How would redefining marriage affect your marriage?

An interesting article by Ryan T. Anderson appeared on Ricochet.

First, a bit about the author.

Ryan T. Anderson researches and writes about justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education as the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage Foundation. He also has expertise in bioethics, marriage, religious liberty and natural law theory.

Anderson, who joined Heritage’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society in 2012, also is the editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, N.J.

Anderson’s recent work focuses on the moral and constitutional questions surrounding same-sex “marriage.” He is the co-author with Princeton’s Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis of “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” (Encounter Books, December 2012). The three also co-wrote the article “What is Marriage?” in the winter 2011 issue of Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

[…]Anderson received his bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University, graduatingPhi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. He is a doctoral candidate in political philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, where he received his master’s degree.

The point I wanted to pull out his piece on Ricochet was that gay activists admit that one of the motives for redefining marriage is to destroy central aspects of traditional marriage, such as monogamy, sexual exclusivity and pledged permanence.

He writes:

Redefining marriage would abandon the norm of male-female sexual complementarity as an essential characteristic of marriage. Making that optional would also make other essential characteristics—like monogamy, exclusivity and permanency—optional, as my co-authors and I argue in our new book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. We also show how it is increasingly confirmed by the rhetoric and arguments of those who would redefine marriage (“revisionists”) and by the policies that their more candid leaders increasingly embrace. Indeed, several commentators on Tuesday’s post explicitly jettisoned monogamy, sexual exclusivity and pledged permanence as demands of marriage.

Consider the norm of monogamy. In testifying before Congress against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), prominent New York University professor Judith Stacey expressed hope that the revisionist view’s triumph would give marriage “varied, creative and adaptive contours . . . [leading some to] question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek . . . small group marriages.”

In their statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” more than 300  self-styled LGBT and allied scholars and advocates—including prominent Ivy League professors—call for legally recognizing sexual relationships involving more than two partners. University of Calgary professor Elizabeth Brake argues in her book Minimizing Marriage that justice requires using legal recognition to “denormalize the ideal of heterosexual monogamy” and correct for “past discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists and care networks.”

And exclusivity? Andrew Sullivan, who has extolled the “spirituality” of “anonymous sex,” writes in his book Virtually Normal that the “openness” of same-sex relationships could enhance the bonds of husbands and wives:

Same-sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friendship more effectively than traditional marriages; and at times, among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds. . . . [T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. . . . [S]omething of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.

Similarly, in a New York Times Magazine profile titled “Married, With Infidelities”, Dan Savage encourages spouses to adopt “a more flexible attitude” about allowing each other to seek sex outside their marriage. A piece titled “Monogamish” in The Advocate, a gay-interest newsmagazine, supports this point still more candidly:

Anti-equality right-wingers have long insisted that allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of “traditional marriage,” and, of course, the logical, liberal party-line response has long been “No, it won’t.” But what if—for once—the sanctimonious crazies are right? Could the gay male tradition of open relationships actually alter marriage as we know it? And would that be such a bad thing?

As the article’s blurb reads: “We often protest when homophobes insist that same-sex marriage will change marriage for straight people too. But in some ways, they’re right.”

These are the words of leading supporters of same-sex marriage. If you believe in monogamy and exclusivity—and the benefits these bring to orderly procreation and child wellbeing—but would redefine civil marriage, take note.

I wrote before about how feminism debased marriage, and same-sex marriage should be viewed as phase two of the radical feminist enterprise. Surprise! These left-wing groups don’t like natural, traditional marriage.

One thought on “How would redefining marriage affect your marriage?”

  1. Just wait til churches are “forced” to marry gay couples, and the radical gay lobby and feminists like Sarah-Jessica-Parker get behind it as well. Don’t think this will happen????

    I was a freshman in college in 1989. All I heard from the “gay students” and campus LGBT was

    “We just want you to accept our lifestyle. That’s all we want. Just show us tolerance, and respect.”

    By 1992 it was….

    “We just want equality in the military….what’s wrong with that? You just put the openly gay people with the women. They understand us.”

    By 1996 it was….

    “We just want domestic partners. I mean, I am in a committed relationship, and for company benefits, health-care….I should have the same rights, as well as all LGBT people who are in domestic partnerships. My partner doesn’t have health care, and I do….why shouldn’t I have the right to this? Besides, it will let women get more access to health care because if their live-in boyfriends have a good job, he can put her on his plan. It helps everyone.”

    By 1999 it was…….

    “Yeah, companies recognize us, but we need the states now to acknowledge our “civil unions” this is all we need. True equality. It’s not marriage in a traditional sense, but for tax reasons…….this is key. It is the final barrier of open discrimination left for LGBT people.

    By 2006 it was…….

    We want the word “MARRIAGE” now. It is unfair that a bunch of people are allowed to control and project such hatred on us because they believe a silly book of myths.

    By 2008 it was…..

    We just want the government to acknowledge marriage. What’s wrong with that? It’s not like we’re taking anything away from anyone else….and besides, you breeders have wrecked marriage on your own without the help of LGBT people. Abusive men, leaving no choice to divorce. It’s the straight males fault that marriage is in such a mess. No, churches, and people of faith we will respect them if they choose not to “marry” us…..


    Whispers and hintings of potential lawsuits to force priests, pastors, reverends of all denominations to marry gay couples in their churches if they want to “marry” in that particular church.

    People say I’m crazy…..but am I????? Once they have the “muscle” of law behind them…..marriage has already been re-defined, and noe it’s just the “push” for everything that was mentioned in the above


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s