A letter from Jason to a cunty bitch who wrote a really bad article.
Here is the article. It's bad. Please read and respond to this horrible woman.
DETROIT FREE PRESS:
GUEST COLUMN: We should not say 'I do' to same-sex marriage
June 28, 2004
BY JENNIFER MARSHALL
Senate leaders are pushing for a July vote on whether to amend the Constitution
to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
It's a big step, but members shouldn't get cold feet. An overview of the social
science data on marriage shows they shouldn't hesitate to say "I do" to
defending marriage.
Remember the flap over Vice President Dan Quayle's criticism of TV's "Murphy
Brown"? Unwed births had reached a new high in the early '90s, and the vice
president lamented the nonchalant way the show's producers treated single
motherhood. Social science research has since vindicated his argument: Decisions
about sex, marriage and childbearing aren't merely personal. They have profound
social consequences, particularly for children.
Today's sitcoms have moved on to themes of same-sex coupling and parenting, a la
"Friends" and "Will and Grace." But the lesson we learned in the '90s about sex,
marriage and the welfare of children still applies.
That lesson -- that marriage is more than a personal affair for individual
fulfillment -- may have been summed up best a decade ago by Barbara Dafoe
Whitehead. Her April 1993 Atlantic Monthly feature article, "Dan Quayle Was
Right," explained how Americans' views on family had shifted from valuing social
stability to valuing personal choice:
"Increasingly, political principles of individual rights and choice shape our
understanding of family commitment and solidarity," she wrote. "The family loses
its central importance as an institution in the civil society, accomplishing
certain social goals such as raising children and caring for its members, and
becomes a means to achieving greater individual happiness -- a lifestyle
choice."
Social science indicates that the intact family -- defined as a man and a woman
who marry and raise their children together -- best ensures the current and
future welfare of children and society. Adolescents in intact families are
healthier, are less likely to be depressed, are less likely to repeat a grade,
and have fewer developmental problems. By contrast, children in other family
forms, as a group, are more likely to experience poverty, abuse, behavioral and
emotional problems, lower academic achievement and drug use.
A free society requires a critical mass of individuals living in stable
households independent of the state. The most secure household, the available
research shows, is the intact family. No other family form has been able to
provide the same level of social security. In all other common arrangements, the
risk of negative individual outcomes and family disintegration is much greater,
increasing the risk of dependence on state services. This explains government's
interest in marriage. Among the many types of social relationships, marriage has
always had a special place in all legal traditions because it is the foundation
of the intact family.
By the mid '90s, a serious public policy debate about reinforcing and restoring
marriage emerged on the basis of the social-science data. Policy decisions --
such as welfare reform -- were grounded in such data. We have seen some of the
fruit of those efforts in declining rates of teen sex and childbearing.
But the debate over same-sex marriage hasn't been adequately framed in
social-welfare terms, which we know from experience we shouldn't overlook. The
interest of children and general social stability are largely neglected. Back is
the discredited Murphy Brown rationale: Personal fulfillment and individual
rights trump all other considerations.
The current proposal to overhaul marriage is not anchored in sound research. We
know relatively little about the long-term effects of homosexual relationships
on partners and even less about the children raised in such households. This
absence of data should give us pause before reconfiguring the basic institution
of society.
Advocates of same-sex marriage want us to institutionalize a social experiment,
i.e., same-sex coupling and parenting, by elevating it in law to the status of
the oldest of institutions: marriage. To do so, though, would be a mistake.
Yes, Americans have become more tolerant of other types of experimentation --
extramarital sex, cohabitation, single parenting. But they don't equate them
with marriage. None of these experiments has been regarded in law as the
equivalent of the intact family. Yet this is precisely what we're being asked to
do with same-sex marriage.
The public campaign for legal recognition of same-sex unions may try to tug at
America's heartstrings. But as every dad tells his daughter, you don't accept a
marriage proposal on feelings alone. In this case, we should listen to what the
data tell us -- and turn down the same-sex marriage offer.
JENNIFER MARSHALL is director of domestic policy studies at the Heritage
Foundation. Write to her in care of the Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts
Ave. NE, Washington, D.C. 20002.
Here is a sample letter, that really won't be sent but was funny and needed to be shared with the world.
Dear Madame:
As a big nelly bottom, I find your article extremely offensive. Please get shot in the face and die. Also produce sites for your data. Thanks a lot.
Signed:
a concerned citizen for the truth.
p.s. jason really did say that.
DETROIT FREE PRESS:
GUEST COLUMN: We should not say 'I do' to same-sex marriage
June 28, 2004
BY JENNIFER MARSHALL
Senate leaders are pushing for a July vote on whether to amend the Constitution
to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
It's a big step, but members shouldn't get cold feet. An overview of the social
science data on marriage shows they shouldn't hesitate to say "I do" to
defending marriage.
Remember the flap over Vice President Dan Quayle's criticism of TV's "Murphy
Brown"? Unwed births had reached a new high in the early '90s, and the vice
president lamented the nonchalant way the show's producers treated single
motherhood. Social science research has since vindicated his argument: Decisions
about sex, marriage and childbearing aren't merely personal. They have profound
social consequences, particularly for children.
Today's sitcoms have moved on to themes of same-sex coupling and parenting, a la
"Friends" and "Will and Grace." But the lesson we learned in the '90s about sex,
marriage and the welfare of children still applies.
That lesson -- that marriage is more than a personal affair for individual
fulfillment -- may have been summed up best a decade ago by Barbara Dafoe
Whitehead. Her April 1993 Atlantic Monthly feature article, "Dan Quayle Was
Right," explained how Americans' views on family had shifted from valuing social
stability to valuing personal choice:
"Increasingly, political principles of individual rights and choice shape our
understanding of family commitment and solidarity," she wrote. "The family loses
its central importance as an institution in the civil society, accomplishing
certain social goals such as raising children and caring for its members, and
becomes a means to achieving greater individual happiness -- a lifestyle
choice."
Social science indicates that the intact family -- defined as a man and a woman
who marry and raise their children together -- best ensures the current and
future welfare of children and society. Adolescents in intact families are
healthier, are less likely to be depressed, are less likely to repeat a grade,
and have fewer developmental problems. By contrast, children in other family
forms, as a group, are more likely to experience poverty, abuse, behavioral and
emotional problems, lower academic achievement and drug use.
A free society requires a critical mass of individuals living in stable
households independent of the state. The most secure household, the available
research shows, is the intact family. No other family form has been able to
provide the same level of social security. In all other common arrangements, the
risk of negative individual outcomes and family disintegration is much greater,
increasing the risk of dependence on state services. This explains government's
interest in marriage. Among the many types of social relationships, marriage has
always had a special place in all legal traditions because it is the foundation
of the intact family.
By the mid '90s, a serious public policy debate about reinforcing and restoring
marriage emerged on the basis of the social-science data. Policy decisions --
such as welfare reform -- were grounded in such data. We have seen some of the
fruit of those efforts in declining rates of teen sex and childbearing.
But the debate over same-sex marriage hasn't been adequately framed in
social-welfare terms, which we know from experience we shouldn't overlook. The
interest of children and general social stability are largely neglected. Back is
the discredited Murphy Brown rationale: Personal fulfillment and individual
rights trump all other considerations.
The current proposal to overhaul marriage is not anchored in sound research. We
know relatively little about the long-term effects of homosexual relationships
on partners and even less about the children raised in such households. This
absence of data should give us pause before reconfiguring the basic institution
of society.
Advocates of same-sex marriage want us to institutionalize a social experiment,
i.e., same-sex coupling and parenting, by elevating it in law to the status of
the oldest of institutions: marriage. To do so, though, would be a mistake.
Yes, Americans have become more tolerant of other types of experimentation --
extramarital sex, cohabitation, single parenting. But they don't equate them
with marriage. None of these experiments has been regarded in law as the
equivalent of the intact family. Yet this is precisely what we're being asked to
do with same-sex marriage.
The public campaign for legal recognition of same-sex unions may try to tug at
America's heartstrings. But as every dad tells his daughter, you don't accept a
marriage proposal on feelings alone. In this case, we should listen to what the
data tell us -- and turn down the same-sex marriage offer.
JENNIFER MARSHALL is director of domestic policy studies at the Heritage
Foundation. Write to her in care of the Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts
Ave. NE, Washington, D.C. 20002.
Here is a sample letter, that really won't be sent but was funny and needed to be shared with the world.
Dear Madame:
As a big nelly bottom, I find your article extremely offensive. Please get shot in the face and die. Also produce sites for your data. Thanks a lot.
Signed:
a concerned citizen for the truth.
p.s. jason really did say that.