Jeff Jacoby, the token conservative at the Boston Globe, writes on the hypocrisy of liberals on gay marriage. Be sure to read the whole column so as not to miss Jacoby’s point. He highlights the case of a brother and sister who did not meet until they were adults and who entered into a relationship and had four children.
The two have been prosecuted under an 1849 statute used to jail child molesters. The judge in the case said “I believe severe punishment is required in this case. “I think they have to be separated. It’s the only way to prevent them from having intercourse in the future.” That’s what they got: He got eight years, she got five, in maximum-security prisons.
But you haven’t heard a peep about this from liberals when their case falls right within their arguments in favor of legalizing same-sex unions.
But I thought “the heart wants what it wants,” in the solemn words of noted philosopher Woody Allen.
Perhaps if this poor couple were a sister and a sister, or a brother and a brother? It would be interesting to see the Reillys and the O’Briens and the Goodmans work themselves into circles dismissing those gay relationships as “unnatural.”
One wonders exactly when the proponents of gay marriage will face up to the genie they’ve unleashed. By Jacoby’s account, they’ve got blinkers firmly welded to their eyes.
There was a story a couple weeks back out of Ontario where two male heterosexual friends were considering same-sex marriage because the tax advantages.
One of the SSM advocates quoted in the story seemed unhappy about it…perhaps it was trivalizing marriage.
Cases are already in the works to move on bigamy. Why shouldn’t a woman be allowed to have two husbands? The men could have been married or the woman to either man.
Why discriminate against the notion of two-party marriage?
What so wrong with 4,5,6 people being married to each other?
I noticed in the Clerks office of the City of Salem, when I went to pick up a copy of my marriage license, that there was list posted of the people you couldn’t marry, i.e. mother, father, brother, sister, and so on. It was quite extensive and I wondered why that should be. After all, based on the logic of the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, the state shouldn’t be able to prevent anyone from marrying.