Walter Fauntroy– “My Heart Knows the Difference.”

long_road

The Long Road

“Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

–Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC

Advertisements

9 Comments

  1. Mel said,

    March 12, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    That’s beautiful! Very well said.

  2. augustine said,

    March 12, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    At what point did ‘I know it in my heart’ become a viable argument? That’s a piece of rhetorical fluff for people who don’t have anything more substantial to weigh in with.

  3. beetlebabee said,

    March 12, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    Just the opposite augustine.

    That comes at the end of a very detailed statement of family and values. History has proven the strength and longevity of the family as described. All other descriptions fail the test of time.

  4. augustine said,

    March 12, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    Don’t forget marriages with multiple partners involved (or, indeed, a two-partner marriage with recognised mistresses/concubines on the side). Those have been rather popular throughout history as well.

    (And I shouldn’t have to add this, but the fact that something has ‘stood the test of time’ doesn’t automatically mean that alternatives should be banned.)

  5. Raytmimer said,

    March 12, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    You are right augustine. Any detraction from the nuclear family necessarily includes polygamy. I’m glad you brought that up, not many people on your side of the conversation are so willing to admit that the destruction of the family brings in all kinds of riffraff.

  6. verity mae said,

    March 12, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    The choice isn’t between logic and heart, it’s a choice of which logic to use. Just look at all the twisted things science has gotten into without heart guiding the way. Sheer logic untamed can lead you to ugly places.

  7. augustine said,

    March 12, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Raytimmer,

    You’ve missed my point. If the ‘one man-one woman’ brand of marriage is to be celebrated because of its historical popularity, then so too should polygamy.

    verity mae,

    That makes no sense.

  8. beetlebabee said,

    March 12, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    Augustine, Which part of the statement do you disagree with? Is it the idea that children need fathers as well as mothers? Is it that marriage is a universal institution? History supports man/woman marriage. It does not support anything else because marriage is tied to healthy procreation.

    Verity Mae, You’ve got the point that the author was making exactly. There are many ways to discover truth, one of them being gut instinct. Logic is fine and dandy, but easily twisted. If I were so clever as to unravel every twist of false logic, perhaps logic would lead me to truth, but until I’m that clever, I’ll go with my heart as well.

    See where our logic has led us so far: “Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”

    Looking back it’s clear to see why our society is in trouble. It’s the false logic of these movements, the pursuit of self gratification above all else that is ripping apart families and denying children the safety of stable homes. This road of choices leads to a place I don’t think we want to be in. We were arrogant to think that we could reason ourselves away from the consequences of our choices. Walter Fauntroy gets it.

    Alternative family forms are not good for children because they deny children a mother and a father, committed to each other for life.

  9. March 13, 2009 at 6:18 am

    beetlebabee “Alternative family forms are not good for children because they deny children a mother and a father, committed to each other for life.”
    Then why isn’t there a Prop to ban divorce (which effects a lot of children) instead of gay marriage (which effects a tiny minority of them…and gay marriage provides them with the protection that banning same takes away)? Or how about a Prop for mandatory pre-marriage counselling? Or one on a seven-day wait/cooling off period before marriage? Or one that prevents one parent from working? Or any other number of variations that effect a larger percentage of people than the fraction that consists of gays that have or want kids?
    Why so much rancor towards a small fraction of the population, when a much larger group is there for the picking?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: