Blog Post Two:

For this blog post Ive added my comments into a report about Redefining Marriage Has
Consequences from The Heritage Foundation the author is Ryan T. Anderson.
Were having a robust national debate over whether marriage should be redefined to include
same-sex relationships. Its an important debate. And in many ways despite what some
activists say its only beginning.
Whatever the outcome of the Supreme Courts deliberations, the only thing thats inevitable is
this: Americans will keep talking about marriage well into the future and with good reason.
The nine justices are considering challenges to state and federal laws defining marriage as the
union of one man and one woman. The two cases before it provide an important opportunity for
Americans to reflect on three questions: What is marriage? Why does it matter for public policy?
And what are the consequences of redefining marriage?
Appeals to marriage equality make for good sloganeering, but sloppy reasoning. Every law
makes distinctions; equality before the law protects citizens from arbitrary ones. Marriage
equality demands knowing what marriage is.
Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and
mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a
mother and a father. (Anderson)
When children grew up in a Christian home they typically taught this concept; a man and
woman were to get married and produce offspring. However, women who are unable to produce
children are allowed to get married. Same with men who are infertile. So how would their
marriage be legitimate? Many children in modern society have grown up in a home with a single
parent. They can turn out fine like any other child. Why is it an obligation for a child to have
both a Mother and a Father? What is the difference if a child has an extra Mother or Father?
Same-sex couples who raise children generally have more accepting/loving kids.
Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of human civilization. All
Americans not just conservatives should respect this crucial institution of civil society.
Indeed, 41 states affirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Government recognizes marriage because it benefits society in a way that no other relationship
does. Marriage is societys least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of children. State
recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each
other and take responsibility for their children. (Anderson).
Some Heterosexual couples do not wish to have children. Some women get pregnant at a
young age and are not mature enough to care for a child. Other couples are not financially stable
to start a family so they put the child up for adoption. Who then is supposed to care for the
children they dont wish to have? same-sex couples and couples who cannot have children.
While respecting everyones liberty after all, nothing is made illegal by marriage laws
government rightly recognizes, protects and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for
childbearing and childrearing.
But, redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would further distance marriage from
the needs of children. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a
mom and a dad. (Anderson).
Marriage is not supposed to be based on if couples have the right parts it is supposed to
be based off of who you fall in love with. There has to be something behind it supporting the
marriage. What is the point of trying to start a family when there is no love involved? Children
need to be loved, along with everyone else in society.
Decades of social science show that children tend to do best when raised by a married mother
and father. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would
force the state to intervene more often in family life, prompting welfare programs to grow even
more.
In recent years, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults
desires than childrens needs. Americans increasingly are tempted to think that marriage is
simply whatever sort of relationship consenting adults be they two or ten in number want it
to be: sexual or platonic, sexually exclusive or open, temporary or permanent.
Redefining marriage would put a new principle into law that marriage is whatever emotional
bond the government says it is. No principled reason could be offered for why an emotional
union should be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or exclusive.
But marriage cant do the work that society needs it to do for generations to come if the norms
are weakened further. All of us who care about a thriving civil society with institutions
capable of limiting the state and its power should be alarmed.
All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose. No one, though, has the right to redefine
marriage for all of us. (Anderson).
Marriage will still have the same meaning. Its a union between two people who want to
start their life together. People add their own beliefs into things, such as Preachers. They do not
read the Bible word for word instead they interpret it in their own way and express their ideas to
the ones sitting out in the pews. You cannot read a small and think you know everything about
that section. Its like glancing at a cake mix box and you mix up the cup sizes for the oil and
water. The whole cake gets messed up.