Why do we support marriage as a union of one man and one woman?

Anderson-Indiana

It’s not about romance. And it’s not about the desires of adults.

Speaking before lawmakers in Indiana yesterday, Ryan Anderson eloquently stated why the state has an interest in marriage that goes beyond our feelings and emotions:

“Whenever a child is born, a mother will always be close by. That’s a fact of biology. The question for culture and the question for law is: Will a father be close by? And if so, for how long? Marriage is the institution that different cultures and societies across time and place developed to maximize the likelihood that that man commits to that woman, and that the two of them take responsibility to raise that child….” 

“The state’s interest in marriage is not that it cares about my love life, or your love life, or anyone’s love life just for the sake of romance. The state’s interest in marriage is ensuring that those kids have fathers who are involved in their lives.

Well stated.

Actually, I encourage you all to watch Ryan Anderson’s testimony to the Indiana House Judiciary. Take 11 minutes to brush up on the best and most sound defenses of why the state should define marriage as a man and a woman.

 

19,143 views

Categories:Marriage

56 thoughts on “Why do we support marriage as a union of one man and one woman?

  1. Aquinas 4 says:

    If all that you desire is the combining of “two estates into one” and preferential tax filing status, would it not make more sense to simply lobby for an additional exception within the tax code for people that co-habit with each other, rather than attempting to re-define a sacramental tradition rooted in ontological reality that dates back thousands of years? I can understand why you would suggest that the well being or interests of children are in no way relevant to the discussion, given the fact that proponents of your position are biologically incapable of reproducing.

  2. Stephen says:

    This self-appointed arbiter of everyone else’s morals has no place in my life. I am not Roman Catholic. I have no interest in anyone’s religious beliefs as they interfere in the public space. We are talking about law not feelings. Anderson’ characterization of my life with my husband is patronizing in the extreme.

    Marriage is now, and always has been, a legal construct to join two people’s estates into one. If children come along that’s great but has never been a requisite. We are married, have been married for 10 years, have made out lives together for 44. This year we can at last file a joint tax return. At last we have a legal structure to our joint holdings and a greater sense of security. Our marriage affects no one else. The work we have made together has gone around the US making jobs for other people.

    If you don’t believe me that marriage is a matter of civil law think of a Roman Catholic couple who want to separate. They manage to have their union annulled by their bishop. But till they also get a legal divorce they are still married because marriage is a function of law not religion.

    1. MominVermont says:

      The problem with redefining marriage is that it will force the religious belief that “mothers are irrelevant” on other people. Business owners who believe children deserve a mother can be sued out of existence. Why do you have the right to force your religious beliefs on others?

      1. morganB says:

        It might be the “New Evangelism” at play.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.