On the other hand, one could say that proponents of traditional marriage in France were wiser than Americans about navigating the discussion. Rather than get mired in debates about the "rights" of "consensual couples" to "love one another," they cut to the underlying issue, which is as central in the United States, even if camouflaged, as it is in France: Regardless of whether homosexuals love one another, they will need the state to intervene in order to experience parenting and claim a legacy after they die. Since they cannot conceive children within their marriage, they must rent sperm or a uterus from outside, and in order for the system to work, society must abandon qualms about this process's implications for the biological parent that's excluded from custodial rights. Society would also have to agree that there is nothing particular about fatherhood and motherhood that matters for the lifelong experience of children.
Either way, it seems to me that if Americans debated gay marriage with the same frankness about the true core issue - children - then traditionalists would be getting more traction. The judgment about gay marriage becomes much more complicated when one dodges the canards about tax breaks and parallels to Jim Crow, going instead to the existential dilemma of child-rearing. Then again, with Hollande in power in France, it is unlikely these protestors will be able to block gay marriage from receiving Paris's legal imprimatur.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz2CaXuDO13[
First of all, these are not proponents of traditional marriage, these are opponents of same-sex marriage. This crowd likes to imply that traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are mutually exclusive, and if you are in favor of the latter, you must be opposed to the former. Not true.
Should the issue be about child rearing? I agree. That's why Camilla Taylor, a heterosexual lawyer working on a successful lawsuit to allow same-sex couples to marry in Iowa, added the issue of children.
Yes, gay couples need some intervention to have children. So do some straight couples. And if the concern is biological parents, why to we allow people to adopt? Why are divorced people with children allowed to marry, bringing a non-biological adult into the household while taking the attention of a divorced adult away from his original family?Taylor made one other major tactical move in the fall of 2006, when she added the couples' children as plaintiffs. Some people in the gay advocacy movement objected, she said, saying that children should not be inserted into the marriage debate. But Taylor wanted to raise the issue of the rights of children of gay couples to deflate the opposition argument that marriage was solely about procreation.
A lower court sided with Taylor in 2007. When the decision came from the Supreme Court on April 3, she was elated. "Today, dreams become reality, families are protected, and the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality and fairness has been fulfilled," she said at a news conference.
No, these anti-gay folks would rather gay couples raise their children without benefit of marriage. Perhaps children who have been rejected or neglected by their biological père and mère can find a happy, loving home with same-sex couples, such as this couple with ten kids or this family with seven children.