Everyone so busy worrying about their own rights and privileges that they forget, or perhaps they never realize, marriage is not about having rights, it’s about giving them up. Thomas Sowell, one of America’s brilliant minds put it this way:
“In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.
Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other — and still more, their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.
In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet “gay marriage” advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.” (Here is the rest of the article)
He puts “gay marriage” in quotes because, he argues, there is no such thing as “gay marriage.” The term in itself is meaningless.
The key: It is not an expansion of rights. It is a commitment before society that you will take care of any offspring produced by the union. Hence the importance of traditional values in marriage — where it isn’t ripped apart by selfishness, nullifying the stability and other benefits of being raised by a mother and father.
Ryan Anderson, in an address to the Indiana House Judiciary Committee stated this: “Marriage is the institution that different cultures and societies across time and place developed to maximize the likelihood that that man would commit to that woman and then the two of them would take responsibility to raise that child.”
He also stated that: “The state’s interest in marriage is not that it cares about my love life, or your love life, or anyone’s love life just for the sake of romance,” Anderson explained. “The state’s interest in marriage is ensuring that those kids have fathers who are involved in their lives.”
Earlier this month 5 major religions banded together and wrote an amicus brief to the United States Court of Appeals for The Tenth Circuit which concluded with the following:
“Marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, remains a vital and foundational institution of civil society. The government’s interests in continuing to encourage and support marriage are not merely legitimate but compelling. No other institution joins together two persons with the natural ability to create children for the purpose of maximizing the welfare of such children. No other institution strives to ensure that children have the opportunity of feeling a sense of security and being raised in a stable household by the mother and father who conceived them. Undermining the husband-wife marital institution by redefining it to include same-sex couples will, in the long term, harm vital child-welfare interests that only the husband- wife definition can secure. The result will be more mothers and fathers concluding that the highest end of marriage is not the welfare of their children but the advancement of their own life choices. We know, from personal experience over numerous decades of ministering to families and children, that more focus on satisfying adult needs will not benefit vulnerable children. The societal ills caused by the deterioration of husband-wife marriage will only be aggravated if the State cannot reserve to marriage its historic and socially vital meaning. DATED this 10th day of February, 2014” (Read more here)
I personally don’t care about other people’s love lives (except my husband’s), but I do care about society as a whole and the welfare of children. Evidence is clear that a stable home with both a mother and a father is generally the best atmosphere for a child to be raised. Marriage has never been about rights and freedoms (at least not for the adults), it is legally all about restricting those rights and freedoms. Keep your freedoms and let society keep marriage the way it was intended — to protect the children.