GOODRIDGE IS NO GOOD, part one: Mark Tardiff replies to Mike Pignatello

Mike Pignatello responded in a couple places to my last point, but did not touch my main point, to which I return.

The fact that the law is a teacher means that it does not just reflect changes in society but promotes them. Now so many kids suffer the tragedy of a broken home and so many marriages are a mess because far too many couples have bought into the idea that "marriage is for the happiness of adults." Not unsurprisingly, when they find themselves unhappy, they divorce and the kids are
expected to cope.

The argument for SSM depends significantly on this assertion. Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan most prominently make the argument on the basis of happiness: marriage is for the happiness of adults; my happiness is as
important as anyone else's; therefore I have a right to marriage too. To the extent that
Goodridge adopted this reasoning, it will codify and promote the very
understanding of marriage that has led to the present levels of family disintegration and social chaos. The only solution for the present mess is to move marriage back to the understanding that includes an intrinsic relation to procreation. The introduction of SSM would add a further dimension of the teaching power of the law to those forces opposing the recovery of a marriage culture.
posted by Eve at 4:09 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home