facebook

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

« Depressed Musings on Our Corpocracy | Main | Consuming Animals, the Episcopal Cafe, and the General Conference »

02/14/2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fitz

In your original querry about the NYT piece you ask...

"I am genuinely puzzled about how exactly the argument would go. I wonder whether once it is made explicit, once it is spelled out, the argument--whatever it is--will look plausible."

Such arguments should not be taken out of the very real social and intellectual climate of our times.

It seems a very small subset of those arguing for same-sex "marriage" are advocating it as a social ideal for gay men & women.(Rauch and others)

Rather they simply want the right and not the culture.

TYhe vast majority of those advocating for same-sex "marriage" have called traditional marriage archaic and patriarchal and actively wish to see its demise as a normative social instiution.

I could quote these numerous sorces, influential academics, groups and so forth; but is their really such a need?

Now comes a NYT article that says few embrace monogomy within same-sex "marriage". So even those few same-sex couples who do get "married" dont practice it's norms.

The idea is that the core consitutive elements of marriage will only be eroded further by the foes of this instiution under same-sex "marriage".

tom van dyke

I don't know whether "SSM represent[s] changes to marriage beyond the gender of the participants …”

Since Article II of the 14th Amendment explicitly recognizes distinctions based on gender

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

..would it be a legitimate argument to say that a one-man/one-woman limitation on marriage is not incompatible with the 14th?

Just asking, and this seems a good place to do it. Best wishes for the success of the blog.

Justin Nichols

In response to Fitz's comment, I find it curious that in a nation with a better than 50% divorce rate he believes marital fidelity to be one of marriage's "norms."

As a heterosexual married man I also take exception to the idea that all proponents of allowing same sex marriage "actively wish to see its demise as a normative social institution." I certainly don't feel that my marriage is somehow degraded by allowing same-sex couples to share the title, any more than by an unfaithful heterosexual marriage.

Given how poorly heterosexual baby boomers have treated the institution, I'm not sure that homosexuals could do any worse.

Fitz


Justin (writes)
"Given how poorly heterosexual baby boomers have treated the institution, I'm not sure that homosexuals could do any worse."

This is hardly a reason to debase it further.

Indeed it is a good point, but in a way you may not be aware..

Before "no-fault" divorce was being debated a common refrain was - "What do two people getting divorced have to do with YOUR marriage"

This micro to macro elision reveals the intellectual vacume too many people operate on.

Same-sex marriage will lock in and reinforce the idea that all family forms are inherently equel, that fathers dont matter and that adult want is more important than childrens needs.

Justin Nichols

I certainly would argue that all marriages between two consenting adults are inherently equal. I don't quite follow how that means fathers don't matter; male-male marriages would have two, ostensibly.

As to your contention that children are somehow being damaged or cheated by same-sex parenting pairs, the objective peer-reviewed studies tell a different story. To use your phrase, "I could quote these numerous sorces, influential academics, groups and so forth; but is their really such a need?"

I would give a more extensive argument against the idea that same-sex marriage is going to damage the institution here, but in the interest of saving space and shamelessly plugging my own work, I feel this article does the argument better justice, http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/31-3-591.pdf

The comments to this entry are closed.