Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory: The Slippery Slope Of Redefining Marriage Is A Greased Skid

What Is Marriage bookmarked borderMarriage has an objective structure with inherent characteristics derived, or born if you will, quite literally, from the very nature of the sexual union of a man and a woman. This union is absolutely unique— you can say what you want and say it’s not so, but you cannot change this objective reality that has nothing to do with opinion or interpretation. From the reality of this objective structure flow the inherent characteristics of marriage that are permanent and inseparable elements of marriage. Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson give these characteristics in their book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

First, it unites two people in their most basic dimensions, in their minds and bodies; second, it unites them with respect to procreation, family life, and its broad domestic sharing; and third, it unites them permanently and exclusively.1

When, as happened Friday with the Supreme Court ruling, the legal definition of marriage is removed from its objective structure rooted in biological complementarity of the two sexes, the legal definition of marriage becomes subjective and is based on the whims of those who have the most power. In April of 2014 Robert George wrote So You Believe in “Marriage Equality”? Why Not For throuples? and two days ago on Friday Politico published as article saying it was time to legalize polygamy.

Gay Marriage, Then Group Marriage? is a column written by Ryan Anderson, Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George in March 2013. I’ve quoted parts of it many times. These are the inevitable consequences of government redefining marriage. No one should be surprised at the logical end.

If marriage is just the emotional bond “that matters most” to you — in the revealing words of the circuit judge who struck down California Proposition 8 — then personal tastes or a couple’s subjective preferences aside, there is no reason of principle for marriage to be pledged to permanence. Or sexually exclusive rather than “open.” Or limited to two spouses. Or oriented to family life and shaped by its demands….

But don’t take our word for it. Many prominent leaders of the campaign to redefine marriage make precisely the same point. (We provide many more examples, and full citations, in the amicus brief we filed with the Supreme Court on the harms of redefining marriage.)

University of Calgary Professor Elizabeth Brake supports “minimal marriage,” in which people distribute whichever duties they choose, among however many partners, of whatever sex.

NYU Professor Judith Stacey hopes that redefining marriage would give marriage “varied, creative, and adaptive contours …” and lead to acceptance of “small group marriages.” In the manifesto “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” 300 leading “LGBT and allied” scholars and activists call for the recognition of multiple partner relationships.

Influential columnist and “It Gets Better” founder Dan Savage encourages spouses to adopt “a more flexible attitude” about sex outside their marriage. Journalist Victoria Brownworth cheerfully predicts that same-sex marriage will “weaken the institution of marriage.”

“It most certainly will do so,” she says, “and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been.”

Author Michelangelo Signorile urges same-sex partners to “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” They should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

These leading same-sex marriage advocates are correct.

Here’s a quote from page 70 What Is Marriage?  Remember this book was published in December 2012.

Professor Ellen Willis, another revisionist, celebrates the fact that “conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.”2

Once again there are those on the Left who know exactly what they’re doing and why, and they’re more than happy to manipulate the useful idiots who fall for it.
1, 2Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (Encounter Books, New York NY: 2012) 23, 70.


What are your thoughts?

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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