by Stuart Shepard
Eighteen states have now redefined marriage to be something other than what it is. Popular media says anyone who opposes the change is guilty of “discrimination.” But let’s think about that:
The argument to redefine marriage only makes sense if you see it as one of many contracts available for two or more adults. But marriage is not and has never been “just another” contract.
And no committee ever sat down and made up a definition from scratch and then called it “marriage.”
Rather, the name “marriage” was given to the remarkably successful, lifelong, solemn commitment between a man and a woman for the purposes of fidelity; childbearing and raising; and social order.
The relationship itself is the basis for the definition, not the other way around.
That relationship — and no other — is historically valued as above all other arrangements for its benefit to communities and nations and their long-term success.
And not just by American social conservatives — but by cultures around the world, throughout all time.
Some would say: from the very Creation of the world.
And all of that is why government has an interest in marriage.
And applying the name for such a time-tested, highly revered and God-given relationship to any other arrangement is, frankly, nonsensical. It’s the destructive forcing of a new definition onto something long-established, and using the force of government to demand compliance — or else.
In fact, there are now numerous examples of activists using the artificial change in definition to punish and silence those who disagree. An honest assessment of what’s now happening indicates that such silencing and discrimination was the goal of activists from the beginning.
Which leads to a simple question: Who is actually discriminating against whom?