« Inherent Legal Difficulties in Same-Sex Marriage | Main | The Best Question to Ask When Starting a Conversation About God »

June 26, 2013


Amy: Sometime ago Greg said there would several consequences to legalizing same-sex marriage. One, obviously, would be infringement on religious freedom, which is already apparent. He mentioned several others but didn't explain. Do you know what these other consequences are and the reasons for his prediction?

Chris, you should start with Ryan Anderson's article, "Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It. There are two more links at the bottom of the article I pointed to above that address this, as well.

I also encourage you to search this blog for discussions on this subject. Here are a few that touch on different aspects of what the creation of same-sex marriage will mean (for the future of marriage and it's definition, for children, for treating children as commodities, etc.):

Inherent Legal Difficulties in Same-Sex Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage Won't Be Enough
We Don't Need "Mother" and "Father" Anymore?
Fathers Don't Mother
Inconsistent Same-Sex Marriage Advocates

Pathetic. How does gay marriage infringe on your religious freedom?

...waiting... OH! It doesn't. However, your narrow definition, using religion as a basis, ABSOLUTELY infringes on my religious freedoms. My religion says it's ok. Yours doesn't. With gay marriage legal ONLY IN STATES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR IT your religious freedoms are just the same as they were yesterday. The only difference are in those who were denied access to their religion BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Really, I promise, go to church, read the bible, not on comma has moved. Really.

I do not support gay marriage for many reasons. This article lists several of them.


so what happens when a Christian School denies a child entrance because their parents are gay? You don't think the church will be sued or harassed? What's happens when a church refuses to marry a gay couple, will the couple sue for discrimination?

Will the government really protect religious freedom as they supposedly promised? Perhaps you should remove the speck from your eye.

A sad day. When the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was first gaining momentum several years ago, people I talked to admitted that they hadn't thought about my prediction that the repeal was ultimately aimed at the federalizing of same-sex marriage. They failed to think critically about the logical conclusions. And as DADT was repelled and my predicted next-step of attacking DOMA came to fruition, again people I talk to deny the possibility of where this decision logically leads – fiscal and moral ruin. The federal government (aka “We the People”) has forgotten that the intended purpose of promoting traditional marriage (through fiscal incentives, tax breaks, and benefits) was ultimately to protect the next generation of citizens (aka children) created naturally through the sexual relations of a man and a woman. We complain about government in health care, we complain about government in education, we complain about government regulating soft drink size, but suddenly we no longer have a problem with more government in people’s relationships with one another or with government freely giving away our money for no reason. Morality of the matter aside for the moment, during this period of “fiscal austerity” and Sequestration, how is it that our Nation has the extra money to rain down federal benefits to promote and privilege these non-traditional relationships. Which relationships are next? Polygamists (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56515337-78/marriage-polygamy-case-darger.html.csp)? People who marry animals (http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/07/08/woman-marries-her-dog-seriously/)? What about 13-year old girls who "fall in love" and marry 54-year old men (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355155/Massachusetts-man-charged-having-sex-13-year-old-girl-married-online-game.html)? After all, they all love each other, too, and should not be “[deprived] of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment” (today’s SCOTUS ruling, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf), right?

Read an interesting article recently from a christian man who questioned why we should bother with the politics of this issue in the courts of the land. While I remain a little uneasy with his argument (or rather any extension of this argument in general), I do agree that we give far to much credence to the courts of the land in matters that are spiritual. Our battles are not with flesh and blood, but with powers and principalities NOT of this world. Yes, we must be ready to give an answer to the question of the faith we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, and yes we must (as Spurgeon said once) let loose the Word of God - (rather than trying to defend it), and yes we are called to act responsibly in the world in which we live - BUT does the church go beyond its calling,when it attempts to impose the scriptures upon Godless courts and societies that constantly seek to reject and repel the one and only true and living God. Rather let us win them by the aroma of Christ which is a stench unto hell for the Godless, and an aroma of beauty for the christian - Only the Holy Spirit, through us, can do that (even without us).


I do agree that we give far to much credence to the courts of the land in matters that are spiritual.

I understand that you think marriage has a spiritual aspect, but it also has a very functional aspect as well – that can and should be understood without spirituality coming into play. Put another way, the unspiritual (self-defined) have a stake as well. Society of this world has a stake.

The Goat Head says:

I heard a commentator say something like, "following US politics is like speed reading Gibbon's history of the Fall of Rome".

Too true. Normalization of Homosexuality will be a large factor in the downfall of our civilization.

From the "cheap seats",

Goat Head 5

I've been thinking about how private businesses could continue to operate without participation in same sex weddings without incurring legal actions against them. I wonder if there could be some way that churches could extend a kind of umbrella over these businesses and make them a part of their organization and thus employing the individuals running them. I am not that familiar with legal ramifications of any such move and how anything like that could impact tax exempt status of a church...if it did. I am just wondering if there could be some way around this thing so that at least people could earn a living in their chose profession without fear of legal actions when they follow their conscience on this.


Look up 'public accommodations'.


Jon -
You are a disgrace and obviously a homophobic.

Why do you all hate gay people so much? What is your problem? Are you racist as well?

Your words are hateful and mean. People can't help that they are gay, no more than you can help your gender or your color of skin.

If you can't say anything nice, than keep your damn mouth shut.

Shaun, this comment:

What about 13-year old girls who "fall in love" and marry 54-year old men (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355155/Massachusetts-man-charged-having-sex-13-year-old-girl-married-online-game.html)? After all, they all love each other, too, and should not be “[deprived] of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment” (today’s SCOTUS ruling, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf), right? - See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/06/be-ready-to-discuss-same-sex-marriage-today.html#comments

You're fricken joking, right? Besides, some incest marriage is allowed in certain states already. Why do you get to choose and define what love is? Why don't you just let people be happy? How does this effect YOU? It doesn't. Unless your gay....?

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Really? Did he tell you that? Are YOU God? You must be something special, because he hasn't told me anything like that.

Dear Jon:

Attacking the person, as you are doing, is only a dodge and does nothing to answer the argument. Ad hominen attacks are usually a cover for lack of a coherent argument, as is swearing.

Sorry, meant to post that to RonH.

Egad, I meant Jamie, eventually I'll get it right.

As predicted, homosexuals marriage is now receiving preferential treatment in the military.

The comments to this entry are closed.