In the Land of the Short-Sighted, the Long-Sighted Man Is…
The Providence Journal (which, to build an incidental point on Andrew’s previous post, Matt Jerzyk believes to be too conservative) continues its support for same-sex marriage:
Time, however, may be on his side. Despite various state drives to ban same-sex marriage during the 2004 elections, it appears that the idea of such unions is gaining acceptance. Society is better off when any two adults can make a commitment to care for each other. And more and more Americans believe that sexual orientation should not bar anyone from enjoying the rights accorded by marriage.
In that spirit, we extend best wishes to Attleboro’s most prominent newlyweds — and to all who may be exchanging vows in a new bridal season, regardless of sex.
Those who’ve followed this debate for awhile will spot the (probably unintential) revealing of the chute down the slippery slope: If society “is better off when any two adults can make a commitment to care for each other” — the Projo’s gender-free paraphrase for marriage’s purpose — why can’t those two adults be related? Why, for that matter, must it only consist of two adults?
One final question: can the thinking behind an editorial position be both short-sighted and blind?