A very interesting article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy by three academics (one philosopher, one politician and one political scientist).
The essence of their argument is that if we look at what marriage actually is, and therefore why the state has any interest in it, we recognise that it is essentially the monogamous union of a husband and a wife - nothing else qualifies. They then address certain reservations others may raise to this argument. Well worth a read.
Interestingly their argument for a defining feature of marriage being a 'comprehensive union' seems to me to outlaw contraception...
Hat tip to The Hermeneutic of Continuity.
Liturgy for When You were Pleased a Meeting was Delayed but Now you've
realised there's another meeting at the original time that you will have to
attend after all
-
1 I was glad when they said to me the Meeting of the Moot has been delayed
2 For every meeting delayed is another meeting where the world might end
first.
3...
9 hours ago
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment