On Marriage: The consequences of radical change

Print Friendly and PDF

Two of the strongest voices in defense of marriage are those of Dennis Prager and Robert Knight. Both men have penned excellent commentaries on the larger gay agenda and the consequences of redefining marriage. Below are a few excerpts, put into bullet points (with emphasis added).

The following is from “California Decision Will Radically Change Society” by Dennis Prager.

  • Americans seem mesmerized by the word “change.” And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.
  • Nothing imaginable — leftward or rightward — would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.
  • Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.

Dennis Prager calls such a redefinition of marriage “society changing.”

  • The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.
  • Not a single religion or moral philosophical system – East or West – since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
  • If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
  • The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable.
  • Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger – if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
  • Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
  • Traditional Jews and Christians – i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture – will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it – a man and a woman.
  • Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

Robert H. Knight has written in “Talking Points on Marriage: Giving “gay” relationships marital status will destroy marriage,” that “when same-sex relationships acquire marital-type status in the law, several things occur:”

  • “Civil unions,” “domestic partnerships” and “gay marriage” are being promoted as an extension of tolerance and civil rights. But they are really wedges designed to overturn traditional sexual morality and to construct a system to punish dissenting views.
  • Businesses that decline to recognize non-marital relationships are punished through loss of contracts and even legal action. This is already occurring in San Francisco and in Canada.
  • Corporate employee “diversity” programs step up their attack on traditional morality as a form of “bigotry.”
  • Traditional groups such as the Boy Scouts, already harassed and defunded, come under even harsher attacks over their moral stance.
  • Children are taught in school that homosexuality is a normal, healthy, and safe.
  • “Hate crime” laws are employed against people who reasonably insist that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
  • Religions eventually will be told by government authorities to recognize “gay marriages” or lose their tax-exempt status. Enforced “equality” trumps religious freedom. For example, in 1997, a Washington, D.C. court overrode the religion-based objections of Georgetown University, a Catholic school, to sponsoring a homosexual activist group on campus.
  • Other groups, such as bisexuals and bigamists, will demand the right to redefine marriage to suit their own proclivities. Once the standard of one-man, one-woman marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point.

The Family Research Council has this to say on the topic of consequences:

  • Among homosexual men in particular, casual sex, rather than committed relationships, is the rule and not the exception. And even when they do enter into a more committed relationship, it is usually of relatively short duration…
  • [A] major study of homosexual men in “committed” relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The Dutch study cited above found that even homosexual men in “steady partnerships” had an average of eight “casual” sex partners per year.
  • So if same-sex relationships are legally recognized as “marriage,” the idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive and faithful relationship will be dealt a serious blow. Adding monogamy and faithfulness to the other pillars of marriage that have already fallen will have overwhelmingly negative consequences for Americans’ physical and mental health.


Print Friendly and PDF