Unisex marriage is no more a possiblity than square circles. (A unisex marriage license? May as well pick up your unicorn license while you’re there.)
It’s discouraging to see this author debating over whether there is a natural right to be joined in matrimony with someone to whom it’s impossible to be joined. Engaging in such a debate concedes so much ground to our opponents that we may as well retire from the field altogether.
We talk of “traditional marriage” - as though there were different kinds of marriage and we happen to prefer the traditional one. Now we talk about whether America’s founding principles “permit” pseudo-marriage.
Our opponent need only reject America’s founding principles (not uncommon these days!) and he’s free to make marriage into whatever he wants. That’s the weakness in this line of argument, and it’s a severe one.
I agree with you about the use of the language. I try very hard to avoid the phrase “traditional marriage,” for example.
I’m thinking you’re being a little too hard on the writer, though. Hey, at least he is laying out the facts about natural right, and natural rights. This is rare enough these days.
I agree - but sometimes a writer has to use “commonly accepted” language so that the readers will more readily understand what he or she is saying. Specifying “traditional marriage” helps the reader to more readily understand exactly what is being referred to, without having to “unpack” a definition based on guessing from the writer’s ideology.