September 12, 2013 – 1:12 pm
Yesterday we told you about two competing perspectives on marriage – one focused on the desires of adults, the other on the needs and rights of children. In the end we talked about marriage as the social fabric that holds our culture together.
Well today, here’s another set of competing perspectives: Is marriage a permanent commitment or simply a commodity to be tried out on a leasing basis, like a car or an apartment? From the deep south of all places comes the idea of the ‘marriage lease’, as Fox Memphis reports:
What if marriage was like leasing a car?
After a couple years, you could renew the relationship or just walk away, with no fuss. A Florida lawyer says now might be the time to consider short-term marriages.
In other words: a wed lease.
Read more here.
August 13, 2013 – 12:06 pm
Family Action Council of Tennessee President David Fowler explains why those pushing to redefine marriage need to meet their burden of proof. And if they can't, the “marriage equality” argument has no foundation to stand on.
The issue is not whether homosexual conduct is good or bad. It is not whether those who engage in homosexual relations can be productive members of society. And it is not about benefits. That is what same-sex marriage advocates want people to think. But those are not the issue.
The issue is whether our society should continue to embrace natural marriage – the union of a man and woman — or embrace other forms of relationships as marriages.
However, the burden of proving that this change will improve our common good is on same-sex marriage advocates, not on those who support the long-standing meaning and value of natural marriage.
Those who support change just can’t be the “party of no” because they are against natural marriage. They need to tell Tennesseans what they are for so that Tennesseans can see how it “stacks up” in comparison to natural marriage.
And if same-sex marriage advocates want equality, then the burden is on them to prove that a same-sex union is essentially the same as a heterosexual union in all regards. Otherwise, everyone knows that there is nothing “unequal” or “unfair” about treating two different things two different ways.
If they can’t meet their burden of proof, then the whole “marriage equality” argument falls to the ground.
Read David Fowler's full commentary over on Citizen Link.
