Attorney Discerning

Just another poor dumb sinner; trying to do what he can for Christ & His Church

Thursday, February 07, 2008

[FROM Standhardt v. Super. Ct of Ariz.,

[FROM Standhardt v. Super. Ct of Ariz., 206 Ariz. 276, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz.App. 2003)],(Ariz. Supreme Court review denied 2004 Ariz. LEXIS 62 (Ariz., May 25, 2004)-- a state appeals court ruling denying a claim for same-sex marriage:

..."P34. Petitioners argue that the State's asserted basis for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest for several reasons, which we address in turn. First, Petitioners briefly contend that a state's interest in procreation and protecting children can never justify a law infringing upon the right to marry, because the Supreme Court has stated that the right to marry belongs to individuals rather than families or society. See Griswold, 381 U.S. at 486 (striking state law banning distribution of condoms to married couples and describing marriage, in part, as "a bilateral loyalty, not [a] commercial or social project[]"); Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."). Although Griswold and Loving described marriage as a personal right, neither case suggested that a state cannot infringe upon that right for social purposes, such as encouraging procreation and protecting children. Indeed, the Court recognized in Loving that "marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power." 388 U.S. at 7. We therefore reject Petitioners' contention.

P35. Petitioners more persuasively argue that the State's attempt to link marriage to procreation and child-rearing is not reasonable because (1) opposite-sex couples are not required to procreate in order to marry, and (2) same-sex couples also raise children, who would benefit from the stability provided by marriage within the family. 16 However, as the State notes, "[a] perfect fit is not required" under the rational basis test, and we will not overturn a statute "merely because it is not made with 'mathematical nicety, or because in practice it results in some inequality.'" (citations omitted).

P36. Allowing all opposite-sex couples to enter marriage under Arizona law, regardless of their willingness or ability to procreate, does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. First, if the State excluded opposite-sex couples from marriage based on their intention or ability to procreate, the State would have to inquire about that subject before issuing a license, thereby implicating constitutionally rooted privacy concerns. See Griswold, 381 U.S. at 485-86; Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. at 453-54; Adams, 486 F. Supp. at 1124-25 (recognizing government inquiry about couples' procreation plans or requiring sterility tests before issuing marriage licenses would "raise serious constitutional questions"). Second, in light of medical advances affecting sterility, the ability to adopt, and the fact that intentionally childless couples may eventually choose to have a child or have an unplanned pregnancy, the State would have a difficult, if not impossible, task in identifying couples who will never bear and/or raise children. Third, because opposite-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, Loving, 388 U.S. at 12, excluding such couples from marriage could only be justified by a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721, which is not readily apparent.

P37. For these reasons, the State's decision to permit all qualified opposite-sex couples to marry does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. See Adams, 486 F. Supp. at 1124-25 (rejecting challenge to same-sex marriage prohibition on basis that opposite-sex couples not required to prove or declare willingness to procreate in order to marry); Baker, 291 Minn. at 313-14, 191 N.W.2d at 187 (same).".....

Apparently, Topix no longer maintains my post that I linked to above, so here's an excerpt on the UNDERINCLUSION/OVERINCLUSION fallacy so often used here:

It's long past time to have a thread addressing one of the gay-marriage advocates' most persistent claims.

That persistent claim is that a civil marriage restriction because of the heterosexual ability to naturally procreate is a constitutionally-invalid restriction or limitation on "the right to marry", because the restriction "discriminates" against homosexual couples who procreate by artificial means and that it on the other hand "discriminates" in favor of heterosexual couples who are childless and therefore who don't procreate at all.

There is a name for these distinctions in the effects of various laws -- these distinctions are called "underinclusiveness" and "overinclusiveness".


A characteristic of a statute or administrative rule dealing with First Amendment rights and other fundamental liberty interests, whereby the statute prohibits some conduct but fails to prohibit other, similar conduct.

An underinclusive law is not necessarily unconstitutional or invalid. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that all laws are underinclusive and selective to some extent. If a law is substantially underinclusive, however, it may be unconstitutional.

A law is not necessarily invalid just because it is underinclusive. For example, a statute that prohibited the use of loudspeaker systems near a hospital might be underinclusive for failing to prohibit shouting or the use of car horns in the same area. This type of underinclusiveness concerns only the manner of delivering speech, however, and is therefore more likely to pass constitutional scrutiny than a statute that prohibits speech on particular subjects."....
As you might logically guess then, "overinclusiveness" is generally the flip side of underinclusiveness -- "overinclusiveness" involves a claim that a law ALLOWS some conduct but fails to allow other, similar conduct.

Yes women fought for the right to vote. Some religious people were against it and some for it. The suffragettes were a Church based movement in themselves, with many prominent figures being highly devout Christians.

But more to the point - women “fought” for the right to vote. They went out & convinced people that they should have the vote. This required a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Eventually (within a generation) they convinced enough Americans that it was voted in. This means men (who were the only ones who could vote) were convinced enough to give women what they deserved.

Compare that with the imposition of same-sex “marriage” on an unwilling populace through the courts. Gays don’t have enough respect for their fellow citizens & the system to take that route. They realize their agenda is bad public policy & is rightfully rejected; so they have to force it on the country.

Now… Think about this.
The 19th amendment (women’s vote) comes AFTER the 14th amendment..
If the 14th is such an elastic, equal protection guarantor of minority rights, then why did a group that did not even have the ability to vote themselves require a Federal Constitutional Amendment – while today, (a group that can vote & organize- gays) sees fit to use judicial usurpation to enact their agenda?

California Supreme Court to Consider Gay Marriage Issue

The Supreme Court will hear three hours of arguments on the issue March 4 in San Francisco. Justices then have 90 days to rule.

The six consolidated cases being heard together challenge state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court has banned same-sex marriages in the state until it decides the issue.

No I don’t "think" that’s what SCOTUS was referring to I KNOW that’s what they are referring to.

The Quote you use is indeed from Loving v Virginia

“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

But it is the Loving court quoting the precedent of Skinner v. Oklahoma

That’s a case challenging Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act, the Court based its finding on the fact that procreation was a fundamental right which belonged to all citizens. In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the acts of marriage and procreation were fundamental rights.
The state found that they have a valid role in regulating marriage as a social institution, , finding the institution of marriage, social in nature, & a basic civil right that cannot be restricted without very good reason.
The connection between marriage & procreation is seen as fundamental to the nature of marriage as a fundamental right. It is not linked with marriage because procreation outside marriage is somehow impossible (A system that merely wanted to promote procreation would look quite different) Rather it is responsible procreation in the promotion of family formation that gives the fundamental right it civic power.

That right realizes that procreation is inevitable but the linking of marriage is “is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Because it provides for the basic family unit of binding the natural mother & father together and each to the child(ren).
For what it's worth, this is incorrect historically. By the first couple centuries of the common era, Greco-Roman culture had embraced a wide array of ideals of virginity, and ideals of sexual morality in which the best path is either virginity or sex only within marriage only for procreation. These weren't universally held by any means, but neither were the early Christians universally practicing ascetics.

See, for instance, Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality, vol 3: The Care of the Self
Paul Veyne, Sexe et pouvoir ࠒome
Kate Cooper, The Virgin and the Bride and Jennifer Knust, Abandoned to Lust have good takes on this looking more at Christian literature.

It's a common misreading of antiquity to suggest that the pre-Christian pagans were sex-mad hedonists, or well-balanced pro-sex liberals, but this is not the case.

It makes sense from a historical perspective - early Christian culture was not a sudden sui generis event unrelated to Greco-Roman culture, but a development internal to that Greco-Roman culture which shared many of its norms and ideals.

A change does occur in the sexing of the body, but it's not one that provides a more "healthy" attitude toward sex.


At 9:07 AM, Blogger Fitz said...

[MORE FROM Standhardt v. Super. Ct of Ariz., 206 Ariz. 276, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz.App. 2003)]:

"P38. Likewise, although some same-sex couples also raise children, exclusion of these couples from the marriage relationship does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing.

Indisputably, the only sexual relationship capable of producing children is one between a man and a woman. The State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby assuming legal and financial obligations, the children born from such relationships will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long-term, committed relationships, which society has traditionally viewed as advantageous for children. Because same-sex couples cannot by themselves procreate, the State could also reasonably decide that sanctioning same-sex marriages would do little to advance the State's interest in ensuring responsible procreation within committed, long-term relationships.

P39. Children raised in families headed by a same-sex couple deserve and benefit from bilateral parenting within long-term, committed relationships just as much as children with married parents. Thus, children in same-sex families could benefit from the stability offered by same-sex marriage, particularly if such children do not have ties with both biological parents. But although the line drawn between couples who may marry (opposite- sex) and those who may not (same-sex) may result in some inequity for children raised by same-sex couples, such inequity is insufficient to negate the State's link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing. See Big D Constr. Corp., 163 Ariz. at 566, 789 P.2d at 1067; see also Baker, 170 Vt. at 219, 744 A.2d at 882 ("It is, of course, well settled that statutes are not necessarily unconstitutional because they fail to extend legal protection to all who are similarly situated."). The fact that the line could be drawn differently is a matter for legislative, rather than judicial, consideration, as long as plausible reasons exist for placement of the current line. Fed. Communications Comm'n v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313-14, 315-16, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211, 113 S. Ct. 2096 (1993). Any inequity must be addressed and remedied by the legislature. 17 Id. at 316."....

At 10:25 AM, Blogger Fitz said...

#1. I am afraid you misunderstand the basis of review. Even the Goodridge decision used the “rational basis” requirement the most lenient and deferential to legislative authority.

#2. I really wish you were more knowledgeable about the state of this debate. Honest & Goodwill arguments have ceded many points relevant to both sides in this argument. Perhaps if you use some of the link I referenced before you can go beyond the blanket assertions of professional organizations regarding the state of the science & approach the level of sophistication exercised by leading (goodwill) opponents on either side.

*Leading, qualified proponents of genderless marriage have acknowledged the validity of the good-science requirements, and also the validity of conclusion’s regarding the failure of the “no differences” studies.


William Meezan & Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children, 15 FUTURE OF CHILD. 97, 104 (2005) (“We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. . . . Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite- sex parenting (or better, or worse) are . . . right.”)

Judith Stacey & Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 AM. SOC. REV. 159, 166 (2001).

Declaration of Alan J. Hawkins as Expert Witness for Defendant at 8–9, Varnum v. Brien, No. CV 5965 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Mar. 15, 2007),

In that regard I offer some findings from the recent Iowa District Court courts decision on same-sex “marriage”. Certainly you will concede that the very experienced advocates for same-sex “marriage” who argued before the State Court would be loathe to cede foundational arguments to the opposition if they were truly contested within social science.

The Iowa State Court had noted that those advocating for same-sex “marriage” did not dispute, and frankly offered no evidence to contradict, two salient findings:

1. "Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures- including single parent families, adopted families, step families, divorced families and the like (note – Courts, social scientists & advocates of same-sex “marriage” themselves concede that same-sex families have not been adequately studied so that solid conclusions can be made)” *

2. "Children reared in a stable natural married family are likely to do better on various measures of educational attainment; exhibit fewer behavioral problems, including conduct disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency; will not be as likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults; engage in sexual relations as teenagers, and to experience an unwed pregnancy; have a decreased risk for mental/emotional illness; have a decreased risk of physical illness and infant mortality; experience decreased risk of suicide; have a greater life expectancy; likely to benefit from high levels of parental investment, commitment, and closeness (particularly with their fathers); be victims of physical and sexual abuse; experience higher levels of family stability as adults, including a decreased divorce risk."

Your opinion on this matter will be quite telling. It will tell me whether I am arguing with someone persuadable by evidence, or someone who (as you assert) is more like those “bigots” you seem so readily to impute on any opposition.

At 10:36 AM, Blogger Fitz said...

See Declaration of Alan J. Hawkins as Expert Witness for Defendant at
8–9, Varnum v. Brien, No. CV 5965 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Mar. 15, 2007), available at

California's high court on has set a March date to hear arguments over the legality of gay marriage in the state.
The Supreme Court will hear three hours of arguments on the issue March 4 in San Francisco. Justices then have 90 days to rule.

This highlights some important aspect of the impending California Supreme Court decision is its timing & standing.

#1. Standing

Same-sex “marriage” has lost in every state high court to consider the issue since the success in Goodridge in Massachusetts in 2003... When you consider that SS “M” legal advocates have carefully chosen the most sympathetic venues since Goodridge, this record of losses is especially significant. It means that strong anti-SSM precedents are have been created in some of the friendliest states, these include Maryland, Washington & New York. All ruling majorities of the court holding that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, that there is no scientific consensus that orientation is immutable, that marriage does not discriminate based on gender, that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, that laws defining marriage as a union of husband and wife are substantially different from those banning interracial marriage, and that the historic link between marriage and procreation justifies the state's definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.

This makes pro-SS “M” rulings in other states like California even more unlikely in the near future.

Added to the weight of elite judicial opinion throughout the country is California’s own Court of Appeals ruling against same-sex “marriage” that is the opinion being reviewed by the High Court this March. The Standing of that opinion means that the High Court would need to overrule its own appeals court on the matter as well as buck the trend of elite judicial opinion across the country.

#2. Timing.

With a required 90 days to rule after the March 4 arguments: this means an expected ruling will be issued some time in May or June (a mere 4 months before presidential elections)

This promises a win/win situation for defenders of marriage. If the high court upholds marriage than it is one more win in our column by elite judicial opinion.

If they rule for neutered marriage however then they have shown (once again) their prosperity be undemocratic
The California law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman was passed by the Legislature in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in a 2000 ballot measure.

At 11:56 AM, Blogger Fitz said...

Jim Keane,
It's odd that you keep denying the reason you were banned since anyone with access to Google can find it for themselves.
"I can see at least four other admins who have looked this over or handled a request from you to be unblocked under this name, and I can't just unblock you. The block wasn't for your username (personally, I think it's fine), it was for your deliberate and knowing trolling."
Under you new name "TortureIsWrong" you were banned "for repeated trolling" as well as creating "multiple accounts, or sockpuppets, to abuse Wikipedia policies."

Mark Adams

"Little man actually. His name is Jim Keane and when he's not busy ruining any possibility of interesting discussion from taking place at Ross' site, he is getting banned from Wikipedia for trolling and vandalism (and not for his choice of name as he will try to tell you)."
How come I am not the least bit surprised?
Posted by Fitz | January 5, 2008 12:17 PM

Fitz, thanks for this info, on Jim Keane. However risible and entertaining, this fellow is, he does tend to ruin the possibility of interesting discussion on this site. One has to either ignore his basicaly vicious remarks or try to make light of them.
Though Ross allows wide latitude of discussion on this site, he needs to can this rude character.
Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 5, 2008 3:50 PM

At 9:02 AM, Blogger Fitz said...

“But that's not what the gay rights debate is about. Rather, it is about THE STATE. That's right, the religious right still favors JAILING gays and lesbians,”

Yes – certainly: this is often about how the State approaches the issue of homosexuality. It is obscene to pretend that the “religious right” now or even favored “JAILING gays and lesbians”.
Pure hyperbole. Even pre-Lawrence the (seldom enforced or prosecuted) sodomy laws were for actions not orientation. Citizens fifth amendment rights protected them against government intrusion like everyone else. There are still multiple adultery & fornication laws on the books but no one claim the “religious right” is for “jailing the immoral people”.

“as well as allowing employers to fire them, allowing landlords to refuse to rent to them,”

That would be unjust discrimination. You are talking about special civil rights protections for gays. The “religious right” does not condone or encourage such treatment. You can be fired or denied housing for being heterosexual, to tall, to short, or because they don’t like the cut of your jib. To not extend special protections to this minority is not to condone unjust discrimination.

“precluding them from adopting children, denying them the right to immigrate into the country”

It’s more than permissible and just for the State and private adoption agencies to place children exclusively in man/woman married households. There is no “right to adoption” and people are precluded from it for a wide variety of reasons, not just homosexual couples. The determination is based on the “best interests of the child” – Not on the non-existent “rights” of the adoptive parent.

“charging them higher tax rates, reducing the sentences of those who assault them, and about 1000 other things.”

Look how hyperbolic and strained you have to become in your diatribe. Homosexuals are not charges “higher tax rates” anymore so than single people are charged “higher tax rates.” The government affords married couples certain benefits in order to encourage natural married stable family formation. “Reducing the sentences of those who assault them” – this is pure nonsense, battery is battery & if X or Y judge excuses such actions than he has failed the law and it citizens. Your really have to stretch things try and make your point.

“So you can't pose as simply someone who is tolerant of gays but don't endorse their lifestyle. People who truly believe that would JOIN the gay rights movement and SUPPORT full and equal rights in all aspects of the law for gays and lesbians.”

“full and equal rights in all aspects of the law for gays and lesbians.” As you have defined it. I can point numerous links to how others rights are abdicated when gay groups use special civil rights protections as a legal battering ram against those who disagree.

Gays have the exact same rights at present as any citizen. You seem to have confused the word tolerance for capitulation. This spells trouble for the day when calling for actual tolerance comes.

“The entire ball game here is that you and your fellow conservative Christians are on the wrong side of history, supporting government sanctioned immoral bigotry, just as your cohorts did so many times in the past. You can babble on about "natural law" all you want, but the fact of the matter is you support using the LEGAL SYSTEM to pound gays and lesbians into submitting to your Imaginary Friend. It's sickening, it's immoral (unlike the abortions that you guys condemn), and in a hundred years, you guys will be looked on with the same disdain with which we now view those who justified slavery with the Bible.”

This seems to be the reigning fantasy of the secular left. There is a wide birth between making something illegal and actively subsidizing, protecting, aggrandizing it in law.

I hardly think the “religious rights” ranks have grown by leaps & bounds so that supermajorities in States across the country have voted against same-sex “marriage.”

Judges from some of this countries most liberal courts including New York, Maryland, Washington, California & Rhoad Island have ruled strongly against the moral equivalency you have fallen pray to.

The extremist secular fantasy forward the idea that just because something is supported by scripture & religious believers, it should not be supported by civil authorities is a unworkable, anti-intellectual, ill-liberal, and downright ridiculous impulse. Under such thinking laws against theft would be suspect because “thou shalt not steal” is one of the ten commandments.

Yes one hears this all the time.

I don’t think its to much to say that this is more wishful thinking than good analogy.

On that subject it seems to me the proper analogy would not be the civil rights movement but rather the results of Roe v Wade & the abortion controversy.

Certainly the % of popular opinion will require nothing short of a SCOTUS opinion if such a change was to be visited on the entire country.

Any such opinion would be contrary to legal opinion of the majority of State & Federal Judiciaries to hear such cases.

The public sympathy for children being raised by their own natural families (i.e. their own married mothers & fathers as the optimal arrangement for child well being) would seems to indicate that a stigma as great as racism would be hard to label to get to stick.

At 5:56 AM, Anonymous Blogger said...

Thank you for blogging :) Keep up the good work :) God Bless you :)

At 5:56 AM, Anonymous Blogger said...

Thank you for blogging :) Keep up the good work :) God Bless you :)

At 2:09 PM, Blogger Fitz said...
I'm with Rod Dreher: I went into this Nation piece on conservative demographic panic hoping for a smart, nuanced left-wing take on the thorny problem of the West's changing demographics - one that took some jabs at the "demographic winter" hype and accused social conservatives of using the spectre of population decline to justify their nostalgia for pre-modernity and the patriarchy (which would be a fair accusation, in some cases), but also acknowledged that demography is going to cause some real problems for developed societies over the next century, and grappled seriously with the possibility that falling birthrates might be one of the larger challenges facing the socialist, tolerant, post-historical paradigm so dear to readers of The Nation.
Instead, the piece basically reads: Patriarchy patriarchy patriarchy, Catholic evangelical fascist, Mussolini Hitler, racist racist racist. I guess The Nation knows its audience, but still ...

“accused social conservatives of using the spectre of population decline to justify their nostalgia for pre-modernity and the patriarchy (which would be a fair accusation, in some cases),
I hate to see an author as influential as Mr. Douthat fall into the contrived nomenclature of the left & the nostrums it inherently supports.
It is inherently false & anti-intellectual to characterize contemporary social conservatism & concern over population decline as “nostalgia for pre-modernity”
As recently as late 60’s & early 70’s the entirety of the western world had birth rates well above replacement level. Marriage rates were high, divorce & illegitimacy by comparison very low.
Are we expected to believe that this post industrial revolution & scientifically literate world was pre-modern?? How does championing the values of sexual restraint and fidelity to & within marriage make someone “pre-modern” in their thought?
This is the height of foolishness. There is nothing inherently “modern” about the values of the sexual revolution. By the same token there is nothing pre-modern about vigorously critiquing those values.
The only people who say there is are those who (vainly) wish to conflate feminism & sexual license with scientific discovery & the critical method. No such link is justifiable.
Like wise “nostalgia for the…patriarchy” need beg the question… “what IS this “patriarchy.”????
Do 70% illegitimacy rates among African Americans make the underclass a “matriarchy”? Does desperation for a return to intact married childbearing/rearing denote “nostalgia for the…patriarchy” or simple humanity?
Are the married couples next door who both are in the paid labor force “post-patriarchal” & therefore represent a greater equality? What of the myriad of married couples who chose a traditional division of labor? Are they throwbacks to “post modernity” & therefore regressive?
Is not (as so many maintain) marriage itself the ultimate expression of the patriarchy, so therefore any married couple is regressive.
What of concern for woman who desperately want to have husbands & children yet find today’s sexual culture extremely un-conducive to stable family formation. Are these women harboring “nostalgia for the…patriarchy” ? Should they “raise the consciousness and resign themselves to being pioneers in the struggle for “gender equality”?
Please Ross…. Do not uncritically except their terms. Doing so risks you becoming them. And to be “them” is to be a very narrow, anti-intellectual, and ill-liberal mind.

The knee-jerk leftist canard of “racist-fascist-anti-sex, anti-women, insecure masculinity, xenophobic, etcetera… etcetera… etcetera…ad nausea” is just that: foul and noxious.
Such formulations are meant to stifle & shut down debate much more than enlighten.
If Swaziland was experiencing unprecedented population decline so that increased immigration was necessary for continued economic growth & labor shortages it would have every right to be concerned.
Psychologists mark a will to live (as opposed to resignation toward death) as a sign of a healthy mind.
Business leaders routinely recognize that companies that are not actively expanding their growth are poor investments.
I have never met a self described “natalist”. I have meet multiple scholars, authors, activists, and citizens concerned with western culture, the health of particular cultures, and more generally centered on optimal family formation & insuring their children’s dreams of marriage and family don’t go unfulfilled.
It’s a very strange left that can so readily shed a tear the lack of a formal “marriage” license in the hands of a committed gay couple but shares no sympathy or ideological elbow room for the single black Mothers & her child’s need of Husband and Father ;…nor the single career minded woman starring down her fertile years.
It’s a very strange left that can talk of “root causes” & “systemic change” while ignoring a Hispanic immigrant class that is following the black underclass into the cycles of illegitimacy & its in attendant poverty & tangle of pathologies.
Micro trends have macro consequences. Pointing out civilization decline is not chicken littlish (much less racist), rather: such observations are to be redaliy expected of any intellectual class that has a healthy love & respect for its own shared heritage.
Far beyond the more snide observation of Mark Steyn are a myriad of authors & scholars as diverse as David Hart, Bat Y’eor, Bruce Thornton, Kay S. Hymowitz, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Bernard Lewis, Lawrence Wright, Melanie Phillips, George Weigel, Bruce Bawer, Ian Buruma, George Akerlof… (the list goes on)

All of whom realize the causes & consequences of what the U.N’s 2006 World Population prospectus called “an expected global upheaval that is without parallel in human history”

I generally agree with such sentiments. I am not an absolutist & am looking for progress on multiple fronts.

An easy sell for the majority of people I meet (especially young people) is an advocacy for less promiscuousness, less divorce, more marriage mindedness, more courtship, more dating, less hook-ups, more emphasis on restraint, less salaciousness…

More seriousness and realism about what marriage requires (i.e –shared sacrifice) more emphasis on marriage as an institution and less on it as a vehicle for personal satisfaction. Less pornography, less illegitimacy, more father oriented initiatives,

And so on.

The truth of the matter is that the sexual revolution of the sixties is outlier. Our shared moral heritage & that of mankind has always put an emphasis on sexual restraint & proper family formation. This is how individuals and cultures thrive.

Such a re-emphasis on our shared moral heritage need not take specific policies as immediately necessary. Legal measures and popular stigma will naturally flow from a renewed and open debate. All such measures require the accent of the people as per the democracy that the cultural left abhors.

At 12:05 PM, Blogger Fitz said...

At 2:18 PM, Blogger Fitz said...

Princess Ceara
Jonathan Rauch .com
OKIE _(I was not sure if you had even seen my original post, so here it is. I hope U of C is not a "hate" group in your book)
Note that this study is of actual people & not a biological study into the innateness of homosexuality. Rather it is a study into human sexuality as actually practiced.
These findings are from The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago. ... ......

At 1:42 PM, Blogger Fitz said...

At 12:26 PM, Blogger Fitz said...

“The positive effect of a father’s involvement with his adolescent children is two or three times higher when he lives with them than when he doesn’t. And marriage increases the number of fathers who are this involved in their children’s lives, as fewer than one-fifth of fathers who don’t live with their children are involved enough to have this effect.”
The data make the negative effect of rejecting the marital bond just as clear. Although common-law spouses make up only 13 percent of “spousal relationships,” they suffer 40 percent of spousal violence, for example. The reason, the experts say, is that couples are most violent to each other when their sexual relationship is breaking up, and these pseudo-marriages break up, or come close to breaking up, much more often than do real marriages.

This we should not do, because to lose a vocabulary is to lose our ability to speak directly and clearly of the thing itself, and to some extent (greater than we think) to see it as clearly as we ought. As C. S. Lewis noted,
When . . . you have killed a word you have also, as far as in you lay, blotted from the human mind the thing that word originally stood for. Men do not long continue to think what they have forgotten how to say.

At 12:27 PM, Blogger Fitz said...

What you fail to realize is the average homosexual is just a pawn in this plan. They have been radicalized to push for this change & told that anything less is a negation of their humanity.

Their intellectual leaders however are not as ignorant. They think the traditional family is archaic and patriarchal and welcome any social change that will weaken the institution.

“Gay and lesbian families are here; all our families are queer; let’s get used to it!”

some of the most influential sociologists in Europe (and their followers here in America). I’ve been quoting and paraphrasing these prominent sociologists to show that I’m far from the only one who connects same-sex marriage with the decline of traditional marriage.

Conservative opponents of same-sex marriage and some of Europe’s most influential sociologists are saying much the same thing: Same-sex marriage doesn’t reinforce marriage; instead, it upends marriage, and helps build acceptance for a host of other mutually reinforcing changes (like single parenting, parental cohabitation, and multi-partner unions) that only serve to weaken marriage. In short, “the queering of the social” (meaning a broad spectrum of family change, including, but not limited to, same-sex partnerships) calls into question the normativity and naturalness of “heterorelationality” (i.e., traditional marriage).

Anthony Giddens, the most influential sociologist in Britain, and arguably all of Europe. Giddens’s 1992 book, The Transformation of Intimacy, with its famous notion of “the pure relationship,” is the text most frequently invoked by European demographers to explain trends like parental cohabitation and same-sex unions. Director of the influential London School of Economics, Giddens has been famously dubbed Tony Blair’s “guru.” In 2000, for example, Giddens played a key role in convincing Blair to withdraw backing for a policy that would have supported marriage as “the best model” for British family life.

Giddens argues that “episodic gay sexuality of the bathhouse culture type” contains critical positive lessons for heterosexual relationships.While “marriage in the traditional sense” disappears, “it is the gays who are the pioneers.”

German sociologists Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim have captivated Europe’s intellectuals. (See especially their 2002 book, Individualization.)

With their ideas of “zombie families,” the “post-familial family,” and the “normal chaos of love,”

Giddens stresses the need for an ”optional, negotiated monogamy” , rather than monogamy as an expected part of marriage, Beck and Beck-Gernsheim say that individual choice is hollowing out the institutions that used to guide our choices. Families may look traditional on the outside, but in fact they’re “post-familial families.” And for Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, it would be “reactionary” to try to “recuperate the old values of family.”

Beck-Gernsheim want the government to subsidize the new, “experimental” forms of family that emerge in the aftermath of the traditional family’s final collapse.

For Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, family dissolution teaches children a hard but necessary lesson about our new social world. Family breakup socializes children into “the normal chaos of love,” the instability that is an intrinsic part of life in the “post-familial family.” Some might call this a selfish rationalization of the profound costs to children of family breakup. Yet Beck and Beck-Gernsheim boldly tout the childhood experience of divorce as a kind of useful boot camp for post-modern adulthood.

Norwegian sociologist, Kari Moxnes, a follower of Giddens, is invoked by Scandinavian social scientists searching for a way to make sense of same-sex unions. Viewing marriage and at-home motherhood as intrinsically oppressive to women, Moxnes is a proponent of parental cohabitation. Moxnes welcomes same-sex marriage, not as a way of ratifying marriage itself, but as an innovation that affirms and advances marriage’s ongoing decline.

Sash Roseneil, the sociologist who argues that “the queering of the social” disrupts conventional “heterorelationality.” Like Moxnes, Roseneil’s views couldn’t be further from the “conservative case” for gay marriage. Roseneil believes that a host of family changes—from same-sex unions, to births to cohabiting parents, to mothers who are “single by choice,”—is collectively conspiring to “release” individuals from “heterorelationality” (i.e., traditional marriage). Roseneil draws on Giddens to make her points, while also linking her views to the prominent American family sociologist, Judith Stacey.

Judith Stacey, (formerly the Barbra Streisand Professor in Contemporary Gender Studies at USC) begins the chapter on same-sex unions in her 1996 book, In the Name of the Family. Stacey’s slogan neatly encapsulates her idea that gays are pioneering ways of living that will transform the family for everyone.

In Stacey’s view, lesbian motherhood via artificial insemination helps pave the way for intentional single motherhood among heterosexuals. Sexually open relationships among gay men can increase the acceptance of non-monogamy by heterosexuals, and the triple and quadruple unions between lesbians and gays created by donor insemination suggest the possibility of group marriage for society as a whole. True, Stacey is ambivalent about formal same-sex marriage. She worries that the effect will be too conservative, and so would prefer to abolish marriage outright. Failing that, however, Stacey is enthusiastic about using gay marriage as a device with which to undermine marriage from within.

Like Beck and Beck Gernsheim, Stacey sees the traditional family as something like the living dead. We are haunted by the ghost of the family, says Stacey. She suggests “a proper memorial service” to help us get over its death.

So there’s hardly a point about the power of same-sex unions to disrupt traditional marriage that Stacey herself hasn’t already made. The key difference between Stacey and conservative critics of same-sex marriage is that Stacey actually wants to undermine marriage. In short, the most influential European family sociologists, America’s radical academics, and American conservatives are surprisingly united in recognizing the potential of same-sex marriage to undermine marriage itself.

At 1:14 PM, Blogger Fitz said...

Have a look at this 2000 piece from the Los Angeles Times. Scandinavians, the Times reports, "have all but given up on marriage as a framework for family living, preferring cohabitation even after their children are born." According to the Times, "the 1990's witnessed a resolute rejection of marriage, even among couples having children." Whether they praise or blame the Scandinavian family system, scholars agree.

COLUMN ONE; When Love Is Never Having to Say 'I Do'; As Scandinavians increasingly reject marriage as a framework for family life, sociologists worry that children will suffer under an 'easy come, easy go' attitude.
CAROL J. WILLIAMS; Los Angeles Times; Mar 31, 2000; 1;

But the 1990s witnessed a resolute rejection of marriage even among couples having children. By the end of the decade, more than half the babies in the region were born to unwed mothers--twice the ratio for continental Europe and nearly 60% more than in the United States.
For most couples in the region, marriage has changed from the point of embarkation in a relationship to a destination the majority never reach. Marriage rates throughout Scandinavia have dropped from a 1950s high of about nine per 1,000 people per year to four per 1,000 in the 1990s. (The U.S. rate for 1998, the most recent year for which figures are available, was 8.3 per 1,000.) Of those Scandinavians who do marry, half divorce before their children reach age 18.
"Nearly 80% of small children live with both biological parents," says Barbro Hedvall, who covers family issues for one of Sweden's leading newspapers, Dagens Nyheter. And she says those couples who manage to stay together for four or five years after having a child tend eventually to get married, even if only to tidy up the legal loose ends for inheritance and pension purposes.

At 6:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I mostly visits this website[url=].[/url]Plenty of useful information on Do you pay attention towards your health?. Are you really serious about your weight?. Research presents that almost 80% of all United States adults are either chubby or overweight[url=].[/url] Therefore if you're one of these individuals, you're not alone. Its true that we all can't be like Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Megan Fox, and have sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now the question is how you are planning to have quick weight loss? You can easily lose with with little effort. You need to improve some of you daily habbits to achive weight loss in short span of time.

About me: I am author of [url=]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also mentor who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under difficult training program than you may also try [url=]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=]Colon Cleansing[/url] for effortless weight loss.

At 10:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

[url=]KnowU[/url] [url=]Super Video Splitter 5.3[/url]
Free Convert All Video Converter Platinum iLead DVD Ripper 3.2 Torrent Mpeg Video Cutter
[url=]Daniusoft Video to Nokia Converter Build 1.3.22[/url] [url=]ZC DVD to 3GP Converter[/url]
Ulead Video Studio Plus 11 Nevo Video Converter 2.1 Power Video Joiner
Torrent AVI Video Splitter
my icq:858499940385

At 2:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

health benefits of garcinia cambogia[/url] is the best obese burning force out available in hawk contemporarily a days. Lose upto 10 kg in 1 month. garcinia cambogia select


Post a Comment

<< Home