NOM BLOG

Video: What is Marriage Co-Author Anderson Defends Marriage on CNN

 

What is Marriage? Co-author Ryan Anderson of Heritage ably defends marriage on this weekend CNN segment:

5 Comments

  1. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    It's not discrimination to treat different things differently. Everyone has the right to live as they choose, but nobody has a "right" to redefine marriage. It's the only public institution that has as its purpose to unite children with their mother and father. It's the only public institution that is capable of producing those children in the first place.

    Every child has one mother and one father.

  2. CRSmith
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Anderson makes very good points. I pray that the Supreme Court hears his points and strikes down gay marriage in all of the states once and for all. But I think calling the purpose of true marriage is to have children is very mean to all of the good, Christian, couples that are not able to have children themselves. They are no less loved and blessed.

  3. Will Fisher
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    I noticed that Mr. Anderson concedes that public opinion HAS changed in favor of marriage equality. I wonder if that will be the main crux of the Prop 8 proponents' and BLAG's argument this week. If so, it sure sounds like a fallback/retreat position to me.

  4. Robert
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    "It's not discrimination to treat different things differently."

    Then why can't we treat whites differently under the law than blacks? Or women differently from men?

    Think, Barb, think.

  5. bman
    Posted March 26, 2013 at 12:42 am | Permalink

    Barb->It's not discrimination to treat different things differently

    Robert-> Then why can't we treat whites differently under the law than blacks? Or women differently from men? Think, Barb, think.

    Compare Barb's comment to this statement by SCOTUS:

    The Constitution does not require things which are
    different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as
    though they were the same. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S.
    202, 216 (1982).

    Robert's logic should now require him to say, "Think SCOTUS Think," it seems!