I will be joining Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute, and Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, coauthors, with Robert P. George, of the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense for a panel discussion on the role of the Catholic Church in the cultural and political debate about marriage.
The discussion, “Marriage, the Church and the Common Good,” is sponsored by Notre Dame’s Center for Ethics and Culture and several student groups and will take place at 7 p.m. Monday (March 17) in DeBartolo Hall, Room 101, on the campus of the University of Notre Dame.
According to Michael Bradley, a Notre Dame senior student who organized the event, “no cultural, legal or philosophical issues are gripping the nation as firmly as are the questions that comprise the marriage debate. What is marriage? Why does it matter? How should public policy reflect sound answers to these questions? What role, if any, should the Catholic Church play in the development of this discussion? Having four of the most articulate Catholic voices in the marriage debate gathered here to discuss these and other questions should be an unparalleled occasion to explore them in harmony with the Catholic tradition.”
The discussion is free and open to the public.
Hope you were well received today. If I would have seen this sooner I would have come to hear the discussion. You go girl!
Had I known earlier, I may have considered driving from Chicago to South Bend to listen. I’ve wondered whether Girgis and Anderson really have anything useful to say. The book, after all, seems to have been written to create expert-witness evidence that could be used in a litigation context. Boies and Olson decimated all of the SoCons’ expert witnesses in the California litigation. So, they had to go out and manufacture better arguments and draft some “experts” to proffer those opinions in court. I’m not sure that it worked, though. I believe that Girgis was disqualified as an expert in the Michigan litigation.
I don’t really understand this desperate search for more convincing arguments against equal marriage. It just seems like you’re slamming shut the stable door long after the horse has bolted.
If you couldn’t convince people with your original arguments, what makes you think that just reformulating your objections will make a difference now?
The fact is that the longer this debate goes on, the more people are being persuaded in favor of equal marriage. There’s a domino effect that each fresh court decision reinforces and accelerates. That’s how cleavage based politics works: the undecideds and waverers have an overwhelming tendency to fall in line with the prevailing wind.
You had a window of opportunity to influence public opinion by offering cogent and coherent arguments against equal marriage that would convince the majority and stand up in court, but this you failed to do. Now the dominoes are falling in a direction you don’t like, but it’s a bit late to imagine you can turn the situation around.
We’re in the process of witnessing the roll out of equal marriage across the country. One a new civil right is instituted, history teaches us it’s here to stay. Women can still vote. African Americans can still drink at any water fountain or ride any bus in any free seat. Nothing any pressure group can do will change those situations because once rights are accorded they cannot be taken away.
Equal marriage is here to stay. So wouldn’t it be wiser to put the energy you’re wasting by continuing to oppose it into a cause you can actually win? Euthanasia looks like a good bet. Being on the winning side for once might gain you back a little of the credibility that defeat after defeat has so eroded…
Are there any papers available?
Pingback: Notre Dame Marriage Panel (video) | Spiritual Friendship