WashPost 'On Faith' Editor: If You Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, You're Like Those Who Stood in the 'Schoolhouse Door'
"I’ve never understood the opposition to gay marriage." That's the confession with which Sally Quinn -- the agnostic, liberal editor of the Washington Post's "On Faith" religion section-- began her May 11 column. But rather than humbly seek an understanding of the religious faith that informs the beliefs of millions of American Christians, Quinn launched into an attack on them by comparing them to opponents of the racial integration of the nation's public schools.
History, Quinn insists, is on the side of the eventual societal and legal acceptance of same-sex marriage, and those who stand in the way will one day be haunted by it, living their lives knowing how wretched they were to oppose progress in the first place:
How could he [Mitt Romney] be in favor of gay couples adopting children to raise them in a gay household where the parents are not allowed to be married? It makes no sense politically, culturally or religiously.
Gay marriage will soon be an acceptable part of our culture. Those who stood in “the schoolhouse door” will feel nothing but shame and remorse. They will say they don’t remember. But when they are confronted with past views they will apologize. And they will have to live with their positions for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps Quinn has just "never understood" that for those who actually believe the Bible, there's a longer and more significant time horizon than life's end, namely, the day of judgment, on which we must all give account to God (SEE among other verses Matt. 12:36; 19:28; Mark 8:38; John 5:27; Acts 10:42, 17:31; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9:27; 2 Timothy 4:1; 1 Peter 4:5; Rev. 20:12-15).
Another problem that informs Quinn's bias may be that the religious leaders in her social circle are cowardly hypocrites, liberals who are afraid to publicly profess what they privately believe:
How many pastors and politicians are really against gay marriage and how many believe they have to say they are for fear of losing contributions, votes or congregants? A number of religious leaders of various faiths have told me privately that they have no problem with gay marriage, in fact they see it as fundamental justice, but that they would lose their congregations if they said so publicly.
"The irony of course is that Jesus Christ never mentioned homosexuality and I can find nothing in the Bible about gay marriage," Quinn added. Of course, Quinn can also search the Bible and find no explicit admonitions against Internet pornography, human trafficking, cyber-bullying, or running dog-fighting rings. Yet she'd also find a hard time even with her liberal minister friends finding any of them willing to champion the moral or societal acceptability of any of those things.
"[H]ere’s their opening to take a stand. Times change. So do cultures, morals and even religious interpretations of event," Quinn argues in her call for men of the cloth to bless same-sex marriage.
All of that is true, and yet again, Quinn fails to grasp that to those who truly believe, at issue is not personal interpretation of the Bible but the Bible's clear teaching and its eternal, unchangeable truth. The very Jesus she insists never personally addressed homosexuality also insisted that the words he spoke would outlast heaven and earth themselves, they were so eternally true (Matt. 24: 35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).
Indeed, Jesus taught that his spoken words during his earthly ministry were on par with the recorded words of Hebrew Scripture, preaching that He came not to abolish the Mosaic Law (Matt. 5:17) but to fulfill it and that "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void" (Luke 16:17).
This is basic, historic orthodox Christian teaching. Quinn doesn't have to agree with it to be a religion feature editor, but it sure as heck would help her to intellectually acknowledge it in order to understand the religious faith that animates Christian conservatives with whom she disagrees.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Yep shes a charmer that one.............
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:39am.
A snake charming LIBERAL that has no BUSINESS writing a "faith" column!!! Maybe her column should be called "Sally Quinn, Faithless, Clueless and yet for some reason proud"
She is following the other
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 2:02pm.
She is following the other Jesus that Paul wrote about in 2 Cor 11:3-4. She doesn't know the Jesus of the gospels. If she did she wouldn't make a comment about gay marriage not being in the Bible. The one and only true Jesus told us that marriage was between a man and woman. Matthew 19: 4-6 With her logic Jesus never said anything about marrying your goat.
What do you expect?
Submitted by adamsmith on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 9:52pm.
She's just another "elitist" who has educated herself into stupidity. I've seen this Bimbo on O'Reilly before. She's another typical narcissist lib who is pretty clueless to the world outside of the Big Apple or inside the Beltway. Like that's typical of America......only a braindead lemming neo-lib thinks idiotic things like ol' Sally Baby......
Huh? This is not a civil rights issue as no one demo favors it
Submitted by merly1 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:39am.
This is not a civil rights issue as all ethnic groups and both genders have strong opposition to this misdirected endeavor, for what is really a miniscule demographic. Activists claim the "younger generation is more accepting," while we see the unending bullying of gays by whom? A: Well, the young. C'mon, how about some honesty....... This is one of those "life is unfair" realities, no different than--->filing civil lawsuits, ie so men can have babies, or one's civil rights are violated by having to die at some point. Some things are and always have been laws of nature, and you can call an apple as being an orange, but it isn't. If a gay person doesnt want to marry somebody of the opposite sex (fully legal), then go a different route.
Homos make up 1-2% of the
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:50am.
Homos make up 1-2% of the population, not 10 as the left touts. This is a classic example of those screaming the loudest getting what they want. If the right would scream as loudly as the homo faction does, illegal immigration, border security and government hand outs wouldn't be a problem.
It is the Washington Post.
Submitted by John21 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 11:53am.
It is the Washington Post. The guiding principals of the Post are the Liberal Agenda, not fact, honesty or integrety.
Most of their "Journelist" have taken the pledge and drink the Kool-Aid daily to maintain their egos and elitist status. No one with any intelligence takes anything in this paper seriously.
They will continue the Public Relations work for the Obama administration to the end. They will continue doing the "Obama Cheerleader" act forever.
How about polygamy and incest?
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:20pm.
If the government has no authority to tell people whom they can and cannot "love" (A mantra of the LGBT activists), then how can it tell any two, or three, or more consenting adults that they can't enter into "multi-partner" or "same-family" marriages? (I made up those PC-sounding terms.) I'm not advocating them; I'm just shooting at the holes in their argument.
Gal
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 1:24pm.
Take another step into absudity. How about the next lawsuit from a "bi-sexual" that wants to marry a man and a woman.
Good point , Phil
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 1:46pm.
I understand that there are already suits by polygamists in states that have legalized same-sex marriage. I don't have any recent info, though.
Wait for it.
Submitted by richflanj on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:56pm.
Wait for it.
Quinn's columns appeared in
Submitted by rbosque on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:21pm.
Quinn's columns appeared in the British sunday paper years ago and they're just as thoughtlessly written then as they are now. She compares apples to oranges and gets upset when they are not "equal". The purpose of a marriage is to form a stable union that can procreate. A man-woman relationship is the most stable of relationships and the best environment for a child to be reared. Like all liberals, Quinn is off base with a distorted view of what constitutes a normal relationship. In a sane world, she'd be fired.
Quite sad, actually..
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:22pm.
If I was a black person, particularly an older black person who was around back in the 50's and 60's, I would be really pissed off when homosexuals tried to compare their "plight" to the civil rights era.
Really pissed off....
Magazine Cover
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:27pm.
Shouldn't the caption have been "We Are All Gay Now"? Or, should the earlier one have been "Obama, America's First Socialist President"? The latter one is the more truthful one.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Sorry Sally
Submitted by KornKing on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:31pm.
I think I'll look back at my life having tried to stand for what God says is good and right.
What some second rate columnist at some second rate rag thinks just really doesn't matter much to me, both now and for eternity.
The Strongest Bible Commentary on Homosexuality...
Submitted by Conservator on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:40pm.
...can be found in Corinthians by St. Paul. Most biblical scholars agree that Paul's letters were the earliest writings found in the New Testament authored about 30 years after the death of Jesus.
"1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).
However, even if a person believes that homosexuality is a sin based upon this scripture, the next verse does say that homosexuals can inherit the kingdom if they come to the Lord, Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (NIV)"
How an agnostic leftist like Sally Quinn became editor of The Post's "On Faith" religion section is the REAL STORY.
Don't forget Genesis
Submitted by KornKing on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 1:24pm.
Male and female they were created...
Not male and male, not female and female
Don't forget Romans 1: 18-31.
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 2:10pm.
Don't forget Romans 1: 18-31. That explains for those that worship the creation more than the Creator are given over to a reprobate mind, a warped conscience. I have got to using the reference to another Jesus that Paul warned about. That Jesus is a figment of man's wicked imagination. He can be controlled and molded into what the person wants him to be. That is the liberal Jesus.
A friend of mine worked for
Submitted by celator on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:52pm.
A friend of mine worked for the Washington Post for many years, and now has moved on to another newspaper. He could tell Sally Quinn stories for hours. Her arrogance, nose in the air treatment of reporters and editors, her clumsy writing which had to be heavily edited, etc.
Our perception of Sally here is exactly what she is like in real life: stupefyingly off putting, full of herself and completely untethered from the world the rest of us live in. Essentially, she a wealthy airhead. The reporters had a name for her which, because this is a family oriented site, I will not repeat.
Quinn
Submitted by mmilesll on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:53pm.
The only "faith" that this woman has is the "faith" that she won't get lost going home. If this woman doesn't prove that WaPo is totally out of touch I don't know what will.
How does she feel about potted meat and french fried potaters?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:57pm.
She can't find anything about it?
And they called Karl Childers a moron. Even Slingblade knew this much...
"The Bible says two men ought not lay together. Mmm."
Quinn's logic is preposterous. Of course there is nothing about gay marriage in the Bible. Nor is there anything about thieves, liars or blasphemers getting married.
She's about as qualified to write about religion as she would be writing about NASCAR for Road & Track.
SoL
Submitted by ricklail on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 2:17pm.
In all honesty it doesn't take a lot to write about NASCAR. All one has to do is take the PR releases and put into your own words. Dale Jr is the best, Danica Patrick one of the best, yada, yada yada! Danica ran strong at Darlington. She finished 31 several laps down. She "battled" to stay 31st. Wow. Toe the NASCAR line and you'll get all the interviews you can handle. Interviews from the drivers spouting the NASCAR propaganda.
Ricklail:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 2:22pm.
You're right, and ole Sally is certainly well-versed in regurgitating press releases... from the WH and the DNC.
Only illiterate bigots support the "gay"/"homosex-" fraud
Submitted by russedav on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 1:00pm.
The Christian Founders of this Christian nation (http://conservapedia.com/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States) would have executed mindless whoring antiChristian bigots like Quinn as vile obscenities like Israel did the priests of Baal who were similarly vile in their carryings on. Pagan Rome similalry embraced sodomy and it was as fatal for them as it will be for us if we don't throw the filth out before we're killed by it, and that includes reforming similarly vile divorce laws that similarly make kids suffer because evil judges don't have the testes to tell adults to go to hell (no's ok, but less effective) when the request a divorce. The church is to blame as much as anyone for failing to take the marriage sacrament seriously. As Dostoyevskiy warned, without God anything [evil] is possible. Our Founders promised the government they established was only sufficient for a Christian people, not lunatic lying polytheist scum like Romney or atheist muslim filth like Obama, and anyone voting for either will stand before God in the Judgment for doing so evil a thing, raising the middle finger in His face as a delused antiGod pragmatist. God save us! See Romney's fraud exposed at www.renewamerica.com
She forgets history
Submitted by wingnut55 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 1:12pm.
To be the same as those who stood in the school house door, would mean that Christian Believers need to become Democrats. Weren't those who stood in the school house door Democrats? As I remember history that is true It was Democrats who started the KKK. It was Al Gore's father and his pals who filibustered against all civil rights laws. It was Democrats who made up the Dixiecrats. Since it is the Bible that teaches homosexuality is a sin not a life style. I for one will appose the changing of the definition of the word Marriage. That is what the Democrats are trying to do.
Funny how in all of this
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 1:14pm.
she neglected to address the way muslims feel about gays and gay marriage. Would that be to uncomfortable for Sally? A little to politically incorrect?
No, we stand with different group
Submitted by SeniorD on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 2:08pm.
Those who stand at the ramparts battling the never-ending rape, pillage and destruction of our once glorious country by Socialist-Communist-Elitists who have no clue.
It's WaPo's "NO Faith"
Submitted by GW on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 2:38pm.
They just spelled it wrong.
If I may repeat myself...
Submitted by IdahoJim on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 2:56pm.
First posted elsewhere.
Sally,
Here is something I wrote that explains why redefining marriage is plain dumb and not in keeping with anything in this here real world. You will notice that I left the Bible and any other religion out of it so even a humanist can understand what I'm talking about.
If you do not believe in God, at least believe in history.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am risking all here, but... Marriage is defined as the union/partnership of a male and a female, the base purpose is to reproduce and nourish the resulting man children or women children to adulthood, whereupon they assume the mantel of personal responsibility for themselves. This is time and time again the proven definition of marriage, by evolution or creation (take your pick). We only have one responsibility in this world, survive long enough to procreate. How we do that is up to us.
Now, to gay unions. Since the purpose of the union is not to bear children, then it is not a marriage, it is a partnership. J and I have been partners for over 37 years (we call it dating) because neither she or I wanted children. And since we can't see any reason for government or religion to give us permission to have a relationship, we told them to go away and leave us alone. Some may call it living-in-sin, but none of our religious friends do. Also, we do not need the label "married" to show off, be cool, be in the in crowd, or any other reason.
Now I've been saying this for the longest time (and you may quote me):
Fornication without Procreation is Masturbation.
Simple. If you are rolling around in bed having sex with someone of the same or different gender, and the purpose is recreational, then you are simply masturbating each other. Oh you can love each other as much as you want. You might even think you are doing a service for the other party, doing all the work for them, but it is still not anywhere near family making.
The reason that sex is fun is because, through millennia, people that don't have fun having sex do not generally have babies. The ones that did have fun procreated their brains out and all their descendents enjoyed having sex and procreated themselves silly. Now, mother nature is still using the joy of sex to trick men and women to have sex so they can make babies (I point out high school pregnancy as an example). When they don't make a baby, well, best not to upset mother nature.
What does the label "married" mean to a gay couple? Beside the legal rights that you can have anyway just for the asking. is it fashionable? Is it an elegant cache? Got a nice ring to it? Or is it just a signal to your friends and society that you are getting each other off? You don't have to be married to be in love, to move in, to sleep together, or any other thing you choose to do. When you start worrying more about what other people think of your relationship then you do, you're in trouble already.
Now, one last personal plea: Let us heterosexuals have marriage to ourselves. please? Leave us this one last vestige of our differences. Something that has survived thousands of generations. Is there really a compelling reason to toss it out?There are so few rituals and structures left to us straights, now the gays want to take this away from us too. We straights have not co-opted one single gay only label or ritual or anything. Gays are trying to change everything that is considered hetero.
Why? Is this the gay way to try to fit in to society? Change society? Why don't gays change their attitudes to better fit in to society? Gays want acceptance, but won't accept that society is overwhelmingly straight. Straights don't want to run their lives by gay rules.
Finally, a word to libs and gays: You have your brain, nobody else's. Take responsibility for yourself. Stand up and say "I'm me and no damn government program defines me! My skin color does not define me. I do not want any damn political party to define me! I am what I am and who I am and if somebody does not like that, then let them suffer in their ignorance!" Defining yourself by your sexual orientation is a rather poor choice. Pick something more importanat than sex to define yourselfs.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/05/11/msnbcs-bashir-conse...
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
Wrong side of history ...
Submitted by WilliamW on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 3:46pm.
I've noticed that leftists, homosexuals, Occupy Wall Street thugs, etc., tend to use such words as "You are on the wrong side of history."
They've used the words "Reproductive Rights," "Woman's Right to Choose," and "Pro-choice" to soften the act of butchering living, innocent human beings via burning them alive with chemicals, chopping them to pieces, pulling them apart, suctioning them down a tube, inducing birth and, while baby is virtually 100% born, puncturing his or her skull, then inserting a suction device and suctioning the contents of her skull, causing the skull to collapse in on itself, and other forms of slaughtering-killing baby humans. That is a sample what abortion is, and those who love to slaughter babies get away with using such vile words to make their obsession with such a sick, perverted, violent act sound nice.
Homosexuals are deviants. They are involved in forms of deviant behavior. Their life style, urges, and acts are symptoms of a disorder. The US Society must not be forced to kow tow to, surrender to, advocate, condone, or in any way support such a sickness.
Many of us know friends, co-workers, acquaintances, and relatives, who are involved with, or identify themselves, as homosexual, lesbian, etc. We don't hate them, nor do we attack them, plan their demise, harass them, or go on a campaign against them.
Homosexuals, lesbians, etc., wanted to be left alone. They wanted the rest of us to tolerate their acts and lifestyles, claiming that it was a privacy issue, that it is something that is between two people, best kept in the secrecy, in the privacy, of the bedroom.
Now we are forced to swallow their in-your-face Taliban like intolerance, harassment, and offensive behavior, which they now bring openly out into the public eye, in open sight of our children in public, in schools, in television programs and movies, as well as in books and news stories, many, if not most, sympathetic to, and endorsing and enabling their form of deviant behavior and urges.
History is on the side of male-female union marriage, not that of homosexuals, lesbians, etc. Societies have perpetually consisted of male-female relationships, and marriage between males and females, not between males and other males, or females and other females.
It is not homosexuals, lesbians, etc., who are assaulted, attacked, or harassed, but it is homosexuals, lesbians, and their advocates, who are pushing their disgusting, offensive, deviancy upon the rest of us and our children.
We have the right to proclaim, "No! Marriage is marriage, and that means, one part of the union requires a male, the other part requires at least one female. It NEVER includes two males marrying one another, nor two females marrying one another. Such an act is not marriage.
The fact that homosexuals, lesbians, etc., are forcing this on us proves that THEY are the attackers. THEY are the activists, actively pushing their perverted agenda on the rest of us, and engaging in corrupting the morals of our children.
It is not those who favor real, authentic marriage who are on the offense. It is homosexuals, lesbians, and their advocates who are the agressors.
I am tired of this nonsense.
Since when are people who are perverts raised up as heroes?
Bravo
Submitted by KornKing on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 4:13pm.
Well said
Yep, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 4:42pm.
it was.
MD
http://gayterribletruth.wordp
Submitted by Skip Barrow on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:28am.
http://gayterribletruth.wordpress.com
Agnostic writing the Faith
Submitted by felizagain on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 6:05pm.
Agnostic writing the Faith column of a magazine fewer and fewer people buy and read...even if it's free at the dentist office.
Is it now 32 states that have voted to either affirm their existing legal definition of marriage licenses in their state or to re-affirm and clarify they prefer male-female marriage only. 32 states. There are not 32 states in the 'flyover' region. California has done it 2 or 3 times. If every Republican, Mormon, and diehard Christian conservative voted for traditional marriage in California, it would lose. They are outnumbered by the Democrats and illegal voters by a wide margin. Many,many of those Democrats, illegal voters, independents, did in fact vote for the traditional marriage option. More than once, in loopy liberal California. What, are they all waiting at the door of the schoolhouse, wearing a hood over their head?
No. But, movies and stars have made Prop. 8 (Prop Hate) out to be only conservative christians and mormons and republicans, and that simply does not pan out ,and never did. But, facts are annoying...........so, why bother.
Sally Quinn. Intelligent, great family history, Ben Bradlee's 3rd wife, a son who has overcome so much w/his DiGeorge disease.....and he truly has been remarkable in doing so....and a left wing, liberal among liberal mindset that is bordering on the inept and desperate.
If you can't make an argument for your case in a supposedly prestigious publication.....just insult the other side.
You can disagree w/ the 'feeling' , the 'evolution' Obama has had...and the issue itself....and not be a hateful, spiteful, horrible person. You may just think, hey it worked for 10,000 years, with every religion, in every nation, of left and right, why are we changing it again? Does it not impact private churches if they choose not to marry same sex couples? Will kids be forced to be told this as very young children in school? Will we continue to erode the differences between men and women in society?
Will we continue to erode the family unit altogether? Will we presume a legitimate religious belief has no merit, if it involves a Christian or a Mormon only......if Islam says no to this as well, will it be told they are at the schoolhouse door?
Sally Quinn, is there no one under 70 who can write for the magazine, oh wait, I said the word 'magazine'.............stone age
media needs stone age writers I guess.
Ask any 20-something, quick, who is Sally Quinn. Quick, what is an agnostic?
Sally Quinn is a Jack cass
Submitted by cristo on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 7:51pm.
Here she makes the Muslim/black connection:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2010/10/crackpot-wapo-reporter-sally-qui...
Our society has really gone down the crapper when
Submitted by Ken James on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 9:25pm.
those of us who view marriage as one man and one woman are considered the deviants and perverts. This is our educational systems' work after less than a generation. The media reporting our daily news are the product of that system. Aren't they the ones who coined the term TeaBaggers for the conservative group? It is said in an uncomplimentary way, yet that is exactly the behavior they promote as normal. Or do they even understand what they promote?
How did Sally get her job?
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 10:08pm.
She's the third wife of former WaPo bigwig editor Ben Bradlee. She started working at WaPo despite having no tangible experience in newspapers except wrapping fish and changing birdcage and cat litter pan liners. In a relatively short period of time, she goes from writing in the "Style" section (print media equivalent of reporting dog fashion shows on local access) to writing columns. It is known that the post had a difficult time with her, from multiple incidents where retractions or corrections were required to her QB behavior in the offices. What is also known about Sally is that she was essentially the "other woman" who reportedly broke up Bradlee's second marriage. What is painted of her is a portrait of a bitter, angry and resentful woman who has zero talent except for outrageous behavior and writing that would not pass muster with remedial ESL (English as a second language) course teachers. That she writes on anything to do with faith is laughable, considering her own conduct has been an exercise in horrifically bad behavior, making her another "do as I say not as I do" hypocrite writing for a publication that is no longer relevant.
Don't Shoot the Messenger
Submitted by Andrew1431 on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:13am.
I don't care who she is or what she's done, she's wrong. First off, if it's not a man and woman, it's not marriage. Don't call it marriage because that's not what it is. Black will never be white, up will never be down and abnormal will never be normal. These people can rationalize until they're blue in the face but it will never make what they say true. Truth endures.
Reality ---
Submitted by Skip Barrow on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 1:27am.
Besides the cold reality that the whole world defines marriage as the state institution (not private endeavor) whereby taxpayers invest their hard earned money in return for the creation and rearing of the next generation - knowing that not every male-female union will produce children, thus all males and females can marry to maximize the investment - there is the public health threat of the behavior that is being proliferated into the general population being desperately kept quiet while taxpayers are asked to encourage the behavior further by issuing licenses for it in their state's names...
http://gayterribletruth.wordpress.com