If you’ve been following David French’s writing closely, you’ll know that he no longer supports public policies that are consistent with the Christian worldview. In this post, we’ll take a look at Jesus’ definition of marriage, then we’ll see whether David French thinks that Jesus knows more about the definition of marriage than the Democrat party.

First, what does Jesus think about marriage?

Here’s what Jesus says about marriage.

Matthew 19:1-11:

1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.

2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”

8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.

To be a Christian, minimally, is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. That means that we accept what Jesus teaches, on whatever he teaches about. We don’t overturn the teachings of Jesus in order to make people who are rebelling against God feel better about their rebellion. It is central to the Christian worldview that Christians care more about what God thinks of them than what non-Christians think of them. In fact, Christians are supposed to be willing to endure suffering rather than side with non-Christians against God’s authority.

Here’s an article from The Federalist by conservative Christian lioness Megan Basham.

She writes:

[P]erhaps no one has done more to further the idea that Christians should not let the God they worship influence their policy views than one-time defender of traditional marriage, David French.

[…]As a political pundit, French has been singularly influential in evangelical establishment circles, referenced regularly not only in Christianity Today’s pages and podcasts but also giving speeches at Southern Baptist seminaries and winning praise from outlets such as The Gospel Coalition as “one of the few Christians who is able to bring gospel-centered arguments into the public square.”

In all three of his essays on RMA in the last week, French reveals that he, too, has evolved on marriage and… discourages Christians from resisting the enshrinement of gay marriage into U.S. law.

French… adds, “Religious belief is not the same thing as declaring civil law … I don’t want the law to discriminate against those Americans who sincerely hold different views of sexual morality, sexuality, and marriage and organize their lives and their institutions accordingly.”

What does David French think about same-sex marriage as public policy?

French reveals that… believes [the Obergefell ruling’s] argument for ushering in an entirely new form of marriage, unknown to previous ages, was well-founded. He writes that as far back as 2004, he believed, “In a diverse, pluralistic republic, granting the same rights to others that we’d like to exercise ourselves should be the default posture of public advocacy and public policy.”

Now that the fundamental transformation of marriage has taken place, French argues it should be permanent: “It would be profoundly disruptive and unjust to rip out the legal superstructure around which they’ve ordered their lives,” he writes.

When it comes to policy, David French thinks that the Democrat party’s definition of marriage is better than Jesus’ definition of marriage.

Previously, I noted how the Alliance Defending Freedom thinks that the “Respect for Marriage Act” will threaten the religious liberty of Christian organizations:

The so-called Respect for Marriage Act is a misnamed bill that expands not only what marriage means, but also who can be sued for disagreeing with the new meaning of marriage.

While proponents of the bill claim that it simply codifies the 2015 Obergefell decision, in reality it is an intentional attack on the religious freedom of millions of Americans with sincerely held beliefs about marriage.

The Respect for Marriage Act threatens religious freedom and the institution of marriage in multiple ways:

• It further embeds a false definition of marriage in the American legal fabric.
• It opens the door to federal recognition of polygamous relationships.
• It jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that exercise their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
• It endangers faith-based social-service organizations by threatening litigation and liability risk if they follow their views on marriage when working with the government.

The truth is the Respect for Marriage Act does nothing to change the status of same-sex marriage or the benefits afforded to same-sex couples following Obergefell. It does much, however, to endanger religious freedom.

David French  wants Christians who agree with Jesus about the definition of marriage to be persecuted by the secular left state. That’s why he supports this Democrat party legislation.

Now, if you listened to the episode of the Knight and Rose show that Rose and I did defending the definition of marriage then you will know that there are good science-based secular reasons for preferring Jesus’ definition of marriage. But David French ignores that evidence in his published work.

Back to Megan Basham in The Federalist:

Leaving aside how this same argument could have been applied to Dred Scott, it’s interesting that French repeatedly references “LGBT families” in his essays (a phrase that naturally brings up sympathetic associations) without specifically treating the question of how children come to be a part of these sterile couplings or how they fare once they are present. In fact, the only passing allusion he makes to children in these households is positive, as when he says, “Millions of Americans are living stable, joyful lives in LGBT families.”

It has been said many times (but it cannot be said enough apparently) that the law’s compelling interest in acknowledging marriage at all is not to sanction romantic attachment between various individuals. It is to recognize the sexually reproductive union of men and women in order to foster the arrangement that best cultivates individual flourishing, which, in turn, creates a flourishing society.

Right, and that’s why Rose and I talked about that evidence in our podcast. But if you are expecting David French to understand what marriage is, and how to interact with scientific evidence on the effects of non-traditional unions on children, you’re expecting too much. In Christian apologetics, we know how to make a case for what the Bible teaches about God’s existence from scientific evidence, such as the Big Bang cosmology and the cosmic fine-tuning. Mainstream scientific data. We do the same thing when it comes to the abortion question. Serious Christians know how to be persuasive to non-Christians. That’s why we are able to defend the Bible’s teachings without capitulating to peer pressure from the secular left.

Basham concludes:

There is no need to rehearse the litany of evidence that children raised apart from their married, biological mothers and fathers fare worse on all manner of social, educational, and developmental outcomes. But it might be necessary to start speaking forthrightly about the more specific emerging evidence that children conceived via donorship suffer from “profound struggles with their origins and identities” and that those raised in same-sex households are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and sexual abuse.

French never mentions these children. Nor does Dalrymple. Nor does the Christianity Today essay. Nor has Sen. Blunt. Yet this is the dystopian, domino effect of redefining marriage so that Christians may assure themselves they are pluralists in good standing, on the right side of rapidly devolving modern history.

If you want to hear a decent case for the traditional definition of marriage based on evidence, check out the podcast that Rose and I did about it here.

If you only have 15 minutes, this short video from Katy Faust makes the case:

And she has an excellent article about it in the Daily Signal. It’s too bad that Christians look to David French for leadership. I would rather rely on Megan Basham and Katy Faust. And it’s not David French who will be defending religious liberty at the Supreme Court. It’s Kristen Waggoner of the ADF.

So, on Wednesday, I found a story on Daily Wire that made me really concerned. In the story, famous feminist Meghan Markle said that people should not reject women for marriage just because those women have had many past sexual partners. And she said that women can “make up” for their sexual pasts by excelling in their careers. I thought I should say something about this.

So first, here is the article from Daily Wire.

Markle, a far-left previously divorced radical feminist who only has work experience as an actress, says this:

Meghan Markle said she doesn’t understand why women are “vilified” for exploring their sexuality while she said it appeared that men are instead “celebrated” for doing the same.

The former actress talked about what she called the double standard when it comes to men and women “exploring” their “sensuality”… “One of the things that I think as all women, we face, as you’re getting older, you’re exploring and starting to understand your sensuality, your feminine divine,” the Duchess of Sussex shared. “Your sexuality, oftentimes, it can be very much used against you.”

“A man, if he is a player, out having fun or whatever he’s doing, it’s often celebrated, even heralded,” she added. “But for a woman, I don’t care if she is perhaps the most successful woman in finance in her mid-50s, I promise you, someone will still go, ‘But she was such a slut in college.’ It will stick with her.”

“And I don’t understand what it is about the stigma surrounding women and their sexuality, the exploration of their sexuality that is so much more vilified than for a man…,”Markle continued.

So, the reason I have to say something about this is because Markle is a radical feminist, and her views are being accepted by many young, unmarried women. And the church is not opposing this, believing that not judging feminism is a form of “chivalry”. Christian men are terrified of telling women no, even when it’s best for women to be told no. So let’s take a look at the mistakes Markle makes.

A fixation on promiscuous men

First, notice how she is concerned with emulating men who are promiscuous. Thanks to feminism, young women reject traditional male roles such as moral and spiritual leader. Men who talk about truth and morality are seen as inferior to the men who are attractive and promiscuous.  Unfortunately, 80% of the women are all chasing after the 5% of men who have a pleasing physical appearance and displayed wealth. And since these men have options, they feel no pressure to commit to any woman. In fact, these men treat women terribly. Which is why women should ignore them, and focus on men who are displaying marriage-ability and marriage-intentions. But Meghan Markle is telling women that these promiscuous men are great, and that women need to emulate them. She just doesn’t want women to be judged for acting like these scummy promiscuous men.

What does the data say?

So why do men quietly avoid women who are promiscuous? The short answer is because promiscuous women are risky to marry.

Many feminists think that men choose women based on emotions, but this is a mistaken way of understanding men. Men do not make decisions based on feelings. Men calculate risks and costs. Men’s top concern with marriage is avoiding financial ruin from the divorce courts. Men read social science studies to understand what kinds of behaviors make a woman initiate divorce. And what those men find in the studies is that a woman’s promiscuity is a major risk factor for her initiating divorce. The more sexual partners a woman has, the higher the risk of marital instability, and the greater the likelihood of financial ruin for the man.

Compatibility or restraint? The effects of sexual timing on marriage relationships

We found that the longer a dating couple waits to have sex, the better their relationship is after marriage. In fact, couples who wait until marriage to have sex report higher relationship satisfaction (20% higher), better communication patterns (12% better), less consideration of divorce (22% lower), and better sexual quality (15% better) than those who started having sex early in their dating. For couples in between—those that became sexually involved later in their dating, but prior to marriage—the benefits were about half as strong.

Counterintuitive Trends in the Link Between Premarital Sex and Marital Stability

Consistent with prior research, those with fewer sex partners were less likely to divorce. [W]omen who married as virgins had the lowest divorce rates by far… 6 percent. […]Premarital sex with one partner substantially increases the odds of divorce (21%).

[…]The highest five-year divorce rates of all are associated with… having ten or more premarital sex partners: 33 percent.

Feminists don’t like to think that men are guiding their decisions from these studies. But men are. Feminists look at these studies, and they think “who cares about scientific studies?” and “who cares about the risks to men?” Markle is focused on women being shamed for her promiscuity, but she has no concerns about the financial ruin that men experience in divorce courts. And that’s why she finds men avoiding promiscuous women so objectionable.

A man would have to be a fool to undertake an enterprise where he has all of the risks, all of the responsibilities, all of the exposure to legal tyranny, but none of the authority to lead the relationship. And that’s why the marriage rate is in a free-fall, because men are declining the offer of unstable marriage, which is being produced by promiscuous feminists. Markle is mad because women are feeling bad about being shamed. But men feel much worse, when they lose their house, car, money, children, and are put in debtor’s prison.

Remember, feminist thought leaders approve of the hook-up culture, believing that it is critical to making sure that women can have fun with the no-commitment bad boys that they are attracted to, but without letting their flings derail their educations and careers. The goal is to prevent pregnancies with abortion, and delay marriage for as long as possible while climbing the corporate ladder.  But hook-up culture is terrible for men who desire early marriage and children. These are the exact men who are passed over by women like Markle, who despise male headship. The problem is not that promiscuous women are being shamed. The problem is that promiscuous men are NOT being shamed. Markle needs to start shaming the hot bad boys who are spending all of their future wife’s  money on casual sex with no-commitment feminists. We need more shaming of promiscuity, not less. For both sexes.

And of course, these studies work the other way, too. Women should also avoid promiscuous men, in order to avoid marriage instability. So, it is actually even more awful that Meghan Markle doesn’t tell women to avoid these promiscuous men. Her support for promiscuity is exposing women to poor treatment by unstable, manipulative, narcissistic predators.  A cynical man might think that Markle was working for socialists, who want women to make themselves unstable for marriage. That way, they would never marry, and just keep working and paying taxes for the bureaucrats to spend on buying votes from the reckless people who need government handouts in order to survive.

No fix is in the pipeline

It’s important to understand that there is no fix for Markle’s embrace of promiscuity in the pipeline. No one is thinking about the risks men face from divorce courts. (See Dr. Stephen J. Baskerville’s “Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family”)

Feminists and their Christian allies agree that women should be encouraged to embrace feminism, and men must simply “man up” and marry them anyway, regardless of the financial risks of divorce. 68% of unmarried women voted for abortion, transgenderism, same-sex marriage, and cracking down on Christians who oppose these things in the 2022 mid-terms. But that is no problem for these feminists and their Christian allies. Just bully the men into marrying these promiscuous Democrat women anyway. Who cares? Men are expendable, like slaves. Whip them harder, and force them to serve.

Marriage is voluntary. If all the focus is on women’s needs not to be “shamed” for promiscuity, and no one cares about what marriage-minded men need, then marriages will not happen.  That is how the world works in reality. Right now, a good man would have to be literally insane to marry a promiscuous feminist. Men have to assume that any woman who does not have a record of demonstrated opposition to feminism and promiscuity has taken part in the hook-up culture, and is therefore a high risk of divorce.