Midafternoon on Wedneday, February 23rd, the Justice Department, Obama Administration, and a California Senator (who is also a senior member of the Judiciary Committee) announced its decision to not only stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, but to also begin the process of repealing it. This then sparks the question, under what grounds do we redefine marriage? Seems like an odd question…but allow me to explore this avenue.
Marriage in America has its definition based upon three general areas: Tradition, Religion, and Nature.
1) Tradition. Granted, just because “we’ve always done it that way” is not a strong position to stand on, but it is still a reality. Some traditions should be challenged, and others are tried and true, and thus should not be challenged. Discerning between the two is a very difficult line to walk on, and one must consider other issues than tradition alone. America has, since its founding, defined marriage as between a man and a woman. To change the definition of marriage would be to say the tradition of marriage no longer applies.
2) Religion. Overall, Christianity is the dominate religion of America. As a whole, the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. To change the definition of marriage it to state that the religion of America no longer plays a role.
3) Nature. Marriage has, at its most basic level, the purpose of procreation. Procreation naturally requires a man and a woman (sperm and egg). To disregard natural biology would be to say nature no longer plays a role in defining a marriage.
If America throws out all three elements that provide the foundation for a marriage (tradition, religion, and nature), what, then, becomes the basis for a new foundation for marriage? Do we say the foundation for determining marriage is “I can marry whom ever I want?” If so, what prevents a 25 year-old man from marrying an 8 year-old girl? Perhaps marriage of children will be the next item to be considered “unconstitutional?” After all, what if the two want to get married? Should we deny them that “right?” Under what grounds can we deny someone marriage if we change rules and laws to match our own desires (rather than having said laws govern our desires to keep them moral and in check)?
Given no other legitimate foundation for defining marriage, we should keep the three that have served appropriate: tradition, religion, and nature. One may charge, “that’s discriminating! That’s too limiting!” Laws are supposed to do both, discriminate and limit. We want our President to be USA born, and over the age of 35. We want marriage not to include child-abuse. Thus, we have laws and rules that limit us from being destructive, harmful, and out of control. Laws are meant to govern us toward proper behavior…to change a law may be necessary from time to time, but under what grounds? What will the new foundation be based on?
