It appears that the editors at NRO fancy that they can remember something about marriage that others cannot.
THE LOGIC OF MARRIAGE
Their reply is nothing more than what has long been on display:
- 1. narrowly define - even absurdly conjecture, given the fundamental character of marriage - and tailor public purposes in such a way that they can only be satisfied "intrinsically" (by penis-vagina), and
- 2. deliberately confuse purposes, by any means, to blur the line between what the current law actually allows, regulates, restricts, and endorses, and an aspirational norm/ethic for a marriage ideal in society, while
- 3. simultaneously making assertions about unsubstantiated consequential harms, that have currency only the court of public opinion, in prejudice, never passing real muster.
In other words, their arguments are not even state-of-the-art.
Consider their opening: "Our actual point was and is that same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms that undermines the logic of the institution."
One would expect a tour de force of logic, after that. In all cases of X, Y results. Or, Y occurs, if and only if X occurs. But, no.
As an aside, one should read the amicus brief filed by Robbie P. George, et. al., to the appeals court for the Prop8 decision, substituting "primary purpose" everywhere the brief mentions "purpose" or "end" and see how different a brief one gets!
Instead, they make an imprecise, bald assertion about the governmental interest in marriage, marriage in general, perhaps as a norm, perhaps as a matter of law - it's simply not clear. Perhaps they mean all marriages, to be called such, must fit the government's interest in marriage? That hardly sounds convincing for a fundamental human right ...Anyway, they immediately concede that not all marriages meet this purpose. How? Well, they modify their terms, introducing a new concept, a delineation, the primary purpose of marriage: "If our critics are right, then the fact that infertile couples have always been considered eligible for marriage means that the institution has never had procreative sex at its heart [i.e. primary purpose],.."
As an aside, one should read the amicus brief filed by Robbie P. George, et. al., to the appeals court for the Prop8 decision, substituting "primary purpose" everywhere the brief mentions "purpose" or "end" and see how different a brief one gets!
In any case, given their concession, there must be room in the word "marriage" for gays, too, with the deliberate intent of strengthening 'marriage culture'.
Finally, the editors run what might be called their argument from prejudice or the populist argument. Two brothers raising an orphaned child or two, sexually involved, committed gay parents, which one should we call "marriage", if any?
LOL.
You make the call, possums. Here's Griswold v. Connecticut, a "foundational case", to help you decide if the gay couple or the brothers better meet a commonsense standard, even if they don't meet the appeal-to-prejudice standard set by the NRO editors:
Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.
Is that how you'd describe your adult brother?
One doesn't need to mock the editors at the NRO. They do it themselves...
