We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions














 

Marriage and the Slippery Slope
by Mark Glesne
28 January 2004Wedding

Recognizing one of the unforeseen consequences of redefining marriage.


In his State of the Union address Tuesday, January 20 President Bush stated, “A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act … That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.”

President Bush is absolutely right.  He is also – contrary to the portrait liberal and gay activists would like to paint of him – not “anti-gay.”  The president also acutely stated (where my ellipses reside) that Bill Clinton was the first to sign this bill.  Many on the Left and many gay activists seem to have forgotten this tidbit of information.  A quick history lesson shows us that in July of 1996, the House passed the Defense of Marriage Act in a 342 to 67 vote. The Senate then voted on the bill on September 10, 1996 and passed it 85 votes to 15.  President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act the very next day.  It’s good to know Bill Clinton was in the business of “defending marriage” while president.

The issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general is one of the most passionately debated issues of today.  On college campuses across the nation – aside from the war in Iraq – the homosexual/gay marriage debate is quite possibly the most prevalent debate encountered.  During my recent four years at a private, Christian university this was certainly true.  As Bush reasserts his stance on the definition of marriage to the nation, I want to focus on just one of the many unforeseen consequences of society redefining marriage. 

First, let it be known that I have written multiple papers opposing homosexual behavior (not homosexuals) and the legitimization of that behavior based on biblical, moral, ethical, scientific, physiological and other premises.  I understand how broad this issue really is and the various angles one can take on it.  I understand that many will label me “anti-gay” for taking a stance against homosexual marriage – sadly, I’ve become accustomed to this ignorance.  However, I want to tackle this issue by honing in on one inevitable consequence our society will face if we redefine marriage.

I offer you this: If marriage is redefined to mean anything but the union between one man and one woman, a plethora of putrid opportunities will ensue.  If marriage is redefined even once, society will come under intense pressure to do so again and again.

Question: Once we open the door to redefining marriage, what is to stop the next ‘sexual freedom’ movement from molding the definition of marriage to how they see fit?  Answer: Nothing.

If society disregards all grounds on which marriage stands, to bend to the will of gay couples seeking marriage, what does society propose to stand on to condemn other “alternative lifestyles?”  If we have the authority to redefine marriage as the union between any two adults, why won’t we be pressured and forced to redefine marriage as the union between any three adults?  Or six?  Or twenty? 

What grounds will society stand on to oppose the abhorrent practice of polygamy?  Suddenly polygamists will claim straight and gay couples are discriminating against their right to marry multiple partners.  After all, they are all adults in a “healthy relationship.”  What would give gay couples the right to only allow two adults to get married after marriage was redefined to fit their lifestyle?  It is highly narcissistic to say that one alternative lifestyle is justifiable and another is not.  Welcome, my friends, to the slippery slope. 

The Left’s ideological poster child Howard Dean recently said in an interview that “From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.”

Please excuse the seriously misguided statement of a man who – aside from apparently knowing nothing about basic biblical hermeneutics – turned religious overnight for political gain.  However, if Dr. Dean really feels this way and wants to remain consistent, he would have to state that if God had thought polygamy is a sin, he would not have created polygamists.  Or if God had thought only adults should marry adults, he wouldn’t have created people with a sexual propensity toward children. 

I hope you’re beginning to see the broader picture here.  This isn’t meant to scare anyone; this is meant to present what will no doubt follow a new definition of marriage.  Before you know it, NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) will cry discrimination at the hands of gay and straight couples. 

After all, if society is in the business of redefining marriage – who are we to say that a young boy and an adult man shouldn’t wed?  What gives society the right to say children and adults shouldn’t marry?  Society can no longer argue morality, scientific evidence, history, physiological differences (or in this case, similarities), reproductive limitations and other foundations – those arguments were blown out of the water the first time we redefined marriage.

Marriage is one of the most fundamental institutions of our society and it must remain defined as the union between one man and one woman.  Even if you dismiss oppositions based on morals and the distinction between right and wrong behavior, we must not go near this slippery slope.  Too many rotten ideas will ensue and marriage is too precious, too valuable.  Too much is at stake.

President Bush ended this section of his address by accurately stating that “The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Mark Glesne is a Communication/Marketing Specialist for a software corporation in Camarillo, California and a United States Marine Corps reservist.

Email Mark Glesne

Send this Article to a Friend