I leave the coupon-clipping to Amanda, so my last stop with the Sunday paper was the editorial page, where yesterday columnist Katherine Kersten continued her tireless defense of The American Family. You know what that means. Don't let the funny boys and girls marry!
You can read it here. Allow your eye to alight at random on passages exhibiting the columnist's learning. For example:
Though [Tom Emmer's opponents] may be loath to admit it, marriage has been a male/female institution--across the globe and throughout history--for a simple reason, rooted in biology. Sex between men and women creates babies. It's the only kind of sex that does.
Thank you, Ms. Kersten! Those of us with no intention of voting for Emmer are taking notes. Please tell us more.
Marriage is a "conjugal" concept, based on the sexual complementarity of men and women. It channels the powerful male/female sex drive to positive ends, to ensure that children will--whenever possible--have the love, support and guidance of both their mother and father. By linking fathers to their children, marriage strengthens an otherwise tenuous bond that is vital for both children's and society's well-being.
I confess that to me all this is perfectly incoherent. Is "conjugal" in quotation marks because even Kersten suspects she doesn't know what she's talking about? It seems that quotes might more logically have enclosed "sexual complementarity," a phrase with no distinct meaning. (Does she mean to suggest that homosexuals have a hard time getting their parts to fit together?) If marriage links fathers to their children, then why do the parents of so many children split up? Would children left behind with only one heterosexual parent have been even worse off with a committed homosexual couple (who nevertheless must not be permitted to enjoy the way in which marriage links parents to their children)? If it's all about the children, should young heterosexual couples who intend to marry be required to give proof of their fertility? Should post-menopausal women be barred from marrying? What about a woman who has had a hysterectomy? It seems she is as unlikely as a lesbian to conceive.
At the end of her column, Kersten says she's got some questions for people like me. Why, for example, limit marriage to two people--"[i]f love and commitment are sufficient for two, why not three or more?" These kinds of arguments are invariably attempts to change the subject. "You must oppose x if you oppose y" depends upon there being some logical connection between "x" and "y." But "homosexual" and "polygamist" are not analogous classifications.
Hurdling ahead, Kersten closes in the manner of a card player laying the ace of trumps:
And how can we logically limit marriage to people in a sexual relationship? If marriage is simply about caring adults, why shouldn't a grandmother and daughter raising a child together have its benefits? Going forward, on what grounds can we discriminate against people simply because they don't have sex together?
There is no law requiring married people to have sex with each other. (Does Kersten think there should be?) There are, however, laws prohibiting people from marrying their children. Since those aren't the ones anyone wants changed, it appears we are facing another attempt to change the subject.
Comments