“I also think… that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
~ lesbian activist Masha Gessen

Let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s imagine that now, after legally recognizing intrinsically non-marital same-sex unions as “marriages,” we notice that there remains a unique type of relationship that is identified by the following features: it is composed of two people of major age who are not closely related by blood, are of opposite sexes, and engage in the only kind of sexual act that is naturally procreative. We decide that as language-users there must be a term to identify this particular, commonplace, and cross-cultural type of relationship. Let’s call it “huwelijk.”

In this thought experiment in which the term “marriage” would denote the union of two people of the same sex and “huwelijk” would denote the union of two people of opposite sexes—both of which provide the same legal protections, benefits, and obligations—does anyone believe that homosexuals would accept such a distinction?

I suspect that homosexuals would not accept such a linguistic distinction. They would not accept it even if they enjoyed all the practical benefits society historically accorded to sexually complementary couples and even if their unions were legally recognized as marriages.

Homosexuals would not tolerate such a legal distinction because their tyrannical quest for universal approval of homoerotic relationships cannot be achieved unless they obliterate all distinctions—including linguistic distinctions—between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions. Homosexuals—whose unions are naturally sterile—would not tolerate any term that signifies the naturally procreative union between one man and one woman.

In the novel 1984, George Orwell named the process in which homosexuals (as well as the “trans” cult) regularly engage: Newspeak. Here is how Orwell explained Newspeak:

Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of IngSoc, or English Socialism….

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all… a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever….

[T]he special function of certain Newspeak words… was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them….

[W]ords which had once borne a heretical meaning were sometimes retained for the sake of convenience, but only with the undesirable meanings purged out of them. (emphasis added)

Homosexuals and their allies seek to redefine words in the service of their ideology and would surely oppose any word that would signal a distinction between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions. A new term that pointed to the reality that homosexual and heterosexual unions are not identical would carry the risk that positive connotations would accrete to the term “huwelijk.”

It’s remarkable that so many are willing to destroy the institution of marriage without ever giving much reasoned thought to whether marriage has a nature (i.e., an ontology) or to what public purposes it serves. G.K. Chesterton warned against this kind of blind willingness to destroy an institution (and the jettisoning of the central feature of marriage—sexual complementarity—does, indeed, constitute the destruction of the institution of marriage):

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution.

In the desperate quest to rationalize their redefinition of marriage, homosexuals asserted that the marriage of any particular homosexual couple will have no effect on the marriage of any particular heterosexual couple. But that’s a silly non-argument. If Bob and Jim were to marry, their marriage would not affect mine. But if Bob were to marry his brother, it wouldn’t affect my marriage either. If Bob were to marry five women or five people of assorted sexes, it wouldn’t affect my marriage. If Bob were to marry five children of assorted sexes, it wouldn’t affect my marriage. Does the absence of effect on my marriage in these cases provide justification for legalizing incestuous, polygamous, polyamorous, or “intergenerational” marriages?

Eventually the redefinition of marriage will affect children, public education, the public’s conception of marriage, the public’s investment in marriage, and the future health of America. Severing marriage from both biological sex and reproductive potential renders marriage irrelevant as a public institution.

The most salient aspects of marriage as an institution sanctioned by the government are not subjective feelings of affection and sexual attraction. The government has no vested interest in the private subjective feelings of marriage partners. That’s why even arranged marriages are legal.

The government has a vested interest in the public good. What serves the public good is the welfare of future generations. And what best serves future generations is providing for the needs and protecting the rights of children, which includes their right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own biological parents.

If marriage were solely a private institution concerned only with emotional attachments and sexual desire, as homosexuals claim it is, then there would be no reason for the government to be involved. There would be no more justification for government regulation of marriage than there is for government regulation of platonic friendships. And there would be no legitimate reason to prohibit incestuous marriages or plural marriages.

If the claim of homosexuals that marriage has no intrinsic, necessary, and rational connection to the biological sex of partners or to reproductive potential are true, then there remains no rational basis for the belief that marriage has anything to do with romantic or erotic feelings.

Why is marriage any longer conceived of as a romantic and erotic union? If marriage is severed from biological sex and from reproductive potential and if love is love, then why can’t a loving platonic relationship between three BFF’s be recognized as a marriage? Why can’t the platonic relationship between a 40-year-old soccer coach and his 13-year-old soccer star be deemed a marriage? If “progressives” can jettison the single most enduring and cross-cultural feature of marriage—sexual differentiation—then on what basis can they conceptually retain any other feature, including the notion that marriage is a romantic/erotic union? While eroticism may be important to intimate partners, of what relevance is naturally sterile erotic activity to the government’s interest in marriage as now construed?

When Leftists assert that “love is love,” they really mean that the moral status of erotic activity between two men or two women is no different from the moral status of sexual activity between a man and a woman. If the claim that “love is love,” is true, then there is no rational basis for thinking that there exist types of relationships in which eroticism has no legitimate place. If that’s the case, then why isn’t it morally permissible for all types of relationships to include erotic activity? If all loving relationships are identical (i.e., “love is love”), then why can’t all loving relationships include erotic activity? And if love is love, and marriage has no intrinsic nature, then it’s anything. And if it’s anything, it’s nothing.

If, however, there are different forms of love, some of which ought not include erotic activity, how do Leftists determine when love ought not be eroticized?

Marriage is in tatters, but Leftists want those tatters torched. Next up from “progressive” pyros: “eliminating the binary”—of marriage. Polyamorists are on the move. “Progressives” just love the smell of napalm all day long.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Torching-Marriage.mp3

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

In their efforts to redefine marriage, most homosexual activists become apoplectic at the suggestion that there is more to their efforts than just their  purported goal of achieving “marriage equality.” They dismiss the comments of homosexuals like lesbian journalist Masha Gessen who states that the institution of marriage “should not exist,” and that homosexual activists are “lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there,” as the extreme views of just a few radicals.

What cannot be dismissed, however, is that time and again homosexual activists have proven through their actions that the redefinition of marriage isn’t their only goal, but rather government enforced acceptance and celebration of the LGBT lifestyle. Here are just a few portents that shouldn’t be ignored:

• Washington State is suing a Christian florist who declined to provide floral arrangements for a homosexual “wedding” ceremony. The state is threatening thousands of dollars in fines and a requirement that the elderly florist provide floral arrangements to any homosexual couple that seeks her services.  (Read more HERE.)

• The Christian owners of an Oregon bakery were contacted by the Oregon Department of Justice and told that they are being investigated because of a discrimination complaint that followed their refusal to violate their beliefs by providing a wedding cake for a lesbian “wedding” ceremony.  (Read more HERE.)
   
• A Christian owner of a bed and breakfast in Hawaii has been ordered to provide a room to any same-sex couple that wants to stay there, thus violating her religious convictions. (Read more HERE.)

• And in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the owner of Elane Photography declined to provide her skills and services for a lesbian commitment, explaining that doing so would violate her conscience as a Christian. As a result of a complaint being filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, a fine of $6,600 was issued against this small business for discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This case is pending a hearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court.  (Read more HERE.)  

There are many more cases like these, and many more will be coming down the litigation pike. In each of these cases, homosexual activists prove that what they really want goes far beyond “marriage equality” or “tolerance.” And they clearly demonstrate their lack of tolerance for any dissenting opinions.

In each of these cases, the homosexuals involved could simply have sought the services of a vendor who held no moral objections to same-sex relationships. Instead, they chose to use the heavy hand of government to coerce and punish those who do not share their beliefs. 

Finally, consider the current bill to redefine marriage in Illinois (SB 10). This proposal has been labeled by law professors on both sides of the marriage issue the “worst in the nation” when it comes to protecting religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In a letter to state representatives, the Thomas More Society warns that if SB 10 passes, Illinois’ religiously affiliated hospitals, schools, and organizations like the Knights of Columbus as well as businessmen and women of faith will face costly lawsuits not dissimilar to the ones listed above.

If the concern of homosexual activists were simply about gaining “marriage equality” as they claim, why would proponents oppose legal protections for all people of faith? Why wouldn’t proponents add specific language to SB 10 to protect the free exercise of religious belief and an individual’s right of conscience, which would protect their right to decline to provide goods, services, and accommodations to those seeking government recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage”?

Because this isn’t merely about “marriage equality.” It’s about quashing every semblance of opposition to the LGBT political agenda through every governmental entity at their disposal: Congress, state legislatures, Presidential Executive Orders, or the judicial or quasi-judicial branches of government. It has nothing to do with marriage “rights” and everything to do with religious bigotry.

While it is important that we stand up to defend the institution of marriage, it is vital that we understand that the agenda is far more insidious and far-reaching than many realize. Once you understand how far they want to take this agenda, it is unconscionable to sit on the sidelines.

[Editor’s note:  If you would like to read more about how religious liberties are eroding in the wake of the LGBT political agenda, I encourage you to read this article from World Magazine about what is happening in Canada and how it may be a precursor for the United States.]

Help protect marriage & family now!
Click HERE to support IFI’s work in the public square. 

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it. 

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview: 

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. 

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. 

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.  (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.) 

While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point.  When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits.  Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers.  Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008.  In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married. 

 Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.

 Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.