Gay Marriage and Ambivalent Conservatives

Tech Central Station ^ | 02/20/2004 | Nick Schulz

[Federalist 78]

A curious thing happens when talking to younger conservatives about gay marriage. While many of them think same-sex marriage is in some ways an incoherent notion, I haven't come across any who think that gay marriage will not at some point be permitted. What's more, many of them are not particularly distraught at the prospect.

It's true that some of them who are vigorously opposed to gay marriage feel that other laws troubling to them -- such as legalized abortion -- have been foisted upon them by activist judges, and so they think gay marriage will prove to be no different. And others opposed to same-sex marriage sense the tide of public opinion is shifting away from them and that, despite what current polls might say, more and more people will not want to deny gay couples the ability to wed. Still others think the institution of marriage has changed so much that, from a legal standpoint, there are no good reasons left to prohibit gays from marrying.

But the libertarian writer Virginia Postrel touched on another dynamic at work, one that captures why a lot of self-described conservatives haven't lost a lot of sleep over the gay marriage debate. On her personal website she recently linked to an Associated Press article that pointed out the following:

"Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent."

Postrel went on to say that this "helps explain why DC conservatives, including the president, tend to squirm when their base demands condemnation of gay marriage and gays in general: If you work in Washington, you inevitably have gay friends, many of whom are de facto married."

Ambivalent Conservatives

On the subject of gay marriage, many conservatives today are what might be called "ambivalent conservatives." They call themselves conservatives; but they are more comfortable saying that, while they certainly aren't exactly what you would call for gay marriage, they don't have much stomach to be against it, either. As one put it to me the other day: "I guess I don't really care. That's my strongly staked-out position." Jonah Goldberg of National Review captured some of this ambivalence when he recently wrote, "Whether you're for it or against it, many of us just don't want to hear about it anymore."

Lots of younger conservatives think of themselves as tolerant, freedom-loving and possessing metropolitan sensibilities; but they also revere tradition and aren't comfortable with needlessly monkeying around with old institutions. The issue of same-sex marriage sits atop the intersection of these values.

Thus, ambivalent conservatives, while not finding the claims made by gay marriage proponents to be entirely persuasive, also are uncomfortable with the opponents to such marriages fiddling with the Constitution. They are uncomfortable with the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which reads in part:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

The conservatives advancing this amendment say without it the courts will read into the Constitution a right to gay marriage, so an explicit prohibition is necessary. Ambivalent conservatives may think that's likely, too, but many of them are still uneasy with this kind of amendment, have no interest in supporting it, and feel they are left scrambling for a political position they can articulate and be comfortable with and that reflects their values without compromising core principles.

To many of them, one argument advanced by the non-partisan writer Jonathan Rauch in his forthcoming book "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America" is likely to prove attractive. Rauch says that, if an amendment is to be pushed by conservatives, it needn't be the FMA that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

In an email exchange, Rauch explains:

"I don't think any amendment is necessary or desirable. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is certainly constitutional, and amending the Constitution unnecessarily is a bad idea.

"But I grant that some federal judge might disagree with me and set off a national panic before being clobbered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"So if the problem is the worry that federal judges will impose Massachusetts's gay marriages on the entire country, the way to take care of that would be to constitutionalize DOMA. The sample wording I give in my book is:

"'Nothing in this Constitution requires any state or the federal government to recognize anything other than the union of one man and one woman as a marriage.'

"That's an ironclad guarantee that the states and federal government can all go their own ways, without any national court mandate.

"This is consistent with federalist principles. It's consistent with three centuries of marriage being in the states' purview. It keeps overweening federal judges out of the picture. (Activist state judges are the states' business, so long as no state can impose its own decision on others.) It prevents the polarization and culture war that nationalizing this debate will spark. It would be a cinch to enact, at least compared with the Federal Marriage Amendment sponsored by Musgrave et al. And it's in tune with what a majority of Americans are telling the pollsters -- namely, that this issue should be left to the states."

It's possible -- probable even -- this approach will appeal to conservatives for whom federalism is a cherished political value. Moreover, this Rauchian effort at a solution might appeal to President Bush, who on the issue of gay marriage has exhibited some of the characteristic tics of an ambivalent conservative. Bush has said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. But he has also been reluctant to condemn gay marriage forcefully or to embrace a constitutional amendment explicitly banning gay marriage (and that is not because Bush is unaware that his endorsement is coveted by supporters of the amendment).

Asked about the recent events in San Francisco with gays receiving illegal marriage licenses, the President expressed displeasure, but also said, "People need to be involved in this decision. Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts.'' One way to make sure the decision is made by people and not by courts is through the Rauch amendment that leaves the decision with the states. It's a political position a lot of ambivalent conservatives will likely find appealing.

[Federalist 78]

The Marriage Protection Act is sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler (R-Indiana, 8th). Protects states, under the Constitution’s "full faith and credit" clause, from being forced to recognize as a marriage any "union" other than that of one man and one woman. Congress has the right to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all inferior courts. Cases that arise under the "full faith and credit" clause will be decided in state courts, which is exactly what Congress intended under DOMA. Again, even a bad court decision would have limited impact and could not set a precedent that would redefine marriage for the whole country. DOMA defines marriage "for all purposes of federal law" as the union of one man and one woman. It is a firewall between the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) & federal courts which prevents the federal courts from exporting sodomite marriage. The Marriage Protection Act requires only simple majorities in both Houses of Congress plus a presidential signature. Passing a constitutional amendment, however, requires two-thirds supermajorities in both the House and the Senate, plus ratification by three-fourths of the states. Amending the Constitution is a long-term process, but the Marriage Protection Act can provide immediate protection against the most imminent threat to the definition of marriage – judicial overreaching.

Marriage Protection Act of 2003 H. R. 3313

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make

Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED

In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Federalism

The Marriage Protection Act addresses that possibility by removing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, as well as inferior federal courts’ original and appellate jurisdiction, over DOMA’s full faith and credit provision. It also removes appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts over DOMA’s marriage definition.

This is the sort of legislative check the Founders intended. Article I, Section 8 and Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution grant Congress the authority to establish inferior federal courts, determine their jurisdiction and make exceptions to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. By implementing this legislative power we can preserve each state’s traditional right to determine its own marriage policies without federal court interference. (For instance, a state of appeals court in Arizona last week upheld that state’s DOMA law.)

DOMA - Protecting Federalism in Family Law

Congress clearly has the power to enact legislation defining the full faith and credit effect of states' laws, records and judgments. The very language of the Full Faith and credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, §1) explicitly provides that "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged Congress' constitutional authority to establish full faith and credit rules.

THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT - ANOTHER TROJAN HORSE

The second problem with this "Marriage Amendment" is that the U.S. Government has no authority or right to define marriage, only God has. James Madison observed in The Federalist, #45, "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." This amendment would, for the first time ever in history, give the federal government jurisdiction over marriage and the home. The 10th Amendment is our protection from the federal government getting involved where they should not be. Marriage should remain exclusively under state dominion. My state, as many others, already has laws that define marriage. When the Federal government decides that marriage can be anything it wants it to be, what happens to the state laws?

To truly save marriage the way God intended it to be is to attack the root of the problem. The root of the problem is you and me, the Christians who are ignorant of the Constitution, who vote into office pro sodomite Republicans, Republicans who are afraid to take a stand, and Republicans who will not impeach judges or reign in their jurisdiction.

Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution has the remedy for tyrannical unconstitutional judges. Congress is to impeach them or reign in their unlawful rule.

They have not done their job because we have not made them do their job.

I am very concerned with why pro family groups like Focus on the Family and American Family Association who are behind this amendment when they know it will not help. Something strange is going on here. The cure is very simple - make congress do their job. Adding an amendment to the constitution takes 2/3rds of the states voting yes, a great feat and very expensive. It will not stop runaway judges!

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping -

Ok class, tear this apart. I don't have time right now )-;

This crap about "conservatives" thinking that "gay" marriage is fine, or harmless, or inevitable, pi**es me off.

If anyone wants on or off this ping list, ping me.

[goldstategop]

A lot of conservatives have decided the easiest course of action is to cede the culture to the liberals by default cause they're well entrenched. If society becomes pagan, who cares? What's important is making liberals like us for being so accomodating and wimps on principle.

[Paleo Conservative]

The study didn't say whether these young conservatives are married or have children. Considering this was a study of "young conservatives" its likely they are in school or just out of school where there's lots of leftist proganda. I bet a poll of the same people in 5 or 10 years might yield different results.

[Orangedog]

As one put it to me the other day: "I guess I don't really care. That's my strongly staked-out position."

Maybe it might have something to do with how the younger people (especially the men) having had a front row seat to view what happened to the fathers, brothers, uncles and friends when they wound up in divorce court and found out that they have near zero rights once they are served with the divorce papers. Maybe some have been through it themselves already. No-fault divorce laws have made marriage an expensive joke. Get rid of those laws from the 1970's and marriage won't need an "act" to defend it...it will be big enough to take care of itself again.

[longtermmemmory]

Federal Consitution trumps Federal law.

simple.

This seems like a mere waffle piece to sow dissention.

Students are taught by leftist teachers, go to leftis professors in university. They have to endure "sensitivity training". You can be fired for being christian but will be promoted for being a homosexual,or some quota group.

These students have not yet had the opportunity to fight back in the real world.

There is no reason why we can't do ALL OF THE ABOVE.

[Paleo Conservative]

Get rid of those laws from the 1970's and marriage won't need an "act" to defend it...it will be big enough to take care of itself again.

That's not sufficient. We need to seriously reform the divorce laws and put in a constitutional amendment.

[Carry_Okie]

This article is insidious. At first, it's purpose appears to be merely reportage. Upon reflection, it is a dielectic intended to supply a conservative opposition with a series of excuses for not fighting back.

'It's OK, really. There are others like you who fear the backlash. Give in. Don't be so strident and extreme. Try being more TOLerant... of evil.

'Then we'll ratchet it up with the next move and tell you the same thing.'

[livius]

I think we're actually talking about "young libertarians," who are to conservatives as anarchists are to Communists.

[Orangedog]

That's not sufficient. We need to seriously reform the divorce laws and put in a constitutional amendment.

I'll sign on to that!

[lentulusgracchus]

The phrase is "rein in", as in "rein in a team of horses", not "reign in".

[Paleo Conservative]

Postrel went on to say that this "helps explain why DC conservatives, including the president, tend to squirm when their base demands condemnation of gay marriage and gays in general: If you work in Washington, you inevitably have gay friends, many of whom are de facto married."

That's the problem with the centralized government model that members of both parties try to impose on the country. The people liviing in the capitol are different in attitudes from people living elsewhere in the country. If Congress fails to approve a constitutional amendment, the states ought to call for a constitutional convention. That ought to scare a few politicians in Washington.

[jolie560]

Legal marriage carries plenty of entitlements:

1) Right of Inheritance
2) Right to Social Security payments as a spouse
3) Right to Medical insurance as a spouse
4) Right to initiate civil suits on behalf of damages done to a spouse
5) Right to sue for divorce for adultery
6) Right to sue for custody of dependent children
7) Right to claim "Married" as 'marital status' on Income tax filings
8) Right to claim "Married" on any 'Means-Test' for Federal benefits

The implications are far-reaching. It's a lawyer's dream.

[Kerberos]

Maybe time to start reading the writing on the wall.

[Paleo Conservative]

Maybe time to start reading the writing on the wall.

No! It's time to "tear down that wall"!

[goldstategop]

Gays want in on the socialist gravy train. While I don't approve of their lifestyle, I can certainly understand why they want to cash in on the same things heterosexual couples get from the government and why not? Its discrimination to with hold government benefits from some based on whom they sleep with.

[jolie560]

I sleep with my dog---pay me

[Orangedog]

I think we're actually talking about "young libertarians," who are to conservatives as anarchists are to Communists.

I think what we are seeing is the inevitable outcome of more than 30 years of marriage being debased by the divorce industry. People are not going to take to the streets with pitch-forks and torches to defend an institution with a more than 50% failure rate. All anyone needs for a divorce is the fee for the lawyer. And anyone who has already been processed on the sheep-shearing assembly line style "family courts" isn't going to be in a big hurry to defend an institution run by divorce lawyers. Especially since the "defense of marriage" crowd stood by and did nothing for decades while millions of families were destroyed by the divorce industry. The time to defend marriage was a long time ago. With the state marriage is in now, there aren't going to be too many super-majorities available to stand up for it.

[goldstategop]

If the government cut the apron strings to marriage, I suspect a lot of the gay agitation to get married would lose its impetus.

[Orangedog]

Gays want in on the socialist gravy train. While I don't approve of their lifestyle, I can certainly understand why they want to cash in on the same things heterosexual couples get from the government and why not? Its discrimination to with hold government benefits from some based on whom they sleep with.

They should watch out what they wish for. The way things are right now, let them have it. A few years later once they get a taste of the 50% divorce rate and the Hell that goes with divorce, they will scream to reverse the policies that let them get "married." It will wreck their lives just like it has for tens of millions of straight people.

[AfghanIraqVeteran]

How do we expect the younger generations to respond to such questions? Its no wonder they don't really have a problem with the notion of same sex marriage, or at least aren't "distraught at the notion." These same young "conservatives" grew up going to government schools where leftist ideas are constantly crammed into their little minds. They are taught what to think; not HOW to think for themselves. Sex education has become Sex--How To. Not only has sex education become a basic "porn class", but the fear of STD's and so forth is no longer put into the young people. They are told it is okay to scrog like a bunch of little chimps. That ain't a bad thing, however, because we evolved from chimps, right? When you send your children to be a part of a captive audience with a liberal as speaker, don't be suprised at the ideas that these children will spout and believe. When they are told having two daddies is normal, or two mommies, they will come home believing just that. What is next on the agenda? They will change the definition of the word marriage. I promise you this. Remember this post when it happens. The only way to prevent this from happening is to take a stand, call your reps, and vote for someone who respects the sovereignty of marriage. Get rid of these activists we call judges, and replace them with honest citizens who respect the law. Other than that, an all out revolution will be necessary, but who's got the time for that?

[livius]

Here's a good quote from Freeper jwalsh07, from another thread about this issue:

The institution is not the problem, public policy affecting that institution is a problem.

I hadn't considered it that way before, but I think he's right.

[goodnesswins]

And these young'ns aren't thinking about the INCREASE in Social Security and Other costs they are going to have to pay for, ON TOP OF what they're already going to be paying!

[longtermmemmory]

The first step in reforming divorce laws is creating a model code of divorce laws for legislators to work with.

Most people do not realize but "the trend" can be used as a legal argumet to support a position in court. An attorney can use Hawaii, Vermont, Mass, CF and now SF can be used to at least argue "the trend" is to homosexual marriage. This is regardless of the truth. (38 Domas with 3 more on the way)

This trend argument is no different that NBC breaking down those 67% opposed to homosexual marraige into two groups in order to obscure the true opposition.

[Orangedog]

The institution is not the problem, public policy affecting that institution is a problem.

Public policy (backed up with the full power of government) has utterly infested the institution. Trying to remove public policy from the institution of marriage is like trying to remove the butter-flavored topping from movie theater popcorn...it's so thoroughly soaked into every kernel it can never be removed. Too many jobs depend on that 50% divorce rate.

[longtermmemmory]

Very few young'ns are thinking they are going to get social security. They are not thinking they will still have to pay for others.

A good reason to make election day April 16.

[Orangedog]

And these young'ns aren't thinking about the INCREASE in Social Security and Other costs they are going to have to pay for, ON TOP OF what they're already going to be paying!

When you already have over $45 trillion in unfunded future liabilities, what's another trillion dollars?! The system will collapse regardless.

[longtermmemmory]

actually th 50% rate is not all profit. There are now enormous efforts to push marriages without children and under two years into the do-it-yourself category. The FL SC even has the forms online for FREE.

The only money in divorce is with established long term marriages falling apart. Even with children it is now a mere formula.

[longtermmemmory]

The system may collapse, but the bill will remain.

[Orangedog]

The only money in divorce is with established long term marriages falling apart. Even with children it is now a mere formula.

I worked in the industry many years ago. The lawyers are not losing any money on the quicky divorces. What they lose in billable hours per client, they more than make up for in volume. It's the law in Ohio and many other states that if there are any kids involved, the parents have to pay for a court-appointed lawyer to "represent" the kids. They just drag more and more players into the scam. The more formulaic and assembly-line like they make it, the more divorces they can process.

[Orangedog]

When the system collapses, the dollar will be worthless. The vermin in DC know this...that's why they are spending with reckless abandon. Those bills can never be paid and they all know it.

[livius]

Yes, the attorneys need their daily feeding. It's like tort reform - don't expect to see it in your lifetime (or that your kids will see it in theirs).

[Triple Word Score]

I'll support gay marriage if they'll agree to support harsh anti-adultery provisions across the board.

In other words, they can have marriage--but they have to live it. No promiscuity, no premarital sex of any kind, no partner-swapping, no bug-chasing, no public behavior that encourages others to be unchaste. Divorce to have a very high burden of proof of abuse or adultery. They want marriage, they can have it--at the cost of supporting the sanctity of marriage society-wide.

One partner, for life. I'd rather they were heterosexually monogamous, but no law men can make is going to make a gay person straight, so let us at least put a stop to the dangerous, expensive promiscuity that is exacting such a high cost of all of us for HIV treatments.

But let's get real--they're not after "marriage" in this sense, most of them. They're after benefits. They want to keep the bunny lifestyle but with healthcare.

[Destro]

I am very concerned with why pro family groups like Focus on the Family and American Family Association who are behind this amendment when they know it will not help. Something strange is going on here. The cure is very simple - make congress do their job. Adding an amendment to the constitution takes 2/3rds of the states voting yes, a great feat and very expensive. It will not stop runaway judges!

I have mentioned this many times. The amendment issue is a phoney one like the flag burning amendment was phoney. It is designed to help Republicans in an election who have zero intention of working to get one passed. That is why the Republicans who control all branches of govt have done nothing and pretend to be powerless. That is the only conclusion I can make. Good fo ryou in makng this an issue.

Republic before Republican.

[Destro]

You said it all.

[znix]

Yeah, call me when we mobilize to redefine the Commerce clause or repeal the graduated income tax.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

The line has been drawn in the sand.

You're either pro-gays, pro-gay marriage or you're against it.

In my view, if you're pro-gay, pro-gay marriage you are NOT a conservative.

It's that simple.

[Skwidd]

I'm 28, which I suppose makes me one of those 'young conservatives.' Flame me if you like, I'm completely apathetic about gay marriage. I could care less who you bugger--just don't bother me about it.

I was the youngest person (besides my wife) at the Thanksgiving Freep meetup in Japan. We talked about a lot of things, and the topic turned to gays in the military. As one of the only two military guys there, I honestly said I could care less, so long as the homo in question could (and would) do his job. That drew an incredulous stare from Ronin and others, but hey, we all have different opinions about all kinds of things (drugs, War on Terror, etc.).

I truly believe in the PJ O'Rourke definition of freedom, which is to be left alone (and it is best done by default).

[Irene Adler]

"Too many jobs depend on that 50% divorce rate."

I am not so sure that the "divorce rate" really is 50 percent. Is that figure not arrived at by dividing the number of divorces per year by the number of marriages in that same year? I know the figure is cited all the time, but it really isn't a "divorce rate" because the divorces counted in any given year come from marriages begun perhaps as long as 50 years ago and comparing all those divorces to just the marriages taking place in one year isn't really valid. I am not so sure it's actually possible to measure the real divorce rate.

[znix]

In my view, if you're pro-gay, pro-gay marriage you are NOT a conservative.

Wow, I didn't know we had become such an exclusive club. When I joined there was no master list of qualifications you must meet.

What does it make me then?

[Orangedog]

It's been computed by many differnt organizations using many methods. Everything from matching up marriage licenses to divorces granted to surveys and everything in between. The 50% rate is fairly universal by almost any method used. A lot of people won't even really consider you as "grown-up" these days until you've had at least one bad marriage under your belt...but I digress. Point is, it's everywhere. There are even divorce magazines and it won't be long before someone starts a divorce channel on cable TV. Ask anyone in the business what the divorce rate is.

[Lucky Dog]

The root of the problem is you and me, the Christians who are ignorant of the Constitution, who vote into office pro sodomite Republicans, Republicans who are afraid to take a stand, and Republicans who will not impeach judges or reign in their jurisdiction.

You have correctly identified both the problem and the solution. However, what is not clear is the path you propose to a rapid implementation. Well?

[Meldrim]

"I guess I don't really care. That's my strongly staked-out position."

Which is the same position Jonah took when he realized his nation required young men to volunteer to defend it.

[little jeremiah]

You are exactly right, spot on.

And there ARE people in power who are evil. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of them are. And to probably paraphrase W.B. Yeats, the the best have lost all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

[conservative cat]

A few years later once they get a taste of the 50% divorce rate and the Hell that goes with divorce, they will scream to reverse the policies that let them get "married." It will wreck their lives just like it has for tens of millions of straight people.

I've said that for awhile, now. I DO NOT approve of gay marriage, but... I've been through divorce hell. Let them go through it, too, every time they want to call it quits. They'll get sick of marriage pretty darn fast. Didn't the first Vermont couple split up pretty fast?

[Orangedog]

We agree on all of those points.

This reminds me of an aquantance of mine who had a toddler that kept trying to stick things other than power cords into electrical outlets. Being frustrated, and more importantly, an electrician, he disconnected one outlet from the breaker box and wired a small battery powered circuit to that outlet. It's output was about what you get from dragging your feet on the carpet and touching something conductive. Not enough to hurt, but still an attention-getter. He then let his kid stick one of his favorite objects into that outlet. The kid got a little jolt and never tried it again.

[hunter112]

I'm 28, which I suppose makes me one of those 'young conservatives.'

Well, I've got twenty years on you, so that doesn't make me a young conservative (my first Presidential vote was for Ford), but I feel the same way. I don't really think the dividing line is age, as much as its religion. If you either belong to a relatively mainstream branch of Protestantism, or are agnostic or atheist, you don't much care about this as an issue. If you're a fundamentalist, who still thinks Paul was right about women being silent, then you're willing to throw whatever you can into this battle.

If three quarters of the people in this country felt the latter way, there'd be an FMV. Since the numbers are nowhere near that, it won't happen. Getting the proposal noted near the top of this thread passed with a simple majority of both houses of Congress, and a signature from the President is the best that religious conservatives can hope for. And that's only while there are about 60% of the people in this country who are disturbed about gay marriage, about a third of them won't feel that way for too much longer.

[Salvation]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Do a search for homosexuality.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

---

[supercat]

I wonder what the result would be if one were to ask the following questions in a survey:

1. Ideally, what is the most important thing that is created or begun when a man and woman get married?
2. Ideally, how long will that thing last?

IMHO, there is one correct answer for each question; the correct answer for #2 isn't "a lifetime". But I wonder how many people could answer those questions correctly?

[EdReform]

Bump

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)