“Gay ‘Marriage’: Societal Suicide” is an article written by Charles Colson and Anne Morse for Christianity Today (June 1, 2004). The chosen article stands in powerful opposition to gay marriage and strives to prove that a family must be a strong “traditional building block” that exists in human society. In the article, the authors develop the opinion that modern society is challenged by the necessity to accept gay marriage as an ordinary part of human life and by an inability to avoid the consequences of the broken moral order. There are several supporting and opposing ideas used to argue that the legalization of gay marriage is essentially societal suicide. While Colson and Morse cannot neglect the need to oppose gay marriage because it destroys human society, the tone, references to the law, and the language chosen for the article help the reader understand the depth of the problem and think about marriage and family not as a private institution but rather as a part of society and an example that has to be followed. The purpose of the article is to answer one simple question: What will happen if America continues witnessing the end of traditional heterosexual marriage because of the many attempts to legalize gay marriage? The article begins with this question and makes the readers think about the situation and develop independent thoughts by relying on such evidence as to the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the current debates in California and New York, and the announcement of President Bush to support a new idea of American life. Moreover, the evidence presented in the article also includes examples taken from Christianity and social statistics taken from prison ministries and single-parent families. The authors have successfully chosen the tone and language of this article. For example, Colson underlines the position to support the amendment that questions the necessity of gay marriage legalization in modern American society. There are no rude or offensive words in the article. Still, it is clear that Colson cannot understand people who support gay marriage. He believes that this kind of marriage is out of the natural moral order. The authors call upon the reader to remember history and traditions and consider the teachings developed by both Muslims and Christians, who believe that a family should be led by a mother and a father. There are no attempts to offend gay people in the text. At the same time, there is no support for the idea of gay marriage because the authors’ audience includes all people who are interested in this topic, as well as Katha Pollitt in particular. The contrast between the support of and opposition to gay marriage is evident in the article. The authors are biased about the need to promote the Christian belief that one man and one woman should be united in marriage with the intention to live together, have children, nurture them, and develop each other wellbeing. Even those people who have not read Pollitt’s article about gay marriage, which served as the basis for writing the article under analysis or those who have a neutral attitude toward gay marriage legalization, should find this work interesting and educative due to its confident tone, its pres