Friday, February 1, 2013

Robert George's amicus brief shifts to "conjugal marriage'

I don't know how much of this stuff the Justices actually consider and I have written more about Robby George on this blog than I care to. While he postures himself as a great thinker, he is, at the end of the day, simply an anti-gay bigot ("the Bible tells me so"). That has nothing to do with his brief per se but it does shape the views expressed therein. He begins with this:
At stake in these cases is not who is and is not eligible to marry but what marriage is. Today’s debates offer rival answers to that question, two substantive marriage definitions. This Court’s task is not to judge the desirability of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) and California Proposition 8’s definition, but only to decide whether citizens and legislators may embody in law the belief in marriage as a conjugal union, as they have historically done.
Nonsense. Rubbish. This is about whether or not gays can marry in precisely the same way that straight people currently marry. We already know what marriage is. It creates a marital estate. This "conjugal union" stuff would apply to gay couples equally (conjugal means "relating to marriage"). That is redundant. Therefore, what George is referring to is conjugal love as dictated by Catholic theology.
Conjugal love involves the appeal of body and instinct, the power of feeling and affectivity, the aspirations of spirit and will. All of these aim at a union beyond the flesh, a union of heart and soul. This definitive mutual self-giving demands indissolubility, faithfulness, and openness to children. In this way, natural conjugal love expresses Christian values.
Pretty much the rest of this legal polemic is about "redefining marriage." That might make for a NOM talking point (it was originally a way of not saying that they wanted to "ban" gay marriage) but it makes no sense because it is untrue. For example, later on George writes:
Marriage tends to make spouses healthier, happier and wealthier. And it is marriage itself—conjugal marriage—that does this, especially through its distinctive norms of permanence, exclusivity and orientation to family life. As the state’s redefinition of marriage makes these norms harder to understand, cherish, justify and live by, spouses will benefit less from the advantages of stability.
What George is doing is substituting the preposterous "procreative marriage" with "conjugal marriage." His conclusion is simply ridiculous. He cannot possibly sustain an argument that allowing some gays to marry makes marriage harder to "understand, cherish, justify and live ...."

Same Robby George
Same Religious Bullshit
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.