" It is difficult to imagine a State purpose more important and legitimate than ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure within which to bear and raise children. " Justice Cordy, Goodridge, supra note in which he points out that " the alternative, a society without the insbreastution of marriage, in which heteroloveual intercourse, procreation, and child care are largely disconnected processes, would be chaotic. " ( Note 34 ) The new definition of marriage imposed by the courts, since it makes heteroloveuality optional rather than axiomatic, disconnects marriage from procreation. It cuts the primary strand, allowing the entire cord to unravel and snap. Sweden, which some years ago pioneered a marriage- like category for same-love couples that it is only now getting around to calling " marriage ", may stand as a witness to that process of unravelling, according to Stanley Kurtz ( See " The End Of Marriage in Scandinavia ", The Weekly Standard 9.20, 2 Feb, 2004 ). ( Note 35 ). From " Rights and Recognition ", Douglas Farrow, " Divorcing Marriage ". Notes from same. Also, common law codifies what is common to the human condition, as with marriage and children being intimately connected all through human history. Only idiots, fools, scoudrels, and Feminists would demand that such a common human experience be intimately codified in overt legal language, since that is the sum level of human intimacy that such beings can attain. The rest of us human beings need no such statement, as we see that truth living every single day, all over our societies. Indeed. Thats your main problem, aside from your heterophobic bigotry. Wrong again. Congratulations: You have a perfect record, from your claims being fact and cite free, to your buttumptions about me. And, keep up the perfect record of your INABILITY to cite ANY of your claims. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.
|
