Gay Marriage debuts

Townhall.com ^ | 12/5/03 | Mona Charen

[blitzgig]

Pretty good read here.

[Van Jenerette]

Thanks. For class reading.

[EdReform]

ping

[EdReform]

ping

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[NutCrackerBoy]

Mona Charen rocks!

[glaux]

I think she actually meant "debutts."

[perfect stranger]

"Homosexuals and lesbians provide even more evidence...."

What's the difference? Lesbians are just female homosexuals.

And somebody please tell me what a "non-gay threesome" is?

[Rummyfan]

Some conservatives have accepted the argument -- most eloquently advanced by Andrew Sullivan -- that backing gay marriage actually advances a conservative position. Marriage, he argues, is a civilizing institution, and good conservatives should welcome the fact that a new group of people would like to live within its constraints of fidelity.

This argument is ridiculous: do you need a piece of paper to be faithful to someone? Gays can certainly practice fidelity without getting 'married'.

[jwalsh07]

And somebody please tell me what a "non-gay threesome" is?

Three people who love one another, which is the rational basis cited by the SJC of Massachusetts, in a non sexual way and wish to be married for some benefit, presumably economic.

Any three would do, three sisters, a brother, a sister and a nephew, three good friends two of whom are not insured and one with SS survior benefits to be passed on. The list is endless.

[Rummyfan]

Such a drastic social experiment should not be undertaken on the strength of a 4-to-3 vote of one state's high court. If a constitutional amendment is required, so be it.

After reading Ann Coulter's column of this week, I think the Constitutional Amendment route won't work. Why should we have to amend the Constitution just because of four bozos on the Mass Supreme Court? The Massachusetts legislature should ignore this ruling: What will the MSC do?

And Charen is right: next up will be legal three-way marriages, four-way marriages, and why won't somebody be able to marry their dog or cat for that matter?

[Rummyfan]

Two-wives-and-one-husband.....

Two-husbands-and-one-wife......

[perfect stranger]

I get it now thanks.

but it's still pretty screwed up.

[jwalsh07]

I never thought I'd see the day where courts ruled that partially delivering a baby and then sucking it's brains out was a right that accrued to the babies mother.

Actually, a reading of Lawrence and Goodridge leaves them no choice, they have painted themselves into the "transcendent liberty" corner and there is no way out.

[Rummyfan]

EEEWWWW!

[old-ager]

> If a constitutional amendment is required, so be it.

Or a revolution