Minneapolis Attorney Responds to Common Arguments Against Protecting Marriage


Tim Regan is a Minnesota attorney who capably makes the case for laws protecting marriage:

"...If you think that the two opposing sides in the marriage debate are talking past each other, you are right. The reason for this is that they are operating from completely different and incompatible models defining the essence of marriage.

The traditional model defines marriage as the lifelong commitment, made by two persons of the opposite sex, to support each other and the children that are the product of their physical union. Marriage as a legal status is based on the physical relationship between a man and a woman, which is based on human biology, which if left to its natural course normally results in children. Society confers this status because of its compelling interest in children.

The revisionist model holds that marriage should not be limited by human biology or reproduction. "Oppositeness," the revisionists say, is not required for a fulfilling sexual relationship; therefore, it should not be required for marriage. People who love each other ought to be given the freedom to marry. Marriage should thus be redefined as a union of hearts and minds: Love should be the only criterion.

It is difficult to understand, however, why unions of hearts and minds need government regulation. The state has no compelling interest in licensing friendships." -- StarTribune