The proponents of same-sex marriage seem to be a little confused.
They can’t seem to get their story straight as to whether changing our traditional thoughts about the institution of marriage will mean opening up the law to polygamy.
On the one hand, when I interviewed Evan Gerstmann, author of “Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution” and perhaps the leading legal scholar promoting the idea, he conceded that we as a society would probably have to get used to the idea of threesomes, foursomes, etc. He acknowledged that it could be seen as “discrimination” if we deny anyone the right to marry the person of their choice. In the case of a man or woman who wanted to marry someone who was already married, that’s just what we would be doing if we prohibited such unions.
On the other hand, the president of the nation’s largest homosexual group, Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques last week expressed moral disapproval of allowing three or more consenting adults who love each other to marry.
So which is it?
Do the proponents of same-sex marriage really believe this is a debate about ending “discrimination”? Or do they believe it is simply about ending a certain kind of “discrimination”? What do they really have in mind?
What about bisexuals who love both men and women? Should they be denied the right to marry one of each?
These are the thorny questions these activists don’t like to answer. They’d rather pretend that changing an age-old, tried-and-true institution overnight is no problem. They’d like to pretend there will be no unintended consequences. They’d like to pretend this is really no big deal. They’d like to pretend this is just another battle for “civil rights.”
Even Gerstmann was squeamish about the polygamy issue. He tries to justify moral arguments banning polygamy. But they come up short, and he’s intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it. In his book, he suggests we might just have to learn to live with polygamy and even certain kinds of consensual incest.
But Jacques was downright puritanical in her opposition to polygamy. And why?
“Because I don’t approve of that,” she said on CNN.
Apparently our laws in this brave new world envisioned by the same-sex marriage proponents are going to be based in the future on her feelings.
In other words, she supports some kinds of discrimination. They all do. They just want to be able to pick and choose which traditions are immoral based on their own biases, their own predilections, their own worldview, their own patterns of behavior, their own morality.
Here’s the question I want every single American to ponder right now as these activists continue to push their agenda in our faces by breaking laws, by ignoring the will of the people, by showing contempt for the rule of law, by, well, acting up: If marriage is redefined in a radical new way to eliminate any kind of “discrimination,” what possible justification could there be to continue to discriminate against group marriage or consensual incest?
The reason this is such a troublesome issue for the same-sex marriage activists is because they know their position is extremely unpopular as it is – even if they could somehow contain their demand to the issue of allowing Bruce to marry Lance and Heather to marry Wanda. It gets even stickier when the one marriage involves all four of them.
I know from first-hand experience just how difficult this issue is for the same-sex marriage crowd, having first raised it with activists last summer, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Texas’ anti-sodomy laws.
One activist told me not to worry about polygamy because there was just no demand for it.
Nonsense. I would suggest to you there is a far bigger demand for polygamy in this country than there is for same-sex marriage. After all, there are tens of thousands already practicing it. I would also offer there is more tradition to support polygamy and fewer religious and moral objections to it.
Nevertheless, Americans don’t want it. And, last time I checked, that’s the way we still made laws in this country.