___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Today's posts - Obama - Obamacare - Mark Steyn - Women - Children - Michelle O - Quoteworthy - Music - Books - Media bias - Culture - Best of P&P
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

When a society loses its memory, it descends inevitably into dementia. Mark Steyn

But community organizers, though often charismatic, can also be annoying jerks. Daniel Henninger
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Friday, April 3, 2009

'The end of marriage'

*Updated to add Marriage: A Hill to Die On by RS MCCain

Iowa court redefines marriage

From the Heritage Foundation:

What is happening is no minor adjustment, a slight change in degree that just extends benefits or rights to a larger class, but a substantive change in the essence of the institution. It does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose.

Expanding marriage supposedly to make it more inclusive, no matter what we call the new arrangement, necessarily ends marriage as we now know it by remaking the institution into something different: a mere contract between any two individuals.

American Power and RS McCain have more on the Iowa ruling.

(Also endangered: red meat, incandescent light bulbs, heroism, large cars, dishwasher detergent, used children's books and clothing, capitalism, hard work, and children.)

Most recent posts here.

3 comments:

Mike Sanders said...

I think the loss of marriage started many years ago when we as a people were too complacent when activists and congressmen concocted laws for divorce on demand/no fault divorce. This is just the next wave of assaults against marriage. All masterminded by Satan himself no doubt.

yukio ngaby said...

Yeah... Okay...

Since when has it been the government's job or duty to define what is sacred? Why do we necessarily believe that the institution of marriage is defined by Washington? If Congress passes a law that says owning dogs is immoral, does it make it such?

From the government's perspective, marriage should be merely a legal contract. That's what this government is designed to do, make pass and interpret laws. Anything else is matter for religion, society, and individual belief.

Pundette said...

A bit belated with this, but here goes.

Whether or not marriage is sacred is not relevant. The government has an interest in preserving or even promoting marriage because the traditional family is the basic unit of our civil society.

Post a Comment