Same-Sex Marriage: The Continuing Conversation

Immanentizing the eschaton via Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Anthony Kennedy has achieved his long-sought goal—namely, to be to 21st-century America what Bonaparte was to 19th-century Europe.  In respectable quarters Justice Kennedy is considered a world-historical personage, having made the oxymoron “same-sex marriage” the law of the land.

Several years ago, in a letter to the editor I sent to the Seattle Times (my hometown newspaper), I made clear that I would rue the day when Anthony Kennedy might do precisely what he has now done.  A sentence or two along, I offered a newspaperish version of what used to be called argumentation—i.e., the giving of reasons as opposed to mere statements of opinion.  And I sought to make my point in a way that might appeal to people who do not share my conservative way of thinking—i.e., most people in the Seattle area.  For my pains, the Times not merely twisted my words around but actually replaced them with words having a totally different meaning.

Here, in part, is the version published by the Seattle Times:

Only opposite-sex couples—all of them, including the sterile and aged—have an intrinsic capacity to procreate.  We are told that marriage nowadays depends on love and commitment, not procreation.  Maybe.  But logically,...

Join now to access the full article and gain access to other exclusive features.

Get Started

Already a member? Sign in here