In response to:

Nine Justices or Fifty States? Who Should Decide Gay Marriage?

Hugh Oxford Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 9:58 AM
The key to understanding this debate is to understand that it has little to do with homosexuality, marriage or equality. Marriage is a normative statement about human reality, the human person and society. Rooted in our creation as male and female, it asserts the reality of the sexes, the difference between them, their complementarity and the need for their mutual co-operation. It says that as humanity comprises the sexes, we need mothers and fathers, and from that, there is a natural family with natural rights. "Genderless marriage" (for that is what we are actually talking about), is a statement that contradicts that. It's implicit assertion is that gender is a construct, moreover an undesirable one that needs to be abolished.
Hugh Oxford Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 10:04 AM
... so it is not a battle for "gay rights", but a fight against the very notion of the sexes. Gay rights are just the emotive pretext. First to go is "husband" and "wife", followed by "mother" and "father". Then it's "boy" and "girl" (these are all constructs after all). This is well under way in those polities that have passed this law.

That is why the agenda is not to abolish legal recognition of marriage and return it to the extra-legal, pre-political domain, replacing it with "civil unions". It is to turn the normative statement of marriage upon its head, de-constructing the human person in the process. This is a goal of radical feminism, and "genderless marriage" is not the endgame, it is part of the process.
Hugh Oxford Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 10:16 AM
No, it isn't. You paint it as a simple thing, but you do that to mask the reality. Assuming that the inherently non-sexual unions of pairs of men or women were in any meaningful sense "equal" to the sexual unions of men and women upon which our society depends, equal rights and responsibilities could be conferred without the deconstruction of the normative statement conveyed in marriage, which is the human and pre-political institution that asserts human reality as male and female.
eddie again Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 11:08 AM
all citizens of america are treated equally under its laws. there are no laws in america that are applied based on a citizen's sexual attractions. i know of no laws that ask people what their sexual attractions are.

if there are such laws, please identify them.
Alex_P Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 11:52 AM
eddie again Wrote:
"all citizens of america are treated equally under its laws. there are no laws in america that are applied based on a citizen's sexual attractions. i know of no laws that ask people what their sexual attractions are.

if there are such laws, please identify them. "

In the off chance that this was a question and not a polemic instrument, how about the law against incest? Better still, how about the laws against bestiality?

I would like to think that Supreme Court justices are smarter than I am.

At one level, they surely are. Their years of devotion to the practice and analysis of law involves countless pages of book-learning I will never undertake. Their brains must fairly bulge with minutiae I cannot grasp.

But there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. There are high school dropouts who have deep wells of astuteness about how to think, act and live in an enlightened way. And there are Ph.D.’s I would not let into my house.

In one stunning moment Tuesday from the Supreme Court...