MinnPost writer Michael Bonafield sat down with Strib columnist Katherine Kersten for a two-hour interview, and here’s the first of a two-part Q&A piece, in which Kersten discusses “same-sex marriage, liberal rage, and life at the Star Tribune.”
Her argument against same-sex marriage, as we saw early last week, lies strictly on the grounds that marriage is for procreation and, ultimately, for the perpetuation of society and civilization.
The truth is, historically marriage as an institution was more about money and power. It was an economic arrangement. Women were commodities, sold in marriage to the highest bidder in order to secure wealth and strengthen family bonds.
In Ancient Greece a woman whose father died without male heirs was often forced to marry her nearest male relative. So much for Kersten’s theory that same-sex marriage will lead to incestuous marriage as well. Already been done.
Anyhow, if Kersten really believes that marriage should be based strictly on procreation, then she’s probably in favor of annulment based on lack of conception, and she’s likely a huge fan of Henry VIII.
Or maybe she’s just fanning the fires to secure her position as “lightening rod of liberal rage” — a position she claims to enjoy immensely.
Latest comment — noodleman: @Cristina: I made the distinction because in the days before full suffrage, few women had power or money that they could legally call their own. A ...