The ruling, they say, isn't about race or a particular people group, it's about the nature and purpose of marriage, which the court brushed aside.
“To redefine marriage so it's not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose, remaking the institution into a mere contract between any two individuals.”
The analysis also points out that “changing the definition of marriage has vast cultural consequences, including religious liberty implications.”
This argument, which comes from the Heritage Foundation, is so filled with nonsense it's hard to know where to start. But let's start with two things. One, it isn't required for a married couple to have children. Many don't. Second, marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion. In Florida, for instance, any notary public can perform a legal marriage. When they do, religious messages are forbidden by law from being in the ceremony. Other states have similar laws. Marriage is already defined as a legal contract between two people (although not "any" two individuals). That's it. Everything else is defined by the people in the marriage. Need I remind you that both Michael Jackson and Britney Spears have been married. What's sacred in that?
And there are no cultural consequences that arise out of gay marriage, other than more people who get married and more people who stay married. How do we know this? Because gay marriage is legal in numerous places, none of which has faced any "huge" cultural consequences. It's nothing more than another of the nonspecific, undefinable threats that conservatives thrive off of creating and attacking.
No comments:
Post a Comment