Help on the Way? Bill Kristol Hints at “Impressive” Independent Candidate
Will there be time?Read More »
The latest episode of the “Consider This!” podcast is out. Conservative commentary in 10 minutes or less.
A one-topic show, as well as only having one link, but it’s a doozy. I talked about “marriage equality” in show 36, and showed that asking for equality in something is not helpful if you don’t understand the nature of what you’re asking equality for. “Driving equality for the blind”, and all that. So this episode is where I deal with the issue of what marriage is.
Ryan T. Anderson wrote a report for the Heritage Foundation entitled, “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It”. It is, in my estimation, required reading before engaging in honest debate on the subject. It’s that good. But, it’s also that long, so there’s a time investment. The abstract at the beginning makes all the claims of the report, but the report itself explains why those claims are made.
Marriage was defined millennia ago, by cultures and religions across time. And during all that time, they came up with the same definition. The government recognizes marriage, but it has never defined it. It is so ironic that those who say that government should get out of marriage are the ones who are asking it to define it.
Marriage has existed to bring a man and woman together, acknowledging that they are complementary, and that any children produced will need both a father and a mother. Even cultures where homosexuality was fully accepted, same-sex marriage was not even a concept most of them considered. Sociologically, this combination has always been the best possible environment for children; with their biological parents, who are in a committed, lifelong relationship. Just because there are examples of how human failings have not lived up to this ideal, does not mean we should thus scrap the whole concept. Indeed, the ease with which divorce can be purchased these days has itself, with only heterosexual participation, turned marriage into merely an agreement based solely on how you Iabout your spouse. Today.
And if government is telling us what marriage is, if it is any emotional bond the state says it is, religious groups who have their views on marriage, and have had them for thousands of years, will not be allowed to keep the religious freedom they have enjoyed.
Anderson ends his report with this statement: “Some might appeal to historical inevitability as a reason to avoid answering the question of what marriage is—as if it were an already moot question. However, changes in public opinion are driven by human choice, not by blind historical forces. The question is not what will happen, but what we should do.”
Let me know your thoughts on the subject. Click on the link for the show notes and ways to send your feedback, including calling 267-CALL-CT-0 (267-225-5280). Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes, Blubrry or Stitcher.