Re March 21 column by Leonard Pitts, “Right decision, wrong reason”
Mr. Pitts skewers Sen. Portman and Dick Cheney on their U-turn on same sex-marriage just because they have gay children. He misses the irony of how progressives today think that traditional marriage is great but just needs to be tweaked to include same-sex marriage. He fails to mention the earlier attacks by progressives on traditional marriage because it is so oppressive.
Progressives almost always define a problem by feelings or compassion rather than reason. Are there to be any standards that cannot be changed just because of compassion, feelings, or the next new thing? Marriage is a normative word, it describes itself: a union between a man and a woman. Are we going to change standards because of feelings and compassion or maintain those standards? It looks like we are going to change.
I’d ask Mr. Pitts if he remembers progressives like Kate Millett, Susan Brownmiller, Catharine MacKinnon, Kathrin Perutz, Germaine Greer, and many others who attacked marriage. Betty Friedan’s book, “The Feminine Mystique,” called the family a “comfortable concentration camp,” where the wife was enslaved to doing house work. The theme that ran through most of their thinking was marriage was oppressive. If one accepts the progressive marriage orthodoxy of the ‘60s and ‘70s, that marriage is oppressive; why would Mr. Pitts want same-sexers to suffer the institution of marriage or is this just another inconsistent attack on traditional marriage?
Never miss a local story.
As for Sen. Portman and Mr. Cheney, they owe their children what all parents owe their children, love and respect, not having to change the normative definition of marriage or their convictions.
The writer lives in Murrells Inlet.