There’s a heated debate going on in this country about marriage—and at times, it’s less than civil.
Heritage’s William E. Simon Fellow, Ryan Anderson, faced a verbal firing squad on Piers Morgan Live this week, as Morgan and guest host Suze Orman told him that he was one of the few people \”still\” holding a traditional view of marriage between a man and a woman.
Obviously, that’s not true. Citizens of 41 states continue to affirm marriage as it has been through history, and thousands joined the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C., this week to attest to the fact.
But emotionally charged discussions can be uncomfortable—even if you’re not on national television. To foster reasoned debate, The Heritage Foundation and other allies have produced a booklet that explains why maintaining the definition of marriage matters for children and for limited government.
We should welcome debates like these, and that’s why the Supreme Court should not cut it off. It should uphold the marriage laws before it right now and allow the American people to continue to make marriage policy. Judicial restraint respects the democratic process.
That democratic process is possible because all Americans also enjoy liberty of conscience. This is exactly why we have religious freedom—so that we can live out and voice our beliefs without the fear that the government is going to restrict us. It’s so basic to our way of life that we take it for granted.
CONTINUE TO READ via blog.heritage.org
by AMY PAYNE AND JENNIFER MARSHALL
This post was imported from a legacy archive. Please excuse any formatting inconsistencies.