Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

[twoshoes]

Just from what I wrote, how do you think I’d vote if Portman were to run again?

I would not attempt to guest how you would vote. First of all I would make no judgements on you, especially on a couple of sentences in a posting. I’ll leave that up to God.

 

[LisaA]

I’ve not heard that one before. Any idea where it comes from?

The Media, Kinsey, and cultural shifts. I don’t know if there really is more homosexuality now than in the past but in the past many kept it on the down low so to speak. Quite honestly I believe that one of the reasons for the sexual abuse crisis was that the Priesthood was a place where homosexual men could hide and not be questioned as to their marital status. It also unfortunately put them in the position of power over vulnerable young men. These were not pediphiles for the most part, they were predatory homosexuals.

I think what Pope Francis said is absolutely spot on. Homosexuality was understood to be a part of the human condition from the long distant past, but until now it was NEVER considered to be equivalent to traditional marriage. Homosexuality was for some cultures (and still is as you might know from where you say you are located) a convenience or temporary or situational practice. Certainly the study of Greek history indicates that men had “particular friendships” so to speak, older men “mentored” younger men and sometimes this because a temporarily sexual outlet. Marriage was not between males or females.

Now the culture lauds this state of being as if it were something to be proud of instead of something that is just another part of fallen humanity. So those who may simply be confused or may have inclinations are all but pushed into “coming out.” As one pundit put it what used to be “the problem that has no name” has become “the problem that can’t shut up.”

It’s a sad sad day when someone thinks that their sexual practices are so important that they are KNOWN by them.

Lisa

 

[twoshoes]

That is an interesting observation. On the one hand, when I vote what I want more than anything is for the candidate to honestly represent what he believes, and what he intends to do. I hate the current poll driven politics, where the politician changes his platform with each new ratings poll.

On the other hand, I respect a person who can change his or her opinion in the light of personal growth, and new insight or information. This is a requirement of good leadership.

So, I would not be so quick to cry out “betrayal”. But I get your point.

In this case, it appears that a person with certain impersonal moral values was confronted with the personal ramifications of his beliefs. That is where the rubber meets the road.

By analogy… ra ra for the “chicken hawks” who have never served a day in the military, but are quick to commit our military men and women. How would they make the same decision, if their sons and daughters were eligible to be drafted, of if they had to report for duty themselves?

This is the true moral test. Does one’s personal moral perspective hold up to personal commitment, in the face of moral dilemma and personal adversity. Do you betray your friend to save your own skin? Do you take a bullet to protect your comrade? and so on…

I guess my final point is that this senator made a very personal decision, based on his own values and his life experience. For each of us, that is different.

I agree with most of what you have to say, except when you run for office people vote for the person who most represents they thoughts on not only political issues but moral issues. If we leave out the morality of candidates we get this type of fluxuation in beliefs, and are left high and dry, and fustrated with the system. Who to believe in, God only.

 

[paulrxp]

I would not attempt to guest how you would vote. First of all I would make no judgements on you, especially on a couple of sentences in a posting. I’ll leave that up to God

I agree with most of what you have to say, except when you run for office people vote for the person who most represents they thoughts on not only political issues but moral issues. If we leave out the morality of candidates we get this type of fluxuation in beliefs, and are left high and dry, and fustrated with the system. Who to believe in, God only.

.

Ok fair enough We’re on the same page on this issue anyways, certainly with regards to how he handled this politically.

These sort of issues have made me closer to the Church. Govts role in every day life has been so imposing. There’s only one voice(other than Gods of course) that will resist and stand up to government. The Church will not buckle under pressure on these moral issues, you’d expect that from your representatives, but that’s just not how it works today in the political realm .

 

[matt1985]

The Media, Kinsey, and cultural shifts. I don’t know if there really is more homosexuality now than in the past but in the past many kept it on the down low so to speak. Quite honestly I believe that one of the reasons for the sexual abuse crisis was that the Priesthood was a place where homosexual men could hide and not be questioned as to their marital status. It also unfortunately put them in the position of power over vulnerable young men. These were not pediphiles for the most part, they were predatory homosexuals.

Lisa

This probably has some elements of truth to it. Perhaps the celibacy requirement should be re-examined very seriously. I think however that most of the abuse came from people who were Catholics in name only.

 

[LisaA]

This probably has some elements of truth to it. Perhaps the celibacy requirement should be re-examined very seriously. I think however that most of the abuse came from people who were Catholics in name only.

Except that celibacy was not such an issue until HOMOSEXUAL priests abused young men and were eventually exposed. Of course there were always priests who broke their vows with women but the sexual abuse crisis was a situation where homosexual males were given the opportunity and authority to prey upon young males. Allowing married priests would not change the issue with predatory homosexuals. They exist in all organizations…Jerry Sandusky anyone? Further there are also predatory heterosexuals so marriage isn’t the solution there either. If you look at the incidence of married pastors of other faiths committing adultery, preying upon females in their congregation, you’d see that celibacy isn’t the reason for sexual abuse. When I was a Methodist my pastor was found to be having a long term adulterous affair with member of the congregation. Marriage is not the cure and celibacy isn’t the issue. It’s means and opportunity combined with our fallen human nature and men who did not keep their vows. What we need is faithful and holy Priests not married Priests.

Lisa

 

[epan]

The Media, Kinsey, and cultural shifts. I don’t know if there really is more homosexuality now than in the past but in the past many kept it on the down low so to speak. Quite honestly I believe that one of the reasons for the sexual abuse crisis was that the Priesthood was a place where homosexual men could hide and not be questioned as to their marital status. It also unfortunately put them in the position of power over vulnerable young men. These were not pediphiles for the most part, they were predatory homosexuals.

I think what Pope Francis said is absolutely spot on. Homosexuality was understood to be a part of the human condition from the long distant past, but until now it was NEVER considered to be equivalent to traditional marriage. Homosexuality was for some cultures (and still is as you might know from where you say you are located) a convenience or temporary or situational practice. Certainly the study of Greek history indicates that men had “particular friendships” so to speak, older men “mentored” younger men and sometimes this because a temporarily sexual outlet. Marriage was not between males or females.

Now the culture lauds this state of being as if it were something to be proud of instead of something that is just another part of fallen humanity. So those who may simply be confused or may have inclinations are all but pushed into “coming out.” As one pundit put it what used to be “the problem that has no name” has become “the problem that can’t shut up.”

It’s a sad sad day when someone thinks that their sexual practices are so important that they are KNOWN by them.

Lisa

There has certainly been great social upheaval. I have sometimes marveled at the change witnessed by the people who lived from the 1890’s into the 1970’s or 1980’s. The first electrified homes, the first automobiles, the first telephones, the first airplanes, the first radios, the first televisions, the first computers, the first satellites and space travel, refrigeration, packaged foods, transformation into an industrial economy, nuclear energy and weapons, medicine that actually can cure disease, genetic engineering, contraception that works … my goodness.

Then, while I pondered the news that more change occurred in that one century than in the previous millenia, but then even more in the next 50 years, and even more in the following 25 years… and so on, are to be expected, I realized that the tremendous change we are seeing today is not just technology, but it is social revolution.

Yes, the Pope’s statement is correct. We are in a time of great social change, and the questions to be answered are far larger than one of sexuality. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The other social and economic issues to confront are staggering.

It seems that a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to the “gay issue”, when there are other more important things to worry about, in my opinion.

And yes, sex is talked about. It has been talked about in many times in the past, from what I understand, in non-American cultures. But in the US, the topic started to become more on people’s lips and minds, I would think, with the beginnings of birth control. I went to college in the SF Bay area. I can tell you from first hand observation that no sexual topic is taboo in casual conversation or in practice, often in public. I was invited to parties were nudity was as common as clothing, for example. A friend of mine who just started college at Santa Cruz tells me that nudity is extremely common in daily life in one of the colleges, at her coed university. So, while this conversation is about the gay stuff, I would also point out that the sexual revolution continues among heterosexuals. Gender roles have changed dramatically in the past 100 years, and do continue to evolve socially at an increasing rate. The gay rights movement can be seen as a smaller part of that larger phenomenon. In fact, I have made that very case, that it is the changed legal definition of gender roles in marriage which has opened the legal door to thinking about gay marriage as a possibility at all.

While many people have called these changes a redefinition of marriage, i would not disagree, but I would point out that it is not a SUDDEN redefinition. It is one more step, and a logical and inevitable step, on the path that we have been on for nearly a century.

My objection to gay marriage is a moral one, and not a social one. I think that the social battle has been decided already, in this matter. It is a matter of past change which has a momentum today which has a very clear trajectory.

This is what Francis failed to include in his statement. He points out the broad sweep of history, but needs to drill down more into the past century, and put those changes into a moral perspective in more discreet terms. I don’t think that painting with such a broad conceptual brush will have enough impact.

 

[Publisher]

Because the issue came home. It’s about his son now, not a bunch of people wearing rainbow boas and spandex at the gay pride parade.

Not the first time I’ve seen this kind of switch when people actually get to know gay people away from the stereotypes.

This is exactly spot on. The whole issue of marriage equality and gay rights is slowly bein won because when people find out that one of their loved one or beloved friend is gay, they are SLAMMED with the reality that this person whom they love and care about IS JUST LIKE THEM after all…they just know something about them they didn’t know before.

They begin to realize the unjust and inaaccurate picture painted of gay people by the conservative right and religous is grossly distorted.

When it “comes home” and hits you between the eyes it’s not “them” any more…now they see a “face” and a “person”.

 

[Publisher]

Really? You studied up on the topic, eh? Then explain to me why hetero couples with kids don’t get married with children born out of wedlock without their father’s name? Well, that I can tell you, EBT, food stamps, housing subsidy, education subsidy, child care subsidy, If marriage is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why are hetero’s ignoring it? Don’t forget, many of these hetero couples are also not faithful. Most of these relationships do not last long without bringing other man/.woman into the bedroom, and having more kids out of wedlock. Promiscuity is an open secret in the hetero community. They don’t want marriage because the government subsidies would end. And because they want to want to be free to see other people if the relationship doesn’t work out.

There are 4 sets of gay men in my neighborhood. I have lived here going on 17 yrs. They are still together. In the 17 years I have lived here, 7 hetero couples have split up. All good friends of ours. Our kids grew up with their kids, we had bbq’s, attended girl scout boy scouts, Church and neighborhood activities. Of the 7, 6 split up due to adultery. Of the six that split up due to adultery, 3 went into and out of relationships with other men (yes, the ones who left were all women). One has remarried, but not to the one she had the affair with. The other two are still single and no longer with their original lover. The other 3 of the six, married the man they committed adultery with. The remaining couple split for irreconcilable differences. All had children.

But the gay men are still with their same partner. Interesting.

There are a couple of same sex couples in the Meeting I attend. One male couple have been together for 8 years…they have adopted two 'cast away" children. One a young girl confined to a wheel chair. She is very grateful to have such two loving parents. She was passed over numerous times for adoption in her short life because not only did her heterosexual parents not want such an imperfect child…but obviously neither did any other couples. The other is a boy, a 'crack baby". Now these children have a stable family

The other is a lesbian couple, who have been together some thirty years…they met in high school and have been together since.

I know that gay men tend to be promiscous…but so do straight men…I hear about the weekly “conquests” on Monday mornings. Of the 16 people in my office two of them have not been divorced. A few of them are on their second and third marriages…multiple partners is not necessarily a “gay” issue…it’s a 'people" issue…and just as we as a society have learned to still love and support our loved ones when their marriages fail and have stepped away from the stereotype of what divorced people are like…when I grew up my parents church home had a definte stance on how divorce people were treated…we didn’t have too many divorced people in our congregation because of it…so too we will find our hearts changing when we get to really know gay people…eventually we’ll see them just as we now “see” divorced people…they’ll become on “divorced people” or “gay people”…they’ll become just “people.”

 

[LisaA]

This is exactly spot on. The whole issue of marriage equality and gay rights is slowly bein won because when people find out that one of their loved one or beloved friend is gay, they are SLAMMED with the reality that this person whom they love and care about IS JUST LIKE THEM after all…they just know something about them they didn’t know before.

They begin to realize the unjust and inaaccurate picture painted of gay people by the conservative right and religous is grossly distorted.

When it “comes home” and hits you between the eyes it’s not “them” any more…now they see a “face” and a “person”.

Strawman argument with respect to this Forum and most Catholic discussions in the media. Homosexuals are NOT being slammed or hated to the extent you and other apologists claim. Look at the kerfluffle regarding the Chick-Fil-A incident, the comment was “we believe in traditional marriage…” Nothing hateful regarding homosexuals but they seized this and tried to gin up a media lynching of this company. Of course the hysteria regarding Proposition 8 in California was a sight to behold.

There is nothing wrong with stating the obvious and the proven reality that marriage between a man and a woman has been the building block of stable societies for millenia. The best place for a child to be conceived and reared is in a traditional male/female marriage. Further the redefinition of marriage to include “anyone I love” is just another stage in the social experiments such as no fault divorce, single motherhood and shacking up as a viable alternative to marriage. What it has spawned is poverty, crime, instability, and less prosperity. Further if the TRUE objective is to open marriage to that which I “love” then there will be no way to counter incest, plural marriages, or other lifestyles.

You like Senator Portman find the “nice gay” example as if this means we should go ahead and redefine a cultural norm because you know a nice gay person or a nice gay couple. Baloney. Two men and two women are not the equivalent to a man and a woman and to have society riding on the back of somoene’s sexual habits is appalling. THIS enhances human dignity? Really?

Lisa

 

[Publisher]

Strawman argument with respect to this Forum and most Catholic discussions in the media. Homosexuals are NOT being slammed or hated to the extent you and other apologists claim. Look at the kerfluffle regarding the Chick-Fil-A incident, the comment was “we believe in traditional marriage…” Nothing hateful regarding homosexuals but they seized this and tried to gin up a media lynching of this company. Of course the hysteria regarding Proposition 8 in California was a sight to behold.

There is nothing wrong with stating the obvious and the proven reality that marriage between a man and a woman has been the building block of stable societies for millenia. The best place for a child to be conceived and reared is in a traditional male/female marriage. Further the redefinition of marriage to include “anyone I love” is just another stage in the social experiments such as no fault divorce, single motherhood and shacking up as a viable alternative to marriage. What it has spawned is poverty, crime, instability, and less prosperity. Further if the TRUE objective is to open marriage to that which I “love” then there will be no way to counter incest, plural marriages, or other lifestyles.

You like Senator Portman find the “nice gay” example as if this means we should go ahead and redefine a cultural norm because you know a nice gay person or a nice gay couple. Baloney. Two men and two women are not the equivalent to a man and a woman and to have society riding on the back of somoene’s sexual habits is appalling. THIS enhances human dignity? Really?

Lisa

As I am “one opinion” and you are of “another opinion”…we will have to simply disagree.

Society IS changing…people ARE changing…laws ARE changing…marriage equality IS taking place, state by state…because people are coming to know some of their friends and family members are gay…for this I am thankful.

 

[LisaA]

As I am “one opinion” and you are of “another opinion”…we will have to simply disagree.

Society IS changing…people ARE changing…laws ARE changing…marriage equality IS taking place, state by state…because people are coming to know some of their friends and family members are gay…for this I am thankful.

So you are fine with social experimentation which means as Pope Francis said, a child is destined to grow up without a mother or without a father. Or you are fine that effective charitable organizations are unable to help people because they will not compromise on homosexual “marriage.” And you are apparently fine that our religious liberty will continue to be chipped away. And you are fine that private businesses are forced to compromise their own ethics and morals. And you are fine that a pastor can be charged with hate speech because he read a passage in the Bible related to homosexual activity.

People do not think about the unintended consquences of these changes. Your name indicates you lived during the advent of no fault divorce. This was sold to us as a kind and compassionate step. It has been anything but. So look beyond your own horizon and your own tiny church and think about the mess to come.

Yep it’s all about you and being GLAAD. Well not really.

Lisa

 

[Publisher]

So you are fine with social experimentation which means as Pope Francis said, a child is destined to grow up without a mother or without a father. Or you are fine that effective charitable organizations are unable to help people because they will not compromise on homosexual “marriage.” And you are apparently fine that our religious liberty will continue to be chipped away. And you are fine that private businesses are forced to compromise their own ethics and morals. And you are fine that a pastor can be charged with hate speech because he read a passage in the Bible related to homosexual activity.

Yep it’s all about you and being GLAAD.

Lisa

Your “rights” end where mine “begin”…it matters not what your religious beliefs require of YOU when MY religious beliefs require something different from me.

I am very much for any organization that takes Federal money to operate it’s business to conform to the laws they agreed to abide by WHEN they took the money to operate their business.

Civil law is not dependant on your belief system…nor mine…I’m thankful we live in a country where others religious beliefss do not interfere with my religious beliefs.

I do not believe you shoud compromise your ethics and morals…you simply cannot force YOUR ehtics and morals on ME or any one else.

If it’s a matter of religious liberty for you to oppose same sex marriage and same sex relationships in your life, I would no more demand a law to restrict you from it’s practice than I support a law against free speech for Westboro Baptist Chruch…I DO support however laws which restrict WBC’s 'rights" where other’s “rights” would be restricted by WBC’s actions.

Your religious “rights” end where mine begin.

 

[Julianna]

Your “rights” end where mine “begin”…it matters not what your religious beliefs require of YOU when MY religious beliefs require something different from me.

I am very much for any organization that takes Federal money to operate it’s business to conform to the laws they agreed to abide by WHEN they took the money to operate their business.

Civil law is not dependant on your belief system…nor mine…I’m thankful we live in a country where others religious beliefss do not interfere with my religious beliefs.

I do not believe you shoud compromise your ethics and morals…you simply cannot force YOUR ehtics and morals on ME or any one else.

If it’s a matter of religious liberty for you to oppose same sex marriage and same sex relationships in your life, I would no more demand a law to restrict you from it’s practice than I support a law against free speech for Westboro Baptist Chruch…I DO support however laws which restrict WBC’s 'rights" where other’s “rights” would be restricted by WBC’s actions.

Your religious “rights” end where mine begin.

yes, civil law, some forget this country has a keen separation of church and state. And that is a good thing.

Iran does not, and look how great it is going for them.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Boehner: I’ll Always Oppose Gay Marriage

House Speaker John Boehner on Sunday said he can’t imagine changing his position on gay marriage even though a prominent Republican in the Senate did just that.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” the top Republican in the House said that fellow Ohioan Sen. Rob Portman had every right to change his own position with respect to same-sex marriage.

“Listen, I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” Boehner told interviewer Martha Raddatz “It’s what I grew up with. It’s what I believe. It’s what my church teaches me. And — I can’t imagine that position would ever change.”

---

Describing Portman as a “great friend” and “long-time ally,” Boehner said that the senator called him to discuss the issue.

“I appreciate that he’s decided to change — his views on this. But I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman,” according to Boehner.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Your “rights” end where mine “begin”…it matters not what your religious beliefs require of YOU when MY religious beliefs require something different from me.

I am very much for any organization that takes Federal money to operate it’s business to conform to the laws they agreed to abide by WHEN they took the money to operate their business.

Civil law is not dependant on your belief system…nor mine…I’m thankful we live in a country where others religious beliefss do not interfere with my religious beliefs.

I do not believe you shoud compromise your ethics and morals…you simply cannot force YOUR ehtics and morals on ME or any one else.

If it’s a matter of religious liberty for you to oppose same sex marriage and same sex relationships in your life, I would no more demand a law to restrict you from it’s practice than I support a law against free speech for Westboro Baptist Chruch…I DO support however laws which restrict WBC’s 'rights" where other’s “rights” would be restricted by WBC’s actions.

Your religious “rights” end where mine begin.

If you believe that opposition to redefining marriage is based only on religion, you would be wrong:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

What is Marriage?

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage?

Check Your Blind Spot: What Is Marriage?

Dr. Morse’s testimony to MN Senate Judiciary

Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization

77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4)

 

[10gr8kids]

oh please… we don’t compare homosexual sex with pre-marital sex because too many people sitting in those pews practiced or are practicing pre-marital sex and we’re afraid of offending them. It has NOTHING to do with where pre-marital sex can end up. It just hits too close to home.

I agree with you that pre-marital sex is just as sinful as same-sex, but people who believe in same-sex marriage don’t see pre-marital sex as a sin either. IMO that is why we don’t compare the two, not because it would offend those of us who have committed the sin of pre-marital sex. It is difficult for some people to see sin in anything, so we have go to the extreme for them to acknowledge sin and immorality.

 

[LisaA]

Your “rights” end where mine “begin”…it matters not what your religious beliefs require of YOU when MY religious beliefs require something different from me.

I am very much for any organization that takes Federal money to operate it’s business to conform to the laws they agreed to abide by WHEN they took the money to operate their business.

Civil law is not dependant on your belief system…nor mine…I’m thankful we live in a country where others religious beliefss do not interfere with my religious beliefs.

I do not believe you shoud compromise your ethics and morals…you simply cannot force YOUR ehtics and morals on ME or any one else.

If it’s a matter of religious liberty for you to oppose same sex marriage and same sex relationships in your life, I would no more demand a law to restrict you from it’s practice than I support a law against free speech for Westboro Baptist Chruch…I DO support however laws which restrict WBC’s 'rights" where other’s “rights” would be restricted by WBC’s actions.

Your religious “rights” end where mine begin.

You fail to understand that this law does INDEED force your beliefs on others. The homosexual agenda is not satisfied with simply having a marriage ceremony and calling themselves spouses and filing joint returns. If that were the case there would be little objection. Unfortunately that is not the case. Same sex couples have demanded PRIVATE businesses serve them. They do not take government money. They sue if a private photographer won’t take their “wedding” pictures even though therer are many photographers who would be happy to have the business. They sue a B&B owner who does not want a homosexual “wedding” at his place of business.

The homosexual agenda wants to force THEIR lifestyle choice and their sexual practices on others. So your argument fails by a long way.

Honestly I do not care what people do in their private lives. I spent the last decade sharing Thanksgiving dinner with a group of dear friends including a gay couple and the sister of my dear friend who is a lesbian. I do not think of them in the context of their sex lives just as I don’t look at ANYONE in the context of their private sexual practices. If the homosexual agenda were willing to have the same attitude toward others we wouldn’t have this much disagreement.

Please read the cites Abyssinia provided. You need to learn there is more than just your personal experience involved.
Lisa

 

[_Abyssinia]

Rob Portman’s conversion on gay marriage

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) has explained that he now supports gay marriage because his son is gay. Does that make any sense? His son is not planning to get married any time soon, and did not even mention having a boyfriend, according to media reports. So Portman’s conversion suggests that gay marriage is not actually the issue here. Rather, gay marriage has become a symbol of tolerance for, and acceptance of, gay lifestyles.

That, for many gay activists, is the point. But does tolerance require political conformity? We who support traditional marriage are not bigots, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) declared at CPAC last week. Is it possible to love and support gay friends and relatives without at the same time supporting a political campaign to change the legal definition of marriage for the first time in the history of human civilization? One hopes that it would be so.

It is certainly understandable that having a close gay friend or relative might be a reason to reconsider the gay marriage issue. But if traditional marriage is inherent to your faith, or even just a matter of personal philosophical conviction, isn’t the right approach to the issue to stand by your beliefs? Do our political views flow only from personal interests and our experiences? If so, how can there ever be common agreement on anything?

 

[JimG]

If you believe that opposition to redefining marriage is based only on religion, you would be wrong:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

What is Marriage?

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage?

Check Your Blind Spot: What Is Marriage?

Dr. Morse’s testimony to MN Senate Judiciary

Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization

77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4)

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4)

Thank you for those great links. I especially liked the article on ‘check your blind spot.” The articles are well reasoned. But I am afraid that reason may no longer be useful. No matter how well reasoned a discussion about the essence of marriage, the rebuttal will be something emotional, something personal, something like: “But—my son is gay and he wants to get married!”

We live in an age of unreason, and that does not bode well for the future.