Our take: To believe a comprise with those arguing for the redefinition of marriage would not bring ill consequences to believers in conjugal marriage, or marriage with the goal of procreation, is a belief not grounded in reality, according to Robert P. George. In this essay, he discusses how it is inevitable that the supporters of redefining marriage would turn against those that believe in traditional marriage.
It was only yesterday, was it not, that we were being assured that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships would have no impact on persons and institutions that hold to the traditional view of marriage as a conjugal union? Such persons and institutions would simply be untouched by the change. It wont affect your marriage or your life, we were told, if the law recognizes Henry and Herman or Sally and Sheila as married.
Those offering these assurances were also claiming that the redefinition of marriage would have no impact on the public understanding of marriage as a monogamous and sexually exclusive partnership. No one, they insisted, wanted to alter those traditional marital norms. On the contrary, the redefinition of marriage would promote and spread those norms more broadly.
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run for...
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage hurts...
- Catherine Rampell: Reasons behind the bad...
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by focusing on...
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama...
- In our opinion: Let FAA, not Utah...
- My view: Don't make women optional in marriage
- Letter: Enforcing the dress code
- My view: Don't make women optional in... 103
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage... 91
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run... 66
- In our opinion: Religion in public life... 53
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama... 41
- Letter: Lateralist logic 40
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by... 40
- Drew Clark: Either view of marriage... 37