Andrew Walker and Ryan T. Anderson (pictured above), two young Americans from The Heritage Foundation in favour of traditional marriage, have written a piece for Citizen Magazine outlining why marriage must be preserved for the sake of future generations.

They examine the current marriage debate in the US, the harms of the long-term erosion of the meaning of marriage, the negative effects of redefining marriage, and the marriage movement in the future.

We’ve been asked—repeatedly—whether the position we’re promoting is pointless. Are we willing to endure cultural scorn for holding to a position as supposedly outmoded as natural marriage?

…Redefining marriage would further distance it from the needs of children and deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children, and for men and women to marry before having children. The concern is not so much that a relatively small number of gay or lesbian couples would be raising children; rather, it would be difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when the law has redefined marriage to make fathers optional…

It’s not accurate to say the times have relegated the defense of marriage to the geriatric ward. And there’s no such thing as being on the “right” or “wrong” side of history. There’s only being on the right or wrong side of truth.

Blaise Joseph is a third-year commerce student at the University of New South Wales with a strong interest in social policy. Blaise is originally from Canberra, the centre of politics and the public...