Apparently, judicial activism is alive and well, since the will of the people of California was not enough to prevent the justices on California's Supreme Court from imposing their own redefinition of marriage on the state.
It is the job of the judiciary to protect the rights of the minority. In other words, to combat legislative activism.
Why is it so imperative that we protect and preserve the traditional definition of marriage in the United States?
Traditional? Christian, certainly. Well, for most Christians. Personally, I think anyone who is interested in embracing the Catholic ideal of marriage should do so and in this country they are welcome to do so without fear of persecution. But marriage is not necessarily about one man/one woman. In more traditions, it is about one man/several women.
In the long view of history, it seems likely that we will look back at the social changes identified with the decline of marriage and the family, which began to make cultural inroads in the 1960s, and conclude that this vast cultural experiment has been a very harmful failure, particularly for our children.
Oh, I see. So my husband and I living together and getting pregnant before our wedding was somehow a reflection of how bad for society gay marriage is? The fact that many or most hetero couple cohabitate before marriage reflects how bad gay marriage? The fact that divorce is commonly regarded as a solution to anything from boredom to financial troubles reflects how bad gay marriage is? I see.
That experiment, of course, continues apace today, but there are indications that America is beginning to reevaluate the matter, to assess where it is headed and whether, as a people, we need to correct this course.
Actually, in most states, laws discouraging cohabitation, bearing children out of wedlock, and obtaining divorcing to show a reevaluation of our priorities: those laws are all moving towards making those choices more a matter of personal choice and less a matter of state incentives. There are a few much-vaunted exceptions, like optional "extra committed" marriage options, but those are always *options*. Family law is moving towards allowing choice. And people are generally perfectly ok with this. Personally, I think it might be a good idea to ban divorce, since that is traditional in the Catholic Church. Of course, that is unconstitutional, as is infringes on people's personal choices.
The percentage of children born out of wedlock has increased almost tenfold during this period.
Well, then. Obviously the only solution is to prevent their parents from getting married.
Study after study shows that children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father. Children who grow up in such homes, compared to children in other types of households,
Ah, "other types of households". Certainly we shouldn't contrast what we want with what we are railing against. It makes more sense of course to contract what we want with a culture of crack whores and absent fathers. That way they look really bad. If you want to bash gay families, show some stats on GAY FAMILIES. Not on "other types of households".
It is clear that the government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children by upholding marriage; the social costs of not doing so are tremendous.
What goes around comes around and now I've got conservatives telling me that raising my kid is their job. I don't think so. My kid, my job. Butt out.
But the clearest example of the problems with same-sex marriage is the Netherlands. This is a country where out-of-wedlock births were actually relatively low. But after formal same-sex marriage came in, out-of-wedlock birthrates shot up. It looks as though same-sex marriage had a lot to do with that.
That's one heck of a bizarre conclusion. How do two people who get married bear culpability for someone else getting knocked up? Oh right, we're all responsible for each other. I don't get to make my own choices because it somehow makes the air turn all permissive and then there's teenagers getting knocked up and it's all my fault. Tell me again how this is a conservative position?
The moral imperative today is to do things that will strengthen marriage and help children, like eliminating disincentives to marriage in our welfare benefit system and reestablishing a culture that values moms and dads who get married and honor their commitments in marriage.
Y'know, a BAN is pretty hefty "disincentive". Oh right, we're busy blaming welfare babies on gay guys.
Yawn. Another rant about how teh gayzors are churning out too many crack babies and it's all their fault no one stays married. So we need to ban them from getting married.
If Sam Brownback doesn't like gay marriage, he should avoid marrying a guy. Other than that, bunch of wrong-headed, terribly argued drivel demonstrating an overinflated need to control other people. Whatever happened to proselytization as the way to convince people to become good Christians?
