Matthews asked (displaying an unabashed bias for Mr. Solmonese), “How do Bob and Steve next door affect you or your family?” This is a tricky question because it focuses a macro issue on a micro level. If enacted, same-sex marriage would have enormous social, political, economic, and familial implications, but they are hard to see on such a micro scale. Focusing on one couple’s effect on one family is an oversimplification of the problem, and most people are unimpressed with the tired, inevitable arguments that supporters of traditional marriage struggle to understand. Nevertheless, there is a concrete answer to this question, and it needs to be stated and understood, especially by those people who remain undecided.

To most people the answer to the question is obvious: a same-sex couple living next door has no effect on my family, married or not, any more than the heterosexual couple living next door. As long as neither couple has a tendency toward violence, we remain unaffected. Right? Wrong. The truth is, same-sex marriage’s effect on my family is felt, not as a direct result of my neighbors’ marriage, but as a result of the state assuming power to modify/define marriage.

Marriage as a union between a man and a woman is an organic, pre-political institution arising from and reinforcing kin altruism–the affection/responsibility that parents feel toward their children due to their biological bond (Browning & Marquardt, 2006). In other words, absent a political structure, marriage would exist due to the natural duty felt by parents for their biological children. Same-sex marriages and families, on the other hand, could not exists without a political order decreeing which individuals belong to which family. It is outside both the scope and authority of government to define or modify marriage. True, the state has a role, indeed, a responsibility to support marriage, as it is the chief means of producing loyal, able, and right-minded citizens.

Same-sex “marriage,” on the other hand, has no hope of existence in the absence of state intervention, of which the current debate in court is excellent evidence. It follows, then, that the presumption of the government to redefine marriage is an offense to the founding principles upon which that very government is based. The state can or should do nothing but keep a respectful distance from such matters.

Palatable or not, the issue of sex is at the center of this debate. Same-sex marriage proponents seek to divorce the sexual components of marriage from its definition, arguing that procreative sexual intimacy is not an exclusive  justification for marriage. Yet once they establish that divorcement, they immediately insist that it is their right to raise and rear children! Consider, in addition, that the rearing of children by same-sex couples by definition requires that the biological parents of those children are not fulfilling their parental duties. In this way, we understand same-sex marriage to be parasitic to traditional marriage and family life (Sugrue, 2006).

In short, as the state takes upon itself the power to redefine marriage, it changes the nature of those marriages that already exists. It damages the very foundation of familial life and the principle–cherished and revered through the ages–that “the people who give life to the infant also being, as nearly as possible, the ones who care for it (Browning & Marquardt, 2006).”

It should be evident that the passage of same-sex marriage would have deep political and social consequences. It is my intention to focus a series of posts to this topic–what is in store for a nation that approves same-sex marriage? Robert P. George has stated that the problem we have as supporters of traditional marriage is not that we do not have a strong argument. Rather, it is the fact that we simply do not make it, or we do not make it well enough. This will be my attempt to, if not make it well, make the argument at the very least.

Note – Many of the ideas expressed above are out-growths or modifications of those presented in The Meaning of Marriage, edited by Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain.

That’s how. We have been chasing this since we made it into the finals in the fall of 2004. We have had a team in ’04, ’07, ’08 and ’09, plus some spring teams in between fall semesters, but we have always come up short.

Even this year, in the final game, it looked as if we had failed again, as the other team had us beat 8-6, with the first team to 9 as winner (cap enforced). However, we went on to score 3 uncontested points, sealing the deal and bagging the much-sought-after title. It was nice that it could happen this year, since a few of the founding members of team are graduating.

I just thought I would share. Feel free to shower commendations.

I’ll tell you what, it is almost inhumane to alter my perception of a product this way. I drink very little soda, but I think I may have trouble even looking at one in the future.

Here is the best line:

A statement from the performer’s publicist, Leslie Sloane: “many of (Lohan’s) personal belongings were taken without remorse.” Do you suppose the remaining belongings were hauled away with loads of remorse? Or perhaps the burglars took everything they could in good conscience and left the rest to ease their troubled minds? Sounds like a failed attempt to drum up sympathy. Aren’t all burglars “without remorse”? Particularly those breaking into “performers” homes for valuables?

Couple that with the number of sexual predators that live in our fair city (73 within two miles of my home), and you have good enough reason to lock your doors.

If you listen to this radio interview from the beginning, you will hear Mr. President blame the GM bailouts and forced bankruptcy on “a conservative republican administration.” True, the company was doing poorly before Obama began his presidency, but there is no denying that he has been the driving force behind the government-sponsored bankruptcy, pushing them through court, and the like.

It is dishonest and sneaky rhetoric that worries me when I consider our political future. But I guess it is true, that politicians can let no crisis go unwasted. Let’s just hope that they don’t “unwaste” this one too much.

This is also amazing. It is so simple, yet so useful. To me, this is the kind of thing you would see in Ender’s Game.

Listening to segments of his NAACP speech yesterday (to a predominantly black audience, obviously), you can hear him wax rather MLK-like (comparing an economy built on credit cards, he says, “an economy not built on a rock, but on sand.”) Especially 25:25 til 26 ish in the video, and 28:00 til 29:00. (Our kids can’t all aspire to be ballers and rappers!) 34:40 to the end is priceless too.

He makes a strong connection with people, he has a way with words, and he knows the right things to say and when to say them. The question is, is he sincere?

Opine, if you will.