Posts Tagged ‘Defining marriage’

gaymarriageThis week has seen a new wave of discussions about marriage law and why it matters in today’s increasingly divided American society.

As Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News and World Report recently noted, marriage defense groups continue to show that gay activists are bent on taking away America’s freedom of speech and religion by making homosexuality a “civil right” and criminalizing those who dissent. Indeed, in 2006, Boston’s top adoption charity was forced to close down due to its child placement requirements, which did not list gay couples as married parents. In Canada, where same-sex marriage is also legal, citizens and religious are being fined and brought before tribunals for refusing to marry gay lovers, and even for expressing disagreement with homosexuality. In the U.K., gay marriage law is forcing churches to hire homosexual youth workers and staff, even if the churches claim homosexuality is deviant sexuality. Pastors and priests in the U.S. can expect similar bullying, intimidation, and threats from homosexual radicals if they continue to designate families as heterosexual by nature. “Denying equality in a public service based on a person’s religious convictions about same-sex marriage would set a dangerous precedent,” said Brian Moulton, chief counsel for gay group the Human Rights Campaign.

On another front, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has emphasized the economic pain to business when a new demographic category is invented and subsequently added to health care coverage, or when a business does not accept homosexuality as marriage and is economically punished by blacklist task forces or through federal mandate. Whatever measures have been used to destroy Miss California for her defense of marriage can and will be used to destroy the reputation of any business that resists gay marriage. For certain, the political-legal climate is  growing increasingly hostile for America’s entrepreneurs and business leaders.

Yet the greatest reason to halt the redefinition of marriage is the protection of women and children, for it is upon children and dependent spouses that bad marriage law unleashes its most punishing effects. In the 1970s, radical “no-fault divorce” advocates ended the definition of marriage as an indissoluble (permanent) contract between men and women that levies stiff penalties for spousal abandonment, to the benefit of children and dependents. The introduction of easy divorce radically redefined marriage as a temporal contract and resulted in the mass abandonment of spouses and children by adult marriage partners. Gay marriage law further obliterates the purpose of marriage by redefining it as a mere temporal romance contract having nothing whatsoever to do with raising families. With that shift, “marriage” becomes little more than a we-live-together-so-give-us-state-perks agreement. Aside from offering no real protections for families, this radical redefinition of marriage law must logically apply to any two or more individuals who want to live together and receive said state benefits. Strikingly, raising children is a project nowhere to be found in the proposed contractual redefinition, meaning children have less legal protection and standing than ever before.

Without question, redefining legal partnerships changes everything for both the contracted partners and the enterprise being contracted. Redefinition obliterates the original legal stipulations formerly required by the agreement. Sadly, as was historically the case with the redefinition of marriage via no-fault divorce, children have the most to lose from the wholesale removal of family expectations from current marriage law.


Read Full Post »