Category: Marriage & Family

Giving Credit Where It’s Due Dept.

Once again the news confirms that nobody’s wrong all the time, or in the words of the aphorism, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”
Thanks to Rep. Barney Frank who has come out … in opposition to San Francisco’s illegal same-sex marriages, because, well, they’re illegal. And dittos to gay-paper editor Fred Kuhr, who argued the same point on O’Reilly’s show Friday evening.

Feet to the fire

Marc Zappala’s weblog Transcendence is hardly out of the box, and already he’s laid into the following subjects with acute attention and a few acerbic poems:

  • pro-aborts who are at some level anti-choice
  • people who still regard Bill Clinton as an innocent scapegoat
  • why Margaret Cho is so bitter
  • the gay lobby’s reflexive support for abortion
  • W.’s failure to understand and pursue American interests
  • his own temptations.

Welcome to the parish, Marc.

Cohabitation and Marriage

A December article from New Scientist claims that cohabitation before marriage is good for men’s health. I didn’t read all of the argument because of the logical flaw in the first paragraph:

Cohabiting is better for men’s mental health, but marriage is better for women’s happiness, suggests a new study.

Don’t these weirdos know that whatever isn’t good for a woman’s happiness will ultimately manifest itself in her man’s mental health???

“Ghaos” in Massachusetts?

So far on day one of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention (a joint session of the legislature), the ConCon has rejected two proposed amendments.
By 94-104, they rejected a text from the Senate Dem and Rep (!) leaders that would ban same-sex “marriage” but require the establishment of “civil unions”; and by 98-100, they rejected a compromise by the House Speaker that would ban same-sex marriage and allow the option of civil unions if the legislature so chose. The original text, which would ban both gay marriage and civil unions, will be on the agenda Thursday afternoon.
My guess is that the anti-family forces have done their part to stack the deck by bringing the Speaker’s compromise proposal up for a vote first: if the strongest version had been debated first or second and failed, the compromise text — restoring the legal status quo before Goodridge — would have remained an option acceptable to pro-family folks. Now Thursday’s vote will be for all or nothing, and if it’s defeated, the anti-family forces will have what they want — excepting a possible legislative end-run — and the nationwide legal battles will be on.
Correction: I previously stated here that the Senate text had been proposed by my State Senator. That was incorrect; however, he did vote for it, sad to say.