From Christianity Today website. Noted by Jennifer Roback Morse on her website The Marriage Revolution.
By practicing what it preaches on marriage, the church could transform society.
A Christianity Today editorial | posted 08/27/2003
Same-sex marriage makes perfect sense–if you buy North American culture’s take on sex and marriage. More than four decades after the introduction of the Pill, hardly anyone now getting married remembers the time when pleasure, procreation, passion, companionship, and parenthood were all intimately knotted into a bundle called marriage. Without those connections, marriage has become an arena for mere self-fulfillment and sexual expression. Even the Ontario Court, in its June 10 affirmation of same-sex marriage, could describe marriage as only an expression of love and commitment. If that is all there is to marriage, why not grant the same legal benefits to committed same-sex couples as to married heterosexuals?
There is, however, an alternative view, rooted in the Bible, in history, in tradition, and in nature. And those of us who see marriage through those lenses can only think of “same-sex marriage” as we think of “fat-free sour cream”—a triumph of the modern, technologically blunted imagination.
The modern spirit has often been devoted to overcoming nature with technology. This has been a blessing when it has nearly wiped out some life-threatening diseases. Unfortunately, it has also synthesized inferior substitutes for real things, ranging from the invention of calorie-free sweeteners to the recent creation of embryos that were genetically both male and female.
That same modernist spirit is at work in the juggernaut that seems bent on normalizing same-sex marriage in North America. May God bless the resistance: First, Matt Daniels and the Alliance for Marriage for promoting the Federal Marriage Amendment. Second, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R.-Colo.) and her 75 colleagues cosponsoring the Amendment in Congress. And third, commentators like Cal Thomas and Mona Charen for exposing the diabolical logic of the Supreme Court’s recent Lawrence v. Texas decision. And Maggie Gallagher for elucidating the cultural consequence of legalizing same-sex marriage.
“[A]nyone now getting married remembers the time when pleasure, procreation, passion, companionship, and parenthood were all intimately knotted into a bundle called marriage”
Actually, marriage had only incidental (accidental?) relations to these items in the early colonial period. Marriage, as in England, was a form of alliance between families, stemming from considerations of property, religion, and complementary abilities. The fathers of the couple had the legal right to give or withhold consent, and they frequently entered into economic negotiations before the engagement was formally concluded. Marriage subsumed the legal being of the wife into that of the husband. Under this system, called coverture, when a woman married she lost her right to own property or enter into contracts.
Young girls were often married by the age of 13 or 14 and if women weren?t married by the age of 25, it was socially humiliating. Marriage was mostly for economic benefits, not romantic situations. Widows were also pressured to get married as soon as possible. Even in some states, laws were proposed that would force widows to marry within 7 years after their husband?s death. Widows, however, were often married within a year if not sooner. Women were considered legally dead once they were married under common law. Once married, they legally became one with their husbands. Married women had no control of their earnings, inheritance, property, and also could not appear in court as a witness nor vote. Their husbands, therefore, were responsible for all aspects of their wife including discipline.
Slaves were prohibited from legal marriage, but most did enter into formal unions solemnized either in church weddings before black or white preachers or through simple ceremonies such as jumping over a broomstick. Because most African-Americans in bondage lived on small plantations with fewer than twenty slaves, many had to seek partners elsewhere, in what were called “broad marriages.” Slaves had to have their owners’ permission to marry, and about one in six marriages was broken by the sale of one of the partners.
(http://www.angelfire.com/ca/HistoryGals/Chloe.html)
(http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_056600_marriage.htm)
Has civil marriage evolved? Certainly! We may want to rethink whether we want to look back on the institution with as much nostalgia as we are, however.
Note 1
Those who accept burdens get the honor. Hence those who accept the responsibility of lifetime, procreative unions receive the honor of society.
Jim, human beings can participate in a wide range of sexual conduct and in a wide range of social relations. I will refrain from listing the types of practices that human beings have engaged in for the purpose of gratifying themselves sexually. High achieving and enduring civilizations have chosen to honor only one-marriage.
Virtually every high-achieving civilization, China, Japan, the West under Christendom, and even to some extent ancient Rome and Greece, gave special status to the union of a man and woman. People who married had completed a rite of passage and were considered adult members of the community. The elders of China, Japan, Western Europe, and other places were aware of the human proclivity towards homosexuality which is indulged in by some individuals. The high-achieving, and I might add enduring, civilizations REWARDED PERMANENCE and PRO-CREATION.
They did this by in essence telling young people “If you marry, if you create permanent bonds, if you shoulder the burden of raising young… then you will be honored as a full adult worthy of respect and your sexual bond will be honored.” If you do not marry, if you do not enter into a permanent bond, if you engage in sex with your own gender…. you will not receive full honors in society.
Does this social contract or bargain make sense?
Why is the Left always pushing for practices which diminish and would ultimately extinguish the race? Homosexuality is sterile, abortion kills a human, euthanasia could have deprived us of many brilliant people who have been physically disabled.
Why does the Left hate life?
Well, the apostle Paul says that it is better not to marry. I suppose this would be considered part of the Church’s asceticm of dying to oneself, or the Orthodox “culture of death”.
Missourian:
You missed my point.
Civil marriage in the United States (i.e., colonial period) was not about “pleasure, procreation, passion, companionship, and parenthood”. It was about property. If we kept the same standards and laws, you as a female would not be able to lease or own a car, you would not be able to have a credit card, and you would probably sleep in a separate bed from your husband. Your father would have the legal right to have said whether or not you could marry and to whom, regardless of what you felt about the matter.
These other concepts are modern ideals, certainly not based on actual historical traditions.
Note 4
No, I am very familiar with your point. Most marriages were, in fact, love matches. Many times it was a love which is neglected these days, the love which develops over time between caring people who have committed themselves to their mate’s best interests. The love we tell our young people about is little more than one set of glands calling to another.
I have been close to people who married early in the 20th century. Most of their matches matured into a very deep love that lasted a lifetime, despite the restrictive legal structures.
Note 4. Marriage was only about property? Have you read literature — I mean novels and stories from other places and eras?
James are you married or single?
Note 3. Orthodoxy sees monasticism and marriage as equally legitimate ways in which the commandment to love God and neighbor can be obeyed. I argue that marriage is, in fact, a more immediate requirement of obedience because your closest neighbor is always your spouse.
Note 1:
There was not a universal approach to marriage in either England or the American Colonies. The user of marriage to tie families together was preeminent among the Cavaliers in Virginia and Maryland, but it had different and forms purposes among the Puritans, Quakers, Scots/Irish etc. Marriage meant different things to different people, as it does today. You are correct that it was not what we would consider to be a golden age of marital bliss.
However, I think so much of our ideal of what marriage should be is shaped by our modern notions of romance and love, there is no sense that marriage transcends beyond our own selfish wants: that is why, IMO, the homosexual marriage issue has come to the forefront. Missourian indirectly points this out in Note 2. Those civilizations held up marriage as having a greater purpose. Granted it did not always take what we would consider to be an ideal form, but it had a special place in the society nonetheless.
I think in some ways the Christian Churches of all types have let their messages get clouded, or have failed to hold the line in defending marriage. With some hesitation, I am also going to go out on a limb here and place some responsibility on our Evangelical Protestant friends (I used to be one myself) for this situation. With a few exceptions, their traditions have rejected the notion of a sacramental connection between Christ and the faithful. Everything that the Orthodox (and Catholics) believe to be sacraments are either merely symbols, covenants, etc. to most of the American Protestant world. In other words, they are merely outward acts, albeit with spiritual meaning.
They also tend to reject, or refuse to acknowledge “history” and “tradition” as mentioned in the above article. Despite many Evangelicals’ steadfast and much needed defense of marriage and the unborn, they often have a very shallow theological and philosophical arsenal to draw from–which is, I think, a problem that transcends this particular debate. I know that many will find my opinion way off target, and I run the risk of over-generalizing. No offense is intended, but that is the way I see it.
This also means that we Orthodox have no excuse whatsoever if we do not hold the line in this debate. It will be to our shame if we role over because we, of all people, should know better and have a greater ability to argue against these distortions of marriage, both in the society as a whold, but especially in our own congregations.
Michael, I agree with a lot that you say, although I might see the anteceedents on the contemporary decline of marriage a bit differently. I do agree that the Protestant desecularization of Christianity lends it susceptible to a contractual view of marriage and may also contribute to the high divorce rate among them. And yes, modern notions of romance and love are way off the mark. Love is feeling in this view, not a doing.
Note 6:
I’m not saying that “romantic love/eros” didn’t exist in early American life. I’m saying it wasn’t the sole or even primary reason why people got married, based on my readings.
The husband’s ability to command all the assets was the keystone of a family’s success, and that depended on the woman agreeing to surrender ownership and control over the assets when they married. Coverture forbade woman to write contracts or buy and sell property.
Perhaps this is someone else’s idea of mutual love and respect; it’s not mine.
In addition, the statistics I’ve read of women who engaged in prostitution in early American history was surprisingly high. Evidently, men were getting their “romantic needs” met elsewhere.
I happen to be very single; not sure why that matters, though. I think marriage can be a great thing, but it’s only as sacred and good as the participants make it. Marriage, to me, has no “objective” or “external” value outside what the partners bring to it. I don’t see how someone marrying someone else to obtain a green card (which can still be done) has any objective social value, do you?
As an aside, I neither subscribe to the modern approach that marriage should be based on transitory feelings of lust or infatuation or convenience. Should people be allowed to marry for these reasons? Probably, and I can’t see how we could prevent it. At the same time, I think we can promote a different ideal.
Notes 8 and 9:
I just want to make sure that I am being clear. I do not see the Protestant churches as THE cause (maybe A cause), but I think they are weakened in the face of a full onslaught by the hostile secularists who seem to be well aware of their own (disturbing) philosophical framework. I think the motivation of the secular left is related to Missourian’s question, “Why does the Left hate life?” and is a different discussion entirely.
Note 10:
“Perhaps this is someone else?s idea of mutual love and respect; it?s not mine.”
James, you are doing what us history nerds call “projection,” interpreting an historical situation using our present-day values. In other words projecting our sense of propriety on people living in vastly different circumstances in a different time and place. The feminists and other “studies” programs at universities have made this into an art form. Be careful not to discount the historical value place on marriage, and the feelings husbands and wives had for each other, just because it does not meet your definition of “mutual love and respect.” We can certainly judge historical situations using our modern perspectives, and we must(I am talking about political/cultural mores such as democracy etc., not Christian morality, which is timeless). It is just important to be careful not to make assumptions when trying to understand a historical situation.
As an aside, I am fully aware that what I am saying can be taken to far, into the realm of moral relativism.
“In addition, the statistics I’ve read of women who engaged in prostitution in early American history was surprisingly high. Evidently, men were getting their “romantic needs” met elsewhere.”
This is true especially in the South, and it later became a problem in Boston and other port towns(sailors and all). It all goes to show that nothing really changes. The diary of William Byrd, one of the preeminent elites of 17th century Virginia, is chock full of stomach-churning sexual depravity, and he was not unique among his peers.
Just so everyone knows. Michael R. and I are the same person. I post from different computers and did not catch the difference until it was too late.
Note 3:
It may be just as dangerous to consciously overglorify marriage as it is to devalue it. The same could be said of monasticism. Neither marriage nor monasticism are virtues, but fidelity and chastity are, and chastity is held as a higher virtue by the Church. I tend to think that the current political environment often tends to over-glorify marriage on both sides. Though some may over-glorify “gay marriage”, protestant culture has a tendency to over-glorify “heterosexual marriage” since monasticism doesn’t usually exist to them as a viable option.
Defending definitions of marriage seems more like a trap that loses the focus of whats necessary to actually defend marriage. Marriage is defended through the practice of the virtues of fidelity and chastity. Perhaps it would be better to defend the definitions of these virtues.
Note 16
Again, the issue before the public for discussion and decision is whether gay unions should be given the same favored status as marriage. The public has answered that decisively in 11 states and more can be expected to follow suit.
It is not a question of personal freedom as sodomy has been de-criminalized in most states. Gays are free to live together and to execute wills in each other’s favor, to execute medical powers of attorney and to own property together.
The issue is whether, in a democracy, the voters have the right to decide which types of personal unions they choose to honor and support through legal recognition and tax breaks.
The fact that marriage in the past was not grounded in romantic love is just another reason why marriage should be limited. The basic view that marriage is a relation between families whereby one member of a family becomes a member of another, easily survives distasteful practices of arranging marriages for economic or social advancement. The mere fact that marriage logically and temporally precedes the state is the very reason why the state cannot alter it. The state likewise comes from families and the relation is asymmetrical. The state then cannot alter marriage, but only recognize it on pain of losing political authority and status.
Since marriage is not grounded exclusively in romantic love or even the drive for social and economic gain, but is antecedent to the creation of the state seems to imply that the state has no business defining marriage at all. It simply recognizes it. Marriage is a family affair and homosexual “families” and “marriages” seem to be simply modern piggy backing on these natural modes of human associations. Since homosexual “families” do not occur in nature and did not and do not form states, why recognize them?
Perry:
What do you mean by “the state comes from families”? Our country was founded and governed by single people, divorced people, widows, people with step-parents or single parents, a few gays here and there and married people as well. Do only some of these configurations constitute a family? Which ones?
And what does whether a relationship occur “in nature” have to do with whether or not a governing body protects or recognizes it? Business partnerships do not occur “in nature” but society regulates them anyhow. When you say “in nature”, do you mean just humans? Humans “naturally” seem to have more than one partner in the course of their lives, at least many of them do. Should we only recognize marriages that only fall within the average number, say three? Two?
I understand and support the notion that Churches may not wish to recognize the union of same-gender couples as a “marriage” based on the theological definition of it. Nevertheless, civil marriage to me seems just a convenient vehicle for a specific collection of benefits and obligations that two people wish to share for various reasons. Some use it to obtain citizenship, and some use it to strengthen a relationship which may or may not be sexual or romantic in nature. There are more than a few sexless marriages, I’m sure. Given the fact that we grant marriage licenses to two people and require merely that they have a pulse and are of age, I am hard pressed as to why two people of the same gender can’t consensually enter into this legal agreement.
Note 19
We have been around this block about 100 times.
Humans enter into many different forms of personal relationships. Humans can obtain sexual gratification from many different kinds of activities. This has been apparent to lawmakers throughout the millenia from ancient Greece to modern day.
A healthy society rewards those who take on the committment of a life-long marriage and the responsibility of raising the next generation of children. This reward is the legal support given marriage. Those who do not take on this responsibility shouold not be rewarded. Marriages in which children are not possible still provide a role model for young people of how adult men and adult women care for each other. Many childless couples want to adopt and can become parents.
Gays cannot parent well. They cannot afford a young boy a model of what is to be a father and what it is to be a husband. They cannot afford a young man a model of how to treat women with love and respect. Similarly, gays cannot provide a young women the intimate counsel she needs as she grows up and matures physically and mentally. Gays cannot provide a young woman a role model of how to be a caring and loving wife.
My personal relationships with my mother and with my father during my childhood were critical and could never have been fulfilled by a couple of gay men or a couple of lesbians. The very idea is ridiculous.
Society actually afford gays freedom to live together, freedom to make their wills to benefit each other, freedom to sign medical powers of attorney and many other freedoms. Sodomy has been de-criminalized in most states and probably will be in all states within the decade.
It is the height of illogical folly to disrupt the foundation of society to please the sexual whims of approximately 3% of the population. Last time I looked this was a democracy and majority rules. Gays have freedom in America, most Americans are tolerant. Society has a right to refuse to honor a naturally sterile relationship that cannot serve as a vehicle for raising children. Gays are not entitled to the honor and preference given marriage.
As to the incidence of divorces, the statistic cited that 50% of all marriages end in divoce is false. The statistic is that in any given year there are half as many divorces as their are NEW MARRIAGES. The statistic does not properly speak to marriages in previous years that are still intact. In private surveys, 80% of married people in America state that their marriage is “good or excellent.” Some states have been a movement to enact “covenant” marriages to distinguish those relationships which people mean to last a lifetime. Young people are becoming more conservative in their behavior as they have observed the wreckage of the baby boomers’ lives and don’t necessarily want to imitate them. People are becoming disillusioned with the libertine preachings of the 60s. Those chickens have come home to roost in broken families, abandoned children, lonely adults, and fractured communities. Sorry the sexual revolution was a failure. The election results from November 2, 2004 make clear that Americans are not going to let a minority disrupt their culture.
Note 19. If 50% of marriages end up in divorce, close to half the people I know would be divorced. They aren’t. It’s a dubious as the claim that if a person is divorced twice, four marriages are affected — two for each of the former spouses.
And yes, the sexual revolution was indeed a horrible failure that exacts high costs and tremendous penalties. I agree with your assessment that one of the lessons of the last election is that it is time to set real limits again. Sorry if the gay marriage lobby doesn’t like it but enough is enough.
At first, I thought covenant marriage sounded like a good idea:
Here’s one story from a woman who resides in Louisiana which, if factual, raises some issues that would need to be addressed:
“The law is so ambigious that most courts will not even HEAR any cases concerning covenant marriages WITHOUT a two year separation AND counseling. Even though the law states you have 3 “outs” (abuse, adultery, and felony conviction resulting in JAIL TIME, it is NOT the case. If one member of the marriage does NOT want “out”, the court does not even have to hear the case … Abuse has to be proven, and it seems only physical abuse is acceptable AND only IF the spouse is beating you up in court. Adultery, the courts will just mandate counseling for two years, and even after the counseling, if one spouse doesn’t want a divorce…guess what? You must stay married. Felony, there has to be actual jail time. The guy I was married to informed me that as long as he doesn’t hit me with a closed fist, it is NOT abuse. And it would not result in a felony arrest. And even if it DID, as long as HE didn’t want to divorce, guess what? I would not get a divorce. And this is how the courts here are interpreting the law. It is scary and frightening.
Not only that, but in cases such as mine, the future bride to be is emotionally blackmailed into a covenant marriage because “obviously you dont think this will work out and you don’t love me enough and you must not want our marriage to work.”
http://marriage.about.com/cs/covenantmarriage/a/covenant_2.htm
Another interesting development: domestic partner benefits are being terminated in Massachusetts by companies that previously offered them.
“Large employers terminating or phasing out domestic-partner benefits for some or all Massachusetts workers include IBM Corp., Raytheon Co., Emerson College, Northeastern University, the National Fire Protection Association, Boston Medical Center, Baystate Health System, and The New York Times Co., which owns The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. “We’re saying if you’re a same-sex domestic partner, you now have the same option heterosexuals have, so we have to apply the same rules to you,” said Larry Emerson, Baystate’s vice president of human resources.'”
I’m going to guess that alternative civil arrangements for heterosexual couples are going to be dropped as well. Either get married or don’t get the benefits.
Interesting …
Such actions may put a real big damper on the “gay marriage” quest.
States and municipalities that seek to end dometic partnership benefits may be shooting themselves in the foot economically. Regardless of your views on homosexuality, the fact remains that the Gay community is more educated, affluent, creative and entrepeneurial than the population at large.
When I lived in the city of Chicago during the eighties and nineties I witnessed the economic revitalization of whole neighbrohoods where gay people had settled. Every realtor and real estate investor wanted to know which area they would move into next.
Actually, pro-gay marriage advocates like Andrew Sullivan oppose domestic partnership benefits where marriage is available for gay couples, suggesting that it actually weakens marriage for both gay and straight couples to offer domestic partnership benefits to “non-married” couples.
Note 24: I’ve also seen several neighborhoods that were on the verge of being condemned turned into thriving and revitalized areas after large gay populations moved in. No one says they don’t know how to remodel!
One of the reasons that homosexuals demonstrate all of the attributes Dean mentions is because they have more disposable income and personal freedom of choice due to the fact that they don?t have dependents. The tax policy in the U.S is still largely unfair to married folks with children mostly because it is an income tax. Let?s repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, institute a national sales tax (with appropriate exemptions or rebates) and give the states back their representation at the Federal level.
The economy would go into overdrive and public policy would get a needed brake in favor or rationality.
Note 24
Dean, what proof do you have that “gays” are more creative? Typically, some parts of the “arts” community have been bohemians that rejected any form of sexual morality. Given that gays were accepted and tolerated in the “arts” community when then wouldn’t be welcomed by people who upheld morality. Gays gravitated towards occupations that contained people who didn’t object to their immorality.
Bohemians are not, repeat not, more tolerant in general. I just went to a party in which a member of the local “arts” community stated that she “couldn’t believe that there could be a Republican person that she could have as a friend.” She was smoking marijuana at the time. Needless to say, I left the party very soon (didn’t want to be around for the police raid). Bohemians are very intolerant of anyone with moral standards or a regard for the law. I wasn’t wanted at that party because although I never spoke a word regarding drugs, sexual morality or any other topic, people knew that as a Bush supporter I was potentially critical of their personal behavior. (Note, I voted for Bush, but I have any number of criticisms of his policies nonetheless)
People who smoke don’t like to be around people who have quit smoking, it shows it can be done.
People who drink too much don’t like to be around non-drinkers because it demonstrates that a person can have a full and happy life without alcohol.
People who abuse drugs don’t like to be around people who don’t abuse drugs, those people are a mute judgment against the druge abusers.
Gays are accepted in many arts communities and they tend to be more open there. Frankly, I have come across a fair number of gay lawyers, however, they don’t advertise their personal proclivities and show up at bar meetings in the same dull suit.
Dean, do you believe that there are any fixed guidelines set by God which govern our behavior?
Note 27: I’ll agree that it’s somewhat a stereotype that gays necessary have more fashion or interior design sense, although I’m not aware of too many straight males who can tell the difference between Versace haute couture and a Betsey Johnson ruffle chiffon.
I don’t think it’s that people don’t like people who are more moral than them, but rather that they don’t like being around people who pretend to be more moral than them and speak condescendingly towards everyone else. Let’s face it: the morality espoused by the “right” is frequently not practiced by them.
Abortion’s bad and should be illegal unless you happen to be the current President paying for it. Divorce is bad unless you’re a Republican senator named Bob Barr (currently on his third wife) and shifting the focus from your own inability to maintain a marriage. Taking drugs is bad and deserving of nothing less than jail time in a cell with a big hairy tuff named “Wolf” unless you’re a rabidly conservative talk-show host taking “hillbilly heroin”, in which case anything more than several prayers for recovery would be shockingly punitive.
Note 28. The issue is the normalizing of immorality, not that some conservatives take drugs, commit adultery, whatever. The charge of hypocrisy is still a tip of the hat to the authority of the moral tradition. What the gay marriage advocates and others want however is to jettison that tradition by defining deviancy as normal.
The charge of hypocrisy draws it punch from the authority of the tradition. Those who want to redefine the tradition and use the charge to condemn their detractors are the authentic hypocrites because they draw from the same tradition they want to jettison. There is a deep contradiction in the heart of moral liberalism — a death wish actually. Some, not all, moral libertines don’t see that the justifications they employ to promote their causes are drawn from the tradition they are trying to subvert. They think the cultural sanction of their libertinism will lead to greater freedom. In fact it will destroy freedom.
Note 24: I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area and saw a similar revitalization occurring in San Francisco. But the cost was to high for the city because it displaced hundreds of low-income, African-American and Hispanic families, who now must commute two to three hours to work, eating up more of their income in transportation costs.
Note 28
Intolerance, thy name is Bohemia
..I’ll skip the fluff regarding gays and interior design.
James writes:
I don?t think it?s that people don?t like people who are more moral than them, but rather that they don?t like being around people who pretend to be more moral than them and speak condescendingly towards everyone else. Let?s face it: the morality espoused by the ?right? is frequently not practiced by them.
Abortion?s bad and should be illegal unless you happen to be the current President paying for it. Divorce is bad unless you?re a Republican senator named Bob Barr (currently on his third wife) and shifting the focus from your own inability to maintain a marriage. Taking drugs is bad and deserving of nothing less than jail time in a cell with a big hairy tuff named ?Wolf? unless you?re a rabidly conservative talk-show host taking ?hillbilly heroin”, in which case anything more than several prayers for recovery would be shockingly punitive.
Missourian:
Apparently, James, you don’t understand concept of hyprocrisy. A hypocrite is something who openly prescribes conduct for others, but, who at the same time prescribes different conduct for themselves. Generally, hyprocrites are harder on others than themselves. Hyprocrisy abounds in human life. A person who believes that adultery is a sin, but, who commits adultery, is NOT A HYPOCRITE IF he applies the same standards to his behavior as he does to others.
You clearly don’t believe that there is anything like a genuine moral code, or that anybody genuinely cares about conforming their behavior to that moral code, or that there will be consequences for breaking any moral code. Hint, there is a moral code, there are people who care and there will be consequences. This is based on 20 years of helping people clean up the messes in their lives as a practicing attorney. I know human misery, James, for those of us lucky enough to live in the United States, most of our misery is self-generated.
People most definitely don’t like being around people who do not share their vices. People who have a strong habit of engaging in one type of sin or another are busy denying that what they do is sin or that it is or will be harmful. People who do not share their vices are living reproof to those who love their vice. People who are problem drinkers want to label those who don’t drink as “buzz killers.” People who have a habit of smoking dope want to see themselves as “noncomformist” types rather than petty criminals playing with fire. I have spent enough time around the jailhouse to have a very good idea of what the drug life is like James, there is no kidding a former prosecutor like me.
The reference to President Bush paying for an abortion is pure libel. If there were any documentation to this claim the national press would trumpet it from the rooftops. Not only is your accustaion libel,it is petty and small minded.
As to Bob Barr, I am not aware that Mr. Barr has attempted to change the no-fault divorce laws which obtain in most states. He did advocate the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying under oath, which Bill admitted that he did. Remember old Bill lost his law license for this conduct. It is a tawdry and cheap trick to conflate Bob Barr’s position in favor of impeachment of Bill Clinton with hyprocrisy about marriage. Actually for all we know, Barr could have had Biblical reasons for divorcing his previous wives, although, I admit it is unlikely.
Lastly, your sophomoric jab at Rush Limbaugh is also unsupported by facts or reason. Limbaugh became addicted to legally prescribed drugs as a result of back trouble. He has been accused of a bizarre offense of “doctor shopping.” This charge concedes that all of the drugs he obtained came from doctor’s prescriptions. It is not clear that the criminal law is constitutional, it may fall under proper attack.
What you have written amounts to nothing more than a smear with a sneer James. Bohemia has its own code of conduct and it is very intolerant of anyone who notices the ugly elephants in bohemia’s own livingroom.