Either that, or 'fess up to what this is really all about - and that's simply institutionalizing homophobia. The cruel irony is that for a long time, the gay community has been repeatedly condemned for its supposed "wanton promiscuity". Now that there's a widely growing desire within that community to join mainstream society (that's you guys with the Rovian grins) in embracing this ritual of committed monogamy, you're just as opposed? Seems a bit two-faced to me.
So do it. Go all the way. If heterosexual marriage and the family unit mean what you claim they do, there should be no objection to warding off the demonstrable threats to them that currently exist. With the straight community already doing such a bang-up job of revering and respecting this "foundation of our society," and the topic of Constitutional "definition" sitting on the legislative table, sounds like the time is ripe for some good Old Testament reining in of your wandering flock.
No? Not sure you want to go that far? I didn't think so. So much for this being a "serious" issue of national importance. So much for genuinely wanting to "protect the cornerstone of civilization." So much for sincerely believing in the "sanctity" of marriage.
So much for a commitment to anything other than election year posturing.
The only verifiable threat to marriage that I can see is a heterosexual population that's come to take it for granted. Quite possibly, the acceptance of same-sex marriage is actually the very thing needed to "protect" the institution itself. Maybe a whole new crop of loving, adult couples who've actually had to fight for the right to be married will appreciate it just a little bit more, and will demonstrate to the rest of us lackadaisical straights how important that commitment to another human being really is.
Perhaps then, even Conservative America might remember that marriage involves more than just complementary genitalia.
But I doubt it. You who won't let this nonsensical issue die won't even ask yourselves why, if heterosexual marriage and a stable family unit are the very foundation of our culture, you'd never agree to eliminate the easily obtained "out" of divorce, or go along with that five-year deadline for fulfilling the "purpose" of holy wedlock. And how could you? Why, that would constitute an intolerable interference by the State into what should be a private, personal matter of the heart.
Is that the smell of cherries being picked - or just the sickening stench of fundamentalist hypocrisy?
So do it. Go all the way. If heterosexual marriage and the family unit mean what you claim they do, there should be no objection to warding off the demonstrable threats to them that currently exist. With the straight community already doing such a bang-up job of revering and respecting this "foundation of our society," and the topic of Constitutional "definition" sitting on the legislative table, sounds like the time is ripe for some good Old Testament reining in of your wandering flock.
No? Not sure you want to go that far? I didn't think so. So much for this being a "serious" issue of national importance. So much for genuinely wanting to "protect the cornerstone of civilization." So much for sincerely believing in the "sanctity" of marriage.
So much for a commitment to anything other than election year posturing.
Perhaps then, even Conservative America might remember that marriage involves more than just complementary genitalia.
But I doubt it. You who won't let this nonsensical issue die won't even ask yourselves why, if heterosexual marriage and a stable family unit are the very foundation of our culture, you'd never agree to eliminate the easily obtained "out" of divorce, or go along with that five-year deadline for fulfilling the "purpose" of holy wedlock. And how could you? Why, that would constitute an intolerable interference by the State into what should be a private, personal matter of the heart.
Is that the smell of cherries being picked - or just the sickening stench of fundamentalist hypocrisy?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
