A Wise Verdict for One Man, One Woman Marriage
by Peter Sprigg
February 1, 2012
Legislation to change the definition of marriage – abolishing the “one man, one woman” definition codified only 14 years ago – is now working its way through the Washington State Legislature.
There is little doubt that the legislature has the power to engage in such social engineering if it chooses to do so. Such official affirmation of homosexual conduct would be a way for politicians to appease the two to three percent of the population who self-identify as “gay” or “lesbian” and placate others who do not grasp the implications of this massive social change.
But same-sex “marriage” is not being sold as a political payoff, or even (primarily) as a social service providing a package of legal and financial benefits to this population. Instead, advocates of redefining marriage argue that a belief in “civil rights” and “equality” actually compel such a radical redefinition of our most fundamental social institution.
Yet it was only six years ago that the state’s Supreme Court, in the case of Andersen v. King County, rejected such arguments in upholding the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act.
Tags: Judge Barbara Madsen, Same-sex marriage, Washington
