Why the state should not re-define marriage
CWN - January 30, 2012
In a short but penetrating essay for The Public Discourse, Patrick Lee explains that laws defining marriage as a permanent union between a man and a woman are not discriminatory:
A law is unjust only if the distinction it creates is not essentially related to a legitimate purpose of law.
In fact society has excellent reasons for giving special preference to marriage, Lee argues, since marriage alone is a bodily union that fulfills the spouses and allows for the rearing of children. No other household arrangement has the same characteristics, which are absolutely crucial to the health of society.
Lee explains why, for the sake of the common good, the bonds of marriage must be both exclusive and permanent. In other partnerships the need for exclusivity and permanence—the essential traits of marriage as recognized by law—are not obvious.
Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
|
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus: Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you! |
Progress toward our June expenses ($13,107 to go):
$30,000.00
$16,892.93
44%
56%
|
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
