Redefined... again?

I think the article regarding Obergefell v. Hodges (go here) was included in this lesson to help us to better understand the Court’s thought process in coming to the decision that it did. It was helpful to get an idea of how the Court was able to decide that legalizing same-sex marriage was the right thing to do.

To me, the reason that legalizing same-sex marriage is a big deal is because it redefines an institution that predates the founding of our country (that predates pretty much all modern cultures). Marriage was originally created by God and as such, He is the sole authority on the definition of what marriage truly is. I think that the Church’s response to the redefinition was justified. We have seen, historically speaking, how much damage has been done to the institution of marriage by other legal changes regarding it (such as the creation of the no-fault divorce). We need to move back in the direction that marriage is for raising and protecting children. I, personally, feel that no changes should be made to the definition of marriage to accommodate those who seek to enter into a union for purposes other procreating and raising a family. Prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage, I was a proponent of the creation of civil unions that would allow homosexuals to resolve the legal issues that they were facing from not being married but not redefining marriage to include what is a sin in the eyes of God (homosexual sexual relations). It is interesting to see that now that same-sex marriage has been legalized, other groups are using the same tactics of the homosexual marriage movement in an effort to further alter the definition (such as allowing an individual [male or female] to be married to more than one person at a time). Once the definition was changed, who is to say where that definition will stop being altered? If it is not moral to exclude same-sex couples who love each other, how is it moral to exclude a woman who loves two men? I believe that, societally speaking, marriage is on a slippery path now and it will eventually cease to be recognizable as the institution it was when the Family Proclamation was issued.

I can defend marriage in my social circle by doing what I can to encourage and support the traditional marriages around me. I am not married, but would like to be should the opportunity present itself. I can also avoid doing anything that might give the impression that I support alternative definitions of marriage from the one that the Lord has given us.