No compromise on meaning of marriage, Robert George argues
July 19, 2012
Robert George reminds readers of The Public Discourse that not too long ago, gay-rights activists were promising that legal recognition of same-sex marriage would not affect the legal rights of heterosexual couples. No longer.
George wonders aloud why defenders of marriage ever accepted the reassurances that there could be some compromise on the meaning of marital union. He insists that “there is no alternative to winning the battle in the public square over the legal definition of marriage. The ‘grand bargain’ is an illusion we should dismiss from our minds.”
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!