The fact that two men, or two women, cannot "marry" takes the meaning out of marriage? Please...Meaning comes from tradition, history, and the institution of marriage traditionally has been a man and a women joining together in order to start and successfully maintain a family unit.

We can argue if the state has any business regulating marriages (I'm open to both sides of that debate), and I really could care less if two men or two women want to marry; but to act as though preventing it from happening degrades marriage is silly. If anything it's the other way around.
Rob | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 10:19 am | #

and I would add that perhaps it is a good thing to degrade marriage...Who knows
Rob | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 10:21 am | #

I'll admit a bias here. Maybe the restrictions involved with the current legal marriage don't take the meaning out of it for those who have a successful heterosexual marriage.

I just don't like the idea of a sign-on-the-dotted-line template for marriage. And I think this is what Portman (if unintentionally) hits on. The permanent bond between a willing man and a woman that is now called legal (or religious) marriage should exist independent of that convention.

It's up to the participants to decide what, if anything, should be the legal aspect of their relationship.
Nate | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 10:41 am | #

I agree with most of that. I'm just eaisly annoyed by false outrage.
Rob | Homepage | 11.26.07 - 11:41 am | #