The law encompasses the relationship only in a legal way. Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. The law of contract does not define ahead of time what might be contracted; it simply clarifies the legal obligations of the contracting parties and the consequences if the contract is broken. At this important moment in the U. No, this debate is about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong. Thinking of ticking the 'no' box?
The much disputed question of whether same-sex relationships are morally good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, is beside the point at this stage of legal consideration.
Same-Sex "Marriage" Is Not a Civil Right
We do not help each other in the fight for holiness when we allow for righteousness to look increasingly strange and sin to look increasingly normal. The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love. Discover More About Public Justice: Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship. But the reality will be far different. And to join that debate one must appeal, by moral argument, to grounds that transcend the law as it now exists.
If this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences. Time to throw in the towel. In particular, we need to be clear about what constitutes a civil right. The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. The Sydney Morning Herald. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.