ADDED: Barbara Crabb, federal district judge who issued the decision in favor of same-sex marriage last week without issuing an injunction or saying whether or not it would be stayed has now come out with the injunction and has stayed it. Judge Crabb's opinion expresses the kind of empathy that some people like to see as part of judging and some find quite inappropriate:
After seeing the expressions of joy on the faces of so many newly wedded couples featured in media reports, I find it difficult to impose a stay on the event that is responsible for eliciting that emotion, even if the stay is only temporary. Same-sex couples have waited many years to receive equal treatment under the law, so it is understandable that they do not want to wait any longer. However, a federal district court is required to follow the guidance provided by the Supreme Court. Because I see no way to distinguish this case from Herbert [v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 (2014)], I conclude that I must stay any injunctive relief pending appeal.Judge Crabb herself is responsible for this week-long interlude of joyful expressions, so there's something off about her vicarious joy at the situation she set up, and it's strange for her to tell us about her emotional engagement with the results of her doing what she has power to do only because it is her duty under the law. But in the end, she admits that she's bound by the law, by what the Supreme Court did in Herbert, and she follows it, and yet this doing of her duty is embroidered with regret. She'd prefer to make people happy (that is to say, to make the people who make her happy happy), and I don't think that sort of emoting belongs in the opinion (and by "the opinion," I mean the written opinion and the decision-making that goes on in the judicial mind outside of our scrutiny).
Now, back to Walker. I see where he's going. He's a party to this case, enjoined "to treat same-sex couples the same as different sex couples in the context of processing a marriage license or determining the rights, protections, obligations or benefits of marriage" (PDF). This is, for him, a gift. He can be modest and humble and say he'll do exactly that. It would suit his style, and it would free him from the burden of having an independent opinion on this divisive issue.
As he said yesterday: "It really doesn't matter what I think now.... It's in the constitution."
At this point, for him, and for other traditionalists who've fought marriage equality over the last few years, that's the place to be right now. That's as close to perfect as you're going to get.
Now, move on to the matters that properly belong to government.
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
Weasel words. Of course he's against it, but will go along with the "law". Still a hateful sack of shit.
Is the governor — like some other conservatives — rethinking his position on same-sex marriage?
"No," Walker said. "I'm just not stating one at all."
Evolving from voting for a constitutional gay marriage ban....to not having an opinion on it. Progress!
As a political matter, the issue is already lost, as it's clear the courts will fiat it into existence no matter what laws are passed. So there is really no point to even try passing laws.
It's weird that we have so little trust in our public officials now that we expect their belief's and morals to change based on public sentiment.
It seems his position has been clear in the past and somehow we're supposed to think that now it's changed.
I'm glad to see his AG is sticking with the law passed by the people. Eventually this will get to the Supreme Court and they will find out that our founders wanted to change the definition of marriage, they just didn't know it at the time.
cool....total opposite of Rick Perry who compared us to alcoholics....in San Francisco, of all places.
"Clear as the mud beneath his feet."
Smart. Why let the opposition define you? Especially about something so transitory and silly. Make them define themselves, like the teacher's unions,and watch their public support evaporate.
He should do the right thing and support the right to let any 2 people - gay or straight - get married if they want.
It's an idea whose time has come, and I loved Hilary Clinton's statements on this to Terry Gross.
It's high time to meld liberal social values with conservative fiscal values.
He isn't stupid either. Two more years and gay marriage will be even more of a nothing issue.
Everybody was against Gay Marriage until they gave up a fight over nothing. But the Boy Scouts of America are still hateful sacks of shit, I see.
Shades of George Will's recent column where he said a president should respond "why should anyone care to know what I think about non-policy topics, sports, singers etc.?"
Gay verbiage and organized crime.
Hey. Join the club. I did.
I evolved from not thinking about it at all to "Huh? Really? Well, I guess."
An elephant on ice, if ever there was one,...
#Unintimidated
Standing on the bridge of the Titanic, watching the crew trying to launch the life boats, is not the time to philosophize about icebergs.
Maybe he just doesn't want to get screeched at by haters over a non-issue.
Really, it would be like campaigning on a plank of banning the pinko degenerate be-bop music that's corrupting our youth. Let it go. Concentrate on the economy, and the endless, corrupt, fascistic antics of the Donks.
So Walker replied that whatever his views are, they are secondary to his vow to uphold the laws of his country and state? And that's a bad thing?
Isn't this great and he isn't taking the bait of his interviewer?
I think the way he adeptly handled that question showed that he would do very well against Putin.
So Walker replied that whatever his views are, they are secondary to his vow to uphold the laws of his country and state? And that's a bad thing?
Good point. Somehow, law and the will of the people trumps theatrics.
Of course, a lot of people switch sides on this issue for other reasons like peer pressure. It's difficult to stand alone for your values, on either side. This battle has taken a paradigm shift since the 1980s. That still doesn't make it right. Practical, yes. Not always the best way, but often the easiest.
But the Boy Scouts of America are still hateful sacks of shit, I see.
The original complaint was filed with the Boy Scouts of America nearly 30 years ago, but it took a comprehensive review from national Scout leaders in October 2013 to rediscover the allegations against William Challberg, and less than a year later, the 65-year-old Phoenix man was in custody on suspicion of molesting boys decades earlier, according to court records.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/06/13/former-phoenix-boy-scout-leader-arrested-abrk/10460051/
Apparently, Walker isn't liked on this blog. I like him. Not everyone is obsessed with gay marriage issues & if anyone really wants to get into it, conservatives should have pre-empted the whole situation in the first place assigning equity to civil unions in order to preserve the traditional meaning of "marriage" as being between opposite genders.
Not everyone wants to weigh in on the matter. A lot of conservatives are admiring Walker's refusal to get into the matter further. At risk of exposing blatant bigotry, conservatives just need to shut the f up, on this whole thing.
I don't give a shit about gay marriage and I hope he says that.
I think he did - if it's ruled constitutionally mandatory, then his personal position is moot, whatever it might be. Personal beliefs of governmental representatives and executives are only relevant insofar as those beliefs play out in the public sphere, and if the matter's not in his hands, his beliefs are COMPLETELY irrelevant. That was actually where I thought Hillary was going in the NPR interview, but she didn't really get there.
In any state with court-mandated same-sex marriage, asking executives about their personal beliefs is weird. Like trying to have a debate with them on transubstantiation or the Trinity or something like that.
Our Constitution makes some things a private matter, and for the most part, that's a good thing and it makes politics more workable. Otherwise I can envision reporters whipping up a controversy over so-and-so's nonbelief in the Immaculate Conception or some such issue.
Althouse is remarkably clueless about same sex marriage opponents.
As if no argument but repetition were necessary.
"The debate is already over." - The line of power grabbers since forever.
Is there some pressure on Republicans to accept the federal courts' fiat on gay marriage?
If same sex marriage becomes a court mandated right, it's not like the Republicans will suffer some electoral punishment. If having held past views opposing gay marriage hurt a candidate for higher office, Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden would all suffer. But they won't.
Republicans can flip on the issue when and if they feel like it. The same way Obama/Clinton/Biden have flipped. Or, Republicans can continue to campaign against it, like campaigning against expanded nationalized abortion rights after the imposition of Roe v. Wade.
As long as marriage affects ones status within the governmental realm - taxes, child custody, divorces, alimony, etc. enforced with police powers - marriage is a legitimate government concern.
Isn't it wonderful how our governor seemingly has no opinion on the state's biggest legal proceedings going on at the moment? Was the decision right? Was it wrong? Who knows!
@garage
All of the mainstream politicians (unless they're quite young) have gone through this "evolution" on ssm.
Obama… Hillary… what's the difference?
Let it go.
The tipping point occurred. Everyone is adjusting.
I say: Amnesty.
Lets recap Hillary's recent (within the last week) statements:
'I never really was against gay marriage.'
'I was not wrong when I opposed legalizing gay marriage.'
Discuss.
Garage must be completely, totally outraged at Hillary's #unintimidated position, whatever it happens to be this week.
All of the mainstream politicians (unless they're quite young) have gone through this "evolution" on ssm.
You feel Walker is evolving to acceptance of SSM? If so, great! It seems like he is avoiding the issue as to not alienate his right wing fundy base or alienate supporters of SSM.
Well. Professor,
Did you see the clip on TV about the "family" with one child - a little girl - 2 women and 3 men?
How is the government - Federal, State, and local - supposed to deal with that?
It's time for a stark-choice election. Can Walker be one of the stark choices? That's the question.
Does he think so?
"As long as marriage affects ones status within the governmental realm - taxes, child custody, divorces, alimony, etc. enforced with police powers - marriage is a legitimate government concern."
Not the part about why 2 competent adults want to be married. That's private. Just like it's private whether you want to have a child, but if you do, you get a tax exemption.
"Did you see the clip on TV about the "family" with one child - a little girl - 2 women and 3 men? How is the government - Federal, State, and local - supposed to deal with that?"
No, but marriage is limited to 2 individuals, unless the legislatures decide to redefine it.
Seems to me it's the equivalent of an extended family, with aunt and uncle type characters participating actively in raising a child. Or like nannies and babysitters.
But children often have extra parent figures when there is remarriage. Step-parents.
Good for him. Scott Walker is smart enough to know when he is standing in a minefield.
What libertarian/conservatives want to hear is that he believes this country respects the rights of all minorities, while respecting the conscience of those who may disagree with them.
"You feel Walker is evolving to acceptance of SSM? If so, great! It seems like he is avoiding the issue as to not alienate his right wing fundy base or alienate supporters of SSM."
See; Obama, B.H. (2012)
"You feel Walker is evolving to acceptance of SSM? If so, great! It seems like he is avoiding the issue as to not alienate his right wing fundy base or alienate supporters of SSM."
Who knows? Seems like everyone is getting the message that it's not acceptable to be hostile to gay people and anyone who feels a hostile is going to stop expressing it outwardly. You won't know where the homophobes are just like you don't know where the racists are.
But I don't think who adults love is the govt's business and it should be possible to resolve the problem on that ground and move on to whatever the govt really needs to be paying attention to anyway.
The tipping point occurred. Everyone is adjusting. I say: Amnesty.
Agreed. If people want to come over to the side of the angels, they should be welcomed. The bigoted dead-enders like Rick Perry will still exist, but those who don't want to be the George Wallaces of this issue (and even he came around on his signature issue) should be accepted by those of us who got there years ago. Amnesty!
It seems like she is avoiding the issue as to not alienate her left wing fundy base or alienate supporters of Act 10.
There, fixed that for you Garage. And in the process made if far more relevant to far more Wisconsinites.
Who knows? Seems like everyone is getting the message that it's not acceptable to be hostile to gay people and anyone who feels a hostile is going to stop expressing it outwardly. You won't know where the homophobes are just like you don't know where the racists are.
So anyone who opposes gay marriage is automatically a homopohobe and the equivilent of a racist?
We've gone from Clinton signing DOMA to "opponents of gay marriage are hateful bigots" in twenty years.
The proper duty of government, according Ms. Althouse, is to give citizens the choice of violating their religious principles or leaving the public square. First it was adoption by same-sex couples, then same-sex marriage. Next will come abortion, then euthanasia.
The State will now define social norms based on its interests. Dissent will be punished with loss of livelihood or jail time. Welcome to the 21st century!
@ Althouse, you say "Seems like everyone is getting the message that it's not acceptable to be hostile to gay people" Gosh I wish I believed that, but anti-gay marriage initiatives passed in California and Wisconsin, as well as in my (you may say backward) state of North Carolina.
I support gay marriage and equal rights for gays, lesbians, etc. Why can't we work on persuading our fellow citizens to support these policies? Is it really necessary to turn these issues over to the philosopher kings of the federal judiciary to shove the right policies down the throats of the (benighted?) people?
conservatives should have pre-empted the whole situation in the first place assigning equity to civil unions in order to preserve the traditional meaning of "marriage" as being between opposite genders.
We tried, but the gay rights movement insisted on the title "marriage".
Crabb knew just what she was doing. She knew that she had to stay the order from the get go. She's been on the bench since Bob LaFollette at least (or so it seems) and she well knows what the law is.
It's just a little corrupt, the way she handled it, but corrupt it is.
Althouse, I agree.
And yet I still say: The reality is that it's time to let the stark v. stark times roll.
I don't see any other way toward resolution, and, above all, I think it's a cheat if it's not done now--now being defined in the next couple-so decadish years--as opposed to pushing that too far into the future. A cowardly cheat, actually.
Truly, I don't see any other way and I actually do think it a cowardly cheat to not want to accept that.
Althouse wrote:
"As long as marriage affects ones status within the governmental realm - taxes, child custody, divorces, alimony, etc. enforced with police powers - marriage is a legitimate government concern."
Not the part about why 2 competent adults want to be married. That's private. Just like it's private whether you want to have a child, but if you do, you get a tax exemption.
so are you now saying we should legalize incestual marriage? It would affect their taxes and would be two adults wanting to be married. And it would be a private issue. No?
or is the argument that they are not competent? says who?
Unless you can show how they so who don't meet the qualifications don't see why you'd have a problem with it.
so are you now saying we should legalize incestual marriage?
No, she's not saying that.
You are.
Althouse said: "No, but marriage is limited to 2 individuals, unless the legislatures decide to redefine it."
How can you quantify how much bullshit is contained in this one statement? Since when has ANYTHING legislated re:gay marriage stood? Isn't the subject of this post at least partially about a judge who just ruled against the will of the people of Wisconsin because of her feelings? Why in the hell do you think that a bunch of polyamorous folks wouldn't have the same luck in the courts as the queers did. Precedent has been set.
"Seems to me it's the equivalent of an extended family, with aunt and uncle type characters participating actively in raising a child. Or like nannies and babysitters."
Yeah ... if the aunts and uncles were all fucking each other. Because polygamists are all about banding together in non-sexual relationships "for the children."
I just really don't get you sometimes. You let your advocacy of the gays totally override your (mostly) clear-thinking logic.
The best arguments posed that I've ever seen for other than one-man-one-woman marriage in terms of why government should accept everything has come from those who think nothing should be accepted other than one-woman-one-man. Isn't that ironic? I sure as hell think so.
By decade-ish, I mean 2016 or 2020, TBC.
It's time.
"As long as marriage affects ones status within the governmental realm - taxes, child custody, divorces, alimony, etc. enforced with police powers"
These are all money issues, other than custody, which the state assumes goes to the woman. Why? Tradition! Tradition is important!
The money thing comes in because it's not right for a miserable failure of a couple to impose on upon their neighbors the obligation to pay the bill for their selfishness. Why do we even bother anymore? Why should keeping a discarded spouse off the public dole be a good reason for anything? Don't government agencies measure their success based on how much money they give away?
I have never met a pro-same-sex-marriage advocate who knew the slightest thing about the history of marriage. All they know is how good it makes them feel to see same sex couples standing in line at the courthouse. Aww! Ain't it cute! Look, there's a 50 year old woman who wants to marry her teenage son! Go for it, you two, it's all about ♡ love! Society will eveolve to embrace your relationship someday!
FWIW, IMO, the best way toward redefinition is constant conflation.
Anyway out there want to tell me that's not so?
"cool....total opposite of Rick Perry who compared us to alcoholics....in San Francisco, of all places."
What's wrong with that? Even Catholic priests can be alcoholic. That doesn't mean they're bad.
Also, even heterosexuals can be chaste. More probably should try it.
Altouse wrote: But I don't think who adults love is the govt's business and it should be possible to resolve the problem on that ground and move on to whatever the govt really needs to be paying attention to anyway.
I tried to marry my wife in Germany but that government wouldn't allow it. That did not deter us nor diminish our love one jot or tittle. We just moved to somewhere that allowed it. Gays should do the same instead of selfishly insisting that every single little courthouse nods in approval of their union. Love conquers all.
I'm just NOT sympathetic to ANYONE who says that they need this or that government to acknowledge their marriage in order to PROVE love. That's bass-ackwards.
Rick Perry did not compare homosexuality to alcoholism. Untwist your big girl panties, Titus, and go reread what he said.
He said he may have the genetic inclination to be an alcoholic, but he chooses not to indulge. He views homosexuality in the same way -- you may have the genetic inclination to be gay(note he agrees with you...it's in the genes) and you can choose not to indulge.
I'm sure he just didn't say that out of the blue and it was in the context of him being asked questions.
But go ahead like the left usually does and continue having the vapors like a school girl because a successful somewhat conservative governor of a red state must be crushed to pave the way for Hillary!
...have never met a pro-same-sex-marriage advocate who knew the slightest thing about the history of marriage. ...
If you say so.
So Althouse pretty much states that if you support traditional marriage, you should shut up or be labeled 'hostile'.
Do they teach the first amendment anymore? Do you really believe....nevermind, you are a member of the leftist hive. Step out of line, get vaporized.
Also, even heterosexuals can be chaste. More probably should try it.
Also, even heterosexuals can demonstrate their belief in marriage by staying in (without straying from) their marriages.
Both chastity and faithfulness are disciplines.
With the normalization of homosexual relationships, there is no principled or Constitutional grounds to oppose bigamy, polygamy, incest, et cetera. It's not only Democrats, but also civil rights organizations (e.g. ACLU), who have created a moral hazard in the wake of their selective advocacy for homosexual couplets.
Althouse writes:
"Seems like everyone is getting the message that it's not acceptable to be hostile to gay people and anyone who feels a hostile [sic] is going to stop expressing it outwardly..."
Althouse is probably right, and that is profoundly frightening to me.
We'll fast get to a point where anyone's legitimate and sincere moral disapproval of homosexuality will be viewed as "bigotry." People will find themselves in much the same position as Charles Murray, the famed (infamous) scholar, Dr. Charles Murray has found himself on matters of race, sociology and education.
"It really doesn't matter what I think now.... It's in the constitution."
Some people just can't say "I'm wrong".
"exhelodrvr1 said...
I think the way he adeptly handled that question showed that he would do very well against Putin."
Heh.
Has the UW and state stopped providing "spousal" benefits to gay partners yet?
"Do they teach the first amendment anymore?"
Not only do "they" teach it.
I teach it.
Do you seriously want me to crush you with pedantry?
Free speech doesn't mean other people aren't going to criticize you and to shun you if they don't like what you say. Free speech includes the right not to speak, so you don't have to spurt out every opinion that you have when you know it will make people think ill of you.
And the right to free speech is about what the government can do to us, not the choices we make for ourselves about what we want to say.
And finally, and most relevantly here, I've been talking about a government official who is seeking reelection, and he's got to decide how he wants to present himself to the voters, and we voters are absolutely entitled to base our votes on things that he says, including to vote against him if he says things we think are wrong.
What if Scott Walker believes in traditional marriage to the point where he believes the man should earn the family's income and the woman should stay home and take care of the house and the children?
Do you think he should come out and say that?
If he did and felt ethically bound to tell us that, he would simply not be capable of running for office in America. No donors would fund him. He would get nowhere.
Professor
Your brief description of free speech was not pedantic. A whole swath of our population, even our political class, finds the concept troublesome, inconvenient, deserving of trigger warnings.
Cut and paste it often because it was succinct enough and clear enough for the most thick headed.
And the right to free speech is about what the government can do to us, not the choices we make for ourselves about what we want to say.
Care to elaborate. If I'm reading this right the right to free speech is dependent on the government allowing us free speech. In which case it's hardly a right. Or am I understanding this wrong?
"Now, move on to the matters that properly belong to government."
Hear, hear.
"What if Scott Walker believes in traditional marriage to the point where he believes the man should earn the family's income and the woman should stay home and take care of the house and the children?"
Traditional marriage doesn't say much about who is and who is not the breadwinner.
Real traditional marriage would involve posting of banns. If it took place between two people from different parishes, one would have to be transferred to the other's parish.
Before the industrial revolution (and for a long time after), welfare for the destitute was paid by parish members to parish members. Bearing a child out wedlock (by a woman) or abandoning a wife and/or family (by a man) actually cost your neighbors real money. Paying for the upkeep of a broken family meant that people had less money to care for their own family.
somefeller: "The bigoted dead-enders like Rick Perry will still exist, but those who don't want to be the George Wallaces of this issue..."
Full. Stop.
Once again the gay mob wants to equate their "struggle" with that of blacks and Civil Rights.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Crack: "Some people just can't say "I'm wrong"."
Why does everyone keep attacking Hillary?
Isn't it wonderful how our governor seemingly has no opinion on the state's biggest legal proceedings going on at the moment? Was the decision right? Was it wrong? Who knows!
I think garage is in mourning.
We'll fast get to a point where anyone's legitimate and sincere moral disapproval of homosexuality will be viewed as "bigotry."
and that might lead to ... dancing.
I fully expect that if a young gay lawyer about to graduate from the University of Wisconsin Law School were shunned by large corporate law firms because of his private sexual orientation, she'd regard that as cause to remove those corporate law firms from the rotation of interviewing firms in Madison.
That, in fact, is official policy.
And nowadays, such a scenario never occurs. In Madison, an out lesbian is liable to get elected to Congress, and then the Senate.
No. Nowadays, the young law school graduate who is likely to be shunned by large corporate firms is the one who operates a conservative blog in which he extolls the virtues of Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, and who bemoans the decline of American morality in terms of out of wedlock births, the hookup culture, divorce rates and of course the legal normalization of same sex marriage.
Ann is absolutely right. If Scott Walker wants to get re-elected he needs to keep his actual opinions to himself and instead tell the voters what they want to hear.
Why is it so outre' for a politician to express support for his state's constitutional ban on same sex marriage?
In my state, that amendment passed by a wide electoral margin. It passed, in the face of well-funded and powerful corporate, university and media-based opposition.
By just about any measure I can think of, there is deeply-entrenched electoral support for such bans. Support that outperforms almost all pre-election polling.
Admittedly, there might be a problem for individual politicians who express personal support for bans on same-sex marriage. And that is, that the mainstream media is so determined to advocate in favor of same-sex marriage, that any politician who dissents is going to be portrayed as a bigot and as an ignorant rube.
Ann is absolutely right. If Scott Walker wants to get re-elected he needs to keep his actual opinions to himself and instead tell the voters what they want to hear.
It worked for Obama.......
I am more convinced then ever that the goal of SSM proponents is not the sham argument of "marriage equality" but rather the acual destruction of marriage. All the changes that will eventually result from SSM will eventually lead to the complete destruction of what anyone understands what a marriage is.
Right now there's a celebrity lesbian couple in the divorce process. (Jane Lynch/Lara Embry) Why bother? Go to the courts and ask for the marriage to be annulled. Claim the marriage was never consummated. After all, it wasn't. There's a court case that would back up the claim. (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/16/the_timeless_meaning_of_marriage/) A New Hampshire court ruled that a man couldn't divorce his wife for reasons of adultery because lesbian sex didn't meet the definition of adultery... If it doesn't meet the definition of adultery, then it obviously isn't cosummation.
All religions allow non-consummation to be cause for annullment, as do some, but not all states. It would definitely be a valid legal argument.
Children and SSM. It is often said that the most dangerous place for a female teenager to be is in a house with her unwed mom and live in unrelated boyfriend. Safer is wedded mom with step-father, but safest is bio mom and dad. In all SSM situations, one of the two “parents” is automatically not a biological parent. The evil stepmother of fairy tales is based on reality: step-children are generally not treated as well. So, by approving of SSM, you are automatically approving of putting children in a situation that has proved over the centuries to be non-optimal for them- at least one parent is a step-parent. In case of a female SSM, at least a child can be born within the marriage, though bio-father is contracted out. Not so for SSM with males. The whole birth thing must be contracted out. Ah, contract law and childbirth. What a wonderful combination. Brings up a whole bunch of more difficult what ifs- What if surrogate mom says- “I want to keep the child!” That has come up in surrogate cases before. I don’t think the law on this has been fully settled yet. What if the contract calls for pre-natal testing, and the child has a birth defect, and homo-dad says nope, don’t want it- abort! And the contract calls for abortion. Soon to be mommy says “NO!, and has the child. Is homo dad now required to pay child support since the contract said “Abort”? Same situation, but not in contract- Is child support from homo-bio-dad required? Homo-bio-dad and hubby split up before contracted child is born. Non-bio dad says- hey not my brat. Bio-homo-dad doesn’t want to take delivery- it’ll cut into his new social life. And surrogate mom says- “Hey- I don’t want the kid- here it is- Take IT?” What is a court going to rule on this? Can a court force someone to take custody? How much of a commodity are you willing to make a child? Because ultimately, when dealing with widespread SSM and children- the children are going to be commodities bought and sold, in a world Rumplestiltskin would love. And we won’t begin talking about http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-10/gorman-second-thoughts/4809582 in a world where children are commodities.
And SSM divorces and child support law are far from fully developed. In a heterosexual marriage, there is presumption of paternity, and many a “father” has been saddled with child support for a child that wasn’t his, finding out long after the fact. Bio daddy, even when identified, has been let off the hook. In any SSM- there is not and cannot be a presumption of paternity. Does bio parent always get custody? Is non-bio parent required to pay child support? Can pre-nups be torn up by the court in the best interests of the child? Divorce and child support laws haven’t even begun to be changed to address any of these issues as fast as courts have been ordering the redefinition of marriage.
"Do you think he should come out and say that?"
Good leaders don't follow the crowd. They lead. If they believe men should work and provide and women should stay at home and raise the children, they need to find a way to lead a majority of people to believe in them, agree with them, and support them.
Saying what tickles our ears in order to fool us into voting for them is leading us to Barack Obama style candidates.
Let's hope we wise up.
More then a little late to add, but it goes straight to this discussion and not anything newer. A 2012 quote from LGBT activist Masha Gessen who was a featured speaker at this years State Dept Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies Pride Day.
"I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist."
So go ahead, believe that SSM is just about equality, and nothing more, when the advocates themselves tell you it is about the destruction of marriage. One thing I was taught at a young age- Listen to what your enemies are saying, especially when talking among themselves. I was taught it in relation to Hitler, being told that if the world had actually taken what he wrote seriously, they'd have stopped him before the holocaust.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा