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.
- About Utah: He's going public (again) for a...
- Doug Robinson: The high cost of coaches
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Long-term...
- John Hoffmire: The difficulty of measuring...
- My view: Climate change denial: Scientific...
- In our opinion: Federal Reserve Bank faces...
- Letter: Just one breadwinner
- In our opinion: Liberal arts vs STEM...
- Letter: No more hungry kids 41
- Kathleen Parker: Hillary Clinton's... 40
- Greg Bell: The problem of being a... 40
- John Hoffmire: The difficulty of... 37
- Letter: Next president? 36
- Utah's 'grand bargain' stands in sharp... 34
- Letter: Unemployment compensation 34
- Mike Noel: Utah leads out on win-win... 28