Important Articles Discussing Same-Sex "Marriage"

April/May – 05 Policy Review By Jennifer Roback
Morse
Marriage and the Limits of Contract
Overview- A principled libertarian argument for why preserving traditional marriage is essential for limited government.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2939396.html

June/July -05 Policy Review By Lee Harris
The Future of Tradition
Overview-A gay man discusses the fragility of social customs like marriage from a historical/philosophical perspective.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/2932146.html

Spring 2005 Claremont Review of Books By Bradley C. S. Watson
Loves Language Lost
Overview – Concerns the corruption of language inherent in the case for same-sex “marriage”
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.992/article_detail.asp

December 3rd, 2003 Claremont Review of Books By William J. Bennett
Homosexual Unions
Overview - A selection from The Broken Hearth,
http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.313/pub_detail.asp

August/September 2004 First Things by Robert H. Bork
The Necessary Amendment
Overview - Judge Bork discusses the importance an impact of same-sex “marriage”
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=369&var_recherche=same+sex+marriage

Summer 2004 City Journal by Kay S. Hymowitz
Gay Marriage vs. American Marriage
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_gay_marriage.html

Summer 2004 City Journal By David L. Tubbs & Robert P. George
Redefining Marriage Away
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_redefining_marriage.html

October 2003 First Things By The Editor’s
The Marriage Amendment
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=527&var_recherche=gay+marriage+

April 1997 First Things by David Orgon Coolidge
Same-Sex Marriage: As Hawaii Goes . . .
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3677&var_recherche=gay+marriage+

April 2004 The Howard Center "The Family in America" By Bryce Christensen, Ph.D.
Why Homosexuals Want What Marriage Has Now Become
http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia_1804.htm

April 29, 2003 A Brief Submitted to The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights By Margaret A. Somerville
Marriage as Culture the Case Against Same-Sex Marriage
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf

The Catholic Education Resource Center by KATHERINE YOUNG AND PAUL NATHANSON
Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0064.html

20 comments:

adam said...

Hi, this is not so related to your page, but it is the site you asked me 1 month ago about the abs diet. I tried it, worked well. Well here is the site

Fitz said...

423996F

Fitz said...

For the Next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality; and especially on sexual morality. And it is coming, not from a few Socialists surviving from the Fabian Society, but from the living exultant energy of the rich resolved to enjoy themselves at last, with neither Popery nor Puritanism nor Socialism to hold them back….The Madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow, but much more in Manhattan. – G.K. Chesterton’s Weekly – 1926

Fitz said...

http://westernexperience.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-culture-war-is-real-pick-a-side/

Fitz said...

http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-many-families-has-weller-destroyed.html#c115039308403939119

Fitz said...

http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/reflections-on-same-sex-marriage/

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/03/dreher-linker-sullivan-on-gay.html

Fitz said...

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2009/04/clergy-lend-voices-to-marriage-debate.html

Fitz said...

http://vimeo.com/4310323

Fitz said...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/government_geldings.html

Fitz said...

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the solider is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

Fitz said...

http://websearch.cs.com/gw/boomframe.jsp?query=weekly+standard&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D9af961efaa41192f%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dweekly%2Bstandard%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.weeklystandard.com%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DGWYTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weeklystandard.com%2F

Fitz said...

"I Do/I Don't: Queers on Marriage," Michael Bronski's essay "A Gay Man's Case Against Gay Marriage," and Kenyon Farrow's essay "Is Gay Marriage Anti-Black?" But why aren't these people invited on talk shows by either the left or the right?

Fitz said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuibP-a4Rls

Fitz said...

http://www.app.com/article/20100307/NEWS03/3070347/Polls--Attitudes-about-gay-marriage-mixed-and-largely-fixed

Fitz said...

Concerning the Loving analogy as you have employed it. I would draw your attention to the
argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision

Hernadez v Robles.

"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves."

Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382

Here the court is saying that proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-miscegenation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex "marriage" supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-miscegenationists were intrested more in promoting segregation than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundational constitional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.

Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage.

Fitz said...

Yes, Good for Her. I live in Michigan and jackson is rather conservative on the whole, so I hope this bad P.R. wont effect her employment.

This brings me to the point of my posting. This is open & obvious press harassment by the gay press. Her veiwpoint got her fired (unfairly) from her previous University position. Now, clearly the gay press has followed her & is now hounding her in hopes of derailing her job prospects.

I wish I could congradulate her on her courage and fortitude; like the girl from Eastern Michigan University who got hounded out of her job as marriage thearapist; African Amarican men & women have been some of marriages most stalwart supporters.

Watch for more of this ill-liberal tactic of attempting to go after peoples livelyhoods. The gay left will not stop until all people of conviction are steamroled for their beliefs.

Fitz said...

Its nice to note that France still defines marriage as the man + woman norm it is and should be. This is despite the concentrated efforts of the gaty lobby there.

Indeed: The French Parlementary report that was issued when they had their fight against gay marriage can be found on-line and is a very informative and lucidly written document explaining why marriage should remain opposite sexed ( I guess the French Parliment are ("irrational bigots")


France is expierencing the longterm effects of the sexual revolution and family breakdown in the form of sub replament level birthrates. They are actively seeking more French children by offering greater child taxbreaks.

Its ironic but what may keep Europe and therefore America from embracing same-sex "marriage" is that welfare state socialism cant maintain itself without more taxpayers.

That and the fact that the French can more easily ignore the like of Derrrida & Foucault because their French themselves. Unlike American academics who feel the need to worship at the feet of French Philosophy.

Fitz said...

Same-sex marriage enthusiasts bring so much raw emotion & zeal to the prop 8 trial and other arguments that they almost always miss marriage defenders legal arguments.

They forget and often (intentionally?) engage in burden shifting, The most extensive hyperinflation of the rational basis test, and completley ignore that the laws understanding of marriage is based in precedent NOT the shifting rationals of leftists or scholars.

Given SCOTUS precedent like Baker, Skinner, Loving and others the proposition 8 legal team are obviously for a straighforward Supreme Court challange.

Marriage quo "marriage" as originally defined is a fundemental consitutional right and stands on its own grounds as such. Not only dose it defeat any 14th amendment challenge ...it is its own consitutional right (a fact marriage redefiners concede only long enough to both assert and then redifine it)

They are (intentionally?) misreading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: and making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2


2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)


This is why the Pro-prop forces dont need to overburden there arguments with hypotheticals from David or anyone else as to "what" or "why" changing the definition of marriage will or wont do X or Y.

These arguments may be fun and interesting for enthusiasts on either side of the debate. However at the end of the day (SCOTUS) the legal strategey of the pro-marriage attorneys behoves them to concentrate on the straightforward legal argumnent and established precedent. Not to get drawn into an argument of what may or may not result from a burden on an argument they are not required to make to begin with.

David and others who testify ought understand this.

Fitz said...

LuLu & company

"And again, that’s totally irrelevant. “Marriage” does not (and never has) required the production of children in order to be valid."

Thou dost protest to much.... (I mean really "totally irrelevant"!?!)

It need not require the production of children...it is simply and obviously limited to the one and only class of couples capable of reproduction.

Coontz has always been a revesionist femeninst scholar and her reduction of relations to mere economics reveal this. If it was simply economic than multiple caregiving and income sharing realtionships would also qualify as marriage.

Both the Loving & Skinner decision reveal what the law considers the core meaning of marriage in the central holding of both decision.

"Marriage is one of the basic rights of man, fundemental to his very existance and survival" - Skinner v Oklahoma

Bakers quick dismissal on the merits puts this truth to the lie of marriage confusion enthusiaists.

Fitz said...

AM (writes)
" I see your point about their avoidance strategy but I am curious as to why the pro-8 side has decided to request an en blanc hearing from the 9th circuit."

To delay further...their playing for time. The three judge panal set it up as narrow as they could manage for SCOTUS. Yet the pro- ss "m" side wants this appeal only to avoid a direct appeal to SCOTUS. There hoping for some political momentum or anything to make a SCOTUS decision go their way.



Ken Cauld (writes)
"Fitz, seriously, and I am being totally honest, support for Marriage equality will only grow stronger. Why do you guys fight the inevitable?"

I did not know you were clairvoant Ken... This is what they said about abortion at the time...and I think thats about the best you could possibly expect. A deeply divided country with support for same-sex "marriage" a mile wide but an inch deep. WHile support for traditional marriage is a mile wide also but 5000 years deep.

This still has SCOTUS to go to; and theirs alot of the law you dont know about. The left really have painted themselves into a corner.

They are (intentionally?) misreading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: and making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2


2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)



You are probably utopian & polyanish about the future. All traditionalist forces ever need to say is "children need their Mothers & Fathers" to counter any claims of "your a bigot" from leftists. - Like abortion it takes traditionalists time to get up & running. Once we get our inertia going however our arguments end up convincing more and more people. This is in contrast to a bumpersticker campaign for ss"m" that reads like a 1970's feel good self help book. It lacks any real sunstance besides "let everyone do whatever they feel like doing" - that has its charms but ultimently is not conducive to social order and responsible procreation.