AND I HAD A FEELING I COULD BE SOMEONE…: Two contrasting conversations keep knocking together in my mind.

In one of them, a friend described his experiences with men he knew who had fathered a child out of wedlock. This guy described how he would tell the men that their children needed them. The sons needed to learn what it means to be a man, how to be a responsible man. The daughters needed to learn what they could expect from men–that they could demand that men be responsible, loyal, an intrinsic part of the family. The children needed their fathers. And when he said this to the men, they lit up like Christmas. In a world where they were rarely considered necessary, in a culture where they were treated as problematic-at-best, suddenly they had a place. A role. An honorable role. Because they were needed.

The other thing wasn’t actually a conversation. It was some things Molly McKay of Marriage Equality California said at the very interesting debate we had at Stanford, a couple weeks ago. McKay (who absolutely won the debate! she’s good!) said several things to which I was quite sympathetic, even though, obviously, we disagreed. But she also said some things I found seriously disturbing, seriously destructive. She emphatically denied that children need their mother and father; she argued that single parenting and divorce were not worse for children than marriage. (“Can everyone in the audience who was raised by a single parent, or by a divorced parent, raise your hands? And see–you all got into Stanford! Your family must have done something right!”)

What could she tell the men, the unwed fathers? Who are they, in her worldview? Have they got a role in the family–and a corresponding duty?

If I could change one thing about the same-sex marriage debate, I would make people who support SSM make only arguments that acknowledge and honor children’s need for their mother and father. Some supporters do that some of the time; a few do that all of the time. But mostly not–for reasons that I think should be obvious.

More–and more eloquently by far–here.

LEGACY ADMISSIONS: A while ago, in a polemical context, I wrote: “Without the authoritative, can’t-ignore-it-can’t-work-around-it teaching of the Church, I doubt that a sizable chunk of the greatest writing about wrongdoing, justice, mercy, personal identity, and the importance of the human body would ever have been conceived.”

Here now is a very, very short list of books exemplifying this statement–and which I think you all should read–which never would have been written were it not for the Catholic Church. I include in this list only those books that present some kind of positive stance (except Lancelot)–which means that I exclude many of the books that have been most relevant to my own faith, since I am most struck by the books that present the alternatives and the “seventh proofs of God.”

Pat Cadigan, Mindplayers–marriage is both sign and source of personal identity

Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo (How God Became Man)–the nature of justice, the inevitable need for mercy

T.S. Eliot, “Journey of the Magi”–God need not feel good

ditto, “Preludes“–the physical world is covered with the fingerprints of God

Graham Greene, The Power and the Glory–sufficient grace is offered to all

Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio–the nuptial meaning of the mind–the mind is an arrow seeking an as-yet-unknown beloved

ditto, Veritatis Splendor–ditto

ditto, The Theology of the Body–the nuptial meaning of the body

Walter Miller, A Canticle for Leibowitz–love persists through time and despite physical incapacity; God works with what He has

Walker Percy, Lancelot–justice; Ecclesiastes as film noir

I’ve got this friend you see who makes me feel

And I blogwatched more than I could steal…

Church of the Masses praises “Monster.” I’m not totally sure I can take this movie. I’m usually hardcore about stomaching horror in the service of story, but… eh… I knew a lot of people who related really closely to Aileen Wuornos in a way that makes me not so sure that I want to see this, no matter how good it is. Wrath is, as regular readers know, one of my besetting sins. We’ll see.

Krubner (who is back!) replies to me about the Healthy Marriage Initiative. Actually, there are quite a lot of anti-divorce programs out there (the ones I know best are Marriage Savers and Retrouvaille–please consider giving these groups your time and money). I should say that the ASOnline article comes across as less skeptical of the marriage initiative than I actually am. I think its potential problems are those of any sweet-minded big-government initiative. I would rather you all strengthened marriage on your own time, in your private capacity. Find out what your high school is teaching about marriage. Volunteer with a crisis pregnancy center. You don’t need to wait for Congress.

Sean Collins is right about Justin Timberlake. “Note the awkward use of the passive voice in order to place the blame squarely on Janet, and not her male counterpart (who I imagine is a bigger star than she is these days, saleswise). …Note that the violent and misogynistic overtones of the act are not even mentioned.” And there’s more: “Both these phony lesbian displays and Justin’s stripping of Janet’s clothes (invariably and inexplicably referred to by the media as ‘Janet’s stunt’) involve women tortuously convoluting their sexuality in order to please the male audience.”

Mark Shea: Let His blood be upon us, and on our children. Powerful meditation. “Every time we approach the Cup we ask for his blood to be upon us. Every time we baptize our babies, we pray his blood will be upon our children.”

The Old Oligarch: “So many universities stop with Plato or Aristotle and pick up with Descartes. Thus you only get the theory of forms at its most rudimentary stage (earliest Greeks) or in the fractured, compromised wreck you see in Descartes.” Yes, yes, YES. O.O. is like a million times harder core about this stuff than me, but I have the advantage of the literary background, which I think ought to push you both toward the attractions of Plato (objects in the world have intrinsic meaning) and toward Plato’s limitations (is there a form of dirt? of mud? of very watery mud? of very muddy water?). And some chastisement w/r/t the calling of Jeremiah: “If the text makes any point about charismatic vs. institutional authority, it refutes the mentality of those who would seek to use it as a ready-made symbol for their dissent.” Plus bonus attack on “faith alone,” whatever that means.

Letters to send to protest the introduction of sharia law in Iraq. Hasn’t happened yet. Might be worth your time. Via Hit & Run.

States visited: My map looks like the US is wearing an unraveling sweater. CA, CT, DC (home sweet home), DE (visit sunny Rehoboth), IL, IN (South Bend = small-town Iowa), IA (“It’s not just for deer!”), MD, MA, NJ (“I don’t expect much”), NY, NC, OH (Cleveland, Cincinnati, AND Dayton, beat THAT!), PA, RI, TX, VA, WA, WV (beautiful country and friendly people–don’t believe the anti-hype), WI (birth of the boom).

“A MARRIAGE HEALTH ADVISORY”: Hey, look, I’m in the American Spectator Online, talking about the Healthy Marriage Initiative.

IT SPEAKS! I will be speaking on same-sex marriage at Notre Dame University, Tuesday, 12.15 PM, at the law school, under the auspices of the Saint Thomas More Law Society. Not sure of the room number, but if you’re enterprising I expect you can find me.

I will also be speaking on a panel about SSM at Stanford University on February 3. I forget time and don’t know place, but will post an update when I have better info. There are more speaking engagements in my future, but no dates confirmed so far. Watch the skies!

MEASURED OUT IN BILLION-DOLLAR COFFEESPOONS: There was an insomniariffic post here about the SOTU and the obviousness and lameness of Bush’s big-government tendencies and marriage promotion as limited-government initiative, but due to its confusing phrasing and overly sharp tone (which was NOT what I intended it to sound like) I’m scrapping it.

MAN I’m tired. I was already exhausted when I wrote this (which is a good reason I should have kept my mouth shut) and have been up and doing pretty much ever since. So I apologize for the tone of this post–I think it came off as harsh toward Sean Collins, which is REALLY not what I intended.

Bed now.

LAST-MINUTE ADDITIONS TO SOTU DRINKING GAME: Drink once for “nation of immigrants.”

Once for “Vicente Fox.”

Once for anything about marriage being the union of a man and a woman. Twice for mention of a Federal Marriage Amendment. Finish your drink if Bush actually commits to pushing the amendment (not just in that wussy “if necessary” way).

Twice for “fabulous.”