|An Arranged Marriage (Antoine Dieu)|
Rubber bands can only be stretched so far until they break. Is the concept of marriage also that way?
Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation contends that there are no Constitutional grounds for requiring marriage to be “redefined.”
Anderson argues that the only reason government should be “in the marriage business” is to protect offspring. He then limits “offspring” to heterosexual unions only.
Anderson cites “anthropological truths that men and women are distinct and complementary.” He challenges the notion of “parenting,” and replaces it with “mothering” and “fathering.”
Aside from the “same-sex” one, other malleable definitions of marriage are also on Anderson’s cutting board. These include “throuple” (allegedly “three same-sex people who might want to marry”) and “wed-lease” (“renewable five-year marriage contracts,” as opposed to “wedlock” unto death).
Anderson's arguments bring a number of key questions to the table: Does marriage exist solely to protect offspring, or to also protect the spouses themselves? Should “offspring” be strictly defined in terms of hetereosexual relationships? Should the government even be involved with legitimatizing romantic agreements between consenting adults?
Copyright April 16, 2015 by Linda Van Slyke All Rights Reserved