Comments for Obama's Vows on Marriage at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:04:48 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/obamas-vows-on-marriage.html#comment-2217 Our leader is the King of Doubletalk .... - a.mait Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:51:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/obamas-vows-on-marriage.html#comment-2188 David: People can, without marriage, "give each other privileges of visitation in the hospital" and "make each other heirs under their wills"--as Dr. Arkes plainly points out in his essay. And he does not even begin to suggest that such legal arrangements should be denied to people simply because they are practicing homosexuals. - Jonathan Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:14:05 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/obamas-vows-on-marriage.html#comment-2187 Cheney's position, like many, is informed by real life experience, not politics. I don't support gay marriage, but I also don't believe in pretending gay people/relationships don't exist. They always have/will. The only difference now is that people are honest. Granting certain contractual rights (e.g., the right to be in a hospital ER) just treats gay people with basic dignity/respect. My moral basis? The Golden Rule. President Obama has it just about right. - David Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:13:15 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/obamas-vows-on-marriage.html#comment-2186 Excellent article, Professor Arkes! Some very pertinent and obvious real-life examples of the legal and social difficulty that same-sex marriage could present if it were legally recognized by the state. David, I think it\'s important to note that most of those conservatives who now support the legalization of same-sex marriage have not given any real legal or moral defense of it, but have rather resorted to emotional appeals and blatantly to political ones like \"will help win votes!\" - Kevin in Texas Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:48:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/obamas-vows-on-marriage.html#comment-2184 I mistakenly cited Ken Starr in my earlier comments. He defended Prop 8 in California. I meant to cite Steve Schmidt, who ran McCain's presidential campaign, and who has argued that Republicans drop their objections to gay marriage. - David Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:55:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/obamas-vows-on-marriage.html#comment-2183 If the federal government's laws are your first line of defense in resisting bigamy in your 48 year marriage, my advice is this: Get thee to a marriage counselor. Quick. - Joanna Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:58:23 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/obamas-vows-on-marriage.html#comment-2182 This a smokescreen for the difficult human (not sexual) questions posed by gay relationships, which always have and always will exist. Surely, as a professor at an Eastern liberal arts school, you must know gay couples in long-term (48+ years, perhaps?) relationships. Are you prepared to deny them visitation rights in the hospital? Economic security in retirement? Dick Cheney, Ken Starr, Ted Olson and others have realized that such arguments are hollow. - David Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:57:54 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2009/obamas-vows-on-marriage.html#comment-2180 Excellent article. Hadley Arkes portrays how the Supreme Court has been politicized and for 30 years has danced to the tune of a leftist, Godless liberal agenda. Our Founding Fathers did not intend for the judiciary to be both executive and lawmaker. The judiciary is not a substitute for God and King but has become just that. It has little respect for those unalienable rights, but only for "positive law." We are in a cultural war now, because again the courts have forgotten the right to life - Willie Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:56:07 +0100