THE MARRYING KIND

Steynonline ^ | 24 February 2011 | Mark Steyn

[JLS]

The trick in this biz is never to be right too early. Kathy Shaidle writes:

"Remember during the gay ‘marriage’ debate, we were scolded: ‘Nobody’s talking about polygamy, you bigoted hicks’?"

Why, yes. Yes, I do.

[JLS]

Mostly rehash, but it is topical and a little bit of Steyn for your day.

[JLS]

Mark Steyn ping.

Freepmail me, if you want on or off the Mark Steyn ping list.

[Steely Tom]

I remember, back in the ‘80’s, when they scolded that “nobody’s talking about gay marriage.”

[GOPJ]

Conservatives need to come up with a totally offensive sex practice - that when we 'share' - our bosses want to fire us. Then we can sue to keep our jobs - no matter how incompetent we are.

My suggestion is we tell people we want to marry our parents - and add them to our health insurance policies... Anyone who objects is a 'phobe'... Parentaphobe... something like that...

[maica]

Remember when the mantra was “stay out of our bedrooms.”

I had a spirited conversation yesterday with a staff member of my Maryland state senator about his vote in support of so-called same sex marriage. When she said that there were 300 ways in which samesex couples were discriminated against, I challenged her to defend the reasons why the same arguments couldn’t apply to two sisters living together. Her answer: “do they share a bedroom?”

I tried to remain calm and civil but was unsuccessful, as my voice went up and up. Talk about hitting a hot button! So I’m sure in her mind I am one of the ‘radical’ ‘haters’.

[wbarmy]

A few more years and we might have an “offensive” sex practice by default. Monogamy or abstinence seem to be really offensive to most of those people.

[Tanniker Smith]

Remember when Lawrence v Texas was decided and folks like, say Dan Quayle, said that the decision could lead to gay marriage and the critics said, “There you go again, you F*****g Idiot!” because no one was talking about gay marriage.

[LibertarianLiz]

My POV has always been: If there is nothing special about marriage being between one man and one woman; then, what is so damned special about the number two. Polygamy is just the progression down that slippery slope.

[TexasFreeper2009]

I remember when the democrats argued against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because they said DOMA was more than sufficient.

[JLS]

I believe that where Lawrence v. Texas could lead was in Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion too.

[DMG2FUN]

So you cannot be born a polygamist? Remember born that way is the rule of homosexuals.

[massmike]

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform

Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

http://www.article8.org/docs/general/platform.htm

[Tanniker Smith]

Thank you. I believe you are correct. That would be an even weightier opinion, which makes those who ridiculed him for it look even more a) foolish or b) diabolical or c) both.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

BUMP! :)

[JLS]

I believe that where Lawrence v. Texas could lead was in Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion too.