One of the most persistent questions about gay marriage is what's the big deal? How does it harm heterosexual marriage to let gay couples make marriage commitments?

Stanley Kurtz answers the question at NRO today. He says the importance of marriage revolves around providing a stable place for children to be raised. . . and non-marital relationships -- "gay" or otherwise -- or just not as stable. His key point:

So instead of highlighting marriage's privileged status as a site for parenthood, partnership legislation is communicating the message that marriage is no different from cohabitation. . .In both a literal-legal and a metaphorical sense, the first gay partnership law was tied to a radically skeptical attitude toward marriage as the preferred site for parenthood.

Posted by Charmaine at 05:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Governor Schwarzenegger just announced that he will veto the gay marriage bill that the California legislature passed yesterday.

I'm surprised. And impressed.

He gave precisely the right reason: the California people passed a Defense of Marriage bill defining marriage as one man and one woman just five years ago in a ballot initiative. Here's the statement from his press secretary:

We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill).

Even though some people were saying the pressure from his base would force him in this direction, I thought Schwarzenegger would cave in to pressure from his friends in Hollywood to be politically correct.

Nice to be wrong on that.

Blue Mass Group has more on homosexual marriage amendments.

Posted by Charmaine at 10:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (2)

Mitt Romney
Kathleen Parker writes today in her columnn,"Parent A and Parent B - and baby makes C" that Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts, is coming under attack from gay groups because he refuses to allow them to replace "mother" and "father" on birth certificates with "Parent A" and "Parent B."

Wow.

If I used this example as a hypothetical result of establishing gay marriage, I would be accused of exaggerating the possible consequences -- of making up a ridiculous "what if."

But no. Wer'e already there. It's real.

And good for Mitt Romney.

(Lucky for him, yesterday the Republican presidential sweepstakes for 2008 opened up significantly, due to the political self-immolation of presidental aspirant Senator Bill Frist . . . the GOP base appreciates politicians who take principled stands on tough issues.)

Thank you to Mudville Gazette for the Open Post. And be sure to see Toe In The Water and learn a bit of the history of my husband's old cavalry unit: Ready and Forward.

Posted by Charmaine at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)