Q&A: Heritage Foundation scholar argues for marriage between a man and a woman

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 29, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    Agreed. I'd be interested to hear Mr. Anderson's comments on the NC case.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    Anderson: "[SSM and religious freedom] could exist in theory, but in practice we see that those who are arguing in favor of redefining marriage are then trying to stamp out any residual resistance... They want to see those beliefs eradicated."

    Anderson: "In all 50 states, two people of the same sex can live with each other and love each other. If their house of worship recognizes same-sex marriage, they can have a wedding there."

    An article in this morning's print edition of the DesNews rebuts both of these statements (I haven't found it in the online edition yet). As reported, the United Church of Christ in North Carolina is contesting a state law that prohibits SSM. Under NC law, it is a misdemeanor to perform a wedding without filing a marriage license. A UCC minister is facing 120 days in jail for performing SSM. Clearly, the free exercise of religion is being infringed. One might say that proponents of traditional marriage want to eradicate the religious beliefs of proponents of marriage equality.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 28, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    Anderson: "No great thinker in human history has ever argued that race has anything to do with marriage."

    Really? Perhaps the Greek philosophers did not link race and marriage, but plenty of legislators (apparently not great thinkers) did. How else do you explain the antimiscenegation laws that persisted until the Loving decision? Many have made the connection between race, procreation, and marriage.

    Anderson: "Marriage laws take nothing away from anyone... If their house of worship recognizes same-sex marriage, they can have a wedding there. If their business wants to give them marriage benefits, the business can."

    A church wedding without civil recognition is meaningless. It provides none of the legal benefits (inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance coverage, taxation, etc.) that make marriage desirable. It is a sham. Would Anderson consider straight couples that exchanged church vows but failed to file paperwork with the government to be "wedded"? Would an employer recognize it as valid in conferring benefits?

    Anderson's religious freedom answer also fails to consider that churches that support SSM are prevented by government authority from freely exercising their religious faith.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 28, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    At some future date, similar to those that survived the Holocaust, society will see it all very clearly. Marriage has been, and always will be, between a man and a women. Anything less perpetuates a vision of the future that accommodates moral decline at the expense of children.