam Kolasinski
Enjoy the read.
Another the-state-is-all-poweful-and-we-must-serve-it-before-our-own-needs pile of liberal CRAP!
Now there’s a can of worms for ya.
If first cousins are prohibited marriage so’s they won’t deliberately produce morons, what are to do to with Ms. Palin and the Santorums?
And what this has got to do with homosexual fellows, who necessarily adopt (or find themselves raising the produce of misalliances), I’m sure I don’t know.
And then we can discuss the degree to which heteros DO NOT hold marriage to be anything like a sacrament. Ask old RFK, Jr., about “in sickness and in health” … why don’t you.
It’s all one decidedly unholy muddle.
But I’m not having the State make miseries for any family units, howsoever they may be constituted. And as the heteros have entirely abrogated any claim to “the sanctity of marriage”, I say we issue civil credentials to whomsoever.
“If first cousins are prohibited marriage so’s they won’t deliberately produce morons, what are to do to with Ms. Palin and the Santorums?” Libby that kind of talk is beneath you and you just got done criticizing Romney’s campaign for even considering character attacks on Obama. I’m disappointed in you Libby, that was mean. We’ve gotta do better and set examples to get elections onto a higher plain.
The word is standard, Libby. If we don’t have them we can be certain human beings will seek the lowest threshold…indeed, our generation proposed that just a few short decades ago and we are living the result. the rate of brioken homes and kids basically raising themselves has exploded…high drug use and dropout rates and ignorance on the rise…not pretty!
Solve problems but do not destroy the basic building block for civil society.
Come on Jack, if Toby had made a joke like that about the Obamas, your response would be “Good one!” In fact, he has, and that’s exactly how you’ve replied. So your admonition of Libby is pretty hypocritical.
I’ll try and post a full response to Kolaskinski’s article tomorrow. You’ll be shocked to learn that I find it unconvincing.
Sorry Chris, but I was not being hypocritical. When Libby said, “f first cousins are prohibited marriage so’s they won’t deliberately produce morons, what are to do to with Ms. Palin and the Santorums?” That was an ugly comment. I don’t laugh at that stuff and neither should you.
“Libby that kind of talk is beneath you ….” No it isn’t. I was making a perfectly valid comparison, and pointing out the pointlessness of trying to legislate human relations, aka morality. Or more precisely, how very poorly we do it.
You tell me. How is it wrong for first cousins to knowingly produce a mental defective, but our Ms. Palin gets lauded. Makes no sense to me.
Libby your thinking about human life and the value of human life is a disgusting product of eugenics…Sanger’s, and her Nazi cousins’, desire to produce the Master race. That isn’t a path I care to put a single toe upon. Humans need laws that protect us from the evil that men can do.
Ms Palin didn’t marry her cousin nor did she “knowingly produce” a mental defective. She did step up to take on the challenge that her CHILD presented with love and grace, something that is decidedly absent in the hearless, cold, arrogant attitude of the eugenicist.
I seem to have not understood the reference to Sarah Palin’s son. Libby, that was too far. I know you were trying to make a point, but I don’t think your comparison works. We know that first cousins are likely to produce offspring with genetic and mental disorders. With Palin, I don’t think there was an easy way of knowing that this could occur.
There are also other reasons we do not allow close family relations to marry, which I will go into later.
Tina, your linkage of Margaret Sanger with Nazis is unfair and inaccurate. Sanger had some pretty problematic views, which Planned Parenthood now acknowledges, but she actually disagreed with both the goals and tactics of the eugenicist movement, and she did a lot of good for the black community. So much, in fact, that Martin Luther King, Jr. accepted the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood in 1966, and spoke very positively of Sanger in his acceptance speech, saying: At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cains-false-attack-on-planned-parenthood/
Tina, I don’t have time to respond to Kolasinski’s entire argument right now, but I hope you will watch this John Stewart interview of Zach Wahls, a twenty-year-old author who has written about his experiences growing up with two mothers. He has also spoken in front of the Iowa House Judiciary Committee opposing a ban on gay marriage. In his book he talks about the twelve core principles of the Boy Scouts, and outlines how he was raised in accordance with each of these principles. You will find him articulate, funny, and wise beyond his years. Please watch.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-30-2012/zach-wahls
“I seem to have not understood the reference to Sarah Palin’s son.”
No, you don’t. All the ladies have an amnio done, to count those chromosomes. Palin knew the boy would be Downs and chose not to abort … which puts her right in there with the first cousins.
And if this is how it’s going to be, why not the first cousins? Chris, tell me?
I just cannot abide all this ignorance and hypocrisy.
And you, Tina, you go out and found a non-profit to promote the marriage of first cousins, the produce of mental defectives (without, of course, funding any of them shamefully liberal social support services) … and your Anti-Nazi creds will be just sterling.
Fool.
Libby: “you go out and found a non-profit to promote the marriage of first cousins, the produce of mental defectives (without, of course, funding any of them shamefully liberal social support services) … and your Anti-Nazi creds will be just sterling.”
I see I hit a nerve! Which would be just terrible IF Sarah Palin and her husband were unmarried and asking the state to take on the care of their child. Since they are not it is NONE of your business one way or the other and it certainly has nothing to do with the law regarding first counsins.
Prevention is the purpose of denying first cousins the marriage bed…before the fact and in the case of high probability.
(The problem with “social support services” run by government is that they don’t support people in getting back on their feet and they invite people to sit on their butts and become useless dependents. Private charities do a much better job at uplifting people and with a lot more personal care.)
I’d close by saying, “Double fool” but that would be childish.
Chris I will watch the video if I can. My computer doesn’t seem to like video right now; it keeps shutting down. But I need to say, even without watching it, that I have NEVER expressed negative opinions about children being raised in gay or lesbian homes.
I keep saying, and you seem unable to grasp, that my position has to do with a standard I think is important. There will be those who do not fit within the standard as you have pointed out, but I think it is still important to that have and promote it, so that the majority of kids can be raised by their (responsible) adult parents, both mother and father.
Libby: “No, you don’t. All the ladies have an amnio done, to count those chromosomes. Palin knew the boy would be Downs and chose not to abort … which puts her right in there with the first cousins.”
I disagree; there’s a moral difference between “choosing not to abort” and choosing to marry someone whom you know you will likely produce children with harmful defects. Palin believes that life begins at conception, and that it is wrong to abort a child even if they have serious disorders. Even pro-choice women often choose not to abort for deeply personal reasons. I don’t think it’s right for you to judge her decision not to have an abortion, any more than it’s right for conservatives to judge women who do have abortions. And I think it’s pretty anti-feminist for you to do that.
“And if this is how it’s going to be, why not the first cousins? Chris, tell me?”
Honestly? I don’t really care whether marriage between first cousins is legal or not. You do realize that only about half the states in the union have strict prohibitions on this? In the rest, it’s either always or sometimes legal. And it’s much more common in other parts of the world. The chances of producing offspring with serious disorders are higher than usual, but they aren’t absolute. And it’s not something that most people in the United States would want to do, anyway.
I am against marriage between immediate family members, though, such as siblings, parent-children, and grandparents-grandchildren. Part of this is because of the likely effects this would have on children, but another reason has to do with what I see as the main purpose of marriage, which is making a non-related person into your closest family. “One man, one woman” hasn’t always been the standard of marriage; forming a family always has been. I’ll go into this more later.
“(The problem with “social support services” run by government is that they don’t support people in getting back on their feet and they invite people to sit on their butts and become useless dependents. Private charities do a much better job at uplifting people and with a lot more personal care.)”
As a person who just completed my Bachelor’s Degree and will be going into the teaching credential program next semester, due almost entirely to social support services, I can say that you’re wrong. I got as many scholarships as I could from private organizations, and I’m grateful for them, but they were chump change compared to the financial aid I get from the state. My family also gets food stamps, since my mom is basically raising my niece and not asking a dime of child support from either of her parents, who couldn’t pay it anyway. As you know, I also work at Wal-Mart when I’m not in school. My mom works for the school cafeteria a few hours a day, and hopefully she’ll move up soon. I am basically the main breadwinner of the family right now. Without FAFSA, I wouldn’t be going to college, period. I’d be working full-time at Wal-Mart and that would be my life. This way, I can get a teaching job which pays better and is more rewarding, and I’ll be able to contribute more to the economy later in life.
Tina: “But I need to say, even without watching it, that I have NEVER expressed negative opinions about children being raised in gay or lesbian homes.”
I understand that, Tina. But in the video, Zach Wahls explains that his family has faced serious consequences due to your cause of barring gay couples from marrying.
One of Wahls’ mothers, Terry, has MS. When her partner, Jackie, went to visit her in the emergency room in 2006, the hospital treated her like a stranger to Terry and she was not allowed in the room. As Wahls describes it, Terry had to suffer through one of the worst episodes of her life alone, because she could not legally marry the person she loved most solely because of her gender.
This is NOT an uncommon event, Tina. I can’t count how many stories I have heard like this from LGBT people.
I don’t know what’s in your heart. You may not be motivated by any animus toward gay people at all. But as I’ve said before, I care about effects, not intent. You might find it comforting to know that your opposition is not based on hatred. But it’s probably not all that comforting to Jackie and Terry, or anyone else affected by the policies you favor. These policies do real harm to real people. And I find that much more compelling than the hypothetical harm that conservatives claim will be caused if we let these people get married.
But while we’re talking about intent and animus, I think you might find these stories disturbing. In the past month, no less than three North Carolina pastors from different parts of the state have been caught on tape using eliminationist rhetoric, advocating violence and legal punishment toward gays and lesbians in front of their congregation.
Charles L. Worley, of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C.:
“I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers,” Worley told churchgoers on May 13. “Build a great big large fence50 or 100 mile longput all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. And you know what, in a few years, they’ll die out. Do you know why? They can’t reproduce!”
“It makes me pukin’ sick to think about,” Worley added. “Can you imagine kissing some man?”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pastor-delivers-anti-gay-rant-suggests-building-electric-142753831.html
In an audio tape, Worley is also heard advocating lynching LGBT people, saying, “Forty years ago [LGBT people] would’ve hung, bless God, from a white oak tree!”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/22/north-carolina-anti-gay-pastor-gays-hanging_n_1537410.html?ref=mostpopular
Ron Baity, founding pastor of Winston-Salem’s Berean Baptist Church, advocates going back to making homosexuality a crime:
“For 300 years, we had laws that would prosecute that lifestyle,” he is quoted as saying. “We’ve gone down the wrong path.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/ron-baity-north-carolina-pastor-amendment-one-gay-marriage_n_1497741.html
Pastor Sean Harris of the Barean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, N.C. advocates child abuse as a corrective measure to target any sign of homosexual tendencies:
“Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male. And when your daughter starts acting too butch, you reign [sic] her in. And you say, ‘Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.'”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/north-carolina-pastor-sea_n_1468618.html?ref=mostpopular
Last week, Tina, you said that most of the hatred and intolerance you see comes from the gay lobby. Do you still think this is true? Have gays used their platform to call for state-sanctioned violence against heterosexuals or Christians? Have they argued that we all need to be quarantined and forced to die off? Have they argued in favor of lynching us? I haven’t heard it.
You say you are not acting out of bigotry, but do you recognize that many who oppose same-sex marriage clearly are? I think you, as an opponent of same-sex marriage who claims not to be bigoted, have a responsibility to call out those opponents who do use bigotry to achieve their goals. You need to understand why people often assume that bigotry is the motivation of SSM opponents. Gay people often face this kind of verbal abuse on a routine basis. Many of them grew up in households that took the abusive advice of Pastor Harris. Many of them have faced violence from others out in the world.
“I keep saying, and you seem unable to grasp, that my position has to do with a standard I think is important. There will be those who do not fit within the standard as you have pointed out, but I think it is still important to that have and promote it, so that the majority of kids can be raised by their (responsible) adult parents, both mother and father.”
I understand this as well, but I don’t think you have made a convincing case that the standard of “one man one woman” is a) necessary or b) constitutional. I don’t think it is either of those things. You have admitted that this standard is not based on ability to reproduce; it’s based solely on gender. But the Supreme Court has ruled several times that laws based solely on gender, without any other compelling state interest, are unconstitutional.
But we’re not talking about Palin. We’re talking about making rules that regulate marriage. And I’m trying to get you guys past all this “visceral reaction stuff” and see that the “moral” justifications for all this are … shall we say … inconsistent.
You and Tina going all off on Ms. Sanger and who does or does not get an anmio (Sarah did) is just an unwillingness to address the core issue … and annoying.
Libby: “But we’re not talking about Palin. We’re talking about making rules that regulate marriage.”
OK, so what kind of rule would you find equivalent to bans on cousin-marriage, that would apply in Palin’s case? Dissolving marriages such as Palin’s upon discovering the wife is carrying a fetus with serious problems? Forced abortion? Mandatory amnio on all pregnant women, then forced annulment and/or abortion? Preventing anyone who might have the slightest chance of delivering an unhealthy child from marrying? Forced sterilization for these people? Because I think all of these measures would go far beyond bans on cousin-marriage, and I think there is a huge moral difference.
I am pretty sure your main argument is that we shouldn’t ban first-cousin marriage, in which case, I agree with you. (But maybe that’s just because I’m an “Arrested Development” fan, and find George Michael and Maeby disturbingly adorable.)
“And I’m trying to get you guys past all this “visceral reaction stuff” and see that the “moral” justifications for all this are … shall we say … inconsistent.”
That’s a good thing to do, and I thank you for it. It isn’t wise to base policy on visceral reaction–that way lies discrimination and bigotry. I think it’s hard for most people to morally justify bans on incestuous marriages without basing them entirely on visceral reaction, or bad arguments such as the naturalistic fallacy. But I think if one sees marriage as a way of constructing a new family–something I think it’s always arguably been, and something I think is the main purpose of marriage in the U.S. today–then I think there are valid, logical, non-visceral reasons to prohibit close relations (not cousins) from marrying.
Chris: “As a person who just completed my Bachelor’s Degree…say that you’re wrong…family situation)
Chris I get it…you are doing the best you can and I commend you for it. However you are also the exception. It would be helpful if you could think beyond your own situation because for every one like you there is a thousand (or more) not at all like you. Many of them are third, fourth, or fifth generation welfare recipients and they are not likely to finish high school, something we offer for free, much less college. Most are likely to have several children out of wedlock; children that will be raised without a father in the home. After generations the population is less educated, less prepared to assume adult responsibilities, and more likely to engage in crime and substance abuse. Teaching the children of these “families” is much more difficult for the teachers. It cost the taxpayers more and more for services, prisons, police, and education. So although it is nice that you get have the education you want with less stress, you do not represent the problem I refer to with social programs. The fact that you do not does not change the fact that this is a problem and more money spent in government run services programs will not reverse the damaging trend to these poor souls or to our society as a whole.
“But in the video, Zach Wahls explains that his family has faced serious consequences due to your cause of barring gay couples from marrying.”
My cause? Oh please! I have an opinion. It is as valid as yours. I express it on this discussion blog. You do the same. Aren’t you being a bit dramatic?
Families of all kinds face serious consequences every single day. They deal with the problems as best they can. They make choices. It’s called being human and stepping up as a responsible adult. Life is hard.
“As Wahls describes it, Terry had to suffer through one of the worst episodes of her life alone, because she could not legally marry the person she loved most solely because of her gender.”
They must live in a very backwards town. When my daughter was in the hospital with a broken back in two places the hospital was very helpful and allowed anyone that my daughter wanted to see visit her no questions asked. there were two recliners in the room and nobody asked questions about who was sleeping in them. Not all hospitals are the same but I’m sure that unless blood family members were involved and being hostile, causing the hospital a problem, in most cases what the patient wants would be honored. A similar situation might happen with a stepfather. People in these situations need to find out about hospital rules and make an accommodation…create a legal document expressing their wishes. They also need to handle relationships with other family members.
“These policies do real harm to real people.”
But the problems are not insurmountable. The problems are not unlike problems other people have and civil unions address most of them.
I don’t think I need to be held accountable for what pastors are saying in their churches and I don’t think those pastors have anything to do with my arguments. Once again this is an emotional appeal intended to paint gays as victims. However, they do not take any responsibility for creating the controversy! By mounting a fairly militant cause to change the definition of marriage against teachings found in the Bible, they have brought much of this on themselves. Complaining that they are now encountering strong resistance is silly…they had to have known they would.
I certainly would not want to be a member of those churches and would never condone hateful or violent messages. But I also know that it’s hard to watch the gay community assault marriage. Marriage is something I personally hold as sacred, a solemn commitment made by a man and a woman to each other but more importantly to future children. As a citizen I consider it an important institution for the stability of our society.
Out of time…will continue later.
Tina: “My cause? Oh please! I have an opinion. It is as valid as yours. I express it on this discussion blog. You do the same. Aren’t you being a bit dramatic?”
No, I’m confronting you with an inconvenient truth. And I don’t think there’s a moral equivalence here. I am not using my opinion to deny people legal rights and protections. You are. My support of gay marriage harms no one. Your opposition to gay marriage harms a lot of people. Of course it’s not just you, you share the responsibility with a lot of other people. But you need to be aware of the harms your cause does to people. That won’t necessarily cause you to change your opinion, but at least you’d be basing your opinion on more information.
“Families of all kinds face serious consequences every single day. They deal with the problems as best they can. They make choices. It’s called being human and stepping up as a responsible adult. Life is hard.”
The problem with this logic is that there are very easy things you can do to help people avoid the harms I’m talking about.
“They must live in a very backwards town…”
Tina, this statement just goes to show how uninformed you are on this issue, and how little thought you have given to the unique challenges faced by LGBT people. As I said before, incidents like this are VERY common for same-sex couples. They occur all across the nation.
From the New York Times:
“When a loved one is in the hospital, you naturally want to be at the bedside. But what if the staff wont allow it?
Thats what Janice Langbehn, a social worker in Lacey, Wash., says she experienced when her partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond, collapsed with an aneurysm during a Florida vacation and was taken to a Miami trauma center. She died there, at age 39, as Ms. Langbehn tried in vain to persuade hospital officials to let her visit, along with the couples adopted children.
I have this deep sense of failure for not being at Lisas bedside when she died, Ms. Langbehn said. How I get over that I dont know, or if I ever do.
The case, now the subject of a federal lawsuit in Florida, is being watched by gay rights groups, which say same-sex partners often report being excluded from a patients room because they arent real family members.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html
When Democrats passed a law stating that hospitals were required to extend visitation rights to same-sex couples, Gov. Scott Walker opposed it:
“Madison Gov. Scott Walker believes a new law that gives gay couples hospital visitation rights violates the state constitution and has asked a judge to allow the state to stop defending it.
Democrats who controlled the Legislature in 2009 changed the law so that same-sex couples could sign up for domestic partnership registries with county clerks to secure some but not all of the rights afforded married couples.
Wisconsin Family Action sued last year in Dane County circuit court, arguing that the registries violated a 2006 amendment to the state constitution that bans gay marriage and any arrangement that is substantially similar.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wisconsin-governor-moves-to-block-hospital-visitation-rights-for-same-sex-couples/
Tina: “People in these situations need to find out about hospital rules and make an accommodation…”
You have a tendency to presume you know more about people’s personal lives than they themselves do. In the case of Lisa Pond and Janice Langbehn, they were on vacation and had to go to an emergency room in a city and state they were not familiar with. To say that they had the responsibility to find out what the hospital’s rules were before Langbehn started dying, when the hospital’s rules are discriminatory, cruel and absurd, is deeply insensitive of you to say the least.
“create a legal document expressing their wishes.”
Why do you think it’s reasonable to tell same-sex couples that they must draw up a million different contracts just to secure SOME of the rights of marriage (they can never secure ALL of them without a federally recognized marriage), when they could just get a marriage license and be done with it?
If I recall, you’ve said before that you don’t care if gay couples get all the rights and benefits associated with marriage…as long as it’s not called marriage. Is that an accurate characterization of your current position? If so then we’re just arguing over semantics, which strikes me as very unproductive.
“But the problems are not insurmountable.”
Right. The problems can easily be solved by legalizing gay marriage.
“The problems are not unlike problems other people have and civil unions address most of them.”
No, they don’t. Partners have been turned away from hospitals after showing proof that they are in a civil union. It’s not hard to look this stuff up.
“Once again this is an emotional appeal intended to paint gays as victims.”
It’s showing the REALITY that in this debate, gay people are the primary victims of bigotry and intolerance. To deny this is to be willfully blind.
“However, they do not take any responsibility for creating the controversy! By mounting a fairly militant cause to change the definition of marriage against teachings found in the Bible, they have brought much of this on themselves. Complaining that they are now encountering strong resistance is silly…they had to have known they would.”
I find this argument repugnant. You could use the same exact logic to minimize turning the firehoses on peaceful Civil Rights protesters in the 60s, or the backlash against the women’s suffrage movement. These people were advocating change to a system, sure; but they were not “aggressors,” and they did not “create the controversy.” The controversy was created when they were denied rights. The activists were demanding what was rightfully theirs, and standing up to unjust, oppressive systems that denied them equal treatment. Just as gays are doing today.
But you reveal yourself when you say that gays are trying to “change the definition of marriage against teachings found in the Bible.” I thought the topic here was “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage?” Does it really come down to your wish to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of America?
“I certainly would not want to be a member of those churches and would never condone hateful or violent messages.”
But you will blame the minorities over the groups in power in almost every case.
“But I also know that it’s hard to watch the gay community assault marriage. Marriage is something I personally hold as sacred, a solemn commitment made by a man and a woman to each other but more importantly to future children. As a citizen I consider it an important institution for the stability of our society.”
And I assure you that many gay people find marriage just as important and sacred as you do, if not more so. Otherwise they wouldn’t fight so hard for it.
I’m worried at this rate I might never get around to addressing the point of this article, which is “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage;” hopefully tomorrow.
I have to go back to this statement of yours, Tina, because it’s so significant:
“But I also know that it’s hard to watch the gay community assault marriage.”
I think you perceive it as an “assault” on marriage because you have a very exclusive worldview. Honestly, you remind me of the people who feel violated when blacks are allowed into the country club. A lot of people used to view interracial marriage as an “assault” on marriage as well. Some still do.
There are plenty of people in opposite-sex marriages who are deeply committed and place a high value on their marriages, and yet do not see same-sex couples getting married as some kind of assault. Many of these couples think that gays should have the exact same rights as they do. Can you explain to these couples why you think they are wrong?
“I’m worried at this rate I might never get around to addressing the point of this article, which is “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage;” hopefully tomorrow.”
You know what, why don’t you do that; just go for it. We have been over this many times and there is no sense in repeating. Have fun with Mr. Kolasinski, I’ll be moving on now.
Lord, you will go off.
Chris I think you have a very exclusive sense of yourself as all knowing and wise.
I have already explained my position…ad nauseum. I imagine we are both beginning to bore our readers to death.
However I must add…it is not my position that those who disagree with me are wrong…or right. I have no ninterest in being right. I have engaged here, in conversation, not in to the death debate.
It is my opinion that the state should support and encourage marriage as between a man and a woman for the reasons previously stated. It is my opinion that marriage is an obligation and not a right (even though a court indicated it might be a right). It is my opinion that gays instigated a fight when they chose to press for (to the death apparently) a change in the definition and meaning of marriage. They are therefore, in my opinion, the “agressor” in this fight and as such can be said to have launched an “assault” on the traditional meaning and definition of marriage. It only makes sense to me that deeply religious people would be offended by this it makes sense that people who hold a strong opinion about the potential for children, marriage, and obligation would also be concerned. To deny this and act like gays are the victim in the fight is just plain silly!
Be well and prosper.
Tina, I just have to correct one thing you said and then I’ll let it rest.
“It is my opinion that marriage is an obligation and not a right (even though a court indicated it might be a right).”
That’s three incredible understatements in one sentence.
“A” court did not “indicate” that marriage “might” be a right.
The Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a right in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that overturned bans on interracial marriage. Many court decisions since then have referenced this decision, sometimes in cases which affirmed that the right to marry applies even to people in prison.
Since the SC has ruled that marriage is a right, the government must provide a VERY compelling state interest whenever they try to curtail that right. As many judges have found, this has not been done by SSM opponents.