The debate over marriage is centered on the misconception that government defines marriage. It does not. Marriage is defined by sexual complementarity, which predates any form of government. Government confers certain benefits on marriage that it does not currently provide to other familial arrangements which are based on love and commitment.
Once sexual complementarity is removed from the definition of marriage, then what's to prevent the creation of other loving, committed relationships, such as mother-daughter, father-son, brother-brother, sister-sister, from seeking government support and benefits for their family situation? Why would the government reject unions of more than two people? All rational reason for rejecting these situations goes away and opens up the question of unequal treatment under the law to be debated in the courts for years to come.
The desire of society to exercise their discretion in redefining marriage creates a host of unintended consequences. As such, if government decides that marriage no longer merits special treatment, it should focus on redefining it entitlement programs, tax code, property and inheritance laws so that all familial arrangements are treated equally under the law.
- Share Facebook Twitter
Article sent to (required)E-mail
Article sent from (required)E-mail Name
Subject Line (article title)
Message (optional)Success - Article sent Click to close
Interested in reusing this article?
Custom reprints are a powerful and strategic way to share your article with customers, employees and prospects.
The YGS Group provides digital and printed reprint services for Daily Herald. Complete the form to the right and a reprint consultant will contact you to discuss how you can reuse this article.Need more information about reprints? Visit our Reprints Section for more details.
Contact information ( * required )Name * Company Telephone * E-mail *
Article InformationTitle URL
Message (optional)Success - Reprint request sent Click to close