GOODRIDGE LINK ROUNDUP OF THE MORNING:

Because of the enormous pile of stuff written about the Massachusetts decision over the weekend, today's blogging will likely be somewhat less orderly than usual. But I will do my best to sort wheat from chaff so you can get the best of the discussions without slogging through 500 variants on the same two op-eds.

Charlotte Allen in the LA Times: "There are reasons why formally and publicly recognized unions of men and women constitute the world's oldest and most enduring social institution. By keeping, or at least attempting to keep, sexual activity and procreation within the family, marriage fosters the stable emotional and financial conditions that are best for the raising of children; parents focus their energy and resources upon their offspring and each other. Marriage also protects women financially and emotionally after their years of childbearing and peak sexual attractiveness have passed. It creates powerful kinship networks that transcend personal feelings--witness 'The Sopranos'--and provides incentives for the accumulation and orderly transmission of property. ...

"...The decision also promises to widen the social fissure, mostly class-based, between those who still take marriage seriously and the professional and intellectual elite that believes the Massachusetts ruling is long overdue. (It is hardly coincidental that the 14 gay and lesbian plaintiffs who joined the suit all seemed to be lawyers, investment bankers, therapists and educators.)" more

Tamar Lewin in the New York Times: "A little bit married"? --roundup piece on alternate forms of marriage or marriage-lite, shifting historical views of marriage, etc etc. Nothing desperately new, but a decent everything-in-one-place piece.

Republican Governors Association pledges to support FMA.

Dalia Lithwick in Slate: "Here's my modest request: If you're going to be a crusader for the sanctity of marriage--if you really believe gay marriage will have some vast corrosive, viral impact on marriage as a whole--here's a brief list of other laws and policies far more dangerous to the institution. Go after these first, then pass your constitutional amendment...." more--Eve adds that this piece strikes me as much more point-scoring and cheap than challenging, but your mileage may vary....

Jacob Levy: "Yesterday I asked whether, according to the jurisprudential theories of those opposed to the Massachusetts marriage decision, it would be constitutional for a state to ban nonprocreative heterosexual marriages." He got several replies, including this one from Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review. You can find Levy's responses here.
posted by Eve at 11:16 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home