marriagelicgov

By Paul Bremmer

Has the Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry paved the way for all kinds of non-traditional relationships to be legally recognized?

“If marriage is not the union of a man and a woman, why limit it to two people?” asked Michael Brown, a national talk radio host and author of “Outlasting the Gay Revolution.” “What makes the number two unique or necessary? Why not marry yourself, as some women have recently done? Why not throuples? There are several examples of this in the last few years. Why not three women and two men? We see this already in polygamous relationships. Why not?”

Three “gay” men in Canada are asking that very question.

The three 20-something medical professionals live together in Nova Scotia as a threesome, and they now hope to start a family.

According to the London Daily Mail, Adam Grant and Shayne Curran got married in 2011. A year later they met Sebastian Tran in a nightclub and both fell for him. Grant and Curran then got divorced so they could let Tran into the fold as part of an equal, three-way relationship.

Polyamory is not legal in Canada, but the men claim they have lawyers who can draft paperwork to ensure all three are “equally bound and obligated to each other in the eyes of the law.”

Tran said getting married legally is important to his partners and him.

Paul Kengor, a university professor and author of “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage,” said these types of unions are inevitable once a nation redefines marriage to mean anything other than one man and one woman.

“Once the standard becomes that marriage can be defined in whichever way a people or culture desire, then marriage is redefinable, period,” Kengor told WND. “This is plainly inevitable. If liberals could get past emotion, and look at the sheer logic of what they’re asserting, then they’ll see that they’ve created the conditions for these types of new marriage configurations by smashing the standard of one-man-one-woman marriage.”

Carl Gallups, a pastor, talk radio host and author of the forthcoming book “Be Thou Prepared,” believes the U.S. soon may see odd configurations for marriage such as threesomes.

“This is exactly where we can expect the U.S. to go in the near future,” Gallups told WND. “Why would it not go in this direction? What is to stop it from doing so? There is no longer a ‘normality standard’ for marriage or domestic relationships – including the definition of family. In fact, I predict that U.S. conjugal relationship scenarios will eventually become even more bizarre than this example.”

For the “gay” Canadians, it does get more bizarre than a simple longing for marriage. Last week, the men told the Daily Mail they want to conceive three children using their own genetics. The plan is for Curran’s two sisters to carry the children and Tran’s sister to donate her eggs as well.

Brown, who writes a WND column, worries about any child that may be born into that kind of scenario.

“The worst thing of all is that a child could be brought into this relationship, robbed of his or her mother, subjected to a poor example of family structure, and living in a situation that has all the potential for real instability and guaranteed confusion,” he said.

Kengor said leftists now have their work cut out for them to stop a slide down a slippery slope, if they want to limit “gay” marriage to monogamous relationships.

“Liberals will now need to explain to threesomes like these how and by what standard they can be denied their ‘marriage rights’ and their ‘marriage equality,'” Kengor challenged. “Liberals need to explain to these three men and their would-be children why their love is not legitimate. Does ‘love win’ here or not? If not, then why?”

Gallups pointed out there may be a larger social agenda behind what the Canadian lovers are doing. As the Daily Mail reported, “The trio hope to show that polyamory is a perfectly acceptable choice of life and love.”

“Why should we be surprised by this?” Gallups asked rhetorically. “The radical gay agenda in the United States has admitted, long before the SCOTUS ruling, that nationwide gay marriage legalization was just the beginning of their greater plan. Their declared agenda has always been stated as a radical broadening of the definition of legalized domestic relationships as well as a direct targeting of the institutions they felt might be standing in their way, namely the Christian church, our nation’s Christian heritage, and the standard biblical message.”

Gallups noted the “standard biblical message” about marriage can be found in Matthew 19:4, straight from the lips of Jesus: “Have you not read, that in the beginning God made them male and female? For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two will become one flesh.”

“Jesus’ declaration is irrefutable: The definition of a legitimate marriage (from the One who invented marriage) is one woman and one man – period,” Gallups said.

But the pastor believes too many people ignore the Word of God and choose to do what is right in their own eyes.

“Knowing what I know about the nature of people who deny the Word of God as the authority of their life, and what I know about the declarations of the Word of God itself, they will do whatever they can dream up – and whatever they can get away with,” Gallups warned. “Simply put, we have ‘been given over to a depraved mind,’ just as the Bible predicted (Romans 1:18-32).”

Gallups believes it is essential for the Christian church to speak up for traditional marriage and traditional families.

“While today’s church must always be ready to reach out with the gospel message and the love of Jesus Christ to all people who are struggling in any matter of sin, it must never relent from proclaiming the clear biblical truth of the eternally important matters of the very foundations of life and society: home, marriage and family,” Gallups said.

“Without these truths as the bedrock foundations of our culture, we will plunge into absolute madness.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.