SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (71143)7/30/2003 8:00:09 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
I found this piece by Andrew Sullivan in the Kurtz column in today's Post. I found it particularly well written so I thought I'd post it, FWIW.

Andrew Sullivan:

"It's extremely depressing to see a magazine that has long championed federalism and states rights support a Constitutional Amendment that would shred such principles. . . .

"NR has essentially conceded in this passage that every link to procreation in legal marriage has been gutted already, except the abstract but practically inconsistent association of heterosexuality and procreation. Yet they are not proposing an amendment to make divorce or multiple re-marriage or sperm banks illegal -- something that clearly would restore the ancient links between marriage and procreation. Their view is that although heterosexuals have severed the link between procreation and marriage, homosexuals should not be allowed to enter the institution on the same terms.

"Why? I can't see a real argument, except that somehow admitting gay people would make what is already true too explicit. From the point of view of National Review, a civil marriage regime which allows the most shameless, intentionally childless, days-long, Green Card, Vegas chapel, heterosexual marriage is worthy of more legal and social protection than a long-term faithful and loving gay relationship with kids. It's good to see how they really feel about gay relationships."



To: Lane3 who wrote (71143)7/30/2003 9:39:00 PM
From: one_less  Respond to of 82486
 
And I shall guard the info on your exploits with unyielding tenacity, lest some scamps should use it to fall upon you with impudent derision as they are apt to do from time to time.