Appearance on Newsmakers to Talk Same-Sex Marriage

justin-katz-avatar

The folks on WPRI’s Newsmakers invited me on to take the conservative, traditionalist side in the debate over same-sex marriage, the weekend between the RI Senate’s vote to change the definition of “marriage” and the RI House’s anticipated vote to send the redefinition along to Governor Lincoln Chafee for anticipated approval.

In summary, I think that Senators who invited gay friends out to dinner and sifted through old magazines to help them make up their minds on the issue would have done better to take walks through urban neighborhoods in Rhode Island and ask the children, there, about their relationships with their parents.  Those are the people whom the redefinition of marriage will harm most and soonest.

Newsmakers 4/26: Same-sex marriage in Rhode Island



  • Dan

    You expressed your position well and made some valuable points. Well done.

  • Warrington Faust

    The first three guys all looked uncomfortable in their 7 year old suits. Maybe their wives dressed them.

  • justinkatz

    I don't know; their suits looked fine to me. My jacket, on the other hand, could only be considered sharp if it's reached the point of being retro…

  • Phil Spadola

    "I'm keeping an eye…" ( I , aye ).

  • More like: ay-yi-yi.

  • Warrington Faust

    Justin, sorry if I appear too critical. But, every "tv appearance" is a "sales opportunity". I have noticed that most salespeople adhere to "dress for success".

    To be fair, Sen. Handy looked "comfortable". His 6 button DB, peaked lapel, padded shoulder suit demands a narrow waist and side vents, standing he might have looked "wide". I was surprised he overlooked the long point collar which is standard on TV.

    • It all depends what you're selling, Warrington. There's a reason punk rockers wear their foolish get-ups on TV.

  • Warrington Faust

    Justin, I think you are kinder to your opposition than they would be to you.

  • mangeek

    "…take walks through urban neighborhoods in Rhode Island and ask the children, there, about their relationships with their parents. Those are the people whom the redefinition of marriage will harm most and soonest."

    I fail to see how adding same-sex couples to the marriage rolls will impact urban kids of single parents. I have a baby with my girlfriend (we basically live as married folks), and one of the reasons we aren't married is because I find the institution as-defined in Rhode Island to be discriminatory and, frankly, tacky. I know gay couples who would make better parents than I.

    Frankly, in this day-and-age, with the economic pressures as they are, I even think it's time to start changing our 1950s-era views about 'what makes the best family'. I'd gladly have an extra set of hands in the house, in exchange for room-and-board. We're lucky enough to have family nearby, but the 'two parent household' still seems weak if both parents need to work. Maybe 'three parent households' or cooperatives make for happier and healthier kids.

    I've actually discussed 'poaching' nearby homes for sale so I can move more like-minded families into walking proximity. We could have four out of five people work, and one person stay home to watch the groups' kids, maybe homeschool them once they're old enough.

    I guess what I'm saying is that I think the social problems are economic in nature, not the other way around.

  • The point is that eliminating marriage as a clear, straightforward institution for use by the society to encourage people who create children to bond together will make it more difficult to reverse the social trends that produce so many one-parent children and are assisting the long-term class divides that we see. That you have an aesthetic displeasure with marriage merely shows the irresponsible brainwashing that our society has allowed to occur for decades

    Indeed, one could argue that your interest in further experimentation with family structure begins with your decision to have a baby with your "girlfriend"; she's not even your "lover," "better half," "soul mate," not even "partner," but has the same status a guy would grant when he's got no more than a vague promise that he won't sleep with anybody else. You do not write as if you and she are joined in any sort of life commitment related to the child who joins you biologically.

    And all of it interacts with an incomplete understanding of economics.

    Family structure and economics interact, but it seems pretty clear to me that the rapid advancement of Western civilization owes a great deal to the innovative mix of freedom and responsibility encouraged in what has become known as "traditional marriage." One thing that history has shown with multiple-spouse families is that a wealthy elite absorbs more of the potential spouses, leaving many without one, ultimately creating an underclass of frustrated men. Another thing that, I'd argue, women's liberation proved (and it's not an argument against women's liberation, but a critique of the way in which it was pursued) is that families will increase their workloads to better compete with other families.

    In other words, you'll add in a third "care-taker" partner (or "girlfriend" or whatever), and some other family will make the economic decision that it's better to have that person work, applying pressure to your household to do the same. The beneficiaries, ultimately, will be the people at the top of the pyramid who experience relief from the pressure that employees place on employers to increase pay (which the latter can perhaps use to better furnish their harems).

    I'm curious, though: If the other person you bring in to take care of the house is a man, does he get to have sex with your "girlfriend"?

  • Good Job ,very well.

    Technology News

Quantcast