Comments on: The public part of marriage, Hollywood style (subtitle: love the activist, hate the activism) http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/05/30/the-public-part-of-marriage-hollywood-style-subtitle-love-the-activist-hate-the-activism/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:25:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: NorthoftheBorder http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/05/30/the-public-part-of-marriage-hollywood-style-subtitle-love-the-activist-hate-the-activism/comment-page-1/#comment-3537 NorthoftheBorder Sat, 30 May 2009 20:09:30 +0000 http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=5727#comment-3537 I agree with you 100% and I do think it is in societies best interest to support marriage between a man and a woman - and like you said it is not so much saying that gay couples do not have a right to be together (and I would add things like visitation rights, property rights, etc.) or anything like that, but rather that traditional families make good societies, and are the best context for the growth and development of children. But that said, in terms of strategy, do you think a more libertarian approach would be helpful? What I mean to say, especially here in Canada, should we push to have a different word used like "civil union", allowing for people to define whether they are married or not? In some sense it is similar to the approach I would take with abortion in the US. Overturning Roe vs. Wade would not ban abortion at all - what it would do is allow each individual State to decide the issue for themselves. This is certainly constitutional but furthermore it give the practical ability for individuals to make a real impact (basically subsidiarity). Thoughts? I agree with you 100% and I do think it is in societies best interest to support marriage between a man and a woman – and like you said it is not so much saying that gay couples do not have a right to be together (and I would add things like visitation rights, property rights, etc.) or anything like that, but rather that traditional families make good societies, and are the best context for the growth and development of children.

But that said, in terms of strategy, do you think a more libertarian approach would be helpful? What I mean to say, especially here in Canada, should we push to have a different word used like “civil union”, allowing for people to define whether they are married or not? In some sense it is similar to the approach I would take with abortion in the US. Overturning Roe vs. Wade would not ban abortion at all – what it would do is allow each individual State to decide the issue for themselves. This is certainly constitutional but furthermore it give the practical ability for individuals to make a real impact (basically subsidiarity). Thoughts?

]]> By: Julie Culshaw http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/05/30/the-public-part-of-marriage-hollywood-style-subtitle-love-the-activist-hate-the-activism/comment-page-1/#comment-3536 Julie Culshaw Sat, 30 May 2009 18:45:29 +0000 http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=5727#comment-3536 Wow, well said. Wow, well said.

]]>