In an article published yesterday at Townhall, Frank Turek writes about same-sex marriage and how it will affect society. Not only did Frank advance a nearly-identical argument to the one I have been advancing here on this blog (a secular, rather than religious argument), but he brought to my attention a pro-homosexual advocate who has written a book opposing same-sex marriage for many of the same reasons.
In his book, The Future of Marriage, David Blankenhorn argues that “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.” Blankenhorn sees this as a problem.
Why? It’s not because people will stop having children. It’s because the parents will not be tied to the children as they are in a marriage. Dissolution rates of non-married parents are 2-3 times greater than married parents. And the social ills resulting from broken families are enormous.
I couldn’t agree more. And I am glad that a pro-gay Democrat is making this argument. It shows that one does not need to be religious or morally conservative to see why same-sex marriage is not good for society. Marriage is about children, but same-sex relationships are not about children: they are about the couple themselves.
Blankenhorn recognizes that there is a difference between allowing homosexuals to engage in homosex and establish lasting relationships with each other, and officially recognizing those relationships as an example of marriage.
Here’s a couple of quote-worthy statements from Turek. Turek on why the legal recognition of same-sex couples is detrimental to the institution of marriage:
“There’s no question that liberalized marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage. The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage.”
Turek on the notion that marriage is not about children:
“Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children? And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all? Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.”
Thinking to Believe 
May 28, 2008 at 10:32 pm
“Marriage is about children, but same-sex relationships are not about children: they are about the couple themselves[…]”
This is a good point that I’ve really failed to consider.
LikeLike
May 29, 2008 at 11:32 am
Moblogic, an online news site, recently had some commentary about this: http://www.moblogic.tv/blog/2008/05/29/traditional-values-with-a-twist/
LikeLike
June 2, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Some other related links on moblogic, regarding Polygamy:
http://www.moblogic.tv/video/2008/06/02/should-polygamy-be-a-felony/
http://www.moblogic.tv/blog/2008/06/02/so-a-polygamist-walks-into-a-bar/
LikeLike
June 3, 2008 at 8:44 am
“Marriage is about children, but same-sex relationships are not about children: they are about the couple themselves.”
If were really true then heterosexual married couples would ALL have children. This is not the case and not just because there is some physiological problem with one of the parties. There are just some heterosexual couples that do not want to have children. This is not to say that children are entirely a by-product of marriage, but I don’t think children are the central component of marriage. If I have misunderstood this comment please enlighten me.
LikeLike
June 3, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Paco,
To couch this in Aristotelian terms, the union of the two sexes is not the final cause, but the material cause of marriage. The final cause of marriage (the purpose for which it exists) is children. Children do not just pop into existence, however. That requires two people of the opposite sex with properly functioning reproductive organs (the material cause), who actively use their properly functioning sexual organs (efficient cause) to realize the final cause of marriage: procreation.
Does it follow that those who cannot, do not, or will not have children are not married? No. But neither does it follow that because some couples who are married cannot, do not, or will not have children, that marriage is not principally about children, but about the adult relationship. The principle here is that just because we fail to use something for its intended purpose does not mean it ceases to have that purpose. I may use my computer as a paperweight rather than an information processor, but that does not change the fact that its essential purpose is to process information. Do I still own a computer if I am not using it for its intended purpose? Yes, but the fact that I can own a computer without using it as it was intended does not change the purpose for which computers exist. Likewise, while two childless adults truly exist in a marital union, the fact remains that the purpose of marriage is children—not the personal fulfillment of the adult participants—and that purpose has gone unfulfilled.
When you think about it, what causes a marriage to exist as marriage (I’m thinking in terms of a natural definition of marriage, not a legal definition)? It’s not love, because people can love each other who are not married. It is not commitment either, because you can be committed to someone without marriage. In fact, it’s not even children. You can create and raise children without being married. What creates a marriage is a combination of both sexual union and formal commitment. Marriage is the formalized, sexual union of two committed persons of the opposite sex. In forming a sexual union of opposites, each person’s sexual organs—when functioning properly—are able to realize their natural purpose: procreation. Children are the telos of the marital union, not some optional add-on.
Let me speak more specifically to those who cannot have children. Are they married? Yes. There is a difference between what constitutes marriage (formalized, sexual union) and the purpose for which marriage exists. One can possess a thing without using it for its intended purpose. The fact that some married couples cannot have children, and thus cannot fulfill the purpose of marriage, does not annul the purpose of marriage anymore than the fact that my broken computer cannot be used for its intended purpose annuls the purpose for which computers exist. Just as the existence of broken computers (the exception) cannot legitimately be used to redefine the purpose of computers (the rule), the existence of infertile couples (the exception) cannot legitimately be used to redefine the purpose of marriage. The exceptions prove the rule; they do not rewrite it.
If you have the opportunity, I am curious to know what, on your view, is the final cause of marriage? And given that final cause, what would the material and efficient causes be?
Jason
LikeLike
June 4, 2008 at 8:14 pm
(1) If children is the reason that marriage exists, and we now allow gays to adopt children, then shouldn’t marriage be expanded to include gays?
(2) If children used to be the reason for marriage, but today marriage is about other things like pension benefits, then shouldn’t marriage be expanded to include couples who share a life together without children?
I think it’s obvious that the answer to both questions is yes.
We can never know why marriage was created, as its creation predates recorded history. Happily, its original purpose(s) are of no concern to us. Marriage today is about love and benefits, not protecting children from a pre-welfare-state existence.
Perhaps it would be better to use two different terms: “children marriage” and “love marriage.” Children marriages allegedly existed at one time, and perhaps gays should be excluded from the defunct institution of children marriage. But love marriage, the only form of marriage existing in our society today, should be open to gays.
We certainly should not pretend that marriage is about children when it’s not, simply to create a pretext to justify discrimination against gays.
LikeLike
June 11, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Paco,
I ran across an article by Robert George from Princeton University that articulates my view quite well:
Marriage…is a one-flesh communion of persons that is consummated and actualized by acts that are procreative in type, whether or not they are procreative in effect.
…
Marriage is naturally ordered to the good of procreation (and is, indeed, uniquely apt for the nurturing and education of children) as well as to the good of spousal unity. At the same time, it is not a mere instrumental good whose purpose is the generating and rearing of children. Marriage, considered as a one-flesh union, is intrinsically valuable.
To understand how it can be the case that, on the one hand, the generating and rearing of children is a perfection of marriage and not something merely incidental to it, and, on the other, marriage is not a mere means to the good of generating and rearing children, it is important to see that the procreative and unitive goods of marriage are tightly bound together. The one-flesh unity of spouses is possible because human (like other mammalian) males and females, by mating, unite organically—they form a single reproductive principle.
It is a plain matter of biological fact that reproduction is a single function, yet it is carried out not by an individual male or female human being, but by a male and female as a mated pair. So, in respect of reproduction, albeit not in respect of other activities (such as locomotion or digestion), the mated pair is a single organism; the partners form a single reproductive principle: They become one flesh.
…
Western matrimonial law has traditionally and universally understood marriage as consummated by acts fulfilling the behavioral conditions of procreation, whether or not the nonbehavioral conditions of procreation happen to obtain.
By contrast, the sterility of spouses—so long as they are capable of consummating their marriage by fulfilling the behavioral conditions of procreation (and, thus, of achieving true bodily, organic unity)—has never been treated as an impediment to marriage, even where sterility is certain and even certain to be permanent. Children who may be conceived in marital acts are understood not as ends extrinsic to marriage but rather as gifts—fulfilling for the couple as a marital unit and not merely as individuals—that supervene on acts whose central defining and justifying point is precisely the marital unity of spouses.
I and others have elsewhere developed more fully the moral case for the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of one man and one woman pledged to permanence and fidelity and committed to caring for children who come as the fruit of their matrimonial union.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6101
LikeLike
June 26, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Arthur,
(1) One could argue that way, but one could argue the other way as well. One could argue that since marriage is the proper place for the rearing of children, and same-sex couples do not constitute a marriage, same-sex couples should not be rearing children. The morality of gay adoption is controversial as well. Just because it is legal means little. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it moral. So one could argue that both same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption should be banned.
(2) Again, if marriage is a natural institution, its purpose and form does not change over time. So regardless of how we might like to think of marriage today, it is what it is, and it is for what it is for.
You want to privilege those couples who share a life together without children, but would you include roommates who do not have a sexual relationship? Can they apply for marriage? Should two frat guys at college be able to get married to enjoy the legal benefits? If you say no, because their relationship is not sexual, I’m going to ask you why that should be the deciding factor. Why should the fact that A and B’s relationship is sexual privilege it? If you say yes, then I’m going to ask you how you think marriage will continue to maintain its cultural significance and meaning? I don’t see how, at least universally. For some, it will be just another way of saving on taxes, like making contributes to 401-C companies.
In saying we can never know why marriage was created, you assume it is a purely human invention. That is what is being disputed here. Is it? Or did God create marriage, and society merely recognizes it for what it is?
There is no distinction between children marriage and love marriage. You are confusing the motivation for marriage with the purpose of marriage. People might be motivated to marry out of love, but that is not the purpose of marriage.
Jason
LikeLike
June 26, 2008 at 5:24 pm
This is a general response that touches on issues raised by both Arthur and Paco:
When it comes to the topic of marriage, we must distinguish the issues. First, we have to determine whether marriage is a natural institution that transcends societal definition, or a purely social institution that is as plastic as society wishes to make it. I am arguing that marriage is a natural institution with a fixed nature that is foundational to human societies, and thus cannot be redefined by human societies. So there is a difference between what marriage is in itself, and how society defines marriage. Society may choose to recognize a myriad of relationships as being examples of marriage, or choose to not recognize marriage at all, and yet the essential nature of what marriage is remains.
Second, there is a difference between what constitutes a marriage, and the purpose of marriage. I tried to clear this up in my response to Paco. It is possible to be married without fulfilling the central purpose of marriage, but what constitutes marriage must be informed by its purpose.
How do we determine the natural form and purpose of marriage? Concerning the natural form, I reason thus:
• A marriage must involve more than one person. If that were not so, everyone would be married, and the idea of marriage becomes meaningless.
• A marriage must involve a formal commitment, otherwise it would be indistinguishable from a one-night-stand.
• A marriage must involve a sexual relationship, otherwise it would be indistinguishable from mere friendships or partnerships.
• A marriage must involve two people of the opposite sex, otherwise the sexual organs used to forge the marital relationship could never realize their reproductive purpose.
Concerning the natural purpose, I reason thus (building on the above):
• Marriage entails a sexual relationship, and a sexual relationship requires the use of our sexual organs. Since the purpose of our sexual organs is reproduction, the purpose of marriage must involve reproduction.
• Marriage entails a formal commitment, so marriage is meant to be an enduring relationship.
• An enduring sexual relationship that results in children must be for the purpose of rearing those children created as a result of the sexual union.
I will not claim that each of these points is self-evident, or equally justified, but I think each of them is evident and justifiable.
Jason
LikeLike
June 30, 2008 at 10:48 am
Jason,
A few things in response to your original post and subsequent responses.
What reference point are you using to rigidly define what the purpose of marriage should be? A natural common sense notion? Even if someone was to grant you that, what reference point can you use to say that we should stick to it? Marriage is adaptive, whether if it’s out of “love”, conveniece or even arrangement.
You give various reasons concerning natural purpose, and to that, you even concede that those points aren’t self-evident. And so if they are not self-evident, they are interpretible and subjective.
Your argument at first intrigued me, but after consideration, it seems to really just speak to what marriage “ought” to be about.
If marriage is truly about children, then obviously in our modern day we can facilitate that (artificial insemination, adoption, et cetera). Reasoning that marriage is simply about creating a child through natural means (via M/F components) is a common sense notion, but problematic when analyzed.
As a Christian, I can morally object and vote for legislation against gay-marriage. However, looking at it from a secular perspective while appealing to current constitutional interpretation, I have seen no solid arguments as to why gay-marriage should be prohibited by our federal government.
Best-
Phillip
LikeLike
June 30, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Phillip,
In the previous comment I outlined how I come to the conclusions I do.
Not being self-evident does not mean subjective. Much of mathematics are not self-evident, but they are objective. Just because one may have to discover something through reflection (or research) does not mean it is not objective.
You claim that marriage is adaptive, but that is one of the issues in dispute. Is it? I don’t think so. The form and purpose of marriage do not change, even if the way we view marriage does (secondary purposes, spousal responsibilities and roles, etc.). In days gone by men viewed their wives as property, but today they do not (at least in the West). And yet marriage has always been, and remains between two people of the opposite sex.
No, my argument is not just what marriage ought to be about. It is what marriage is about, and what we ought to do about it. But why is that a liability? Do you not believe in oughts? Of course, in a democracy we can do whatever we choose, but the legal power and the moral ought are two different things. I am arguing that based on the historic purpose of marriage (which is justifiable), there is no reason to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate to the rest of us why we ought to. All of their arguments fail (love, equality, etc.). Given the reason government is involved in the marriage business in the first place, there is no good reason to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
Jason
LikeLike
June 30, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“No, my argument is not just what marriage ought to be about. It is what marriage is about, and what we ought to do about it. But why is that a liability? Do you not believe in oughts?”
Do I believe in oughts? That’s just silly. The argument you’ve made for what ought to be is riddled with problems. Specifically, the fact that you don’t have a reference point of why it ought to be so, other than appealing to a historic interpretation (which is subjective)of what marraige is really about. Here’s a few questions:
1.) Who explicitly detailed the primary purpose of marriage as you defined it?
2.) Granting you for a moment that your definition is valid, what is holding us to keep that rigid definition of what the purpose of marriage is?
3.) When was this established as the norm?
Keep in mind would your answers satisfy the secular population?
“The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate to the rest of us why we ought to. All of their arguments fail (love, equality, etc.). Given the reason government is involved in the marriage business in the first place, there is no good reason to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples.”
The unalienable right of every human being to persue happiness and equality trumps any argument rooted in simple historic tradition.
The understanding of marriage is a convention and that by it’s very nature is adaptive and non-binding.
The irony of this is that I’m not for gay-marriage, but your argument simply boiled down says homosexuals shouldn’t marry because they don’t have the biological components to produce offspring, is unconvincing.
Best,
Phillip
LikeLike
July 9, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Have to be quick…
That was mostly a rhetorical question, but I don’t think it’s silly. Not everyone believes in oughts.
My appeal was not to tradition. My appeal was to the reasons all cultures have understood marriage as something between a man and a woman. I don’t know how anyone could read my posts and come to the conclusion you have come to.
1. It did not originate in some person’s ideas. It is a natural institution, recognized by man.
2. Because marriage is a natural institution. As such, it is not subject to being defined by culture. It is what it is. The fact that this definition is not arbitrary, but natural. Nothing can make us recognize marriage for what it is if we want to ignore it, but ignoring it does not change it.
3. See #1.
All of my arguments have been geared to the secular audience.
You say our understanding of marriage is a convention. That’s what is debatable. I am arguing that it is not. See my June 26th comment (5:24).
LikeLike
July 10, 2008 at 10:29 am
This question is for you, Philip, as well as anyone else who thinks the only basis for thinking marriage is only between a man and a woman is the Bible: Why is it that virtually every culture throughout history has understood marriage as being between a man and a woman, when only a small percentage of the world has had access to the Bible? Furthermore, why did cultures that predated Biblical revelation believe marriage was only something between a man and a woman?
Jason
LikeLike
July 12, 2008 at 1:10 am
“The final cause of marriage (the purpose for which it exists) is children. Children do not just pop into existence, however. That requires two people of the opposite sex with properly functioning reproductive organs (the material cause), who actively use their properly functioning sexual organs (efficient cause) to realize the final cause of marriage: procreation.”
I don’t believe I misconstrued your premise at all. That being that you believe the primary purpose of marriage is to produce offspring. Naturally, only two adults of opposite sex with proper working biological components can produce children.
Have I said anything wrong so far?
Wouldn’t it then be obvious what you’re inferring by your premise? That being, gay couples can’t come together in marriage, because marriage’s purpose is for producing offspring and offspring can only be produced by those of the opposite sex. You may not like the sound of it, but that’s basically what you’re arguing when it’s boiled down.
You said, “My appeal was not to tradition. My appeal was to the reasons all cultures have understood marriage as something between a man and a woman.”
You’re absolutely referring to tradition. The traditions of human cultures as a whole.
You said, “1. It did not originate in some person’s ideas. It is a natural institution, recognized by man.”
Huh? A natural institution? That may be an oxymoron in itself. Could you please list some other “natural institutions” so I can get a clearer picture of what you might be trying to say.
I’m not following your argument, you recognize that marriage was around well before the Bible was even written. It’s early ancient roots probably had more to do with women being seen as property, then of a romanticized version of a man and woman wanting to spend the rest of their lives together. It’s “purpose” today is far different than what it was 150 years ago; 500 years ago; 1000 years ago. In other words, the conventional understanding/purpose of marriage is a zeitgeist of the specific time.
You said, “2. Because marriage is a natural institution. As such, it is not subject to being defined by culture. It is what it is. The fact that this definition is not arbitrary, but natural.”
Your whole premise stands and falls on this notion of it being a “natural institution.” Nature cannot define an abstract human concept as marriage. Nature has no business in that abstract realm.
If you wanted say “nature” tells us that generally speaking only male and female together can produce offspring, then that would be legit.
I’ll end this long-winded post with this:
I’m hungry, so I grab some pasta and place it into boiling water. As the pasta cooks it produces steam as a by-product.
According to your logic, steam must be the purpose of me cooking pasta.
Only those who can produce steam should be allowed to cook pasta.
LikeLike
July 12, 2008 at 1:27 am
“This question is for you, Philip, as well as anyone else who thinks the only basis for thinking marriage is only between a man and a woman is the Bible:[…]”
Although you addressed it to me, that question cannot be answered by me because I don’t believe the only basis for marriage being between a man & woman is the Bible. In fact,that has never ever been my argument.
You said, “Furthermore, why did cultures that predated Biblical revelation believe marriage was only something between a man and a woman?”
I think the answer to that is pretty simple Jason; homosexuality is a statistical anomaly. Human beings by nature are strongly heterosexually dominated. So is it any wonder,that even in ancient times when two individuals wanted to get married, the chances were it was going to be a male/female couple. Not to mention any social taboos or discrimination back in those times.
LikeLike
July 12, 2008 at 11:50 am
Philip,
I read your two replies. I am going to do something I rarely do: not respond. Actually, I’ll respond to your last comment, but not the one before that. There are so many things to say in response to your first comment that it will take quite some time for me to formulate a reply. And right now, due to some situations going on in my life, I don’t have the time or mental energy to do so. I will respond to your second comment, however, since the response will be much shorter, and because I specifically asked you a question, and you took the time to answer it.
I apologize for thinking that question applied to you. I thought that was your view based on the following comment you made: “As a Christian, I can morally object and vote for legislation against gay-marriage. However, looking at it from a secular perspective while appealing to current constitutional interpretation, I have seen no solid arguments as to why gay-marriage should be prohibited by our federal government.” That seemed to me to be saying only revelation, not reason, is sufficient to affirm marriage as something limited only to a man and woman.
Your answer to my second question does not seem adequate. Yes, homosexuality has always been an anomaly, and thus the chances were always higher that two people who wanted to get married would be two people of the opposite sex. But the fact remains that there were homosexuals in those cultures, and they might have liked to have gotten married as well, but their cultures forbade it, because they understood marriage as being something limited to opposite-sex couples only. I am wanting to know why that was. Telling me that heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals doesn’t answer the question. Those cultures could have allowed same-sex marriage if they wanted to, and yet the didn’t. Why is that? Look at our culture. Homosexuality is the minority in our culture as well, and yet we are including same-sex couples into the institution of marriage. So why didn’t past cultures?
Your answer seems to be that it was because homosexuality was a taboo. I agree, but why? I can’t speak for every culture, but I doubt it was because they understood anything about the health risks associated with it. I would venture to say it was because they understood it was unnnatural. Human sexuality is heterosexual. Our sex organs were designed for sex with the other gender, not our own. I would also say they understood that marriage was about children. Even in our culture, up until very recently, when someone got pregnant out-of-wedlock, they either chose to, or were forced to get married. Why? Because it was understood that marriage is about and for children.
I think historical precedence also puts a damper on your taboo response. A large number of Romans saw homosexuality (male only) as a good thing, and in my understanding, many men practiced it. If homosexuality was not a taboo in Roman society, why didn’t the Romans allow same-sex couples to marry? Why did they limit marriage to a man and woman? Again, I would argue that the reason is because they understood that marriage is about children.
Jason
LikeLike
July 13, 2008 at 11:52 am
It’s unfortunate that you weren’t able to address some of my points/comments in previous response. Lol,I understand you have a life and have responsibilities to tend to. Perhaps you’ll find time to address them at some point.
I can understand some of the confusion as I may not have articulated clear distinctions in my arguments. Essentially, contrary to popular belief, you can legislate morality. However, it’s the public’s voice via voting that may facilate it not government mandate. So as a Christian, I can vote against policies that promote same-sex marriages. As a U.S. citizen, I also understand under the framework and current interpretation of the Constitution, that IMO, I don’t have much leg to stand on in preventing every citizens right to persue “equality” and “happiness.” You and I might disagree with the secular world’s understanding of “equality,” but as it stands now, they view same-sex marriage as two consenting adults making a commitment to each other.
“But the fact remains that there were homosexuals in those cultures, and they might have liked to have gotten married as well, but their cultures forbade it, because they understood marriage as being something limited to opposite-sex couples only[…]”
I think you and I are both stepping on precarious ground trying to argue what homosexuals might/or might not of wanted to do back in ancient history. It’s difficult trying to make convincing arguments from silence.
It should be noted that apparently there is a history of same-sex marriage in various cultures (see link below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
We’ve seen in our own modern culture that homosexuality has only began to start gaining ground in social “equality” and rights in the last part of the 21st century. I’m not being a smarty-pants, but do you really think primitive ancient cultures had the mindset, rational and objective intellect to address complex issues like homosexuality, rights and equality? You point to Roman culture, but many “homosexuals” in those times were married men practicing bi-sexual acts of what was considered to be eccentric behavior. We would literally have to look at each culture on a case per case basis to determine the real reason/purpose of marriage in their view.
You have to consider the cultural and societal factors of the time when discussing marriage in ancient times. You know that having children in many cases was a necessity in order to have family to care for farmland and etc. Yes, they probably did recognize that only man & woman could produce children. The concepts of adoption, artificial insemination, et cetera were not a reality. These are all realized in our modern society and causes us to think, what exactly is preventing two consentual same-sex adults from marrying. Your argument is basically two-fold:
1.) A historical pattern and norm.
2.) You believe marriage is solely about making children and only those who have the proper biological components should be allowed to get married.
My contention remains the that I believe your arguement is essentially a historical argument. You say it’s not, but a lot of what you’ve been asking are historical rhetorical questions.
If you do acknowledge it’s of a historical bent, then the obvious question is what is the infinite reference point that mandates we continue to stick it? Objectively,I can understand how someone could disagree with the notion of “well, that’s just how it should/ought to be.”
LikeLike
May 3, 2009 at 1:32 pm
There’s an interesting debate going on over at http://www.loudmouthgays.wordpress.com right now; perhaps some of you would like to join in.
LikeLike
May 11, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Blankenhorn took the stand in defense of Prop 8 and couldn’t come up with any scientific evidence supporting his stance. It’s an understatement to say the prosecution made mincemeat out of him to the point we was quoted as saying it; “…is the single worst experience I have had in my public life.” And we now know how effective his testimony was now, don’t we?
LikeLike