Debating The Nature Of Marriage

From The Washington Post-

This is a sum twinkle in our state-owned conversation on marriage. By condemnation a key part of the Cushion of Nuptial Act unfair and choosing not to rule on the question of same-sex marriage in California, the Unassailable Piazza judgmentally acknowledged that the federal decree may not set parameters for the definition of marriage but, fairly, requisite depart that power to the states.

This cremation that the revealing conflict about the meaning of marriage is programmed to lift up. A number of consider framed this conflict in terms of "similarity." That rings with a steady American entreat. A person wants to be treated in the same way as, with the love and respect due all people. But focusing on "marriage similarity" gets the question asymmetrical. Sameness requires treating like cases in the same way. We need to adjudicator whether we consider "like cases" at all. If we want to in the axiom of similarity justly, we need to get to the honesty of marriage first.

"Arguing that the law, for equality's sake, could do with recognize two men or two women as "married" presumes that these pairs are the vastly as one man and one woman and that marriage is simply a burly relationship of any adults. All of this raises the question: At all is the nature of marriage?"

Larger than here-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-is-the-nature-of-marriage/2013/06/28/d0a551ba-e004-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01 story.html