Massachusetts gays divorcing

And this, less than seven months after the Massachusetts SJC said they could "marry." Well, well, well.

I could have predicted that any such "marriages" would be far less likely to last than heterosexual marriages. Requiring additional legal folderol will never be enough to transform an inherently transitory relationship into a permanent one. In fact, now that a number of these people got their expressed wish, suddenly they didn't want it anymore. This rather adds new meaning to the phrase, "Be careful what you wish for."

But more-frequent divorce is not the primary reason why such relationships do not deserve the name of "marriage." The primary reason is that marriage exists to define and recognize families. The term "family," properly understood, means one man, one woman, and optionally one or more children. And the strongest families are those whose children have not known divorce. That is why God hates divorce, as Jesus made abundantly clear.

And no matter what any doctor, not properly mindful of his oath of practice, says: Same-sex couples cannot reproduce. This brings us to the real issue of those who are pressing most strongly for this change in our laws: They want homosexual couples to adopt children and rear them with liberal values. This goes right back to the primary demographic challenge against modern liberalism: some things are just not right to do in front of a child. Parents know it--and some of those parents, I daresay, changed their votes from one election to the next. Because of that, the liberals want to mess with children's heads. We must not allow that to happen.