Marriage is not like the 'wilderness'

  • Article by: PATRICIA A. RORKE
  • Updated: September 5, 2012 - 1:59 PM

The history of marriage is not like the bucolic pastorale presented in a recent commentary.

  • 89
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
ivaro3Sep. 3, 12 8:21 PM

I fail to see the connections about women's "victimization" and the right for gays to marry. What does "keeping em barefoot and pregnant" have to do with the right for all to marry? I would answer "not a whole lot." And, though I heard stuff like that back in the old days, I didn't hear it often. I did hear a lot of "take it like a man" and "big boy's don't cry."

jameswallaceSep. 3, 12 8:23 PM

The threat to marriage is not from GLBT folks who simply want to share their lives as others do. The threat is from the Amy Kochs and other married heterosexuals who ignore their marriage vows and cheat with others -- and then have the gall to propose this kind of hypoocritical nonsense.

stribfibsSep. 3, 12 8:37 PM

"What is there to fear?" --- How about the government promoting/supporting (via law) a system where many women becoming nothing but incubators. How about children being viewed as nothing but a commodity. Don't believe me, Google "Elton John and Heartbreaking". We need to protect the family --the first vital cell of society--not further destroy it.

humblemonkSep. 3, 12 9:57 PM

About 40 years ago, after centuries of near genocidal suppression by church and society, gay people began to live their lives openly and discovered that they can fall in love, couple, commit and forge family like everyone else. Those that have come out to their families and found acceptance, have in most cases become a boon and enhancement to their extended families and to society. Many adopt children that no one else will. Many provide support to their siblings in the raising of their children. Many volunteer as couples in various charitable capacities if only out of gratitude for having been able to find each other. This is not selfishness or commodification but real selfgiving to each other, family and society. I've witnessed these things for real and it is NOT further destroying the family but actually enhancing and expanding the possibilities for greater positive family development...

liora51Sep. 3, 1210:12 PM

ivaro: The author is providing a challenge to the metaphor of marriage as an endangered eco-system that equates social change with plundering and destroying paradise. She wasn't taking on gay marriage--she was taking on the number of assumptions made in another article about marriage throughout history. To do this she used images from her own life. My personal favorites from my 50's girlhood are "He won't buy the cow if he can get milk through the fence." And "They don't marry the ones they have fun with." Neither proved to be true. And I just celebrated my 35th anniversary with my one and only husband. Who is lactose intolerant, thank you very much.

lechevalier5Sep. 3, 1210:16 PM

One thing you can say about same sex marriage is that there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy that leads to an abortion. Same sex couples generally don't need abortions. You would think the anti abortionists would like that.

sjhuotSep. 3, 1210:46 PM

jameswallace, what does the Elton John quote have to do with anything? The question is, why must gays be prohibited from marrying those they love in a ceremony sanctioned by the state? It doesn't have anything to do with religion (churches can continue to refuse to recognize gay/lesbian marriages), or the health of children born to such unions (please, beyond a quote or two, show me how a child raised by loving gay parents is harmed). How are heterosexual unions harmed by gay unions? Please answer this, as this seems to be the basis for your opposition.

sjhuotSep. 3, 1210:49 PM

FYI, I have been asking that question (how would it harm heterosexual marriages to allow gays and lesbians to marry?) for the last six months on this and other comment boards, and what I have heard in reply is the sound of crickets chirping. They do not have a legitimate answer to that question.

stribfibsSep. 3, 1211:01 PM

sjhuot - The children are harmed because they are taken away from their biological parent. Take the Elton John example. He simply bought the most beautiful surrogate he could find to give him the most beautiful child he could get. Watch the interview. The child was then ripped from his biological mother as if he was a commodity to be bought and sold for someone else's happiness. *All things being equal,* wouldn't you agree it's best for a child to be raised by their biological parents? ---- Marriage is about children, not about validating peoples' feelings for each other. I believe that pretty much answers your "crickets" question.

sjhuotSep. 3, 1211:04 PM

Oops, meant to aim that comment about the Elton John link at strbfibs. I just don't understand the "women as incubators" comment. Seems totally nonsensical to me, if it supposed to be related to the amendment vote. jameswallace, you are right on!


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters