March 28th, 2013
Who once said on the Senate floor:
“I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage or to the fundamental, bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history, as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history, and humanity, and civilization. And that it’s primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society to which they are to become adults.”
Had to be Rick Santorum, right? Maybe Jesse Helms? Wait, nobody remembers Jesse “The Body” anymore–kids, he was once The Most Dangerous, Retrograde Conservative in the World, a post now occupied by Ted Cruz. (Until the Republican party chooses its next nominee, of course.)
Obviously I’m kidding–the first couple clauses should tip you off that this is a Democrat trying to posture as being really, super-duper butch in support of traditional marriage.
Okay, give up?
That would be Sen. Hillary Clinton. Of course, to be fair to Clinton, that was way back in
1968 1975 1980 1996 2004, so obviously, people can radically revise even their “fundamental, bedrock principles” over the long haul.
Just a friendly reminder to the people insisting today that gay marriage could never, ever wind up in conflict with religious freedom. And that it’s totally not possible that today’s gay marriage advocates are going to insist, in 8 or 9 years, that every individual and institution in America get onboard the gay marriage train, whatever their religious beliefs.
This will be the primary socio-religious conflict in the coming decade. The progressive Left is a model for religious oppression – believe in our religion and doctrine or we will excommunicate you through shaming, lawsuits, and even death threats. The Weekly Standard was ahead of this curve with the article published by Maggie Gallagher in 2006 titled “Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.”
Of course I liked Andrew Ferguson’s editorial defending Professor Kass and Professor Mansfield, but what worries me most is not that the advocacy studies cited by esteemed “expert” organizations (including a professional organization to which I belong) may be highly politicized with unreliable results. Rather, I am worried that the “studies” may be correct, and I am surprised that nobody seems to be bothered by the implications of such a finding. One such implication is that *kids don’t need fathers*. This may be the truth, but it is a very, very difficult proposition for me to fully accept, as it threatens what I perceive as my primary purpose in life. So I am kind of amazed that people in my social class are so eager to accept that proposition. Even if fathers are, in fact, dispensible, I think it would be been better to hide that fact, in order to preserve pro-paternal popular prejudice.
The slippery slope argument sounds a lot like conspiracy mongering.
Also the Public is changing its mind on gay marriage rapidly if the public is changing its mind I would expect politician’s to also change their minds they are part of the country.
JVL, you clipped the most priceless part of the Clinton quote in the video — just before the passage you reproduce, she says: “I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage; to stand up for marriage; to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage.”
Translation: “Don’t forget I’m a VICTIM — I’m married to a philandering jerk and had to stand by him Tammy-Wynette-style so he wouldn’t be convicted after he got his ass impeached. And you all felt sorry for me — after all, you rewarded me by electing me to Pat Moynihan’s Senate seat!”