'Til Death do us Party, Suzanne Fields Happy VDAY

  1. 'Til death do us party
    Suzanne Fields (back to web version) | Send


    February 12, 2004


    Cupid's working overtime this Valentine's Day, and he's getting a little help from his friends, including George W. Bush. The president has asked Congress for more than $1 billion to promote, stabilize and strengthen marriage, especially for low-income Americans. But it's the culture that needs help.

    We could probably learn a thing or two from Amelia Limpert, age 100, who was married for 82 years. Her husband died the other day at 102. They broke off their engagement three times. But one day in 1921 they jumped into George's Model T Ford and eloped. They got no help from the government - it never occurred to anyone then that the government had any business with Cupid - but society at large imposed expectations that seem quaint today.

    Liberals have dismissed the president's concern for what he calls the "sanctity of marriage" as a cynical sop to the religious right, and they may be right that marriage counseling is not a legitimate function of government. But you don't have to be right, left, Republican, Democrat, born again, agnostic or atheist to recognize that the president is right that "a strong America must also value the institution of marriage."

    Homosexuals are pushing to "marry" just when marriage is having a hard time. Homosexual marriage mocks the very idea of marriage as a stabilizing force for raising families. There are many exceptions, of course, but the homosexual culture in general promotes promiscuity: 'Til Death Do Us Party. This is a difficult observation to make publicly, but it's well understood in the gay community.

    Heterosexuals have their swinging parties and marriages break up over adulterous liaisons, but fidelity in marriage is honored even in its breach. When Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, Bill Clinton, the commander-in-cheat or not, eagerly signed it.

    I've resisted supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman because recognizing and regulating marriage has always been a function of state government.

    But law is ever more being made in the courts, and Congress, always eager to pass the buck, goes along to get along. Soon the states will accept same-sex marriages. A gay couple, for example, could be married legally in Massachusetts, where such unions are recognized, and then go to any of the states that have no defense of heterosexual marriage and demand recognition of their marriage. The states without laws prohibiting same-sex marriage would soon be under enormous judicial pressure to go along

    Only an amendment to the Constitution, it seems to me, will uphold marriage as large majorities of Americans want traditional marriage upheld. Similar majorities are much more sympathetic to civil unions, allowing unmarried couples of whatever combinations to share common rights of property and health benefits.

    "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people," the president says, "the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

    Children are already vulnerable to the cultural conversation that promotes moral equivalence between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage. Teenage girls with raging hormones and vulnerable psyches increasingly "experiment" with bisexuality. The evidence is ambiguous as to whether male homosexuality is biologically determined or whether it can be changed, but studies of young girls in female-female sexual relationships indicate that they are affected by social fads. Over time, that can change.

    "Probably we're going to find that there are multiple pathways to homosexuality and that could vary by gender, " Diane Elze, an assistant professor of social work at Washington University in St. Louis who counsels young gays and lesbians, tells The Washington Post. Culture matters.

    One of the glories of our land is that we can choose how we live our lives, but we've always respected certain limits, self-imposed on a moral baseline that we impart to the generation following us. Today it's increasingly difficult to speak out against homosexual exhibitionism. It's easier to express outrage at Janet Jackson flaunting her bejeweled nipple than to criticize Madonna and Britney flaunting a passionate kiss on national television.

    Ellen DeGeneres "came out" in an episode of "Ellen" in 1997. "If this program helps some child in the Midwest with their sexual identification, we've done our job," Dava Savel, the producer told TV Guide. She might have said that "if this program encourages some girl toward lesbianism, we've done our job."

    Only a decade ago a New Yorker magazine cover depicted a male bridegroom in a dark suit and a male bride in a white suit, holding a bouquet of red roses over a wedding cake. We were meant to chuckle. It doesn't seem so funny now.

    Poor Cupid. He's confused, just like the rest of us. Happy Valentine's Day.



    ©2003 Tribune Media Services

    Contact Suzanne Fields | Read Fields's biography
    •  
  2. 9 Comments

  3. by   fergus51
    Homosexual culture promotes promiscuity???? Well if that isn't one of the most bigotted things I have ever heard in my life..... Not to mention ignorant. A pot calling the kettle black comes to mind at a time like this..... Fidelity is honored in heterosexual couples' marriages, even in its breach???? What sense does that make? Even though you're cheating on your spouse, you "honor" the concept of fidelity???? Ridiculous. And Ellen would influence a girl to become a lesbian? I doubt it. I can't imagine someone choosing to be gay in our society cause they think it's fashionable. Like being in style makes up for prejudice, ignorance, gay bashing, being disowned by your family, etc.....

    Homosexuals don't need to make a mockery of marriage in our society. That has already been done by heteros. Look at our divorce rates! If a loving gay couple wants to get married, I could care less. They couldn't possibly screw up their marriage any more than half of the straight couples out there.
  4. by   Ted
    moving this to the current events forum
  5. by   kitkat24
    [QUOTE=fergus51]Homosexual culture promotes promiscuity???? Well if that Even though you're cheating on your spouse, you "honor" the concept of fidelity????

    I bet you'd jump on the protect Clinton-Kerry bandwagon, though. Did you know that Wesley Clark is the one that ousted Kerry?
  6. by   fergus51
    No, I don't care about YOUR sex life or anybody else's including Kerry's or Clinton's or Bush's or Strom Thurmon's. What they do on their time is their business. I don't care what kind of kinky crazy sex you or anyone else wants to engage in and this has nothing to do with Kerry or Clark. It has to do with prejudice and ignorance and making a sweeping condemnation of a group of people, while excusing the same behavior if heteros are the ones doing it.

    What offends me about this piece of "writing" is the notion that gays have no morality, but straight people do? Puh-leeze. Come to work on any OB unit in the country and you will see that morality is not a cornerstone of hetero relationships. Oposing gay marriage rights because they are unfaithful to their partners is simply COMPLETELY TOTALLY hypocritical, unless you want the same rules to apply to heteros. This was written by someone looking to perpetuate a stereotype and does nothing but contribute to intolerance and ignorance.
  7. by   kitkat24
    intolerance and ignorance.[/QUOTE]


    Ahhhh, the same tolerance that liberals have for any conservative viewpoint.
  8. by   fergus51
    I admit to having no tolerance for bigotry and hypocrisy. Other than that, I have the utmost respect for people with a conservative viewpoint (whether they are pro-life, anti-affirmative action, pro-death penalty, pro-Iraq war or whatever). Disagreeing and disrespecting are very different things and I don't think conservatives are such beaten victims in America.
  9. by   kitkat24
    Quote from efiebke
    From the 2/12/2004 Times Union Editorial Page. This pictures hits the nail right on the head; like Cheney and Scalia hitting the "ducks" right between the eyes. . .

    ______________________________


    Adultery is such great ethical conduct.
  10. by   fergus51
    OK, but why is it more ethical or excusable for a hetero? Why is it that if a gay person cheats it's because of gay culture not promoting fidelity, but when heteros cheat it has nothing to do with the values of heterosexual culture?
    Last edit by fergus51 on Feb 12, '04
  11. by   Ted
    Oops! :imbar

    Apologies. . .

    Ted

Must Read Topics


close