FIC Action’s “Let the People Decide” Press Conference Tomorrow
January 30th, 2007 by Peter
On Sunday the Connecticut Post ran your standard MSM paint-by-numbers article on same-sex “marriage”: 1) Uncritically report stories by same-sex activists who claim to suffer harms which can only be remedied by redefining marriage. 2) Quote Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) implying that anyone who disagrees is a bigot. 3) Leave the impression that only “the Roman Catholic Church” opposes same-sex “marriage.”
That said, the piece did provide some interesting coverage on the legislative strategy of our opponents:
Legislative supporters say the proposal will at least receive a public hearing and possibly a vote in the powerful Judiciary Committee, which would then bring it to the House and Senate for debate…[Anne Stanback] said this year’s lobbying strategy will focus on the stories of Connecticut families who feel shortchanged by the civil-union law…
She said the civil-union statute, like many legislative compromises, produced unintended consequences. “We have had stories of people who’ve gone to Connecticut hospitals and said they were civilly unionized and the hospital officials they spoke with didn’t understand,” Stanback said, admitting that the verb doesn’t flow off the tongue as easily as “marriage.” Some gay partners have found their health benefits were unexpectedly taxed by the IRS, she said. State teachers have complained that some partners can’t take advantage of the federal family leave law for illness or to tend for a new child because the federal government doesn’t recognize Connecticut’s civil-union law.
But same-sex “marriage” would not change any of this because it, too, is not recognized by the federal government. Even Rep. Lawlor admits as much (before quickly changing the subject). More:
Even if a gay-marriage bill fails, Lawlor said the issue should be debated, because the more Connecticut talks about gay rights, the more legislation is eventually approved.
“It is what it is and we might as well call it marriage,” Lawlor said. “This year, at a minimum, there will be a lot of public education about what’s at stake.”
Anti-family activists are about to waste the legislature’s time on a bill they know will likely fail, which the governor says she will veto and which, even if it were passed, would not give same-sex couples a single new “right” they do not already have.
The definition of marriage is too important to be left to the politicians or the courts. FIC Action will hold a press conference tomorrow morning (Wednesday, January 31) in room 1C of the Legislative Office Building at 10:00 to call for a non-binding referendum on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Brian Brown will be on the Dan Lovallo show today at 4:30 to discuss why we should Let the People Decide the future of marriage.
While allowing a gay couple to marry under state law may not have any implications with respect to how certain benefits are taxed (I won’t pretend to know enough about this to opine), your dismissive statement that “same-sex ‘marriage’ would not change any of this because it, too, is not recognized by the federal government” is, I think, at best an overstatement.
If hospitals are confused by the legal impact of civil unions and, therefore, are not allowing a partner to participate in healthcare decisions when their partner is for whatever reason incompetent, this is a significant issue. It is also an issue that would change if marriage were permitted (as opposed to limiting gay couples to civil unions). The physicians and risk managers understand pretty clearly the role that a spouse is permitted to play in consenting to medical treatment in the event of incompetence. It is also an important issue in respecting the dignity of all people.
So, allowing marriage might not solve all the problems, but it would certainly help significantly with some pretty critical ones.
Nowhere in that Post article did anybody call anyone a bigot. Are you reading a different article than the rest of us, Peter?
Lisa, nowhere did I say that anybody “called” anyone a bigot. I did say it was “implied,” which is what I gather from Rep. Lawlor’s frequent assertion that the only real motivation for opposing same-sex “marriage” is an animus toward homosexuals or homosexuality.
And Simon, that “civilly unionized” doesn’t trip off the tongue is hardly a reason to redefine society’s understanding of marriage. Your concerns about what hospitals do and don’t understand can be addressed without same-sex “marriage.”
Peter,
I understand your point, but I am not sure that you are right. I don’t think that Hospitals are confused because the term “civilly unionized” is more than a mouthful. I think it is because anything less than a marriage is just that, less than a marriage. Could we (i) create a civil institution that is in every way identical to a marriage other than the moniker, (ii)spend lots of time, money and effort getting the message out that these civilly unionized folks are married, but by a different name, and then (iii) hope that there is no perceived difference that results in confusion in how people interpret the rights of the civilly unionized with respect to each other and their children? I guess we could do that. Or we could just (i) call it a marriage. The latter seems the sensible route.
Of course, I am not considering that the following would likely occur as a result: (i) the institution of marriage as we know it would collapse (the divorce rate might even approach 50%, oh wait, too late), (ii) the children of gay parents would become gay themselves and probably become otherwise deviant, and (iii) the rest of society would quickly crumble in its wake, I don’t see any other problems.
Simon, I could not disagree more with your assertion that changing the title of civil unions is “the sensible route” to resolving what the Post reports are problems associated with that title. Firstly, I am not convinced that the problems reported actually exist to a degree that merrits any attention. How hard can it be to explain to someone what a civil union is, which is *all* of the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage that the state has the power to grant. Secondly, you rationalize your response with what appear to be claims that marriage is not being harmed, that children of homosexual parents are not at risk of developing similar behaviors, and that society will not be adversely impacted by changing the definition of marriage.
I often am asked for proof that my concerns, which you dismiss, have merit. This strikes me as turning logic on its head. The burden of proof falls squarely on those who want to change a key social institution that has been tested and refined by millennia of human experience. Accordingly, I invite you to provide proof of your assertions. I will simply note the following:
i) Citing the high divorce rate as justification for allowing further erosion of the traditional institution of marriage is akin to pulling the plug on a sick patient because they are, uh, sick.
ii) A large body or research indicates that children tend to believe and behave like their parents. Given that homosexuals tend to have significantly higher rates of domestic violence, drug abuse, and other behavioral issues, that does not bode well for their children.
iii) Unmaintained buildings do not “quickly crumble.” They fall apart bit by bit over time. The effects of a significant change in the nature of marriage are not likely to be manifested immediately. Researchers are only now becoming able to measure the effects of liberalization of marriage and divorce laws that occurred several decades ago. I wonder if in the future some other Simon will cite the much higher divorce rate among homosexuals, and the low marriage rate among future men and women those who think marriage is meaningless, as justification for abolishing marriage altogether.
But, as I said, the burden of proof is not on those who defend millennia-tested social norms. It is on those who want to change them. Again, I invite you to provide proof of your assertions.
Simon, I just found the following research summary on NARTH.com regarding the impact of family environment on the sexual development of children:
“(‘Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes,’ by Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid, Archives of Sexual Behavior Oct 13, 2006; [E-publication ahead of print])
“A major study is about to be published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior, which provides striking new evidence for the influence of childhood family factors on sexual-orientation development.
“The study used a population-based sample of 2,000,355 native-born Danes between the ages of 18 and 49. Denmark — a country noted for its tolerance of a wide variety of alternative lifestyles, including homosexual partnerships, and the first country to legalize gay marriage.
“With access to the ‘virtually complete registry coverage of the entire Danish population,’ the study sample therefore lacked the problematic selection bias that has plagued many previous studies on sexual orientation.
. . .
“‘Whatever ingredients determine a person’s sexual preferences and marital choices,’ conclude the study’s authors, ‘our population-based study shows that parental interactions are important.'”
Why in the world are people like Stanback and Simon referring to being “civilly unionized?”
After all, do married people refer to themselves as “marriageized?”
p.s.— in case it is not obvious to everyone, the logical phrase for those who have a “civil union” is that they are united civilly.
Frankly, those who complain that the term is awkward are (bottom-line) upset that there may be an uncomfortable response by those working in hospitals, etc.
No matter what the relationship is called, millions of Americans will never accept it as ‘normal and natural.’ That acceptance cannot be forced, no matter what legislation or judicial rulings are imposed upon the public, due to activists lobbying unrepresentative legislators and judges.
“nowhere did I say that anybody “called” anyone a bigot. I did say it was “implied,” which is what I gather from Rep. Lawlor’s frequent assertion that the only real motivation for opposing same-sex “marriage” is an animus toward homosexuals or homosexuality.”
You’re trying to deny an animus towards homosexuality???
Read the sentence again, Chele. I am denying that “the only real motivation” for protecting the traditional definition of marriage is an animus toward homosexuality.
NaCn
The fact that you cite to NARTH (for those unfamiliar with the acronym, it is the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) says it all. Anyone who thinks Homosexuals need therapy (other than perhaps therapy for dealing with the hostile and vitriolic rhetoric coming from the right) is starting fro a point of an incredibly offensive bias. Not sure if you are supportive of their mission, but if you are, a meaningful debate would be unrealistic.
I don’t want to offend anyone, and I’ll admit that I should learn more about Narth before saying this, but it appears that their premise is bigoted from the get go.
Oh well.
And one more thing, the notion that the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that homosexuals won’t have a negaitve impact on the institution of marriage or children that they raise (if that is what you are suggesting) because I support the reform of a key social institution is really beyond the pale. When people advocated for the change of slavery (clearly a key social institution), who should have had the burden of proof? Women’s suffrage? Civil Rights? Where does the burden lie? I find your reasoning (if you can call it that) to be outrageous and offensive.
I see, Peter.
You’re claiming animus isn’t the “only real motivation.” Thanks for not denying the animus exists.
I think if you were truly honest with yourself you’d realize that it actually is the only real motivation; everything else is just camouflage.
Simon,
I am disappointed in your response. It is just rhetoric. It is void of fact-based analysis. I invited you to provide proof of your assertions and you responded with . . . nothing. (Vituperation does not count.)
I was heartened by your frank admission that you “should learn more about [NARTH].” You should. But I was immediately disappointed again by your flippant dismissal of them. Regardless of whether you like NARTH, the research was not done by them. I hope you are not dismissing good research solely because you don’t like the messenger.
Many men and women suffer with *unwanted* same-sex attraction. NARTH was organized to support their right to therapy to reduce or remove those unwanted feelings. Would you deny them that opportunity, which has proven successful for many? Are you claiming that the thousands of ex-homosexuals do not have the right to autonomy because it conflicts with your beliefs? That clearly would be the bigoted position.
Lastly, I am astounded that you equate defense of marriage and advocating for slavery. To use your words, that is truly “outrageous and offensive.” THAT, is clearly beyond the pale. More than anything, though, it deeply saddens me that an intelligent person would stoop that low, or that you did not really think about what you were actually saying.
P.S.: Yes, the burden of proof IS on you. Again, I invited you to provide proof of your assertions. Or, to put it more bluntly, put up or shut up.
I see, Chele. Your effort to put words in my mouth having failed, you’ll settle for declaring you’ve divined my true intentions regardless of what I say.
No one needs to put words in your mouth, Peter. And no one needs to “divine” anything. Your actions speak for themselves.
NaCN
I am happy to see that you are astounded. I would also be astounded at an argument equating the defense of marriage with advocating for slavery. Obviously, I did not. My point was very limited. You said that I should have the burden of proof because I was advocating for the change of a social structure. Your argument, as I understand it, is that if something is a “key social institution,” then a person advocating for a change of that institution bears the burden of proof. Though you don’t elaborate on what I would have the burden of proving, I took your argument to mean that I would have the burden of proving why an institution that has become an accepted part of our society and is central to the operation of our society (does key social institution mean something else) should be changed. Therefore, it is the fact that an a social practice is key or central and accepted to the point of becoming an “institution” that shifts the burden or places a heavier burden on a person advocating for a change of that institution.
Now, it would be disingenuous to argue that slavery was not a key social institution. While its premise is wrong from a moral perspective, slavery was at the time clearly a critical social institution both in terms of how it impacted our economy and how we viewed social status.
Therefore, both marriage and slavery are key social institutions.
You are arguing that the fact that marriage is a key social institution means that I have the burden to show why it should be changed. I used the analogy with slavery to demonstrate the fallacy of that logic. The fact that a defense of slavery and a defense of marriage are not moral equivalents is both patently obvious (but thans for pointing it out) and wholly irrelevant.
The burden is upon all of us to determine the right thing to do, to determine whether our rules are unfairly depriving any individual or group of rights. I understand that we disagree about how gay marriage should be viewed in this light. But the notion that since you were here first with your argument means that I have to offer “proof” that you are wrong is just plain silly.
Now, about Narth, I’ll admit that some people are tortured by their homosexuality and maybe should seek counseling to handle this mental strain. My objection to Narth, however, is that they seem to suggest that homosexuals need fixing. I would argue that if it weren’t for those claiming that they needed fixing and trying to deprive them of their rights based on their natural sexual preference, there wouldn’t be a need for the counseling in the first place.
“Unmaintained buildings do not “quickly crumble.” They fall apart bit by bit over time. The effects of a significant change in the nature of marriage are not likely to be manifested immediately. Researchers are only now becoming able to measure the effects of liberalization of marriage and divorce laws that occurred several decades ago.”
This might make sense if one of the most liberal states in the country, Mass., did not have the lowest divorce rate in the country.
I am afraid we are going to have to blame the high divorce rate on “The Great Republican Experiment” started under Reagan if we are going to make broad statements, painting ideology as to blame, without basis in facts. heh
As a side note: I wonder if FIC is still deleting my comments? Are you still sore at me for undercutting your false claims of readership Brian?
Connecticut Man 1,
So, you claim Massachusetts has a low divorce rate because it is liberal. And Nevada has the highest divorce rate in the nation because it is . . . conservative???
It was Simon who made the argument that a high divorce rate supports allowing further changes to marriage, sanctioning same-sex ‘marriage’ in particular. Your citing a low divorce rate undercuts that argument, which is one of your cohort’s favorite. You are not doing your side any favors.
But, to be serious, Massachusetts has an older, less transient population, and fewer people living below the poverty line than the national average. All of those factors contribute to more stability, no doubt. My observation is that old New Englanders, because of their puritanical roots, also are more stoic than the rest of the nation; more willing to buck up when times get tough.
Your underlying premise logically boils down to the following: If changes to marriage are destructive, the effects (higher divorce, for example) will first be manifest among the oldest, wealthiest, and most stoical. That is laughable on its face.
And speaking of things that are, as you said, “without basis in fact,” are you serious in stating that you “blame the high divorce rate on ‘The Great Republican Experiment’ started under Reagan”? If so, I would dearly enjoy seeing your “facts” supporting that argument.
Simon, I will get back to you later. My time is limited and I wanted to pick the low-lying fruit (Connecticut Man 1) first.
Simon, your post is marked by subtlety and sophistry. In this instance I have the time and patience for neither.
Whether or not you admit it, your whole argument relies on equating marriage with things it is not, such as slavery. Far from demonstrating the fallacy of my logic, you have demonstrated the fallacy of your equivalency argument. Your whole line of reasoning is designed to obfuscate and avoid addressing my point. African Americans completely reject your moral-equivalency ploy. There is NO equating marriage and the depravity of slavery. Even the few who advocate same-sex ‘marriage’ don’t try to base it on some moral equivalency to the black struggle.
You equated defense of marriage with advocating for slavery. Yes, you did. And you backed off fast when I pointed that out. Fine. I’ll accept that you really didn’t think about what you were actually saying, but the fact remains that IS what you are actually saying. Think about it. Really.
We could discuss whether or not slavery is a millenia-tested key social norm across all societies and all history, like marriage between man and woman is. (There is no comparison, as you tacitly admit with your retraction.) We could discuss the degree to which those who fought involuntary servitude had overwhelming proof that it was abhorrent. (They did, and it is.) But I’m not going to follow your lead down that side alley because none of that is the issue.
The union of man and woman is THE key institution that underlies, binds, sustains, and perpetuates all nations, at all levels of society, across all races, and throughout all recorded history. (It did not “become” accepted and central; it has always been.) The union of man and woman is the way nature designed (whether you believe in millions of years of evolution or pre-design by God) for the raising of children and the continuation of society. Up until the last blink of an eye in human history, no one, not even the most decadent of societies, not even those that practiced pederasty . . . no one considered, let alone seriously believed, that marriage should be extended to two men or two women. Now we have people advocating for marriage between even three or more men or three or more women. If you find no reason for concern in that, then we truly have no hope for rational discussion.
In my first post I made the mistake of referring to millennia-tested social “norms.” In context it was clear I was addressing only marriage, but my using the plural gave you an opening to try evading and contorting the subject. There is no equating marriage with slavery, suffrage, or anything else. So stop trying! Either address my point or admit that you can’t.
One . . . more . . .time, the point is this: The burden falls squarely on those who would redefine marriage to prove that that radical change will not negatively impact marriage, children, and society. (The truth of that has nothing to do with “who was here first with their argument.”) Again (third time now), I invite you to provide proof. Again (second time now), put up or shut up!
One more thing, Simon.
You said, “I would argue that if it weren’t for those claiming that they [homosexuals] needed fixing and trying to deprive them of their rights based on their natural sexual preference, there wouldn’t be a need for the counseling in the first place.”
Even in gay-friendly countries the incidence of suicide ideation is much higher among homosexuals. If you are aware of any peer-reviewed study that concludes this is due to others claiming that homosexuals need fixing, or trying to deprive them of their “rights,” I would very much appreciate your providing a reference. I am aware of none.
NaCN,
Briefly, and to address your specific statement about who bears the burden of proof here, and leaving aside all the discussion about slavery (though I am not equating the two, just using slavery to question your premise that those who wish to change a social institution bear the burden), ahem, so here goes.
In essence, I believe that your position advocates depriving people of something that I think is their right. I know you will disagree with that premise, and that is why we disagree as to the ultimate question. I believe it is the burden of the party trying to deprive someone of a right to bear the burden. I think it is irrelevant that for centuries, millenia even, that this class of people – homosexuals – have not been provided access to the right. Since you are arguing that homosexuals are not entitled to join the marriage club, I believe it is your burden to demonstrate why that position is appropriate.
Simon, I suspect you have no sincere interest in understanding why ‘marriage’ is NOT a “right” (of anyone, let alone) of homosexuals.
However, if your mind is not totally closed, get hold of a copy of the Sunday Feb. 4th issue of the Connecticut Post opinion section, page B3—and read the letter from James Bair of Ansonia entitled “Marriage, in any form, is not a true right.” Mr. Bair explains it very well and succintly, with no insults, condescension, hyperbole or vitriol.
If you are interested and cannot obtain a copy at your library, etc., please reply and I will take the time and trouble to post it for you. (In fact, maybe Peter will. It was quite good.)
Simon,
Finally! You provided a straightforward response devoid of sophistry. I appreciate that. Now we have the potential for a real conversation. To that end I have a few questions.
In my prior post I noted that “the union of man and woman is THE key institution that underlies, binds, sustains, and perpetuates all nations, at all levels of society, across all races, and throughout all recorded history,” that it is “the way nature designed . . . for the raising of children and the continuation of society,” and that unprecedented and untested changes to marriage are being proposed without an environmental impact statement. (That last line is not the way I said it above, but it is true.) I followed that with an implied question, which is, Do you find any reason for concern in that? I am curious. Do you find any reason for concern in that? Any?
Now, I think I fully understand your position. It is *all* about what you consider to be rights. I am genuinely curious as to what extreme you carry that. If you had proof that children were harmed by being raised in homosexual-headed households . . . . (Choose whatever level of proof you think sufficient.) If you had what you considered to be proof that children were harmed by being raised by homosexual parents, should that, in your estimation, in any way reduce the rights of homosexuals to adopt children? In your prior post you said that the historical nature of marriage is irrelevant. Would proof that children were harmed also be irrelevant in your estimation?
Finally, I would like to know whether you apply your standard consistently. Do you also believe that marriage rights should extend to other classes of people who, historically, have not been provided that right, such as polyamorous groups, and brother and sister partners who practice birth control? If not, why not?
P.S.: I read the letter to which Tricia refers. It is well put.
Tricia
I love how you laud Bair for writing without condescension and insult yet can’t find the humility to do it yourself. I’d love to know why YOU THINK Marriage is not a right. Glad to see that you are as close minded as you think I am.
I tried to find the letter on ConnPost, but it doesn’t seem to be available through an archive search. I would be interested to see it, though, because I am open minded.
NaCN
Give me a break with your charges of sophistry and your false sense of relief. Maybe you should take your own advice, by the way. You want to force me onto the slippery slope (with your juvenile and insulting “who’s next, brothers and sisters” argument) but refuse to put yourself to the same test. I think there is confliciting evidence out there about raising a child in a same sex marriage. Though I am pretty confident in my beliefs about this matter. Now, for your slippery slope. I think there is a lot of information out there about the impact of raising kids in a house with alcoholic parents. Should we deprive them of the right of child rearing? And there is reams of evidence about single parents, poor households, etc. Shoul dwe also think about depriving them.
I also think your position is a bit disingenuous. If a gay woman wanted to have a child and raise that child with her partner, I haven’t seen anything from you indicating that you would object. Rather, it seems your objection only arises if they try to raise that child in a marriage. Makes no sense to me. Maybe I have misunderstood. Do you apply your standard consistently?
Simon,
For the record, I actually did believe that you had settled down and were ready for a reasonable discussion. You sure disproved that. You accuse me of being juvenile and insulting. That is of no matter to me but it does not reflect well on you. If Tricia believes you are closed minded, maybe that is because she has read your posts.
Your response is typical of those who share your views. When faced with questions that probe and challenge your assumptions and rationale, you lash out like a cornered cat. I’m glad that you admit that there is a “slippery slope.” No, I am not trying to “force you onto” it. I’m just asking you to look down and see if there is any ground under your feet.
If I had wanted to use sophistry, as you appear to accuse me of, I would not have asked such clear questions. They are not easy questions (well, actually, the first was very easy), but they are valid questions. Instead of trying to answer, you (once again) try to evade and obfuscate with railing accusations and by spewing a series of tangential questions. Well, I’m about to do something you have shown absolutely no ability to do: Answer.
See the following posts.
Answer to Simon’s first question:
“Should we deprive [alcoholic parents] of the right of child rearing?”
I believe Connecticut law prevents practicing alcoholics from adopting. That is appropriate. Furthermore, state law requires the removal of children from homes of practicing alcoholics (when DCF becomes aware of it) for the simple reason that the children are endangered. That too is appropriate.
Honestly, Simon, your question lowered my estimate of your intellectual faculties.
***************
Answer to Simon’s second question:
“Should we also think about depriving [single parents of the right of child rearing]?”
I agree with you that “there is reams of evidence about single parents” not being as effective at child rearing as married couples. (I’m glad to see you actually admit that there is reams of evidence finding the traditional family structure is superior, although I doubt that was your intent.) That is why I do not support adoption by single parents. There are plenty of married couples who want to adopt and cannot because there are not enough babies available to adopt.
For the same reasons, I also object to artificial insemination being used to create families that, by design, have only one parent (or two mommies). As for those who are single parents through no fault of their own, I believe society should step up to the plate and try to help them shoulder that burden by providing support services (which, by the way, results in a higher tax burden for all of us). That cannot fully counter the disadvantage they face, but it helps.
Continued below.
Answer to Simon’s third question:
“Should we also think about depriving [poor parents of the right of child rearing]?”
I often hear arguments from the left that poor people should be not be allowed to have children. For example, one of the founding purposes of Planned Parenthood was to reduce births (primarily by abortion) among the poor, focusing on reducing the African-American population in particular. When you think about it, the left’s position on this inherently conflicts with their unlimited-rights-for-all argument.
The condition of being poor is not central to the character of the parents. Furthermore, being poor is not, in and of itself, a causative factor in determining family outcomes. (Nor is being rich.) Rather, there are all kinds of confounding factors mixed in there. So, no, I do not support removing children simply because parents are poor. Some of the most effective families I have ever observed are considered “poor” by society’s standards because they have chosen to spend their time on their families rather than on the pursuit of material goods.
***************
Answer to Simon’s fourth question (implied):
“If a gay woman wanted to have a child and raise that child with her partner, [would you object?]”
If you couldn’t guess by now, the answer is, yes. In contrast to the (as you said) “reams of research” supporting the traditional family structure, there is no competent research showing equivalent outcomes in same-sex households, ‘married’ or otherwise. None. Nadda. Zip.
If you “haven’t seen anything from [me] indicating that [I] would object,” it is because that topic was only now raised by you. It is more than “a bit disingenuous” of you to suggest that I would object only “if they try to raise that child in a marriage.”
Continued below.
Answer to Simon’s fifth question:
“Do you apply your standard consistently?”
Let me see. That would be, hmm, Yup!
***************
You see, Simon. Answering questions can be done. You should try it sometime. Matter of fact, why don’t you try answering the questions in my last post on Feb. 5?
If you cannot answer the questions, then just admit that you do not have answers. If your rationale cannot stand scrutiny, then you do yourself no favor by clinging to it. Evading paints you as intellectually vacuous.
Based on your prior efforts, I have little confidence that you will try to answer my questions. Actually, I have no confidence that you will attempt to answer. Mater of fact, I’ll make a prediction right now that you will again do nothing but evade and obfuscate. Instead of trying to answer, you will spend all of your time trying to poke holes in my responses to your questions, thus proving that you are, in fact, intellectually vacuous.
Wait. Now that I have made that prediction, you probably will actually respond to my questions just to prove me wrong. No. Wait. That would mean you would have to actually think and perhaps expose the holes in your own arguments. No. Wait. Maybe you will play it safe and try to respond to just the easy question and hope that I won’t notice that you are still evading. Oh, wait. Now that I have said that, maybe you won’t do that just to throw me off. Hmm. A conundrum. I’m anxious to see how this will resolve.
Simon,
Sorry for “insulting” you, and I’m happy to hear that you are open-minded. (Note that I have left a message for Mr. Bair to see if he will post his letter to the CT Post here, or if he would not mind if I do so, alternatively.)
As you correctly note–not being sufficiently humble is one of my many faults. I am working on it.
Pending Mr. Bair’s reply to me on his letter (which I agree with), you stated:
“I’d love to know why YOU THINK Marriage is not a right.”
James Bair’s letter will explain it better than I could, but here’s my personal experience which informs my opinion on the subject (along with many articles I’ve read and testimony and opinions I’ve listened to):
I was over forty when I married my husband, although I wanted to be married at least 10-15 years earlier in my life. (Incidentally, other men had asked me when I was much younger, but none of them seemed to me to be ‘the right one’ for me—although I don’t believe in a ‘one and only.’ I do believe that being single is much better than being married to someone who does not share enough similar goals and expectations. I felt unhappy at times being single, but knew that being married to ‘the wrong man’ would lead to TRUE MISERY.)
With that explanation as preamble, let me say that there were a few men I dated while in my twenties and thirties whom I felt that I loved and could be happily married to, but they did not continue to ask me out, or to propose marriage. Should I have asked the ‘government’ where I lived to ‘make it [marriage] happen’ for me? To me, that makes as much sense as demands by gays and lesbians that governments overrule millennia of human experience–as well as natural law–to enact gay ‘marriage.’
I also agree with NaCN on what he said about “the union of man and woman is THE key institution that underlies, binds, sustains, and perpetuates all nations, at all levels of society, across all races, and throughout all recorded history,” that it is “the way nature designed . . . for the raising of children and the continuation of society,” and that unprecedented and untested changes to marriage are being proposed without an environmental impact statement.”
Redefining what “marriage” is AWAY FROM “the union of a man and a woman” is an invitation to chaos, IMO.