Skip to comments.Harvard Law Prof: Marriage Is “Not Two People Who Are Just Tennis Partners”
Posted on 01/09/2013 6:32:10 AM PST by Olog-hai
Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School Robert P. George said marriage is not two people who are just tennis partners, when offering his defense of traditional marriage at a Heritage Foundation bloggers briefing on Tuesday.
In an attempt to reframe the debate on gay marriage, George and authors Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson sought to first answer the fundamental question: What Is Marriage?
As soon as you ask a proponent of same-sex marriage, Well, what do you think marriage is? They are at a loss, Girgis, a Ph. D. student at Princeton University, said. I know you think it includes same-sex relationships, but what is it such that it includes any two people in love but no other forms of consensual relationships?
Not three people, George said. Not two people who are just tennis partners.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
He must be mighty lonely at Harvard since he is teaching the truth.
My dad worked with a guy who adopted an “open marriage” back in the 70’s, Then he became very disillusioned when his wife ran off with her tennis instructor.
Perhaps they really SHOULD have been tennis partners.
He’s from Harvard??? Thank you God! There is hope after all.
“George said that the definition of marriage has slowly eroded in recent decades, citing the rise of no-fault divorce as a reason it has transformed into a mere form of companionship.”
Bingo! To campaign against same-sex marriage without addressing the underlying erosion of marriage via the divorce laws is an exercise in futility.
visiting professor at Harvard....hum, bet there will be no room at the inn once this gets back to the fags there.
Actually, I thank God for modern divorce laws, for otherwise, I'd still be married to a raging, adulterous Charlie Uniform November Tango.
He won’t be there long.
Not two people who are just tennis partners or met in college to form a political union. - bmwcyle
The idea of the sacrifice in the relationship to raise a family vs the idea of the pretend marriage of same sex-ual partners with no sacrifice but claiming the respect due is hitting the nail on the head. "Expressive individualism" is a great way to put it.
I was beginning to think they did not alow the wise in universitys anymore.
In what way? Adultery has always been a cause for divorce. I do believe the ease of no fault divorce has weakened marriage.
Sorry, but I’d rather have you punished for your own mistakes than all of the rest of society punished for them.
There is no such thing as no fault when a man divorces a woman, he still gets screwed in the end regardless of the reason.
A college friend divorced his cheating wife after 6 years and 1 child. He sadly lived in a alimony state and had to pay not only child support (which he should) but he had to pay more in alimony to her skank butt. The court would not give him primary custody even though he had a good and stable 8-5 job. She was using both the alimony and child support to paint the town. Divorce laws are BS.
“Tennis Partners” ... Sodomy redefined as serve and volley.
Well, what do you think marriage is?
The state’s answer in the modern era is always going to be ‘whatever judges, pols, or 51% of the voting public think it is at any one time.’ First divorce, then no fault divorce and remarriage, now gay marriage in some states, in 50 years no doubt something even more insane. It was always a danger, except now many have been conditioned to think that the state actually defines and creates marriage, so they are will to accept whatever impossibility the state decides to call marriage at the time.
pre no fault there were more than a few cases of “made up” reasons.
he accuses her of cheating or vice versa. She accuses him of “not being interested in women” and so on. the truth may have been simply they were a wrong match and should never have married.
even with the lies, I am unaware of any case of a divorce being denied ever. Divorce happens so why clog up the court records with needless dirty laundry real or made up.
“Divorce happens so why clog up the court records with needless dirty laundry real or made up.”
The divorce rates pre-no fault were much lower than they are now, even if there were still people who would game the system to get out of a marriage for frivolous reasons. So, I’d say that lowering the bar simply encouraged more divorces, which is not a good social policy. Also, it probably encourages more people to get married frivolously in the first place, since they know they can get out of it whenever they want. Hardly anyone takes the institution seriously anymore because of that fact.