Posts
“...The present law states: “marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female…” This same law also prohibits marriage to close-blood relations, a clear indication that the definition of marriage is related to bringing children into the world and the continuation of the human race. The legislation to redefine marriage, therefore, is not in the public interest. ...”
“...the state is recognizing the irreplaceable contribution that married couples make to society. Married couples who bring children into the world make particular sacrifices and take on unique risks and obligations for the good of society. For this reason the state has long understood that it has a compelling interest in recognizing and supporting these mothers and fathers through a distinct category of laws. Were the definition of marriage to change, there would be no special laws to support and recognize the irreplaceable contribution that these married couples make to society and to the common good by bringing to life the next generation. ...”
“...present law defining marriage as “a civil contract between a male and a female” is grounded not in faith, but in reason and the experience of society. It recognizes...the unique and irreplaceable potential of a man and woman to conceive and nurture new life...”
This well-written article is brief, to the point, and doesn’t contain any scriptures to frighten any anti-Christ bigots. But it does get across the point that redefining marriage is wrong. Just right for my blog.
Also, even if a man and woman who cannot have children marry, their marriage sets forth an example that is witnessed by children and, therefore, serves towards the good of humanity.
“...the state is recognizing the irreplaceable contribution that married couples make to society. Married couples who bring children into the world make particular sacrifices and take on unique risks and obligations for the good of society. For this reason the state has long understood that it has a compelling interest in recognizing and supporting these mothers and fathers through a distinct category of laws. Were the definition of marriage to change, there would be no special laws to support and recognize the irreplaceable contribution that these married couples make to society and to the common good by bringing to life the next generation. ...”
“...present law defining marriage as “a civil contract between a male and a female” is grounded not in faith, but in reason and the experience of society. It recognizes...the unique and irreplaceable potential of a man and woman to conceive and nurture new life...”
This well-written article is brief, to the point, and doesn’t contain any scriptures to frighten any anti-Christ bigots. But it does get across the point that redefining marriage is wrong. Just right for my blog.
Also, even if a man and woman who cannot have children marry, their marriage sets forth an example that is witnessed by children and, therefore, serves towards the good of humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned.